Nokia CEO: We Have To Get Rid Of Net Neutrality, Otherwise Self-Driving Cars Will Keep On Crashing Into Each Other
from the not-just-packet-collisions dept
It would be an understatement to say that net neutrality has been in the news quite a lot recently. One of the supposed arguments against it is that requiring all data packets to be treated equally within a connection will prevent companies from offering us a cornucopia of "specialized services." The main example cited is for medical applications -- the implication being that if net neutrality is required, people are going to die. Speaking at the Mobile World Congress that is currently underway, Nokia's CEO Rajeev Suri has come up with a novel variation on that theme, as reported by CNET (via @AdV007):Suri emphasises that self-driving cars need to talk over wireless networks fast enough to make decisions with the split-second timing required on the roads. "You cannot prevent collisions if the data that can prevent them is still making its way through the network", said Suri, discussing Nokia's drive toward instantaneous low-latency communication across the network.Yes, according to Suri, there are going to be terrible pile-ups on the roads unless we get rid of net neutrality. Leaving aside the fact that low-latency communications across the internet will come anyway -- if there's one thing that's certain in the world of digital technology, it's that everything gets faster and cheaper -- there's another problem with this argument.
Self-driving cars that are so reliant on such guaranteed, high-performance networks are hardly going to be very resilient in real-life situations -- and certainly not the kind of system that the public will want to entrust with the lives of themselves and their families. If self-driving cars are to be widely accepted, one of their key features must be the ability to work safely even with the flakiest of internet connections. Suri's attempt to use this emerging technology as a weapon against net neutrality instead undermines the argument for self-driving cars themselves.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, net neutrality, rajeev suri, self-driving cars
Companies: nokia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Meanwhile, from dimension #253...
And the reason for this has nothing to do with preventing cable company fuckery or the lack thereof, and everything to do with the absolutely abominable improvements to the internet infrastructure in the US, caused by the cable companies preferring to just add the tax-breaks and government subsidies they receive to their yearly paychecks, rather than using it to build out, improve, and maintain the networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meanwhile, from dimension #253...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that is the case then I'm never setting foot in a self driven car. He seriously saying we would adopt a standard of self driving car that $20 and a trip to radio shack is enough to gridlock a city rendering all cars in an area useless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
heinlein had a system of -what amounted to- giant moving walkways that stepped up in speed as you went from one to the other...
hell, no more hare-brained than a space elevator...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, if the computer that is driving the car is connected to the internet or has any wireless connectivity at all then I want nothing to do with it. System controlling the car should not be remote accessible.
On another side note. I think this whole self driving car thing is a prime example of looking at a problem backwards. Why are we trying to build automated cars to drive on a roadway that has been built entirely focused on giving ques to a human driver? Slight modifications to our road design would make building a self driving car trivial. Making a robot that can follow a line is something they teach in 'Introduction to engineering' classes. A few painted stripes and some new QR code type signs and suddenly building an automated car is a really simple task.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While I agree that there should be some modifications to the existing roadways to make them more automated vehicles friendly, the current approach of making new things work with the current infrastructure makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
And unless you live in an area where those "few painted stripes" will never be covered by snow, water, ice, sand, other vehicles, or debris (or have to be painted on a dirt road), it is not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question though is where these cars would be the most use. To me the answer would be interstates and in cities. These places tend to have better maintained roads. So sure you have to drive manually in some areas, but if you start with major roads you can move out.
Also, admittedly the lines would have issues of being obscured, but putting lines was just the easiest solution to implement. You could also use in ground wires sending a signal much like how dog underground fences work. There are lots of ideas for ways you could guide a car and ideally your system would use at least two systems that were independent of each other.
I for one also would have a really hard time trusting an automated car to deal well with snow and ice no matter what system you have to drive it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a hard time trusting humans to deal well with snow and ice. Within 10-15 years, if not less, robot cars will probably be much better at it than most of us are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heavy rain, on the other hand, is a problem everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason we don't have it is because any solution that requires modifications to existing roadways is a nonstarter. It's simply far, far too expensive. So a driverless car will also have to be able to work on existing, unmodified roadways (or nobody will be willing to pay the premium to buy a car with this capability).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if they have to be able to drive on existing roads then there's no point in modifying the roads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Slight modification to the almost 4 million miles of roads in the US would be anything but trivial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine just driving onto the interstate hitting a button and kicking back till you get an alarm telling you your exit is coming up. As you get to the exit you take back control and start driving again, if you don't take control the car parks to the side of the exit ramp. This would certainly make long drives much easier wouldn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Luckily our current road system is already highly organized and planned out logically so that we can program vehicles to drive on them.
Once self-driving cars are everywhere though, it will be easy to restructure things for their benefit (and improved safety).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, we aren't even spending enough money to maintain our roads; I don't see the Republican Congress passing a huge spending bill to modernize them when we can let private companies upgrade cars on their own dime instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so much easier that I'd be willing to give up any privacy at all to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would certainly hope so seeing as cars having cameras and/or sensors to warn you that you're about to back into something are pretty common these days in newer cars, and I've seen plenty of ads for cars that are supposed to be smart enough to brake for you when you aren't paying attention to what's in front of you, or can't see something behind you.
Not to mention the best internet connection in the world isn't going to warn a car about the kid that just stepped out into the street in front of you, or the ladder lying in the middle of the highway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe they'd finally be banned, because safety! Nah, never mind...I'm sure they'd just say that the people who die in car crashes due to Stingrays were resisting arrest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that guy was reaching for my gun. Not only is that in flagrant disregard for the road laws, I feared for my safety!
-Sgt Stingray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The dutch parliament approved the legal framework to allow road testing of these types of car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happens already
I live 40 miles outside of Sioux Falls, SD. I have a bad enough connection where I get no data already. The only way it will get worse is in the middle of South Dakota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Happens already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that I ever want a self driving car, I don't even let my car shift the gears for me. Whereas washing things is a thankless task driving is so much fun... but I meet plenty of people on the road that should be forced into self driving cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At first, it dazzled me with it's glorious white door and promise of a better world. I read the instructions with the eagerness of a toddler selecting a piece of candy. I put in my first article of clothing and watched as it magically cleaned it better than I could have by hand.
Slowly, it drew me in. The hours I used to spend washing my clothing on a washboard and then hanging them turned into hours sitting idle watching my machine do the tasks that were previously making me whole. I found myself sitting and starting at it.
I turned to food first. The time I spent washing my clothes could be wished away while eating a cupcake or a bag of pretzels. It was subtle at first, the slugishness of my walk, the heft of my legs, and then I found that this new machine was shrinking my clothes...
But they weren't shrinking, I was getting larger. I noticed it months later when my belt would not fit anymore. It had never been in this infernal machine and it too was too small. The only solution was drinking - surely I could do better with alcohol than with food.
Today, I find myself jobless, drunk, and without any fitting clothes.
Thank you washing machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The washing machine is probably one of the greatest economic inventions of the last 100 years, arguably more important than the internet or cell phones. Prior to the washing machine (and dryer) home care was literally an all-day job; women (and as this was the culture at the time, 99% of the time it was women) weren't able to work because household chores required a ton of their time.
With the washing machine and associated equipment (including vacuum) suddenly women could much more easily enter the workplace. The societal and economic changes created by nearly doubling the potential workforce is arguably one of the biggest economic boosts of the past century. While communication technology is certainly impressive, the ability to communicate faster has not had the impact that the addition of dual-household incomes has had compared to the time before the technology.
Anyway, I'm assuming your thing was a joke, but something to think about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Making that decision won't stop people using desperate arguments to remove net neutrality, this is just the latest in a slew of bad arguments and analogies to try and get people to oppose something that benefits them.
"the only reason they are coming is to make the manufacturers a load of money"
So, you've ignored all the reasons why people want them? OK, then...
"the biggest failure of the human race is going to be laziness. self-derive cars contribute a whole lot towards that"
As does ignorant anonymous commenting on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of these people screaming "I won't let a computer drive me" need to get over it. Cars are already filled with computers and they're safer than they've ever been. Self-driving cars will never become roadworthy unless they're proven to be substantially safer than human drivers. It has nothing to do with laziness. It's about saving lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And that is a pretty low bar (at least in this country).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As opposed to taxis, buses, trains and carpooling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely nobody is seriously proposing that self-driving cars should be managed *over the Internet*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/Sarc (I hope, but not too sure these days.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about....
I guess that option never occurred to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
802.11p
Which is why these fast wireless networks are completely separate from the Internet. Net neutrality on the Internet plays no role here.
On the other hand, net neutrality *within* these dedicated networks is important: you don't want your car's network requests to get stuck in a "slow lane" just because your car is a Tesla and the road is in a state which has a dispute with Tesla.
The use of dedicated networks for safety-relevant purposes is common. In rail, there's GSM-R. Ships have maritime VHF radio, with a pair of channels dedicated to AIS. Airplanes have their own separate set of radio frequencies. Most countries dedicate yet another set of radio frequencies to police and firefighters. And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 802.11p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo hoo, net neutrality made my driverless car 12 minutes later than I had to be. What am I going to do sitting here in traffic. Watch TV, call on the phone, text my friends, read a book, write a diatribe about how evil net neutrality is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad CEO, Worse Engineer
He should stick to management; he would be a horrible engineer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad CEO, Worse Engineer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if they have their own private internet...
Driverless cars that require a continuous internet connection in order to not crash are an utterly stupid idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How it works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Design
If there is a critical decision to be made that depends upon the network, it should first assume the maximum likely potential for danger and take the safest solution (stop, pull over, etc) if a response is not timely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps the idiot "expert" who worked for the late Sen. Ted Stevens got a job working for Rajeev Suri.
If you don't know who Stevens is, then Google "Series of Tubes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a second
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second
"Gee, we should stop at Aunt Sally's on the way!" And your screen lights up with a list of stores between here and there that sell gifts Sally would like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Invented Here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 problem 1 facepalm
Facepalm: games have pings of 20-30ms (in Europe, with NN) which allows for split-second decisions. Besides if your system can't handle a bit of lag you might not want to use it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the topic specifically, the car manufacturer/programmer would get sued out of existence if they didn't program their cars to fail gracefully with a non-networked mode as a backup in lieu of crashing in a fiery death. My smartphone doesn't self destruct without a signal and my GPS device has a simulated mode in case it can't find a satellite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the topic specifically, the car manufacturer/programmer would get sued out of existence if they didn't program their cars to fail gracefully with a non-networked mode as a backup in lieu of crashing in a fiery death. My smartphone doesn't self destruct without a signal and my GPS device has a simulated mode in case it can't find a satellite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stretching Net Neurtality to mean nothing
If somebody was stupid enough to make a car rely on an Internet connection ALL Internet CAR CONTROL traffic should have equal priority. Which you would want to have a higher profile than advertising traffic. That is what Net Neutrality is about. What we don't want is to have say GM car control network traffic prioritized above Toyota car control network traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stretching Net Neurtality to mean nothing
If two cars are close enough to warrant communicating relative position telemetry to each other, why does it have to pass thru some internet server? When communicating on the scale of several yards, what's the bloody point of passing thru a server miles away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dateline: April 12, 2127
He stammered and began to answer, "Majesty, because the cars...the cars depend on the neutra--"
But his response was summarily cut off by the attending member of the Guild -- always present, always listening, always powerful -- who shouted "THE PORN MUST FLOW!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dateline: April 12, 2127
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dateline: April 12, 2127
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in the olden days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking cars
What's to stop someone from hacking your self driving car by sending faulty/junk data over the Internet connection?
I'd much rather a car use cameras and other sensors to drive, and only use the Internet to figure out which route to take to get to a destination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hacking cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or -
he is willing to trade my ability to make a website - and get traffic - for his ability to afford not drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then the following ISPs should NOT be used for self-driving cars' WiFi systems:
-AT&T
-Verizon
-Comcast
-CenturyLink
-Fronti...
... you know, it'll just be easier to say "Do NOT use any WiFi service offered by ISPs in the United States."
Better safe than sorry, because you can bet I sure as hell wouldn't want a company throttling traffic because cars take up too much bandwidth without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's an idiot
Suri emphasises that self-driving cars need to talk over wireless networks fast enough to make decisions with the split-second timing required on the roads. "You cannot prevent collisions if the data that can prevent them is still making its way through the network", said Suri, discussing Nokia's drive toward instantaneous low-latency communication across the network."
Anyone with any knowledge of real-time systems would say that this idiot should not be in charge of a company like Nokia if they really want to develop a self-driving car! I'm sure Google is not so brain-dead! To do this sort of work, you need an adaptive real-time system that has no dependency upon non-deterministic networks. It may use them for general traffic information, but not for safety-critical operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if the cellular tower in my neighborhood as a power outage. Oops, you're dead. Sorry, but it happens. Or some kind of coronal mass ejection from the sun happens and jams all the radio waves on earth. The whole medical equipment should be exempt from net neutrality argument is stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
Has anyone bothered to ask Nokia's CEO how these self-driving cars are going to prevent collisions in tunnels?
Because I have yet to drive through a tunnel where I have any internet connection at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Implies deep packet inspection
Medical data? How do you tell the difference between urgent medical data and someone's casual browsing? Deep packet inspection. HIPAA? Yeah, we don't care about that.
Self-driving cars? How to tell the difference between the car's navigation system and the occupant's casual browsing? Deep packet inspection. Better not be sending emails that the NSA would like to read.
All of the scenarios where net neutrality are a problem rely on a faulty assumption that the ISP really knows what's in the packets.
All of these scenarios where net neutrality are a problem rely on a faulty assumption that ISPs would prioritize for reasons other than anti-competitive reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implies deep packet inspection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Park those frickin self-driving cars
Who exactly thinks a world full of bright minds and dexterity ample to steer spacecraft to the moon decides the world needs autonomous vehicles? Is this so people can text at the same time and drive cross town without plowing into the tear of someone just minding their own business? MORONS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Park those frickin self-driving cars
Who exactly thinks a world full of bright minds and dexterity ample to steer spacecraft to the moon decides the world needs autonomous vehicles?
This world is not full of such people.
Is this so people can text at the same time and drive cross town without plowing into the tear of someone just minding their own business? MORONS
Exactly. This technology is designed for people as they actually are: no interest at all in the process of driving, and terrible-to-adequate skill at it. It is not designed for the people we might wish surrounded us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Park those frickin self-driving cars
Go search what's the leading cause of accidental death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Park those frickin self-driving cars
Although given that people are going to text while driving, those goals have a great deal of overlap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Park those frickin self-driving cars
Plus, if Dan honestly thinks that the majority of people are the people capable of directing NASA space missions, I want to know which planet he's on, cause it sounds a lot better than this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's got it bass ackwards on Internet neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preferred CarMaker
Ex: You bought a fine Jaguar self driver, with plush leather-bound volumes in the rear, and a classy all-crystal bar in the center of the conversation pit. I bought a Tata Nano self-driver, with wooden benches and a gerbil-drip self-service water bar. We drive into fog where there happens to be a pile-up. The network is congested from all the accident victims ahead. Your Jag gets prioritization because Jaguar paid for preferential data treatment (aka the data fast lane) while my Nano's data is delayed. Your Jag gets the data about the pile-up and slows to a safe stop, while my Nano speeds along unaware.
I crash into you, and you die. Dumb luck plays a role, but doesn't it always?
Anyway, the point is, stupid end-case scenarios can be drawn in either direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No red lights, speed limits, or traffic stops for him. Everyone else has to stop and wait for his car to pass: regular drivers, pedestrians at crosswalks, freight trucks, school busses, fire trucks, ambulances, etc.
Only police cars or other "official" vehicles will be treated with similar priority as Suri's car enjoys. If net neutrality were to be enforced, his plans for paid prioritization of vehicular traffic would be ruined!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the above were true, Rajeev Suri (which it isn't), then isn't promotion of Net Neutrality what's needed to ensure the fast signals that you believe are required for self-driving cars?
FYI, self-driving cars use cameras, other sensors, and a self-contained computer to get around. If they're crashing, it's not because they can't access the Internet or because they've been hacked, it's because they weren't self-driving when the crash occurred (since laws in some areas don't allow them to be) and old-fashioned human error came into play. Simples!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suri needs to chill out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If what you state is the truth, then provide the network and make sure that every connection has enough bandwidth so that these cars can drive. As long as you cannot provide this, you should stop developing self-driving cars. Fool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
¿Where are the flying cars we were promised in the 50's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promo Paket Umroh Hemat Bulan Mei Juni 2015
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
net neutrality
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]