REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
News & Analysis

Prelude to 5G: Qualcomm, Huawei Muscle into V2X

Connected Car Clash: 802.11p vs. LTE D2D
10/15/2015 06:13 PM EDT
5 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Standards
LarryM99   10/21/2015 5:20:57 PM
NO RATINGS
That is understandable from their point of view where 5G == LTE, but one of the fundamental enhancements of 5G as I understand it is to transparently straddle multiple PHY layers. Where it is appropriate to the application I have no problem specifying LTE as a network transport, but it is just silly to weld application protocol layers to a specific PHY. If they want to add WAN extension capability to the defined Basic Safety Message set through a bridge that could certainly add value, but that does not seem to be what they are proposing.

Just as with LTE-U, this whole 5G approach seems to me to be an attempt by the carriers to subsume all wireless communication.

Larry M.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: Standards
junko.yoshida   10/21/2015 4:52:39 PM
NO RATINGS
@LarryM99, very keen observation, as usual.

I sense that LTE V2V proposed by cellular network technologies guys is definitely motivated by their ambition to go big with 5G. They want to learn how the whole V2X thing works in the automotive market so that they can be well prepared and sweep the market when the time comes to push the 5G button. 

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Standards
LarryM99   10/21/2015 3:54:46 PM
NO RATINGS
Junko:

Being from San Diego I am prone to giving Qualcomm the benefit of the doubt, but cellular-based technology is just simply the wrong solution for almost all use cases for V2X technology. Consider the following cases:

V2V - This is 90% of the use for V2X. Vehicles coordinate where they are and where / how fast they are going so that they don't run into each other. This is a very local set of issues - a car that is 100 meters or more away from mine is not going to hit me. I want to communicate directly with a car that is 1 meter away rather than going through a cell tower.

V2I - Here vehicles communicate with traffic lights to smooth traffic flow. Again, I don't really want to talk to a traffic light that is not pretty much right in front of me. That light may have WAN connections to other lights, but that is a different set of problems and can be one of a number of technologies.

DSRC is inherently a peer-to-peer technology that can be linked to WAN hubs. As far as I can tell LTE V2X is a centralized network technology that apparently has peer-to-peer glued onto it, undoubtedly with a billing capability as well.

Thanks, but not interested.

Larry M.

 

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Author
Re: Standards
junko.yoshida   10/16/2015 4:37:15 PM
NO RATINGS
I know. This doesn't bode well with upcoming "Connected Cars."

But I think, realistically, what's going to happen is that the industry will go ahead with 802.11p; then add LTE-V2X if necessary, or wait until 5G.

In either case,  Huawei and Qualcomm pushing LTE V2X at this later stage should not affect the automotive industry's 802.11p plan.

But then what would I know?! It had taken a decade before carmakers have warmed up to the idea of 802.11p.

D Vanditmars
User Rank
Author
Standards
D Vanditmars   10/16/2015 12:32:00 PM
NO RATINGS
I can hardly wait, we will have 'VHS' and 'Beta' V2X cars on the road the way things are going.

An example of this would be that there are currently 3 non-compatible electric vehicle charging connectors in North America.  Like WOW, way to go...

Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed