Net Neutrality lives! Internet to be regulated by FCC

[Gaidin]

That's functionally enforcement practice for what is probably genuinely new territory for the FCC. This isn't like wireless enforcement that they've been handling for close to a century now. Tell me, were you expecting something other than new territory?

The FCC has had authority to regulate interstate wireline communications since 1934 and reaffirmed in 1996. This is not new to them.

Except they've demonstrated they don't give two shits if the town, the locals, or the companies don't give two shits. The case before net neutrality could've been just as sweeping as net neutrality, but no. The two places they ruled on are hardly the only places that this is happening in, and yet, they're the only places that ruling effects.

[phongn]

Except they've demonstrated they don't give two shits if the town, the locals, or the companies don't give two shits. The case before net neutrality could've been just as sweeping as net neutrality, but no. The two places they ruled on are hardly the only places that this is happening in, and yet, they're the only places that ruling effects.

The order establishes the FCC's authority to strike down similar local legislation anywhere in the United States. It just so happens that North Carolina and Tennessee were the initial cases; expect additional petitions within the other 17 states.

[bilateralrope]

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.

Nokia sounds really desperate to stop Net Neutrality and/or robot cars.

One interesting post in the comments:

Machin Shin (profile), Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 6:22am
"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."

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?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

[TronPaul]

One interesting post in the comments:

Machin Shin (profile), Mar 3rd, 2015 @ 6:22am
"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."

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?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

I'm skeptical that any split-second decisions self-driving cars need to make would be network driven. The internet is already an unreliable medium. If your car crashes because of a routing issue or DDoS, well that's your own damn fault for designing it that way.

[bilateralrope]

I'm skeptical that any split-second decisions self-driving cars need to make would be network driven. The internet is already an unreliable medium. If your car crashes because of a routing issue or DDoS, well that's your own damn fault for designing it that way.

Here's a better argument as to why self-driving cars can not rely on a network: The first self-driving cars will be on the road with human drivers. Who are not talking to the cars. So the self-driving cars have to be able to operate in a situation where no other car is communicating.

[Borgholio]

I see self-driving cars only needing network communication for the same things that Waze or Google Maps does - road and traffic conditions. It's highly likely that robot cars will have a full set of detailed maps downloaded and updated regularly so it can navigate even without a cell signal available.