Chinese people often choose to believe in the future

Written by?|?Xiong Yuxiang

Editor?|?Zhou Changxian

December 12, Washington , the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the top governing body in the field of communications in the United States, has made a final decision, and a long-lasting battle over automotive communications standards technology has come to an end for the time being.

This dispute has nothing to do with 5G, nor does it involve Huawei. But its impact has spread like ripples, and the communication technology and standards landscape of the entire U.S. automotive industry and even the global automotive industry may be rewritten by the FCC's resolution.

The story starts with a technology called DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications). Under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Transportation, DSRC has a history of development in the United States for more than 20 years, and is about to be put into large-scale application in the United States. For quite some time, it was the only communication technology available for V2X Internet of Vehicles. Foreign car companies such as Volkswagen and Toyota have even given product schedules and will equip North American models with DSRC technology.

But at a critical moment, the FCC chose to reallocate the 75MHz radio spectrum resources originally allocated to DSRC - the lowest 40MHz was open to the whole society, and the upper 20MHz was allocated to the newer C -V2X (Cellular?Vhicle?to?Everything, vehicle networking communication technology based on cellular network). Only 10MHz is left for DSRC, which has been preparing for many years and is ready to go. Moreover, it is not easy for DSRC to secure the remaining 10MHz spectrum. It needs to prove its value during the review period, otherwise it will completely lose its qualifications in the United States and be replaced by C-V2X.

However, DSRC supporters have already heard about the FCC’s swinging attitude, and they have chosen to wait and see. In April this year, Toyota announced that it would suspend plans to equip models in the U.S. market with DSRC starting in 2021. General Motors declined to comment after learning of the FCC's decision. Ford has long been in the C-V2X technology camp. Since then, the hope of large-scale deployment of DSRC in the United States has become increasingly slim.

It is said that the U.S. Department of Transportation has spent more than US$700 million on the promotion of DSRC; and 20 years ago, the same FCC allocated 75MHz spectrum resources in the 5.9GHz band to DSRC. .

So why did Americans choose to let twenty years of hard work go to waste?

This may be a natural result of the competition between old and new car networking technologies, or it may be due to the competition among major countries around communication technology. But in essence, this is a difficult choice question before enterprises, industries, and countries—respect the past, or believe in the future?

Same destination but different paths

In the 1990s, the automobile industry in developed countries had been highly developed, but the ensuing traffic problems caused a large number of congestion and traffic accidents. Caused serious losses of life and property. With the same goal in mind, Japan, the United States, and Europe have successively tried to build an intelligent transportation system (ITS, Intelligent Traffic System). An important prerequisite for making transportation smart is that vehicles can "speak" to each other and communicate with various transportation infrastructure. Therefore, communication technology has naturally become an indispensable part of ITS planning.

It seems that ITS has a very grand blueprint, but the important scene where it takes the lead is obvious - ETC (non-stop electronic toll collection) at highway toll stations.

At that time, the cellular network technology that is widely used today was not advanced enough to reliably support communications in automotive scenarios, and people turned to new technologies. In 1992, the United States took the lead in proposing the concept of DSRC technology and placed its radio frequency band in the 915MHz band. Due to the narrow bandwidth and high interference of low-frequency bands, the industry continued to search upwards and came to the 5.8-5.9GHz band.

With the DSRC proposed by the United States as the technical basis and the development of ETC as an opportunity, from the 1990s to the early 20th century, the United States, Japan, and Europe successively allocated spectrum and formulated standards for vehicle communication technology. Begin to promote it in the automotive industry. Among them, the United States chose 5.9GHz, while Japan and Europe chose 5.8GHz. Although the standards of the three places have certain differences, they are all based on the same set of more basic standards - IEEE? 802.11p. ?

We can simply think that DSRC and WiFi are technologies of the same origin - 802.11 itself is the standard defined for wireless local area network (WLAN), and the WiFi we usually use follows 802.1a, 802.11ac and a series of protocols. 802.11p is a subset of wireless LAN technology specially optimized for vehicle scenarios. Therefore, no matter which country's DSRC it is, they are closely related to WiFi.

DSRC also has some of the traditional advantages of WiFi - low communication delay and stable quality. In fact, this is the key feature of DSRC that was selected for early Internet of Vehicles communications. But on the other hand, it shares some other characteristics with WiFi technology - for example, it is essentially a local area network, which requires laying a "router" to connect the vehicle with other communication devices, and the signal range is limited. It is these qualities that paved the way for DSRC's future ups and downs.

As a rising star, C-V2X has only begun to emerge more than two decades after DSRC was proposed. In 2015, the international communications standards organization 3GPP began to conduct research on the concepts and requirements of C-V2X. When 3GPP officially released the C-V2X physical layer standard in R14, it was already 2017.

It can be seen from Cellular (cellular network) that C-V2X and the communication technology used by the mobile phones in our hands belong to the same system. This is also a natural limitation that C-V2X only began to rise after the deployment of 4G networks. Because when cellular network technology iterates to 4G, its communication delay indicators and support for high-speed moving objects can meet the requirements for safe communication in automobiles. In fact, to this day, 4G's signal support for ultra-high-speed moving objects is still somewhat insufficient - when you take a high-speed train with a speed of 300km/h, even though there are 4G base stations one after another beside the railway tracks, the signal of your mobile phone is still not very good.

Although C-V2X is just a newbie in the field of vehicle communications compared to the veteran DSRC, what stands behind it is the prosperous mobile communications industry, and as the industry prospers A large number of technical talents have grown up in the field of cellular networks, and there is countless communication infrastructure available for them.

Because of this, although C-V2X came late, it has won the support of all parties after making a little progress, including communication operators and communication technology companies around the world, such as Huawei and Qualcomm, etc. Even some car companies such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Ford are also on the side of C-V2X.

The supporters of DSRC mainly include several car companies such as Toyota, General Motors, and Volkswagen, as well as semiconductor companies such as NXP and Renesas in their supply chain systems.

For the automotive industry, which is keen on doing multiple-choice questions, it is not common to take a clear-cut stand when faced with a technology choice. Yes, why can't DSRC and C-V2X coexist and complement each other? In theory, although the two routes can coexist, the cruel reality is that doing so requires paying an unbearable heavy price, making the two technologies virtually incompatible.

Since communication is the foundation of foundations, the cost of trying to be compatible with the two technologies is huge for stakeholders:

For government agencies, standard unification is the key to promoting The prerequisite for construction and efficient management;

For many communication technology companies, technological differentiation means that they must choose sides and cannot jump to fight in areas where their opponents are good at;

For the automotive market, being compatible with two sets of Internet of Vehicles standards means building two different sets of infrastructure. Car companies have to test and verify two different sets of functional modules. Consumers will eventually pay for this in their car purchases. .

When faced with a major choice in vehicle communication standards, for the vast majority of stakeholders, the right approach is to choose the one that looks better. Obviously, the United States has chosen C-V2X again.

Transformation of a major power

From being a firm supporter of DSRC to “abandoning” DSRC and choosing C-V2X, what have the Americans experienced? The direct reason is not complicated - the promotion of DSRC was unsuccessful.

According to data from Wu Dongsheng, the former vice president of ZTE and now the solution architect of Gosuncn Technology Group, there are 350,000 intersections in the United States, but during the DSRC promotion process, the corresponding DSRC roadside equipment (that is, There are only more than 5,000 "routers" required for communication). As of 2016, DSRC in the United States is still in the pilot stage in many places.

General Motors is a pioneer in applying DSRC technology. In fact, General Motors is the only car company in the United States to mass-produce DSRC technology. Two years ago, General Motors launched the CTS equipped with DSRC in the U.S. market (due to infrastructure limitations, that is, not enough "routers", it mainly implements the inter-vehicle communication function V2V), but CTS models with this function are not popular at all. The scale of sales is less than 10,000 units.

From the allocation of spectrum in 1999 to the first establishment of standards in 2004, little has been achieved so far. DSRC is hardly successful in the United States. Why?

In addition to the fact that ordinary Americans are not naturally interested in the Internet of Vehicles, perhaps more is due to the consideration of technology costs. The road network in the United States is developed. If DSRC is to be promoted, it means that the continental United States needs to be covered with "routers." However, the United States is vast and sparsely populated, and the economic benefits of doing so are worrying. In fact, even with the cellular network technology used by almost everyone, American communication operators are "selective" when building base stations. The first goal is to maximize profits rather than signal coverage and signal quality.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has estimated that achieving large-scale deployment of DSRC will require at least billions of dollars in infrastructure spending. The U.S. Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) calculated the cost of DSRC deployment on the vehicle side—approximately $300 per vehicle.

The high expenditure and unpredictable returns have prevented all parties involved in the promotion of DSRC, whether it is the US government or enterprises, from going all out.

While DSRC is frustrated, C-V2X is showing greater growth potential as it accelerates. In fact, C-V2X technology is far from perfect. The DSRC camp can easily point out its shortcomings in anti-interference, security protocols, etc., but 3GPP’s frequent seminars, clear roadmap, and DSRC’s " "Desolate" is a sharp contrast.

It successfully attracted the attention of Qualcomm, the largest communications technology company in the United States, and Ford, the second largest automobile manufacturer in the United States.

In fact, Qualcomm and Ford have also supported DSRC and made corresponding technical preparations. Until 2017, Qualcomm was still seeking compatibility between DSRC and C-V2X in its technical solutions. But after witnessing the slowness of DSRC and the speed of C-V2X, both companies fell into the C-V2X camp.

The FCC’s change in attitude towards DSRC and C-V2X is inseparable from the lobbying from Qualcomm and Ford. In September this year, at a hearing titled "Legislating to Secure America's Wireless Future" held by the U.S. House of Representatives, Dean R. Brenner, Qualcomm's senior vice president in charge of spectrum strategy and technology strategy, said, The coverage and reliability of C-V2X are much greater than that of DSRC. "The FCC must abandon or change the 5.9GHz spectrum rules that currently only allow the deployment of DSRC technology to promote the deployment of C-V2X technology in the United States." < /p>

The driving force for the transformation of the United States is not only the appeal of enterprises, but also the pressure from countries on the other side of the ocean who are doing their best on the C-V2X route. And this country used to be just a follower of automotive communication technology and standards.

While the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries and regions are struggling to promote DRSC to build intelligent transportation systems, China, a latecomer, has ushered in the explosive development of the automobile and transportation industries and is trying to start from Learn some lessons from the actions of our predecessors. In fact, China has indeed learned and applied DSRC technology, but not much - in 1996, China began to learn from the technology of the United States, Japan, and Europe to build ETC (non-stop electronic toll collection system), and the electronic toll collection system in high-speed toll stations The technology used for communication between the device and the vehicle is DSRC.

In fact, China might have been on the DSRC road for much longer. Earlier, due to well-known reasons, China's communications industry moved closer to Europe. In the field of ITS, China is also following Europe's lead. However, this European teacher prefers to use DSRC technology to build a V2X Internet of Vehicles system.

But after 4G networks were rolled out on a large scale in China, China quickly jumped into the C-V2X camp. In 2017, at the "2017 World Internet of Things Expo" held in Wuxi, commercial applications based on C-V2X began to be demonstrated. Li Jun, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, made a clear statement in a TV interview: "What we are promoting is LTE-V (C-V2X based on 4G)." In 2018, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued the "Management Regulations on the Use of 5905~5925MHz for Direct Communication of Internet of Vehicles", which clearly planned the 5.9G frequency band as the working frequency band for direct communication of Internet of Vehicles (intelligent connected cars) based on LTE C-V2X technology. Since then, C-V2X has achieved an overwhelming position in China.

Under the leadership of the government, not only domestic car companies, communication operators, and communication equipment companies are fully turning to C-V2X, but also because China has given the green light to C-V2X technology, even Qualcomm and Ford have been established. American companies have chosen China as a strategic high ground for R&D and deployment of C-V2X.

In July 2019, Qualcomm said that China may be the first to implement C-V2X in the field of autonomous driving globally. Ford has been developing and testing C-V2X assisted driving applications in Wuxi, China since 2018. An embarrassing fact for the U.S. government is that Ford announced that it will be the first to launch a test model equipped with C-V2X in China in 2021, and the mass production of this technology in the United States will be in 2022.

Choose the past or the future?

In fact, China’s provocation in the C-V2X field would not have caused such a big reaction from the United States, because in fact, due to the early promotion and application of DSRC in the United States, Japan, and Europe, these powerful countries in the automotive industry /In developed areas, car companies recognize DSRC - for example, Toyota, Volkswagen, and General Motors are all supporters of DSRC. ?

DSRC is relatively mature and has been proven. For car companies that value reliability, DSRC should be the best choice. Although C-V2X has greater growth potential and a higher theoretical upper limit, for the automotive industry with historical baggage, it should have taken longer before it could receive today's attention. But the craze of a key technology has become the catalyst for C-V2X - 5G.

Since 2018, the United States, China, Europe, and South Korea have rushed to start commercial (or pre-commercial) 5G. At the same time, 5G has become the focus of the game between China and the United States. In fact, communication technology companies in China and the United States, such as ZTE, Huawei and Qualcomm, have all suffered from this.

In April 2018, ZTE was sanctioned by the United States and was unable to recover.

In 2018, Qualcomm’s plan to acquire NXP, the world’s largest automotive semiconductor company, failed. In China, Qualcomm failed to obtain approval from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce regarding the antitrust investigation of the acquisition.

In May 2019, Huawei received a ban from the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the supply chain from the United States was temporarily cut off.

There is no other reason. Both China and the United States have reached the consensus that 5G is the key to the IoT era and the technological commanding heights in the future. Whether it can be integrated with 5G has become an important indicator that determines the ultimate fate of a technology.

Although DSRC is very good, it has a fatal flaw - it cannot evolve smoothly to 5G.

Because of the different underlying communication protocols, if DSRC and 5G want to be stored in a vehicle, two sets of infrastructure must be built, equipped with two sets of vehicle-side communication units, and two spectrums that do not interfere with each other... ··

If 5G can be promoted in the future, choosing the route of first deploying DSRC on a large scale and then hard switching to 5G?V2X will not only make it difficult for the various resources invested by DSRC to be recovered by 5G If it is not used, the entire society will also face many systemic problems caused by inconsistent standards.

Since C-V2X has the same origin as 5G (both cellular networks), it can evolve to 5G more smoothly and be absorbed as a subset of 5G technology. In fact, this is what C-V2X supporters are doing. They are planning a roadmap for C-V2X to move from 4G to the 5G era - LTE? V2X-LTE? eV2X-NR? V2X. In a sense, if a country accelerates the promotion of C-V2X, it means that the country's automobile industry will win a first-mover position in the race to connect to the 5G era.

Obviously, the United States, which switched from DSRC to C-V2X, is taking a step towards the future while swinging, while China, which is fully investing in C-V2X, is rushing towards the future without hesitation.

The reason is that it is not that China’s industry has a higher understanding, but that the country does not have the historical baggage of DSRC. Moreover, China has had successful experience in similar choices.

China’s leap forward in the mobile Internet is a good example.

At that time, in order to gain a foothold in the world's communications field, China worked hard in the 3G era and spent a huge amount of money to develop TD-SCDMA with independent intellectual property rights and established it as China's largest network operator. China Mobile's 3G standard will be promoted.

However, after the deployment of TD-SCDMA, the communication quality performance was poor, and there was a significant gap with similar foreign technologies. After realizing that China's voice in the field of 3G technical standards was still marginalized, China quickly strategically abandoned 3G and instead fully promoted the deployment of 4G. The final result of this choice is that today, more than half of the world's 4G base stations are distributed in China, and most mobile network users have entered the 4G era directly from the 2G era.

The demographic dividend unleashed by the huge technological generation gap has made China become a major country in the mobile Internet industry. In turn, the technology, experience, and infrastructure accumulated by China's communications industry under the prosperity of 4G have given China a higher starting point in the 5G era and become a first-mover country in 5G technology.

Conclusion:

After the United States has shifted significantly towards C-V2X technology, this protracted battle over Internet of Vehicles technology has still not been resolved. After all, both DSRC and C-V2X have not yet been deployed on a large scale.

However, the United States, which has a huge influence in both the automotive industry and the communications industry, chose to turn, causing a huge deflection in the balance of power between DSRC and C-V2X. In fact, European regulatory agencies also stated this year that they have a technology-neutral attitude towards the technical competition between DSRC and C-V2X. Today, only Japan has achieved significant results in the promotion of DSRC. It is said that its "routers" distributed along the road to serve DSRC have been set up, and more than 100,000 Crown and Prius units equipped with DSRC technology have been sold. Of course, such achievements are inseparable from Japan's small land area and strong Toyota brand.

However, when looking at Japan’s achievements in the field of DSRC, you will find that Japan is almost a marginalized person on the topic of 5G.

In the debate over automotive communication standards, should we choose DSRC or C-V2X? At least on a global scale, there is no standard answer to this question. Countries and regions set or make adjustments based on their own circumstances.

However, the dispute between DSRC and C-V2X is not just a simple technical multiple-choice question. It also reflects the difference in thinking: whether to choose the past as the starting point and place past results in the present; or to focus on the future and let reality continue to change toward it.

Obviously, China and the Chinese often choose the latter.

—END—

This article comes from the author of Autohome Chejiahao and does not represent the views and positions of Autohome.