Writing an article? |? Xiong yuxiang
Editor? |? Zhou changxian
65438+February 65438+February, Washington, the highest regulatory body in the field of communications in the United States-Federal Communications Commission (Federal? Communication? The Commission (abbreviated as FCC) has the final say, and a long-standing dispute over automotive communication standards and technologies has come to an end for the time being.
This controversy has nothing to do with 5G or Huawei. However, its influence has spread like ripples, and the communication technology and standard pattern of the entire American automobile industry and even the global automobile industry may be rewritten by FCC resolution.
The story begins with a technology called DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication). Under the leadership of the US Department of Transportation, DSRC has been developed in the United States for more than 20 years, and will soon be put into large-scale application in the United States. For a long time, it is the only communication technology available for V2X car networking. Volkswagen, Toyota and other foreign car companies have even given a product timetable and will install DSRC technology on North American models.
But at the critical moment, FCC chose to redistribute the 75MHz radio spectrum resources originally allocated to DSRC-the lowest 40MHz is open to the whole society, and the higher 20MHz is allocated to the updated C-V2X(Cellular? Vehicle? Where to? Everything, car networking communication technology based on cellular network). Only 10MHz is left, which has been prepared for many years and is online. Moreover, it is not easy for DSRC to stabilize the only remaining 10MHz spectrum. It needs to prove its value during the review, otherwise it will completely lose its qualification in the United States and be replaced by C-V2X.
But DSRC supporters have heard the wind of FCC's vacillation, and they have chosen to wait and see. In April this year, Toyota announced that it would suspend the plan to equip vehicles with DSRC in the US market from 202 1. After learning of the FCC resolution, GM did not comment. Ford has stood in the camp of C-V2X technology. As a result, the hope of large-scale deployment of DSRC in the United States is becoming increasingly slim.
It is said that the US Department of Transportation has spent more than 700 million dollars on the promotion of DSRC. Twenty years ago, the same FCC allocated the resources of 75MHz spectrum in 5.9GHz band to DSRC.
So, why do Americans choose to let their 20 years of hard work go to waste?
This may be the natural result of the competition between new and used car networking technologies, or it may be the reason why there are big countries playing games around communication technologies. But in essence, this is a difficult multiple-choice question for enterprises, industries and countries-respect the past or believe in the future?
The goal is the same, but the path is different.
In the 1990s, the automobile industry in developed countries was highly developed, but the traffic problems that followed caused a lot of traffic jams and accidents, which caused serious loss of life and property. With the same goal, Japan, the United States and Europe have begun to try to build an intelligent transportation system (ITS? Traffic? System). An important prerequisite for making traffic intelligent is that vehicles can "talk". You can also communicate with various transportation infrastructures. Therefore, communication technology naturally becomes an indispensable part of its planning.
It seems that ITS has a very grand blueprint, but its first important scene is obvious-ETC (electronic toll collection without stopping) of expressway toll station.
At that time, the widely used cellular network technology was not advanced enough to reliably support the communication of automobile scenes, so people turned to find new technologies. 1992, the United States first put forward the concept of DSRC technology, and set its radio frequency band as 9 15MHz. Due to the narrow bandwidth and much interference in the low frequency band, the industry has been on the rise and has come to the 5.8-5.9GHz band.
Based on the DSRC proposed by the United States and taking the opportunity of developing ETC, from the 1990s to the early 20th century, the United States, Japan and Europe successively allocated spectrum for vehicle communication technology, formulated standards and began to promote it in the automobile industry. Among them, the United States chose 5.9GHz, and Japan and Europe chose 5.8GHz. Although the standards of the three places are different, they are all based on the same set of more basic standards-IEEE? 802. 1 1p .？
Based on this, we can simply think that DSRC and WiFi are homologous technologies-802.11itself is the standard defined for wireless local area network (WLAN), and the WiFi we usually use follows a series of protocols such as 802. 1a, 802. 1ac. 802. 1 1p is a subset of WLAN technology optimized for vehicle scenes. So no matter which country's DSRC is, it is related to WiFi.
And some traditional advantages of WiFi are shared by DSRC-low communication delay and stable quality. In fact, this is the key feature that DSRC was selected by the early car networking communication. On the other hand, it also has some other characteristics similar to WiFi technology-for example, it is essentially a local area network and needs to lay a "router" to connect vehicles and other communication equipment, so the signal range is limited. It is these characteristics that set the stage for the future setbacks of DSRC.
C-V2X, as a rising star, began to emerge more than 20 years after it was put forward by DSRC. In 20 15, the international communication standard organization 3GPP began to study the concept and requirements of C-V2X. When 3GPP officially released the physical layer standard of C-V2X in R 14, it was already 20 17.
As can be seen from the cellular network, C-V2X and the communication technology used by our mobile phones belong to the same system. This is also the natural limitation of the rise of C-V2X after the deployment of 4G network. Because when the cellular network technology iterates to 4G, its communication delay index and support for high-speed moving objects can meet the requirements of automobile safety communication. In fact, up to now, the signal support of 4G for ultra-high-speed moving objects is still insufficient-when you take the high-speed train with a speed of 300km/h, the signal of your mobile phone is still not very good, even though the 4G base stations next to the railway track are one after another.
Although C-V2X is only a blank in the field of vehicle communication compared with the old DSRC, what stands behind it is a prosperous mobile communication industry, a large number of technical talents in the field of cellular network, and countless communication infrastructures available for it.
Because of this, although C-V2X came late, it won the support of all parties, including global communication operators and communication technology companies, such as Huawei and Qualcomm, and even some car companies such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Ford.
The supporters of DSRC mainly include Toyota, GM, Volkswagen and other companies, as well as semiconductor companies NXP and Renesas in their supply chain system.
For the automobile industry, which is keen on making multiple-choice questions, it is not common to take a clear-cut stand in front of a technical choice. Yes, why can't DSRC and C-V2X complement each other? Theoretically? Although the two routes can be saved, the cruelty of reality lies in the unbearable heavy price, which makes the two technologies in fact incompatible.
Because communication is the foundation of the foundation, the cost of trying to be compatible with the two technologies is huge for stakeholders:
For government agencies, the unification of standards is the premise of promoting construction and efficient management;
For many communication technology companies, technical differentiation means that you must choose a sideline, and it is impossible to jump into the field where your opponent is good at killing;
For the automobile market, compatibility with two sets of vehicle networking standards means building two different sets of infrastructure. Car companies have to test and verify two different functional modules, and consumers will eventually pay for the car purchase.
When faced with a major choice of vehicle communication standards, the correct way for most stakeholders is to choose a standard that looks better. Obviously, the United States has re-selected C-V2X.
The transformation of great powers
From a staunch supporter of DSRC to "abandoning" DSRC and choosing C-V2X, what have Americans experienced? The direct reason is not complicated-promotion-DSRC is not successful.
According to the data of Wu Dongsheng, former vice president of ZTE and scheme architect of Gaoxin Xinxing Technology Group, there are 350,000 intersections in the United States, but in the process of promoting DSRC, there are only more than 5,000 corresponding DSRC roadside devices (that is, "routers" required for communication). By 20 16, 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, GM is the only car company in the United States that applies DSRC technology in mass production. Two years ago, GM launched CTS equipped with DSRC in the American market (because of the limitation of infrastructure, that is, the lack of "router", which mainly realizes the communication function V2V between vehicles), but the CTS models equipped with this function have not been sold on a large scale at all, even less than 1 10,000 units.
From the spectrum allocation of 1999 to the first establishment of the standard in 2004, few achievements have been made so far. DSRC is hardly successful in the United States. Why?
Except that ordinary Americans are not interested in the Internet of Vehicles, it may be more due to the consideration of technical cost. The United States has a well-developed road network. If you want to promote DSRC, it means that you need to spread "routers" in the United States. 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 "picky" when building base stations, and the primary goal is to maximize benefits rather than signal coverage and signal quality.
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that large-scale deployment of DSRC will require at least billions of dollars in infrastructure expenditure. The US Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) calculated the deployment cost of DSRC in vehicles-about $300 per vehicle.
High expenditure and unpredictable returns make all parties involved in the promotion of DSRC, whether the US government or enterprises, fail to do their best.
When DSRC was frustrated, C-V2X showed greater growth potential in its rapid development. In fact, the technology of C-V2X is far from perfect, and the DSRC camp can easily pick out its shortcomings in anti-jamming and security protocols, but the frequent seminars and clear road maps of 3GPP are in sharp contrast with the "cold and cheerless" of DSRC.
It successfully attracted the attention of Qualcomm, the largest communication technology company in the United States, and Ford, the second largest automobile manufacturer in the United States.
In fact, Qualcomm and Ford once supported DSRC and made corresponding technical preparations. Until 20 17, Qualcomm still sought the compatibility between DSRC and C-V2X in its technical scheme. However, after witnessing the slowness of DSRC and the rapidity of C-V2X, both companies turned to the C-V2X camp.
The change of FCC's attitude towards DSRC and C-V2X is closely related to the lobbying of Qualcomm and Ford. In September this year, a campaign called "Legislation? Where to? Is it safe? American? Wireless? In the future hearing, Dean Qualcomm, senior vice president in charge of spectrum strategy and technology strategy? r？ Brenner said that the coverage and reliability of C-V2X are much greater than that of DSRC. " The FCC must give up or change 5.9? GHz spectrum rules promote the deployment of C-V2X technology in the United States. "
The driving force of American transformation is not only the demands of enterprises, but also the pressure brought by countries on the other side of the ocean doing their best on the C-V2X route. This country used to be just a follower of vehicle communication technology and standards.
While the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries and regions strive to promote DRSC in order to build an intelligent transportation system, China, a latecomer, has ushered in the explosive development of the automobile and transportation industries, trying to learn some experience from the actions of its predecessors. In fact, China did study and apply DSRC technology, but not much-1996, China began to learn from the technology of the United States, Japan and Europe to build ETC (Electronic Toll Collection System), and the technology used for communication between electronic equipment and vehicles at high-speed toll stations is DSRC.
In fact, China could have been on the road of DSRC for a long time. Previously, due to well-known reasons, China's communication industry was closer to Europe. In the field of intelligent transportation, China has caught up with Europe. But Mr. Ou prefers to use DSRC technology to build the V2X car networking system.
However, when the 4G network was rolled out on a large scale in China, China quickly joined the camp of C-V2X. In 20 17, commercial applications based on C-V2X began to be displayed at "20 17 World Internet of Things Expo" held in Wuxi. Li Jun, an academician of China Academy of Engineering, took a clear-cut stand in a TV interview: "We are pushing LTE-V (C-V2X based on 4G)". In 2065438+2008, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued "Management Regulations on Direct Communication of Vehicle Networking Using 5905~5925MHz", which was officially released, and clearly planned 5.9G frequency band as the working frequency band of direct communication of vehicle networking (intelligent networked vehicles) based on C-V2X technology of LTE. Since then, C-V2X has gained an overwhelming position in China.
Under the leadership of the government, not only domestic car companies, communication operators and communication equipment companies turned to C-V2X in an all-round way, but also American companies like Qualcomm and Ford chose China as the strategic highland for R&D and deployment of C-V2X, because China gave the green light to C-V2X technology.
2065438+In July 2009, Qualcomm said that China will implement C-V2X in the field of autonomous driving before the whole world. Ford, on the other hand, has been developing and testing the C-V2X driver assistance application in Wuxi, China since 20 18. An embarrassing fact for the U.S. government is that Ford announced that it will be the first to launch a test vehicle equipped with C-V2X in China in 20021year, and the mass production time of this technology in the United States is 2022.
Choose the past or the future
In fact, China's appearance in the field of C-V2X would not have caused such a big reaction in the United States, because in fact, due to the early promotion and application of DSRC in the United States, Japan and Europe, car companies in these areas with strong/developed automobile industries all recognized DSRC-such as Toyota, Volkswagen and General Motors. ?
DSRC is mature. After verification, it should be the best choice for car companies that value reliability. Although C-V2X has greater growth potential and higher theoretical upper limit, it should take longer for the automobile industry with historical burden to get attention today. But the upsurge of a key technology became the catalyst of C-V2X-5G.
Starting from 20 18, the United States, China, Europe and South Korea began to commercialize (or pre-commercialize) 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 been affected by this.
2065438+In April 2008, ZTE was sanctioned by the United States and never recovered.
In 20 18, Qualcomm's plan to acquire NXP, the world's largest automotive semiconductor company, failed. In China, Qualcomm failed to obtain approval from the Ministry of Commerce of China to conduct an anti-monopoly investigation on the acquisition.
On May 20 19, Huawei received a ban from the US Department of Commerce, and the supply chain from the United States was once cut off.
If nothing else, both China and the United States have reached such a * * * knowledge that ——5G is the key to the Internet of Things era and the technological commanding height for some time to come. Whether it can connect with 5G has become an important indicator to determine the ultimate fate of a technology.
Although DSRC is good, it has a fatal wound-it can't smoothly evolve to 5 G. Because of the different communication protocols at the bottom, if DSRC and 5 G want to exist in a car, they must build two sets of infrastructure, carry two sets of communication units at the car end, and cut out two non-interference spectrum. ...
If 5G can be popularized on a large scale in the future, choose to deploy DSRC on a large scale before going to 5G? The hard switching route of V2X, not only the resources invested by DSRC are difficult to be reused by 5G, but also the whole society will face many systemic problems caused by the disunity of standards.
While C-V2X is homologous to 5G (both cellular networks), so it can evolve to 5G more smoothly and be absorbed as a subset of 5G technology. Actually, that's what C-V2X's supporters are doing. They are planning a roadmap for C-V2X to enter the 5G era from 4G-LTE? V2X-LTE？ eV2X-NR？ V2X. In a sense, if a country accelerates C-V2X, it means that its automobile industry will win a starting position in the race in line with the 5G era.
Obviously, the United States, which switched from DSRC to C-V2X, began to take a step towards the future, while China, which increased C-V2X in an all-round way, did not hesitate to fly to the future.
The reason is not that China's industry awareness is higher, but that China has no historical burden of DSRC. In addition, China has had a successful experience of similar choices.
China's leap in the mobile Internet is a good example.
At that time, in order to gain a foothold in the world communication field, China? In the 3G era, we have paid a huge price to develop TD-SCDMA with independent intellectual property rights and promote it as the 3G standard of China Mobile, the largest network operator in China.
However, after the deployment of TD-SCDMA, the communication quality is not good, and there is an obvious gap with similar technologies abroad. Realizing that China's right to speak in the field of 3G technical standards is still marginalized, China quickly abandoned 3G strategically and pushed forward the deployment of 4G. The final result of this choice is that up to now, more than half of the world's 4G base stations are located in China, and most mobile network users have directly entered the 4G era from the 2G era.
The demographic dividend released by the huge technology gap has made China a big country in the mobile Internet industry. On the other hand, the technology, experience and infrastructure accumulated by China's communication industry under the 4G prosperity have enabled China to get a higher starting point in the 5G era and become a pioneer country in 5G technology.
Conclusion:
After the United States turned to C-V2X technology, the long-term controversy about the technology of car networking is still unclear. After all, neither DSRC nor C-V2X has been deployed on a large scale.
At the same time, the choice of the United States, which has great influence in the automobile industry and communication industry, has greatly deviated the power comparison between DSRC and C-V2X. In fact, European regulators also expressed their position this year and adopted a technology-neutral attitude towards the technical competition between DSRC and C-V2X. Today, only Japan has achieved remarkable results in the promotion of DSRC. It is said that its "routers" serving DSRC along the road have been set up, and the sales of Crown and Prius equipped with DSRC technology exceed 6,543,800 units. Of course, this achievement is inseparable from Japan's small land area and strong Toyota brand strength.
However, when you look at Japan's achievements in the DSRC field, you will find that Japan is almost a marginal person on the topic of 5G.
Who are DSRC and C-V2X in the dispute of automobile communication standards? At least on a global scale, there is no standard answer to this question, and countries and regions set or make adjustments according to their own conditions.
However, the dispute between DSRC and C-V2X is not just a simple technical choice. It also reflects such a division of thinking: it is to choose the past as the starting point and put the previous achievements in the present; Or focus on the future and let the reality change towards it.
Obviously, people in China and China often choose the latter.
End—
This article comes from car home, the author of the car manufacturer, and does not represent car home's position.