Will spar over RF standards endanger V2X roll-out?: Page 3 of 3

October 03, 2017 //By Christoph Hammerschmidt
Will spar over RF standards endanger V2X roll-out?
Which technology is best suited for Vehicle-to-X communications? This question continues to occupy the industry. The ITS-G5 technology, which is based on the modified IEEE 802.11p WiFi standard, is opposed to the C-V2X, which is based on the 3GPP standards. Although BMW, one of the “inventors” of the V2X technology, has already moved to the C-V2X camp and industry heavyweight Qualcomm recently launched a reference design that can be regarded as a clear commitment to C-V2X, the dispute has not yet been resolved. There are still good reasons for ITS-G5, as shows our interview with Onn Haran, co-founder and CTO of chip company Autotalks. The company is regarded as one of the pioneers of V2X technology.

eeNews Europe: BMW as one of the initiators of car-to-car communication has changed sides and now is in favor of C-V2X. Do you still see a chance that ITS-G5 could prevail in the long run?

Haran: This is true. BMW left the car-to-car communication consortium to promote C-V2X. We respect them, but we often see big confusion in the market. People believe that if the vehicle supports eCall or has a Telematics unit, then it supports C-V2X for free. But that’s false. There’s no relation. C-V2X is a completely different network. And since the cellular network has to maintain its performance while C-V2X is expected to work, no resource sharing would be possible. The cost of C-V2X is always incremental on top of cellular. C-V2X is using a multi-user receiver available today only in base-stations. A smartphone is receiving only a single basestation. It is not expected to receive multiple units. Therefore, C-V2X is not available at zero cost. Add to that the cost of the 0.1ppm oscillator, which today isn’t even commercially available, then C-V2X is expected to be more expensive than DSRC.

The long run answer is simple. Deployment of ITS-G5 is underway, as already announced by VW and the infrastructure deployments, and it wouldn’t be possible to replace it. Backward compatibility and interoperability would have to be maintained. I guess that this is the reason for the massive C-V2X marketing campaign. There wouldn’t be a second chance to introduce C-V2X.

eeNews Europe: You state that significant budget has been allocated to the ITS-G5 infrastructure. To be honest, I don’t see a lot of investment. Could you specify who invested into which infrastructure?

Haran: The investments are now in initial procurement phase; therefore you don’t see those. But you can expect to see deployments starting next year, not only from the C-ROADS platform, but also using additional budget for national and regional investments (such as traffic light infrastructure in cities). The C-ROADS platform is coordinating the C-ITS deployment in the member states, and there are actually many member states planning C-ITS deployment. Some data about the investment appear in the fact sheet: https://www.c-roads.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/media/Dokumente/c-roads-flyer_2.pdf


Related articles:

Qualcomm puts its foot down in the V2X market

Carmakers, telecommunications players join forces for 5G development

DSRC no dead end, says Autotalks CTO

NXP enables AI-based ADAS platform; rolls V2X chip

Volkswagen brings V2X to mass production in 2019


Vous êtes certain ?

Si vous désactivez les cookies, vous ne pouvez plus naviguer sur le site.

Vous allez être rediriger vers Google.