×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Your Next Car's Electronics Will Likely Be Connected By Ethernet

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the mobile-lan-party dept.

Transportation 180

Lucas123 writes "As the sophistication of automotive electronics advances, from autonomous driving capabilities to three-dimensional cameras, the industry is in need of greater bandwidth to connect devices to a car's head unit. Enter Ethernet. Industry standards groups are working to make 100Mbps and 1Gbps Ethernet de facto standards within the industry. Currently, there are as many as nine proprietary auto networking specifications, including LIN, CAN/CAN-FD, MOST and FlexRay. FlexRay, for example, has a 10Mbps transmission rate. Making Ethernet the standard in the automotive industry could also open avenues for new apps. For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays." This might get us into trouble when the Cylons show up.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (1)

kuhnto (1904624) | about 10 months ago | (#46371921)

What is it... this ethernet you speak of?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372069)

802.11 Wireless Ethernet is still Ethernet. Wireshark confirms it.

Re:Huh? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about 10 months ago | (#46372203)

10Base5

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#46373027)

Connectivity used when shit has to just work all the time, regardless how many hipsters are in the area.

Re:Huh? (4, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 10 months ago | (#46373333)

Ethernet may work all the time - but there are no guarantees on packet latency. The basis of ethernet is that all traffic is equal; nobody has priority.

Which, to me, sounds all wrong. I'd much rather the packet from the collision-avoidance system to the brake system saying "holy shit stop NOW" gets higher priority than the next packet of Justin Bieber headed to the back seat.

Imagine (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46371925)

"For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays."

Imagine!

Except they're already doing it now on their fondleslabs.

Re:Imagine (4, Insightful)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46371985)

Yes, it's a stupid summary, probably from someone who doesn't have a clue on what the current buses do.
Nobody's saying "Man, I wish my CAN bus had more bandwidth so I could stream!

And really, people, if you're going to change the bus, can't you make the new one based on plastic fiber and cheap LEDs, so that we stop having fried computers every time a cable gets bad?

Re:Imagine (5, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 10 months ago | (#46372163)

What's messed up is the article itself, especially in the belief that automakers will want to switch to this. Right now Cadillac and Lincoln cars have been using fibre in their cars for the 'drive-by-wire' system for years. As well as in parts of the HUD, and rear-display systems. Beleive you and me, they want to use this, because it's reallllly expensive it if gets toasted, and they have to replace part of the harness. This isn't really a job your layman can do, compared to say pulling and restringing an entire wiring harness inside the cab. That's something anyone with a bit of patience and weekend or two can do.

though... (1)

DrYak (748999) | about 10 months ago | (#46373029)

Nobody's saying "Man, I wish my CAN bus had more bandwidth so I could stream!

Yup, in *theory* you know that a CAN bus is used for critical automotive functionality (say engine, ABS, power steering, or even drive-by-wire, autonomous steering, etc.)
Whereas the streaming should stay confined within the media subsystem, and both should be kept completely isolated from each other.
So it doesn't make sense to speak about successor of CAN bus technologies and media consumption in the infoteinment system of the car.
They are completely separate networks.
In theory.

In practice, you know pretty much that we leave in a world of product rushed into production due to marketing constrain. A world where, due to extremely flacky design, it's possible to hack a vehicle by abusing the wireless transmission used to report tire pressure.
So you know that lack of proper separation is bound to happens and you will end-up being able to hack a vehice by streaming a specially crafted video file, simply because the various ethernet networks aren't properly isolated from each other.

Re:Imagine (3, Funny)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about 10 months ago | (#46372267)

What a fantastic idea! By switching to a well understood standard it will finally make our vehicles trivial to hack!

Ohh.. wait.. maybe that isn't such a good thing? *shrug*

Well I look forward to the day in which I no longer have to call a taxi, I can just take out my laptop and make one drive to my location.

Re:Imagine (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 10 months ago | (#46372331)

If somebody determined to get up to mischief, they'll do it anyway, regardless of whether or not your car is networked over CAN or Ethernet.

What you're suggesting, is that security by obscurity works, not that CAN is all that obscure...

Re:Imagine (1)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about 10 months ago | (#46373183)

I would like to introduce you to my "friends."

Say hello from me. [youtube.com]

Re:Imagine (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#46372491)

Every ethernet network is trivial to hack?

Re:Imagine (2)

jrumney (197329) | about 10 months ago | (#46372659)

Ethernet is a well understood standard? I think very few people have had to deal with transport level details of ethernet since the advent of ethernet controller ICs in the 1980's (or maybe early 1990's). Most hackers work at higher levels which wouldn't necessarily be deployed on a network that needs guaranteed delivery timing.

Shared networking with user services? (4, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about 10 months ago | (#46373041)

What a horrible, horrible idea. Not the ethernet aspect, that makes sense, reinventing the wheel is usually a bad idea, and especially so when the competition has a multi-decade lead on eliminating bugs and malicious exploits and offers cheap, reliable off-the-shelf hardware. No, it's the idea of putting anything whatsoever user-accessible on the internal network I object to. If this data bus is carrying the information that tells my increasingly fly-by-wire care to apply the brakes or turn right to avoid oncomming semis then all it takes is one misbehaving flappy-bird clone spamming the network at the wrong moment to kill me, to say nothing of malicious attacks. There's absolutely no reason *anything* but internal systems communication should be on that network. Period. If you want an media network fine, but that can probably be provided far more cheaply and conveniently by including an airgapped $10 wireless hub with a 10' range that can only talk directly to things like the steering-wheel mounted media controls and the dashboard LCD/windshield HUD. And maybe a cellular modem. You're in a pretty decent approximation of a Faraday cage, so non-malicious outside interference should be minimal, and any communication with the mission-critical network should be heavily firewalled, at an absolute minimum. Not much reason to allow bi-directional communication at all - "spam" the wireless network with multicast up-to-the-second system and diagnostc data and you're good, at 0.01% of total bandwidth. No reason for anything not physically connected to be able to say a %$#@!* thing to the mission-critical components. If ever there was a non-hyperbolic use of the term "mission critical", maintaining control of a car is it.

* %$#@! - when no variation of "fuck" is strong enough. Bonus points if you can pronounce it. Q-Bert did, but then he had that hose-nose to work with.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46373307)

Imagine driving your electric shark through the city streets, a scream after midnight, stealing wireless power and pwning switching routers as your taillights disappear into the fog...

What?? (5, Insightful)

plebeian (910665) | about 10 months ago | (#46371941)

Lucas123 wants to stream audio and video across the same switches as his throttle by wire?????, I say we sell tickets to this event!

Re:What?? (0, Redundant)

amiga3D (567632) | about 10 months ago | (#46371953)

Really. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:What?? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#46372729)

Really. What could possibly go wrong?

Luckily, ethernet totally has this covered: in the event of a collision, you just back off for a random number of milliseconds and then retransmit. No big deal! And cars are basically just big packets, right?

Re:What?? (4, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | about 10 months ago | (#46371969)

Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.

Re:What?? (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 10 months ago | (#46372173)

Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.

QoS is OSI level 7. Ethernet is OSI level 1. There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.

Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment. At least, that's been my experience with numerous linksys, d-link, and netgear devices. I'm kind of down on QoS as a result. Great idea, ruined by the implementation that most consumers will ever see.

Re:What?? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#46372217)

You may want to review your OSI model. I don't remember QoS, but layer 1 is the physical medium. Ethernet is layer 2.

Re:What?? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#46372277)

Layer 7 is application layer, which is indeed where QoS sits (it deals with the source of the data).
Ethernet, as in 802.3 is indeed layer 2, but wikipedia confirms: its more than just that. It includes the physical layer too.

Re:What?? (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 10 months ago | (#46372313)

You may want to review your OSI model. I don't remember QoS, but layer 1 is the physical medium. Ethernet is layer 2.

And Diffserv operates at layer 3, assuming TCP/IP. QoS definitely does not take place only or even primarily at layer 7.

Re:What?? (1)

skids (119237) | about 10 months ago | (#46372627)

It's called 802.1p, a mechanism for QoS tagging in a dot1q tagged frame.

That said, this move could give new meaning to the second C in CSMA/CD.

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372439)

right. and chocolate is layer 4!

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372279)

Mixing entertainment systems and critical safety systems on the same bus is common already. The only change is that with ethernet you get decent bandwidth and well-understood QoS.

QoS is OSI level 7. Ethernet is OSI level 1. There is no reason to assume that TCP/IP or QoS will be standardized upon or even used at all here.

Right. And the overwhelming majority of vendors itching to put their ethernet-enabled devices in cars without having to re-write an entire protocol stack WILL push for TCP/IP. I can see that shit on the wall now, as they all bitch in unison about the additional costs of re-tooling comms.

And security will go right out the window, as it usually does when standing in the way of greed.

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372345)

I'm not sure which OSI level this would correspond to, but on CAN, priority is all the way down at the physical level. There are active and passive bits on the bus. The active bit wins in a collision, and the higher priority packet goes out without having to be re-transmitted. The lower priority packet is then re-sent when the bus is open again.

I don't want to be in a vehicle where the high priority traffic gets priority over entertainment 99.99% of the time, and my brake command gets delayed the other 0.01%...

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372549)

There is no technical reason that an automotive deployment could not use custom switching ASICs to multiplex traffic from different priority levels and have dedicated priority queue buffers to guarantee whatever delivery scheme you want.

You could tolerate some well-defined maximum delay for the priority data frame to wait for an earlier frame to finish transmitting before the priority stream starts monopolizing the link. You would build your topology with a maximum path length to manage the maximum path delay for high priority traffic based on the number of links and switching buffers the frame might have to traverse. You would guarantee that the priority traffic would never cause itself congestion and allow lower priority traffic to use best-effort of idle capacity only. You can allocate enough hardware buffers to support all your important priority traffic getting buffered and scheduled consistently, since you can design the whole priority system as a closed world.

The nice thing about gigabit would be the possibility to over-provision enough to allow a nice simple backbone topology through the car with redundant/failover links. Imagine just cat 5 and power cables running fore and aft, with all other switching and signalling being done by packet-based communication. You could even use something like power-over-ethernet for the many low-power peripheral controllers, though I imagine you'd need some other rugged connector format and you might be better off with DC power and fiber communications.

Re:What?? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 10 months ago | (#46372749)

Also, QoS is a total dog if you are trying to employ it on consumer grade equipment. At least, that's been my experience with numerous linksys, d-link, and netgear devices. I'm kind of down on QoS as a result.

Automobile manufacturers are considering using AVB [wikipedia.org] as the mechanism [avnu.org] by which they get their quality-of-service guarantees -- basically re-using the audio/video bandwidth-reservation protocols as a way to reserve bandwidth for their command signaling data.

Whether or not this is a good idea I will leave as an exercise to the reader; but at least it is not relying on your father's broken QoS system.

Re:What?? (3, Interesting)

plebeian (910665) | about 10 months ago | (#46372447)

As a systems/network administrator I must say that If you are relying on general purpose wan connection for life or death services you are doing it wrong. Where I work we physically segment everything that is truly critical. The fire and alarm systems have multiple redundant connections including two that are 100% separate from our data network. The closest thing we have to a critical system running on a general purpose network is the use of SIP to provide connections from our phones to the PBX and that system has had a number of minor problems in the 7 years we have been using it. Ultimately if a phone call gets dropped in an office building the chances of someone dying because of it are truly minuscule. If on the other hand a drive by wire function fails you have a lot larger chance of death. I believe they will segment mission critical systems to a dedicate physical bus with redundant links in any proposed in car network. That way a entertainment system cannot interfere with the operation of say the headlights. My comment was made to expose the naivete of the original post and not to offer any truly insightful criticism.

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372333)

I don't see anything wrong with this. Just build the whole system up to the standards of throttle/steer by wire and run the traffic on separate vlans.

The next big thing is that is about to debut is OBD to be run off bluetooth and/or wireless (connected to tablets) rather than a proprietary cable / designated device. As soon as the car pulls into the service bay, it communicates with the tablet with full diagnostics and vehicle repair history. There is a fast-growing car company that is about to release a model with this capability in coming weeks. I'm not sure if TSLA does this already, but it isn't them. It was developed in Asia but it is being rolled out in the US.

It may seem like no big deal, but it will be a huge leap forward in the automotive sector, which still operates the same as they did 20 years ago in many respects. The diagnostic data will be updated frequently, with diagnostics tied with technician repair strategies and outcomes. I.e. cylinder 4 running a bit hot? Well, a mechanic in Toledo and another in Miami found that when this was happening, this specific part was causing it. The control center reviews all of the repair histories and compiles the data, then suggestions are automatically sent to the mechanic when the problem is detected. This will lead to a faster repair, and looking at the bigger picture it will give more accurate data to the manufacturers of OEM replacement parts as to what needs to be produced and shipped (sooner). Faster repair under warranty = cheaper for the manufacturer and a happier customer.

Unfortunately the service bays and dealerships aren't ready yet, with the exception of one. But once it gets going, it will save a great deal of time and money and may lead to better customer satisfaction.

Re:What?? (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#46373059)

No thanks. I don't want to deal with my car getting hacked/stolen/monitored/remote controlled, which is infinitely more likely than this overwrought system.. I don't mind it for medical care, but not for my car. Cars should be stupid simple.

Re: What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46373189)

You've been able to get Bluetooth obd-ii adapters for quite some time and can link to applications on a laptop or mobile device (like torque for android)

Re:What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372479)

Yeah right. Most modern vehicles and other large machinery already runs multiple busses in parallel (I should know, I work on one). It would be trivial, even the most logical design choice, to keep realtime functions on CAN and put 'courtesy functions' on ethernet..

The Ether! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46371957)

Ethernet is found everywhere – on mobile phones, desktop computers, Blu-ray Disc players, set top boxes, and even in your car.

Stop reinventing the wheel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46371989)

Why did these morons spend time and energy to create LIN, CAN/CAN-FD, MOST and FlexRay in the first place?

Re:Stop reinventing the wheel. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 10 months ago | (#46372083)

For the same reason they invented IPX/SPX, Appletalk and TCP/IP in the first place? Or for the same reason they invented Beta and VHS? Or Blu-Ray and whatever that other one was? There have always been competing standards.

Re: Stop reinventing the wheel. (4, Funny)

jxander (2605655) | about 10 months ago | (#46372085)

Re:Stop reinventing the wheel. (2)

Sanhedran (1803634) | about 10 months ago | (#46372153)

Why did these morons spend time and energy to create ... CAN/CAN-FD

If you think the CAN standards were developed by "morons", there's no educating you.

Can the engineers please tell programmers to GTFO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372009)

This is serious stuff. You don't want the brakes to stop working just because someone decides to start a Bittorrent client.

No (4, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | about 10 months ago | (#46372239)

If it's good enough for commercial aircraft [wikipedia.org] it's good enough for your car.

Re:No (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372391)

No, it really isn't. Commercial aircraft aren't traveling a few seconds' distance behind other aircraft.

Re:No (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#46372493)

No it is not good enough. Commercial aircraft is flown by people with constant training, check lists, protocols, under the guidance of air traffic control. They are supposed to be not drunk, supposed to be well rested. Cars? driven by everyone from pimply teens giggling and texting while driving all the way up to 90 year old grandma who only has a vague nebulous feedback from her right foot when she is on arthritis medication.

Re:No (4, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about 10 months ago | (#46373089)

And? The network between the brake pedal and the brake doesn't give a flying fsck about the state of the driver, just make abso-%$#@!-ing-lutely sure that nothing the user (or a malfunctioning/malicious app ) can interfere with the signal. For starters don't put anything user-accessible on the same network - insert a heavily firewalled router at least, and preferably an old-fashioned air-gap.

Micro USB (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 10 months ago | (#46372021)

They should just make it Micro USB. Then you can charge your electric car and transfer data with the same cable. Just like a phone. I don't want to have to buy new cables just so I can charge my car.

Re:Micro USB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372115)

Cables? What about chargers? Why can't I charge my electric car with my phone's charger? This needs to change!

Re:Micro USB (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 10 months ago | (#46372335)

Cables? What about chargers? Why can't I charge my electric car with my phone's charger? This needs to change!

Can confirm unable to charge PEV with my laptop's USB port. Epic fail on the part of the manufacturer.

Re:Micro USB (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 10 months ago | (#46373111)

Seriously man. I mean my laptop can stream like GB/s, why can't my car that only draws a few KW charge from it? Like seriously, dude. It should be able to run for, like, thousands of hours. Kilo versus Giga baybe.

Re:Micro USB (1)

Arker (91948) | about 10 months ago | (#46372415)

You know, that's a great idea, except for how incredibly long it would take to charge your car!

Re:Micro USB (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46373005)

Bah, just use one of the 2.1A USB things instead of the 1A USB things and it'll be fine, right? ;-)

A little late (1)

zerofoo (262795) | about 10 months ago | (#46372091)

The SAE has been talking about this for years. This article is from 2012:

http://articles.sae.org/11142/ [sae.org]

I think the BMW 7 series has used ethernet for the infotainment systems for a while now.

Re:A little late (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#46372321)

Ethernet seems like the wrong system to be using for anything where the configuration is fairly static and reliability is at a premium. You really want your steering wheel traffic hitting the windshield wipers because their NIC blew up and started claiming every MAC address as their own?

You can fix this stuff on enterprise networks with really expensive switches with L2 authentication / sticky MACs, STP, etc-- but that seems like the definition of "overengineered".

Re:A little late (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#46372507)

Ethernet seems like the wrong system to be using for anything where the configuration is fairly static and reliability is at a premium. You really want your steering wheel traffic hitting the windshield wipers because their NIC blew up and started claiming every MAC address as their own?

What makes you think this can't happen with CAN bus?

Re:A little late (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#46373147)

It wont' happen if you use a couple of switches and some relays for the wipers instead, and mechanics for the wheel/accel/brake etc....a lot cheaper too.

Re:A little late (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 10 months ago | (#46373151)

Ethernet = several decades of bug-fixes against everything malicious SOBs can throw at it, included in all but the cheapest off-the-shelf networking hardware. CAN, etc = ???.

Reinventing the wheel is usually a bad idea unless you're shooting for something fundamentally different than anything that has been attempted before.

Don't quit your day job (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372105)

This might get us into trouble when the Cylons show up.

Was this supposed to be funny? Soulskill but you're a shitty "editor" and an even worse "comedian".

Re:Don't quit your day job (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#46372149)

Yeah, everyone knows the Cylons are going to show up any day now.

car bandwidth needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372169)

What exactly do you need 100 or 1000 Mbit/s in a car for? (Especially in the control system.)

Are we talking about having the engine control on the same bus as the entertainment system (where playing a video/DVD could use a lot of bits)?

Cylons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372185)

That will be the least of our concerns.

And it'll be... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#46372191)

IPV4. bets?

Re:And it'll be... (1)

decsnake (6658) | about 10 months ago | (#46372259)

nah, IPX

Re:And it'll be... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#46372293)

nah, IPX

(slaps forehead) Of course!

Re:And it'll be... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#46372341)

Irrelevant on a private network.

Re:And it'll be... (1)

grim4593 (947789) | about 10 months ago | (#46372397)

Not a chance! With the advent of car to car networking and internet accessibility every component in your car will have its own internet facing IPV6 address!
Imagine the possibilities: You could open your trunk from anywhere in the world, you could preheat the car before your flight even lands, you could update your license plate in real time!

Re:And it'll be... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#46373067)

Every component of my car outward facing.... that's absolutely terrifying.

People seem to be misunderstanding (4, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 10 months ago | (#46372223)

This article is about the L1 PHY layer, not the L2 Data Link layer. There is no reason to assume this means your car will be using TCP/IP. The diagram in TFA clearly indicates that the PHY layer being discussed here is independent of the protocol.

In fact, the included diagram seems to indicate broadcom is pitching some kind of adapter device which would enable inclusion of the new L1 layer with no changes whatsoever to the programming of the devices on either end. One would hope that such a thing would be only considered a stop-gap measure while they reworked their components to use the new bus natively in future models. History clearly shows that such adapters tend to be inefficient.

Re:People seem to be misunderstanding (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#46372527)

This article is about the L1 PHY layer, not the L2 Data Link layer. There is no reason to assume this means your car will be using TCP/IP. The diagram in TFA clearly indicates that the PHY layer being discussed here is independent of the protocol.

There's every reason to suspect that TCP/IP will be used for audio/video modules. There's no particular benefit to using anything else; no matter what, crypto is going to have to be a part of it.

Re:People seem to be misunderstanding (2)

jrumney (197329) | about 10 months ago | (#46372701)

There's every reason to suspect that TCP/IP will be used for audio/video modules. There's no particular benefit to using anything else

Except that using protocols that are designed for audio and video instead of general IP traffic ensures that you see/hear a glitch free stream without waiting for buffering before you start playback every time.

Re:People seem to be misunderstanding (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 10 months ago | (#46372865)

Funny, with digital TV, any kind of it including over-the-air, you have to wait a few seconds for buffering. (or waiting for the next full frame and whatever, I don't know in great detail and accuracy)
It was quite noticeable when it coexisted with analog TV and channel switching was instantaneous on that one.

Also the parent (or grand-parent) forgot about UDP/IP, to niptick a bit.

Re:People seem to be misunderstanding (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 10 months ago | (#46373139)

MPEG video streams are slow to start because not every frame is a full frame. There are also latencies everywhere within the transmission system of digital broadcasts that adds up to a couple of seconds delay when compared side by side with analog broadcasts. But the additional buffering required to get smooth playback on a shared TCP connection would be multiples of that delay.

Re:People seem to be misunderstanding (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 10 months ago | (#46372759)

The article mentions Parrot's Ethernet AVB [wikipedia.org] connected systems. The carriage of audio/video media over AVB has been standardized by the AVB Transport Protocol in IEEE 1722 [ieee.org] , and yes, it is just Ethernet, no IP.

The theory is that your car is a LAN, and does not need to have Layer 3.

ethernet =/= internet (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 10 months ago | (#46372249)

imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays.

Just because there's an internal network for the car's electronics doesn't mean there's any internet connection (and there'd better not be).

Re:ethernet =/= internet (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 10 months ago | (#46372355)

imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays.

Just because there's an internal network for the car's electronics doesn't mean there's any internet connection (and there'd better not be).

Just the possibility of playing NetWars on my car's intranet has me all in a tizzy.

Re:ethernet =/= internet (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#46372395)

But there will be. Because some marketing genius will convince the higher-ups that it will save $50 per car on the implementation of On-Star.

I am still waiting for the great-On-Star-Hack-megaJam. We should make it easier for someone to shutdown half the US cars in one mouse-click...

and be locked into the poor build in radio system (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#46372315)

and be locked into the poor build in radio system that can't be upgraded to a better 3rd part one.

Re:and be locked into the poor build in radio syst (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 10 months ago | (#46372735)

If its standardized instead of the mess of proprietary buses we have now, it will reopen the possibility of replacing components.

Not mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372371)

I will never buy a car that doesn't have a hard maximum in the time it takes between when I hit the brakes and the actual brakes engage. Ethernet is good for a lot of things, but there are many systems where its drawbacks are just too big, and every part of controlling a car falls in the latter category. Otoh, if they want to implement it all using token ring, maybe we can talk.

Re:Not mine (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 10 months ago | (#46372823)

Otoh, if they want to implement it all using token ring, maybe we can talk.

Modern ethernet networks are a network of switched full duplex point to point links. CSMA/CD is still supported in the general purpose copper physical layers but only for backwards compatibility reasons.

AVC-LAN (1)

adiposity (684943) | about 10 months ago | (#46372409)

What about AVC-LAN (what Toyota uses)?

Not that I would suggest it has the bandwidth of ethernet!

Re:AVC-LAN (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 10 months ago | (#46372727)

AVC-LAN is even slower than CAN. Its basically a remote control bus for the A/V components to send commands to each other over. Actual audio and video is taking a different route (probably analog).

Leashes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372445)

Is anyone else wondering what the hell the poster actually means? Are the cars going to run blue cables back to houses?

WTB IPv6 (2)

dave562 (969951) | about 10 months ago | (#46372601)

Need teh NATz for my car!

Your Next Car's Electronics Will Likely Be Connect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372609)

Was I the only one who had a moment where they were trying to envision the car being connected to a really really really long cat 6 cable to your house?

Back seat passengers ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 10 months ago | (#46372629)

... watch their streaming video on their phones and tablets. That way, they can carry their downloaded content with them away from the car.

Built-in entertainment systems are stuck in the vehicle. And unless you have a service that allows it, they require additional service plans for those devices. A phone/tablet needs (for longer trips) a USB power port. A 12 volt port with suitable adapter does just fine.

Re:Back seat passengers ... (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 10 months ago | (#46372907)

The way I'd do it would be a file server with 1TB+ hard drive, that'd be better than a puny 16GB flash per tablet (assuming that tablet can access file shares on a network, which probably leaves Apple stuff out)
USB power jacks built-in directly to the car with the latest "Power Delivery" specifications would be nice as well, no need for 12V outlets (round? cigar plug?).

Or you know, passengers could sleep, watch the scenery, talk to each other.

Hmm (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 10 months ago | (#46372669)

Will they provide the paperclip to reset my car when it hangs up?

Duplex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372739)

If they use Ethernet in my car that is fine, but it better damn well be full duplex as most drivers would prefer to avoid collisions. Almost worse than your wife jabbering away in the passenger seat with a set of runts in the back seat.

ADHD (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 10 months ago | (#46372761)

What is wrong with you people? Can't you just read a book or magazine or sleep if you aren't driving? Look out the window? Count the blue cars? An hour in solitary and you all will be curled in a ball moaning for mommy.

I was promised a flying car (1)

Saud Naji Alzaid (3553489) | about 10 months ago | (#46372799)

and the best they could do was ethernet ..... goddammit I wish the autoindustry would at least try to keep up with the times.

Not for me, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372853)

All new cars are hideously complex with respect to the electrical
and electronic systems, and this stuff WILL lead to reliability problems.

If you can buy a new car every two or three years, perhaps you will
never have to deal with the problems, but the fact remains that the
expense of diagnosis, repair, and replacement of some of the electronic
systems in newer cars will exceed the value of the car after a relatively small
number of years. This is a dream come true for the manufacturers, but a nightmare
for those of us who don't want to be on the gerbil wheel of wasteful consumption when older
cars which are well maintained can do the required job nicely.

You can disagree with me, but I have a master's in mechanical engineering and a EE as well, and I have
been repairing my own cars for over 40 years, so there is a pretty good chance I know
what I am talking about.

Hope they harden it. (2)

Revek (133289) | about 10 months ago | (#46372887)

Ethernet is notoriously susceptible to the emp from a close lighting strike. If you don't think so, just work in the cable industry for a while. After every serious lighting storm we will have several modems that appear fine except the ethernet is blown. It is usually the only thing burned out in the house. Often the rf side is still working fine and sending information back to the management system. It will suck when you have to go into a parts store and say gimme a box of ethernet chips for my car.

Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46372943)

Will you kids stop using up all of the brake and streering bandwidth?

Yeah, but ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46372977)

For example, imagine a driver getting turn-by-turn navigation while a front-seat passenger streams music from the Internet, and each back-seat passenger watches streaming videos on separate displays.

Now imagine how much the data plan for your car is going to cost you. You'll be locked into a plan with the car company and pay through the nose.

No thanks. I have a dedicated GPS, an MP3 player I can connect to my car stereo, and most everybody has portable devices which can play video already.

Now get off my damned lawn, because I don't want or need a car which is connected to the interwebs.

Re:Yeah, but ... (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 10 months ago | (#46373093)

Car companies are carriers now?
I find this stuff unlikely.
More likely, you change the car's nav and entertainment system's SIM card if you want to change cellular provider and if you don't want one, don't have any.

Re:Yeah, but ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 10 months ago | (#46373149)

More likely, you change the car's nav and entertainment system's SIM card if you want to change cellular provider and if you don't want one, don't have any.

I have seen little evidence of car companies being willing to do such things in the things they make.

Like every other company, they want lock in, monetization, and a big piece of the action of ongoing revenue.

I find it hard to believe the won't try to force you into buying from them. They're not going to make things they aren't going to profit from, because there's nothing in it for them.

They may not directly be carriers, but I'm quite certain they're likely to try to extract their cut and require a component they do control.

Your next car will be a bike. (1)

Hairy1 (180056) | about 10 months ago | (#46373025)

News flash; we are coming to the end of the petrochemical age. We are very much at peak oil, and the way down will only see rising fuel costs. Buying a Hybrid may be more economic and efficient, but ultimately our whole way of life will be challenged. Get used to the idea that soon we will not have the pervasive availability of cheap fuel. Get on your bike.

I'm OK with ethernet in cars (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#46373043)

As long as I don't have to make my own cables.

One of the longest days of my life was many years ago when I told a friend I could wire up his little storefront business if he bought a spool of Cat5 and a bunch of connectors.

I sat there with that crimping tool and my fumblefingers and invented entire new categories of curse words. A friend from a local Army base came by and for a few slices of pizza and a six-pack he knocked out those cables like nothing.

It was a humbling experience. Which I probably should not have shared here on Slashdot because you guys were probably all making your own ethernet cables since your were like five years old.

Re:I'm OK with ethernet in cars (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#46373323)

you guys were probably all making your own ethernet cables since your were like five years old.

We're not all teenage fans of Justine Beaver here. It's not so long since co-ax was used for ethernet.

Aircraft (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#46373295)

Doesn't the Airbus A380 have a pile of ethernet cables running all over the thing?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?