At Huawei's analyst summit in Shenzhen China, the Huawei team renewed its commitment to the connected car market. Following the announcement of its 3G and LTE communication modules - MU609T and ME909T - at MWC in Barcelona in February 2013, Mr Yang Yong - Vice President of Huawei's Mobile Broadband Products presented the company's strategy for the roll out of embedded automotive telematics solutions. Huawei will continue to invest in telematics - specializing in modules to partner with Tier 1 suppliers.

"Automotive Telematics and Smart Metering are the key M2M focus areas for us in 2013" said Mr Yang. "While we accept that we are the newcomers to this market, we will soon be announcing cooperation with a top Tier 1 supplier", continued Yang.

Strategy Analytics' latest research into the connected car opportunity is forecasting strong growth in most global regions, with shipment of OEM embedded telematics exceeding 40 million vehicles globally by 2020. "This represents a strong market opportunity for suppliers of hardware, services and applications, particularly as vehicle OEM's look to leverage the customer and vehicle relationship management (CRM/VRM) benefits of connecting the car", said Richard Robinson - Director of Automotive research at Strategy analytics.

Huawei's Analyst summit is an annual event that was held in Shenzhen China from the 23^rd to the 25^th of April 2013.

Telematics systems can do a lot of things these days, but one thing they cannot do is see to it that family members of unconscious crash victims are contacted in a timely manner after a crash.  Car makers are fond of touting Twitter and Facebook integrations in the car, but nearly two decades of work have failed to solve the problem of next of kin notification.

Good news is arriving from the West Coast of the United States.  Legislation has been introduced in the California legislature by Senator Curren Price and Assemblyman Steve Fox to ensure law enforcement personnel can notify next of kin quickly in the event of a traffic incident in which victims are incapacitated.  Action is expected in April.

It is wise for consumers, auto makers, emergency responders and law enforcement representatives in the U.S. and around the world to take heed.  Given the influence of past legislation in California on automotive-related issues such as vehicle emissions, it may well be that California finally resolves for the global auto industry an issue that has plagued crash responders for decades – crash victim identification and notification of next of kin.

The California Motor Vehicle Emergency Contact Locator Act of 2013 (AB 397) solves this problem.  Its passage will create the nation’s first VIN Emergency Contact Locator (VIN ECON) database which will be accessible to authorized law enforcement agencies nationwide.  Such a database will serve as a model to be emulated around the world.

The legislation arrives at a time in the automotive telematics marketplace when car makers have all but moved on from the focus on safety and automatic crash notification that gave rise to embedded vehicle connections in the first place.  Car makers today are distracted with smartphone app integrations and vehicle relationship management.  The life-saving capabilities of telematics systems have been all but forgotten or at least taken for granted.

Each telematics service provider collects emergency contact information linked to the VIN at customer provisioning.  They store the emergency contact information in a database silo which is only accessible by the TSP. 

The TSP safety innovation of the California legislation is that it established a centralized emergency contact information database (VIN ECON) at a national law enforcement  telecommunication center that will aggregate and link the silo-ed databases so that law enforcement representatives will have immediate access to the data.  In fact, the database will backstop the telematics system in case the system fails to contact the TSP.

Some in the industry assume that once the embedded modem is connected to a call center, the well-being of crash victims is assured.  And there are touching stories of OnStar call center representatives contacting family members and connecting them with crash victims at the scene of the event. 

But these stories obscure the reality of an unconscious crash victim at the scene of the crash unable to communicate his or her identity or desires at the scene of the collision.  Valuable time and, sometimes, lives are lost as a result.  Without a nationwide database to aid responders, there is little that can be done to reach out for help and certainly not in a timely manner.

The idea for AB 397 was originated by L.A. Councilmember Dennis Zine in response to a 2007 car crash in the San Fernando Valley involving the death of a 72-year-old mother from Paso Robles.  The bill is co-sponsored by the City of Los Angeles and the non-profit organization We Save Lives, founded by Candace Lightner (also the founder of MADD).

Additional support for the creation of the database has come in writing from such organizations as the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), and the National eHealth Collaborative (NeHC), which specifically supports AB 397.

Instead of taking hours, or even days, the bill will ensure the swift notification of family members who can then better assist law enforcement officials in identifying incapacitated crash victims and aid health care representatives in the care of their loved ones.  “This is a targeted, common sense approach to an important public safety issue,” in the words of Lightner.  “It is unacceptable for families and crash victims to suffer because of lack of adequate or seriously delayed notification.  We must ensure that law enforcement officials have the resource necessary to quickly access a motor vehicle owner’s emergency contact information that will help save lives and alert family members in the event of a tragic crash.”

Lightner’s sentiments echo those of GM’s former vice chairman, Harry Pearce,  at the conception of Project Beacon, which went on to become OnStar.  He asked, at the time, how many crashes would have to occur with no timely emergency response before GM would recognize the obligation it had to provide for automotic crash notification. 

It was only later that OnStar stumbled on the challenge of identifying crash victims and the need to notify next of kin.  OnStar executives quickly discovered they had a real problem on their hands in the event of unresponsive crash victims – a problem that the OnStar service could not solve.

Telematics service providers generally gather motor vehicle owner emergency contact information at the dealership during the service registration process, but there is no means for sharing the information with law enforcement without the customer’s consent – which can’t be given if the customer is unconscious.  More importantly, the information is not stored in a centralized law enforcement-accessible database.

In a similar vein, eight states in the U.S. have next of kin databases based on driver’s license information, but each of these databases is silo-ed and not nationally accessible.  Furthermore, these driver's license systems require law enforcement officers to physically locate the driver's license at the scene of a crash, which is typically not possible in the most horrific of crashes.

In the words of one of the bill’s sponsors, Steve Fox: “The Motor Vehicle Emergency Contact Locator Act is important to drivers and emergency medical care providers.  The fact that this law can assist doctors by allowing them to have timely access to family members and to obtain additional information such as the victim’s medical records and medical directives will save lives.”

Fellow sponsor Curren Price added:  “The agony of not knowing if a missing relative is injured or alive or dead cannot be overstated.  This bill will go a long way to addressing the heart-wrenching issue.”

Research has produced advances in telematics such as enhanced automatic crash notification – capable of alerting first responders to the severity and nature of a crash to determine the appropriate emergency response.  But responders face a real challenge in identifying victims who have been incapacitated.

The simple process of creating a centralized VIN ECON next of kin database capable of closing this loophole will save lives and give family members much-needed peace of mind.  Equally important, it will save time and effort on the part of emergency responders, which in itself may save lives.

The best news of all is the fact that the database will be created and maintained by public authorities.  There is no burden on the automotive industry or automotive dealers, since dealers are already gathering the information.  The gathering of next of kin notification information will, now, no longer be a pointless activity.  With passage of the bill and creation of the database the consumer – and the dealer and the auto maker and emergency responders – can rest assured that law enforcement personnel on the scene of a crash will be able to more quickly determine the identities of drivers and passengers and notify relatives.

In the end, the VIN ECON is really a low-tech, low-cost solution to an urgent challenge.  It requires no hardware or software to be created by car makers or dealers, it simply ties together existing information resources and makes that information accessible to the appropriate persons under specific and restricted circumstances.

Returning to Brazil for the first time in a few months I was struck at the paucity of technology in the taxi cabs. Having recently been at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas I was accustomed to everything from smartphones and GPS devices to cameras, sensors, backseat advertising displays, and payment terminals in cabs. Suddenly, in the land of the vehicle immobilization mandate (Contran 245) I was confronted cab after cab with nothing but a dispatcher and fare machine.

That is, until yesterday in my cab ride from Garulhos Airport in Sao Paulo.  According to the driver, the taxi that took me and my wife to our hotel was part of a 500-cab trial of a backseat tourist aid that was a real revelation and nothing I had seen anywhere before.

Put together by a local company, Comtecno, for the Brazilian Ministry of Tourism (and also available in Recife, where the World Cup with be contested), the device was a Samsung tablet computer equipped with cellular connectivity.  Comtecno calls the device the Multitoky Mobile and the company has as its goal deployment at 14 Brazilian airports for a total of 12,000 devices.

The tablet was unobtrusively strapped to the back of the cab driver’s seat, and I wouldn’t have noticed except for the fact that I am on the constant lookout for in-car tech.  The device charges while in the pouch and its use requires no assistance from the driver.

I immediately grabbed the device, figured how to open the browser and accessed a couple of email accounts.  Before long my wife and I were checking out local tourist attractions and restaurants and peppering the driver with questions.

“Do people like it?”

“Yes.”

“Do you ever use it yourself?”

“Yes.”

“How do passengers use it?”

“To help tell me their destination.”

“Do customers have any complaints?”

“The connection is slow.”

“Will it play video and audio?”

“Yes.”

With only 500 cabs as part of the test it was not surprising that the only overt advertising on the device appeared to be public service announcements warning tourists against sex tourism and people trafficking.  Coming in to Sao Paulo one could imagine a few more pointed warnings, but overall the device was a true joy to discover in the rear seat of our cab and a promise of future innovations to come.

Given the relatively high crime rate and the country’s position as have the third highest number of highway fatalities, one could argue for the implementation of cameras for anti-theft and fraud, along with sensors for maintaining vehicle distance in traffic.  But, generally speaking, the cab drivers are some of the best drivers in Brazil.  (A good contrast is China where there is little respect for lanes, let alone other vehicles.)

But if a Samsung tablet in the rear seat – tethered by a security link – is a first step on the path to vehicle connectivity in Brazilian taxi cabs, it is highly welcome.  It is far superior to the annoying embedded backseat advertising displays found in Las Vegas, New York City and Shanghai, among other cities. 

The rotating messages on these backseat screens are entirely without any merit as far as helping to educate either visitors or locals regarding popular local businesses or for providing informational traveler alerts.  Anyone who attended CES in Las Vegas is likely sick and tired of hearing Steve Wynn tout his gambling properties – a fact reflected in the reflexive tendency of most cab drivers to try to at least turn off the volume on the device even if they could not stop the video.

Kudos to Comtecno and the Brazilian Ministry of Tourism and the for conceiving a creative solution for connecting with tourists.  The next step will be to enable all types of transactions, including perhaps paying cab fares.  Of course, Brazilian cab drivers are still talking on their mobile phones too much and, occasionally, watching video both while parked and driving.  Oh, well, they can’t get everything right all at once.

When visiting Shanghai a couple months ago I was struck by the fact that multiple auto dealers visited during my stay did not have cars available with activated telematics systems.  This meant that the dealer was not able to demonstrate the technology to customers virtually guaranteeing consumer apathy.

This past week I was visiting car dealers in Italy and discovered a new barrier to consumer adoption, cars without power in the showroom.  Now I am the first person to acknowledge that consumers put a greater emphasis on style, drive and price than they do on infotainment and telematics (see attached slide), but cars without power in showrooms seems absurd in an age when the electronic and software content in cars is on a steep rise relative to the value of the vehicle.

These incidents were shocking to me because I experienced the telematics disconnect in multiple dealers in China (FAW Toyota, Nissan, BMW) and the power failure in multiple dealers in Italy (Fiat, Volkswagen, Hyundai).  The Chinese experience was exceptional because in the past I have had successful telematics demonstrations at Buick, Cadillac, Toyota, Lexus and Roewe dealers.

At the time of my visit to Shanghai, the dealer said that there was only one BMW in all of Shanghai that had telematics service provisioned for the purpose of providing a customer demonstration, but that vehicle was located on the opposite side of town.  The Nissan and FAW Toyota dealers simply had not activated any of their cars.  The only similar experience from my past was with Roewe’s Inkanet-equipped 350 which was most often lacking power on the dealer floor because the Android-based infotainment system had drained the battery.  (Roewe eventually installed Inkanet demonstration kiosks with their own power.)

The experience in Italy was surprising for the manner in which it was discovered.  The hatchbacks of many of the cars – which close electronically – were all ajar, not completely shut.  The natural instinct when one sees a door that is not fully closed is to give it an added shove or open and close it again.

Attempts to close these hatchbacks brought either a panicked or slightly amused response from the dealer sales person who had to explain that the hatch was powered and, when left on, tended to drain the battery in the showroom rendering the feature useless and the hatch not “closable.”  Usually the dealer had taken the added measure of wrapping paper or cardboard around the latch to prevent damage from customers trying to slam the hatches shut.

Is this problem emerging because cars are sitting too long in showrooms unsold?  Are dealers trying to avoid paying steep electric bills?  Not likely.

What is more likely is that dealers simply consider the electronics in the car to be a low priority, a fact that is borne out by Strategy Analytics research (http://bit.ly/XLOWpJ - Vehicle Purchase Behavior and Priorities of Chinese Consumers).  They have either reached this conclusion on their own in reaction to customer behavior or they are responding to a lack of auto supplier focus on selling sophisticated infotainment systems.  The danger, of course, is that dealers are following the lead of the factory.  If OEMs are not making a priority of infotainment systems then low attach rates and low customer satisfaction scores will result - ie. a self-fulfiling prophecy.

It may also be that dealers don’t want to engage in resolving consumer confusion regarding smartphone connections, voice recognition, navigation systems and apps.  Years ago Fiat was touting Blue&Me with point-of-purchase materials throughout much of Europe, but Blue&Me signs are no longer present in Fiat dealerships in Italy.

The picture is even more complex for Fiat, given the presence of Garmin, TomTom, and Magneti Marelli/Wind River navigation system options on its cars.  But Volkswagen has a growing range of infotainment options, as well, none of which could be demonstrated at the dealer visited in Italy.

The one exception encountered during this brief dealer tour was Hyundai.  Hyundai had a large sign touting the special edition of its i20 with a Pioneer infotainment system (the Aha Radio) enabling connection to a customer’s iPhone to access content and applications.  The dealer opened the hood to engage the battery to enable the demo, which amounted to a self-demo of the system which paired quickly and streamed audio via the supplied cable.

The sad reality is that solutions exist for both the telematics system provisioning problem in China and the power failure in Italy.  But the message is clear.  Selling infotainment and telematics systems introduces a new challenge to the process of selling cars – calling attention to power requirements, user interfaces, smartphone connections and apps.

Car makers from Ford and GM to BMW and Hyundai have introduce special dealer training programs and even Apple-like genius bars to bring customers – and dealers – along on the technological journey.  Clearly more guidance and support are needed if the industry is to achieve success with connected cars.  But making sure cars in showrooms are powered and that embedded telematics systems are provisioned seems like pretty basic stuff at this stage.

“Most maps, including Google Maps, have not yet mapped the area.” – The Huffingtonpost (Sept. 2012) describing the Angelika Film Center in the Mosaic District of Merrifield, Va.

Can automakers, dealers, Tier One suppliers, and automotive app developers afford to continue requiring customers to pay ($199!) for annual map updates? My latest navigation adventure highlights the fact that the time has arrived both for “free” lifetime map updates in the car and more creative means for delivering monthly, weekly, DAILY! map updates for on-board navigation systems.

The map in the car has become the spinal cord for safety, powertrain, security, infotainment, and navigation systems.  Nearly every advanced system in the car requires access to location information – preferably on-board.

Increasingly, the on-board map is becoming a shared resource both for advanced driver assist systems and contextually aware infotainment systems.  For both of these cases context is determined, in part, by location along with weather, traffic and driver status among other things.

But there is an even more urgent issue, that I will return to, and that is the danger inherent in a driver following navigation instructions with an out of date map.  Few things are more distracting or disturbing than being told to make turns onto roads that don’t exist to enter freeways that have been bypassed.

All of these elements were brought home to me this past weekend.

My wife and I were trying to get to the relatively new Angelika Film Center in the Mosaic District of Merrifield, Va. last Sunday.  It was our first trip to this theater, so I was confident that neither the address nor the name of the Theater would be available in the on-board navigation system in my 2013 BMW 3 Series.  (This assumption would later prove to be accurate.)

To get to the theater I used Fullpower’s MotionX GPS navigation app on my iPhone 4.  MotionX is one of the most popular navigation apps on the iPhone.  Unfortunately, on this occasion, it insisted on directing my wife and I to a destination five miles away from the theater’s actual location.  (UPDATE: This was due to the fact that the Nokia map data was missing the information for my destination, according to Philippe Kahn, CEO of Fullpower.)

My wife then proceeded to look up the theater in the on-board POIs, with no success.  We then obtained the address online and attempted to enter it directly into the navigation system – ignoring the fact that the system in the car will not accept addresses that are not yet in the system.  So, in this case, we entered the street number closest to the actual address of the film center.

Half an hour after the movie’s start time we arrived at the cinema.  We accepted our fate and settled into a round of shopping and dinner and went to the next show – making for a later evening than originally planned.  (At least the toney establishment had toasted caramel popcorn!)

It was a minor event at the close of an otherwise uneventful weekend, but it highlights a huge problem that remains unsolved – on-board map updates.  (Yes, there are a few ways this unfortunate incident might have been avoided such as: a) using the Sendtocar function, which for some reason has not been working for my car; b) use the on-board Google Local Search to obtain the address – just checked and this would have indeed worked; c) ring up the BMW Assist Concierge service and have them download the address; or d) try a different mobile navigation app.)

Anyone who has been through a similar experience will appreciate the minor nightmare of not being able to find a simple destination.  You can imagine my wife and I pulling over into parking lots and side streets to double-check the entry and the results and to try a different approach.  I shudder to think about the amount of eyes-off-road time that was required before we found a solution and reached our destination.

But my minor nightmare is a terrifying reality.  Not only is the out-of-date map situation a nuisance, it is a driving hazard and a customer satisfaction failure.  It is no surprise, then, that JD Power identifies navigation systems as a source of ongoing and mounting complaints for car owners.

While JD Power is focused primarily on the user interface, it is time for the industry to confront the fact that every car being sold is going out the door with an obsolete map.  An obsolete map on board is an invitation to catastrophe for the car dealer, the manufacturer and the customer.  Yet no one seems especially worried or concerned.

The problem is most obvious in emerging markets where new cities and roads are proliferating on an almost-daily basis highlighting the limitations of digitized map in the car.  It is no wonder that Strategy Analytics’ research with navigation users in China has found the typical driver using multiple navigation systems - phone, on-board and portable navigation device – to get from point A to point B.

The good news is that the leading map makers – TomTom and Nokia – have progressed their map-building processes to enable daily if not real-time map updates on a global scale.  Nokia has even taken steps to put more of its surveying vehicles on the road while also providing for crowdsourcing of map data, something TomTom initiated many years earlier.  The problem lies in delivering those updates to the on-board system.

Most consumers these days will use their mobile phones to navigate if a destination is in a new or unusual location.  I will not delve into the shortcomings of mobile phone navigation in a car, but suffice it to say it is popular based on the findings of multiple Strategy Analytics surveys.

Car makers Ford, GM and Toyota Motor Europe have tried with varying success to enable display in the car of smartphone-based navigation instructions.  Ford was first with this approach and has had the most success.

But smartphone-based navigation defeats the integration of the map – the application spinal cord of the car – into advanced safety, powertrain and infotainment systems.  While smartphones can, indeed, deliver a contextual experience to the driver, the on-board map is necessary to properly anticipate workload demands on the driver based on the integration of on-board sensors with map-based and other inputs.

So, smartphone integration, while attractive and a useful car-selling proposition falls short of a fully integrated experience.  But that doesn’t mean the smartphone can’t provide another means to solving this dilemma.

At the recent North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Johnson Controls showed a solution from NNG using the smartphone as a map updating tool.  While the details were not clear – including whether the entire map or just portions of the map will be updated or, indeed, what the cost will be – the concept is spectacular.

Any driver getting into a car ought to be able to update the on-board maps on demand as needed.  Given current connectivity options, the smartphone is the smartest and best solution to this problem.

The fact that Johnson Controls is the first to show this approach publicly reflects the power of a newcomer entering the market.  While NNG works closely with other Tier Ones, such as Harman, it is Johnson Controls that put the concept front and center in its booth in Detroit, although no press release was published.

Based on conversations with competing navigation software providers, the likelihood is that competing systems and solutions will soon be on display.  The bottom line is that, once again, the smartphone represents the solution to a hazardous driving condition, not the source.  At stake is the mitigation of driver distraction, enhancing the driving experience and assuring the highest level of customer satisfaction.

Predictive traffic is the single most important telematics application. This conclusion is borne out by the need for predictive modeling when creating navigation routes for truckers, taxi or bus drivers, consumers or emergency responders as well as the need for predictive modeling when creating traffic management systems for multi-jurisdiction metropolitan areas.

Around the world there are a number of interested parties that participate in or benefit from the creation of reliable traffic information. These interested parties include, but are not limited to, government(s), law enforcement, higher education, wireless carriers, mobile navigation suppliers, car makers, emergency responders and government contractors.

But no entity has more at stake in or will do more to determine the future of traffic information services than governmental organizations – primarily state and local.  That influence is already having an impact on the prioritization and deployment of different data gathering systems based on their ability to accurately report traffic conditions.

Some of the earliest indicators are reflected in a recent presentation given by the New Jersey Department of Transportation as part of the Route 95 Corridor initiative.  The NJDOT representative ranked traffic data sources for travel times based on their accuracy as follows:

1.       License Plate Readers and Toll Tags

2.       Bluetooth

3.       Inrix real-time

4.       Radar

5.       Cellular probe data

The NJDOT presentation reflects a high degree of frustration with cellular probe data, but it highlights the continuing dominance of infrastructure-based scanning and sensing technologies due to their accuracy.  The larger implication is the endorsement of Bluetooth solutions, such as those from Trafficcast, Traffax, Post Oak, Alcatel-Lucent and Siemens, as a significantly lower cost infrastructure-based system for travel time measurement – an essential metric for traffic data systems.

Now take these implications one at a time.  First, consider cost.  Because Bluetooth scanners can be installed on existing infrastructure and deliver their information wirelessly, the cost of deploying these systems is a fraction (less than one third) of the cost of camera or RF-based technologies.

From an accuracy standpoint, Bluetooth scanners are capturing unique MAC addresses and have been shown to be comparable in accuracy to tolling and license-plate reading solutions (all based on point-to-point measurement) and superior to data feeds from suppliers such as Inrix, which are dependent primarily on vehicle mounted probes, and radar-based systems (which measure speeds) such as those deployed originally by Navteq’s former Traffic.com subsidiary – the media arm of which was recently spun out and reconstituted independently as Radiate.

Accuracy has emerged as the single most important criteria among government traffic information evaluators and, combined with the cost advantage, has thrust Bluetooth to the forefront of traffic data gathering tools.  Bluetooth is also seen as more attractive from a privacy standpoint than RF technology (reading a tag assigned to a specific user) or cameras (scanning license plates or photographing drivers).

The other interested parties in the traffic eco-system are typically promoting different traffic data types correlated to their own personal, professional or commercial interests.  Wireless carriers around the world have been sharing handset signaling data with third parties in the hopes it can be converted into useful traffic information.  Mobile device makers have been plumbing their GPS probe data with the same objective in mind.

Governments and law enforcement have been deploying cameras, radar and RF sensors to capture traffic information as well as to enforce speed limits and collect tolls, respectively.  Radar is a direct competitor and precursor to Bluetooth and has been promoted as a low-cost technology but with low data quality.

Universities are players in the discussion because they participate in research studies around the efficacy of different traffic information gathering strategies.  The downside of university participation in the debate is the fact that some - such as Texas Transport Institute (Post Oak-Bluetooth), University of Maryland (Traffax-Bluetooth) or Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Vtrack-Handset probe) - have a commercial interest in one technology or another.

When it comes to determining which technologies will survive and thrive in the market, Bluetooth stands out thanks to the influence of governments.  State and local governments command the power of the purse to fund the deployment and adoption of new or existing traffic information solutions.

Evidence of this influence is clear from Trafficmaster in the United Kingdom to Traffic.com and Inrix in the U.S.  Each of these organizations was blessed at one time or another by public authorities seeking traffic data sources to support travel time calculations for variable message signs and other traveler services.

Bluetooth as a low cost and accurate solution arrives as government budgets are being pinched.  The budget pinch has forced transportation departments to re-evaluate their data gathering strategies. 

The budget and data re-evaluation has also given cause for transportation authorities to re-assess their data sharing models.  Traffic.com, Trafficmaster and Inrix have all benefited financially from their government contracts.  The government contracts have had the effect of immediate cash injections into these organizations along with the boost of a very public endorsement.  These public authorities are looking for some payback.

Government support of traffic information data gathering has created the most reliable source of revenue for traffic companies.  Other revenue sources – such as traffic information subscriptions – have been less reliable, especially in the context of available free sources of traffic information such as Google or even the municipalities themselves.

Better data and a piece of the pie

Now governments are seeking more accurate data – leading to the growing adoption of Bluetooth technology - and some are seeking revenue sharing agreements.  While the shift to Bluetooth holds the promise of raising the level of accuracy of real-time and, indirectly, predictive traffic information, the pursuit of revenue shares with traffic information providers can have a detrimental effect on the industry.

It is true that at least two traffic information providers, Waze and Inrix, have received substantial equity injections suggesting extraordinary market valuations.  And Traffic.com clearly benefited from early transportation contract wins for the deployment of its radar-based traffic sensors – which led to Navteq’s acquisition of the company for $170M.  (In retrospect, what looks like an inflated price in the context of Navteq’s recent divestment of Traffic.com’s assets, will eventually look modest in the context of future traffic information provider valuations.)

The challenge facing the industry is simple.  Traffic is the most important telematics application and consumers surveyed by Strategy Analytics routinely rank traffic information as their most important mobile device application.  But reliable and accurate real-time and predictive traffic information remains elusive.

Car makers are seeking uniform, global traffic information solutions to support their navigation systems, but traffic data sources are inconsistent around the world.  Even location referencing is not universal in spite of three standards (T-PEG, RDS-RMC, OpenLR) and one proprietary solution (Navteq). 

Local governments are opting to create their own data fusion engines – a task normally performed by a third party – because they are dissatisfied with the available solutions.  The minimal objective local governments are trying to resolve is to deliver travel times for traveler services.  But urban area planning is also an issue.

With government organizations trying to do more with less available funds it is logical that they are turning to traffic information providers for a share of any resulting revenue.  Unfortunately, this is undermining the commercial opportunity for these traffic information providers.

Nightmare scenario

The nightmare scenario that may play out as a result of increasingly assertive government representatives is already playing out in China where municipal authorities charge exorbitant fees for their sensor data.  Traffic data companies are struggling to make money and the accuracy and universal availability of data has been compromised.  Consumers in China have been left with inferior traffic information, a potentially fatal flaw in their monetization plans.

Consumers take for granted the fact that traffic information is available worldwide, even if the accuracy is dubious.  But the increasing cost of doing business could discourage market participants and retard the technological advances necessary to attract millions of traffic information subscribers.

The good news is that traffic information providers, outside of China, have been able to successfully resist the revenue sharing model.  There appears to be a rational recognition that the traffic industry is caught in a chicken and egg dilemma.  Under the current circumstances, profits will not flow until a more accurate and reliable product is made available.

Once consumers see that accurate and reliable traffic information is available, both real-time and predictive, they will be willing to pay.  In the meantime, companies such as SiriusXM, Verizon Wireless and AT&T, which are aggressively pursuing navigation and traffic data subscription opportunities, will have to wait to see wider adoption of traffic information services.

SiriusXM is currently in the midst of its annual “shoot out” evaluation of traffic data providers.  Attach rates for SiriusXM traffic data have typically been in the 10%-20% range reflecting both the unwillingness of many consumer to pay for this data and questions regarding its accuracy. 

If SiriusXM is able to enhance the quality of its traffic data with a new, higher quality source the enhanced traffic service will go far toward anchoring SiriusXM’s data services and restore automotive OEM confidence.  SiriusXM and its limping data services have, thus far, seen limited consumer adoption despite wide availability from North American OEMs.

But to achieve a new level of accuracy and reliability will require the deployment of new technology. Bluetooth is the newest and most promising candidate.  Bluetooth installations are already in place in more than 30 states in the U.S. as well as in South America and Asia.  And the participation of companies such as Trafficcast, Alcatel-Lucent and Siemens suggest a robust competitive environment – attractive to transportation authorities and auto makers.

In fact, Trafficcast has the first OEM award – from OnStar – which will benefit from Bluetooth data sources.  Presumably, it will not be the last.

Implications

State and local governments around the world are calling the shots in the traffic information industry thanks to the power of their lately-diminished purse.  Bluetooth technology is increasingly emerging as the preferred, accurate, low-cost, infrastructure-based solution for capturing travel time data, particularly in the U.S.

The accuracy of handset probe data is widely being called into question even as investment dollars continue to flow to handset probe data suppliers such as Decell, Cellint, Intellimec, AirSage, Waze, ITIS Holdings (now part of Inrix), TomTom and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Most of these parties have been asked to defend the accuracy of their data (by transportation authorities and this analyst) or provide test results validating accuracy claims.  Handset probe data is especially poor in urban canyon type environments.

(A side note regarding accuracy testing:  TomTom and Decell, among others, have used vehicle-based probes to validate handset probe data – GPS and cell signaling.  Transportation executives are increasingly using data from fixed scanning technologies, such as Bluetooth, to validate handset probe inputs.  This crucial change in data evaluation to a new definition of “ground truth” is undermining the credibility of the handset probe industry.)

The testing of state and local traffic authorities is a direct challenge to test and measurement protocols advocated by BMW - known as Qkz. Cell signaling technology used by Inrix's recently-acquired ITIS Holdings division has passed muster for use in Australia, Germany, Ireland, the U.K. and Singapore based on this testing protocol.

One barrier to global adoption of cell-signaling technology is the requirement of carrier cooperation. The other barrier is a robust technology that can be licensed and deployed across multiple networks, something ITIS has been able to achieve.

As governmental bodies develop their own data fusion solutions in the interest of delivering more accurate traffic and travel time information, drivers will increasingly receive public traffic information – either on variable message signs or via 511 and other traveler information services – that conflicts with private sources of traffic information.  Additionally, some fragmenting of the traffic market may occur such that some urban areas have better traffic information than others.

All of this should be more reassuring than disturbing.  The steady advance of traffic information gathering and fusion reflects the existing dissatisfaction with “good enough” traffic services.  But it is transportation authorities that are raising the bar and paying the price for the kind of enhanced accuracy that will restore confidence to consumers and vigor to valuations.  In time, revenue sharing may begin to make sense as consumers step forward and subscribe by the millions – establishing organic mass market demand for accurate and predictive traffic data.

TomTom continues to cut a swath of innovation in the midst of a high wire rewiring of its business in the face of declining portable navigation device demand.  The latest announcement from the company – hidden in a whirlwind of repetitive press releases about adding HD Traffic users and miles of mapped roads – describes a collaboration with Vialis, a variable message sign (VMS) traffic information provider, in The Netherlands to communicate traffic routing information from TomTom’s cloud-based traffic service to the Vialis signs.

The announcement reflects similar moves by Inrix in the U.S. to integrate cloud-based, crowd-sourced real-time traffic data, derived from mobile devices, with roadside infrastructure. Vialis says that to enable their AMS solution with TomTom they created a standard interface to integrate TomTom traffic data into the central system which controls all signs in The Netherlands.

The objective of the TomTom deployment is to provide the city of Purmerend with real-time traffic information to optimize traffic flow. In particular, journey time information will be displayed on the highway message screen advising drivers of the quickest way out of the city onto the A7 highway.

Now, let’s set aside the real-time aspect of this solution and the fact that Inrix is providing a similar service for municipalities all along the Route 95 corridor in the U.S. The real significance of this deployment lies in a few key facts.

1) Local governments are recognizing the critical and intrinsic value of crowd-sourced data derived from mobile devices being used in cars.

2) The quality and accuracy of this data is sufficient to qualify for use as a public service.

3) In fact, the data derived from mobile devices is superior to and an invaluable enhancement to the information derived from cameras and fixed sensors of various types.

4) TomTom still has a unique value proposition in its cloud-based, crowd-sourced HD Traffic solution which may soon find its way into new markets globally.

The U.S. and European integration of mobile-device-based traffic information is a significant manifestation of the powerful cooperation to be derived from the use of mobile devices in cars. This is, of course, saying nothing about the value of mobile devices for reporting incident information including inputs directly from crash scene regarding the nature of the incident and condition of potential victims – and, of course, location.

The VMS scheme in The Netherlands makes use of TomTom’s HD Route Times, a turnkey solution for real time travel and delay times for a specific route either on a temporary basis or for permanent solutions.  The cloud-based service benefits from consumer and fleet inputs of vehicle probe data as well as user reports of roadway changes.

TomTom also leverages its historical congestion data to help planners structure their road infrastructure most effectively. This should lead to fewer traffic jams, less expenditure and lower CO2 emissions, the company says.  TomTom offers its feed in XML file delivery format and updates every minute by fusing multiple data sources. To facilitate its work with municipalities, TomTom offers fast set up and temporary installations.

The TomTom and Inrix initiatives reflect a wider movement of mobile-device-based data into different traffic platforms on the Internet, on television, radio and in cars and on mobile phones. Los Angeles traffic authorities involved Waze, for example, as part of a consumer information campaign during a recent highway shut down in Los Angeles for construction. Waze provided information regarding preferred routes to drivers via their mobile devices and on television.

Implications

Mobile devices are increasingly recognized by transportation executives around the world as valuable sources of traffic and travel information in real time. As efforts increase to communicate valuable traffic information to drivers to better manage traffic on major highways and around large urban areas, floating car data from mobile devices are an essential tool to increase awareness of overall traffic conditions.

Floating car data from mobile devices integrated with infrastructure-based systems for communicating with drivers will help turn the tide of growing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from vehicles stuck in traffic. The next step will be to improve predictive traffic solutions to better anticipate traffic conditions rather than simply responding to real time developments.

Mobile device inputs should also help to identify incidents and speed the process of clearing those incidents. Major initiatives are under way around the world to improve the process of clearing stalled or damaged vehicles and injured passengers to restore the flow of traffic.

Finally, TomTom's traffic and routing expertise are critical differentiators in a consolidating navigation industry.  The proliferation of public partnerships will alter the competitive landscape.

The European Commission is targeting 2015 for final eCall implementation by car makers. Russia has set a firm December 2013 as the date for implementation of its own eCall system. The Russian system, though compatible with the European eCall mandate, adds an SMS backup capability to the data-over-voice transmission of the required minimum set of data along with a national call center for dispatching the calls to public service access points.

Car makers attending the recent Telematics Update event in Munich expressed some dismay at the speed at which they are expected to accommodate the Russian mandate.  OEMs are more accustomed to mandates such as the European Commission’s own eCall solution or even Brazil’s Contran 245 stolen vehicle tracking and immobilization initiative, both of which have seen serial delays. 

The postponement of mandates in the EU and Brazil has been driven by the foot-dragging of member states and interested parties (in Europe) and by a combination of OEM delaying tactics and technical issues (in Brazil).  In a bid to clear up any confusion and nail down a firm implementation date, the European Commission issued a directive for mobile network operators in Europe admonishing member states to ensure that MNOs implement the eCall flag.

The EU said that member states should require their public authorities to report measures taken in response to the EU recommendation by March 2012.  The expectation is that if member states show compliance with the recommendation by 2012, the EU will be satisfied that this step in the eCall implementation process has been taken.  If not, the Commission will immediately issue a directive or a regulation to force member states to comply by 2015 in order to match the timing of the in-vehicle deployments intended for 2015.

The EU’s challenge is bringing four major constituencies into alignment including member states, public service access points, car makers and network operators.  France and the United Kingdom are the two largest states that have chosen not to sign the eCall memorandum of understanding.  The UK has established its own national PSAP dispatch solution.

The EU is leading an effort to bring PSAP’s into compliance with the ability to receive eCall messages.  The success of the European eCall mandate will be measured by its ability to reduce accident response times by 40% and the anticipated saving of 2,500 lives per year.  A status report on the PSAP upgrade effort is expected early in 2012.

In Brazil, the Contran 245 mandate calls for the implementation of an interoperable SIM card in an embedded module which will allow for the tracking and immobilization of stolen vehicles.  This program is intended to reduce theft rates and insurance costs.  The mandated device, when it arrives in cars, will be the first interoperable SIM in the world. 

Beyond the Contran 245 legislation, the Brazilian government’s participation in the service will be limited to certifying hardware and service providers, maintaining a database of installed devices and the correlated service providers, and handling the provisioning of service including switching between service providers.  The Contran 245 standard is set to take effect at the end of 2011, but dozens of OEMs, hardware, software and service suppliers polled by Strategy Analytics after a recent industry gathering in Sao Paulo said they anticipate a further six-month delay will be announced (the eighth) at the end of 2011 meaning implementation will occur no sooner than June 2012.

Meanwhile, Russia has said December 2013 is the date that its mandate takes effect, period.  There is, for now, no sign of any delay, although there are issues for international service providers seeking to integrate the Russian system with existing telematics services.  Industry sources say Russian regulators are insisting that personal and vehicle information are not to leave Russia.  It is unclear how service providers will be able to comply with this requirement and/or whether it will lead to delays.  A representative of the government joint venture, NIS Glonass, reported at the Telematics Update event in Munich two weeks ago that 2012 is intended to be a period of pilot projects in Russian with implementation set for 2013.

While it will be refreshing to see a mandate actually keep to its deadline, the flexibility of Brazil and the European Commission reflect the challenges of bringing the automotive and mobile industries together to agree on and implement a single standard.  The Russian government’s controlling interest in public infrastructure enables a more rigid implementation timetable.  That scenario has implications for China and other similar political entities, where market conditions can be immediately and directly impacted by government fiat.

Implications

Technological decisions that are made based on competitive market forces are more reliable than government mandates in motivating organizations.  The Euro NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) is an example of a reward program intended to motivate car makers to enhance and more widely install advanced safety systems.

Given the infrastructure and hardware requirements of automatic crash notification, the European Commission may have been more successful in spurring innovation and competition by specifying the eCall program objectives without specifying the technology to be used.  In Brazil, where the government is wrestling with an intractable stolen vehicle problem, the need for a government-led solution was unique, but, again, might have been more effective by specifying the objective rather than the entire hardware solution.

The ambitious nature of both the Brazilian and European mandates has contributed to delays.  The shortcomings of the government driven approach in Brazil has had several negative impacts including:

1.      The expectation that car thieves will quickly reverse engineer and defeat the mandated module;

2.      The fact that suppliers have bid the price of the module down so far – in hopes of cashing in on the mandate by winning as much business as possible - as to make it an unattractive market opportunity;

3.      The lack of a competitive proposition that might guarantee a path to the future enhancement of the existing solution to accommodate new technological or market realities.

The positive aspects of the Brazilian solution, including the use of an interoperable SIM, outweigh the negative elements.  And given Brazil’s recent record of innovation in the area of wireless technologies in transit-related applications there is an expectation that Contran 245 will serve as a vehicle for the delivery of additional services and applications to cars.

As for Russia, only time will tell if the Russian Federation can show the world how to rigidly implement an automotive mandate.  But the moral of the story for decision makers considering future safety mandates is to enable competitive forces to drive innovation rather than narrowly defining technical solutions

http://bit.ly/uCNI4H - European eCall Mandate Aims Low, Falls Short - Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

It’s summertime in the U.S. and once again people are traveling on vacations and dying in violent crashes throughout the country.  Under these circumstances, the automotive industry’s focus on enabling Twitter, Facebook and Pandora in the car seems particularly out of step with the needs of motorists and first responders.

The more basic need of providing first responders with emergency contact information and the relevant personal health information of vehicle occupants continues to go unmet.  Crash rates and fatalities may have declined in the U.S., but millions of people are still injured in crashes every year and hundreds of thousands suffer life threatening injuries.  Getting proper care to crash victims in the crucial “golden hour” should be the primary objective of any telematics system – or any car maker for that matter.

Existing telematics services provide for the connection to emergency contacts, but only at the request and approval of the customer.  Neither law enforcement officers nor emergency medical technicians have timely access to either the emergency contact or personal health information of crash victims.  And with more seniors behind the wheel each year as the population ages, the need to get personal health information to first responders is increasingly important.

An ongoing unmet need

 In spite of the wider deployment of safety systems and the adoption of vehicle connectivity solutions, the post-crash proposition has remained largely underserved.  OnStar and BMW tout the ability of their on-board systems to notify responders of the severity of a crash, but they have done nothing to close the gap in helping to identify victims and share their urgent care information.

What is different about vacation season this year, in the U.S., is the raised profile of the Yellow Dot program, a nine-year-old initiative to speed accident victim medical information to emergency responders by arranging for passenger information to be stored in the vehicle glove box with a yellow dot to alert responders to its presence.

The rear window-mounted yellow dot (pictured).

The interest in Yellow Dot reflects the program’s simplicity.  But the program’s simplicity masks its shortcomings.  And more sophisticated solutions already exist.

Participants in the yellow dot program, which has no formal nationwide coordinating authority, obtain a yellow dot decal from local law enforcement representatives and affix the decal to the inside of the rear window of their car.  The decal alerts emergency responders to look in the vehicle’s glove box to locate a personal identification card or folder with emergency contact and medical information about potential crash victims in the car.  That card or folder can include a picture or pictures to speed identification of crash victims.

Widespread, but piecemeal adoption and shortcomings galore

It sounds and is simple, which is why thousands of drivers in dozens of counties across eight states have adopted the program.  The problem lies in the analog roots of the program. 

With no coordinating national authority there are no set standards for the information included in the glove box.  Further, there are no standards for EMS access and use of the personal information, nor is there a central authority to assess the effectiveness of the program or to ensure the digital distribution of the vital victim information.

Even worse than these shortcomings is the patchwork implementation which has been proceeding on a county-by-county basis in those states that have embraced the program.  For a program such as Yellow Dot to have a significant impact on saving lives, speeding appropriate care to crash survivors and enabling the timely notification of emergency contacts will require nationwide adoption.  The fact that the program has been in place for nine years with such an anemic response speaks volumes.

There are other shortcomings to Yellow Dot.  Three violent and fatal crashes that occurred in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (where I reside) in the past week resulted in demolished or burning vehicles which would not allow a responder to access the materials in the glove box.  There are also privacy concerns associated with a program that alerts anyone to the presence of personal health and contact information in the car.

A problem seeking a cloud-based solution

But there is a more fundamental flaw in leaving the process of identifying crash victims and their medical needs via a document stored in the glove box, rather than in a secure off-board location.  This problem is clearly crying out for a cloud-based solution.

The need for the program is great, with millions of people injured in car crashes every year in the U.S. alone.  In fact, the Yellow Dot program has been targeted specifically toward seniors who are more likely to have medical issues relevant in an emergency response situation.

Not surprisingly, there are alternatives to Yellow Dot that do provide access to off-board databases.  Two QR code-based solutions are tied to private personal health record databases.  Lifespire’s Code Amber Alertag uses a QR code which, when scanned, grants access to the user’s personal health rercords and emergency contacts.  The service was designed for developmentally disabled individuals.  Mycrisisrecords.com offers a similar service allowing a couple of different ways for EMTs to access personal health information online.

The problem with both of these solutions is they are built around private databases not subject to industry standards or oversight.  (And at least one of these private solutions requires a subscription.)  This challenge is crying out for a solution such as that provided by MedicAlert.  MedicAlert is a prime candidate to solve this problem not only because it has the server-based system in place but because of the organization’s 50+ year history of working with the first responder community and the fact that it already has millions of members.  (MedicAlert also has the advantage of being supported by Microsoft’s secure HealthVault service.)

Still need to ID the driver and victims first

But MedicAlert will have to greatly expand the scope of its service to support such a program and it does not solve the emergency contact problem.  MedicAlert still requires responders to make contact with its database via telephone and password.  It still is left to responding law enforcement officers to first identify the crash victims.

As described earlier, existing telematics systems and roadside assistance services provide for connecting with emergency contacts, but only with the customer’s consent.  In the event of an unconscious or badly injured driver or passenger, valuable time can be lost attempting to get consent to reach out to these emergency contacts.

A low-tech solution from Roadside Telematics that leverages the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) has been available for as long as Yellow Dot.  But Roadside Telematics requires adoption by a third party such as an insurance company or car maker to reach the market.

Working with NLETS and third parties, the Roadside Telematics solution ties the emergency contact information to the vehicle identification number (VIN).  By working with law enforcement, Roadside Telematics ensures personal information does not fall into the wrong hands or is misused.  In addition, the cooperation of law enforcement and the connection with first responders helps ensure the information is accessed in a timely manner and is shared with first responders and enables appropriate communication with emergency contact

Illustration of the sequence of NLETS VIN# ID/ECON (Identification/Emergency Contact) system transactions (SOURCE: IHE ITI ID/ECON White Paper, 2008)

It seems odd that the challenge of identifying crash victims and notifying emergency contacts remains a problem. With weekly reports of personal information being accessed illegally and with wireless broadband connectivity nearly ubiquitous the fact that auto makers have not closed this gap with the emergency response community seems absurd.

In his recently published book “Detour: My Unexpected, Amazing, Life Changing Journey with OnStar,” former OnStar president Chet Huber tells the story of an OnStar operator contacting the wife of a doctor who had accidentally shot himself in the chest so that she could comfort her husband while emergency responders were en route. The chief executive of 95190, which provides call center services to Lexus in China, has shared similar tales of call center operators directly contacting family members of an injured party at the request of the victim.

These stories are exceptional, and they mask the reality of first responders being unable to identify crash victims, their emergency contacts or their existing medical conditions. 

Formal notification of emergency contacts or next of kin, though, is best left to appropriate authorities. The police are trained in handling these matters in an appropriate and timely manner. Police officers are also mindful of the danger of frightened family members potentially racing to a crash scene and causing additional injuries on the way.

Implications:

The Yellow Dot program has the charm of an out-of-date analog solution to a very digital problem. The delivery of personal health record information and the sharing of emergency contact information should be left to appropriately trained professionals and secure off-board systems.

The use of QR codes, though clever, convenient and compelling, is an invitation to identity theft. And at a time when people’s personal information is frequently being used against them, the Yellow Dot actually has all the charm of a scarlet letter, notifying the world of the driver’s potential health issues or handicaps.

With the increased use of vehicle connectivity solutions and the ability to sign up customers at the time of the vehicle sale or afterward on a purpose-built Website, the Roadside Telematics proposition provides a safe, secure solution for identifying victims and their emergency contacts and can close the emergency response gap in combination with a service such as the existing MedicAlert/Microsoft HealthVault partnership. 

There is also a powerful economic incentive for auto makers to solve this problem in Western countries where the wired and wireless infrastructure and public service access point networks are sufficiently evolved to support these solutions. If the problem can be solved in the developed world, there is money to be made deploying these solutions in the developing world where accidents, injuries and fatalities from road accidents are much higher.

The next move is up to the car companies. Once the urgent needs of potential crash victims have been seen to, there will be plenty of time for Twitter, Facebook and Pandora.

Additional insights:

http://bit.ly/nwESkw - Chleon Answers Call for Secure Service Delivery Platform  - Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service

http://bit.ly/ojAJ1y - ChinaL The OEM Telematics System Landscape - Xu - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service

http://bit.ly/qSA29m - OnStar: Time to Hit the Reset Button? - Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service