But conveniently, automakers may find that every feature uses network connections.

Your legislator can disagree and enforce his/her will. Usb c for apple as an example.

Honestly, I see exactly zero features that would require network connection that make sense to be offered by the car maker directly. So let's refine it to "All first-party functions of the car ...", and add some provision to prevent bundling and un-commoditizing third-party networked additions.

LoJack-alike and accident alerting features do make some sense to be offered directly by the car maker. The latter is obviously difficult to retrofit, and the former would likely be easier to defeat if retrofitted.

I don't buy the music and navigation arguments in a smartphone-equipped world, but I think a good case can be made for those two.

Fine. Still, those two could be made as optional features that could be turned on or off at purchase, and/or during visit to a dealership or authorized repair shop. And neither of these should be sending telemetry during normal operation of the vehicle.

In-car Wifi, Spotify on the car radio, OEM maps with traffic.... you see zero?

Yes. In-car WiFi should obviously work even if the network connection break (remember, we're talking about working without Internet, not disallowing Internet at all) - WiFi is a local wireless network protocol, not magic Internet summoner. With actual Internet connection down, it should still maintain the local network for connected devices.

As for the rest, none of those look like they should be first-party features. "Spotify on the car radio" is a third-party integration to a system that should also work off-line, e.g. for playing music off removable storage, casting from your phone (via WiFi, without Internet), or, you know, working as an actual radio. OEM maps with traffic is something hardly anyone wants anyway, because they universally suck relative to some TomTom screen, or even Google Maps.

Colloquially speaking, "In-car Wifi" has come to mean "in-car internet connectivity". I presume this is what the parent meant.

https://www.verizon.com/support/connected-car-wi-fi/

https://www.att.com/plans/in-car-wifi/

https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a32814112/cars-with-wi...

It's fine for those functions to be a casualty of the owners choice to turn off the network, just like with a phone. If automakers want to use a cellular connection in your car for non-critical functions, it should come with a legitimate user-uncontrollable off switch, just like airplane mode on a phone.

Right. We're trying to stop the world of heated seat subscriptions with a remote license verification at startup before it gets a foothold.

Right - but as the parent said, the proposed language of "all car features must keep working" isn't compatible with that.

Defining a law that allows those features to be turned off and yet disallows "data is broken, heated seats are disabled" is very difficult. After all, heated seats aren't an essential safety feature.

CarPlay integration is a feature bundled into the infotainment in many cars that requires an "external network connection". It will not work if you disable the "external network connection".

Why on Earth would it need that? It's supposed to enable integrating your car and your phone. Surely that should mean local network connection.

Wifi is a network external to the vehicle. An internal network would be something like CAN.

Whatever the case, my point is that a good solution is probably not quite as simple as phrased above.

A WiFi router built into the car is something I'd classify as internal networking for the purpose of this thread.

Isn't CarPlay only over USB?

And either way -- just keep supporting connection over USB and it's not a problem?

CarPlay supports connection over WiFi, and I think if a law prohibited it, it would be problematic.

> Isn't CarPlay only over USB?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205634

>If your car supports only wireless CarPlay ...

I'd argue in-car LAN is an internal network connection. And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks.

Fair. I'm saying that if these features are 'arguably' legal under a proposed law, that law needs to be refined.

> And garage door control etc. are "local area" networks

What if I want to control (e.g. close) the garage door when I am out of Wifi range?

A lot of it exists to sell your lat/lng and trip information to organizations like Wejo, who then goes on to sell it to gov organizations.

I would definitely want my car to be able to call an ambulance if I run off the road and hit a tree for instance and there are no other people around.

Of course perceived privacy is more important than something like that for many people here which is understandable.

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.

Just as planned.

You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?

Why can't I just use my phone for this?

I think the issue is that some people have different preferences.

I wouldn't want this built into my car. The list thing I want is to pay yet another fee for something I already have. I'll stick to plugging my phone into the vehicle for this feature.

> wouldn't want this built into my car

I wouldn’t either. But I don’t think that means I should mandate my preferences be extended to all by banning the damn thing.

Simpler: mandate a network kill switch that doesn’t unnecessarily compromise functionality. (You would have to be creative about anti-theft tracking functions. But this is solvable.)

> You do see how proposing banning maps with traffic updates tanks the whole concept, right?

You have it on your phone already, the car has no reason to have its own, with its own network connection.

This could still work, just not have data.

Something can be functional but useless

Edit, or rather.. functional but unused

You can turn this off right now with tesla maps.

It's a damn car. Maybe that's how it should be.

You could rephrase it as:

All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection. All features related to driving the vehicle, including but not limited to steering, braking, using traffic signals, starting/stopping, toggling locks or lights, opening or closing doors or compartments, and other standard features of a non-connected car must not require a network connection.

I think it’s probably OK if automakers want to onboard and support network features like maps or outsourced computation/diagnostics, but bricking everything because the company wants to collect user data and they want to opt out is obviously unethical. It’s important for these regulations to include the fact that they cannot be worked around or stapled on by the auto company post-hoc via firmware upgrades or the like.

> All functions that a consumer could reasonably expect a car to perform without an internet connection must be operable without an internet connection.

Welcome to "the law is vague and impossible to implement" shouts from HN

a network connection is required for headlights to function. The car must determine current headlight laws and comply with any city, state or country requirements. Additionally, there may be headlight safety software updates required, and the network connection will be used to download them.

a network connection is required for the windshield wipers to function. (etc)

We don't even need to use the word "reasonable." We already have a list of things that need to function in order for a car to pass annual inspection, so why not base the regulation off of that?

Well, there's a lot of those lists and most states don't test anything other than OBD-II emissions readiness. And I don't really think that the primary concern here is that automakers are going to disable your brakes or legally mandated lights.

If it’s the difference between them getting your $50 per month network subscription you bet they will disable your headlights if given the legal leeway to do so.

The legal environment for motor vehicle torts likely already makes that a losing game to play.

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal

I mean, that's not so bad...

> As phrased, you're just making any features that use network connections illegal.

No, only features that require network connection. Which is exactly the intended outcome.

Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.

Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.

What I'd like is to force carmakers to open up the APIs and protocols used to enable these features, and allow me to use my own backend that I run in my own hardware, away from their prying eyes.

> Speak for yourself. I like being able to lock my car from far away when I've forgotten to. I like being able to remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside for meet in the winter.

> Making these sorts of features illegal is unacceptable and short sighted.

Please tell me that this is a parody.

If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble. These features are popular.

> If you think that is parody, you might be in an ideological bubble.

Ah yes, the famous ideological bubble of “not being a wealthy American”. Talk about filter bubbles…

The topic at stake are freedom and private property: the right to do what you want with your car, and the right to fully own a car without the manufacturer having higher rights than you the owner (including rights to disable features remotely).

If you think that “I'm too lazy to get back to my car to lock it” is a good argument in that context, there's not much I can do for you.

And “popularity” isn't relevant either, since remotely brick-able and non-reparable shit are selling well too.

Telemetry services are hardly an American thing, and they're only a "wealthy" thing as much as buying a new economy car makes someone "wealthy".

https://www.chevrolet.com.br/carros/novo-onix/especificacoes...

Popularity is very relevant when the entire root of this thread is a discussion about law. If you propose laws that ban popular features, you're not going to be a very successful politician.

> Lock my car from far away

LORA or Bluetooth

> remotely start the engine so it's nice and warm inside

LORA or Bluetooth

And yes, cell fallback would be fine if those two fail.

Can you give an example of a function of a car that should need a network connection.

E.g. navigation. Could still work but say cannot load maps. And it could let you download maps to a usb stick if it was actually decent.