<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Verizon certifies its first chip vendor because M2M will rock the world</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2012/08/28/verizon-certifies-its-first-chip-vendor-because-m2m-will-rock-the-world/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/08/28/verizon-certifies-its-first-chip-vendor-because-m2m-will-rock-the-world/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 06:11:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manny Romero</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/08/28/verizon-certifies-its-first-chip-vendor-because-m2m-will-rock-the-world/#comment-975176</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Manny Romero]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=557419#comment-975176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Totally agree with Jim&#039;s comments. For M2M to take off at the levels everyone is talking about it has to be as easy as connecting to a WiFi AP. 
My question;, is this a true shift in the approach Verizon has to approvals? or as per Jim&#039;s comment no real change. Would be good for someone to look deeper into this as it has huge implications. 
Manny Romero
BDM, Industrial M2M NetCommWireless
manny.romero@netcommwireless.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Totally agree with Jim&#8217;s comments. For M2M to take off at the levels everyone is talking about it has to be as easy as connecting to a WiFi AP.<br />
My question;, is this a true shift in the approach Verizon has to approvals? or as per Jim&#8217;s comment no real change. Would be good for someone to look deeper into this as it has huge implications.<br />
Manny Romero<br />
BDM, Industrial M2M NetCommWireless<br />
<a href="mailto:manny.romero@netcommwireless.com">manny.romero@netcommwireless.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Wert</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2012/08/28/verizon-certifies-its-first-chip-vendor-because-m2m-will-rock-the-world/#comment-950732</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James Wert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=557419#comment-950732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stacey,

Unfortunately its not so easy, using &quot;pre-certified&quot; modules helps the certification process, but it by no means makes it easy or cheap.  In-fact, companies still must spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to certify devices that use pre-certified modules.  Additionally, very few carriers accept the industry standard certification (PTCRB) and insist on their own additional layers of certification making the process of creating new products that can work across many carriers and networks extremely time consuming.

The certification process for cellular devices is a joke and is one of the main impediments to the success and growth of the IoT/M2M industry.  We work with a vendor who use a pre-certified module in their newest M2M gateway, and since starting the certification process in the fall of 2011 we can only use the device on a single carrier.

I hope this helps any readers out there who think think pre-certified modules make the process simple and quick!

Still good news that we&#039;re getting other players on the market besides the usual companies that are in the module business.

-- Jim Wert
VP Engineering, M2M
ILS Technology
jwert@ilstechnology.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stacey,</p>
<p>Unfortunately its not so easy, using &#8220;pre-certified&#8221; modules helps the certification process, but it by no means makes it easy or cheap.  In-fact, companies still must spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to certify devices that use pre-certified modules.  Additionally, very few carriers accept the industry standard certification (PTCRB) and insist on their own additional layers of certification making the process of creating new products that can work across many carriers and networks extremely time consuming.</p>
<p>The certification process for cellular devices is a joke and is one of the main impediments to the success and growth of the IoT/M2M industry.  We work with a vendor who use a pre-certified module in their newest M2M gateway, and since starting the certification process in the fall of 2011 we can only use the device on a single carrier.</p>
<p>I hope this helps any readers out there who think think pre-certified modules make the process simple and quick!</p>
<p>Still good news that we&#8217;re getting other players on the market besides the usual companies that are in the module business.</p>
<p>&#8211; Jim Wert<br />
VP Engineering, M2M<br />
ILS Technology<br />
<a href="mailto:jwert@ilstechnology.com">jwert@ilstechnology.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
