Comments on: Does the internet of things need its own internet?

By: Stein Soelberg

Stein Soelberg — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:01:37 +0000

Kevin, I thought this was a well written and thought provoking piece and I referenced it in an article I wrote that outlines the future of M2M network options. You can review the piece here:

http://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/doc.mvc/does-m-m-iot-the-internet-of-things-need-its-own-network-0001

Thank you for the insight you provide. I have added you to my Twitter feed and will actively follow your contributions on this and other technology topics.

By: Maycol

Maycol — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:03:53 +0000

Richard, I misunderstood your issue, I think I was tikalng about navigation in the front page. I’m not sure why you go to the next / previous post in category when you click on the arrows at the bottom of the post, my navigation takes me to the next / previous post (time based, not category based). I tried it by entering an article from the front page and also via category and it worked the same both times. Can you describe how you navigate step by step and what you see?

By: Qnary

Qnary — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:26:31 +0000

As new technologies develop, new systems will be created to help them run.

By: Stanislav Shalunov

Stanislav Shalunov — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:37:07 +0000

The challenges of the Internet of things are:

1. Many more devices than cellular
2. Manual configuration is not scalable
3. While only small amounts of capacity are needed, setting up individual data plans for each light switch in your house is not scalable
4. Sometimes it needs to operate while in a disconnected state
5. Sometimes external conditions will change (for example, any given carrier might go out of business), but it still needs to keep working without reconfiguration of individual devices
6. Cost of the networking part must be negligible, and long-range radio is generally expensive

Sigfox is addressing some of these concerns (1, and, partly, 3 and 6). Mesh networking, such as, for example, what we are doing at Open Garden (http://opengarden.com), on the other hand, addresses all six of the concerns.

This isn’t a choice, either. These are different parts of the puzzle. Open Garden can connect everything together and use whatever exits available; having a greater diversity of exit options and exits with cost structure that better reflects the needs of the Internet of Things is quite helpful.

However, alone, carrier technology+infrastructure does not address the needs of the Internet of Things, because it doesn’t fully address concerns 3 and 6 and leaves concerns 2, 4, and 5 untouched.

To solve this, different technologies need to work together.

By: RK

RK — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:38:56 +0000

Kevin ,

Sigfox reminds me of Ricohet from Y2k , they went out of biz, as they could not scale. Wishing Sigfox best.

Thx
RK

By: phd guy, PhDguy

phd guy, PhDguy — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:52:17 +0000

I have seen a article on phdguy website http://www.phdguy.com about future of web and death of google.

By: Tom Krazit

Tom Krazit — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:41:07 +0000

Thanks, Ken, this mistake is fixed. Although it would have been nice if you had found a less condescending way to point it out. Hopefully you read the rest of this excellent article.

By: Ken ReCorr

Ken ReCorr — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:23:48 +0000

Kevin,

I don’t know if you wrote the blurb at the beginning of your story, but you used “there” when you meant to use “their.” That’s sloppy. Why would I want to read any further? Whatever nugget of information you may have had to offer just got clouded by a stupid mistake. If you don’t know the difference, shame on you.

If you didn’t write the blurb, then your editor is making you look stupid.

-Ken ReCorr

By: Aisha Sahiba

Aisha Sahiba — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:26:47 +0000

I have read your blog it is very helpful for me. I want to say thanks to you. I have bookmark your site for future updates.