x
Optical/IP

Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

SAN DIEGO -- CTIA Enterprise & Applications 2011 -- Machine-to-machine (M2M) communications is hands down the next area of growth and excitement in wireless, according to the CEOs of the biggest three operators in the U.S.

It could be because they were trying to avoid more controversial subjects, but M2M connected devices were the theme of the day for the opening wireless operator keynotes at CTIA . According to CTIA President Steve Largent, who got things started Tuesday, wireless penetration in the U.S. has reached 104 percent as total wireless devices sold have passed the U.S. population for the first time. (See CTIA 2011: Sprint & AT&T Spar in San Diego.)

That's one reason the wireless chiefs are so jazzed about M2M for the next billion connections. AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) CEO Ralph de la Vega, Verizon Wireless President and CEO Dan Mead and Sprint Corp. (NYSE: S) CEO Dan Hesse gave the rather stock M2M excitement chats, but each had some interesting new examples to share. Here’s three:

  • In-vehicle cameras: Insurance companies can install a connected camera that can be installed in your (or most likely your kids’) car to track how fast the car is moving and catch any distracted driving behavior. Sprint’s Hesse said this has shown to reduce unsafe driving by 70 percent.

  • Wearable devices: AT&T’s de la Vega said this is the next frontier for M2M for everything from fire fighters monitoring their body temperatures to athletes tracking their performance, or newborns for parents’ peace of mind. The opportunities are enormous, he said.

  • Robots: Verizon’s Mead told attendees about a teen who can’t go to school owing to immune system issues but is able to operate a wireless robot who goes to school for him and connects him to his peers and his course work. De la Vega also talked up robotics, noting that last time he was at AT&T’s Foundry Innovation Center, it was overrun with the open-source, network-connected robots.

    — Sarah Reedy, Senior Reporter, Light Reading Mobile

  • Page 1 / 2   >   >>
    kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:51:29 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    While I get the coolness of the idea of M2M -- robots and wearable devices -- there is no answer yet as to who will pay for the connectivity of all these millions of things. Will I need a separate data plan to connect my refrigerator to the Internet? How much will it cost to keep a connected camera in the car? (And who wants to bet that teens learn how to hack the systems before they can do any good?)


    And if the M2M field suddenly explodes in millions or billions of devices... what is that going to do to the already crowded wireless spectrum? I understand that devices use less bandwidth but any increase at this point is going to cause pain. Without a bandwith or pricing strategy this stuff is all just talk.

    kaps 12/5/2012 | 4:51:29 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    While I get the coolness of the idea of M2M -- robots and wearable devices -- there is no answer yet as to who will pay for the connectivity of all these millions of things. Will I need a separate data plan to connect my refrigerator to the Internet? How much will it cost to keep a connected camera in the car? (And who wants to bet that teens learn how to hack the systems before they can do any good?)


    And if the M2M field suddenly explodes in millions or billions of devices... what is that going to do to the already crowded wireless spectrum? I understand that devices use less bandwidth but any increase at this point is going to cause pain. Without a bandwith or pricing strategy this stuff is all just talk.

    krishanguru143 12/5/2012 | 4:51:28 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    Forget about the house, that is where wired broadband will come into play in the beginning.  Once the move to wireless for home broadband use comes into play, you will see firewalls/routers being used.  There is no need for your LAN to be hosted by a carrier.  That is taking the cloud a bit too far.  Why does your neighbor or anyone on the world need to access your refrigerator?  That is exactly what will happen if you connect it to the mobile network.


     


    As for who pays; you do.  You want it, it will cost you.


     


    The bigger question; when will the carriers move away from using a phone number for every account?  Have a broadband card, sorry, but it has a phone number and yet you cannot use it for voice.  There is not enough phone numbers left.


     


    What about the IMSI, is 64-bits really enough?  Sure it is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 devices, but I really doubt they use 000000...1 and 00000000...2, etc.  You also never know where and what network a device will be on and thus, you can't reuse unless the carriers are keeping a close watch on what SIM's have been turned back in.

    KevinJ0 12/5/2012 | 4:51:28 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    One answer is aggregation. Fixed wireless can use a gateway, and true mobile roaming (like a FedEx truck) will need to pay roaming charges. Given there is an economic equation that makes sense, network investment would follow.


    If you need assured connectivity for high priority services, an SLA with the mobile operator would provide adequate connectivity QoS.

    paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:51:27 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    So, your saying that Vonage not being treated the same as cable's voice is not a problem.


    I am just pointing out that the walled garden services can do whatever they want.  All they have to do is make the SLA as part of the walled garden services voila its waived so there is no problem.  It is not HSIA - its a special service.


    I have learned to read apparently you have not and have decided to impose rules on people when they don't have to follow your rules.


    seven


     

    paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:51:27 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

     


    So, your saying bit torrent video downloads compete with U-verse?  Or are you comparing the performance of Vonage to Cable's VoIP?


    seven


     

    krishanguru143 12/5/2012 | 4:51:27 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    Not doing ANY comparison but just pointing out that this statement


     


    "If you need assured connectivity for high priority services, an SLA with the mobile operator would provide adequate connectivity QoS."


     


    CANNOT BE DONE UNDER FCC RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!  There are two portions of the rules that would prohibit it.  For HSIA the carrier cannot provide higher priority for some and not others; so it is best effort across the board.  Now if the carrier did VoIP; so the handset used VoIP for calls, they would get a waiver much like IPTV gets a waiver.  While it comes down the same pipe, it is not part of HSIA.  More importantly, treating everything the same would hinder the entire product and experience.  Imagine being told you can't access the Internet and talk at the same time without issues.  Customers would complain and the FCC would need to change their rules, so waivers are provided.


     


    Seven, you should really learn to read and not fabricate things.

    krishanguru143 12/5/2012 | 4:51:27 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    How will QoS and SLA's work?


     


    FCC:
    "Wireless carriers are banned from blocking lawful websites or applications that compete with their services."


     


    If the FCC forces the same rules for wired as they for wireless, QoS and SLA's will NOT be allowed. 

    krishanguru143 12/5/2012 | 4:51:26 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    It goes over the same pipe just like on a mobile handset; you can access the Internet and talk.  Guess what has priority, the voce call.  If the FCC forced the carriers to treat both the same, you (actually not you, but everyone else) can guess what that would cause.  It is TWO DIFFERENT services though.  All data is treated the same; best effort.


    IPTV gets a waiver because you could have 192+ subscibers.  IPTV uses multicast so even if every house had for TV's, they were all on, it would not be 768 streams.  If 25 TV's were watching one station, to the node it would just be a single stream.  If every house had the 24Mbps Internet package and they were all being fully utiziled, should TV service be impacted?  The answer is NO, especially if someone had Uverse without Internet or was not using their Internet service at that time.


    You have failed to realize that Vonage doesn't mark its traffic anyway and you usually have to go two or three provider hops to get there.  They don't even have QoS with their provider.  So what would providing QoS on just one network accomplish?  NOTHING!


    Also, people complained when providers suggested that companies like Vonage should buy network access from them.  Unless the entire Internet is rebuilt, QoS is not going to happen and then how do you regulate it?  Slapping QoS in is not easy and maintaining it and testing changes would be impossible.  Providers spend a lot of time and effort in testing and now you want to add in other companies that make changes as well.


    FCC rules prohibit the use of QoS except for services that do not use the Internet; like IPTV.

    krishanguru143 12/5/2012 | 4:51:26 PM
    re: Wireless Chiefs Talk up M2M

    It is NOT a problem.


     


    1) There is no QoS on the Internet and thus NO SLA could EVER be given.  Name ONE, just ONE provider that gives and SLA for traffic that traverses on another network?  They DON'T do it as they have NO control over that network.  So even if they used QoS it doesn't mean that another provider will respect said markings.


     


    What if the cable company charged Vonage and then made both the same level of service.  Would that satisfy you?  Who would dictate what could be charged?  Wouldn't that go against Net Neutrality?  Now you have a tiered system and those that do not pay don't have the same advantage as those that do.  How about Vonage pays the money and Skype did not.  What about Magic Jack, wouldn't they be at a disadvantage compared to Vonage?  The cable systems VoIP offering NEVER goes over the Internet.


     


    Where in my orginal post did I ever bring Uverse up?  Are we not talking about WIRELESS?  You do know the difference right?

    Page 1 / 2   >   >>
    HOME
    Sign In
    SEARCH
    CLOSE
    MORE
    CLOSE