Category Archives: Internet of Things

Investing in the Internet of Things

Posted on by
Reply

RealTimeCloudIconAs the Internet of Things becomes more and more a reality, and as the world sits up and takes notice, we can expect an increasing amount of capital to flow towards the underlying technologies. A recent report from Technavio, a London-based technology research and advisory company, predicts that the machine-to-machine (M2M) market worldwide will grow at a compound annual rate (CAGR) of over 25% from 2012 to 2016.

InvestSpreadsheetThere are currently many industries using M2M devices and services, such as RFID readers for product tracking, location-based services for fleet management, and M2M sensors that track inventory in the manufacturing sector. When you add to that the applications now coming online like smart meters, security cameras, vending machines, and even home appliances, there are clearly abundant investment opportunities opening in the near future.

The Technavio report points out that one of the main driving forces behind this rapid growth of the Internet of Things and M2M communication is the drop in prices of the devices themselves, as well as the costs involved in connecting them. As chip manufacturers continue to miniaturize their products and reduce costs, the price of the hardware shrinks to insignificance. At the same time, according to the report, the cost of M2M services is also going down.

However, the report states that there is still one aspect of the Internet of Things that presents challenges: data integration. Simply connecting all of these devices presents challenges, as many of them are not capable of sustaining a TCP link to the Internet. Even for those that can connect, there are dozens of communications protocols in use, and no agreement yet on which is best. And finally there is the question of how to manage all the data traffic that results from so many connected devices trying to talk to each other.

Despite these integration challenges, investment in the Internet of Things makes a good deal of sense. Significant growth is expected in the electronics and semiconductor sector, and for those seeking greater opportunities, investing in technology that can provide the core requirements for real-time cloud computing might prove to be a wise decision.

Exposure on the Internet of Things

Posted on by
Reply

RealTimeCloudIconDavid Goldman at CNN recently published a story about Shodan, a search engine for the things on the Internet of Things.  A Shodan search yields a URL that would allow a knowledgeable person to connect to a machine or device, and interact with it.  There are things you would expect, like routers, printers, and webcams of unsuspecting homeowners, along with things we might hope could not be accessed, like traffic lights, power plant control systems, and particle accelerators.

The point of the story is not to put fear and trembling into the hearts of the masses, nor to turn people away from the Internet—or against the Internet of Things.  It’s a wake-up call to consumers and industrial users to keep their guard up.

The story recounts how equipment as diverse as a hockey rink cooling system, a car wash, and a hydroelectric power plant could be switched on and off remotely, through an insecure connection on the Internet.  Then there are the more mundane systems like household water heaters and garage door openers.  Who knew that your new iPhone-controlled door locking system might be so available on an Internet search?

EyeOnDataActually, that is the purpose of Shodan—to give security experts a way to find holes, and plug them.  The site allows very limited access to anonymous users.  To summon its full power you must first identify yourself and your purpose in using the engine, and pay a fee.

Unfortunately, dedicated hackers and cyber criminals have other means to get this kind of information.  What’s important is to be aware that devices on the Internet of Things can be exposed, and to take the necessary precautions for protecting them.  We can understand how a homeowner might leave himself open, as recent leaps in technology and gadgetry are hard for most people to keep up with.  But no mission-critical industrial system should permit this kind of access.

This underscores the importance of removing any chance of an unauthorized inbound connection in a real-time cloud system.  At the very least, you need the ability to keep firewalls closed to any incoming traffic.  Devices should be configured to make outbound-only connections to the cloud, or else aggregated behind a firewall to a server that can make an outbound-only connection.

As more and more devices get connected to the Internet of Things, we hope that those responsible will use Shodan or something similar to find the vulnerabilities in their systems, and then take measures to ensure that they are no longer exposed to search.

M2M Communication on the Internet of Things

Posted on by
1

When you get talking about the Internet of Things (IoT), you’re pretty likely to bump into the idea of M2M (Machine-to-Machine) communication.  Some people suggest that the IoT and M2M are essentiallly the same, others say there are important differences.  We have found a useful working definition of M2M in a recent paper published by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) titled “Machine-to-Machine Communications, Connecting Billions of Devices.”

This paper is one of the best overviews of the whole subject of M2M I’ve run into so far, starting with this definition: “M2M devices are defined, in this paper, as those that are actively communicating using wired and wireless networks, are not computers in the traditional sense and are using the Internet in some form or another.“

The focus of the paper is on how M2M is currently implemented, and what will be required for the future, as there may be as many as 50 billion devices connected by the end of this decade.  The authors look at some general characteristics of M2M devices and use cases, and discuss the communication technologies currently being employed.

Dispersed devices are those that are found spread over a wide area.  They can be in fixed locations, such as smart meters for electric power, stationary cameras, alarm installations, pumps, vending machines, remote sensors, and so on.  These might have wired, broadband connections to the Internet, or wireless connectivity via satellite or a mobile phone link.

In addition to fixed devices are the increasingly popular mobile devices such as those found in cars, trucks, and cargo, as well as personal electronics and medical devices.  These of course must connect wirelessly to the Internet, either by satellite or mobile phone.

Concentrated devices on the other hand are found in close proximity to each other.  The typical location is a home or a factory.  Here it is possible for the machines to communicate solely within the group, or also externally to the Internet, through a gateway if desired.

Fixed devices concentrated in a small area would include large appliances and electronics in a home, or the PLCs and networking hardware of a factory automation system.  These have the traditional option of a wired network, as well as some kind of short-range wireless service like Wi-Fi or other WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network).  Mobile devices, such as a portable home appliance or a smart phone used by a shift operator roaming through a plant, could use the same wireless networks.

All of this is fine in theory, but applying M2M communication on a scale envisioned by the OECD will require some changes in our current way of thinking, particularly for mobile dispersed devices, which are increasingly becoming available for cars, trucks, cargo, personal electronics, and so on.  The paper narrows down the choice for connecting these devices to either satellite or cell phone technologies such as G2 and G4.  Cell phone technology in particular offers the most promise, but has some important limitations.  We can summarize some of their concerns as follows:

  • Shifting cell phone technology from individual, personal use to M2M for business and industrial applications is a different use case than originally anticipated.  Instead of one or two phones per person, it may involve hundreds or thousands of devices for a single user.
  • Phone company policies and government regulations will need to support new business models and technologies.  For example, users may demand the ability to quickly switch mobile service providers without the hassle of changing physical SIM cards on a multitude of remote devices.
  • Telephone numbering systems and policies will need to be expanded and integrated internationally to support cross-border mobility of devices.

In addition to these, questions arise about the data itself: Who gets to use it?  What about privacy?  The technology is just the starting point.  Perhaps we’ll have a chance to look at some of these issues in the future.  For now, the OECD paper gives us a glimpse into the thinking and planning necessary for making very large-scale M2M communication a reality.

Removing the PC from the Internet of Things

Posted on by
Reply

In our discussion so far about the Internet of Things (IoT), we have seen how information about things gets collected by devices and distributed via the cloud.  In most cases, somewhere along the path of communication, before the data reaches the cloud, there will be an intermediate computer, often a PC.  This is because the protocol of the Internet (IP) requires a level of computing power to send and receive messages that until recently was beyond the capabilities of most embedded devices on the IoT.

But of course, technology doesn’t stand still for long.  The trend towards greater computing power on ever-shrinking devices with proportionally lower prices and reduced power requirements is opening new opportunities for direct, device-to-cloud communication.

In the last decade, as Ethernet technologies gained popularity for industrial communications, special processors were developed for the sole purpose of converting serial I/O data communication into TCP/IP.  Implementing just this functionality of a PC reduced hardware dimensions down to about the size of a sandwich, cut power requirements substantially, and reduced costs to between $200 and $400.  This kind of box can be connected or mounted on any machine or piece of equipment that has a serial data interface, and programmed to connect to a LAN, the Internet, or a cloud server.

A few years ago embedded systems developers took it a step further.  In a continuing drive to cut size and costs, they began creating matchbox-sized and smaller serial-to-Ethernet converters that can be mounted on a network card and installed directly into different types of equipment and machinery.  With prices at or below $50 apiece, some of these devices still have sufficient computing power to offer a direct connection to a cloud server.

Recently there has been a sea-change in computing power and price among tiny micro controller units (MCUs) that you might find in a camera or automobile.  Chip capacities of 32 bits now allow for running a real-time operating system with support for TCP/IP and even SSL encryption.  With the proper communications protocols hard-coded into the chip, it can be mass produced far more cheaply than any of the above devices.  Suddenly widespread thing-to-Internet communication seems much more feasible.

Coming from another direction, there has been significant effort put into data communications protocols.  In a white paper “From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things“, authors Friedemann Mattern and Christian Floerkemeier say, “If, in a future Internet of Things, everyday objects are to be addressed and controlled via the Internet, then we should ideally not be resorting to special communications protocols as is currently the case with RFID. Instead, things should behave just like normal Internet nodes.”

Different standards bodies have been developing new, low-resource-demand protocols with names like IPSO, 6LoWPAN, and the ZigBee Alliance’s ZigBee IP (ZIP) that do not require the relatively high power processing of TCP, but still provide direct IP communication to and from the Internet.  This type of protocol allows embedded chips to emit and receive wireless signals over a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) or HAN (Home Area Network).  With IPv6 support, the envisioned umpteen billions of chips can each be connected to the cloud, each with a unique IP address.

Combining these simplified communications protocols with smaller, ever-more powerful devices means that we may see a decrease in the number PCs required to connect the Internet of Things.  This in turn may amplify the call for the kind of resources we expect to see from a cloud infrastructure that can support the flow of real-time data.

“Although the software systems in smart objects will have to function with minimal resources, as in conventional embedded systems,” said Mattern and Floerkemeier, “a more extensive software infrastructure will be needed on the network and on background servers in order to manage the smart objects and provide services to support them.”

One area in which removing the PC to simplify the system has proven its value is in M2M (Machine to Machine) connectivity.  Our next blog will take a closer look at this very practical application of the Internet of Things.

Connecting the Internet of Things

Posted on by
1

Last week we took a look at Internet of Things (or IoT), and saw how it has four primary components: 1) the things themselves; 2) devices that obtain and communicate information about the things; 3) resources, which are the information about the thing; and 4) services that provide access to the information.  Obviously, to make all of this work, the devices need to be connected to the Internet.

Back in the last decade or two, making a connection to the Internet was pretty straightforward—just plug an Ethernet cable into your computer, make sure you had it routed properly, and you were off and running.  Nowadays, whether you’re using a desktop, laptop or phone, things are even easier—find a Wi-Fi hotspot, select a network, and connect.  The IoT should be just as easy, right?  Unfortunately, things are not quite that simple.

Balancing Power and Size

The Internet Protocol (IP, as in TCP/IP) is a hefty protocol, requiring significant computing power.  This is no obstacle for virtually all desktops, laptops, tablets, and smartphones.  But when you get down to smaller devices like embedded chips, they haven’t got the brainpower to handle a TCP/IP connection.  And there are many more things out there with no embedded chip at all—just a barcode or an RFID tag.

To include these things in the Internet of Things, they need access to computing resources powerful enough to convert their data into the TCP/IP protocol.  Where do they get that kind of power?  Usually from a computer, eventually.  Here are some common connection scenarios:

Computers, tablets, and smart phones connect directly to the Internet.

Electronic devices like sensors can be connected wirelessly or by cable to a computer, or to some kind of specialized protocol converter box with enough power and intellegence to connect to the Internet.

Embedded chips use Wireless LAN (WLAN) protocols like Bluetooth, Zigbee, 3G Wireless, GSM, 6LoWPAN etc. to connect to a receiver that either connects directly to the Internet, or to a computer which is connected to the Internet.

For electronic devices and embedded chips, you often have a number of devices connecting to a single receiver, which may convert the data to TCP/IP or a different protocol.  In industrial settings and SCADA systems, this receiver is often referred to as an RTU, Remote Terminal Unit.

RFID tags attached to products, pallets, or shipping containers get scanned by RFID readers, which are connected to the Internet in some way, most often through a computer.

Bar codes on products are scanned by readers, supermarket scanners, or even smart phones.  The scanning devices are connected to the Internet, usually by computer.

In whatever way something is linked to the Internet of Things, the efficiency of the data connection is significant.  Access via the cloud to real-time changes in temperature, flow rate, location, and items scanned can be useful for individuals, as well as invaluable for processes and machines that integrate the real-time data feed into other systems.  Cloud computing systems that adhere to the requirements for real-time systems such as high data rates, low latency, and a data-centric infrastructure will be best positioned to make the Internet of Things a reality.

Until now we have talked about using a computer somewhere in the communications path between a thing and the Internet.  Does this have to be the case?  Next week we’ll see if it may be possible to remove the PC from the Internet of Things altogether.