Cellular Connectivity for Devices

by bsrubin on March 26, 2010

I spoke Wednesday at the Everywhere Healthcare event at CTIA http://mobihealthnews.com/everywherehealthcare/.

A panel discussion “Panel Discussion: Wireless Operators Eye Healthcare” was fascinating – and I asked an interesting question of the carriers, which I re-state below:

Many devices in my life want to be connected. There are easily 10x and maybe 100x additional connection to be made. The ‘wireless hub’ model where local radios communicate with a hub (or mobile phone as a hub) is currently a customer experience nightmare and standards/ubiquity is a major problem. Are you planning to develop technology and pricing structures that can allow these 10-100x devices that need only a few K a day or month to connect directly and magically to the cell network? I have previously asked this question of technology enablers in the cell space – and was told to ‘not hold my breath’.

The responses from the carriers were fascinating. They all realized the magnitude of the opportunity and the importance of the question. But they (ATT, Vodaphone, Verizon, Jitterbug) were visibly at a loss for how to solve the problem and capture the opportunity. They admitted that their current business model with phone that cost $100-600 and plans that cost $40-100/month was limiting them. Steve from Verizon was hopeful that new usability and technology in the local radio space would allow for an easy connection to a home/mobile gateway to be made.

Here is my take. Tons of devices want and need to be connected. There are major consumer, device manufacturer, and carrier advantages for working out the business model to make this happen. A neat example was mentioned by Don Jones of Qualcomm during a keynote at the Burrill Consumer Digital Health Meeting earlier this week – a Gillette razor that was connected could have a re-order button for blades. Press the button and a few days later a truck drops a package off with your new purchase. Easy and convenient for the consumer, skips the middle-man for the manufacturer, and more bits move and get charged for the carrier. There are two ways to connect a device like a razor (or an alarm clock, washer, picture frame, mirror, etc.) – local radio to a gateway or direct cellular connection. I’ll discuss each and where I see things headed below.

Local radio to a gateway: Great business model, challenging customer experience
If a device has a small battery, is small size, and needs long-life going directly up to the cell network is not usually possible. The way to get this sort of device connected is usually a gateway of some sort. But what a customer nightmare. Bluetooth, Ant+, proprietary radios, WiFi, BLE, ZigBee – all with different ranges, trouble pairing, wireless gateways that need to remain connected and configured, etc. etc. It’s currently a customer nightmare – and its unlikely that any large group of companies with standards etc will be able to fix the nightmare. The only way I see this working well is if a design and user-experience centered company takes charge and really owns the wireless gateway market. Hard to do – and even if it does happen it will take forever. What a mess. But once set up – it should be quite economical – with cheap radios in devices and many devices sharing a connection. The same set of customer experience problems exist with the smartphone-as-a-gateway model.

Cell directly to the cloud: Challenging business model, great customer experience
Anything that can hold a reasonable size electronics and battery, or is plugged in, or has a charger that is plugged in (local RF to charger, charger goes cell to cloud) can use the cell network directly. The latest numbers (in volume) are about $20 for a bare-bones GPRS module and about $2/mo for a smidgen of data. But the customer experience is magic. Just plug it in, and its connected. I am very bullish that chip/module providers, carriers, and companies can manage to overcome the business challenges here. I believe this will be easier than managing the customer experience nightmares with a local radio/gateway solution. Examples could include razor/blade models like described above, cheaper module cost (under $10) and data rates (bundle a bunch of data across a bunch of devices – build into retail price) will be key, adding an incremental subscription charge onto an existing utility for connectivity, and others are all options.

There are 5 billion cell phone users – out of 6.6 billion people (both approx) – this is a saturated market. In the western world people have tons of devices that remain unconnected – a huge opportunity for chip/module providers and carriers. If the companies currently leading the charge in M2M connectivity don’t create a solution someone else will buy some spectrum and do so. And for all the little guys like Zeo – the sooner the better!

Share
  • http://www.digispeaker.com Jon Smirl

    I believe direct cellular is unlikely to happen for most devices. The much more cost effective strategy is 802.15.4 radios and IPv6. 802.15.4 radios are already made by a dozen vendors. They about are $3.50 today and headed to $1. Zigbee uses 802.15.4, it should be superceeded by IPv6. Add 802.15.4 to a home router for an Internet connection. 802.15.4 is extremely low powered, in some applications it can run ten years on batteries. Wifi is another option, SOC chips for it are about $6 today, they might get to $4, but there are already in high volume production. Wifi is far more power hungry because of OFDM signaling.

  • gregory

    Great article. This space is a total mess unfortunately. It's really holding back progress.

    Why IPv6 Jon?

  • http://www.digispeaker.com Jon Smirl

    IPv6 is routable and proprietary Zigbee is not. Every copy of Windows/Mac/Linux shipped in the last 5+ years has IPv6 enabled in it. We will run out of IPv4 addresses around the end of 2012 so everyone gets to switch to IPv6 in the not too far future (your laptop too). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhau… Routable means you can stick a $20 USB 802.15.4 radio into a $100 home router and the packets will forward between 802.15.4, wifi and Ethernet. Cisco is the main driver behind IPv6 over 802.15.4.

    If the protocol is not routable you have to buy custom gateways. Control4's Zigbee gateways run $700-2000. The 802.15.4 chip makers have gotten the message, a new IPv6 Zigbee is in the works. http://zachshelby.org/2009/05/07/zigbee-announc… but it still has licensing problems.

    The final flaw with Zigbee is that they require a $3,000/yr fee per developer to use their specs in software. That's an IP license fee. The GPL explicitly prohibits IP license fees. Siemens discovered this when they tried to contribute a Zigbee implementation to Linux and it was rejected. The Zigbee Alliance board of directors knows about this problem and refuses to correct it. They are protecting their members by blocking a free implementation. Bluetooth SIG has embraced the GPL and made their licensing compatible. Bluetooth support is in Linux today. This is a protectionist move by Zigbee – there is no complex IP in the specs.

    The GPL is important because every one of those home routers we all have is running Linux. It is very easy to stick a USB stick into ones with USB ports. I suspect Cisco is going to announce routers with 802.15.4 chips in them real soon now. They will function as the gateway to smart meters. Cisco wants IPv6 not a proprietary Zigbee protocol in the routers.

  • gregory

    Thanks Jon, that all makes sense. Device allocation of IP addresses and configuration information still seems like the major hurdle for widespread adoption. It would be easier if devices just came with an IP address rather than having to be assigned one locally. This would make the install process so much easier. I know this would basically be a giant L2 network, but it would still be easier.

  • bsrubin

    Awesome comments. Your discussions highlight the major standards/interoperability problems present in a home gateway plan. What I am worried even more about is usability. Take the VitalityRX (http://www.vitality.net/) GlowCap solution – which is cellular. Use instructions – take this home, plug it in.
    Can it get that simple when a home gateway is involved? Grandma really does need to be able to set this up and maintain it…

  • Pingback: Cellular Connectivity for [Healthy] Devices | mobihealthnews

  • http://www.twitter.com/pnwilliamson pnwilliamson

    This is an interesting discussion and I can see the frustration for a device maker and for the consumer in both of the solutions above.
    Traditionally the consumer experience of providing the connectivity has been a headache. I have to provide a hub (mobile or home broadband) then select and configure devices to work with it. As you say standards don’t guarantee good consumer experience. They are just platforms upon which you can construct an experience.
    As others have commented cellular is not a universal solution – patchy with poor in building coverage and low data rates in rural areas, congested and poor data service in busy cities. For the consumer it has two other issues – as a device company you would be likely to front load the data cost in the device purchase price (higher purchase price). As a customer you now need to place trust in the device company – How long will the data service be available? What happens if the company is not around in 2 years? Will the device still work if I move house? (This pushes you to a service model, but I’m not looking forward to monthly invoices from my razor and endless “we called but you were out” notes from my razor.
    So how will this resolve? I think that Bluetooth LE with simple pairing will enable a lot better user experience to be delivered with the mobile handset. I can see hub and mobile manufacturers using Bluetooth Low energy to enable the 100X. The challenge will be to implement the technology in a way that attracts apps to your hub. In the longer term the Cellular operators may look at offloading the M2M data using whitespace radio techniques.

  • Anonymous

    Bluetooth LE certainly offers the potential from a technology perspective to help solve this issue. Ubiquity of BLE will take substantial time (if it happens at all). But still – the consumer experience is the biggest worry. How simple can pairing get? Could it be as simple as an iPhone contact ‘bump’?

    Directions:
    1. Plug in hub.
    2. Bump anything you want to use against the hub. It will beep.

    Could work – but I still wonder if grandma can use it…

  • bsrubin

    Bluetooth LE certainly offers the potential from a technology perspective to help solve this issue. Ubiquity of BLE will take substantial time (if it happens at all). But still – the consumer experience is the biggest worry. How simple can pairing get? Could it be as simple as an iPhone contact 'bump'?

    Directions:
    1. Plug in hub.
    2. Bump anything you want to use against the hub. It will beep.

    Could work – but I still wonder if grandma can use it…

  • http://armilegge.com Armi Legge

    I find this fascinating, and something I deal with on a daily basis.  I have to use a Verizon MiFi for all my internet connection, and yet my mom's kindle can get connected anywhere.  It's obvious the technology is there, the demand is there, so why the heck aren't companies linking the two?  I can't wait to see the day when the world is wrapped in glowing streams of internet access.  Yayyy!

Previous post:

Next post: