TM Forum Community

 View Only

  • 1.  Common Infrastructure

    Posted May 09, 2017 20:07
    With the advances being made with IoT/IoE do you think the industry needs to start putting a common infrastructure in place to allow for connecting devices rather than the proprietary solutions currently in place?

    ------------------------------
    Ben Cornelius
    BT Group plc
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Common Infrastructure

    Posted May 10, 2017 01:21
    Hi Ben,

    No, not with the current nature of IoT - it’s still in it’s “Cambrian Explosion” era. There are both proprietary solutions (e.g. Cambrian Networks - ironically) and standardised solutions (802.15.4 for a start) and then variations on the way through the stack.
    So putting in a "common infrastructure” is a challenge and one that, at least at this point in time, might be a bit premature and constrictive to the new uses that are being dreamt up.

    For someone like BT, I think the most proactive approach would be to develop a framework of existing technologies that mesh well with the BT organisation and its capabilities and then present that framework to the developer market to support and nuture solution development.

    We’ve been looking for such a partner ourselves and the lack of one means that we’re doing a lot of low level work that really feels like we’re reinventing wheels that could/should already be there. The value for us is the solution, not the technology which we’d really like abstract so that we can make it interchangeable (which is a benefit all on its own).

    Anthony Buckton
    -------------------------
    Black Ink Networks


    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Common Infrastructure

    Posted Jun 07, 2017 00:14
    We have tried implementing standalone solutions, then retrofitting APIs to interface with the data sets and real time information produced . We are not convinced that this is the most effective approach to a rapidly expanding field, so have made a decision as a city to invest our energies in the development of an open platform/mesh gateway through which we can stream a range of interoperable IoT functions. We see this as a way to avoid replication particularly when it comes to civil installations, and allows us to easily tailor functionality throughout our CBD. We are also keen to move away from tying up capital (and subsequent operational amortisation) budget in the purchase of closed proprietary product, when there may be stronger business cases made for purchasing technology across this quickly changing field as a service. 

    The EU has invested in some standards development in the field -check out Fiware / NGSI

    ------------------------------
    Stuart Grant
    Wellington City Council
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Common Infrastructure

    Posted Jun 13, 2017 10:27
    With many classes of IoT devices from the mission critical to the wearable fitness types, servicing verticals we haven't yet imagined, whether they use licensed (NB-IoT, LTE-M..), unlicenced (LoRa, Sigfox, Bluetooth 5, Zigbee,...) wireless or  Fixed Line access mechanisms. Surely the time is near for Operators to offer Assurance services for its IOT customers? Question is, what KQIs will turn out to be most important?  Will IOT verticals need to be understood like other OTT services e.g. like the Whatsapp and Wechats out there now?  In transportation, will Operators be interested in paying for IOT roaming assurance?  Will Operators have a duty to flag fraudulent IoT activity or pinpoint malicious attacks on IOT devices under its care? As we head towards a future where autonomous vehicles beckon, these are questions that need answers. Now is the time to ask what IoT service assurance really means!

    ------------------------------
    Felim ONeill
    Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


Related Content