Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

World's Smallest 3G Module Will Connect Everything To the Internet 118

jfruh writes The U-blox SARA-U260 chip module is only 16 by 26 millimeters — and it's just been certified to work with AT&T's 3G network. While consumers want 4G speeds for their browsing needs, 3G is plenty fast for the innumerable automated systems that will be necessary for the Internet of Things to work. From the article: "The U-blox SARA-U260 module, which measures 16 by 26 millimeters, can handle voice calls. But it's not designed for really small phones for tiny hands. Instead, it's meant to carry the small amounts of data that machines are sending to each other over the 'Internet of things,' where geographic coverage -- 3G's strong suit -- matters more than top speed. That means things like electric meters, fitness watches and in-car devices that insurance companies use to monitor policyholders' driving."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Smallest 3G Module Will Connect Everything To the Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by cynop ( 2023642 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @05:22PM (#48015837)

    Actually the problem with 3G is not the size of the module at all, but the fact that 3G drains the battery very fast, and the costs from the providers are vastly higher compared to other technologies. Sure 3G for Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication might make sense since the yearly cost in a car is far higher than the cost of 3g connection and there's plenty of electricity to go around, but for smart meters? No way. Especially for industrial applications with thousand of devices, the costs rack up pretty fast, especially when you want your IoT-network to last years, not months. There are other technologies out there that are far more suitable for these kind of things (802.15.4 protocols, SIGFOX's network, OnRamp's network etc)

    • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @05:44PM (#48015931) Homepage Journal

      That has been my big question for all of this. 3G isn't all that cheap from the carriers. I don't want my things racking up a massive bill with AT&T.

      • by The Conductor ( 758639 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:24PM (#48016111)

        Price of the 3G service can be cheap if you do it right. The usual arrangement with M2M applications (like for example a moblie version of the ive-fallen-and-cant-get-up button that I was involved in--it used an earlier UBlox module) is to arrange contract pricing in bulk. So if you know your firmware only needs an average 100 kB/day of data service, you buy a bucket of 1 GB/day to cover your 10,000 devices and bundle data service with your device.

        But yeah, the battery drain issue makes this sort of device suitable only for wide-ranging mobile applications. For in-buildling/factory/campus installations a short range ISM band radio is more suitable. A tiny module isn't much help when you have to bolt it to a fat battery and decent antenna. Often a short-range radio should be included even when when a 3G module is present if doing so can keep average data consumption down and conserve battery energy.

    • Not just that, but IF you would want to use a cell network (for example aggregation in a network that works with 802.15.4 otherwise), why not just bog standard GPRS. Much better coverage than even 3G, and would still be fast enough. If the Telco's would be smart, they would even target SMS for this. Lower power consumption, even better coverage, and SMS revenue is in decline because everyone is using data to send text messages instead of actually using SMS. Telco's could provide bulk messaging for M2M appli
      • I think the motivation for going with 3G is due to the carriers' long term plans to phase out 2G/GPRS. These devices often have very long service lives, 15 or 20 years. A 9600 bps analog cellular modem would have been perfectly sensible in 1994, but would have been forced into obsolescence in less than 15 years.
        • Exactly. Telstra (Australia's largest mobile carrier, and operator of one of the largest networks (by area covered) in the world) has already signalled the end of 2G. Their 3G network has a far larger coverage than their 2G: Optus 2G covers a greater area than Telstra 2G (Optus 3G still has about a million square kilometres to catch up to Telstra 3G though).

    • by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:16PM (#48016059)

      Don't worry; Po3G (Power over 3G) is only a year or so away.

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )

      Actually the problem with 3G is not the size of the module at all, but the fact that 3G drains the battery very fast, and the costs from the providers are vastly higher compared to other technologies.

      3G doesn't drain the battery any faster than any other technology. If you're comparing with 2G, then yes a 3G module working at full data rate will drain a battery quicker than GPRS at full data rate, but if you have a constant amount of data available, the 3G will finish sending it much quicker, so its overa

      • by The Conductor ( 758639 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @10:11PM (#48016889)
        If you are comparing 3G to 2G, both technologies can cut back on transmission power to conserve battery energy so there isn't much difference for a low data rate application. (I mention elswhere that long-term obsolescence, not power efficiency, is the likely motivation for using 3G.) The original post, however, was talking about short-range radio, and it simply isn't possible (as in mathematically impossible by the Shannon-Hartley theorem) for a cellular radio to push data to a tower 2 miles away without expending more energy per bit than a properly implemented short range ISM band radio hitting an in-building transponder 50 feet away. To take my previous example of a medical alert button, the mobile verison is 3x the size and needs a nightly recharge, compared to the ISM-only version which has a non-rechargeable battery that typically lasts over a year.
      • by cynop ( 2023642 )

        The thing is that 3G adds complexity and power requirements to support higher speeds. It is designed from the ground up for higher bandwidth. The majority of IoT applications need long battery life and long range communications, not high link speeds. Using 3g for IoT is re-purposing technology engineered for something else: Sure it might work, but it's hardly optimal

        • by jrumney ( 197329 )
          The advantages of 3G are that it is long range (unlike 802.15.4), and it is globally ubiquitous (unlike new IoT startups like OnRamp and SigFox, who currently have plans rather than networks).
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Sure 3G for Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication might make sense since the yearly cost in a car is far higher than the cost of 3g connection and there's plenty of electricity to go around,

      Actually, V2V communications is going less high-tech. There's no need for 3G or WiFi radio broadcasts for V2V because you don't need to transmit further than a few cars either way. So they're moving towards lights. Modulating the headlights (daytime running lights mean they're always on), brake lights, and other lights becau

  • Smallest area??? (Score:3, Informative)

    by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @05:27PM (#48015861)
    Quick Google search for 3G shows Intel has a chip that is 300 mm^2 which is about 17.33 sq mm which is a lot smaller than this chip which measures over 400 mm^2.
    I guess it all depends on how you define a 3G modem (maybe Intel's doesn't have a feature), or how you define area (maybe it matters how small the one dimension is). Who knows - either way this appears to be some unsubstantiated marketing fluff that was republished on Slashdot as normal.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Even in the Internet of Things, speeds matter. Sure, a 3G connection might be enough for that internet-connected thermostat to respond to commands, but what if someday someone wants to watch Netflix on it?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is IOT actually good for anything?

    before you answer,
    -plain embedded cpus with no internet connection are not IOT.
    -things that have been computers/telecom all along (cell phone, tv, game console, etc) do not count as IOT

    • Re:IOT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dos1 ( 2950945 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:07PM (#48016031)

      I see some potential in some of its applications, but actually most of the time "LAN of Things" would be just enough.

      • by pspahn ( 1175617 )

        Most of the potential I see involves anything that generates data which can later be sold. It's not about making our lives better, it's about making money.

        These things will probably end up in a pair of shoes so that citizens can be tracked ... er ... ahem ... so that people who like running can have their data visualized into a useful format.

        • One use case that's often touted for this kind of thing is having appliances that can work on spot pricing for electricity. Over the course of the day, you get spikes from solar and wind (and tidal and so on) production when electricity is cheap. You get periods when power plants need to reduce capacity for maintenance when it is expensive. There are massive power storage facilities that profit from this: there is one near where I used to live that pumps water up a hill into a reservoir when electricity

    • by wirefarm ( 18470 )

      I thought it was all a bit silly, but this video made me rethink that position:

      http://bergcloud.com/case-stud... [bergcloud.com]

  • by ebonum ( 830686 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @05:44PM (#48015929)

    So I have 10 devices I want to hook up. The AC, the lights, refrigerator, washing machine, toaster, whatever. Does that mean I need 10 phone and data contracts with AT&T at 30 bucks (or more) each and then the payments recur every month? I can see why AT&T might like this technology.

    Next question. I had AT&T once. Calls kept dropping because they sold more phone contracts than their cell towers could support. What happens when each person goes from one connection to 5 (or more)?

    Off topic. Why am I not excited for 5G? It seems 4G and 5G designed so that you can hit your data cap on the unlimited plan for the month by running a download at max bandwidth for 30 minutes. This seem to be designed to bill people 100's extra every month for exceeding their plan rather than actually giving people higher download speeds.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:Cost (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:13PM (#48016047)

      So I have 10 devices I want to hook up. The AC, the lights, refrigerator, washing machine, toaster, whatever. Does that mean I need 10 phone and data contracts with AT&T at 30 bucks (or more) each and then the payments recur every month? I can see why AT&T might like this technology.

      No, it means two things:

      1} You should reconsider the wisdom of having your household appliances connected to the Internet
      2} You should wait for the appliances to have a Wifi modem instead, which isn't completely moronic

      Seriously, why should anyone's fridge be consuming any neighborhood spectrum to communicate with a cell tower? Short-range grouping of devices onto one backbone - which more often than not is over wired connections - is far more efficient. But we all know spectrum is a renewable resource... we can just make more, right?

      • by mlts ( 1038732 )

        This.

        Why does a fridge need hooked up to the Net? They have worked for a century without requiring networking, and there is no fundamental reason why they need it, especially with the fact that there are major issues with basic security. It is like RV fridges that now require batteries as well as propane. Do they keep your beer cold any better? Nope. Do they have another point of failure because they rely on the 12 volt system for the control board? Yes.

        If someone just has to have some inventory contr

        • The IoT does not mean your fridge. Every idiot keeps posting about their fridges for some reason when IoT is discussed.

          IoT is about having data available at all times. Since you people keep harping on the fridge example let me give you a good example. Is it going to benefit you in your house? No. What about if you owned a large store? Or you are a big company with some 100 fridges throughout the building. Having fridges able to continuously upload diagnostics about power use, time door spent open, and tempe

    • Right. Size isn't the issue. Maybe even power is secondary. The big issue is that, at least in the U.S.A., the telco cartel is keeping prices absurdly high to make these things prohibitive. If my dog could wear a collar with a device that was affordable to own and inexpensive when not really being used at all but could be contacted if he got out of the yard, he would have one. But our cartel keeps the prices so high that simple device like this would cost hundreds of dollars a year to operate. That's thousa

      • As they are running out of mobile numbers and ids, they are recycling them quicker than ever, therefore all SIMS if NOT used for any outgoing calls/sms, will expire in 90 days, be deactivated, and your mobile # placed into a recycle mode.

        Oh and they wont sms you a week before to warn you, its just done.

    • There is no cost so large that your overlords would gladly pay to permanently attach this thing to each and every slave on prison planet Earth.
    • by drkim ( 1559875 )

      So I have 10 devices I want to hook up. The AC, the lights, refrigerator, washing machine, toaster, whatever. Does that mean I need 10 phone and data contracts with AT&T...

      Perhaps you could have a little wireless LAN in the house that each device could talk to, with all the data coming into this module for remote monitoring and control. That way you only need one module.

      • by fnj ( 64210 )

        Er, if you have a wireless LAN, you might as well have router to an always-on internet connection, and say a Beaglebone Black for smarts to collect the data and forward it. That way you don't need any of these modules at all.

        • by drkim ( 1559875 )

          Er, if you have a wireless LAN, you might as well have router to an always-on internet connection, and say a Beaglebone Black for smarts to collect the data and forward it. That way you don't need any of these modules at all.

          Excellent point!

          Perhaps this would still be useful where no always-on internet connection is available - like an RV, or on a fleet of shipping trucks where you want to monitor a constellation of activities= speed, gas level, lights, engine status, reefer temps, etc.

          Or, where you don't want to spend money for an always-on internet connection, like a vacation cabin (when empty).

  • by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:03PM (#48016017) Journal

    ..in-car devices that insurance companies use to monitor policyholders' driving

    Over my dead body.

    *find tiny cellphone antenna*
    *SNIP*

    • Your dead body nobody's gonna care about, but your living body might be something most people will still try to avoid -- often even to the point of their own peril. Ever considered dumping the car and getiing serious about biking and hiking?

    • ..in-car devices that insurance companies use to monitor policyholders' driving

      Over my dead body. *find tiny cellphone antenna* *SNIP*

      If you're a clever insurance company you ask people if they want tracking in return for lower premiums. If your competitors are charging $300, you make the "no" people pay $315 and the "yes" people people pay $285. Then all the bad drivers and all the people concerned about privacy go off to another insurance company. Given the success of Facebook and Twitter, it looks like only 0.001% of the population cares about privacy. Therefore 99+% of the people who move across to your competitors are probably not ve

      • Except it's a gimmick. They already know what kind of driver you are. They have your driving history.

        What they are sorting for is people stupid enough to give an insurance company another excuse.

        • by pspahn ( 1175617 )

          What they are sorting for is people stupid enough to give an insurance company another excuse.

          I'd wager that what they are after is a treasure trove of data on what kind of people are driving where at what times. That is valuable data that will fetch a snappy price from the highest bidder.

          • No doubt it already gets a snappy price for the cell phone companies. I'm thinking the insurers are customers for this data and are sick of paying so much.

    • There will always be an insurance group for the privacy-concious and the really bad drivers.

      This is one of the uses of tracking technology that I'd actually agree with, if it is opt in, and it is very clear what information you are giving up, and how much you are getting paid for it.

      (The only problem is that most people have already given up all of their privacy whith their smartphones auto-posting everything they do to myspacebook, so they will accept this too cheaply. Wich means that it won't be worth it

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Looks like soon we will all need our own personal cellular interceptors to "capture" the communications of our devices and keep them the fuck off the internet.

  • by koan ( 80826 )

    Would anyone want this?

  • There are already networks dropping support for 2G and I assume 3G will follow. These type of devices need to last at least 10 years if not more. The mobile networks don't work on that type of time frame. A lot of the modules out there already won't work on most networks because they don't support 2G. GPRS doesn't help either as that is being dropped too.

    I envision devices that these would be put in to actually use well established low power wireless protocols. These devices would then talk to a router

  • Probably don't even need a CPU, there must be some kind of GPIO signal straight off the chip (Ring Indicator, anyone?). Should result in low cost and long battery life. Selling this to make life easier for terrorists seems like a bad idea.
  • I can definitely see the applications for some stuff. Such as dog tracking collars, remote weather stations, stolen item tracking, etc. But I don't want my fridge, HVAC, TV, stove or any other major appliances connected to a mobile network. I like my stove to just heat/cook my food, I don't want to risk it catching a virus so the hacker can either extort money from me to use it again or try to use it to burn my house down for lulz (unlikely I know, but I'm sure some would try).

  • I've been researching M2M for new products we have been developing.

    The main players are
    Telit (HE910 sereis), Italy
    Sierra Wireless (HL6528/HL8548), Canadian
    Quectel (UC20), Chinese
    Gemalto EHS6, French
    U-Blox (Lisa and Sara), Swiss

    I'm not sure if there is even a USA company that plays in this space.
    All the modules are of similar sie but have incompatible footprints.

    Essentially, these modules will embed a Broadcom SOC and a custom OS. Broadcom was charging the module makers too much, so they have started moving

    • by jrumney ( 197329 )
      AnyData, Novatel Wireless, Vertex Telecom - that is just from Qualcomm's list of module suppliers using their chips.
  • .... or else, their IP addresses alone will dry up before they know it. NAT or no NAT - even 10.x.x.x won't support everything
  • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Sunday September 28, 2014 @08:04PM (#48016503)

    I shudder when i think about all the way these things will be hacked and pwned... I remember a Samsung fridge with a touchscreen to run Twitter, and someone put on the fridge "I'm a fridge, why the fuck am I on twitter."

    That and the world scrambling to fix the Shellshock bug that was 20+ years in the making...

  • People still use 3G?
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      3g HSPA+ is actually more than fast enough for most smartphone tasks for something like a box an a semi that tracks the location it is more than fast enough. For a device in a car that allows you to stream pandora and do remote function it is also more than good enough.
      The key thing will be the cost of service.

  • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Monday September 29, 2014 @01:46AM (#48017493)

    I thought this debate was dead long ago - if ever there really was a debate, which I doubt. Every time the subject comes up, people more or less agree that it isn't something we want, although there may be some niches where it makes sense.

    There are massive concerns about security, privacy etc - and that is just with IPv4. And although lots of people are now fascinated with the smartphone, I'm not sure it will last. Just for one thing - does everyone REALLY want to be connected all the time? Especially when it doesn't actually give you all that much in terms of benefit, combined with the fact that the more time you spend glaring at the small screen, the more are you missing out on the more substantial joys in real life.

    It's a bit like the Borg:
    Borg: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"
    Us: "No actually, we don't think so"; and we shoot them down.
    Borg: "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" ...

    To me it sounds like somebody is being paid to simply spout this nonsense. Next time, please post a list of your sponsors.

  • ...between appliances:

    Chair@furniture: Fuck, my owner is so heavy, I'm creaking all over!

    Table@furniture: My poor legs! He keeps leaning on me, and my legs closest to him are starting to develop microfractures! Someone make him stop! This is TORTURE!

    NSA_Mod@furniture: Potential terrorist located. Name, Location, Mensurations?

    NSA_Mod banned for reason: Is_a_pervert.

    Table@furniture: ...WTF was that?

    NSA_Mod@furniture: Fucking Moderation system, now I had to hack my way back into this.

    NSA_Mod@furniture: Crap.

    NS

  • I see some potential in some of its applications, but actually most of the time "LAN of Things" would be just enough. If you really substitution absolute for all people, all people [truyenhd.net]

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...