IoT Shape, Timeline Said Still Unclear
BRUSSELS -- Nearly everyone agrees that the Internet of Things is coming, but not when or in what form, speakers said Monday at the Internet of Things Europe summit. The IoT always seems to be “just a few years around the corner,” said Carl-Christian Buhr, a member of cabinet for Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes. The IoT should be, but often isn’t, distinguished from cyber-physical systems (CPS), said Geoff Mulligan, U.S. presidential innovation fellow on CPS and founder of the IPSO (Internet Protocol for Smart Objects) Alliance. The U.S. and EU approaches to IoT development differ but are complementary, speakers said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
There are two possible realities for the IoT, Buhr said. One is that it hasn’t happened yet because it’s very expensive to build the applications and surrounding context needed to make it workable, he said. Reusable infrastructure is needed, not just in the physical sense but also in the devices and opportunities for devices to use the existing infrastructure and platforms, he said. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel each time, he said. The question is who will develop those new, open cross-platforms, and who will invest in them, he said. The second view is that cities and landscapes are already littered with wired and wireless accessibility, and that the IoT already is in smartphones, in connected cars and elsewhere, said Buhr. Smart objects are now being deployed that other applications could ride on, without the need for some IoT governance process, he said. From this perspective, the EU has already accomplished a lot toward creating the IoT via strategies on cloud computing, chip development and spectrum, he said.
The question is whether there’s any need for an overarching umbrella for the IoT, with its own name, or whether the different policy areas can be used in conjunction with each other, Buhr said. The IoT will happen, and policymakers must look at what’s developing to see if there’s a need for action, something that’s not clear yet, he said. The Council of Ministers in October agreed on the need for cloud and big data services, but what to do with the data to make it usable is missing from the debate, he said.
Many in the U.S. view the IoT as intrusive, “big brother,” a lot of hype, or a way to sell more stuff people don’t need, Mulligan said. The government has invested significant money in basic research on CPS, which is different from the IoT, he said. The IoT, for example, tells a person where the car is, while CPS lets one control the car or the infrastructure around it for better traffic management, he said. The SmartAmerica Challenge begun in December aims to show the economic and commercial benefits of CPS, he said. The projects will be showcased at a White House summit in June.
There’s a point of having sensors without tight control and in just gathering the data, which is the IoT, Mulligan said. Asked whether that implies that there’s actually a definition for the IoT, he said his project had to define terms quickly and he’s not sure its definition of the IoT is right. Many disagree, arguing that CPS and IoT are the same, he said. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is about to start a working group to set out a framework for CPS to ensure the terminology is correct, he said.
There has been little public discussion of the IoT in the U.S. but extensive debate in Europe for the past five years, said moderator Nigel Cameron, Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies president. Europe is very good at talking and setting up processes, but then “some guy in California” deploys something that becomes a global product, Buhr said. The European approach of thinking early in holistic terms is fine, but maybe policymakers should refocus on how to bring those ideas to fruition faster, Buhr said.
The U.S. and European approaches complement each other, said Ilkka Lakaniemi, Finland Chamber of Commerce vice president-digitalization and renewal, and program chairman of the EU Future Internet Public Private Partnership. They should coordinate in areas such as standards and commercializing innovations arising from research and development, he said. Europe is often poor at making commercial successes of research, he said. In the U.S., Mulligan said, “we tend to leap and then think.”