Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-connected dept.

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."

20 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. 3G is terrible for all these things by cynop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by PurpleAlien · · Score: 2

      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 applications... Instead, they won't because they are shortsighted - just like they wouldn't with the pager network.

      --
      My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
    3. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by dohzer · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    4. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by The+Conductor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by The+Conductor · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by jrumney · · Score: 2

      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 overall consumption will be lower. And idle consumption is lower for 3G than 2G. LTE may be better still, but outside major city centres and away from highways there are few places where you will find coverage.

      As for cost from providers, that may be a problem you have with your provider, but it is not universal. In most parts of the world, data is charged the same, no matter what technology it is going over.

    7. Re:3G is terrible for all these things by The+Conductor · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Smallest area??? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    1. Re:Smallest area??? by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You need slightly more than just the chip to send a signal.
      Antenna, filtering, power amplification, etc... is all done outside the chip.

      That is why the article says 'module' not 'chip'. The module has everything it needs to actually work.

    2. Re:Smallest area??? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      is 300 mm^2 which is about 17.33 sq mm

      Is the compression non-lossy?

  3. Cost by ebonum · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Cost by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Regardless of whether this might be a good thing for you as a private individual, 3G-connected appliances are already a hit with businesses. Vending machines that take cash are being phased out in many coutnries, and if they take your bank card they need a network connection. Remote monitoring of utility infrastructure is also an application -- it's hard to justifying running fiber out to one box in a rural area, but if it's within 3G range, there you go.

    2. Re:Cost by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    3. Re:Cost by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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 temperature can give you an indication of mechanical failure or tell if you seals are worn. This may save you real money in the form of power bills or savings by not having a service man come out every month.

  4. Fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw! by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    Over my dead body.

    *find tiny cellphone antenna*
    *SNIP*

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  5. Re:IOT by dos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  6. Interconnected network of hacked things by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  7. Re:Just in Time! by CRCulver · · Score: 2

    That's an American problem. GSM was sparingly rolled out in the US due to the prevalence of CDMA, so reclamation of those frequencies is manageable. There are no such plans for the rest of the world, where there are hundreds of millions of GSM devices still in use.

  8. Again? by jandersen · · Score: 2

    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.