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

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."

Comments

3G is terrible for all these things

[cynop]

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)

Re:3G is terrible for all these things

[sjames]

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.

Re:3G is terrible for all these things

[dohzer]

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

Re:3G is terrible for all these things

[The Conductor]

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.

Re:3G is terrible for all these things

[The Conductor]

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.

Fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw!

[kheldan]

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

Over my dead body.

*find tiny cellphone antenna*
*SNIP*

Re:IOT

[dos1]

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

Re:Cost

[PsychoSlashDot]

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?

Re:Smallest area???

[cheater512]

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.

Interconnected network of hacked things

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

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...