Slashdot Mirror


Cities Wasting Millions of Taxpayer's Money In Failed IoT Pilots

dkatana writes: Two years ago at the Smart Cities Expo World Congress, Antoni Vives, then Barcelona's second deputy mayor, said he refused to have more technology pilots in the city: "I hate pilots, if anyone of you [technology companies] comes to me selling a pilot, just get away, I don't want to see you." He added, "I am fed up with the streets full of devices. It is a waste of time, a waste of money, and doesn't deliver anything; it is just for the sake of selling something to the press and it does not work."

Barcelona is already a leading city in the use of IoT and, according to Fortune, "The most wired city in the world". Over the past 10 years, the city has experienced a surge in the number of sensors, data collection devices and automation and has become "a showcase for the smart metropolis of the future". Over the past few years technology companies have sold pilot programs costing millions of dollars to cities all over the world, claiming it will enhance their "Smart City" rating. Unfortunately, after the initial buzz, many of those pilots never get beyond the evaluation stage and are abandoned because the cities cannot afford them in the first place.

149 comments

  1. Small != Cheap by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The maintenance/support/licensing costs of a given gizmo is probably roughly the same regardless of the cost or size of the physical box*. The software is becoming the bottleneck.

    The physical size and/or hardware costs seem to get too much attention. A system is a system. Size does NOT matter (that much).

    * Call it "Tablizer's Law" if it's not already taken by another pundit.

    1. Re:Small != Cheap by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      A pretty big chunk of the development cost is the software. And software doesn't have much of a physical size. Often the small sized devices tend to have more constraints that require more careful (expensive) software development to pare the software down.

      On the hardware side, buying components that are small size, packing more onto a board (increasing the number of layers), designing an on board antenna instead of buying a third party, tends to increase costs until you can have enough volume to drive the costs back down.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Small != Cheap by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      On the flip side such devices probably do less, having a more narrow mission (assuming no scope-creep). This may balance out the additional effort of trying to fit tighter hardware constraints.

    3. Re:Small != Cheap by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 1

      On the flip side such devices probably do less, having a more narrow mission (assuming no scope-creep). This may balance out the additional effort of trying to fit tighter hardware constraints.

      On the flip side of that such devices, by virtue of doing less, have less capacity to do more in the future, and so in the first several waves of experimentation before the market gets firmly established (if it ever does, CueCat I'm looking at you), you have devices which are obsolete very shortly after they are successfully implemented, so that the cost savings for limited devices may be balanced out (eaten up) by the need to re-buy a bunch of new limited narrow devices 3-4 years from now.

      --

      Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    4. Re:Small != Cheap by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The maintenance/support/licensing costs of a given gizmo is probably roughly the same regardless of the cost or size of the physical box*. The software is becoming the bottleneck.

      No, what to do with the thing(s) is the bottleneck. As projects like OLPC have shown, simply airdropping in technology and hoping it'll sort itself out is a recipe for little more than millions wasted on, well, airdropping in technology (unfortunately Ivan Krstic's "Sic Transit Gloria Laptopi" has gone 404 or I'd post a link to that).

      About fifteen years ago I watched (from the periphery) as the US Govt sank several billion dollars into technology that was essentially an unproven hypothesis dreamed up by geeks (the fact that in the ten years before that no-one had been able to make it work didn't seem to bother them). A few years later someone published a report on it titled "Nothing but Pilots", which pretty much summed up the outcome.

      On the one hand if you sit back with everything you do and wait for use cases to appear you'll never make much progress, but then you need at least one or two real, practical applications before you roll out some new geek dream. It sounds like the Barcelona deputy mayor has reached the "Nothing but Pilots" stage of the cycle.

  2. This pretty much sums up IoT ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Internet of Things isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.

    It's marketing hype by people trying to cash in, but who otherwise have no idea what it's good for.

    It's snake oil, nothing more. Getting fast talked into spending money on pilot projects to help some company achieve their goal of "monetizing your synergies while holistically marketing the awesomeness of IoT to allow you to improve your "'Smart City Rating' means you've been hoodwinked.

    If it's so awesome and revolutionary, you should be paying the city to promote your product.

    Instead it's just a bunch of bullshit and lies about how unfinished tech with no actual value is going to revolutionize the world.

    Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet of things" should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.

    Getting suckered into spending public money to allow some idiot to let you help him figure out what this crap is for is a sure sign you're not doing enough due diligence.

    I'm glad to see people like this starting to say "go away and leave us alone". Because there's nothing there yet, just some speculative crap.

    It's a solution in search of a problem, and a bunch of people trying to get other people help them figure out the business plan and what this stuff is for.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet of things" should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.

      I've been trying to keep my job skills fresh so I can keep up with the "next big thing". But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell IoT really is and why it's taking off. Yes, I know it's connecting things to the internet. But to what end? What real benefit does any of this give you? What makes an internet connected widget worth so much more? What value does connecting it to the internet give you?

      No one has ever really given me a good answer.

    2. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL :) Good post, gstoddart. I think you just about summed up what IoT is!!!

    3. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the moment these companies get a big client and suddenly find themselves rolling in cash they'll promptly strip the development department down to one-developer and two PCs for testing. Then they'll put that whole effort in the back office so they can get to work on then next-next-big-thing (or the owner will buy a yacht).

      The next-next-big-thing is the same-thing but with a toaster strapped on for good measure, and we need to install one in every streetlight because "you never know when you need toast", amirite?

    4. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by savuporo · · Score: 2

      By being connected to a global base of knowledge, many problems can escape local optima solutions.

      Thats the gist of it. Details and implementations vary and matter, of course.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    5. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Define "things".

      'cause I have all kinds of things that I deal with on a daily basis on my network. HVAC EMS controllers, freezer/fridge temp monitors, security access controllers, cameras, signboards, just to name what I can think of off of the top of my head.

      The common thread among these things is that they're all based on communication being useful or essential before the medium is decided upon. It's useful for commercial freezers to alert when the temps approach the liquid point of water. It's useful for HVAC temperature programming to change when building use schedules change. It's useful for a central directory services system to authenticate keycard door access. It's useful to update the marquee sign from any PC with the right software and credentials as opposed to having to go out there with a ladder or to even be restricted to a single PC with a serial link.

      I want the Internet of Things to tell me that the clothes wash cycle or dry cycle has completed, so I can be out in the workshop while laundry is being cleaned or dried. I want the yard sprinkler controller to alert me when it goes into 'rain' mode and pauses watering the yard so I would have the option to override if I choose to do so, and when it comes out of rain mode.

      It doesn't have to be complicated, which is why most corporate approaches are wrong, they needlessly complicate it when simple notifications are all we need.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Internet of Things isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.

      But...but....VC funding! Synergy! Innovation! New thinking!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because there simply is no answer. It's literally people trying to get other people to pay for the development costs to find out what it is and what it's good for.

      There is no consistent definition, no standards, not even any really good use cases.

      It's something people have latched onto, and decided that, even if they have no idea what it means, they want to cash in on it.

      People have come up with some things around it, but they've not addressed any real world issues like privacy, security, or what the hell to do with it. It's like in the late 90's, where the frenzy happened around "teh dot com" -- if you had a frickin' website, you had VCs throwing you enough money to make some people rich, and ensure there would be a healthy resale market for Herman Miller Aeron chairs.

      You didn't need a business plan, a product, or any actual skills in running a business. It was simply a feeding frenzy of stupidity.

      IoT is a bunch of people trying to capitalize on a buzzword nobody can define, with technology nobody has yet built, and trying to find other people to help pay for it. It's a though experiment by people who have read far too much science fiction.

      Nobody can answer any of these questions because they're still making it up. It's a gold rush to build vapor ware.

      It's breathless futurists telling us this is the future without being able to tell us why or how or what we'd do with it. As I said, it's snake oil, nothing more.

      It's literally years away from anybody even being able to give plausible use cases, and several years further away from anybody giving a damn about it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've thought all it was was my fridge, water heater, and other nefarious doesn't-need-an-internet-connection-but-does things for rooting my home network.

    9. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, all you're saying is that "it's going to help you" without providing any details whatsoever on how or why it will be useful and helpful...

      Thanks a pant load, Chet

    10. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Systems of systems are all over in all sorts of industries. Cheapish home sensors and other devices could extend this to home use. The problem is that they don't play well together easily and companies aren't taking security seriously.

    11. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a salesmen's and VC's dream. All hype, little substance, huge line-ups of suckers.

      It's also a pretty cool name, very futuristic. It makes me think of Terminator.

    12. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      Because there simply is no answer. It's literally people trying to get other people to pay for the development costs to find out what it is and what it's good for.

      That's really what I thought it is.

      There is no consistent definition, no standards, not even any really good use cases.

      It's something people have latched onto, and decided that, even if they have no idea what it means, they want to cash in on it.

      People have come up with some things around it, but they've not addressed any real world issues like privacy, security, or what the hell to do with it. It's like in the late 90's, where the frenzy happened around "teh dot com" -- if you had a frickin' website, you had VCs throwing you enough money to make some people rich, and ensure there would be a healthy resale market for Herman Miller Aeron chairs.

      You didn't need a business plan, a product, or any actual skills in running a business. It was simply a feeding frenzy of stupidity.

      IoT is a bunch of people trying to capitalize on a buzzword nobody can define, with technology nobody has yet built, and trying to find other people to help pay for it. It's a though experiment by people who have read far too much science fiction.

      Nobody can answer any of these questions because they're still making it up. It's a gold rush to build vapor ware.

      It's breathless futurists telling us this is the future without being able to tell us why or how or what we'd do with it. As I said, it's snake oil, nothing more.

      It's literally years away from anybody even being able to give plausible use cases, and several years further away from anybody giving a damn about it.

      So really, what you're saying is that this is the next big empty bubble that some people will get rich off of. And really, the best way to capitalize on it is to do exactly what they did in the 90's and hire a double-talking marketer to sell vapor ware long enough to get bought out by someone else and walk away with millions.

      I think I now have a rough plan to fund my retirement...

    13. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know it's connecting things to the internet. But to what end? What real benefit does any of this give you? What makes an internet connected widget worth so much more? What value does connecting it to the internet give you?

      One example would be the ability to warm up or cool down your home remotely. Sometimes I am out late, home early, or spend the night elsewhere and it would be nice to not have to waste energy warming an empty house.

      I generally agree with the sentiment that IoT is overhyped, but there are indeed examples of useful applications.

    14. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Yes, to put a fine point on it: IoT is bullshit, lies, marketing, and empty promises, hawking solutions nobody really gives a crap about, using technology which doesn't really yet exist.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      ...and selling it to suckers.

    16. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by savuporo · · Score: 2

      No, i wasn't saying its going to help you or anyone else. What i was saying is that at the abstract level, its simply a local optimization vs global optimization issue.
      Whether this optimization is feasible or can work for any given problem with any given implementation is a different matter altogether.

      An unconnected device/thing can at best perform local optimization because it simply does not have larger context and information, global optimization cannot be performed.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    17. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell IoT really is

      You are aware of all the stupid UI patents that were "something we've done for years, but on a computer"? And how that was followed with a round that were "things we've done for years, but on the internet"? Well, IoT is "everything that has no possible benefit from being online, but on the internet."

    18. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      It gives you a high-margin, shiny, new, trendy TLA thing to put on your product that the marketing people will love.

      Oh, you were talking about the consumer... I got nothing.

    19. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by orasio · · Score: 1

      Back in the nineties...

      The Internet isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.

      It's marketing hype by people trying to cash in, but who otherwise have no idea what it's good for. ...
      Instead it's just a bunch of bullshit and lies about how unfinished tech with no actual value is going to revolutionize the world.

      Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet " should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.

      Getting suckered into spending public money to allow some idiot to let you help him figure out what this crap is for is a sure sign you're not doing enough due diligence.

      I'm glad to see people like this starting to say "go away and leave us alone". Because there's nothing there yet, just some speculative crap.

      It's a solution in search of a problem, and a bunch of people trying to get other people help them figure out the business plan and what this stuff is for.

    20. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by clovis · · Score: 2

      While you are living in a world of info-darkness, having nothing better to do than drinking beer and having sex, the world of IoT is monitoring all those things that really matter.
      Don't you know that all those people walking and driving with their face in the phone aren't talking or playing games. They're keeping on top of the status of all the devices in their home, and then texting the report to their friends. LOL! I'm at 29 degrees!

      This is the future, right here and now, and the future got here yesterday except for those troglodytes who have already been left behind.

      It's almost a fact that I'm working on an app right now to keep my Facebook page updated with my house's IoT reports so my FB friends can check all these devices in my house whenever they want to as well!

      And what are you going to do when the dude in the office next to you calls out
      "I'm dropping my house's thermostat to 60 degrees to see how long it takes to get there! Who wants to race?"
      Not you, because you don't even know the temperature in your home right now, much less be able to remotely thermostat race.

    21. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by sydsavage · · Score: 1

      Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
      Like a genuine, bona fide
      Electrified, six-car monorail
      What'd I say?

      Monorail
      What's it called?
      Monorail
      That's right! Monorail

      Monorail
      Monorail
      Monorail

      I hear those things are awfully loud
      It glides as softly as a cloud
      Is there a chance the track could bend?
      Not on your life, my Hindu friend

      What about us brain-dead slobs?
      You'll be given cushy jobs
      Were you sent here by the Devil?
      No, good sir, I'm on the level

      The ring came off my pudding can
      Take my pen knife, my good man
      I swear it's Springfield's only choice
      Throw up your hands and raise your voice

      Monorail
      What's it called?
      Monorail
      Once again
      Monorail

      But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
      Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken

      Monorail!
      Monorail!
      Monorail!
      Monorail!

    22. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything besides marketing-speak? Because I read that and all I hear is the Charlie Brown "Wah Wah" speak.

    23. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Todd+Palin · · Score: 1

      Great questions. I'm all for putting a microprocessor in a device if that makes it work better, but does my toaster really need to send me a text when my toast is toasted? Do I really need to be able to program my thermostat from The Bahamas? Most people don't even know how to program their thermostat at home, because it isn't all that important to them. You turn it up when you are cold, down if you are hot, and mostly it has to do with your activity level, not some kind of programmable schedule. And if you are in The Bahamas you don't even think of your furnace at home, in fact thinking about the furnace is the last thing you'd want to think about. Oh sure, you might like to know if the furnace died before your pipes froze, but how often does that actually happen?

      It really is a solution in search of a problem. If we really try, we can imagine scenarios where you might want a text from your toaster, but who is going to spend the time to program a smart toaster? OK, I know this is slashdot, so that probably is a stupid question. Because you can.

    24. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still wonder why on earth we need, for example, internet connected washing machines.

    25. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want the Internet of Things to tell me that the clothes wash cycle or dry cycle has completed, so I can be out in the workshop while laundry is being cleaned or dried.

      My washing machine is so high tech it has this thing called a beeper. This alerts me to the cycle being finished.
      If I will be out of beeper range, it also tells me how long the wash cycle is. I can look at a clock (or feel the passing of time - with a little practice, you should be able to tell what time of day it is +/- 15min without a watch, it's a great skill and means I need one less device).
      Grass? Go out and look. The two minutes break will do your mind some good.

      Just some suggestions.

    26. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell IoT really is and why it's taking off

      Having been in this since the 'beginning' of IoT. Let me let you in on a secret. I can tell you how to make tons of money doing it.

      Here it is. Have a plan that saves people money. Thats it. All the 'smart connected' crap and 'automated xyz' is buzz. You make real money by making sure you have an effect way to save people money. The easy 'ideas' are stop truck rolls. For some reason union guys are expensive and have min amounts of time on site. If you can reduce that 99% of the time you will sell something and make money. Plan on about 6months to a year per customer dev work. Less if you have a decent framework. Be careful your vendor does not snake your customer (they like to do that).

      We made good money hooking into generators and hvac stuff. Building reports that track info and show 'hey you can skip this months routine maintenance because no one ran the machine' means you just paid for the connection and software for the whole year and that dude can work on the other site where 'holy smokes they ran it 2x than normal'. I think one dude I was saving him 3x per month what he was paying me and his end customers were much happier. He was saving so much money he felt guilty actually charging his customers for it.

      All the other stuff is 'frameworks' and seminars.

    27. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Find yourself a bookie and invest.... I mean, you may as well make the most of it.. C'mon! Take a chance! Have your wife dress up like a cocktail waitress and pretend you're in Vegas, *renewing your vows*, yeah, that's it!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried 3D printing it, nanotechnology-style? If not, you're just a Luddite.

    29. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes he does, and its not hard to think about.

      Traffic sensor and bullenin on a highway:

      Not connected -> only has local information, cars here are moving, therefore there are no traffic problems.

      Connected to entire network of sensors all along the highway -> Now can use all that data to tell travelers that some issue is affecting traffic 2 miles up, traffic has been movign slowly for the last 5 minutes. Traffic at the next point after is moving fine. You can then know that its likely an accident bottlenecking traffic, not a meteor stirke that took out the entire road (obviously there are more likely scenarios). You can either continue, try to get off and take a detour, etc.

      Its all useless

    30. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And on top of that, it gives people who aren't professionals in the field the idea that "anyone" can develop for the IoT, which results in any combination of the following:

      1. Increased sales of devices that are packaged with spiffy IoT labels for anyone willing to jump on board the trend
      2. Non-professional evangelists of IoT devices billing themselves as "rock stars" because, hey, open source is the key to the future (yes, I've had a non-professional tell me this), and if you "know" IoT, you've got an enhanced quality that will qualify you as a hacker.
      3. Increased Government nose-sticking-in-your-damn-business because if everyone is using it, and it plays into BYOD culture, it means more regulation, more "accreditation", more making sure that you can be kept track of with your shiny new toys.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    31. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have networked traffic monitoring already and it already goes right to the GPS in your car through the satellite connection.

      What does that have to do with connecting my toaster, washing machine, and thermostat to the internet?

    32. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It depends on what it is. Cab companies are finding out that having your cabs (or their drivers) connected to the Internet is very important. We already discovered that hooking refrigerators up to the Internet was kind of stupid.

      In terms of "smart" cities, traffic sensors at important intersections and central control can really improve traffic flow. Parking meters you can pay by app are very convenient (provided the fee is reasonable). Busses with GPS on board and an app to show when they're coming seems like it should be a no brainer. But a lot of the other stuff companies are trying to push is just stupid.

    33. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. Hate to break it to you, but back in the 90s the internet had been a thing for about 20 years. It was dominated by e-mail and gopher (pre www) and mostly academic. In the 90s html and the web became a thing to make it more accessible to the general public and that was a big thing.

      In the late 90s "on the interwebs" turned into a substitute for a solid business plan and magical application of the internet to otherwise non-useful business ideas turned into the dot com bubble.

      The internet was established and useful in a variety of applications mostly to existing businesses for the distribution of information and e-mail communications. Just like networked devices are currently established and useful to a bunch of established large scale industrial systems. It's the pseudo-visionary idiots that magically apply "on the internets" to every device as a "plan" for a business or useful product that need to just go the fuck away. Those are the idiots that are trying their damnedest to turn IoT into the IoT bubble. Sure a Google or an Amazon will probably come out of it. But most of it is hyped up garbage. OH I KNOW! A garbage can in your kitchen connected to the internet so it can tell you whether or not it needs to be emptied! Oh wait. You can just look at it and figure that out -- when you throw something away. This is exactly what IoT is turning into: useless devices for visionary VCs that will end up in a garbage pile along with pets.com.

    34. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er *not all useless

      Typo sorry

    35. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your thermostat now can know how close to home you are so it can turn on teh heat or AC so its a comfortable temperature while keeping it off when you are not there.

      Washing machine, you throw a load of laundry set to wash near the end of the day when you 45 mins from home or when you leave work. You get home its done to pop in teh dryer or hang up and hasn't been sitting there all day damp.

      Toaster -> ok useless

      TV/Media box -> set to dvr shows only if you are away from teh house, don't have to set it to record all, or just the one as you leaving. Simply flag yoru favourite shows and it can record it if you aren't home and/or if you aren't watching.

      I was also replying to your see,ingly ignorign the local versus global optimization.

      Perhaps a box in your house can warn you of brownouts during a heatwave so you can help mitigate the effect it will have on your home.

      I can think a ton of uses that are maybe a little niche, but can be amazingly useful is eliminating some tedious inefficiencies in everyday life.

    36. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one am looking forward to the day when the electric company can adjust my thermostat without my permission because "the grid is overloaded today" instead of investing in infrastructure.

    37. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The problem is we have all these shiny new hammers are are desperately looking for nails. I have a $10 wifi-enabled arduino coming tomorrow. Its so cheap, I feel I HAVE to wire up something with it. IM going to make a quick little solar powered temp and humidity sensor, which isn't terribly unique on its own. What makes it compelling is how much functionality I can get for such a tiny price. Hell, it can run a 5 person minecraft server. If it fries up in the sun, who cares, we can build version 2.0 for next to nothing. We are at the point where we can wire up almost anything to the internet for super cheap. I agree that the IoT hype is stupid, but we will find some killer uses for having cheap sensors and connectivity everywhere.

      --
      Good-bye
    38. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by dejaniv · · Score: 1

      Internet of things is a thing. I've been following the subject of IoT for some time. In the beginning It didn't really look like a thing to me either and that's perhaps because just few months ago it didn't have enough of a shape to call it a thing or I just didn't know enough about it.

      In my books, I call something technology if it comprises of set of problems and solutions to those problems. Here's what IoT problems (and solutions) are:

      1) Measuring values in physical world and sometimes changing physical world as response to commands (sensors and actuators)
      2) Transporting measurements to computing centers where they can be analysed and acted upon (wired and wireless communication hardware and protocols)
      3) Power independence for measuring devices (hardware that consumes low power where needed or harvests power from surrounding sources)
      4) Information storage and processing (usually cloud storage and data pipelines like queues or streams followed by services that process information and/or store it)
      5) All problems above involve additional dimension, everyone's favorite these days - scalability (massive number of devices collecting data frequently, sending it over through communication channels for processing in cloud)

      Here's just one simple idea of how IoT can make city better. Imagine a smart waste disposal bin used for compostable waste. It collects information about how much waste is in it and sends the information over to Smart City's cloud "application". Every morning this application forms a map of places where garbage disposal truck needs to visit to collect garbage. It also allocates enough trucks for the work and optimizes their route for the day. This may reduce cost of fuel and reduce truck maintenance cost by optimizing number of trucks used daily. Citizens are happy because their compostable garbage isn't left to rotten (and stink) for long time.

      Further more, data analytics team may use the information to extract patterns. For example, how much waste is generated in certain part of the city on a football game day or on bad weather day and use it for truck fleet management.

      Of course, this example may be solved in some other way or may not reduce costs at all, but that may also be considered as problem in IoT - how much the solution costs and is it worth it and ultimately, how to reduce the cost and complexity of application so that IoT is more often worth it.

      To summarize, IoT is a thing. It may not be necessary in many solutions but in some it probably is good option or will be. Still, for sure, it's a thing.

    39. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know what else would be equally feasible if you cared that much about the energy saving?

      getting home and turning on the heating cooling... and bearing with the discomfort not being temperate for like, half an hour.

      i'd sooner deal with that then deal with having to do security updates on a house.

    40. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The only thing certain about the Next Big Thing is that it is not yet big.

    41. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It is marketing. But many of these internet of things devices existed before the term existed. These are making good return on value in most cases. Smart meters for example. The Smart Cities thing, although it's also marketing, is about taking proven ideas that have been used by utilities and use them for municipalities also. Many cities really are rather backward in how they deal with their infrastructure; they don't know that a stoplight has burned out for example without waiting for people to phone in, or streetlights are on a timer that requires having a service visit before it can be changed.

    42. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is sort of wrong. It's about networking devices, but not necessarily about putting them on "the internet". But the marketing of IoT these days seems to be more about consumer devices, sometimes things that are not even networked but just have a bluetooth connection to a phone. It's a buzzword. But for every ten stupid consumer IoT devices there's one good one out there that people don't see because it's not consumer oriented.

    43. Re: This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow you are dumb. Sure there is market speak but every reply clearly detailed the purpose, you simply are not capable of wrapping your mind around it. The question of IoT is the optimization worth the security risks. With local devices a compromise is limited to the physical devices you can Crack where as connected devices can be cracked in large quantities.

    44. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Electric meters in some parts of the world have two outputs. One output is typically connected to a water heater, which can be shut off remotely in case of excessive load on the grid. It's not a consumer device though, so it doesn't get the hipster awe like the dumb IoT things.

    45. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Internet of Things has also been in existence for a decade. What's happening now is that people are coming up with silly ideas, like putting your thermostat on the internet so that you can show fancy charts to your friends. The Smart City approach is a good idea, much more useful than more gadgets for the technophiles to put in their homes. But since everyone is jumping in on the Smart Cities thing it is generating too many "me too!" solutions which ends up giving a bad reputation to the good solutions.

    46. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attaching your thermostat to the internet allows you to check/adjust your temperature remotely. Eventually it will also allow the electric company to adjust your thermostat for you in a non-optional way when the grid requires it. This will of course be done in lieu of expanding their infrastructure.

    47. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Funny I have radiant floor heating and it takes hours to change temp. Traditional thermostats also suck at getting it right they cut off heat when the setpoint is reached which do to the lag is far to late and it overshoots. Compare that to a IoT thermostat that can figure this out take outside conditions into account. Mind you radiant floor heating is generally wonderful with a nice ven warmth. Hell all that thermal mass means I lag hours behind in the summer as well.

      IoT is a bad idea it's everybody's device going to the cloud and only working together if a deal is struck. I do want lots of sensors etc in my home controlled by a local box, maybe the box is pretty thin shifting things to the cloud maybe it's thick and does everything locally in a perfect works it's a hybrid. It gets weather forecasts, calendaring info, school closings, when my phone thinks I'll be home, current buy prices for electricity, etc but it generally uses local logic to make decisions.

      For it to realy work well it needs more data, requiring grocery stores to publish all their prices including sales if they are to accept food stamps would mean near perfect information with that NGO's etc can make near perfect shopping lists. Expand out and your refrigerator knows what you have historical trending and thus can figure out your grocery list. Your thermostat can figure out if it's cheaper to run the heat pump or a ng boiler or electric hot water heater. Your sprinkler system can put off watering if rain is expected and not send the robot lawn mower out hell it can know if there is some town ordinance that says you can not water your lawn today (and still do so if the owner says to).

      It's also little things, since you can get a decently powerful wifi enabled full ip stack microcontroller for under a couple bucks now. That means no clock ever blinking 12:00 as the sntp can provide it. It also means that pretty much every sensor etc can be networked and thus used. Is the humidity up in the kitchen says the stove, well the exhaust fan can turn on says the home controller.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    48. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I've been an embedded systems engineer since high school. Well, not officially (I am now), but building with electronics since grade school (thank you radio shack and heathkit) as well as plugging things into the internet since before it was called the internet, and I still haven't figured it out either so don't feel bad.

    49. Re: This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked for "cloud"... IoT is just another marketing extension of the Internet.

    50. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      So, just internet then?

    51. Re: This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the IoT sounds great, right up until the first Internet outage. We can't even meet the 25Mb standard for broadband, but by all means, let's add millions of devices that all want to report everything to the mother company and refuse to function when they can't.

    52. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Connected predates internet. This just takes advantage of infrastructure to make it easier, but is in no way revolutionary. Maybe it is to people 'unversed in the trade' kinda like how you get patents on rounded window corners or one click ordering. Eg, I designed and built a lab power supply. It had a digitally controlled front panel with a CPU that had built in RS-232 port. So I spent an hour hacking together a remote link so you could turn it on or off from across the lab or ramp up the power supply at a specific rate (useful when doing ceramics). It would have been mind blowingly trivial, about 20 lines of code and ten minutes to make it talk over the internet. Maybe iot is just another way of patenting trivial ideas.

    53. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I've been an embedded engineer for decades as well, writing my first code on a TRaSh-80 model 1 back in 1977 or 1978. I too was connecting things to the internet back in the early days before most everyone had heard of it. Maybe that's our problem. We're too old to "get it". It must be a hipster thing.

    54. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Washing machine, you throw a load of laundry set to wash near the end of the day

      You mean like this? but with more failure modes and a higher cost?

    55. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      Almost everyone had an idea of something you could do with the internet, good or bad or unknown. I haven't heard of a single idea of what makes the iot new or revolutionary or even evolutionary. Every idea, or even in realization, existed pre internet.

      1993

    56. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      This is exactly the right answer.

      Flushing the toilet from your cellphone is the goal (and trivially easy to implement), but now will take a $50/month cox cable subscription as well as half a dozen licensing fees and a $300 plumber call at 3am because a connector fell off the solenoid that replaced the handle.

    57. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      everyone needs a Thneed.

    58. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      dry cycle has completed Most washers run on a fixed preset timer. set your watch alarm for 24minutes. Nothing to break.

    59. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Power line communications

    60. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      ca. 1995 I put a Mr. Coffee machine on the internet with linux, pc104 and slip. In the late 80's there were all kinds of networked and remotely operated devices and sensors. Cobbling on internet connectivity is a few lines, not even dozen, of code.

    61. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      All problems above have been done for many decades. The only difference is now the dataflow goes through a switched packet network (invisible to the application) instead of a radio link or telephone line. So patent it because it's done on the internet of things like people patented all kinds of things that everyone did because it's now done on a computer.

    62. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still wonder why on earth we need, for example, internet connected washing machines.

      Maybe I want to do laundry before I get home, but not have them get moldy by sitting for 8 hours in the washer before I can put them in the dryer?
      If I don't know when I will get home, a delay timer isn't enough. This way, I can load it in the AM, wait until I'm about to leave the office, have them wash while I drive home and then put them right in the dryer when I get home, minutes after they finish rather than hours.

      I mean, not me personally, since I don't need to drive to work, but someone out there has a use for it. If the washer breaks and water starts flowing uncontrollably, I'd like to get a text message if my basement is flooding too, just in case the internet connect sump pump alert fails. I ALWAYS want more information available TO me when I WANT it. What idiot doesn't want more options in his favor? Note the CAPS before going off on red herring strawmen please.

    63. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Networked sensors, actuators, and communication devices have been shown to be of value all sorts of applications. Thank god for the visionaries and dreamers that try to make a new reality instead of always looking backwards.

      Sure, technologies that change society always get over-hyped at some point before reality bring everything crashing back down, but then the technology adoption will move forward on a more sustainable trajectory.

      And... cities should care about and support their innovators if they want to grow their city to attract new businesses and start new companies.

    64. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with connecting my toaster, washing machine, and thermostat to the internet?

      Are you saying that embedded internet technologies are only useful if they can be embedded into every electronic object?

    65. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by TWX · · Score: 1

      The drying cycle takes the longest, is of variable length, and has a buzzer that works if I'm in the house but not so well if I'm outside or in the workshop.

      The wash cycle takes longer than 24 minutes. It's timing is based on the load size and the wash setting, ie, how dirty the clothes are going in. It's relatively easy to start the wash cycle, forget that there's something in there, and only remember a couple of hours later. That's why I want some kind of notification.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    66. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      No. I'm saying that the people pushing IoT are pushing connecting all of your appliances to the internet, not things like traffic management.

    67. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by dejaniv · · Score: 1

      That's like saying HDTV is not new technology because TV has been done for years.

    68. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine if we had IoT apostrophes? Then that unneeded apostrophe could warn you that it's means it is!

    69. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Internet of Things isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.
      It's marketing hype by people trying to cash in, but who otherwise have no idea what it's good for.

      Ahh you sound like the type of person who is assuming IoT means internet connected lightbulbs. Mind you I don't blame you, there are some stupid marketing companies destroying the product by polluting the definition and the serious companies get stuck.

      IoT is about telemetry and there are many MANY good business cases for it, and many large companies providing supporting frame work for the analysis of data. One good example of IoT done right to dramatically reduce cost, and customer downtime has been the predictive maintenance between Thyssen Krup and Microsoft. That's what IoT is really about, and this is why it has major benefits for city infrastructure.

    70. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet of things" should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.

      The laser was considered to be an invention without a purpose for a long time too.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    71. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      No it's not. A 1955 tv could not do DTV. Things were connected to the internet almost from its inception. Anything that is connected to a computer that is connected to the internet is separated only by a few lines of code.

    72. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by plopez · · Score: 1

      Imagine if you will IoT enabled devices interconnected and feeding data and resources to each other. Your smart phone can access your bank account and car so that when you stop for gas it is already paid. No need to swipe a card or look at a prce, it is just ready when you pull into the gas dealership.

      Your bathroom scale can send your weight to your refrigerator and if it is outside a preset value the refrigerator could modify your shopping list at the supermarket so that the weekly delivery would not contain full fat cheese or ice cream.

      Or the phn in your camera could take a picture of the couch and if there were signs of wear order you a new living room set. All without you having to waste your time shopping or balancing your bank account.

      But it gets even better. Hand helds, laptops, etc. often sit idle for long periods. Excess machine cycles could be sold to hosting services much like excess cycles are used for SET or gene folding applications. Excess hard drive, CPU, or ram could be sold to an ISP. Apps could have ads could be targeted to you and your friends in your address book depending on your location. Health insurance companies could ensure you live a healthy life etc.

      A wonderful world to live in! ;)

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    73. Re: This pretty much sums up IoT ... by NDrinks · · Score: 0

      The question isn't is it worth the security risks, it's is it worth the bother in the first place. For some things I can see how it could be useful (lights, heating etc. in a house), but trying to connect as many random things as possible is nothing more than a novelty.

    74. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bring a block of cheese home from the grocery store. You place it in the fridge and it scans it (num_blocks_cheese++). Next time you make a sandwich, you remove the block of cheese, and it gets scanned. Place the cheese back, gets scanned. So on and so on until either the block is depleted or expired, at which point the fridge can calculate your schedule of cheese usage and predict replacement or calculate your waste and order a smaller block for next time.

      IoT is about data collection. Not only collection but data obsession as well.

      Just imagine how great it would be for your refrigerator to keep track of how many beers you've had... and report that to a government database if your car is also reporting usage.

      Just imagine how great it would be for your doctor to just query Apple's database for increased 11pm heart rates to better pinpoint your offspring's conception date. Because it's all so important!

      IoT is about creating a society so screwed up that to plan for a "make your own pizza" party it places its cheese in ziploc bags and throws the wrapper into the trashcan to be scanned so the fridge orders extra cheese.

      Let's not even get into the stories your toilet could tell. But currently in California, smart toilets could easily be handing out fines for improper usage.

      Connecting a device to the internet may give you 0 value, but give someone else considerable value.

    75. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm looking forward to the day when I can program my thermostat so that it can take into account electricity prices so that I can save money. It works either way. You might want to give up control of your thermostat to the electricity company if they'll give a great deal on prices. Alternatively you might be able to save money by having Internet connected devices under your own control that can pull useful information from the Internet.

    76. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, if I'm going to be getting home in the heat of the day, it might be nice to turn on the A/C during the night before so it runs when it's cool out, instead of it trying to cool off a hot house in the heat of the day. Granted, I really don't actually need a networked thermostat for this if I know when I'm going to be back, but I've never seen a regular programmable thermostat that can be programmed to turn the A/C on at 1AM a week from next Tuesday, or something like that.

      My current solution though is to just let the house be hot and turn the A/C on before I go to bed. Generally I don't mind it being warm unless I'm trying to sleep.

    77. Re:This pretty much sums up IoT ... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Around here we have a similar thing that turns off A/C compressors. It's pretty popular because the discount for your bill is significant if you opt to let the power company remotely shut off your air conditioning. I haven't heard of that for water heaters, but around here almost everyone has a gas water heater.

  3. If you want to host a dev environment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and you don't have mature processes to accomodate the projects, you're gonna have a bad time.

  4. The Purpose of a Pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, after the initial buzz, many of those pilots never get beyond the evaluation stage and are abandoned because the cities cannot afford them in the first place.

    Why "unfortunately?" The whole point of a pilot is to evaluate something and decide if you want to go further and implement it. I cannot tell if the author is niave or has an agenda, but either way, it's disheartening to read this kind of slanted article.

    1. Re:The Purpose of a Pilot by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Because the city is paying to find out if the idea is viable, rather than the company that wants to sell it.

    2. Re:The Purpose of a Pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, the city is doing the pilot to find out if it wants to roll it out in a big way. The unfortunate thing would be if the city would do the rollout without a pilot.

  5. Yeah, I hate pilots too by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Always throwing me off planes. I'M NOT DRUNK, I'M FINE!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  6. Everything in your life will be a governance gizmo by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been trying to keep my job skills fresh so I can keep up with the "next big thing". But I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell IoT really is and why it's taking off. Yes, I know it's connecting things to the internet. But to what end?

    It will allow Apple, Microsoft, Google, the US Government, and others to turn every device in your home into a governance/surveillance device. It won't just be your TV watching you a la 1984, it will be your thermostat, your keyboard, your couch, your bedside lamp, hell, not just your bed but your baby's crib and the baby's rattle.

    That is why they are so keen on the "Internet of Things." What? You thought it was to benefit you? Really? Then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  7. Why is the city paying? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    I think he should say, if you want the city to do a pilot that is great. You will cover all the costs. No? Well, I guess you have little confidence in your product then.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Why is the city paying? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      No? Well, I guess you have little confidence in your product then.

      I'm really hopeful that PRT - Personal Rapid Transit, can help with a subset of a city's transportation needs, reducing dependence upon cars and taxis, where subways and Buses aren't quite responsive enough.

      However, the companies working on it just don't have the capital to cover a true pilot program.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Why is the city paying? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, if it were promising enough, investors would be willing to put up the capital. That's how the whole thing is supposed to work right. I know, I know, theory v. practice....

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  8. Re:Everything in your life will be a governance gi by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

    What? You thought it was to benefit you? Really? Then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

    Well, I knew that couldn't be true since that's what the marketing literature was pushing. I just didn't (and really, still don't) know what it really is for.

  9. Taxpayer money wasted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that's what governments do

    1. Re:Taxpayer money wasted... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what governments do

      It was an R&D project. Sometimes you get lucky and invent the Internet and change the world; sometimes you merely invent bloated toys. Can't win them all. Pioneers don't always make it across.

      -Al Gorre

  10. Aw, it's not for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's more of a Shelbyville idea anyway.

    1. Re:Aw, it's not for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Mule!

  11. Connecting things to the internet. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Okay, I know of at least one example. Red lights and traffic signs. In ye old days, each was manually set and timed on the spot.

    However, by networking them and sometimes adding extra sensors, that allows you to have a more responsive traffic system, thus reducing delays and increasing capacity, and improving ability to route around damage.

    By providing an interface to the public web, that enables devices like traffic aware GPS and eventually self-driving cars to help assist in 'routing around damage/congestion', again, improving the situation.

    That being said, 'Internet of Things' shares a lot in common with the .com boom. Lots of 'neat ideas', not nearly as many sound business plans that even went as far as 'Sell advertising' - IE Google. 'Sell things, especially niche items that might be hard to find in local stores*' - Amazon. Sell games without the need to keep track of discs - Steam. Etc...

    *Consider their original model of book selling - Finding a book in a bookstore, or even the local grocery store, is easy. Finding a *specific* book is harder, and ordering through your local bookstore is something of a pain, and yes, I did it before Amazon.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but quite a few, if not most or all traffic lights in modern America are triggered either by metal sensors or cameras. They already respond to traffic load and have for decades.

      However, I can see the point of having smart cars be aware of traffic patterns, including lights, to help traffic flow and to ease congestion. That would be a "good thing".

      But what does that have to do with why I would want to plug my toaster into the internet?

    2. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's a start, but there is also value in having this traffic light know that up the street there's a backup so it might as well let the cross traffic go despite what the sensor is telling it. Or conversely, that light up the street might want to turn green for the group of cars that just went though this one.

      Internet connected appliances are dumb. That was tried during the last bubble.

    3. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      That's a start, but there is also value in having this traffic light know that up the street there's a backup so it might as well let the cross traffic go despite what the sensor is telling it. Or conversely, that light up the street might want to turn green for the group of cars that just went though this one.

      Sure. Assuming they have good enough traffic management prediction software that at the very least doesn't make it any worse those things could be a good idea. But that's a "very hard" problem to solve and there are just some times where you have so much cross flowing congestion that there's not much you can do to clear it effectively.

      Internet connected appliances are dumb. That was tried during the last bubble.

      Then why are they still talking about it?

    4. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The successful solution implemented by several cities has been to have real live people in a central traffic command centre monitor and adjust lights. It still requires the sensors and lights to be networked, it just doesn't use software to automatically adjust them (at least not during peak times).

      Why are people still talking about stupid things? Because people who think you should give them money for their "ideas" have to come up with those ideas somewhere. It's different this time. Really.

    5. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      In my city, traffic lights were connected together back in the late 70's/early 80's.

    6. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Quite possible. It's just that at this point 'internet connected' allows for easier maintenance/updating.

      Other options for *successful* internet connected items might be parking meters. Pay for your parking on your smart phone.

      Probably not worth it - internet connected street lights. A light & motion sensor is enough for them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If traffic lights in modern America are triggered by sensors or cameras, and respond to the traffic load, explain then why I sit at a red light in the middle of the night when there is no other traffic on the road.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Connecting things to the internet. by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Because "triggered" is a misnomer... or more accurately, it only provides some of the information the light cycle works from. Depending upon the exact configuration, that intersection may be configured to be red in that direction until after someone stops there... which then triggers a timer... which then cycles the light some seconds later. Lights work on cycles, can be timed across a system (manually), and most can even do time-of-day patterns. It's not terribly sophisticated, but it isn't direct cause-and-effect either.

  12. Vs Sports stadiums? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    There is no way the amount of money cities waste on un-used technology coms anywhere close to the amount they waste giving away to sports teams for the prestige of having a sports team make money off of their citizens.

    Cities should charge sports teams for the right to be known as the City's X, not the other way around.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Vs Sports stadiums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cities should charge sports teams for the right to be known as the City's X, not the other way around.

      Supply and demand.

    2. Re:Vs Sports stadiums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also no way that the un-used technologies that cities waste their money on come close to pulling in the amount of money that sports teams pull in through tourism.

  13. Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because IoT is a failed idea to begin with.

  14. Cities Wasting Millions of Taxpayer's Money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IoT is merely one of the countless ways in which cities waste the taxpayer money they raise.

    Really, why is anyone surprised by any government entity throwing money at a "looks good on paper but is actually totally unworkable" boondoggle? This is their raison d'etre.

  15. No governments doing IoT, just infrastructure by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    My old city was planning a citywide Wifi project. I suspect that this will be shot in the face by the local telcos but assuming it did go ahead I begged them not to pooch it with things like an "I agree page" it is very hard for me to get an arduino to "agree" thus they will have old yeller'd their IoT from day one if they put in a "I agree" page.

    I suggested various workarounds if they were forced to put in an I Agree Page by people like the mayor who probably wanted his picture on the I Agree page "Welcoming" (polishing his ego) the users.

    But the last thing I would want is the city trying to actually build their own IoT in some grandiose way that is certain to fail. Especially if they were thinking that this IoT was going to somehow fund the network itself. Cities should be rushing to get city wide Wifi as this could very well cause local companies to be first to the post when it comes to cool new IoT technologies. I have a long list of things that I could build with a citywide wifi. Bike Lojack systems. Drones that I can control from anywhere. Taxi dispatch systems. Car GPS for security.

    Not to mention things like alarm systems that don't need to have stupid monthly fees, etc. These are things that could end up saving the taxpayers more money than the system would cost. But only if it is done simply and done right. The city is good at things like infrastructure. The city is terrible at things like R&D.

    I liken the "I agree" thing being like a car that wouldn't pull onto the road unless you went through a pile of menus to get to an I Agree to use the roads properly page. Then you could keep going. One other thing with the I Agree pages is that often instead of using fairly commodity networking gear it requires that you hire some two bit company that specializes in crappy little hotel networks. These networks are often shoddy affairs where the packet inspection and whatnot in dealing with all the user management vastly increases the costs while killing the capacity.

    But one of the great advantages for a tiny few people within the city when dealing with these crappy little companies..... kickbacks.

    1. Re:No governments doing IoT, just infrastructure by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      IoT has no definition. Some people put the WiFi infrastructure down as IoT. Others call a hard-wired non-Internet-connected traffic sensor grid IoT.

      IoT is a scam, but it's also real. So it's impossible to determine the use, until we shut down the scammers and get the real uses in the forefront.

      The city is terrible at things like R&D.

      So someone comes in and says "give me $10B and I'll save you $100B." The city says "giving you $10B is too much, how about $5M for a proof of concept?" The guy takes the $10M does just enough to prevent being hunted for fraud for the rest of his life, and lets it all fail. Then blames the city, and moves on to the next.

      These scams have been around for years. Whether with musical instruments or monorails. IoT is just the newest version of scamming the ignorant.

  16. Cheap pilot by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd propose a cheap pilot for cities:

    A cheap plastic label with a 3d barcode on every streetlamp that I can scan with my cellphone and click:

    Light broken
    Lamp damaged (accident etc)
    Lamp is a danger (hanging over street etc)

    Ditto for trash-cans, bus-stops, etc

    Ditto for street name signs:

    pothole
    Lots and lots of potholes
    crack-house

    1. Re:Cheap pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now this is a good idea! Although you might not even need barcodes with good enough gps reporting through an app. Although the barcodes would give more specific context for what to report.

    2. Re:Cheap pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a Town in Spain doing just that, with Twitter: 2,200-year-old Andalusian town runs on Twitter

    3. Re:Cheap pilot by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      A lot of cities are already doing this...minus the barcode complication. For instance, I'm near Houston, and they have the Houston 311 app that uses your GPS and the photos you provide, along with whatever problem you're reporting.

    4. Re:Cheap pilot by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 1

      Some of that is already done for a few years in some cities in England, a QR code sticker on bus stops, street lamps, bins. Brings up a web page with exactly what you describe as big buttons. It works well... The one bit of yours I haven't seen done is the street signs, that makes a lot of sense.

    5. Re:Cheap pilot by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent idea.

      However, I don't think it qualifies as "Internet of Things". My understanding is that IoT is a bunch of small items that connect through the web to make up a large network of productivity. So if each pole had a device installed that can tell when something is wrong and send a signal to HQ, that would be "IoT".

      It would also be a complete waste of funds because of implementation and upkeep costs vs your idea.

  17. The point of a pilot by madsenj37 · · Score: 2

    The point of a pilot is to see if an idea is worth implementing, cost scaling, etc. More money could have been wasted if there were not any pilots, but just implementation.

    --
    Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    1. Re:The point of a pilot by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course you are correct, but the purpose of this thread was to continue bitching about IoT so ads can be served and mod-points can be spent.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:The point of a pilot by Maow · · Score: 1

      Of course you are correct, but the purpose of this thread was to continue bitching about IoT so ads can be served and mod-points can be spent.

      I was going to up-vote you, but... I think I'll save those mod-points for a topic that needs me.

  18. BumFi by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    There goes my plan to sell them my system that turns homeless people into wifi-hotspots. At least they already payed for the tweeting trash-cans.

  19. Re: Everything in your life will be a governance g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People aren't bothered enough by this. But maybe then we'd have to worry more about everything we're posting so we'd rather not think about it.

  20. Re: Everything in your life will be a governance g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don'tdseemto be bothered enough by this, but maybe then we'd have to worry about all the stuff we post online, so it's easier not to think about it.

  21. Internet of Hackable Things by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Since DefCon, all I can think when I see IOT is "Internet of Hackable Things." My mind translates it to that automatically. The devices are just so easy (relatively speaking) to hack.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Internet of Hackable Things by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How do you hack them? Every IoT I've actually seen deployed is on a private network with no direct access to the Internet at all. The only ones actually selling and using I've seen are selling "private cloud" services and calling them "public cloud" They don't even touch the issue of security. They let the IT of the buying company figure out how to get in on the Internet.

    2. Re:Internet of Hackable Things by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The only ones actually selling and using I've seen are selling "private cloud" services and calling them "public cloud"

      That's their marketing pitch, right?

      Because IoT devices are built primarily with "getting to market" in mind, they don't focus on security much (that's honestly not different than a lot of software). A lot of devices have UPnP wide open. Some devices set themselves up as wireless access points, complete with telnet and ftp open, as in "full root access." Some cars are able to be controlled wirelessly. Controlling the entertainment system can be really bad, but they were also able to control the brakes.

      As for something like parking meters.....presumably they are all wired to a central server on their own private wires? But physical access is root, so they're probably attackable, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Internet of Hackable Things by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here's another example, if you can do this to ATM machines, there's probably not any class of device that's safe.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Internet of Hackable Things by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As for something like parking meters.....presumably they are all wired to a central server on their own private wires? But physical access is root, so they're probably attackable, too.

      Yes, it's like a new SCADA. In fact, most of the IoT objects I've actually worked with were explicitly SCADA compatible. Most of the same issues, including security.

  22. It's not just about the 1 light. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    That's locally responsive though, not system responsive. For example, where I live there are roads where if the lights were to cooperate ALL directions of traffic could sail through without stopping.

    As is, all too often all their responsiveness(they're camera triggered) does is force ALL cars to stop at the light. I see it all the time. Cars pull up and stop on the side street, while the highway is completely clear. Then the highway goes red just as cars are approaching(from the last red light), to let the cars that could have sailed through a minute earlier go.

    It could be a matter of simply placing cameras further out, but there you're again getting to the point that networking makes more sense.

    As for hooking your toaster up to the internet, I refer you back to the 'no business plan' part of my post.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  23. Bonds vs Capital by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    In which case they've already gotten millions/billions to develop the system, but it's still nothing compared to what deployment in an actual city would cost.

    Though in that case it can become something of a bidding process - a city that promises to provide land and at least some funding is going to have more 'skin' in the game, likely making the permitting process easier. So they'll be picked first.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  24. Re:first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Fuck's Sake, what the hell is "loT"?

    Not everyone is a pimply faced, mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling geek that talks in three letter acronyms.

  25. Re:I guess... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Actually the leisure society is not that difficult to achieve and maintain. It's just a few (not to many) decades behind the modern society that people seem to want.

  26. Re:first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For Fuck's Sake, what the hell is "loT"?

    Not everyone is a pimply faced, mouth breathing, mother's basement dwelling geek that talks in three letter acronyms.

    No, some are logged in.

  27. Why pay to beta test? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    Why should municipalities be paying for these "pilots?" They're really beta-testers of new stuff. The companies should be paying for the beta test, not the taxpayers. This applies to all kinds of things, not just IoT, although I know /. commenters really like to bitch about IoT.

    In my municipality, the corrupt mayoral administration wants to do waste-to-energy. Okay, great, the problem is that they want to be a beta-test for an entirely new technology - a method of fermenting municipal solid waste into biofuel. The company, Anaergia, has plants in Europe that convert cow poop, human poop, and food waste into fertilizer and some fuel, but that's very, very different than regular trash. Same bullshit. Whether it's IoT or any other domain, municipalities shouldn't be footing the bill and the risk to beta test a for-profit company's technology.

    1. Re:Why pay to beta test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, it can also pay off. Once the technology is tested it typically becomes massively more expensive. If you are then unlucky as a city it becomes mandatory you wasted at lot of money.

  28. It's common knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billions of kickbacks are buried in IT projects.

    No need to show anything, just spend, spend, spend!

    Maybe reboot once in a while to pretend something's getting done.

  29. Re:You know what they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps are for cows!

  30. It is only costing you money by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    because you failed to negotiate proper terms.

    If you are paying them to make you the guinea pig, you are an exceedingly stupid guinea pig.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  31. IOT ? Should be IOSH !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Internet Of Things" should more correctly be termed the "Internet Of Security Holes".

    Honestly to say it's 2015 and we've had all these years of exploits down to inadequate security the amount of thought that seems to have been put into the "internet Of Things" is utterly pathetic. I for one will not have a single one of these crapulent, bug riddled, insecure, unnecessary pieces of junk in my house.

  32. Let the scam continue!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From smart meters to smart streets, the scam must continue so that excessive taxation and fee collections will also continue... yay!!!

    input word: Fleece. You can't make that shit up.

  33. Pothole Patrol by tsm1mt · · Score: 1
    CMU has a project/site crowd-sourcing Potholes.. http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/co... But then there's also a project that just uses vehicle mounted cameras to do the same. http://triblive.com/news/alleg... No need to barcode the potholes if you use a GPS and optical recognition instead..

    Christoph Mertz, senior project scientist in CMU's Robotics Institute, is developing a computer program to detect potholes, cracks and other irregularities in roads. Mounted on the windshield of a car, a camera captures images of the street and measures the severity of potholes and cracks. Read more: http://triblive.com/news/alleg... Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

  34. useful IoT innovations don't use the IoT moniker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience, the actually useful innovations which might be characterized as part of the 'internet of things' do not sell themselves as such (perhaps because they do not need to). When I use an app on my phone to start the AC in my car prior to driving, so the car is not hot when I arrive, you could call this part of the IoT, but I just call it a great feature. I would say the same thing about being able to use my tv remote to change the temperature in my house or turn off the lights.