BY JAMES COOKE, EDITOR AT LARGE
techwatch
Waiting for the Internet of Things
MORE THAN A DECADE AGO, RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFIcation (RFID) technology pioneer Kevin Ashton coined the term
“Internet of Things.” The idea was that every item, product, or “thing”
would have a unique identifier just as every computer does on the
Internet. RF tags, of course, would provide the means by which these
things could be tracked and identified.
For logistics managers, the Internet of Things would be a game
changer. Among other benefits, it would make it possible to track the
flow of goods into and out of a warehouse at the item level. Some
retailers and consumer packaged goods manufacturers are already
experimenting with item-level tracking. Nonetheless, it appears that
the ability to track everything is still several years away.
Why? A recent report from Frost & Sullivan (“Analysis of the Active
RFID and Sensor Networks Market”) offers some
insight into the barriers to making the Internet of
Things a reality. One of the top challenges, it notes,
is getting more companies to buy the type of tags
necessary to make this possible.
An Internet of Things would require the use of
active tags—tags equipped with a transmitter and
their own power source, typically a battery. These
tags periodically transmit their identifying information—in effect, saying “Here I am, notice me.”
That continuous flow of information regarding an
object’s presence at a particular time and place provides visibility into the movement of goods as they
travel through the supply chain.
Frost & Sullivan’s research, however, indicates
that while users are generally aware of active tags
and their capabilities, they still prefer passive RFID tags. As the name
implies, a passive tag has no battery or power source. In order to
transmit its identifying information, the tag must be “pinged” by an
outside energy source.
As for why users are shying away from active tags, there are a couple of reasons. First, there’s the lack of common industry standards.
While passive tags use data standards developed by the EPCglobal
consortium, there’s no such system in place for active tags. At the
moment, makers of active tags use different technology protocols,
such as Wi-Fi, Rubee, Zigbee, ultra wide band, infrared, and ultrasound. All of those protocols require different standards, hindering
widescale adoption of the technology.
“Market industry participants, industry associations, and govern-
ments across all nations need to work together to bring a common
standard to boost the adoption [of active tags],”
said Frost & Sullivan Senior Research Analyst
Nandini Bhattacharya in a press release
announcing the report’s publication. She notes
that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) is now working on an
802.15.4f standard that would enable interoper-
ability of various frequencies and technologies
used by vendors.
