LoRaWAN vs. Sigfox vs. Weightless-P: Simulation Results in the “Real World”

In wireless communication, the Hata Model for urban areas, also known as the Okumura–Hata model for being a developed version of the Okumura model, is the most widely used radio frequency propagation model for predicting the behaviour of cellular transmissions in built up areas. This model incorporates the graphical information from Okumura model and develops it further to realize the effects of diffraction, reflection and scattering caused by city structures. This model also has two more varieties for transmission in suburban areas and open areas. (source: Wikipedia)

The Hata Model simulation was conducted for Sigfox, LORA, and Weightless-P with the base station height set at 30m and the end devices heights set at 0.5m. The following simulation was conducted at Ubiik (hardware developers for Weightless-P) but we have checked their math and our team has confirmed the numbers are accurate and unbiased.

Let’s first take a look at the U.S Results (902-928MHz)US compaire.png

 

US2 9.54.52 AM.pngUS3.pngUS 1.png

Now let’s take a look at the results in Europe (863-870MHz). The only difference is LORA is only able to use a smaller bandwidth.

EUR compaire.pngEUR1.pngEUR 2.pngEUR 3.png

 

Let’s see what these numbers mean for an actual Smart Metering deployment (click here)

(If you would like to contribute/make edits/suggestions please contact us at techgu.rooh@gmail.com)

sources: (http://www.ubiik.com/lpwan-comparisons)

NB-IOT vs unlicensed LPWAN

One of 3GPP’s chief low-power, wide-area (LPWA) technologies under development is NB-IOT (narrowband IOT) . Many have been speculating over the differences between NB-IOT and the current LPWAN technologies in the unlicensed frequencies such as LORA, Weightless-P, Sigfox, RPMA. Some individuals have even gone as far as saying NB-IOT will be the death of LPWAN technologies. But that is likely not going to be the case as there will always be a huge difference in use-cases of licensed and unlicensed technologies. The best analogy is WiFi (unlicensed) vs 4G (licensed). The business models and use-cases built around WiFI and 4G are “night and day” .

NB-IOT may not be as robust as we are expecting it be. Check out the following features that are likely to be a slight let-down to NB-IoT enthusiasts

1.No full acknowledgement: By design (found in 3GPP Specification TR45.820) NB-IOT is planned to only acknowledge 50% of messages serviced by the wireless technology. This is due to limited downlink capacity. Unlicensed technologies like Weightless-P allows 100% full acknowledgement of every message. If every message is of high value, you will need to know if your messages are successfully sent/received via an acknowledgement.

 

2. Long Latency: Transmit packet aggregation from buffering of messages and data. NB IOT will not be able to support “real time” responses therefore not suitable for time sensitive applications.

3. IoT devices in the network will not be the priority. The licensed spectrum is EXPENSIVE. Ingenu mentioned “$4.6 billion in a recent auction for only 20 MHz of spectrum!” IoT traffic will always come second to high profit margin, cellular traffic.

4. Long battery Life? The actual battery life will remain unknown until the Cellular LPWA networks are commercially available.

5. Availability: NB IOT is a technology that will be ready a few years down the line.

6. Compatibility: NB-IOT will differ across regions and carriers. Huawei initially pushed for a clean slate NB-IOT technology that would not be backwards compatible with 4G etc. This actually makes a lot of sense as it would be eliminating a lot of the unnecessary overhead.  But just as Huawei began making progress, Nokia and Ericsson began insisting on building upon the frameworks of LTE which means significantly more complexity and unnecessary overhead. Not a very nice foundation for such a huge project.

 

IoT connectivity solutions: Media access control layer and network topology

161-Datalink-MAC

Media access control layer and network topology

For IoT applications, the main characteristics of the media access layer control (MAC) that need to be considered are multiple access, synchronization, and network topology.

Multiple Access. Looking back at decades of successful cellular system deployment, one can safely conclude that TDMA is a good fit for the IoT. TDMA is suited for low-power operation with a decent number of devices, as it allows for optimal scheduling of inactive periods. Hence, TDMA is selected for multiple access in the MAC layer.

Synchronization. In IoT applications, there are potentially a very large number of power-sensitive devices with moderate throughput requirements. In such a configuration, it is essential to maintain a reasonably consistent time base across the entire network and potentially across different networks. Given that throughput is not the most critical requirement, it is suitable to follow a beacon-enabled approach, with a flexible beacon period to accommodate different types of services.

Network topology. Mobile networks using a cellular topology have efficiently been servicing a large number of devices with a high level of security and reliability, e.g., 5,000+ per base station for LTE in urban areas. This typology is based on a star topology in each cell, while the cells are connected in a hierarchical tree in the network backhaul. This approach is regarded suitable for the IoT and is therefore selected.

The network layer and interface to applications

The network layer (NWK) and the interface to applications are less fundamental as far as power-efficiency and reliability is concerned. In addition, there is more variation in the field of IoT applications. Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged that IoT applications need to support the Internet Protocol (IP), whether it is IPv4 or IPv6. In addition, the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) could provide the relevant trade-off between flexibility and implementation-complexity on resource-constrained devices.

Furthermore, the IoT will represent an immense security challenge, and it is likely that state-of-the-art security features will become necessary. As of today, we can assume 128 bits Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for encryption and Diffie-Hellman (DH), or the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) variants, can become the baseline for securing communication.

Connectivity Options for the Internet of Things (IoT)

First, it was M2M – Machine to Machine communication a technology that was suppose to revolutionize our world, but never really took off in a big way due to the cost of embedding cellular connectivity in the end devices. Now M2M has been replaced with IoT – Internet of Things, a better sounding term and hopefully with smarter and cheaper options to connect random things to the Internet. Everyone has their own idea of what the Internet of Things (IoT) is, but one thing is certain that it will increasingly become important in our lives given the ever decreasing cost of wearable devices, sensors, and other monitoring equipment.

It is important to separate over optimistic ignorant hype from actual reality of the technologies. Any software / hardware engineer who ever developed anything useful will tell you that it is easy to define a use case, but a lot harder to actually build a system.

Our aim is describe technology enablers for IoT, especially communication technologies and protocols that will be used for building IoT applications.

Applications for IoT Abound

Despite a lot of vague use cases cited in popular press (and many seem out of science fiction books rather than based on understanding of technology), IoT can be applied to three broad areas:

– Consumer Homes and Personal Networks

– Consumer in his/her Automotive Vehicle

– Industrial and Office Applications

Homes are easy frontiers to deal with for IoT. A typical American home contains home appliances, entertainments systems, temperature and humidly controls units. It is easy to see how a user will like to be able to manage some or all of these devices using his wearable or handheld devices. Most use cases are easy to enumerate by using a general paradigm of control X using Unit Y.

Automotive sector is already integrating all kind of sensors in the car and creating various enablers like Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). ADAS can warn drivers from low tire pressure to dangers ahead using a combination of communication and data processing technologies.

Industrial applications for IoT are still in infancy. Most existing M2M applications will be moved to the IoT categories be it the data collection in the supply truck or the manufacturing floor. The amount and type of such applications is only limited by human imagination and the ability of engineers to create them.

Today, these mentioned segments use wireless technologies and Internet interaction, but typically they each focus on what is common within their industry. The chosen wireless solution needs to adequately address the industries’ concerns regarding connectivity options, robust operation, and security features.

Communication Options

The Internet of Things (IoT) is built on an underlying multi-protocol communications framework that can easily move data between embedded “things” and systems located at higher levels of the IoT hierarchy. For designers and application developers, a diverse set of wireless and wired connectivity options provides the glue that holds IoT together.

All IoT sensors require some means of relaying data to the outside world. There’s a plethora of short-range, or local area, wireless technologies available, including: RFID, NFC, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth (including Bluetooth Low Energy), XBee, ZigBee, Z-Wave and Wireless M-Bus. There’s no shortage of wired links either, including Ethernet, HomePlug, HomePNA, HomeGrid/G.hn and LonWorks.

Selecting the best network option for an IoT device, however, requires a careful look at various factors for each situation.

  • The Scale and Size of the IoT Network
  • Data Throughput or Transfer Requirements,
  • The eventual physical location of the embedded devices, the battery size and physical size etc.

Micro-controllers that provide the heart of most embedded or wearable devices already have certain input output integrated. Today, there is a big choice of good, inexpensive, programmer-friendly devices with nice peripherals, low power consumption, and good cross-platform support. You can get cheap Arduino or Raspberry boards just for under 10 dollars.

Just like Micro-controllers, designers do not lack options for wireless connectivity and ICs able to support them. While ANT, Bluetooth®, WiFi and ZigBee may number among the more familiar alternatives, viable wireless connectivity solutions have coalesced around standards including 6LoWPAN, DASH6, EnOcean, Insteon and Z-Wave, among many others. At the same time, smart designers can use proprietary RF approaches. However, for remote and highly mobile applications cellular broadband with LTE or other Wireless connectivity is the only option.

For Wired Devices, Ethernet Rules Supreme

The Internet of Things (IoT) implies connectivity, and developers have lots of wired and wireless options at their disposal to make it happen. Ethernet tends to dominate the wired realm. IoT frameworks map higher-level protocols on this type of connectivity, but the devices don’t work until they have a method of communication with the network.

At this point, Ethernet implementations range from 10 Mb/s up to 100 Gb/s. Of course, the high end generally targets the backbone of the Internet to link server farms in the cloud, while the low to mid-range runs on the rest of the devices. The median implementation these days is 1-Gb/s Ethernet. A new class of Ethernet speeds looms on the horizon. Essentially, 1-Gb/s Ethernet is bumping up to 2.5 Gb/s with a corresponding hop up for higher-speed Ethernet like 10 Gb/s moving to 25 Gb/s. This change essentially provides faster throughput using the same cabling.

Other less common networking possibilities exist on both the wired and wireless side, but are worth mentioning. For example, the HomePlug Alliance’s Powerline networking uses power connections to power the interface as well as a transmission medium. A host of interoperable products include devices such as wireless access points and bridges to Ethernet.

IoT Wireless Technology Selection

Here it really gets interesting. There are several proprietary wireless solutions used in every segment as well as standards including 6LoWPAN, ANT+, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, DECT, EDGE, GPRS, IrDA, LTE, NFC, RFID, Weightless, WLAN (also commonly referred to as Wi-Fi), ZigBee, Z-Wave, and others. We can briefly examine the merits of each.

Wi-Fi When You Need Big Bandwidth

Wi-Fi, with its array of 802.11 variants, provides the highest throughput of wireless technologies at this point. New emerging 802.11ac uses the 2.5- and 5-GHz bands with a combined bandwidth of 5.3 Gb/s. Indoor range is on the order of 100 to 200 feet. The next evolution—802.11ax—is poised to succeed 802.11ac.

A key challenge for IoT developers surrounds power requirements. WiFi communication technology requires far more power than some other technologies. Hence, WiFi option may have to be limited only to devices such as mobile phone, tablets or where it may be possible to deliver wired power like home mounted temperature control sensors and security system components.

Wi-Fi for more power-limited budgets is possible but will have to add techniques to preserve battery lives. For example, a device can send a burst of data at pre-determined intervals and then get to sleep mode.

Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth-Low Energy (LE)

Bluetooth is a short-range technology utilizing the 2.4- to 2.485-GHz ISM (industrial, scientific, and medical) band. The Bluetooth Special Interest Group manages the technology, with the latest standard being Bluetooth 4.2.

Until smart phones came with media players, Bluetooth was at the verge of almost dying but since then it has come to be embedded in numerous devices. Bluetooth has “classic” and Low Energy (LE) versions; the 4.x standard allows both or either to be implemented. BT- “classic” and BT-Smart/LE aren’t backward-compatible and very different technologies except for the name.

BT-LE is designed to allow for devices that run and communicate for months or years using low-power sources like button cell batteries or energy-harvesting devices. Classic and Smart Bluetooth maximum range is about 100 m (330 feet), while data rate is up to 3 Mbs/s and 1 Mb/s, respectively. However, actual application throughput, like most wireless technologies, is less—2.1 Mb/s for classic and 0.27 Mb/s for Smart.

A new feature in BT-LE is Bluetooth beacons that permit a transfer of information such as device availability, coupons etc at certain intervals. It can be very useful for IoT apps.

ZigBee – Sensor Networking with Scalable Mesh Routing

This is my favorite technology. You can get ZigBee modules cheaply for a few cents, and integrate in any device. It barely uses any battery, runs for a year on a simply battery, and is good for sending periodic sensor data. It can be used for everything from embedded sensors, medical profiling and, naturally home automation processes.

ZigBee is a wireless technology developed as an open global standard to address the unique needs of low-cost, low-power wireless M2M networks. The ZigBee standard operates on the IEEE 802.15.4 physical radio specification and operates in unlicensed bands including 2.4 GHz, 900 MHz and 868 MHz.

A key component of the ZigBee protocol is the ability to support mesh networking of up to 65,000 nodes. In a mesh network, nodes are interconnected with other nodes so that multiple pathways connect each node. Connections between nodes are dynamically updated and optimized through sophisticated, built-in mesh routing table.

Other Low Energy Wireless Options – Zwave, 6LowPan, MiWi, ANT etc.

Just like ZigBee, there are other options some proprietary, some developed by a group of vendors and some coming through other standardization bodies that sit on top of IEEE 802.15.4 physical radio specifications or have their own proprietary radio layers.

Zwave, supported by the Z-Wave Alliance, is another competing technology to Zigbee for home automation projects. Like ZigBee it too supports mesh networking, but is protocol is proprietary. ZigBee chipsets are produced by several silicon vendors, while Z-Wave ones come only from one manufacturer, Sigma Designs.

Z-Wave uses the Part 15 unlicensed ISM band. It operates at 908.42 MHz in the U.S. and Canada but uses other frequencies in other countries depending on their regulations Performance characteristics are similar to 802.15.4, including 100-kb/s throughput and a 100-ft. (30.5 m) range.

In addition, a number of vendor-specific protocols are built on 802.15.4, such as Microchip’s MiWi, which are often lighter weight and have fewer licensing restrictions.

6LoWPAN is a low-power wireless mesh network where every node has its own IPv6 address, allowing it to connect directly to the Internet using open standards. Since, each node has its own IP address all other IP routing protocols can be used.

ANT is an open access multicast wireless sensor network technology designed and marketed by ANT Wireless, now part of Garmin, featuring a wireless communications protocol stack that enables semiconductor radios operating in the 2.4 GHz band (“ISM band”) to communicate. ANT is characterized by low computational overhead resulting in low power consumption by the radios supporting the protocol and enabling low power wireless embedded devices that can operate on a single coin-cell battery from months to years..

In short, 6LoWPAN, ZigBee, ZWAve, MiWi, ANT are all competing for the same space.

Cellular Network Options Are Still Available

Most cellular IoT devices aim to use Long Term Evolution (LTE) 4G and 5G standards. Cellular technology has the advantage of coverage and availability in the large areas. For some devices mounted in the moving trains, trucks, roadside emergency devices, or cars this may be the only viable option.

LTE and LTE-advanced both provide excellent bandwidth throughputs. LTE provides almost like 300 MBits/sec. 4G LTE-Advanced will provide 1 Gb/s, while 5G promises 10 Gb/s.

The major problem is the recurring cost of cellular connectivity since cellular operation requires plans from service providers.

Device Selection Criteria for IoT Designers

IoT is about creating a most efficient, application specific network of connected devices. Connected devices all share five key components:

  • The need for smarter power consumption, data storage, and network management;
  • The need for stronger safeguards for privacy and security;
  • The need high-performance micro-controllers (MCUs); sensors and actuators; and
  • The ability to communicate without losing information.

To narrow down the list of options, compare the technologies from the following IoT key needs:

  • Cost efficiency: Most IoT devices are of low cost, and need affordable radio solutions. So, performance and cost balance are very important.
  • Small size. IoT devices are typically of small size, the radio technology with all its Antenna, battery etc need to physically fit in the housing of the sensor device.
  • Secure Communication. Security of communication is needed. Authentication and data encryption must be supported by the chosen wireless technology. Also, it should be possible to build end to end secure applications.
  • Low power consumption. Since most IoT devices operate on batteries or energy harvesting technologies, the radio technology must have ultra-low power consumption.
  • Strong Available Ecosystem. For any device selection you will need to examine its ecosystems since interoperability with other devices will be important.
  • High Reliability under Noisy Conditions. IoT devices will operate in less than perfect conditions. Hence wireless technology must be able to deal with signal noise, interference and other environmental conditions.
  • Easy to Use. It is possible to leave configurations to experts in the industrial settings, but for consumers ease of plug and play is needed.
  • Radio Range extension capability. Though IoT operates in short distances, it is important that the chosen technology can offer enough range coverage or have some range extension capabilities.

Matching the Design to the Target Market

Despite the bewildering list of connectivity options, system designers find that the best option for a particular IoT device. A design is often constrained based on application needs, performance requirements and environmental limitations. The need for compatibility in established markets may also affect the best connectivity choice.

The good part is that if you are a hardware or embedded system designer, the choices of components is plentiful.

You can find a diverse set of relate hardware solutions including modules and ICs for ANT connectivity from vendors including Nordic Semiconductor, Panasonic and Texas Instruments; ZigBee solutions from Atmel, Freescale and Microchip; and Bluetooth/BLE solutions from CSR, RFM and STMicroelectronics, 6LowPAN devices from TI, STMicroElectronics, Sensinode, Atmel etc.

If you are designing IoT devices or wants to create iOT software and need individual consulting, feel free to connect with me.

Great Write Up about Pebble and Apple Iwatch

Pebble vs. Apple: David and Goliath This Ain’tapple-watch-6_1

By 

By this time next week Apple will have, once again, sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Next Monday, at one of the company’s time-tested high-profile events, we’ll all be attending the coming out party for Apple Watch.

But this week, the smart watch news is all about Pebble, which can reasonably claim to have energized the space three years ago in a very Apple way: Exploding onto the scene with a breakthrough device someone else thought of first.

Pebble returned to Kickstarter last week in a bald attempt to capitalize on the smart watch buzz created by Apple’s imminent entry into the space with Pebble Time, a sportier model with a new approach to notifications it calls Timeline. They’ve promised a month of news, timed to the 30-day campaign, which includes today’s reveal of — surprise! — an upgrade option to Pebble Time Steel, a steal at only $80 more than the (long since taken) $170 batch (Yes, I’m in. Again).

Pebble and Apple isn’t David and Goliath, at least not as far as Pebble CEO Eric Migicovsky is concerned. “Whether delusional, manically focused or simply well-rehearsed, Migicovsky chose to view the Apple announcement as a plus for Pebble,” Steven Levy writes in Backchannel. ‘It’s pretty incredible to see the world’s largest company come into the watch space,’ he said. ‘It’s validating something I’ve known for the last six and a half years — that the next generation of computing will be on your body.'”

What is undeniably true is that Pebble has sold more than one million watches in three years, and six days into a 30-day Kickstarter campaign, has sold another $14 million worth. With that, the company has re-claimed the title (it first took with the original Pebble) as the most funded Kickstarter project ever.

So, there is that.

I first took notice of Pebble in my Reuters column when they broke all records on their first Kickstarter campaign, in April 2012:

A Kickstarter project for a device you wear on your wrist, but that needs a smartphone to do anything really interesting, has raised more than $5.3 million in eight days. This is this far and away the most anyone has ever raised on Kickstarter, and it’s happening – with a gadget in a category that has a pretty dismal track record – at a sales pace that would make even Apple sit up and take notice.

As much as I like to dine out on those last words, I’m not really sure Apple did “sit up take notice” as much as it might have already been working on the idea for quite some time.

The smart watch has all the earmarks of the sort of device-that-time-forgot Apple often manages to turn into something relevant. Microsoft had tried and failed with it a decade before the first Pebble (note the similarities to the tablet, which Apple reinvented a decade after the Redmond giant tried to market its own). Various kinds of smart watch have been around ever since, getting little love. Even Pebble was going nowhere fast as a developer of a device tethered to Blackberry phones, which were about to fall off a cliff.

What changed? Two very important, intertwined things.

Smart watches were originally conceived of as stand-alone devices. The limitations are now pretty obvious, chiefly the tiny screen. Remember, though, at the time ofMicrosoft’s SPOT, screens on mobile phones were also pretty tiny.

But they didn’t do all that much. Unlike the Dick Tracy device people of a certain age remember fondly you couldn’t even talk to anyone with it. I mean, we KNEW that watches were communications devices in the early 1960s. So why aren’t they in the year 2002?!

Apple went a long way towards setting the stage for the emergence of the smart phone as must-have mobile device in 2007, with the first iPhone. Among the new features was a ginormous screen, which made activities like web surfing credible on a mobile device. So successful was the smart phone that it created a new version of a problem futurist Alvin Toffler had identified in 1970: information overload. Hard core techies, like Gigaom’s Mathew Ingram, would soon argue that you should choose a smart phone based on how well they wrangled notifications above all other features.

And that was the new opening for the resurgence of the smart watch. The trick, from my perspective, is to avoid mission creep. It is to remember that the opportunity lies in extending the utility of the smart phone, not replacing it.

But the existential question about whether smart watches are a mainstream consumer item is valid. Notification management is pretty hard core. One new use case: There are unique health monitoring opportunities for something strapped to your wrist. Pebble steals a little of that thunder today — surprise! — with a reveal of the smartstrap, which can “contain electronics and sensors to interface directly with apps running on Pebble Time.” That is another open invitation to developers, who have already flocked to the Pebble platform in very respectable numbers — 26,000 have written 6,000 apps.

Apple may bury Pebble, or its entry into the smart watch space might lift all boats — even Android, whose fans will tell you already boasts a range of excellent choices with features Apple will reinvent, or steal, depending on your point of view.

So, for a smart watch aficionado these are exciting times. If Apple is wildly successful, look to them to even extend coverage to Android devices, like iTunes spread to Windows. Apple’s entry is a make-or-break event which will answer whether there is a massive, pent-up hunger for this kind of device, or whether it’s only a play thing for people like me.

Either way, it’s about time.

The internet of things is revolutionising the world of sport

af0acc82-ef29-485f-8802-de53c5d53db2-1020x612

By Stephen Pritchard

Each game in this year’s Six Nations championship will produce two million rows of data, equivalent to more than 1,400 actions (tries, conversions, tackles, passes and so on) per game. This data will be fed to broadcasters, fans (via the official Six Nations app among other channels) and to coaches who can and will use the information to improve player performance.

The idea of capturing data during a sporting event is not new but the richness of the data now available and the speed at which it is gathered certainly is.

In the 1950s Charles Reep, an RAF officer and accountant, pioneered the idea of data capture in sport. While watching football matches he created a system of paper notation to record players’ moves. It took him three months to wade through the data produced by the 1958 World Cup final.

Reep’s work is not without controversy: among other things, he is credited with driving English football managers’ fondness for the long-ball game. But there is no doubt that his work and the system of notational analysis he patented has changed the way teams play sport and how fans now watch them.

Reep, of course, only had the most basic tools available to study a match: his eyes, a notepad and a pencil. It was only in the 1990s that football, rugby and a raft of other professional sporting clubs started to install cameras which enabled match-play monitoring.

The move to digital cameras, that can capture much better pictures and transfer far more information, is even more recent.

Over the last few years, clubs have started to marry up information from their cameras and video screens with other sources of data, especially information from GPS (global positioning system) satellites and accelerometers worn by players.

“We are seeing the convergence of health and lifestyle technology,” says Mark Skilton at PA Consulting. “You can wear a sensor in your shirt, on your wrist, shoe or raquet; we’re even seeing sensors in golf clubs to monitor players’ swings using kinetic real-time feedback.”

Advertisement

But the way sports are layering these different technologies together is changing coaching, the way fans view sports and even how sports clubs are run. A variety of applications now mean the keen fan can see not just how their team performed but which players were most influential in the game. Any fan with a WiFi connection and a tablet device now has, in effect, a coach’s eye view of the game.

In Reep’s day, sports analysts had no choice but to go through their notes after the game. Even the first-generation video coaching aids required back-room staff to watch hours of footage in order to pick out the key parts of the game to show players. Now, because of digital technology, access to all this information is as good as instant.

Sports are benefiting too from off-the-pitch technologies making it easier to capture and share information.

The development of ubiquitous networks of connected sensors and communications, known as the internet of things, is giving rise to intelligent buildings. Sports venues are no exception and teams and sports scientists can piggyback on this intelligence to share rich data.

Technology company Cisco is heavily involved in smart buildings but also has a project called the Connected Athlete.

The Connected Athlete takes data from sensors, for example in a shoe or boot, and then connects that up to the stadium’s WiFi network or even a low-powered cellular phone transmitter so that teams can monitor it. But because the internet of things allows the athlete’s sensors to connect to other networks, it can be shared with fans and broadcasters too.

Much of the power of the internet of things in sports, relies on the idea of a “smart building” to tie together existing technology resources. These include WiFi, sensors including intruder alarms, door entry systems, thermostats and smart meters, digital displays and even electronic ticketing.

In this way, building owners and building management software know where people are, what they are doing and how much energy they are using.

From a business perspective, such data becomes very valuable when it comes to cutting the running costs of large buildings, but they bring benefits too in public safety and security.

Coupling a smart building with digital signage allows building managers to give visitors up to date information, and redirect people away from busy areas to where queues are shorter.

Already being used to ease congestion at airports, an intelligent building system can direct people to the least busy turnstile or bar, or even where the toilet queues are shortest. Signs can direct the public in an emergency, but the rest of the time they can show match information, player statistics or even special offers.

A proof of concept by Accenture (who sponsor this series), goes a step further. Trialled at Twickenham during the Six Nations, their technology combines a wireless headset with the Six Nations app and information cards created by an expert curator showing data from critical points in a game.

Hooked up to the Wi-Fi network, according to Ben Salama, UK and Ireland managing director of Accenture Mobility, the tech could be extended into areas as diverse as catering. “You could see half time scores from other games,” he says, “but also to order drinks to be delivered to your seat without missing any of the game.” This, he says, is one way for sporting venues to increase their revenues.

There is still some way to go before such gadgets become mainstream at sporting events. Cost is one barrier. Others include connectivity and battery life.

Accenture admits that most UK stadiums lack a powerful enough WiFi system to support a truly connected experience; the firm had to build a new network at Twickenham for its proof of concept.

Manufacturers also say more needs to be done to allow devices to stream more data and to last for a match, or beyond, on a single battery charge.

“We’re constantly looking at ways to reduce power consumption the technology consumes,” says Sujata Neidig, director of business development for consumer technology at Freescale, a microchip maker. “And we are also looking at wireless charging.” That way, fans can focus on the game rather than hunting for a power socket.