I apologize to anyone who finds these posts on the “Internet of Things” boring and/or slightly repetitive. I have found myself in some ongoing discussions with some of the EEtimes columnists and I have thought it to be useful to post some of those comments to this blog of mine so that I can keep track. For example, when I reread my first IoT post I see how limited my knowledge was – not to mention my vision – of how I perceived the emerging IoT to be; which was then confined only in terms of consumer applications.

This blog was/is/and will continue to be my diary of sorts. Blogging, as I have been discovering, has been a great tool for me. I get a chance to continue to practice the craft of writing. When my fiction writing gets stale – I am working on novel #2 – then I switch over to this blog which is lighter, easier and sometimes more pleasurable. But whatever/wherever I am writing; I am working. And that’s good.

And writing about technical things or my opinions on politics or my thoughts on the modern condition are great organizational exercises. I find that writing this blog helps me to be more articulate in framing my arguments.

That preface said, here is my latest (of 3) comments to the writer (Larry Mittag) of the EETimes article, ‘The IoT Landscape Needs Mapping‘:


Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. And I had to go back and check on the FCC/IoT security related article that I read and you were right; FTC is was.
And yes, being a left-hander I am slightly dyslexic, but when did communications security become the realm of the FTC? Okay, security (read privacy) but still?

I haven’t read the FTC’s charter (nor do I intend to) but their concerns over privacy issues surrounding personal information being transmitted by IoT sensor like devices sounds like gratuitous – if not malicious – meddling/snooping to me. (If our personal information privacy is so important to them then they should have started their discussions with the NSA some time ago).

And I agree with your recent comment that chirping sensors are/will be/should be isolated as well as gatewayed into the internet. That only makes sense.

And yes, I agree that the new emerging world of the IoT will not be black and white and that is the reason why I originally responded to your well-written (and aptly titled) article. Meaning, the IoT is not merely just the continuation of the evolution of the present internet, in that the IoT infrastructure is by general consensus defined as machine to machine (m2m) – the Internet of Things – seen as bolted onto (or gatewayed into) the existing internet.

But more importantly, I also do not believe that the IoT was the intended consequence of IPv6 – which again brings me back to the purpose of my original reply to your comment(s) that the IoT needs mapping.

The only place where I guess that you lose me is when you talk about core sensors. Coming from a petro-chem background (before switching my EE career to electronics and communication systems in the early ’90s), I do not understand what could/would comprise a core sensor. The old petro-chem paradigm was that sensors talked to controllers. There were no core sensors.”