Yahoo! Research | churchill@acm.org
I was recently told that we are moving toward a world of “the Internet of Things.” I affectionately call this “the arrival of the IoTs” (pronounced “eeyuts”). It seems this revolution will be most helpful specifically in the creation of the “aware home.”
For example, if I am traveling, I can still vigilantly watch what is going on in my abode. I can control ventilation and heating. My front door will open for approved visitors even when I am not there. And hopefully it won’t be long before all my misplaced possessions start messaging me about their whereabouts. Going further, we all know that ordering food over the Internet has become commonplace. However, imagine if my fridge decides I don’t have enough food and sends me a message to ask if it should place a delivery food order. It could even place the order without consulting me, with delivery set for my usual arrival. Maybe my laundry basket will start crowing for attention because it is too full. Currently, these systems work separately, but we are fast approaching a world in which the systems will speak to one another. Goodness knows what will happen when they all start talking to each other. Am I going to be embarrassed when my fridge and laundry basket confer and decide I fit
the programmed-for persona of a slob and therefore require an upgrade of commodity decision-making on my behalf? This is a whole different kind of commodity product agency.
Before I continue elaborating scenarios for this emerging IoTs world, it is worth saying a little more about what is meant by the “Internet of Things.” A somewhat rough Wikipedia entry states the following:
“In computing, the Internet of Things refers to a, usually wireless and self-configuring, wireless network between objects, such as household appliances.”
It goes on to speculate that such connected objects would be things like “cans, books, shoes or parts of cars,” all of which would be “equipped with minuscule identifying devices.”
How is this going to be possible? A proposed change is the move from IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), the infrastructure of our current Internet world, to IPv6 (Internet Protocol Version 6). IPv4 was completed in the 1970s, and many networking experts believe we are almost out of the four billion addresses that are available in IPv4. IPv6 offers expanded addressing, moving from a 32-bit address to a 128-bit addressing method,
so we can identify many more objects. Although the driving scenario for the enthusiastic Wikipedian authors is the reduction of stock shortages and wasted products, the dream has more layers.
The weak Io Ts hypothesis (version lite) is that most objects will be addressable so devices can be “pinged” to see where they are and what they are up to. In the version-lite world, this is likely to be a network of dumb things that can be pinged and located; these locatable objects can’t, except in the most minimal ways, answer back. Furthermore, aside from the most rudimentary data exchange, there will be little connection between the objects in the network. These objects will not be able to make decisions for themselves or chatter amongst themselves.
The strong IoTs hypothesis (the “full fat” version) includes the world of “spime”—a concept invoked first by science fiction writer Bruce Sterling. In 2004 Sterling painted an image of an interactive device that is enhanced with RFID and GPS tracking and can thus track its history of use. As more objects become addressable and develop more intelligence and agency, we will have a world of autonomous, sort-of sentient devices that commu-
References:
Archives