We briefly touched upon the Internet of Things (IoT) earlier, in Chapter 4, “Introducing the Lawnmower Man Effect.” The Lawnmower Man Effect (LME) is a supposition used to classify the ability afforded to a new generation of consumers who seek to have a permanent connection to access anything, anytime, anywhere. In short, it represents the consumer's ability to traverse digital systems across the globe, all captained from their personal area networking space utilizing pervasive Wide Area Networking (WAN) technologies. Let's take a moment to form a better understanding of the Internet of Things. Firstly, the IoT needs to be distinguished from the Internet. The Internet, of course, represents a globally connected number of networks, irrespective of a wired or wireless interconnection. IoT, on the other hand, specifically draws your attention to the ability of a device to be tracked or identified within an IP structure – similarly, we (humans, consumers, and so on) are nowadays capable of being tracked and we can all be identified, as we intimated earlier in Chapter 4, perhaps via our IP address. The IoT is often misconstrued, invariably carte blanche, to accommodate anything that resembles Internet capability, and this is certainly not the case. More specifically, the IoT is solely used to characterize the ability to track and identify objects or things within the Internet or similar IP structure. However, from this perspective, we have now empowered these objects to collate new information, in turn extending the initial IoT concept. The IoT refers to the interconnection of distinguishable smart/intelligent objects or “things” and their virtual manifestation within the Internet or similar IP structure. The IoT also recognizes the empowerment of these objects or things to gather new information and, in turn, portray a representation of their “world.” After all, the Internet is wholly reliant on information that has been/is typically derived from human input.

We are all connected.

The need for consumers to sustain a permanent connection has been driven by a deep-seated need, fueled by peers, the furor of social media, and just simply by a trend to have immediate access to anything, anytime, anywhere. The technology supporting this trend has kept up with its ever-evolving pace and is only guilty of stumbling on occasions. Nevertheless, the availability of Wi-Fi in bars, shops, restaurants, and so on, along with favorable data packages offered by both fixed and cellular providers, have allowed us all to sustain that all-important “IP-fix.” In fact, most (if not all) Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), along with multiple Telecommunication Service Providers (TSPs) and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), have provided their consumer-base with multiple opportunities to remain connected to the wider area network, or the Internet as it is commonly known.

Overview

So, we have penned the Lawnmower Man Effect (LME) as a definition; a term that classifies the ability afforded to a new generation of consumers who seek to have a permanent connection to anything, anytime, anywhere. A generation of consumers who are equipped with numerous electronic devices, which have an inherent ability to connect. In Figure 4.1 we further conceptualize the LME supposition that we, as individuals, have this unique ability to cross the globe virtually, in an instant. The term is derived from the 1992 film starring Jeff Fahey and Pierce Brosnan, The Lawnmower Man. In the film, we witness Brosnan conducting numerous experiments on Fahey using virtual reality in an attempt to increase his intelligence, but, of course, this is not the focus of our definition here.

The wireless industry is notorious for advancing and evolving at a modest pace; a process that doesn't satisfy eager manufacturers when they wish to develop and launch the latest “all-singing-all-dancing” new wireless gadget. Moreover, consumers inevitably find themselves somewhat ambivalent to the next-generation thing. It must both appease and frustrate them, since they've presumably had ample opportunity to become familiar with one particular set of technology traits and idiosyncrasies only to be duly informed that they will soon have to embrace and understand the next generation. This process is unavoidable, and yet it can be incredibly exciting for some.

In this final chapter, we review and summarize The Handbook of Personal Area Networking Technologies and Protocols. We'll paraphrase our journey so far, and use an anecdotal narrative to reinforce what we have learned and perhaps discover what may happen next.

Making Sense of Wireless Technology

We started our journey with Part I, “What’s in Your Area Network?,” where we offered a broad perspective of what constitutes a personal area network and what external factors influence its dynamics. We explored how wireless technology existed for over 100 years whilst avoiding a lengthy history lesson. We further learned more about the nineteenth-century wireless secret and discovered that a simple development model, Interoperability, Coexistence, and Experience (ICE) may be used to aid innovators of future wireless products. The wireless communication industry is still mastering how to inject ease of use and transparency into their products. A seamless experience still escapes most wireless-enabled products today and, alas, we will continue to embrace and witness only modest advances in the overall usability factor. The wireless personal area network domain is arguably crowded with multiple technologies, and there seems to be a duplication of technologies and applications, all eager to grab our attention and convince us to buy-in to their particular choice; their way of working, if you like. You may also recall we played devil’s advocate when we contentiously entertained the possibility of a “one-size-fits-all” technology with wireless convergence; something we have already started to witness with several semiconductor manufacturers converging multiple technologies into a single chip. Is this merely speculation; will we start to witness a shift to a single technology, or does our assorted mix have a unique function to perform?

Mainstream wireless personal area networking capable consumer electronic products (excluding Infra-red (IR)) began to appear in the late 1990s and during the early 2000s the market witnessed the emergence of the first Wi-Fi and Bluetooth products. The ability to use products wirelessly was a completely new experience, as IR products required devices to be in line-of-sight. The TV remote control, of course, is the classic example of an IR device still commonly used today, although ZigBee, Bluetooth wireless technology, and a few others are looking to evolve this classic 40+ year old product. Nevertheless, the Motorola Xoom 2 (motorola.com) included IR capability to offer a universal remote, which can control multiple IR capable devices through a dedicated App, such as Dijit (dijit.com), a universal remote control application for smartphones and tablets. Another similarly classic wireless technology is the key-fob for vehicular access – it remains popular and doesn't require a line-of-sight operation. Some early wireless products that utilized Wi-Fi and Bluetooth were perhaps a cumbersome introduction to the wireless era, as many consumers grappled with early versions of these wireless-enabled products. The growth and development of these wireless devices as they have evolved has been exponential. The last decade or so has afforded consumers the ability to acclimatize to and increasingly become familiar with a range of wireless-enabled products and their associated idiosyncrasies, ensuring their future success. To demonstrate consumers’ over-familiarity with wireless technology, Wi-Fi has become synonymous with the ability to connect to the Internet; in fact, some consumers incorrectly regard Wi-Fi as the Internet.

The low power, wireless sensor technology portfolio would not be complete without the inclusion of EnOcean's award-winning patented batteryless, wireless sensor radio technology. In this chapter, we discuss EnOcean's inception and moderately short history, and we provide a review of the Alliance and promoter members’ benefits. EnOcean uses a patented technique to self-power its wireless sensors, and we'll delve deeper into the company's innovative technology and how the technology is being used within the commercial sector later on in the chapter. Likewise, we'll explore EnOcean's product portfolio, the market scope, and numerous user scenarios that place the technology into the real world, ultimately to gain a better understanding of its application-base and purpose. Similarly, we'll look at how EnOcean compares with other low power wireless sensor technologies and review some key differentiators that set EnOcean apart from its competitors.

Overview

Briefly, EnOcean's innovative technology prides itself on a technique known as energy harvesting – the ability of a sensor to derive energy from its environment to power its sensor technology, as opposed to using batteries or any other fixed power source. The technology, or indeed the notion, isn't new; you may recall from Chapter 5, “Introducing Low Power and Wireless Sensor Technologies,” that we discussed numerous techniques used to source energy from natural resources. Renewable energy describes the conversion of natural resources, such as the wind, sunlight, rain, and so on, into a sustainable energy form which can be used to self-power a device. The energy harvesting technique used by EnOcean detects minor variations in the environment, such as change in temperature, ambient light, and the turning on and off of a switch, whereby such differences are sufficient to be converted to enable an EnOcean sensor to accumulate and store energy.

ZigBee (zigbee.org) is a protocol-based global standard, which has been developed by a consortium of over 400 companies around the world. The protocol relies on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.15.4 standard, which provides the protocol with its air-interface. ZigBee has been around for a number of years, with its initial ratified standard appearing in December 2004; later, in June 2005, the standard was made public. ZigBee specifies a software protocol that sits upon the IEEE 802.15.4 Media Access Control (MAC) and Physical (PHY) layers, which we'll discuss later on.

In this chapter, we discuss ZigBee's inception and evolution since making its first public appearance in 2005. What's more, we'll explore the ZigBee Alliance, along with its membership benefits and structure. The chapter also discusses the diverse market scope that ZigBee has already captured and is currently targeting, and explores the ZigBee product range and potential. Naturally, we'll also look at how ZigBee is set apart from other competing technologies within the same market sector. Finally, the chapter lifts the lid on ZigBee and takes a closer look at its software architecture and protocol.

The medium access control (MAC) layer provides, among other things, addressing and channel access control that makes it possible for multiple stations on a network to communicate. IEEE 802.11 is often referred to as wireless Ethernet and, in terms of addressing and channel access, 802.11 is indeed similar to Ethernet, which was standardized as IEEE 802.3. As a member of the IEEE 802 LAN family, IEEE 802.11 makes use of the IEEE 802 48-bit global address space, making it compatible with Ethernet at the link layer. The 802.11 MAC also supports shared access to the wireless medium through a technique called carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA), which is similar to the original (shared medium) Ethernet’s carrier sense multiple access with collision detect (CSMA/CD). With both techniques, if the channel is sensed to be “idle,” the station is permitted to transmit, but if the channel is sensed to be “busy” then the station defers its transmission. However, the very different media over which Ethernet and 802.11 operate mean that there are some differences.

The Ethernet channel access protocol is essentially to wait for the medium to go “idle,” begin transmitting and, if a collision is detected while transmitting, to stop transmitting and begin a random backoff period. It is not feasible for a transmitter to detect a collision while transmitting in a wireless medium; thus the 802.11 channel access protocol attempts to avoid collisions. Once the medium goes “idle,” the station waits a random period during which it continues to sense the medium, and if at the end of that period the medium is still “idle,” it begins transmitting. The random period reduces the chances of a collision since another station waiting to access the medium would likely choose a different period, hence the collision avoidance aspect of CSMA/CA.