#IoTBuild

Can we achieve the 50 billion device

promise with competing

technologies?

Professor William Webb

November 2016

#IoTBuild

Story-line

Laws Only successful wireless technologies are open standards

Only one standard transpires in any particular space

Standards need catchy names

MNOs fail in new endeavours

So what for IoT? How many spaces – two for sure

Open standards in 3GPP and Weightless, not for others

How many catchy names – only one

What are MNOs up to, NB-IoT and 5G, failing again?

How to get from here to there? Wait for attrition to take its course or

Use Weightless as a way to de-fragment the industry

2

#IoTBuild

Our wireless portfolio – nothing proprietary here

Page 3

#IoTBuild

Evolved from multiple competitors

Page 4

MC-Link

Other

proprietary

HyperLAN

Wi-Max, Chinese

3G (TD-SCDMA),

CDMA2000…

Less competition

other than regional

variations

Manufacturer

-specific

solutions

Previously

CT-2,

analogue

#IoTBuild

Drive to a single standard is inevitable and irreversible

Page 5

Time (years)

Mark

et s

hare

#IoTBuild

Trend towards consumer-friendly name and logo

Page 6Time (years)

#IoTBuild

MNOs are great at voice and data

Fantastic success at delivering basic connectivity to billions of people

But…

Video calling

Picture messaging

Location-based services

Femtocells

Internet / walled-gardens / WAP

Widgets / own-brand apps stores

eHealth

Mobile payment

…….

#IoTBuild

Story-line

Laws Only successful wireless technologies are open standards

Only one standard transpires in any particular space

Standards need catchy names

MNOs fail in any new endeavour

So what for IoT? How many spaces – two for sure

Open standards in 3GPP and Weightless, not for others

How many catchy names – only one

What are MNOs up to, NB-IoT and 5G, failing again?

How to get from here to there? Wait for attrition to take its course or

Use Weightless as a way to de-fragment the industry

8

#IoTBuild

How many different IoT spaces?

Page 9

#IoTBuild

And standards?

Page 10

#IoTBuild

…with catchy names

Page 11

#IoTBuild

Will the MNOs succeed this time?

Open standard

Closer to

connectivity than

application

Strong drive from

Vodafone and

Huawei

Page 12

Lots of standards

NB-IoT

EC-GPRS

LTE Cat-M

5G MMC

Poor branding

Not core to mission

High opportunity cost (around £25m in UK)

#IoTBuild

Story-line Laws

Only successful wireless technologies are open standards

Only one standard transpires in any particular space

Standards need catchy names

MNOs fail in any new endeavour

So what for IoT? How many spaces – two for sure

Open standards in 3GPP and Weightless, not for others

How many catchy names – only one

What are MNOs up to, NB-IoT and 5G, failing again?

How to get from here to there? Wait for attrition to take its course or

Use Weightless as a way to de-fragment the industry

13

#IoTBuild

The more confusion the longer it takes to resolve

Page 14

Time (years)

Mark

et s

hare

#IoTBuild

One chipset, multiple networks

Device manufacturers need to know what chip to put into their devices

Chips can accommodate multiple technologies as long as they share similar parameters

Envisage three different physical layers Licensed – NB-IoT

UNB unlicensed – ETSI LTN initiative

NB unlicensed- Weightless-P

Network operators select preferred technology understanding all devices can connect

Key is to ensure sufficient commonality that the chipset is low cost and certainty so that silicon vendors can invest in fabrication

Page 15

#IoTBuild

Why does this work?

A single standard (of standards)

The right branding and positioning

Not reliant on success of MNOs but allows for it

Weightless becomes the equivalent of the Wi-Fi Alliance for IoT

Already agreed with ETSI

But it can only work with industry support

Your “vote” matters

16

#IoTBuild