Technology's Next Big Thing Is Almost Here...

Have you ever heard of the Maldives? If you haven't, think of it as the "Hawaii of the Indian Ocean." It's a gorgeous chain of islands straddling the equator. The website for Maldives says it all in one beautiful picture:

Maldives in all its glory. Source: Maldives government. 

Gorgeous. 

Maldives is a gem, featuring some of most serene beaches on Earth.

Yet, what Maldives lacks is space. Sure, the country has 1,190 islands, but between all of those islands there are just 115 square miles of total space. To put that in perspective, the total area of 87 American cities is larger than this entire nation. 

The Maldives' capital, Male, squeezes over 100,000 people into just more than 2 square miles. The island is so packed that there is no room for garbage disposal. About 300 tonnes of garbage a day are shipped to a nearby island which the BBC dubbed "apocalyptic": an island of garbage that grows by the day. It's terrifying. 

This is Maldives' capital, Male. Kind of like a Manhattan in the middle of an ocean. Source: Wikipedia.

The problems facing Maldives might seem a world apart from the United States. After all, our country is 33,000 times as large (space is not a concern). 

However, our problems might be more alike than they seem. In Maldives, the economy is based on tourism. Those tourists never see the devastation their presence brings, as it's shipped away to that "apocalyptic" island of trash each day. 

In the United States, our economy depends on information instead of tourism. Nine of the 10 largest technology companies in the world are based in the United States. America is doing so well in technology because we've secured leadership in this generation's greatest trend: mobile. However, even as millions of Americans enjoy high-speed video, YouTube viewing, and app usage on their phones, we quickly exhaust one of our greatest resources. 

Americans, like the tourists of Maldives who are unwittingly helping bury the nation under garbage, are pushing one of the country's most important resources to the limits. Namely, spectrum, which carries our mobile data. The advances to fix the congestion around mobile data in the next decade could determine whether or not we unlock the next great technology revolution. 

From the world's most impressive electronics show
I'm writing this article from the floor of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the world's most important technology show. It's like nothing you've ever seen. 

The convention is more bizarre than the city that hosts it. Today I saw a water bottle that doubles as a Bluetooth speaker, a choreographed group of dancing robots, and 3-D printed chocolate. 

You've probably seen headlines about it in the news, given that 150,000 people flow through the CES each year. It's nauseating in its media coverage. I've struggled to find my own footing at the show, searching to find the trends that are more than just fluff -- trends that investors need to know. 

To be sure, it's a circus of the absurd. Nonetheless, if you look beyond all the showmanship, the conference is incredibly valuable in part because you have the opportunity to talk with some of the most forward-looking and bright minds in technology. 

In the three days days I've spent at the conference, the most invaluable hour was watching a keynote panel featuring the CEOs of Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC  )  and Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM  ) , and AT&T's head of Network Operations. Between Ericsson and Qualcomm, the two companies spend nearly $10 billion in research and development each year. Nearly all of that money is spent improving the wireless networks that enable our mobile lives. 

The panel was high on optimism, describing some amazing uses of technology in the coming years. Still, on one issue they were all united. If there isn't enough spectrum, our greatest visions for the future will be impossible. 

How much further can this technology go?
With an event like CES there are plenty of storylines to follow. Most of the best ideas are quickly copied. A whole wing of the conference featured only small fitness trackers after their sales exploded in 2013.

Last year, 4K -- or ultra-high-definition -- televisions made their debut at CES. This year, hundreds of tiny booths of Chinese manufacturers showed off their own 4K televisions. 

BMW has an exhibit showing off its self-driving cars that can be driven at racetrack speeds. Other companies, like Audi, have followed suit with their own driverless cars. 

With all these technologies, you come to appreciate that a certain fabric keeps them together. Fitness wearables are cool, but they need to connect to a smartphone. Ultra-high-definition television sure look impressive, but they're nothing without content. (The big announcement around 4K at CES was that Netflix would partner with TV companies to stream its original shows in 4K.) Self-driving cars will redefine our streets, but need to be constantly connected to a network for safety reasons. 

In all these areas, you begin to gain an appreciation for a technology buzz word. It's called the "Internet of Things." What's it mean? In short, billions of devices will be entering the market in the coming year, and they all need to be constantly connected to the Internet -- and to each other -- to work properly. 

Next to 3-D printed chocolate, the Internet of Things looks like a pretty safe bet. 

What is the Internet of Things?
While the Internet of Things sounds like a fluffy phrase, at its core, it's really just the next evolutionary step of a trend that's been sweeping the world over the past six years. Everyone has been buying up connected devices (like smartphones), and those devices are getting cheaper. 

Ericsson's CEO estimated that for every $10 that's shaved off the price of a smartphone, 100 million more people can buy them. This year, we could see a billion smartphones sold. The relentless pursuit of driving down all the costs of smartphones has had a side benefit: The components inside them have gotten cheaper and smaller at astounding speeds.

With the components to connect to wireless networks (or sense changes in body movements) now so cheap, the next trend could be a hub-and-spoke model. For example, 50 cheap sensors across your body could connect to one more-expensive chip (perhaps found inside your smartphone) to monitor your health. It's not a far stretch to call the smartphone "the remote control of your life." 

Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs described a sensor in development that when injected, would alert people up to two weeks ahead of time before they had a heart attack. 

That's not a "conceptual" idea; it's reality, and it's happening right now. Beyond sensors in the body, the applications of the Internet of Things stretch only as far as we can imagine. Self-driving cars have made tremendous leaps in the last few years thanks to sensors that monitor their entire surroundings. You could even extend sensors to other uses; coils in streets could sense cars coming by and charge them on their commute. 

Even think about a larger social problem: In the coming decades, billions of people will be moving into cities. Can we use connected sensors to control traffic, the utilities of cities, or a host of other infrastructure fixes to ensure our cities don't choke under this mass migration?

Today, we marvel at a billion smartphones sold. The astoundingly large number that technology is targeting isn't 10 billion or even 100 billion. It's a trillion. Once you start looking at the power of connected devices that are talking to one another, the case for a trillion sensors across the world is a near certainty. 

How do we architect the future?
Looking back at the conversation involving Ericsson and Qualcomm's CEOs, they were both extremely bullish on Internet of Things. And why not? Both of their companies are dependent on our mobile world continuing to grow. Ericsson makes the infrastructure that supports mobile networks like AT&T, while Qualcomm gets royalties on each mobile device sold and sells some of the most popular mobile chips. 

And both companies make a single, important point: The physics of the ground will always be better than the physics of the air. Yet, to enable sensors on the move, we need reliable, always-connected mobile data that's unwired. 

During the dot-com bubble, overly exuberant companies helped cover the world with fiber connections that provide virtually limitless connection speeds. However, devices that aren't plugged in don't have that same luxury of limitless fiber speeds when they're sending data through the air. Air-based data is one of the world's most complex topics, and it must utilize a resource spectrum that is limited by nature. 

Think back to that Maldives example. When you look at the world, all you see is people using their smartphones to FaceTime with their kids on the road, get directions, or stream their favorite television show. It just works. It's kind of like that serene beach picture of Maldives. 

But the reality is that in the background, wireless networks look like that crowded capital of Maldives. Behind the scenes, they're bursting at the seams. All data travels over radio-frequency spectrum and the amount we can allocate is limited. For an comprehensive view of the United States' spectrum allocation, take a look at this chart. Beyond mobile, spectrum is allocated to radio stations, broadcasters, satellites, and a host of other uses. 

The problem is that the more data and communications being sent on wireless bands, the more congested they get and data speeds either slow down or fail altogether. Compounding this problem is that all spectrum isn't created equal (certain bands are much better for fast mobile technologies like LTE), and just about all the spectrum earmarked for mobile is allocated for use. 

What's holding the Internet of Things up?
The FCC -- which provisions spectrum -- has tried to open things up more for the wireless industry, but the target date for more spectrum is 2020. Not only is that goal an eon away in the time frame of bleeding-edge technology, but Cisco reports that 12 times more mobile data was sent in 2012 than all Internet traffic in 2000. Traffic from mobile devices is expected to surpass wired devices by 2016. 

With mobile quickly becoming the medium for the information-based economy, how we handle our spectrum becomes incredibly important. Spectrum development becomes as significant as roads or other public services; its the path our information travels on. How we allocate our spectrum becomes a key determinant of GDP. A country with better spectrum allocation can better create technologies around the Internet of Things, and become a hub for entrepreneurs on the edge of technology. 

Innovation on how to solve the issues regarding wireless infrastructure will continue from leading companies. The mobile industry is incredibly effective at getting more efficiency out of the spectrum allocated to it. Central tweaks to wireless standards are under way, as well as offloading capacity with Wi-Fi or using "small cells" for better connections to cellular networks in dense cities. 

However, until we can push mobile data to where customers don't feel their use of wireless data is being metered, it's hard to imagine many of the innovations around the Internet of Things taking off. That'd be a shame, because the Internet of Things feels like the next evolution of technology beyond smartphones. It'll improve our homes, our health, our cities. It'll be exciting not just to technology investors, but everyone hoping to improve our everyday lives. 

So, if you fire up your local news tonight and see a discussion on curved televisions or 3-D chocolate printing, feel free to laugh at it. There is some tremendous innovation going on at CES, and it's measured in the trillions of dollars. With a smartphone as the hub for an unwired life, the Internet of Things seems inevitable. The only question is whether mobile technology can keep up with our imaginations. 

For a limited time only
At The Motley Fool, no one has been more excited about the potential of the Internet of Things than co-founder and top investor David Gardner. For a limited time only, he has created an exclusive investor hub that discusses some of the most important trends today, and a handful of exclusive stock picks that stand to benefit from the trend. This free site is available for a limited time only, so click here to see David's favorite picks in the space.

No Pitch


Read/Post Comments (39) | Recommend This Article (157)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 09, 2014, at 1:56 PM, millsbob wrote:

    "The problems beguiling Maldives might seem a world apart from America."

    that word "beguiling"; it does not mean what you think it means. ;)

    perhaps you want "besetting". or perhaps the sentence was edited just before hitting send.

  • Report this Comment On January 09, 2014, at 2:01 PM, TMFRhino wrote:

    Yup, that's a mistake. Will get fixed, thanks for noting!

  • Report this Comment On January 09, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Risky88 wrote:

    Great interesting article!!

    Everyone I talk to about computers being inside of us says it will never happen. They also said the same thing about every other type of technology!

    Love it!

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 2:15 AM, hbofbyu wrote:

    Most IOT devices are connected locally and backhauled through non-cellular gateways, over fiber and then to the cloud. Once there, the data is processed into something useful. None of this really increases the cellular traffic until you access it as needed.

    Sensor devices are not bandwidth hogs but are very low data. The hogs are, and will still be the media files for movies, gaming and other entertainment.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 11:21 AM, erkaye wrote:

    An interesting question is who owns the band width aside from the main mobile networks.

    Possibly media aggregators like Sinclair Broadcasting Group? Do these companies benefit from supply/demand pressures?

    Great article, BTW.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Ostar99 wrote:

    Good article. I also see the M2M market as being one of the next great waves of technology. One that I am long on in this space is Sierra Wireless. Their transformation is essentially complete and their are well poised to take a good share of this market.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 1:45 PM, DesktopPC wrote:

    Along with SWIR Sierra Wireless DGII is also a small but fast growing complete M2M co.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 1:52 PM, TMFRhino wrote:

    Hbofbyu,

    Thanks for the comment, good insight. At CES I met with some of the companies that do very low data M2M stuff like Murata... Which, just as you said, have a lot of senors that occasionally shoot out very low amounts of data. The feeling I got from talking to some of the wireless people is that for many cutting edge uses that can fall under the jot umbrella, the big concern is areas like video growth would decrease reliability of networks, and also many of the bleeding edge ideas around iot (esp. Non-industrial) would have less need to shorter range wireless technologies.

    Could be spin from the industry, would love to hear your thoughts. Seems like a cool space where the future is being invented in front of us.

    Thanks!

    -Eric

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 4:17 PM, SkepikI wrote:

    Just a generation away from net implants...and if you think I'm being silly, consider this:

    In 1990, I bought a Motorola "Brick" cellphone for 4 of my traveling staff to share. They had been renting car phones and mobiles like it for an arm and a leg, and I figured it would pay itself out in a year (actually took 3 months). I was called on the carpet for it because, as the accountant put it "Only Vice Presidents" are allowed mobile phones (I was a mere Manager). I told the accountant it was too late to send it back but I had an easy fix, just make me a VP. My boss called me in the next day and said "Don't be tweaking accounting, they have no sense of humor... you can keep the phone"

    From VP perk to kid toy in less than 20 years.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 7:21 PM, ancientWisdom12 wrote:

    If this brave new world is about using connected sensors to control traffic, then we have learned nothing, and we are still stuck in the 1950s with total dependence on the most unsustainable and energy-wasteful way of transporting people.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 8:00 PM, masterN17 wrote:

    @hbofbyu as IOT moves from industrial to personal, industry is expecting a switch from the routing elemnt being a router (which does eventually transmit through copper/fiber) to smartphones (which would transmit over cell networks).

    Of course, like you stated, there are ways around this - the most obvious being intermittent dumps to the cloud when connected to wifi.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 8:13 PM, spintreebob wrote:

    How much spectrum is controlled by the marketplace? How much spectrum is controlled by the FCC and international government monopolies? The leftists might get defensive and think that control by government is good..until they find out how much is allocated to National Security.,

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 8:56 PM, enginear wrote:

    Good heads up!

    Wireless spectrum will be metered, and it will cost us. Even fiber optic is not "limitless". The data we use by 2020 will be massive... unimaginable, and growing faster every day.

    The small cells seem the best bet, connected with more fiber optic. I can't imagine a way to get radio to do it, without stepping all over itself everywhere with the volume of traffic we're projecting... but maybe (Hopefully?) I'm just not far enough 'out of the box'.

    Big challenge... especially when China and India start to do more than we are now (and South America, and Africa). It's all one big network, and it will get more global every year.

    @hbofbyu is right about sensors being low data , but any transmission will increase bandwidth needs. When every toaster, doorbell, water meter and plug strip is 'on the internet' (plus all those global movie watchers) it will have an effect.

  • Report this Comment On January 10, 2014, at 9:17 PM, TMFRhino wrote:

    Great thoughts enginear, thanks for sharing them!

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2014, at 3:50 AM, sanandreu wrote:

    Maybe the islanders aren't worried about the garbage, it seems that due to recent and predicted rises in sea level they will all be underwater in not too long. Then the garbage goes to where so much of it has already gone. Wish the same thing would happen to spam.

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2014, at 11:16 AM, IslandDave wrote:

    Very good article, Eric. And some good adds by several others above. It's an exciting time to be in IT -- makes me (almost) wish I wasn't going to be hanging up my IT Manager spurs later this year. I think the spectrum constraint you highlight offers some excellent opportunities. As we know, big issues to resolve such as this often accelerate the pace of innovation, not only in the tech world but in any growth industry. As investors, therefore, it should serve us well to keep on eye on how this develops.

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2014, at 1:48 PM, extet wrote:

    Maybe they'll come up with something that alerts you that you are going to say something stupid. Politicians would love that.

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Wills61 wrote:

    I've had an implant in my medulla oblongata for many years now. The Army put it there because of my autonomic functions. They thought it would make me more voluntary if my vitals were in jeopardy.

    They can shut off my heart, breathing or lower and raise my blood pressure at their command.

    I hope the will let me live a little longer.

    IT this! Logan's Run!

  • Report this Comment On January 12, 2014, at 8:38 AM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    Maybe the next big thing will be to move mobile down into the TV broadcast spectrum (lots of garbage there and it's very wide) and free up some space.

    I've read about many islands off the coast of Italy that have the same garbage problem.

  • Report this Comment On January 12, 2014, at 11:12 AM, H0MBRE wrote:

    I'm surprised this article doesn't mention Nanotech Entertainment (NTEK) nor the Nuvola NP-1 which won the "Visionary Home Entertainment Product of the Year" award at CES this year.

    • 4K streaming is practically synonymous with this company.

  • Report this Comment On January 12, 2014, at 12:32 PM, tjwheel1967 wrote:

    About 15 years ago, "Consultants" convinced companies to stop writing Fat apps on computers and to write web apps, causing us to have servers in the cloud do our transactions. In the future it will have to be a mix. Do as much processing on local apps as possible and only send relevant data across a limited spectrum. I called it here.

  • Report this Comment On January 12, 2014, at 9:37 PM, Factkneader wrote:

    The dark side of this is that a cyberwar could be widespread and devastating, tho less so than nuclear war.

  • Report this Comment On January 13, 2014, at 4:21 PM, SWRider wrote:

    Wireless bandwidth and data throughput are not just technological issues, however. There is a public policy side and a public perception aspect.

    On the policy side, the telcos don't want to pay for all of the resources they consume to provide wireless service. Specifically, there is a battle between cities and the telcos over tower placement and use of right of way.

    On the public perception side, the public, in general, does not want to be near cell towers and fear more towers in their neighborhood. This is another area where public perception is 180 degrees off from what it should be. More towers would reduce the need for cell phones to use more power, conserving battery and reducing the strength of the signal going through your head when making a call.

  • Report this Comment On January 13, 2014, at 4:25 PM, TheZomb wrote:

    Your analysis of holdups is incorrect, wifi and home internet connections are readily available in most homes for the internet of things without requiring FCC approval. Additionally cellular data chips are too power hungry for most Internet of Things uses.

    Most of the holdup has to do with a lack of standards regarding inter-device communication. ie: A commonly stated smart device scenario is blinds that close when I turn on interior lighting, but unless I buy all of my home furnishings from the same company they probably won't be able to communicate with each other. Until these companies get together and create communication standards this industry will be full of gimmicky one trick products that might sell initially, but will not be features most people use and will certainly not sell them again. The problem is most companies are trying to create a closed Apple like ecosystem that locks customers into their products, but almost none of them are as innovative as apple and even if they were devoting all of ones home furnishings to a single company is a little beyond the level of devotion for an average consumer.

  • Report this Comment On January 13, 2014, at 4:38 PM, XMFConnor wrote:

    STRP is an interesting way to play this trend.. play on small cell wireless backhaul.. recent spin-off of IDT

  • Report this Comment On January 13, 2014, at 9:55 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    Michio Kaku made some predictions about the future. Knowing that hardware will be as ubiquitous and disposable as paper; what matters will be what's written on that paper (applications). That means sensors in your toilets alerting you to cancer, diabetes; or in your clothes checking your vitals.

    U2's 360 tour had the band wearing LED pants and jackets with the LED banks networked into a larger mesh using small radios embedded in the clothing. These were all controlled remotely - either to a larger computer program or synced with the music. The band was never out of rf range due to data hopping across the mesh network.

    Disney's World of Color uses the same wireless technology.

    Those are cool but expensive applications but when it hits the price point, wireless sensors will be like bar codes. The complete inventory of your refrigerator will be on your phone with a bar graph of expiration dates and a list of possible recipes you can make with what's there. Connect that to Amazon Fresh and your done grocery shopping for good.

    Once security concerns are addressed and protocols are standardized I see public mesh networks being used where any device that opts in can route others data - alleviating cellular traffic.

  • Report this Comment On January 14, 2014, at 12:17 AM, TMFRhino wrote:

    Hey TheZomb,

    That's probably my fault ... I originally started the article wanting to discuss wireless, but... Was writing progressively during a day at CES and got swept up in some really great "Internet of Things" talks and kind of veered in that direction without noting how much of that can be done without any real spectral constraints (IE- Home automation stuff running through WiFi). Kind of put a quick sentence at the end noting WiFi offload... But, should have spent a bit more time there.

    For me, the interesting area is pushing IoT to areas that are more mobile by nature. As people above mentioned, maybe solved by intermittent WiFi dumps... Yet, where do we draw the line on something that's as "big tent" an idea as IoT? Sony's new gaming service processes on remote servers and streams to devices like smartphones. Pretty big data hog... Should we let overloaded cell networks prevent us from really innovative ideas that push hardware out of the home and make it available "on demand" from anywhere (but also requires more mobile data usage)?

    Or perhaps, I'm missing the forrest from the trees and should have ignored any spectrum talk and just focused on the promise of the Internet of Things. Seems like a great subject on a day when Google acquires Nest for $3.2 billion.

    Really awesome discussion points. Excited to continue learning about this in the year ahead.

    -Eric (The article's author)

  • Report this Comment On January 16, 2014, at 11:12 AM, BTN100 wrote:

    One solution is for more of the data to stay local. Of course, I guess expecting your health monitoring information to remain known to you only (or perhaps a first responder if you fall ill) is too much to ask.

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2014, at 3:55 AM, wmgmorg9x wrote:

    Hi BTN100. Read "Holy Fire" by Bruce Sterling.

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2014, at 3:12 PM, HurricaneJohnson wrote:

    I was an employee of Cisco Systems for 10 years, and left in 2006. The CEO John Chambers always talked about the health-monitoring model where functions of the body are being constantly monitored in some health center, and you are alerted if your bodies status changes - immediately. You don't have to go for the physical to be evaluated once a year - you are being evaluated 10 times a second!

    It's interesting to see his vision from the early 2000s may come to fruition, and that the Smartphone would be the enabling "client-side" technology. This just means that you should expect bigger and bigger bandwidths available from service providers, more enhancements to 4G, and infrastructure that controls it.

  • Report this Comment On January 17, 2014, at 3:53 PM, miteycasey wrote:

    Now you know why IPV6 is so important going forward. It will be like going to analog to digital TV signals on a global scale.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, rlouisa wrote:

    How would the end of net neutrality regs affect the availability of spectrum

  • Report this Comment On January 24, 2014, at 10:34 AM, ashleyjames389 wrote:

    The future of tech according to me are messaging apps like whatsapp and wechat. Social media decline has started

    http://bit.ly/SocialMediaEnds

  • Report this Comment On January 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, nj1 wrote:

    GREAT ARTICLES. THE FUTURE IS HERE.

  • Report this Comment On January 28, 2014, at 12:20 PM, SeanG wrote:

    As we can't physically create any more spectrum, we have to maximise utilization and spectral efficiency of what we've got. Great new technology doing just that written about in recent days on Urgent Communications, Fierce WirelessTech, also brief mentions on WSJ and CNBC, called Dynamic Spectrum Arbitrage. A real game changer in the face of a looming spectrum crunch.

  • Report this Comment On February 05, 2014, at 7:37 AM, emilypeter389 wrote:

    wow, never realized it before

  • Report this Comment On February 11, 2014, at 7:14 PM, rav55 wrote:

    @ Mathman6577

    TV broadcast spectrum is down in the 54mhz or VHF bands and currently cell phones do occupy the old UHF broadcast TV frequencies for good reason. The difficulties engineering high bandwidth data pipes at such low frequencies; 54 mhz, preclude it from use. Also antennas at long wavelengths also make that problematic. The mobile phone just would not work as well or have the data bandwidth at VHF that it enjoys in the UHF bands. For instance at the old AM broadcast frequency of 1.6 mhz you probably couldn’t achieve dial up data speeds without using collossal bandwidth well past the FCC limit of 10khz.

    Which was why high fidelity music was not broadcast on AM HF band but instead the VHF FM band. Hgh Fidelity music requires more bandwidth to transmit the increased information that a good listening experience requires. Anyone familiar with the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) transmission band for submerged submarine messaging knows that it can take hours to send a single page of text. In short the lower the frequency the smaller that data bandwidth becomes. With the data speeds we are used to, anything below 400mhz is probably unuseable.

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2014, at 5:17 PM, mmt369 wrote:

    @SeanG says we can't create any more spectrum. In a philosophical sense that's true, but in a practical sense we do it all the time. New technology makes it possible to use higher frequency bands, and to make more efficient use of the bands we already use. Encoding techniques making better use of time, space, and visual redundancies reduce the need for spectrum while giving the same experience to the video viewer -- about 30 years ago I saw a demonstration of streaming a (grey-scale) surveillance camera over a standard voice-grade phone line, using the limitations of the visual system. There's lots we can and do do to create more spectrum in the practical sense.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2014, at 11:37 PM, dickieduck wrote:

    I take serious issue with your offering of David Gardner's report on a company, whose name you do not disclose, that he thinks is poised to profit immensely if the Internet of Everything takes off ... but only on the condition that you purchase a subscription to Stock Adviser. I already subscribe to that and it would be foolish, if I may use that word, to have 2 subscriptions to the same thing. Therefore, as a subscriber to Stock Adviser, I cannot see this report. I can take an educated guess, based on this article. But, why should I have to guess? Why is something being offered to new subscribers not also offered to existing subscribers?

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2789433, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/23/2014 1:30:33 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement