To overcome the Internet of Things IoT, organizations often look to managed network services to add physical assets to the Internet. Service providers are responsible for setting up the network infrastructure and managing devices and data. The mobile communications offered by mobile operators are probably the most popular. But there are other public service options as well.
The benefits of IoT-managed services are easy to see, but it doesn’t go beyond the underlying issues which are often intangible. Simplification is a definite advantage. But he shouldn’t be the sole decision-maker. Managed communication comes with a centralized business model. Many aspects of your IoT architecture are largely under operator control. For those looking to use IoT-driven services, here are three key factors to consider before making a decision.
Universal web coverage is technically impossible
While the idea of not having your infrastructure (eg base stations) is very exciting, it also means that you are completely dependent on the operator’s network trace. Beware of the “global coverage” often provided by IoT service providers, as it doesn’t equate to ubiquitous connectivity.
Shipping agreements are in place to allow devices to connect to convenient networks when crossing borders. However, they do not guarantee that connectivity is available everywhere or always reliable.
Coverage is a function of the radio link budget, cell tower/base station availability, and the operating environment of the connected device. This is why it is so difficult, if not impossible, for operators to provide “absolute” nationwide coverage over the whole world. If you take a closer look at the coverage map of any historical telecommunications provider in your country, you can easily find large gaps in the network.
It’s always a matter of knowing what your apps are and where the devices are installed. The public IoT infrastructure supports outdoor terminals installed in an urban environment. However, in the case of industrial activities in remote areas, underground and/or in steelworks, this may not be the case
These 3 Things you Should Know about IoT
Confidentiality and possession of data is a legitimate concern
Industrial consumers are turning to IoT to capture previously unused data that can change their operations and strengthen their competitive advantage. Due to the commercially complex nature of these data flows, any security breach carries the risk of serious financial and trustworthy damage.
In addition, compliance with robust data protection frameworks is often a critical business requirement. As such, it’s no surprise that most companies prefer on-premises or hybrid IoT deployment over cloud-based deployment to maintain complete control over data and security and reduce risk.
Now, the challenge of managed IoT services is that they require the operator to connect to the server in the IoT architecture, regardless of the connection type of the operator and the request.
This cloud server acts as a central hub that stores all user data and maintains hubs and connections. If you want to run an on-premises or hybrid system for security and compliance, managed connectivity is not appropriate for your policy.
Online availability and longevity are not guaranteed.
When it comes to critical infrastructure and applications, businesses always strive to perform 100% on schedule, even in times of crisis. In services operated by the IoT, network availability is subject to unplanned outages due to physical or technical failures in the operator’s infrastructure.
Even with a service level agreement that guarantees 99.9% online timeliness, businesses end up with almost nine hours of downtime annually. Additionally, since sensor data must be collected from the operator’s background for end-to-end use, businesses are at risk of disrupting Internet access.
In conclusion, the network services operated by IoT do not always meet the specific needs of industrial companies, despite certain inherent advantages. Businesses want complete convenience and control over coverage and availability.