technology infrastructure for the pervasive vision, does it exist yet?

Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision ‘Does The Technology Infrastructure Needed To Implement The Pervasive

Vision Really Exist Yet?’ By Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

Page: 3 Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet? © Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

About The Author

Olivia Moran is a leading training specialist who specialises in E-Learning instructional design and is a certified Moodle expert. She has been working as a trainer and course developer for 3 years developing and delivery training courses for traditional classroom, blended learning and E-learning.

Courses Olivia Moran Has Delivered: ● MOS ● ECDL ● Internet Marketing ● Social Media ● Google [Getting Irish Businesses Online] ● Web Design [FETAC Level 5] ● Adobe Dreamweaver ● Adobe Flash ● Moodle Specialties:

★Moodle [MCCC Moodle Certified Expert] ★ E Learning Tools/ Technologies [Commercial & Open Source] ★ Microsoft Office Specialist ★ Web Design & Online Content Writer ★ Adobe Dreamweaver, Flash & Photoshop


1. ABSTRACT This document will explore the technologies used for pervasiveness in an attempt to determine whether or not the technology infrastructure needed to implement the pervasive vision is really there yet. The different hardware and software used by professionals to create pervasive solutions will be examined. It will focus on the limitations of mobile devices, the operating systems they will use, Wireless Application Protocol (W.A.P.), Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). Also examined is the over use of ad hoc solutions. Wireless networks and protocols as well as the software used for pervasive application development will be examined. It will illustrate how seamless communication occurs and the role that network operators and the handover process play in the achievement of this goal. It will consider how a lack of standards is impacting on the success and growth of the pervasive industry as well as the issue of user acceptance.

2. INTRODUCTION According to Kohler and Erdmann (2004), Pervasive Computing is “A vision of future applications of Information and Communication Technologies (I.C.T) in which highly miniaturized, embedded, networked microprocessors equipped with sensors will pervade our daily lives”. The word pervasive means to spread throughout, to permeate or pervade, hence the term pervasive is used to describe the spreading of computers and other communication devices throughout our everyday lives. “The vision of Pervasive Computing is built on the assumption that computers will become part of everyday objects, augmenting them with information services and enhanced functionality” Hilty et al (2004). Pervasive computing is becoming a major area of interest. There are now countless numbers of pervasive devices available, varying in shape, size, functionality and cost. The reduced cost and size of memory and pervasive devices as well as more powerful and faster processors have made the growth and acceleration of pervasive computing possible. Pervasive computing has in affect led to the creation of an entirely new business market and has the potential to alter significantly the way in which people communicate. The vision of pervasive computing envisages obtaining your information where you stand, when you need it and in the format you need it. Reaching such a stage would according to Burkhardt et al (2002) “Give users the freedom not only to communicate efficiently at any place in the world but also to access local information as well as information residing on the internet at any place and at any time” Realising this pervasive vision is a long way off. Hansmann et al (2003) highlights that “Pervasive applications need to take care of various hardware and software platforms, as well as very different form factors and user interfaces. This obstacle strongly impacts portability”. This paper aims to highlight the extent to which technologies are able to support the pervasive vision and whether or not the infrastructure that currently exists is sufficient for implementing this vision. The most commonly used hardware and software available at present for the creation of pervasive solutions are examined at length. This document is concerned with the limitations of mobile devices, the operating systems they use, W.A.P. and TCP/IP Protocol.


Also examined is the over use of ad hoc solutions. Wireless networks and protocols as well as the software used for pervasive application development will be explored. Network operators and the role they play in the handover process are also considered and how this process is vital to seamless communications over different geographical locations. In this paper the different problems that arise from the lack of standards in the pervasive industry are presented. Lastly, the issue of user acceptance is considered and how this matter impacts on the development of some technologies.

3. HARDWARE & SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES “Today’s emerging pervasive computing technology faces serious technical issues: most devices have strong limitations on memory usage and processor performance as well as tight constraints on power consumptions” Hansmann et al (2003). There are hundreds of different models of mobile phones as well as Personal Digital Assistants (P.D.A’s) and numerous platforms that must be taken into account by the developer when building a suitable user interface. These devices vary in size, shape and functionality. Each mobile phone requires a different interface that allows the user to communicate with the computer. Some mobile devices are multimodal, where input and output is given using more than one modality i.e. pen, voice, touch screen etc. The lack of standards causes a real problem for developers. There is no one agreed upon standard that all developers can follow.

3.1 Limitations of Pervasive Devices Pervasive devices face many limitations that their desktop counterparts do not. Such limitations relate mainly to reliable power supplies, display sizes and interfaces for input and output, memory capacity as well as processor power. Portable batteries are used to power pervasive devices. The life of these batteries once charged will differ depending on the type of battery that it is. Some of the more desirable batteries include Nickel-Cadmium (NIMH), Lithium Polymer or the most commonly used Lithium Ion (Li ion). Such batteries are much lighter in weight, smaller in size and more environmentally friendly than previously used batteries however, they are not capable of supporting long-term use without needing to recharge. Pervasive devices usually have a relatively small display and this can cause some major problems for designers. Forms need to be able to adapt to the specifications of the phone or else they will display incorrectly. It is very important to consider colour, scale and spacing, as failing to take these into account will result in a task taking longer to complete. “The screen layout should be self-explaining and reduced to the absolutely necessary elements” Hansmann et al (2003). The different input and output i.e. pen based, touch screen, voice etc. modalities of each device must also be considered in light of the application being developed. Memory has recently become much more affordable, most likely due to increased demand for portable devices. Pervasive devices such as camera phones and P.D.A.’s can store a substantial amount of data with many of these allowing for the attachment of Microdrives like those developed by IBM. Processing power is another issue that mobile devices must contend with. The pervasive devices that are in operation today such as a typical smart phone have more processing capabilities and a higher clock rate than the best computers available two decades ago. With this said they are still incapable of dealing with huge amounts of data and therefore what needs to be processed should be kept to a minimum.


3.2 Operating Systems (O.S.) The only thing a user is usually concerned about when using a pervasive device is the speed and length of time that it takes to do a task. They do not wish nor need to know what is going on in the background. Consequently, “The footprints of Operating Systems and software need to be reduced as much as possible. Mobile devices must handle power shortages and their applications must be able to resume again after shutdown” Hansmann et al (2003). Burkhardt (2002) points out “The core functionality of every pervasive computing device is determined by its operating system”. This can range from basic functionality like that provided by the Palm O.S. or those with a lot of complexity such as Windows CE, a powerful O.S. The O.S. is responsible for tasks such as user, task, power and memory management. It is highly important that the O.S. chosen for each device is appropriate given its features, capabilities and the tasks that it must perform.

3.3 Wireless Application Protocol (W.A.P.) W.A.P. is an Internet protocol that defines “An optimised protocol stack for communication over wireless lines, an application environment for mobile phone applications, a content description language, and a miniature browser interface” Burkhardt et al (2002). Contributing to its success is that “W.A.P. offers a broad market for developers. One worldwide standard that is device-independent and bearer-independent assures developers of a broad, ever-expanding market for content and applications” Steenderen (2002). W.A.P. does have some limitations. It does not deal well with limited bandwidth and the requirements of smaller user interfaces. However, with the increased availability and more affordable costs of broadband this limitation will be overcome.

3.4 Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) TCP/IP protocols were designed for wired networks and do not adapt particularly well to wireless networks. According to Alanko et al (1999) “Differences between wired and wireless links cause complications. The common data communication protocols, like the TCP/IP Internet protocols, do not expect problems like those occurring in a cellular telephone network”. TCP connections often have poor performance as they can misinterpret lost packets as “Network congestion and slows down the rate of transmission” Alanko et al (1999). Such a belief results in the TCP layer stopping what it is doing so that it can listen and wait for the congestion to disappear. This is problematic, as no congestion actually exists and it stops sending the data packets. The ideal situation would be that it increases packet transmission frequency and speed as the loss of packets is most likely due to transmission errors caused by changes in the networks physical layer. Alanko et al (1999) also notes “Multiple TCP connections over a low-bandwidth link can interfere with each other … Parallel TCP connections competing for the same constrained link interfere with each other in a way that causes additional retransmissions”.

3.5 Ad Hoc Solutions Companies are extremely innovative and constantly come up with new ways to use existing technologies. However “It is now widely acknowledged that the success of pervasive computing technologies will require a radical design shift, and that it is not sufficient to simply extrapolate from existing desktop computing technologies” Henricksen et al (2002). While this may be beneficial in the short term it is creating a wide range of problems in the pervasive computing industry and has lead to the very messy Internet that we use today.


Most pervasive devices work on an infrastructure, which at the time of its inception, developers built without considering modifications and developments that may have been needed in the future. The construction of the infrastructure in this ad hoc manner creates many problems and results in changes being expensive and hard to carry out.

3.6 Wireless Networks & Protocols The position that the pervasive industry finds itself in today is somewhat thanks to the various technologies most notably IEEE 802.11 upon which WIFI and Bluetooth is based. These are both protocols that allow connections to be established without any cables. IEEE 802.11 is a standard used which allows mobile devices or networks to communicate using radio frequencies. While Wireless Local Area Network (W.L.A.N.) capabilities based on this standard are within the capabilities of some smart phones it is generally reserved for devices of the gaming industry like that of the Play Station Portable (PSP). These IEEE 802.11 set of standards are being expanded and “Perhaps the most important development from a mobile device perspective is the enhancement of voice handling in 802.11e. It extends the protocol with voice handling capabilities” Andersson (2006). Bluetooth as described by Hansmann (2003) is “A standard for a short-range radio frequency network between devices”. Bluetooth while relatively slow in being adapted, has its success in the fact that “Bluetooth chipsets are cheap and that they have a protocol stack that makes information exchange easy” Andersson (2006). It does however have some limitations in that “It has had difficulties in obtaining user adoption beyond headsets, even tough it made it under the hood of the mobile device – people find it easier to plug in a USB cable than activate Bluetooth and connect to another device” Andersson (2006). Companies such as Nokia are trying to create a demand for Bluetooth devices other than headsets with the creation of devices like their ‘Nokia Sensor’ a software application for phones that “Offers a new way for people to create information and share it with other phone users nearby” Andersson (2006). Rodriguez et al (1999) puts forward the argument that WLAN’s provide “An awesome opportunity for unprecedented access to information and applications by mobile workers and professionals”. On the other hand one must also consider the fact that “Limited bandwidth, high latency, high cost, poor reliability and security risks of wireless networks greatly inhibit supporting today’s applications over wireless networks”. Privacy remains a major issue for wireless networks. Signals moving through the air can be easily intercepted and deciphered. However, users may be willing to surrender some of their privacy if they believe that the benefits will outweigh this disadvantage.

3.7 Pervasive Application Development Software Java to micro edition (J2ME) and Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 are technologies that are widely used to develop pervasive applications for use on mobile devices. The original Java language was created out of a desire to come up with a language that could be used for the development of software that would run on any type of hardware. Its basically ‘write once, run anywhere’. It essentially ensures a greater level of platform independence. A version of java that could be used on small devices such as smart phones and PDA’s was developed. This language became known as J2ME. By 2001, a vast amount of mobile phones supported the use of J2ME and today has evolved into one of the most supported platforms on small devices. J2ME does however have some limitations. It takes quite a long time to become proficient with its use, to build applications and these often have slower performance than those created by other similar technologies.


Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 is another development environment. It is based on a .Net framework and like J2ME it has a steep learning curve. On the other hand it allows for the development of applications in Visual Basic, C++, C# and Visual J# programming languages.

4. NETWORK OPERATORS & HANDOVERS A major obstacle for the pervasive industry is the achievement of a seamless exchange of users from one network operator to another. This process needs to result in an “Efficient and cost effective interworking between overlay networks for the seamless provisioning of current and future applications and services” Doufexi et al (2004). The device must constantly listen for changes in network conditions and determine the optimum time for the hand over. If this procedure is not carried out correctly crucial data packets may be lost. Different handover models exist to manage this event; the ‘Vertical Handover’ is one such method. Such a model enables “Users to roam freely between heterogeneous networks while maintaining the continuity of their applications” Balasubramaniam & Indulska (2003). It is concerned with context awareness and issues such as “Network disconnections and changes in network Quality of Service” Balasubramaniam & Indulska (2003).

5. LACK OF STANDARDS The pervasive industry is currently haunted by lack of standards with interoperability and standardisation being highly important to its future. Many fail to recognise the significance of these issues and are unwilling to take the time necessary for the development of standards. Many developers feel that they cant take the risk of waiting to deploy their product and service. Those that are first to the market are those who usually gain an early competitive advantage. Andersson et al (2006) share a similar view arguing that while “Proprietary solutions are always the fastest way of getting a new technology to market, the result has been fragmentation of formats” Organisations such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) and the Java Community Process (JCP), lay standards down for the pervasive computing industry. These bodies constantly govern the industry and its growth as well as development. The utilisation of standards ensures that the various pervasive hardware devices and software produced are implemented in a satisfactory way. As noted by McGovern & Norton (2002) “A common standard empowers rather than restricts”. These standards can change from time to time as pervasive computing is still in its infancy and thus is continually developing and evolving.

6. THE CUSTOMER & USER ACCEPTANCE Further development of some promising technologies has been halted by high development costs. While an organisation may be able to produce a pervasive product to satisfy consumer needs, they often fail to do so in an economic way. Schmidt et al (2006) highlights that “Price still seems to be the main obstacle for introducing the technologies”. It impacts greatly on gaining user acceptance.


For a user to accept the product that is being offered it must be capable of performing its activities at least the same or better than the desktop does. As Andersson et al (2006) points out “Customers expect to access the same (or similar) information and applications when on the move as from their desktops … Ease of use and reliability have always been trademarks and customers have very little tolerance of a hand-held device that has to be restarted every once in a while”. Take for example phones with W.A.P. capabilities, these did not take off as expected due to low user acceptance. This example aims to highlight that even where the technology may exist to support pervasiveness it may simple not be used. Drawing on the previous example, users viewed the W.A.P. enabled phone as offering the same service as their desktops but one which was less reliable, slower and much more expensive. It is clear to see that other factors such as user acceptance have a huge impact on the future development and growth of technologies that could be used to support the pervasive vision.

7. CONCLUSION This document examined the different hardware and software technologies used by professionals in the development of pervasive applications and devices in an attempt to determine the extent to which the pervasive infrastructure is ready to support the true pervasive vision. It focused on key areas pertaining to the limitations of mobile devices, the operating systems they will use, W.A.P., TCP/IP Protocol, the over use of ad hoc solutions, wireless networks and protocols as well as the software used for pervasive application development. It also looked at the role of network operators and the handover process necessary for seamless communication. It briefly considered the various problems that developers encounter due to lack of standards. Lastly, the issue of user acceptance was considered and how this matter can impact on the development of different technologies. One of the major problems that the pervasive industry faces at the moment is that instead of creating new technologies specifically aimed at supporting mobile computing, developers are instead too focused on modifying existing solutions that were built for wired networks and desktops. This course of action is extremely time consuming, costly and not always the best way to approach a particular problem. Grimm et al (2000) argues, “Existing operating system abstractions and services are neither sufficient nor necessarily appropriate for a pervasive computing infrastructure”. Developers need to begin thinking outside of the box. Lack of standards is also contributing somewhat to the problem. From carrying out extensive research into this area it seems as though the technologies needed to support the ultimate pervasive vision are not available yet. However, the author does not wish to underestimate the innovative spirit of those working in the industry and shares the view of Andersson et al (2006) that “Perhaps advances in the area of pervasive computing will not be made possible only through the development of new technologies or applications but also through the re-examination and reengineering of current offerings. People are resourceful and innovative and have the ability to make the best of what they have”. The author is confident that the coming years will bring significance advances towards the realisation of the pervasive vision.

technology infrastructure for the pervasive vision, does it exist yet?

Education