back to article Sleepy Ofcom glances at Internet of Things, rolls over, takes nap

UK regulator Ofcom has published a report [PDF] into the so-called internet of things (IoT) in which it promises to do something at some point in the future. In contrast to its US equivalent, the Federal Trade Commission – which also published a report on the internet of things today, complete with policy recommendations on …

  1. getHandle

    Ofcom probably realise Google, et al, will tell them what to do at some point

    So any effort they put in now is just wasted...

  2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    The single biggest issue that IoT will face is security, looks like Ofcom is taking the ostrich approach as usual.

    I'm no fan of IoT as an idea, I think it's another solution looking for a problem like 3D TV, but when the papers start running stories about home networks being hacked, and someones fishtank being frozen, or budgie baked, or a huge electricity bll because some hacker turned on all their appliances for a week, it will put people off completely. Having decent security would at least allow those who do want it to have it in a trustworthy fashion, and Ofcom should be mandating that.

    This peculiar slow-lane approach to IPv6 stands in contrast to most other countries' regulators and government agencies that are actively promoting the upgrade.

    That I find less surprising. It fits perfectly with the average man-in-the-street attitude to the internet. NAT may be the spawn of the devil for purists, but for most home internet devices it works just fine.

  3. David Roberts

    Upvoted for the NAT comment.

    If/when I start getting smart devices I expect to have them tucked away on an internal network.

    I see no reason for each device to have a globally unique IP address.

  4. Big Chief Running Bare

    failed to set direction

    Security is a key factor, but I also think it will be different from the personal security we expect from service providers now. If you look at mobile networks today you will see ipv4 NAT, which will block unsolicited traffic from public networks. Works for 'web traffic' client server type interaction.

    With IoT we should not limit the connectivity in this way, we may desire connectivity to be initiated from outside in. Perhaps from supernodes, master nodes in the web that front end the distributed IOT devices. That connectivity demands public addresses, no NAT and in reality IPv6. ( The operators are not going to splurge their last public v4 ranges on cheap devices on cheap connections).

    So something has to give, either we stay with the bogus client-server model or the offerings will get more expensive and more complex (same thing) or we set some aspiration of IPv6. Ofcom should be promoting the optimal solution for the customer here not allowing status quo.

    And if you think IoT is all about kettle/fridge/oven get over it. This is about healthcare, manufacturing, construction, shipping, drones, transport.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: failed to set direction

      You don't need IPv6 for external inbound connectivity, I do it fine with IPv4 across a NATed connection. Equally, of course, IPv6 doesn't mean unlimited inbound connectivity, there's no reason that a domestic IPv6-capable router wouldn't have a firewall that blocked all inbound connections by default.

      This is completely separate from the security issue. We've seen the problems with internet-enabled cameras and default (or lazy) passwords, and we can clearly not expect ordinary users to configure IoT devices correctly. If my home heating controller, or any other important and.or potentially cost-conscious device, is to be connected to the internet I will not tolerate it being protected by a simple username/password. I would expect a proper certificate-based encrypted connection, linked only to specified external devices, so that even if someone does get through my firewall they can't do any harm.

      Creating such a security model is not too difficult, but making it easy to use by ordinary non-technical folks is far from trivial. It won't be done by the cheap supermarket/DIY store own brand gear, unless that is forced on them by legislation. That seems to be where Ofcom has dropped the ball.

  5. Elmer Phud

    School report

    They've got to put one together to ensure the continuaton of employment.

    Chuck a load of generic tosh together and publish.

    Sorted for another year!

  6. Colin of Rame
    Angel

    I think this rubbishing of Ofcom is unjustified.

    Their stand on banning the use of 0845 numbers in about 2005/6 was very brave. ( sorry that was Oftel)

    One of their recent report into the Telecomms market proved beyond doubt there was no user demand for ADSL to the home without a landline number. Just a coincidence that another report was trying to find away of getting a decent mobile signal to a large proportion of the population. Entirely unconnected.

    If they asked my Gran if she had a desire to ditch her landline she would say no.

    She has been dead for 60 years and has still got more of a clue than Ofcom.

    1. Patrick Moody

      "proved beyond doubt there was no user demand for ADSL to the home without a landline number." Except for all the Under 40s who couldn't possibly care less about having a landline number and would jump at the chance to reduce their line rental costs if that were a side-effect of ditching it.

      I'm quite certain that as time goes by, the proportion of the population who actually want a landline number (almost exclusively the older generations) will continue it's relentless approach zero. For the rest of us it is an unloved side-effect of getting a wired connection to the internet.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like