> The patents are referred to as Standards Essential Patents, or SEPs. Because of this arrangement, a vendor like Nordic probably can’t open source their modem firmware even if they wanted to.<p>Why would a SEP license forbid publishing modem firmware? The IP[0] involved with the modem firmware is copyrighted and trade secret material; publishing the firmware does not (and cannot) grant a patent license to those licensed standards-essential patents. It only imperils your implementation of the modem firmware, not the whole patent spec.<p>To wit, Cisco publishes an H.264 codec with BSD-licensed code, even though H.264 is under a shitload of patents that they are licensing. OpenH264 <i>does</i> ship with an additional patent sublicense that applies if you are using their build and installing it in a specific way, but that is particular to MPEG-LA's licensing structure[1]. Publishing an implementation of a patent you are licensing does not automatically sublicense the patent.<p>[0] Laws that grant the ability to dictate the conduct of your competitors<p>[1] Cisco is abusing(?) the MPEG-LA royalty fee cap to shield FOSS entities from having to take a license, basically, by paying for them.
As part of our IoT offerings, we tried quite hard to build devices with mobile connectivity about 7 years ago. This was just as low power 5G, NB-IoT and similar technologies were going to become a thing. We gave up because it was too much effort for little return, and it was better to focus on doing things with data, rather than collecting it. Even getting prototypes up with powered fanless PCs (SBCs) and Mini-PCIe or M.2 modems was harder than it should have been - you would think it would be easy with off-the-shelf devices and drivers.<p>Small Internet connected devices are still needed, despite the perception that IoT is dead. Mobile networks and the modem supply chain are definitely holding the market back. On the plus side, for stationary powered devices most people are happy to connect to wi-fi. For low power devices, LoRa, with private gateways, seems to be a standard. Mobile that is used in outdoor vehicle and asset tracking is still stuck with fighting with modems as per OP.
> The number one reason we see customers opt to not use cellular when
> another connectivity option is on the table is due to concerns around
> cost and reliability.<p>For "reliability" read "availability". Cellular networks are profitable because carriers serve customers that are easy to serve and leave the rest alone. Vehicle 2 Vehicle communications mediated by cellular is a non-starter because people drive a lot in places where cell phones don't work. Wireless internet has been a false hope that's spoiled realistic plans for universal service because it's only affordable in <i>markets that are already served</i>. Large-scale government and corporate IoT programs find that 20% or more of stations are in places without service, etc.
I think the miserable state of cellular modems ultimately comes from the power dynamics of private spectrum. The 3GPP protocols are complex because they're not really beholden to the implementers, but rather to the network operators. The operators are fine with additional complexity if it serves their interests, and the cost will just be passed on to the OEMs. The network operators have all the power because they're the ones with the licenses.<p>WiFi tends to be simpler in part because the protocol authors are working more in the interest of the implementers, since it's really they who decide whether to adopt or not. Obviously a gross simplification but I think it's at the heart of the problem.
Hey folks, author here. Appreciate the comments and discussion on the post! Happy to continue the discussion or answer any follow-on questions folks have about our investigation and resolution.
The complaint is that people cannot connect, and that hardware vendors dont want to go down the pit of other peoples sh*(blobs).<p>Magnificent article. Clearly shows his expertise going down the sh*/rabbit hole, the more I read, the more dismal it got.<p>Clearly the way to get around the technical side of the DNS bug, is to do what cell providers do: Start the device in the office of the provider, and let the DNS resolve there, and if it does not work, get a ticket started right then and there.<p>Out in the field... use another devices Wifi, and do the same thing.<p>If you cannot get cell phone service or Wifi, then ( I literally took about 45 mins on the phone to T-Mobile, which immediately refused to take responsibility, and also refused to put <i>anything</i> in writing: Then their recommendation is to get a satellite link with, StarLink!. I would rather be slapped in the face with a cold fish.<p>Cell phone service providers all let this happen, until of course they almost all sold out to T-Moble. ( LifeLine, Assurnace, etc.. )
First, it was quite interesting!<p>Second, it made me think about the new Apple C1 modem. They must have had to comb through those specs as well, and it makes me wonder if will allow them to better integrate the modem in the kernel in the end?