The blog post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators" laments the frustrating developer experience of integrating cellular modems into IoT projects. It criticizes the opaque and inconsistent AT command interfaces, the difficult debugging process due to limited visibility into modem operations, and the complex and often expensive cellular data plans offered by MNOs. The author highlights the lack of standardized, developer-friendly tools and documentation, which forces developers to wrestle with legacy technologies and proprietary solutions, ultimately slowing down IoT development and hindering innovation. They argue for a simplified and more accessible ecosystem that empowers developers to leverage cellular connectivity more effectively.
The blog post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators," published on Golioth's website, delivers a scathing critique of the current landscape of cellular modem integration for Internet of Things (IoT) applications. The author meticulously outlines the numerous frustrations and complexities encountered when attempting to establish reliable and efficient cellular connectivity for IoT devices, placing the blame squarely on both modem manufacturers and Mobile Network Operators (MNOs).
The central argument revolves around the inherent difficulty in navigating the fragmented ecosystem surrounding cellular modems. The author argues that the process, from selecting a suitable modem to successfully deploying it in the field, is riddled with opaque documentation, inconsistent implementations of standards, and a general lack of user-friendliness. Specifically, the blog post criticizes the convoluted AT command set, highlighting its historical baggage and the inconsistencies between different modem models, even those from the same manufacturer. This lack of standardization forces developers to write bespoke code for each modem, thereby hindering scalability and increasing development time and costs.
Furthermore, the post laments the inadequate documentation provided by modem manufacturers. The author contends that the available documentation is frequently incomplete, outdated, or simply inaccurate, making it a significant hurdle for developers seeking to understand the nuances of a particular modem's behavior. This opacity extends to the realm of firmware updates, which are often shrouded in mystery and difficult to apply, potentially leading to unresolved bugs and security vulnerabilities.
The criticism extends beyond modem manufacturers to encompass Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) as well. The author points to the often arbitrary and obscure restrictions imposed by MNOs regarding data usage, SIM card activation, and network access. These limitations, combined with the complexities of negotiating data plans and managing SIM card lifecycles, further complicate the already challenging process of deploying cellular-connected IoT devices. The author specifically highlights the difficulties in obtaining and maintaining static IP addresses, a crucial requirement for many IoT applications.
The blog post also touches upon the issue of security, expressing concerns about the potential vulnerabilities inherent in cellular modems. The lack of transparency and the difficulty in applying firmware updates exacerbate these security concerns, leaving IoT devices potentially exposed to malicious actors.
In conclusion, the author paints a bleak picture of the current state of cellular modem integration for IoT applications. The fragmented ecosystem, coupled with inadequate documentation, inconsistent implementations, and arbitrary restrictions imposed by MNOs, creates a significant barrier to entry for developers seeking to leverage the power of cellular connectivity. The post implicitly calls for greater standardization, improved documentation, and more transparent practices from both modem manufacturers and MNOs to facilitate the wider adoption and successful deployment of cellular-connected IoT devices.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43182854
Hacker News commenters largely echoed the author's frustrations with cellular modem integration. Several shared anecdotes of flaky connectivity, opaque documentation, and vendor lock-in issues, particularly with Quectel and SIMCom modems. Some pointed to the lack of proper abstraction layers as a core problem, hindering software portability. The difficulty in obtaining certifications for cellular devices was also highlighted, with some suggesting this complexity benefits larger established players while stifling smaller innovators. A few commenters suggested exploring alternatives like the Nordic Semiconductor nRF91 series or using a Raspberry Pi with a USB cellular dongle for simpler prototyping, while others called for more open-source initiatives in the cellular modem space. Several also discussed the challenges with varying cellular carrier regulations and certification processes internationally. The general sentiment was one of agreement with the article's premise, with many expressing hope for improved developer experience in the future.
The Hacker News post "The Miserable State of Modems and Mobile Network Operators" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their own experiences and perspectives on the challenges of working with cellular modems and mobile network operators (MNOs).
Several comments echoed the author's frustrations with the opaque and complex nature of cellular technology. One commenter lamented the difficulty in finding clear documentation and the lack of standardization across different modems and networks. This sentiment was reinforced by another who described the process of integrating cellular connectivity as a "nightmare," citing inconsistent APIs and the need for extensive trial and error.
The issue of vendor lock-in was also raised, with commenters expressing concerns about being tied to specific modem manufacturers and MNOs. This was particularly problematic for those working on IoT projects, where flexibility and interoperability are crucial.
A few comments offered alternative perspectives. One commenter suggested that the complexity of cellular technology is inherent due to the stringent requirements of reliability and security in a wireless environment. Another pointed out the significant improvements in cellular technology over the past few years, particularly with the advent of newer standards like LTE-M and NB-IoT, suggesting the author's experience might be specific to older technologies or particular vendors.
There was some discussion around the challenges of managing SIM cards and data plans for large deployments of IoT devices. Commenters mentioned difficulties with provisioning SIM cards, managing data usage, and dealing with varying roaming agreements across different countries.
Some practical suggestions were also offered. One commenter recommended using virtual SIMs (eSIMs) to simplify the process of managing connectivity for IoT devices. Another suggested working with specialized connectivity providers that offer a more streamlined and developer-friendly experience.
Finally, a few comments touched upon the broader issue of the telecommunications industry's structure and its impact on innovation. One commenter argued that the lack of competition among MNOs has stifled innovation and led to higher prices and poorer service for consumers.
While the comments largely agreed with the author's premise about the difficulties of working with modems and MNOs, they also provided a nuanced view, acknowledging the complexities of cellular technology and offering some practical solutions and alternative perspectives. The discussion highlighted the need for greater transparency, standardization, and developer-friendliness in the cellular connectivity space, especially as the demand for IoT devices continues to grow.