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.

1. 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]

2. 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
Page: 3
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

3. 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.
Page: 4
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

4. 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.
Page: 5
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

5. 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.
Page: 6
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

6. 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.
Page: 7
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

7. 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.
Page: 8
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]

8. 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.
Page: 9
Technology Infrastructure For The Pervasive Vision: Does It Exist Yet?
© Olivia Moran [www.oliviamoran.me]