Prepaid 4G on Vodafone NL with the iPhone 5

▼ I've pretty much decided to skip the iPhone 6 and stick with my iPhone 5 for another year. One of the new features in the iPhone 5 two years ago was LTE or 4G. But sadly, even though I kept my eye open for it when roaming internationally, I've never seen "4G" in the status bar of my iPhone 5.

After the Netherlands implemented net neutrality in 2012, prices for mobile data went up a lot, but I'm grandfathered into a cheap unlimited plan from KPN that I'd have to give up to get LTE. Also, KPN uses LTE frequencies that the iPhone 5 doesn't support, so I'd have to switch carriers.

So what I did instead was get a prepaid SIM from Vodafone NL. The SIM is only 5 euros and they helpfully cut a microSIM to nano size at the Vodafone store as they were out of nanoSIMs. The SIM includes 5 euros of credit. You can buy additional credit in a variety of ways, including at super markets and through the My Vodafone app with a credit card. (Although it seems the app is only available in Dutch.)

By default, you only get 3G data. Helpfully, you get 50 MB that you can use in the first week for free. If you want 4G, you have to turn this on by buying a "blox" for 5 euros for a month. (Using an SMS message or the app.) In the residential neighborhood where I live, I got 3 Mbps down / 0.26 up with Vodafone 3G:

4G was much faster at nearly 12 Mbps down and 5 to 6 Mbps up:

However... with KPN, I get 14 Mbps down on 3G! And I've seen as much as 5 Mbps up on 3G, too. It does look like the Vodafone 4G goes much higher but has trouble sustaining that speed while KPN 3G is pretty much maxed out the whole time:

So I guess I'll have to retest in the city center where presumably, the network is denser. Also, remember that the iPhone 5 GSM model A1429 is limited to LTE bands 1, 3 and 5 (2100, 1800 and 850 MHz) while KPN uses 800 (and 2600?) MHz, Vodafone mainly 800 MHz and 1800 MHz to provide extra capacity, and T-Mobile is only on 1800 MHz. So a phone that also supports the 800 MHz band (such as the iPhone 5S/5C/6/6+) would probably do better on the Vodafone network, and also be compatible with KPN.

One complication is that the Speedtest app uses some 40 MB data to test the speed of the LTE network, and probably even more if it's faster than the 12 Mbps I got. So I burned through my 50 MB free data. I am then supposed to get 100 MB a day for € 1, but that didn't happen, so I ended up paying € 4 for a few dozen megabytes at the "regular" € 0.15/MB rate. Of course I could have avoided that by buying a GB worth of data that's good for a month, but that costs 15 or 20 euros.

So it turns out that the iPhone 5 does in fact support LTE. And Vodafone prepaid is a decent option to get LTE speeds without a contract, although it's annoying that you have to be really careful that you're not going to end up paying that € 0.15/MB rate or you'll burn though your prepaid credit in no time at all. They did send me a text message after I had used up 40 of my 50 free megabytes and then another when I'd used it all up—a few seconds later. In hindsight, I should have checked if I could get something similar from T-Mobile NL, because their 1800 MHz LTE network is going to be more robust because that's the only LTE band they have. Oh well.

Permalink - posted 2014-09-14

NFC is the way of the future

▼ NFC is an amazing technology. Mark my words: it's going to be huge. Whether Apple adopts it next week or not. The reason: it ties together the physical world with the networked world. When scanning for Wi-Fi networks or bluetooth devices, it's really hard to know which names on your screen map to which devices in the real world. So Wi-Fi requires typing long and complex network passwords and bluetooth uses an annoying pairing procedure. NFC, on the other hand, really is plug and play. Without the "plug" part.

NFC (near field communication) is based on RFID (radio frequency identification). The simplest RFID chips only hold a serial number. More advanced ones can do some processing and store a little information. The interesting thing is that they don't have batteries. Instead, RFID readers emit an electromagnetic field that transfers enough power to the chip to wake it up and have it talk to the reader. RFID chips easily fit inside a credit card or even a paper transit ticket and they cost as little as a few cents. NFC is an extension to RFID that allows communication between more powerful devices, such as cell phones.

So what's the big deal, can't you do the same thing with barcodes or QR codes or magnetic stripes?

This is true for simple RFID chips, which provide nothing more than a serial number that anyone with an RFID reader can read. Presumably, copying such an RFID chip is also easy, just like copying a barcode or magstripe is trivial. But more advanced RFID chips have on-board authentication mechanisms, and will only talk to authenticated readers.

In the short term, the killer app for NFC is going to be payment systems. I've been reading a lot on American websites on how such a system won't go anywhere, because it doesn't provide any merchant or consumer benefits.

I don't agree. A payment system that uses NFC-equipped cellphones can be simultaneously easier to use and more secure. The chip+PIN system that's now used in Europe is also quite safe, because all the sensitive data is stored inside the chip and can't easily be copied. However, inserting the card and typing the PIN is still a bit of a hassle and it's still possible for the PIN to be intercepted so the card can be charged if it's stolen or the magstripe is copied.

Here in the Netherlands, two of the three large banks are now rolling out debit cards with an RFID chip to allow contactless payments. This seems less secure at first blush because in theory, someone could read (and charge) the card while it's in your pocket. However, RFID/NFC only works over very short distances (less than 10 cm) and online authorization from the bank is required, so in practice this is not going to be a fruitful attack vector. Interestingly, small payments can be made without entering a PIN. Only for payments over 25 euros (or once small payments add up to 50 euros) the PIN must be entered. So paying small amounts with a contactless card will be much faster and more convenient than with a regular card.

But how does the addition of a phone make any of this better?

I'm glad you ask. There are actually RFID stickers that you can stick on your phone so you can "use your phone" for contactless payments. However, if Apple adds NFC to the iPhone 6, this means that rather than entering your PIN on a terminal—which may or may not be outfitted with a PIN spying camera—you could enter the PIN on your iPhone. Or better yet, use the touch ID sensor. I imagine that for small amounts, simply having the phone unlocked would be sufficient. For larger payments, you would have to authenticate using the fingerprint sensor.

I also think that this is will be the extent of Apple's involvement in the payment process.¹ Sure, Apple has hundreds of millions of credit card numbers on file. But being a payment processor entails a lot of customer service and surprisingly thin margins, so i'd be very surprised if Apple had any interest in that business. However, the card issuers are going to love the strong fingerprint authentication, which will surely reduce fraud. This will give Apple significant leverage for negotiating better rates for iTunes / app store credit card payments. Remember that Apple sells more than half of its iPhones outside North America, so even if none of this materializes in the US, that doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing was a failure. In fact, there is some speculation that NFC payments may be a must-have feature in some regions.

Of course all of this is just the camel's nose. Once tens of millions of popular devices have NFC capability, and that capability can be used in third-party apps using APIs (we can only hope!), it won't be long before new and innovative uses of NFC will develop. Remember the bump app for exchanging business cards by bumping phones together? With NFC this would be much easier. There are already bluetooth devices that can be paired through NFC. There are RFID stickers you can scan with an NFC phone to change the phone's settings quickly. Setting up a Wi-Fi network, unlocking a computer (or your front door!) without a password, charging up your Oyster card or OV-chipkaart—or replacing that card. I'm sure tying the networked world and the physical world together quickly, easily and securely will lead to lots of innovations that we haven't even thought of.

¹ I wonder how the connection between a bank account or credit card an the iPhone will be made, though.

Permalink - posted 2014-09-07

A decade of bandwidth growth

▼ Next week I'm doing a guest lecture about the infrastructure of the internet. Turns out that I already talked about that in 2003 (PDF). One slide in that presentation caught my eye:

The image shows how bandwidth in research networks and ISP networks has grown, as well as the bandwidth provided by technologies such as Ethernet, Wi-Fi, mobile data, and consumer internet access. All of them show a healthy growth, although some start from extremely modest beginnings.

So I wondered what happened in the intermediate decade. Which would be:

Because research and ISP networks are so diverse, I didn't include these here. Of course this is all somewhat arbitrary, because few people use the highest available speeds. For instance, cable and fiber to the home internet access tops out at 100 Mbps or higher, but many people still use around 10 Mbps, either because of price or because they're limited to some form of DSL and a relatively long distance to the nearest telephone exchange. And LTE should be able to reach 300 Mbps, but I don't think that's available in commonly available handsets.

My impression that Ethernet had run out of steam is not entirely correct, the progression to 100 Gbps is roughly in line with the earlier growth path. Wi-Fi looks a little less impressive than I had thought on this logarithmic scale. However, there's just one super star here: mobile. It's hard to believe that we went from 100 kbps or so EDGE to 100 Mbps LTE in about a decade. Not everyone may be using LTE just yet, but 14 Mbps UMTS HSPA is in very wide use, there is really no reason to use anything less.

Permalink - posted 2014-09-04