A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

29 C H A P T E R 3 An underlying assumption commonly held is that the interests of the airport management, the network operator, and airport stakeholders are the same, but there is little validity to this assumption. For example, perhaps both the airport authority and network operator might ben- efit from a network technology upgrade, but doing the upgrade might create a cash flow problem for the operator or significantly impact their profits for the quarter. Airport managers need to have tools and processes in place to monitor the network and ensure it is operating in ways that they find satisfactory. The network operator has the chal- lenge of finding the right balance between hiring skilled personnel and paying them adequately. Airport stakeholders may be more interested in how the system immediately benefits their busi- ness or operation. On the other hand, the airport authority is more interested in how well the network performs, especially during peak demand and irregular operation events. Implementing a service level agreement is one way to address this issue for both airport man- agers and network operators, as well as all airport stakeholders. Service level agreements provide a method of identifying expected performance levels, operational performance metrics, and even shared revenues. More importantly, they ensure the buy-in and cooperation of all airport stakeholders prior to the implementation, upgrade, or expansion of any WiFi system. Service level agreements can also result in the reduction of costs by potentially distributing those costs across multiple entities if desired or applicable. Service Level Agreements Service level agreements (SLAs) are a core tool for network management. An SLA identifies expectations and should have enough specificity to be both verifiable and enforceable. These agreements should also clarify expectations for all parties. For the network operator, there should be enough detail so that the implications for equipment selection and network architec- ture are clear. It is important that SLAs find a realistic balance between high-quality, high-reliability opera- tion and the current limits of technology and realities of network management. Achieving this is not easy. Given the rapid pace of change in WiFi technology and wireless technology in general, that realistic balance is ever-changing, and SLAs should be regularly reviewed and updated to keep them current. At many airports, there is a single SLA between the airport authority and the network opera- tor. However, with the changing role of wireless networks, there is a need to provide multiple levels of service. The process of establishing each level, particularly for those services that are more critical to airport operations, needs to carefully consider the metrics that will be used to Airports and Network Operators: Issues and Solutions

30 A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports verify compliance with the agreement. This is particularly true for irregular operations perfor- mance. The last thing an airport wants to learn is that their network operator failed to implement the network with the capability to support their needs during an irregular operations event. Airports and network operators should consider the following as they develop their master SLA: 1. A master SLA is a core component of the contract between the airport authority and their network operator. 2. An SLA should address passenger service. There may be multiple levels of service for passen- gers. Better service could be offered on a paid network and a lower level of service offered on the free network. 3. Uses of the network to support airport operational functions need their own SLA, and there may be several of these addressing the needs of different functions and applications. 4. An SLA should be negotiated between the network operator and the department responsible for a new application to make sure that the network is capable of providing the required level of service. 5. Tenants will often have their own SLAs. A tenant may want to provide a different level of service for their customers, which should then be defined in their SLA. If the tenant is using the network to support their own business processes, they are likely to require higher levels of service. When performance metrics are used, they tend to focus on availability, usually meaning cov- erage, but not on more detailed metrics supporting a targeted quality of traveler experience. Here is a list of areas that an SLA may include, followed by a discussion of these elements: 1. Coverage 2. Capacity 3. Currency (keeping up with technology) 4. Equipment quality 5. Security 6. Irregular operations support (flex with changing needs) 7. Active and/or periodic performance testing 8. Reporting to airport management 9. Cooperative interference mitigation 10. Emergency management 11. Revenue sharing Coverage and Capacity Coverage should be defined technically. Signal strengths of -64 dBm for the 2.4 GHz band and -61 dBm for the 5 GHz band are generally recognized as valid metrics to support the full capabilities of current WiFi equipment. The coverage specification in an SLA should specify the areas to be covered; the percentage of those areas to be covered, e.g., 95%, 99%, etc.; and what signal strength is deemed to be adequate coverage. Particularly for the 5 GHz band, the channels to be covered should be specified. This is because the 5 GHz band covers a wide spectrum range and values will vary across the band. Hence, the coverage requirement might be acceptable for some channels but not for others. For simplicity, it may be enough to specify the coverage will meet the stated level at the low, middle, and high channel in the band. Currency Some airports require that their network manager keep the WiFi network at the current pub- lished level of IEEE 802.11, or no more than one generation behind. This is not unreasonable but

Airports and Network Operators: Issues and Solutions 31 is very general and misses a number of issues. In the IEEE 802.11 standards, there are a number of options that manufacturers have flexibility to include or leave out of their equipment. Some of these are important to a crowded, bring-your-own-device environment like an airport. A survey of the WiFi Alliance Passpoint certification program revealed how many variations there are in WiFi equipment. Not all IEEE 802.11n or IEEE 802.11ac equipment is the same, and some of those differences affect the airport’s ability to operate a quality network. Someone knowledgeable about the equipment options and their impact on network management should assist the airport in drafting its requirements. The importance of some options depends on the specific network architecture and management methods used at an airport. Airports may vary in what is important to them based on the way they manage their network. This should be known and specified in the SLA. Equipment Quality Equipment quality is a very important area to be specified in an SLA. WiFi equipment covers a wide range of capability and quality. Expectations need to be clarified if the airport is to get the level of service it needs. A particularly important area is the equipment’s resistance to interference. Historically, WiFi equipment was designed to be very cost-sensitive, sometimes omitting filters and other features regularly used in other kinds of radios to improve their frequency selectivity and tolerance of other signals operating in close proximity. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of interference problems, weak signal and strong signal problems. The weak signal category occurs when an access point and client device may be too distant from each other or for some other reason have a low signal level. Under this condition, the equipment’s ability to receive the intended signal in the presence of other signals in an adjacent channel, or even an adjacent band, is critical. Testing in highly regarded studies has found WiFi equipment currently on the market can vary by factors of 100 or even nearly 1,000 in terms of its ability to successfully receive a signal in the presence of another signal in an adjacent channel. While an airport cannot dictate the client equipment, it can know the capability of its own equip- ment and require that it be representative of better quality equipment currently on the market. The strong signal category occurs when a WiFi device finds itself in an environment with a very strong RF transmission. This can happen if a cell phone is operating very close to the WiFi device. It can also happen if a DAS antenna for cellular is placed very close to a WiFi access point. It is guaranteed to occur if the same DAS is used to support both the WiFi and cellular networks. In this case, strong WiFi and cellular signals will be sent through the same components and a variety of strong signal interactions become possible. Specific and specialized testing is required to determine if strong signal problems are occur- ring. Dealing with them is always difficult but even more so after a network is installed and operating. It is very important to evaluate these issues as part of the equipment selection process and then confirm that the installation did not introduce new problems. Security The ACRP released a separate study to address WiFi security issues, so security is not detailed in this Guidebook. It is mentioned here because security is a basic tenet that the airport manager must take adequate steps to ensure. It is recommended that security be included in the SLA. This is particularly critical for those irregular operations services required by the airport in times of emergency operations.

32 A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports Irregular Operations Support Service level agreements can and should address the particular service level and performance requirements needed to sustain irregular operations or, specifically, emergency operations. The networks can be designed to provide priority message service or dedicated channels for critical airport operations such as security. Irregular operations services should be implemented taking into account all stakeholder services provided to the airport. Active and/or Periodic Performance Testing If active or periodic testing is required, then it should be specified. How the data will be col- lected, analyzed, reported, and to whom should also be specified. Network testing, particularly active testing, produces an enormous amount of data. The level of performance can just as easily be hidden in a mountain of unfathomable data as it can in no data at all. A process is needed for gathering the data and analyzing it. Criteria will be needed so that there is common ground between the network manager and the airport manager. For example, if only one location fails to meet a requirement, is that considered a failure? What percentage is acceptable? Similarly, what if there are occasional failures, but most of the time the criteria are met? The best metrics and criteria arise out of experience. To require that all locations meet the maximum coverage and capacity requirements all the time is unrealistic and likely to result in unnecessary costs. However, working from averages may neglect important issues such as peak usage times. What is needed is a middle ground—requirements that find the right balance, such as 90% of locations shall be able to meet the service requirements 90% of the time. Another ques- tion is what criterion to use for evaluating network performance when designing improvements to the network. When developing criteria like these, it is important to know exactly how they will be measured. Criteria that are difficult to measure are of little value in an SLA agreement. Most airports want to provide a positive traveling experience to passengers using their facili- ties and this includes their experience with the airport WiFi. Since most travelers will only be in an airport for an hour or two, their experience will be determined during that time. It would seem appropriate to set the evaluation analytics based on what the airport hopes the travel- ers’ experience will be. Therefore, the right metric would be a one- or two-hour sample taken periodically during a high traffic time, with a target that certain service level standards are met 90% or 99% of the time for each channel being used. It is important to evaluate each channel separately because if channels are averaged together, the retransmission rates become extremely small. That average, of course, is of no concern to the traveler having trouble connecting to the network, who probably is unaware of what channel the device is trying to connect on or how it compares to other available channels. What is being suggested is that some level in the probability distribution of traffic and trans- mission errors is the appropriate metric for this purpose. The right threshold might be 90%, 95%, or 99%; a cost/benefit analysis would be reasonable to help choose the appropriate threshold. Whatever the final determination, careful thought and research into the performance evalu- ation criteria is worth the effort invested. By translating the desired performance quality into technical specifications that can be measured and used in managing and improving the network, the right set of metrics will directly correlate to traveler satisfaction with the WiFi network. Reporting to Airport Management Data on performance metrics and results of their analysis should be shared with all interested parties. How often the data are provided, what data are shared, and the format for presenting

Airports and Network Operators: Issues and Solutions 33 the data should also be identified in an SLA. The criticality of the operations supported can help determine the frequency for reporting. Not all results need to be reported at the same time. Some may require weekly reports or even monthly. Others may require immediate action. This report- ing then becomes the basis for the airport manager and collective stakeholders to make decisions regarding substandard performance, mitigating interference, and upgrading or expanding the WiFi network. Cooperative Interference Mitigation The cooperative approach is mainly driven by the FCC ruling that an airport authority cannot control installation and usage of WiFi at airports. However, the enforceable component is that the devices comply with FCC regulations. A cooperative approach is needed to mitigate interfer- ence within the terminal, and the methodology to do so can be specified in the SLA. It is in the best interest within the airport terminal that RF interference mitigation involves all entities concerned. Best interest is defined as a reporting, analysis, and action process to mitigate RF interference that considers the responsibilities of the airport, the business case of the tenants, as well as the responsibilities of the passengers. Passengers are included and have the responsibil- ity of operating equipment that complies with the FCC part 15 rules and regulations, i.e., mainly to not exceed power limitations. Hotspot devices purchased by airport passengers sometimes can exceed the power limits, depending on manufacturers. These devices, if brought in number into the airport environment, can contribute to mutual interference among themselves and other WiFi devices such as laptops. Emergency Management An “emergency environment” caused by a fire, mishap on the runway, terrorist act, etc., will impact all communications in the terminal, including WiFi. Emergency management is focused on resolving such a situation, and the responders must be assured of communications. Emergency responders may use the established WiFi network and require priority in its use to ensure interference-free message completion in execution of their duties. The prioritization of emergency communications should be included in the SLA and can be a cessation or reduction of WiFi use for all but emergency instructions to passengers. The scope of the WiFi disruption can also be identified in the SLA. The basis to enable such an action is contained in Section 15.3(m) of the FCC Part 15 regu- lation. The definition of harmful interference is stated as “. . . any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety ser- vices or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio communications service operating in accordance with this chapter.” This is an operational definition using terms that do not have strict “technical” thresholds associated with the “victim” receiver except for the radio navigation functions and safety services. Radio navigation applies to safety of flight. One commonly associates this with interference affecting radio navigation systems supporting flight operations, including equipment located near the airport. Minimum or no interruption or induced errors to radio navigation is tolerable. WiFi communications systems can fall into this interpretation, particularly in emergency situations as related to safety and security. Note that, at the present time, the frequency bands of communications systems are largely different from WiFi bands, and interference is highly unlikely to be experienced. The exception is if WiFi is used by airport security or safety functions within or near the airport facility. The interference aspect may also be addressed in the SLA to include levels of emergency and the associated WiFi use for these levels.

34 A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports Revenue Sharing If revenue sharing is applicable, then it can also be addressed in the SLA or part of a larger con- tract. Revenue sharing is still in its infancy and there is not a clear path forward. If a commercial provider of the WiFi network can visualize a way to earn additional revenue via customers using the system, then it holds that the airport authority or stakeholders may benefit by acquiring equipment at a discount, as one example. If a subscription is used to allow business representa- tives additional data throughput or higher priority service, then those fees can be shared or a portion set aside to reduce the cost of maintaining or upgrading the WiFi network. These are just two examples that demonstrate the need or benefit to document the revenue-sharing agreement in an SLA or contract. Network Analytics Management processes are only as good as the feedback and control systems that enforce them. Active or even routine monitoring of network performance is rarely done by airports. However, even if a more nuanced set of network analytics were used, it is unclear that improve- ments could be required under the current SLAs. Results from the survey of airports and the case study visits to airports revealed that the most common metric used to evaluate network performance is traveler complaints. A com- monly reported method was that the airport public relations and/or operations department monitors traveler comments about the airport. When travelers express dissatisfaction with the airport’s WiFi, the airport examines the potential for improving performance. This approach essentially defines high-quality WiFi performance according to traveler input and assumes that the WiFi network is primarily there for the traveler. Some airports, however, have taken into consideration the airport’s own use of WiFi and built solutions around their particular needs as well. The ability to use customer complaints as a metric depends on the value the airport manager or stakeholder believes the WiFi network provides. There is no defined number of complaints or threshold identified. The airport manager must determine what is acceptable and over what duration of time, i.e., 5% of all users registering complaints over a 30-day period. Using cus- tomer complaints may be a better indicator of a decrease in the level of acceptable performance over time, indicating that some action is required. Assessing Traveler Satisfaction with Airport Wireless Capabilities Does having quality wireless actually affect customers’ decision-making on how to travel? What methods of providing wireless are best received (small fee but high quality, free with time limit, completely free, free with a survey, etc.) and are most effective? What actually is perceived as being an upgrade in public-access WiFi? These are questions that airports may pose to travel- ers for a more complete picture of how the network is working, rather than solely using com- plaints as the basis for problem-solving. There are numerous ways of assessing how satisfied travelers are with the WiFi service at airports. In this study, social media was mentioned by several airports as one source of insight. Airports can search for traveler reviews by combining such key words as wireless, airports, trav- eler, and so forth. While not scientific, social media postings provide some clues as to the public’s experience, though it should be recognized that far more people take the time to write reviews if they are dissatisfied than if they are pleased. Nevertheless, a quick check into one social media site’s posts regarding WiFi quality at four airports shows the results indicated in Table 5.

Airports and Network Operators: Issues and Solutions 35 System Performance Oversight Evaluating system performance in essence involves ascertaining whether the right level and amount of resources are in place to support wireless services, and then evaluating whether those resources are being used effectively to deliver an appropriate level of service. (As stated earlier, airport managers can define appropriate level of service by implementing an SLA with the network provider and stakeholders.) This is particularly challenging for airport managers that do not have a technical background. Even if upper management has some technical back- ground, the technology is changing so fast that only those who work with it on a daily basis can stay current, and even network operators may be challenged by the rate of change in wireless networking. For airports that manage their own networks, the problems remain the same, but the way they are managed changes. One major airline assumes management responsibility for the whole WiFi network at several airports, with little stakeholder involvement. The advantage is com- plete control, but the disadvantage is that the airline absorbs all costs. Often airport managers have less hands-on control and delegate to the main WiFi provider or in some cases multiple providers. In these cases, there may or may not be coordination of the airport manager with all providers. The cost absorbed by the airport may be less, but the potential for interference is greater. There continues to be a requirement for the right level and type of resources in place. A critical resource is the technical expertise of the staff managing the network and those moni- toring its performance. If those personnel work directly for the airport manager, then there is more control but also more responsibility for the airport manager to ensure staff are staying technically current. Airport Sample of Comments Airport #1 WiFi offering is slow and unreliable. I love this airport. Free WiFi. Love the free WiFi. FreeWiFi + outlets everywhere. I’m dropping you a star based on your WiFi. Service is spotty at best and only one hour of freeWiFi and then you want money. Airport #2 Lots of power outlets. Free WiFi. Advertisement at a competing airport: "Fly through us. We aren’t [other named airport]!" FreeWiFi is always a huge plus. Airport #3 Lots of power outlets, freeWiFi but spotty at best. Kind of slow and requires a re login about every 45minutes. Deducted one star for lack of free WiFi. PaidWiFi? Booo! No free WiFi, they still rely on Boingo service. Airport #4 Few power outlets. No freeWiFi here. 10mb/s! Table 5. Traveler reviews of WiFi quality at four airports per a social media site.

36 A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports Two-Vendor Model Among the case study airports, several observed that their relationship with their network manager was changing and they were being required to be more hands-on than was previously true. In several cases, a two-vendor model was being implemented. At those airports there is a primary network manager, but also a second vendor contracted to monitor network performance and help the airport identify and deal with specific problems. This arrangement takes into account that the airport authority’s interests and those of the network manager may not be the same. An excellent example of when they diverge occurs with technology upgrades. The airport would be best served for its network to be technologically current and have sufficient excess capacity to deal with peak user periods and irregular operations events. The network manager is also ben- efited by a network that performs well, but must achieve that goal in terms that are consistent with the contract and profit objectives. Seldom will these interests align perfectly. There is no perfect answer, but finding the optimal balance requires that both sides have good technical network and RF expertise to help them understand how their interests translate into specific technological solutions. The two-vendor model achieves this balance of technical knowledge, increasing the chance that the airport will receive the best outcome for the incurred cost of the network. Airport Plus Contracted Network Manager Model At other airports studied, an internal information technology (IT) department is maintained to manage some parts of the wireless infrastructure. A common division is for the internal IT department to manage all office and operational areas, while the contracted network manager is assigned responsibility for the passenger areas in the terminal. This arrangement can also work, but IT and wireless are not synonymous. An IT department has many responsibilities and the capacity to monitor a wireless network is not guaranteed. There is a long history of managing a wireless network just like a wired network, but without the wires. However, wireless networks are fundamentally different. If an airport uses its IT department as an internal expertise resource in overseeing its network manager, it is essential that it have skilled wireless managers on its staff or at least access to wireless expertise when needed. Inter-Airport Information Sharing Keeping sufficient technical expertise to ensure that an airport is getting the performance it needs is perhaps an area where airports can work cooperatively. Gathering data from multiple airports and comparing network performance creates a benchmark against which airports can evaluate the performance of their own network. It will be easier for airports to stay technically current if they pool some of their resources and apply them to the ongoing effort of staying equipped with the tools and improvements they need to manage their networks. As wireless networks grow in importance and become ever more vital to airport operations, airports will be required to become much more involved with the active management of their wireless networks. Whether they achieve this by using a second vendor to help them monitor their networks or use internal staff for that purpose, the trend toward increasing the wireless expertise of the airport authority appears to be a necessity. Influence Management in a “Bring Your Own Device” Environment While the airport cannot dictate what equipment travelers use, it can influence those choices. Few travelers know what types or brands of equipment are more immune to interference and will give them a better experience. However, airports can certainly share information with travel- ers about what equipment they find gives satisfactory results on their network.

Airports and Network Operators: Issues and Solutions 37 In a closed network, network managers have direct control over all devices on their network. However, in a “bring your own device” network such as exists at an airport, those controls are minimized or absent altogether. Instead of being able to mandate practices, network managers must use influence and softer management approaches, like information sharing. This fun- damental shift leaves many network managers feeling like they have lost all control over their network. In reality, they have tools available, but they may be unfamiliar and unpracticed in how to use such methods as advertising and information sharing to influence behavior. One option available to airports is to let travelers know the impact their equipment choices will have on their network experience at the airport. Few users understand that having a dual- band WiFi device might improve their ability to connect to the network. It is important users know that most dual-band equipment comes with the default set to “off” for DFS channels. That locks out other available channels. All one must do is switch the option to “on” to access lesser used channels that can enable a better user experience, particularly in a crowded environment. Airports might consider including tips about device features that facilitate using the airport’s network. For example, flyers, blogs, and streaming text could showcase which devices will work best at the airport. That information could be added to the airport’s website. There even could be an airport-ready program that would allow manufacturers to qualify their equipment if it meets requirements such as being dual-band and having all the channels activated, tested, and shown to have good RF coexistence capabilities. While it certainly is not an airport’s responsibil- ity to specify which devices produce the best results, they nevertheless could be a good partner to travelers and share that information. Structure of Network Management How network management is structured at airports has been, to a significant degree, a suc- cessful exercise in influence management. At most airports there is one dominant provider of WiFi and either the same or a second provider of cellular connectivity, through a DAS system that is shared by several of the cellular network operators. Only at a few airports do all cellular network operators use the DAS operated by the airport. Similarly, at some airports there have been multiple providers of WiFi, each with their own competing network. Some vestiges of this arrangement were found at the sample airports. In some of the airports, access points were found to be operating under the name of former WiFi network companies, even some that are no longer in business. However, most airports have successfully gone to a model of a single neutral provider of both WiFi and cellular connectivity, which provides service to anyone who needs those services. Emerging Trends Traditionally, at both ends of a wireless connection there was a person, usually talking to the person at the other end. Increasingly the ends of a connection will now be machines sending data, many smartphones sending data to a single access point. Because there are many more people of all ages with mobile smartphones or wireless devices, the amount of data being sent wirelessly has exploded and its growth does not have an end in sight. Increased use and new functions bring consequences, both intentional and unintentional. Internet of Things A future technology arriving on the horizon is the Internet of Things (IoT) or the Internet of Everything. This is the rapidly growing trend for sensors, actuators, and many other types of

38 A Guidebook for Mitigating Disruptive WiFi Interference at Airports devices and objects to be continuously connected to the Internet.10 The purposes behind these connections vary, but often the reason is to better extract and analyze data in real time. There were several pre-requisites for IoT that needed to be developed in order for it to become a reality. One of these necessary technologies was RF identification becoming commonly used.11 This allowed for devices and people to become quickly identifiable. Identifying cars for tollways was one of the first ways that identification was possible from relatively great distances. Other improvements, such as barcodes, QR codes, and watermarking, allowed for near field commu- nication to similarly pave the way for IoT.12 Some airports want to be able to individually meter utility uses so they can separately bill ten- ants for their utilities. Hardwiring the capability is very expensive. However, if the meters are connected wirelessly through the Internet, then the task becomes much easier and less expensive to accomplish. This is just one example of how the Internet gets integrated into airport opera- tions and the value of IoT to that integration. However, it comes with a growing number of devices wirelessly connecting to the Internet. The Internet of Things was created to be an identifier and eventually a monitor of various objects, devices, and people through the Internet. It allows for detection of basic information from each mini-communicator, with the ability to send and receive information. This allows for greater ability to make quick and effective changes, better grasp the current environment, and better protect creator rights such as patents.13 The benefits to these developing technologies are numerous. The U.S. government in par- ticular has discussed the unique abilities that this progress allows for improved public safety and security. Other opportunities include improved weather monitoring, business transactions, delivery of services, productivity, business consulting, and economic growth analysis—just to name a few. Both the private and public sectors have grabbed hold of the IoT’s potential, so much so that it is estimated that the IoT will generate $19 trillion in the next decade.14 A growing area is to equip mobile personnel with Internet access, but also to have that access become a management tool. Integrated with global positioning systems, airport managers can know where their crews are at any time. Integrated with RF identification or other object identi- fying technology, the manager can know not only where the personnel are but what equipment they have on the truck with them. These systems are on the market and in use today, and their use seems very likely to grow quickly. What this means for airports is that the IoT is going to be increasing in importance to the point where it is essentially everywhere. This will create new interference issues in wireless com- munication, but also provide ways for airports to better handle traffic flows and customer needs seamlessly. Airports would be well-advised to proactively harness this technology for the good of the customer and for the profit of the industry as a whole. However, all changes have conse- quences, risks, and unintended impacts. The IoT will certainly bring benefits, but will also have its problems and unintended consequences that must be managed. 10 Bradley, Joseph, et al., “Internet of Everything (IoE): Top 10 Insights from Cisco’s IoE Value at Stake Analysis for the Public Sector,” 2013. Available at: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/IoE/IoE-VAS_Public-Sector_Top-10-Insights.pdf 11 Analyst Anish Gaddam interviewed by Sue Bushell in Computerworld, “M-Commerce Key to Ubiquitous Internet,” July 2000. 12 Techvibes, “From M2M to The Internet of Things: Viewpoints from Europe,” July 2011. Available at: http://www.techvibes. com/blog/from-m2m-to-the-internet-of-things-viewpoints-from-europe-2011-07-07 13 Wikipedia, “Internet of Things.” Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things 14 Bradley, Joseph, et al., “Internet of Everything (IoE): Top 10 Insights from Cisco’s IoE Value at Stake Analysis for the Public Sector,” 2013. Available at: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/IoE/IoE-VAS_Public-Sector_Top-10-Insights.pdf