All blog posts

NFC Tapping – Smartphone Performance Comparison

Jul 17, 2019

中文版 Chinese version

I recently visited an NFC forum meeting where I listened to industry presentations and discussed with many NFC industry experts. User experience, user expectation, and physical level interoperability of various NFC devices came up frequently. This prompted me to finish this article, a draft version was written already a while ago. I tested a few smartphones for NFC tapping user-friendliness and dug a bit deeper into the factors affecting the user experience.

Three NFC Application Types

When I think of NFC, I think of three very different application types and different experiences with them.

  1. Smart card: Think of a hotel keycard or a metro ticket. In my experience, NFC works smoothly and reliably in these applications. I have frequently had issues with magnetic stripe key cards, but NFC has worked perfectly. In these applications, a consumer carries the tag and a dedicated reader is used.
  2. Device-to-device: There are also emerging examples with excellent feedback of applications where 2 devices share information. For example, a phone placed to a center console of a car controls the settings of the car’s infotainment system.
  3. Simply tap: Third big promise of NFC is in applications where consumer carries a smartphone and interacts with NFC tagged items to receive more information. That is when the user experience changes – and not in a good direction.

The third application type – Simply tap – is the focus of this article.

Simply Tap Experience – Not So Simple

Promise: NFC works like waving a magic wand – simply tap.

It is a familiar situation: There is a web-link encoded to an NFC tag and the smartphone’s NFC is turned on. Enthusiastic user calmly extends the elbow and taps the tag with the top end of the phone – a move similar to a sorcerer waving a magic wand – but this time magic doesn’t happen.

Reality: Despite relentless tag rubbing with a smartphone – nothing happens.

Next try – slowly position the back cover of the phone on top of the tag – still nothing. Move the phone sideways on top of the tag; up to down; down to up; corner to corner – waving the magic wand did not work, maybe the NFC genie can be rubbed out from the tag. No. Check the settings. Try again. Ask a friend: “did you read it?” It should work – but it didn’t – no error message – nothing. A too common NFC user experience turns from a hopeful magic wand tapping into rubbing the NFC genie’s lamp into disappointment. What really happens? And what could be done for improving the user experience?

Digging Deeper: usually, NFC works, but details of the reading experience just don’t match the user’s expectations. In order to learn more, I looked more into what happens with smartphones and NFC. Here is what I found out.

Smartphone Reading Interval

Even if NFC is enabled, a phone is not reading NFC continuously. Instead, it checks occasionally if there is an NFC tag nearby waiting to be read. How often it is checked: As far as I know, there are no rules – most likely the interval depends on a lot of things: manufacturer’s preferences, operating system, power settings, other background applications taking up processor time, and many more. I tested two phones with Voyantic Protocol Analyzer. I found out that there is a big difference in how often phones try to read NFC tags.

Table 1. NFC Tapping With Phone Comparison – User Experience

Smartphone Reading Area

Different smartphones have different NFC reading areas. Reasons are not visible, but it is easy to come up with some ideas:

  • Different antenna positioning
  • Different antenna size and quality
  • Effect of nearby components
  • Different power levels

All in all, pointing a phone to an NFC tag is done differently from model to model.

Using phones’ default settings, I tested two phones.

  • With phone model A:
    the ideal position was pointing upper part of the phone in 30-degree angle towards the tag
  • With phone model B:
    the ideal position was slightly below the top part of the phone
Table 2. NFC Tapping With Phone Comparison – Positioning

Some phone models inform the user about the antenna position on the NFC setting screen, or in the startup screen. But some leave the antenna position hidden, only to be discovered by the user by relentless rubbing and experimenting.

NFC Tag Placement

In the first tests, the NFC tag was completely visible for the user, and it was possible to touch the tag. This is not always the case. In the second test I used Voyantic Reference Material Set to simulate “tap the window” use case. The inlay was behind a business card, which was behind a sheet of glass. The user experience changed completely – and not in a good direction.

A small change in tag placement can have a huge effect

Few millimeters between the phone and the inlay – slight detuning from the glass and the fact that exact inlay position was not known made things difficult. Some tags conveniently readable on air were not readable on “tap the window” application, and with most tags, exact phone positioning was needed.

Table 3. NFC Tapping With Phone Comparison – Through Glass

NFC Tag Sensitivity and Tuning

The above tests were made using an NFC inlay with 35 mm diameter round antenna – something that could be conveniently used in a price tag in a retail store. But tags are not equal. The inlay I used required 225 mA/m magnetic field strength for activation. When I tested two other “price tag size” NFC inlays with Voyantic Tagformance Pro the required activation energies were 750 mA/m and 1500 mA/m. Sensitivity and quality of the tag have an effect on the user experience.

Chart 1. Tag Sensitivity

When activation power increases, the practical effect is that a range of positions on which a tag can be read decreases. With both of the tested phones even weaker tags worked well when the reading position was optimal and touching the tag was possible. But slightly “mis-tapping” the tag left it unread and testing the “tap the window” use-case with phone model A was unsuccessful.

Too commonly NFC tag performance and quality are not really tested and suitability to an application is not properly evaluated. Often only antenna is tested with passive testing made with network analyzer – result tells about the antenna tuning, but that is not the full view to the NFC tag. When the chip is attached to the antenna, and when the tag is attached to an item, the tuning changes. And passive testing does not really tell anything about the required activation energy, which is the key. Only active testing tells the entire story. Below graph shows one NFC tag individual tested in 4 scenarios. Tag attached to a glass, tag on air, and antenna only.

Chart 2. Active and Passive Tests

Smartphone Functionality

The test was made with two phone models, one equipped with an Android operating system and another with Windows. Both of these try reading NFC tag periodically when the NFC is turned on, without any additional applications. The full list of NFC-enabled phones is available here.

iPhone and IOS were not tested since iPhone only allows reading NFC tag with a separate application – without it no amount magic wand-waving or rubbing the NFC genie works. An upcoming iOS 13 is supposed to change this.

How Could NFC Systems Be Improved?

What can the user do?
There is not much a user can do, the only reasonable thing is to “know ones phone”: How long it takes to read a tag and what is the best reading position. The best way to find these out is to take a working tag and try. No rubbing – just touch the tag with phones top few seconds using different positions and angles. In reality, the responsibility to improve user experience lies almost entirely on technology providers.

What can system integrators do?
System integrators control several items of the system: Which tag is used, how the tag is placed, how the tag is presented and so on.

  • User expectations should be steered to match the actual technology performance. Maybe replacing “tap me” with another phrase such as “tap to download” would steer the user to a longer action than a quick tap.
  • When personalizing the tags the “tap me” text should indicate accurately the NFC inlay position. Incorrect or inaccurate positioning decreases the usability and results in bad user experience.
  • Selecting the correct tag for an application is the cornerstone of a well-functioning NFC system. Applications and items vary – Sometimes it is possible to touch the tag with below 1 mm distance – sometimes the applications may require few millimeters reading distance. Tag tuning may also be affected by different materials on which the tag is attached. If a wrong tag is used, the system works poorly or not at all.

What can smartphone manufacturers do?
Smartphone manufacturers control the main interface between the NFC system and the user. If the interface works reliably and the use matched expectations, the system is likely to work well.

  • NFC reading should be enabled on smartphones without a separate application
  • Reading interval should be short enough to enable the smooth user experience
  • The phone’s antenna quality and positioning should allow intuitive “tap and read” in different scenarios: tag on table and tag on the wall.
  • It would help system integrators and tag manufacturers to know the phone profiles – how strong the magnetic field the phone’s NFC reader can generate at different distances. This data could be compared with the required activation energies in different applications.

What can NFC tag manufacturers do?
NFC tag is the second technical item in an NFC system. Well performing good quality NFC tags are obviously the tag manufacturers’ responsibility.

  • Tag manufacturers should ensure that tag sensitivity is sufficient and quality matches the application and expected user experience. Materials between phone and tag should be taken into account.
  • When printing the tag the “tap me” or other guiding text should be correctly placed and guide user expectations to the right direction.

What should NFC forum do?
NFC Forum is known for creating and maintaining the NFC standards and advocating NFC use among other industries and to consumers. In my opinion, this is also a source for some of the user experience issues.

  • In addition (or even instead) of standardizing the NFC tag performance with technical terms such as defining activation magnetic field, NFC Forum could standardize (or at least recommend) user experience criteria. A tag may have one activation energy but the user experience changes, if the tag is placed on cardboard, versus behind a window. User experience should be similar in both cases. Complexity increases further if the same performance criteria is forced to device to device and smart card applications. In my opinion, the user experience requirements should be different for the three application types
  • NFC forum should recommend system integrators and manufacturers to indicate clearly where the tag is placed, and where the phone´s antenna is. Discussion on this topic are on-going among NFC Forum members, and I have seen excellent practical ideas.

I am eagerly looking forward to the bright future of simply tap NFC.

Do you have any thoughts or questions about the NFC tapping? Contact us – I would be happy to discuss this in more detail!

All blog posts
All blog posts

Radio Equipment Directive Safeguards RAIN RFID Users and Vendors

Jun 24, 2019

中文版 Chinese version

RED Puts Accountability to RAIN RFID Component Vendors

RED is the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU and it applies to all radio equipment that’s used in Europe. This directive was passed already in 2014 but at first there was a bit of uncertainty of how it exactly works concerning RAIN RFID. Then the ETSI EN 302 208 standard was updated to v.3.1.1. in 2016, which already addresses both the lower and upper ETSI bands – well done Brussels! That standard document put clarity into how RED is enforced concerning RAIN, and that RAIN component vendors are accountable.

RED Looks After the Interests of RAIN Vendors and End-users

At first thought one could arrive at a hasty assessment: RED is nonsense – nothing more than a cost-of-doing-business with very little reward for anyone besides testing service providers. Moreover, it adds to the cost of technology for end users and slows down the go-to-market process. Who reads 45 pages of standard text these days anyhow…

I see RED in a different light: the directive aims at utilizing the limited frequency spectrum that we have at maximum benefit to those utilizing the spectrum according to regulations. This means various radio systems can co-exist, can be relied on, and don’t put the health of users at risk. And looking at the most relevant document ETSI EN 302 208, there is actually 69 pages most of which you can discard.

RED requirements for RAIN RFID systems operating at lower and upper ETSI frequency band

RAIN Tags to be Tested in Their Typical Environment

For RAIN RFID vendors it’s important to understand RED testing is necessary for RAIN components, including tags and all types of readers. As I focus on tags specifically, the different nature of a RAIN tag and a RAIN tagged item needs to be considered. This is an aspect where the directive requires interpretation. Chapter 4.1 “Environmental profile” states that “The technical requirements of the present document apply under the environmental profile for the operation of the equipment, which shall be declared by the supplier”.

My practical interpretation is, that if someone is providing a windshield tag, it should be tested while attached to a windshield. At the same time, it’s not necessary to test the windshield tag on all the windshields in the market.

Direction of Maximum Gain is Interesting

Under “Tag Conformance Requirements” the clause 4.5.1.2 “Definition” states that

The effective radiated power of a tag is the power radiated by its antenna in its direction of maximum gain under specified conditions of measurement.

For the example of a windshield tag, the direction of maximum gain probably raises no debate.
However, as you take an on-metal tag with a resonating antenna structure and attach it on a couple of randomly selected metallic objects, you will arrive at various orientation patterns. It’s, therefore, necessary for a vendor really to consider what a “typical environment” is for a specific RAIN tag type.

All Common Types of Smart Labels Need to be Tested

Back at the RFID Tomorrow event in Darmstadt 2018, I gave a presentation with a reference to RED and RAIN tags. The picture below shows what test aspects of RAIN tags RED specifically looks at.

Followed by that I presented a slide “Reason for Concern”. In October 2018 I thought that generic smart labels would easily pass RED tests. With the new experience gathered I today need to slightly revise my message: it’s very necessary to test and make sure the backscatter signal strength stays within the limits!

How to Test for Compliance With RED?

Our superhero engineers have implemented RED tag test capabilities into the Voyantic Tagformance system. A white paper describes how tests can be conducted at different levels of accuracy. As quite many in the RAIN industry have access to a Tagformance, a system upgrade with an ETSI RED test kit brings the necessary testing capability quickly available.

Download Whitepaper

The tests themselves are straightforward and even relatively quick to implement. Also, the results evaluation is made easy. The whole procedure is illustrated in a tutorial video:

Do You Have an Alternative to Following RED?

In fact, you do, because following a harmonized standard is voluntary. This path is addressed in FAQs for RED, but to paint the essence in a nutshell: Those who choose not to comply with the RED follow a conformity assessment procedure where they demonstrate to a notified body that the product complies with all the necessary requirements. The manufacturer assumes full responsibility and liability.

That’s the story today. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.

All blog posts
All blog posts

Using TIPP Tagged Item Performance Protocol Outside Retail

May 02, 2019

中文版 Chinese version

GS1 RAIN RFID Performance Standard Helps to Scale up RFID Across Industries

RAIN RFID is being adopted increasingly in several industries such as automotive manufacturing, healthcare, and pharma. Because of the growing number of implementations, there is an increasing need for a solution that helps to scale up the implementations.

One of the bottlenecks seems to be specifying RAIN tag performance in a way that enables the use of tags from several manufacturers in a system. Need for performance specification or for a method to classify tags comes up more and more frequently in industry meetings. The good news is that pioneering industries have solved these questions earlier, and there are working solutions ready for adoption.

Why Performance Specification is a Thing?

Most RAIN RFID system deployments cover a single use case, utilizing one type of tags in one way. When users become familiar with the system and learn about the possibilities, the deployment starts expanding:

  • New types of readers are added
  • New types of items are tagged
  • New use cases are added.

End users naturally expect that all the components have solid readability across the entire deployment. At the same time scaling up typically creates a need to use several tagging suppliers. This ultimately creates the need to specify performance instead of purchasing a tag model.

Keyword is “Scalability”

GS1 TIPP is a Ready Solution

GS1 Tagged Item Performance Protocol (TIPP) was originally developed for retail use. The methodology is universal and works perfectly for any RAIN user industry such as pharma, healthcare or automotive. The performance classes aka grades and methodology are already used in several applications beyond retail. Adopting GS1 TIPP is easy when a working tag and tagging method has been found:

  1. The item or group of items can be tested in minutes for finding out which performance classes it fulfills.
  2. The test outcome is the performance specification.
  3. In addition, tagging instructions and quality requirements are created easily.

For example:

Tagging instructions: Item X is tagged by placing the tag on the top part, as shown in the photo above
Performance specification: Tagged item performance should meet TIPP grade S30B
Quality specification: Inlay quality variation should be within +/- 2dB
Encoding specification: The tag should be encoded with 96bit SGTIN code and permalocked.

Scale up by leveraging existing standards

There are several benefits for adopting GS1 TIPP standard:

  • Dozens of tag manufacturers have the TIPP test capability in-house.
    The specifications would be quick to roll out.
  • There are several third-party test centers offering testing-as-a-service in several continents.
    Anyone has access to the testing.
  • The standard already includes several performance grades – with high probability one of these performance classes can be used in any application in any industry.
  • There is a self-improving methodology included. If there are no suitable grades for a new industry or application, a new grade can be added and it is automatically distributed to tag manufacturers globally.

Re-inventing the Wheel Creates New Problems

Developing new, parallel methods brings problems: new investments would be needed, and communicating new requirements with new ways to dozens of tag manufacturers globally is risky and slow. All in all, the adoption would be slow and instead of helping to scale up the industry a new bottleneck may emerge. It took industry experts more than four years to develop the GS1 TIPP into a global standard, which only shows how extremely slow it is to create a new standard.

In my opinion, the best way to scale up is to leverage the existing EPC standards, and GS1 TIPP is one of the standards in the EPC standards family.

Do you have any thoughts or questions about the GS1 TIPP methodology? Contact us – I would be happy to discuss this in more detail!

All blog posts
All blog posts

RFID Journal Live! 2019: Nothing New and Thats Good

Apr 05, 2019

中文版 Chinese version

I think this was my 11th time at the RFID Journal Live! show. For me the show is mostly about meeting a lot of customers and partners during a highly effective couple of days. And that’s true for this year’s show as well – the show was good for us. Unfortunately, though, the number of exhibitors seems to be going down, as is the number of people visiting the exhibition. It seems that many companies are focusing more on shows that target specific vertical markets. At the same time, as I already wrote after last year’s show, we are seeing less and less significant, new technical advancements at the show.

Every year I plan to attend more conference sessions, but then I always end up spending most of my time at the exhibition – where our customers are. So, I have to rely on what I heard from other conference visitors: There is nothing particularly new in the conference presentations either. We just have new retailers telling about implementations that are similar to the ones presented by someone else the previous year. And I get it: these presentations are not meant for me but for all the new potential users of RFID. Nevertheless, I think there is a valuable insight to be found:

RFID is business as usual!

Retailers or other companies implementing RFID don’t want to see new innovations presented every year. They want to see steady technology that just works – not promises of something that will be ready in two years, maybe. So nothing new is good!

Buzzword: Sustainability

Every year there are some new trends among the companies exhibiting and presenting at RFID Journal Live! Sustainability seems to be the latest buzzword, especially among tag manufacturers. It was present in tag manufacturers’ presentations, and words such as ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘sustainable’ were visible at their booths. It seems, though, that the companies mean many different things with the word: they may be using paper instead of PET as a substrate, or they may experiment with antenna manufacturing techniques that do not require etching. Or they just want to ride the latest wave and put ‘sustainability’ in their PowerPoints.

Localization Systems Winning Awards

RFID Journal Awards recognizes annually the best RFID implementations and new products. Being a geek, I am mostly interested on the new product side. This year’s best new product nominees leaned heavily towards the reader side, and especially real-time localization systems (RTLS). Through rough categorization, I would say half of them were non-reader related: a printer, a cable, a high-heat tag, and cross-compatibility for RFID, NFC and IoT. The other half I consider to be more or less reader-related: a wearable reader, a handheld reader, an overhead reader system, and two RTLS systems. This year’s winner was RF Controls’ CS-445B passive RTLS antenna.

But that was not the only award-winning localization system. As always, I attended the co-located IEEE RFID conference as well. They also give out an award to the best paper. This year, the award went to a paper presented by Cheng Qi from Georgia Institute of Technology, titled: “Breaking the Range Localization Limit of RFIDs: Phase-based Positioning with Tunnelling Tags”. Seems like I should be paying closer attention to what is going on on the localization side.

All blog posts
All blog posts

Future-proofing RAIN Connectivity

Mar 14, 2019

中文版 Chinese version

The RAIN RFID market has been growing nicely throughout the latest years. The latest news is that last year a total of 15.4 billion RAIN ICs were sold – and we are nicely on track for more than 20 billion in 2020. At the same time, the market penetration is still very low. According to IdTechEx, in the most successful market segment, retail, we are at around 10% of the total accessible market, and with other segments, such as Industry 4.0, aviation, and food it is even lower. So, there is plenty of room to grow.

We can already see 100 billion tags a year in the horizon. I don’t know if it will be in 8 or 10 years, but we are getting there. Then maybe another ten more years, and we will be at 1 trillion. However, several things in our thinking will need to change for that to happen.

I can see three obstacles that we need to overcome.

  1. We need to think about what happens when applications overlap. We are already starting to reach the situation where tags from one application are entering the read zones of other applications, and it is causing problems.
  2. We need to prepare for people intentionally messing with the applications. This is something that has not been a big problem for now, but it will increase as RAIN RFID spreads wider.
  3. We need to stop thinking in terms of tags and start thinking about RFID enabled items. There will not always be a separate tag that is attached to a product.

Since the industry has accepted that source tagging is the way to go, there needs to be a way for the party that owns the RAIN system to specify to the party that tags the product, how to tag.

For that I propose the Tagging Specification.

The specification is a common language between the parties, and it could also work as a checklist to make sure that all aspects have been considered. But what should be in a tagging specification? This is my proposal:

Geographic Region

In which geographic regions does the tagged item need to be identifiable? This could be for example ETSI, FCC, or global; and this choice will affect the tuning of the tag. With the upcoming upper ETSI band we have more and more countries working around 915 MHz.

Tag Numbering Scheme

How do we encode the tags? This is one of the areas where we need to look into the future. When there are more and more tags out there, the applications start to overlap.

For example, in a running race we have tags in the bibs of the runners provided by the timing system provider. But we also have tags integrated in some of the garments or accessories of the runners, courtesy of the sports retailer. When the runners pass the RFID readers, there is a limited amount of time to detect each runner – or even get several readings for reliable timing – if there are tags around that don’t belong to that application. Juho’s blog post about tag flooding talks more about this. The radio protocol provides ways to ignore the irrelevant tags, but it takes more time, and it requires that all parties think about the numbering.

Security

One action that is closely related to encoding the tag data, is securing it. At the moment, RAIN RFID is not everywhere, and most RAIN RFID readers are professional equipment. But, we are already close to the time when different electronics enthusiasts get their hands on RAIN reader modules. It may take some more time, but at some point we will have more RAIN readers integrated in mobile phones. And when there is an opportunity, there will be sabotage and people trying to get gains for themselves by affecting the RAIN RFID systems.

Of course, different applications have different security needs. There are still surprisingly many applications out there, where there is zero security – the EPC is encoded and that’s it. Most applications lock the EPC memory and passwords. That may work for a while, but in the long run, you need a way to manage passwords, and Nedap’s Danny Haak’s proposal for managing RAIN passwords could be a solution. Finally, in some application there might be a need for authentication functionalities.

Tagging Method

There is a fundamental shift in the industry, where more and more tags are integrated either into the packaging or into the products themselves, be it a running backpack or a tire. Thus the specification is no longer about the tag itself but about the RAIN-enabled product – or maybe a smart product. So, another line in the tagging specification would be tagging method. Is the tag a sticker applied to the product? Is it a hang tag? Is the tag applied to the package? Or is it integrated somewhere inside the product? Perhaps it is up to the supplier to decide? This all depends on whether there is a use for the tag after the point of sale; for example for product returns, warranty etc.

Tag Size

Tag size is often the first specification that comes up. Usually we want the tag to be as small as possible. But there is a compromise between the bandwidth of the tag which affects the geographic range; its performance – how far it can be read from; and size. You can choose any two, but the third one will be a compromise.

Tagged Item Performance

Radio performance matters as well. But it is not the performance of the tag, it is the performance of the entire RAIN-enabled product. And that’s where inlay lists widely used in retail will be insufficient. Still several retailers maintain lists of inlays that are allowed for products sold in their stores. And Auburn University is certifying tags for different product categories. That is an ok starting point, if you want to do hang tagging. But not everyone does.

Determining radio performance for RAIN-enabled products is somewhat more difficult than for just inlays or tags; and the testing methodology should be thought out for each industry. The TIPP methodology was developed for retail several years ago, and now there is an ISO standard family coming out for RFID in tires. The application determines whether in the typical reading scenario there are multiple tags close to each other and from which directions the products need to be identifiable. The reader type used in the application, on the other hand, may determine the requirements for sensitivity and backscatter strength.

It is extremely important that the tagging specification includes a clear verifiable performance requirement – and that it is vendor agnostic. That is the only way that the industry can improve and innovate.

Example of a tagging specification; what elements a specification should contain.

The tagging specification is my proposal for overcoming the obstacles we are facing – and this is my idea about what should be in the specification. Let us hear what do you think should be there!

All blog posts
All blog posts

RAIN Man’s Letter to Santa, 2018

Dec 19, 2018

中文版 Chinese version

Dear Santa,

How are…. Let me jump right to the point: Christmas music is like microplastics – everywhere, irritating and harmful to living organisms. In right amounts I enjoy Christmas music during December, but not in the autumn. Strangely malls, various shops and service bureaus play it, get this, starting from October. I give them business, and they want… to repel me?

Well they managed just that. Thank you Santa, for giving me all the convenient webshops, postal and grocery delivery services that streamline my everyday life. The music nuisance is pretty much gone now. Outstanding – but do you already have a plan laid out for microplastics?

2018 Was Awesome

End of 2017 I was nervous about the talent pool in our business. Turns out I just wasn’t completely in the loop. To name a few examples, Pavel had rotated himself to Impinj and Goetz and Jason were re-discovered at StoraEnso. Markus the mountain runner stepped over to the end user side in mid-2018. Harri retired, which is a loss but superb news for his granddaughter. Santa, any way to circulate Sipi back to RAIN business?

Both the RAIN name and RAIN market enjoyed a well deserved boost. The RAIN Alliance grew to over 160 members and according to Hervé D’Halluins’ presentation in Xiamen, Decathlon has achieved 100% RAIN tagging coverage on it’s merchandise!

Best of all there seems to be a consensus among manufacturers, brands and retailers that source tagging is the way to go – a message also amplified by the Project Zipper results. I couldn’t have asked for more, and am grateful to you, dear Santa.

Picture from RAIN Alliance meeting in Shenzen, China. October 2017 [Shutterstock image]

2019 to Embrace Mistakes

Santa, as we both know from the frosty Finnish lakeside, without mistakes there is very little learning.

Feeling experimental?

Take the Brexit as an example. Let it be hard or soft, but it’s going to hurt the British people like an ice hockey puck hitting the chin, especially those on the low-income end. As the tide across the English Channel is right, let’s all admit that Brexit was just an epic mistake and welcome the Great Britain warmly back to the union. A few hugs and pints will brush off the ashes, and no-one will go down that path ever again.

I don’t dare to wish anything specific regarding Brexit as such, instead I hope we all would learn to embrace mistakes and failures – also the gigantic ones.

2019 to Schedule the Upper ETSI Frequency Band

Santa, thanks for delivering the Comission Decision last October outside of my wishlist! The global harmonized RAIN Frequency band is already in the books, but not in practice. Understanding the complexities involved, it would be valuable to acquire an adoption plan across the European member states. We especially need the date when frequencies between 916-919 MHz become available for RAIN deployments in Germany.

2019 Let There Be Flooding

As annual tag delivery volumes go north of 20 Billion, we cannot expect applications to remain isolated from each other, as they nowadays still largely are. RAIN tag flooding basically occurs when RAIN applications start to overlap.

Take a sports event for example: the participants are wearing clothes and shoes purchased from Decathlon, making those items RAIN enabled. Together with their RAIN enabled race bib they next run over the race timing system antenna mat. That introduces serious tag flooding to the race timing system. Would this overlapping of applications be a problem? Assuming the correct numbering [ISO/IEC 20248] is used on all the tags AND the readers are properly configured, there should be no problem.

Anyone ordered RAIN RFID tag flooding? Picture Copyright Sami Vaskola.

Flooding is good and it’s inevitable, because the market is growing. Dear Santa, we really need to start educating the RAIN solution providers to prepare for flooding. Luckily, Bertus Pretorius already started.

Getting Warmer

The future outlook for us winter dudes is not so bright. Santa, get wheels for your sleigh. No kidding matter. See you in a few days, ok? Travel safe.

Still in denial of global warming, eh?

All blog posts
All blog posts

Zwei Faktoren die verhindern, dass Anwender von RFID RAIN Systemen von den Verfgbarkeit der hheren ETSI-Frequenzen profitieren

Dec 06, 2018

Im Januar 2016 hatte ich einen Blog darüber geschrieben, wie RAIN RFID-Unternehmen ihre Interessen vor allem in Europa vertreten sollten. Die Regulierung der Frequenzzuteilung schreitet langsam voran und jetzt, zweieinhalb Jahre später, ist es mir eine große Freude festzustellen, dass die bisherigen Ergebnisse beeindruckend sind. Lassen Sie uns einen Blick darauf werfen, wie die Nutzung des höheren ETSI-Frequenzbandes möglicherweise die Art und Weise der Optimierung des Tagging (Markierung von Objekten mittels RFID RAIN UHF Transpondern) verändert. Sicherlich werden sich diese Änderungen nicht unmittelbar bemerkbar machen. Mein Beitrag hebt zwei Faktoren hervor die derzeit einen unmittelbaren Vorteil dieser neuen Verordnung für den Anwender behindern.

Wie Tags traditionell abgestimmt werden

Im Jahr 2005 wurde das RAIN-Tagging in Europa weitgehend für das Frequenzband 866-868 MHz weitgehend optimiert. Eine solche Kennzeichnung bot in den USA nur eine sehr begrenzte oder nicht vorhandene Lesbarkeit, dies führte schnell zur Entstehung globaler Tag-Designs.

Während die weltweite (globale) Lesbarkeit im Prinzip keine so große technische Herausforderung darstellt, hat dies die Entwickler von Transponder (Tag) Antennen gezwungen, Einbußen bei der Sensitivität der Transponder in Kauf zu nehmen. Bei der Entwicklung von RFID Transpondern für die Montage auf Metall verlangt die globale Lesbarkeit in den Abmessungen deutlich größere Transpondern im Vergleich zu den winzigen Designs für einen stark eingeschränkten Frequenzbereich (ETSI 868 MHz oder FCC 915 MHz). Dies führt nicht nur zu weiteren technischen Herausforderungen sondern stellt auch einen zusätzlichen Preisfaktor dar.

Die Europäische Kommission genehmigt 4W für RFID-Lesegeräte bei 916-919 MHz

Schließlich heißt es im lang erwarteten Durchführungsbeschluss [EU] 2018/1538 der Europäischen Kommission vom 11. Oktober 2018, dass die Mitgliedstaaten bis zum 1. Februar 2019 drei Kanäle innerhalb des Frequenzbandes 916,1 -918,9 MHz für RFID-Lesegeräte öffnen sollten. Damit wird die Norm ETSI EN 302 208 V3.1.0 ergänzt, die ebenfalls ein RFID-Band zwischen 915 und 921 MHz definiert, allerdings mit eingeschränktem Umsetzungsstatus innerhalb der EU und der CEPT-Länder.

Während all dies nach Jahren der technischen Argumentation und Lobbyarbeit nach einem ausgezeichnetem Ergebnis klingt, werden die Hersteller von Lesegeräten vor neue technische Herausforderungen gestellt. Jedoch wie wird sich diese Entscheidung langfristig auf die RFID-Transponder auswirken?

Der optimale Bereich für Tagging auf globaler Ebene

Wie beabsichtigt, wird mit dem oberen ETSI-Band ein global harmonisiertes Frequenzband eingeführt, in dem alle geografischen Regionen verfügbare Kanäle für RFID-Leser haben!

Auch in Europa bietet sich damit die Möglichkeit, das Transponder-Design speziell für den oberen Frequenzbereich zu optimieren. In Anwendungen, in denen die RFID RAIN Lesegeräte (Reader) viel Zeit haben eine Bestandsaufnahme (Inventory) aller Transponder im Lesefeld durchzuführen und durch alle ETSI-Frequenzen zu scannen, sollte eine solcherart eingeschränkte Reaktion von Transpondern, die nur bei den oberen ETSI-Frequenzen wirklich empfindlich sind, kein Problem darstellen. Dies setzt natürlich voraus, dass die ETSI-Lesegeräte in Zukunft sowohl das traditionelle Frequenzband 866-868 MHz als auch das neue obere 916-919 MHz Frequenzband nutzen werden.

Unbekannter Faktor Nr.1: Umsetzungszeitplan in Mitteleuropa

Derzeit nutzt die GSM-R(ailway) das 918-921 MHz Frequenzband in Deutschland, Österreich und Frankreich auf der Grundlage nationalen Rechts gemäß den Frequenz Verordnungen der Internationalen Fernmeldeunion (International Telecommunication Union, kurz: ITU). Leider überlappt sich dieses Frequenzband und das für Europa neue obere ETSI RFID-Band. Die militärische Nutzung desselben Frequenzbereiches in Deutschland ist ein weiteres Fragezeichen und möglicherweise auch ein Hindernis. Die Europäische Kommission hat dieses Problem erkannt und gibt den Mitgliedstaaten die Möglichkeit, die Nutzung von GSM-R und RFID auf der Grundlage von Geographie, spezifischer Installation, Betriebsanforderungen oder ähnlichem zu koordinieren.

Was bedeutet dies nun in der Praxis? Schwer zu sagen. In Deutschland, Österreich oder Frankreich sind noch keine RFID-Umsetzungsrichtlinien veröffentlicht, also ist es von Vorteil die GS1-Übersicht der Regularien für Updates im Auge zu behalten. Die gute Nachricht ist, dass sich das „Future Railway Mobile Communication System“ (FRMCS) nicht mehr mit RFID überschneiden sollte. Die schlechte Nachricht ist, dass noch nicht bekannt ist, wann die Bahnen ein solches System entwickeln oder einsetzen. Das FRMCS-Projekt ist erst seit 2012 im Gange…. Ich persönlich erwarte, dass der Umsetzungsplan in Mitteleuropa bis zur zweiten Jahreshälfte 2019 weiter an Klarheit gewinnt.

Unbekannter Faktor Nr.2: Auswirkung der Leserempfindlichkeit

Der Lesebereich ist oft mehr eine Abschätzung als eine Tatsache, aber die Sensitivität des Lesegeräts ist in der Tat bereits in vielen Anwendungen ein limitierender Faktor. Ein gutes Beispiel ist die Zeitmessung von Marathonläufen. Herr Nikias Klohr von der race result AG hat dieses Thema in seinen exzellenten Präsentationen bei der Konferenz RFID Tomorrow und dem RAIN Face-to-Face-Meeting in Wien 2018 wiederholt angesprochen.

Wir alle haben in den letzten 15 Jahren gesehen, wie sich die erhöhte IC-Empfindlichkeit der Tags zur Entwicklung von Transpondern mit geringeren Abmessungen und nicht zu extrem langen >20 Meter-Lesereichweiten geführt hat. Wenn sich meine Vorhersage zur Optimierung des Tag-Designs für das 902-928 MHz-Band als richtig erweisen sollte, dann werden sich die Abmessungen und Kosten der Transponder weiter verringern.

Bis zum Jahr 2021 könnte die Stärke des rückgestrahlten Signals (Backscatter) von Miniatur-RAIN-Transpondern auf unter -90 dBm bis hinunter zu -100 dBm fallen. Die aktuelle Leserinfrastruktur wird solche geringen Transponder-Signale nicht so einfach interpretieren können. Daher müssen möglicherweise immer noch Transponder in den Abmessungen größer als notwendig verbunden mit höheren Kosten verwendet werden. Aus diesem Grund wird langfristig eine neue Gattung von Lesegeräten und eine Infrastruktur mit verbesserten Lesefähigkeiten benötigt, um die Gesamtkosten der RAIN RFID-Technologie weiter zu senken.

Fazit: Die Arbeit geht weiter

Wie schätzen Sie die Bedeutung der höheren ETSI-Frequenz ein? Haben Sie Einblicke in die regionalen Regulierungsdebatten in Deutschland oder Frankreich? Ich würde mich über einen Austausch zum Thema sehr freuen! Kontaktieren Sie uns dazu gerne.

All blog posts
All blog posts

Two Factors that Currently Prevent RAIN RFID End Users from Benefiting of the Upper ETSI Band

Nov 23, 2018

中文版 Chinese version

In January 2016 I wrote a blog about how RAIN RFID companies should defend their interests especially in Europe. Frequency regulation moves forward slowly, and now 2,5 years later it gives me great pleasure to conclude that the results so far are rather impressive. Let’s have a look at how the upper ETSI band potentially changes the way tagging is optimized. Surely the change is not immediate, and my story further highlights two factors that currently prevent end users from benefiting from this new regulation.

How Tags Are Traditionally Tuned

In 2005 RAIN tagging in Europe was largely optimized for the 866-868 MHz frequency band. Such tagging provided only very limited or non-existent readability in US, which quickly lead to emergence of global tag designs.

While global readability has not been a major technical challenge, it has forced antenna designers to sacrifice some of tag’s sensitivity. On the on-metal tag side global readability leads to significantly larger sized tags compared with the tiny one-band designs, which is both an inconvenience and a price factor.

The European Commission Permits 4W for RFID Readers at 916-919 MHz

Finally, the long-awaited COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION [EU] 2018/1538 dated 11th October 2018 says that member states should open three channels within the 916,1 -918,9 MHz frequency band for RFID readers by 1st February 2019. This comes on top of the ETSI EN 302 208 V3.1.0 standard which also defines a RFID band between 915 and 921 MHz, although with limited implementation status within the EU and CEPT countries.

While all this sounds like a fantastic outcome after years of technical argumentation and lobbying, a new variety of technical challenges are introduced for reader manufacturers. However, what will be the long term impact of this decision on the RFID tagging side?

Global Sweet Spot for Tagging

As intended, the upper ETSI band introduces a global harmonized frequency band, where all geographic regions have available channels for RFID readers!

Also in Europe this introduces a possibility to optimize tag designs specifically for the upper frequency range. In applications where readers have plenty of time to conduct inventory and scan through all the ETSI frequencies, such limited response from tags sensitive only at the upper ETSI frequencies should not be a problem. Naturally this assumes that in the future the ETSI readers will utilize both the traditional 866-868 MHz and the new upper 916-919 MHz frequency band.

Unknown Factor #1: Implementation Schedule in Middle-Europe

Currently the GSM-R(ailway) is using the 918-921 MHz band in Germany, Austria and France based on National Law in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. Unfortunately this band overlaps with the upper ETSI RFID band. The military usage of the same band in Germany is another question mark, and even a roadblock. The Commission recognizes the situation, and gives member states the possibility to coordinate the use of GSM-R and RFID based on geography, specific installation, operating requirements or something else.

What does this mean in practice? I actually do not know. No RFID implementation guidelines are yet published in Germany, Austria or France, but it’s good to keep an eye on the: GS1 regulatory overview for updates. Good news is that the Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) should not overlap with RFID anymore. Bad news is that it’s now known when the railways will have such system designed or deployed – the FRMCS project has only been active since 2012… I personally anticipate that implementation schedule in Middle-Europe gains further clarity by second half of 2019.

Unknown Factor #2: Impact of Reader Sensitivity

The read range is often more an opinion than a fact, but the sensitivity of the reader is indeed already a limiting factor in many applications. An example is marathon race timing, and Mr. Nikias Klohr of race result AG has repeatedly raised this issue in his excellent presentations at the RFID Tomorrow and RAIN face-to-face meeting in Vienna 2018.

We all have seen over the past 15 years how the increased tag IC sensitivity has translated into smaller footprint tags rather than to ultra long >20 meter read ranges. If my prediction of tag design optimization for the 902-928 MHz band is correct, then the tag footprint will further shrink with the benefit of lower tagging costs.

By year 2021 backscatter signal strengths from miniature RAIN tags may fall below -90 dBm, even down to -100 dBm. The current reader infrastructure simply won’t be able to interpret such small tag responses, therefore larger-than-necessary tags may still need to be used at a higher expense. Therefore a new breed of readers and infrastructure with enhanced reading capabilities will be needed to continue drive down the overall cost of RAIN RFID technology.

Work Continues

What is your view on the significance of the upper ETSI band? Do you have insights into the local regulatory debates in Germany or France? Please contact us and let’s talk!

All blog posts
All blog posts

The ETSI Upper Band Has Arrived! What Happens Then?

Oct 29, 2018

中文版 Chinese version

The October 11th 2018 was a day of small celebration in the RFID industry. Celebration, because on that date, the European Commission published their positive implementing decision about the 915-921 MHz frequency band in Europe. Small, because it came out as somewhat of a compromise in the end allowing less than anticipated new channels, and in coexistence with other IoT and short range devices. This was referred to as the squeeze plan. The given implementation deadline is the 1st of February, 2019, so in a few months, country by country, the new band will become a reality.

Global Tags

Now that there is a more or less global frequency band in the world allocated for RAIN RFID, it is possible to design tags that can be operated around the world. For basic labels and average sized hard and on-metal tags this has not been an issue in the past either. It isn’t too hard at all to stretch the tag’s performance band to cover both the 865-867 MHz and 902-928 MHz bands in one go with giving practically no performance away in the process.

Smaller tags tend to be specific for a frequency band, whereas larger labels are easily truly global.

Miniaturization of tags, like the ones needed to track small tools and surgical equipment, as an example, has come with a cost. It’s near impossible to make a tag which is simultaneously: (1) small, (2) wideband and (3) has a good performance. Pick any two qualities and say farewell to the third. With the miniaturized RAIN tags, the lost quality has predominantly been the wide bandwidth. This has led to separate tag versions for the ETSI 866 MHz region and for the 902-928 MHz FCC band. The very smallest tags have even had trouble covering the whole FCC band. Luckily, there is the obligatory frequency hopping to cover this deficit. Now, making a global miniaturized tag is easy, just aim at the 917 MHz mark and be done.

A New Breed of Readers

In all likelihood, we are going to witness the emerging of a new breed of RAIN readers as well. A truly global reader would be nice, and will surely arrive one day. Long before that, we need a new spec ETSI reader, one that will operate both on the European lower and upper band. The utilization of the two bands will help better cover all tags, especially all those miniaturized tags, tags with close-coupling issues and large challenging populations. The utilization of both the bands interleaved might also give rise to features, like more accurate tag ranging and positioning.

From a hardware point of view, there lies a small re-design challenge. Most of the smaller inbuilt circular antennas in the hand-held readers are certainly unique to ETSI or FCC currently and need some tweaking to cover both bands with a good performance. Other hardware like directional couplers, SAW filters, and power amplifier matching might also not be directly functional for both bands. While these are fairly simple RF engineering tasks to put right, it means that a big portion of the existing readers probably are not updateable to the new European RF landscape with a simple firmware update.

Different Flavors of the Upper Band

When we look closer into the requirements at different regions that use the upper band, we start to notice a lot more differences to which the readers need to adapt. The first thing that will catch attention is the sheer difference in the number of channels available in the bands such as FCC and Brazil as an example. After that one would hope that the three allocated ETSI upper band channels would be ones picked from the FCC channel, but actually none of them coincide. Same goes for Chinese, Japanese, Russian and other channels, they just are not the same. Also, the center frequencies often do not give much of a room for flexibility. For instance, ETSI specifies a channel center frequency maximum deviation of 10ppm, which equates to +/- 9.2kHz. So, for example, there is no compromise available to be at for the nearly coinciding channels of 916.3 MHz (ETSI) and 916.25 MHz (FCC) simultaneously.

To add to the complexity, different regions have varying regulations of:

  • channel hopping
  • dwell time
  • Listen before Talk (LBT)
  • sensitivity limit
  • modulation speeds and formats (because of spectral mask).

At the moment all of this is not a huge technical hurdle to accomplish. But the day will come when readers start to cross borders installed in cars, trains and even operating in mobile phones, and then it will be a major inconvenience to track location and change settings at every border.

Channel center frequencies in various regions. Most use their own list of frequencies which just do not coincide.

Summary

The coming changes in the Europe and the already existing different RAIN RFID bands in the world have long affected the tag design. The new ETSI upper band is a move to the right direction to make RFID systems more global. This will give the reader manufacturers a lot of thinking and rework for the months to come – the outcome of which will be interesting to see. The two different European bands will start to co-exist and readers have one more set of channels and regulations to adapt to.

Luckily when it comes to the minor channel frequency differences in the upper band, at least the tags don’t mind.

All blog posts
All blog posts

Ethan Hunt Manages RFID Mission Impossible in a Men’s Room

Sep 12, 2018

Movies have an escapist quality that allows us to explore places, lives and times that are not our own. Technology is an integral part of film making, from capturing footage to creating computer generated vistas. However, on many occasions, the non-integral technological aspects are often overlooked, simplified or even deliberately misrepresented.

People in the entertainment film industry embrace new technologies and push them forward to achieve new ways of creating effects and ways to think about technology. Unfortunately, in many instances, the devil is in the details which the directors conveniently omit or forget. On the other hand, their objective is not to make a documentary after all and offending a minor (albeit informed!) crowd is a calculated risk.

To this crowd, and the general public, the latest Mission Impossible movie offered a glimpse into RFID.

The Spy Who Loved RFID

Dundun dundun dun du… we are all familiar with the classic spy thriller movie series starring Tom Cruise. The most recent installment brings Cruise in his recurring role as the somewhat aged Ethan Hunt to face off against a nemesis from a previous film. It is also the only film that I could find that names RFID and uses it – but more on that later.

Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018) is a movie that prides on its attention to detail. To name a single example, the movie’s skydiving scene did not only require 106 takes, but also the development of entirely new equipment. This article explains more about this and more technical challenges solved in the movie. In the light of the significant efforts to exude realism in the film, the way that RFID is handled leaves me confused.

In the 2018 film a RFID tagged bracelet is used to identify the persons allowed to the VIP section of a party. Hunt is planning to track a man by locating his bracelet. The handheld tracking device UI shows a pulsating blue dot, intermittently creating wave fronts. The tag’s response is visualized as a pulsating red dot.

Author’s rendition of the used tracking device

Hunt manages to determine the suspect is in the men’s room. As the quarry draws near, Hunt walks around the room to see if the return on the tracker changes to indicate the person is wearing the bracelet he is looking for. Later, with the bracelet removed from its owner, Hunt enters the VIP area. The device scanning the bracelet emits a red light and Hunt is cleared to proceed.

To break this down, it seems that the bracelet contains two very differently behaving tags. One can be tracked tens of meters away, even with liquid (people) and walls attenuating the signal. The other must be close to a reader and within line of sight so it can be verified.

For the long distance tracking to work, the following requirements have to be met:

  1. The target’s tag must be differentiable from all the others
    An individual tag can be differentiated from any other tag by using the select command. To do this, Hunt and co. must have knowledge of the memory contents (EPC and or TID) of the tag embedded in the bracelet. The film states that they were able to retrieve the tag’s TID.
  2. The tracking device must transmit sufficient power for the tag to power itself
    The tag can reply only if the interrogator supplies sufficient power. The required power is exponentially proportional to the distance between the tag and interrogator in free space. The range of a handheld RFID reader is typically 2W e.r.p, most likely lower for non-dedicated readers such as depicted in the film. Read more about the relationship of RFID and read range.
  3. The tag’s reply must be strong enough for the tracker to decode
    The reply from the tag is subject to the same relationship of power and distance as the signal sent from the interrogator. The receiver must be sensitive enough to be able to sift the tag reply from other signals.
  4. The tracking device must be able to tell the orientation of the reply relative to itself
    Whether the orientation of a tag can be measured, depends on the antenna design. After receiving a reply, its strength could be used as a reference. The signal loss in free space depends on the distance and frequency, i.e. with a known frequency the distance may be computed. Panning the tracker would make the signal strength change depending on the orientation coupling. The strongest response would indicate the direction of the tag.

Out of these four requirements, 1 is correct and 4 is plausible, though Hunt is not shown to move the interrogator in the described manner. Unfortunately, 2 and 3 are science fiction. It comes down to the power requirements of the transmitter and the sensitivity of its receiver. While it is implied in the film that Hunt is constantly getting closer and he just misses visual confirmation as the target enters the men’s room, the tracker would not be able to generate sufficient power to get a reply from the tag in the crowd of people.

The second observed tag behavior requirements are less exacting. A HF tag could exhibit these characteristics. A HF tag would also be more suitable because it is far more likely to read only the intended tag due to the read range discrepancy to UHF. This issue could be circumvented by providing another form of identification alongside the bracelet.

…Should you choose to accept the mission

For the purposes of this blog, I tried finding other examples of RFID in films. Besides MI: Fallout, the only other non-disputable RFID use I could find is the implantation of a transponder into James Bond in Casino Royale (2006). Explicit references to RFID are rather sparse on the silver screen. Devices operated in the AM/FM frequency range are present in movies depicting the near-future dystopian landscapes. A couple of examples include exploding collars in The Running Man (1987) and an implanted locator devices in Demolition Man (1993).

Trigger discipline is not limited to firearm handling

More ambiguous cases which could utilize RFID include:

Back to Mission Impossible: the objective of Mission: Impossible – Fallout is not to make a documentary but an entertaining action movie. It achieves partial success in representing RFID technologies accurately, possibly indicating that directors are slowly becoming more familiar with the technology as its use becomes more widespread in everyday life.

Emerging, life changing technologies have worried and titillated the public’s mind for different reasons over the years, e.g. the war of the currents. I believe RFID is slowly entering a similar state of mind. An informed public will not be concerned that Big Brother is tracking them via RFID but instead should be aware of the very real risk of contactless payment hijacking.

RFID tags are becoming ever more prevalent, not only in fiction movies, but also in consumer goods and we – as an industry – get to decide the story we want to tell about the technology. Let us make sure we get our facts straight!

All blog posts