 Hi, I'm Jonathan Gale and my group has an idea called M2M Bell, a next-gen public utility for the Internet of Things. It can only happen, however, if you'll agree with this small group of prestigious engineers that it's time to say goodbye Aloha. Around 2000, the first wireless simulations for our cable TV protocol were led by Dr. Alonso who then won awards from Alcatel and Vodafone after being inspired by the inventor and my previous co-founder Dr. Graham Campbell. Dr. Campbell unfortunately passed away last year before his vision for a better way to send data packets could be fully realized. And for that to happen, two decades of fundamental and applied research needed to be boiled down into the first fully drawn protocol specification for which we won a Google Research Award about two years ago with USC. This was pretty great at the time because the award came with hardware and engineering graduate students, but then the award got held up in China citing FCC rules about not shipping any unlocked Wi-Fi chips into the United States. Two years later, our first corporate collaboration is underway, but this time we're targeting a Zigbee mesh network for employee safety systems, but it is still our goal to get back to the Wi-Fi demo for voice and video applications. To understand the potential impact of the problem we've solved, one only needs to look at society's historic internet problems, which carried into the world of wireless mean that we're still forcing wireless devices to think as if they're wired, which means automatically eliminating any possibility of taking advantage of broadcasting despite its well-known advantages that gave rise to the world of TV and radio. Here's Vint Cerf, godfather of the net, to explain it. We don't use broadcast very well. We take a broadcast radio channel like the 802.11 Wi-Fi and we turn it into a point-to-point link. We don't actually recognize in the protocol sense that when you radiate over the radio, multiple sites may actually hear the same data, or if you're radiating from the satellite, if you have the right protocols, you could take advantage of the fact that hundreds of thousands or millions of receivers get the same information. We just don't have protocols to do that, even though the underlying communication system is capable of delivering that service. Well, we do have protocols that do that, but again, first, we need to say goodbye, Aloha. The main bottleneck in data networks today stems from Aloha, which is still in broad use in shared networks where devices often compete to talk, which means they wake up at the same time, they try to grab the channel at the same time, but then they collide and they try to resend over and over until the packet goes through. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is on its best day. When all things are perfect, which is never the case in the real world, the efficiency tops out at about 50%. So if we continue to use a complex solution instead of an elegant solution, then we can only expect more of the same for the Internet of Things. And this includes a very real social dilemma regarding subscriber-based networks backed by shareholders versus a public utility with telecommunications privacy laws. I mean, treating customer data in ways that might favor one customer over another customer based upon usage history is just outright illegal in a telecom framework. But when it comes to a data framework, this cornerstone of our democracy, which is privacy law, has taken the proverbial 180. Then consider the fact that the Internet of Things hasn't even blossomed yet, and it's easy to come to the conclusion that the social dilemma will only get more invasive and more invisible as the IoT grows. So how can we run Internet protocol on trusted networks like we have with the phone company? The answer is a technology called distributed queuing. The first network to use our cable TV broadcasting protocol was IoT World VQ. And my favorite part of the CTTC research page is the subtitle. Distributed queuing is a revolutionary technology that will change the way that wireless networks operate in the future. They unfortunately just didn't say when in the future. But if it's true, then it's just a firmware upgrade. And we can ultimately tilt the digital landscape to the benefit of citizens and privacy law, not marketing behemoths with thousands of servers running AI intelligence. This key features list is kind of IoT mind blowing. I mean, you don't have to be an engineer to get some of these like maximum stable performance or performance independent of traffic load. So why isn't it available yet? Well, the short answer is that there's no developer kit yet. But the longer answer is that there just seems to be more money and incremental improvement than there would be with a leap in performance. I mean, just ask yourself, how many Wi-Fi routers did you really want to buy over the last 20 years? Regardless, every single one of these key features is a result of that packet success rate that you see in the table on the right. We have Bucknell to thank for going to work on the Laura demo. They spent about $85 building a base station that covered most of downtown Philly. The main result was a capacity result where they increased the number of competing devices from 1700 to 5700. And I also have to draw attention to the thesis title, which is, of course, a platform for large scale regional IoT networks. Because the secondary conclusion was that if you put one of these inexpensive base stations in every city in the state of Pennsylvania, you would have a mesh IoT network that covered 99% of the state's population. So unlike over the top IoT hubs that don't really do anything unless the homeowner gives them a connection to their internet service provider, a DQ hub would simply join a regional mesh network with other IoT hubs, as needed, using any unlicensed airwaves that the FCC has intended for free public use since 2008. And regardless of all of the reasons that the IoT has stalled since then, M2M Bell's first operating principle is, if we can get data from the first party to the second party without the third party, well then why wouldn't we? And why wouldn't we enforce the telecom act of 96 so that usage data is owned by the end user by law? In terms of the economics, imagine buying an IoT device with a lifetime of connectivity included. After all, if I can buy a home theater system with a lifetime of Dolby sound processing, then it's not really very different, except that we're sending data packets to an antenna as opposed to a speaker. And we don't mean to topple a bunch of companies that are spending 2.7 trillion to cover the globe with 5G, but come on guys, it's been like 19 years since 911 and they're first starting to see ads for FirstNet. I mean, obviously it shouldn't take this long, and it shouldn't cost 2.7 trillion to build a global radio infrastructure, nor should it cost 2.7 billion. In fact, when it comes down to it, all we really need is commercial off the shelf hardware, a dedicated hardware developer community, and device OEMs who want higher market share for their solutions. I don't really expect to slow down the 5G train, but maybe we can still help it get where it's going. Here's a completely different group of engineers from Far East. They've been twice published in the vehicle technology section. In fact, when you review their abstract from their 2018 work, they actually renounced the Aloha-based framework. They really used the word renounce, going well behind the Dubai metric that Barcelona had established. So hats off to this group for pushing the 5G envelope for DQ research, again with the result being in massive access and dynamic priorities. In terms of our own publishing, we shared our DQ specification with GM engineers who put us in the SAE journal because they were, at the time, pretty freaked out about mission-critical attacks like applying the brakes while the car is moving. And the second time our protocol was published was by the patent office. It was written with the help of the award-winning Barcelona engineers, again with the goal of allowing any engineer skilled in the art to build an interoperable DQ system. So when we call DQ universal, we're not talking about the physical universe. We're talking about the fact that DQ can look like any type of switch so that one network can serve any type of device. That said, my dream project would be to create a firmware upgrade for central office. This would wake up that sleeping Goliath with all of its copper connectivity. And at that point we would just need to plug a wireless hub into the old phone jack in the home. The best part is it would be powered with three volts from the CO instead of five volts from an AC adapter, and it would stay on in a power outage. So above all else, the public needs assurances, which can only be afforded by privacy laws that started with our post office and shifted to telecommunications around the 1930s. And if we can obviate the need for multiple carriers carving up the frequencies and putting 5G antennas every hundred meters in our neighborhoods and tens of thousands of 5G satellites up in the sky, well, some engineers think that all of those satellites might just disrupt the ionosphere with each one of them shooting millions of watts. So the question becomes, is the Linux community, the same community that opened up the operating system, is the Linux community ready to do it all over again? But this time with the goal to commoditize switch routing hardware as opposed to internet server hardware. If the name of this summit is any indication, then we should know the answer to that question. And so I once again commit DQ as an open IoT specification for the goodbye, the renouncement, and the final X communication of Aloha, accepting as in coexistence models where we may need it for still talking to older devices. Thank you very much. Any questions? Any of our listeners, feel free to add some questions. Without questions, it was exciting for me to, you know, give this presentation and to pave the way for a world where we have distributed applications, which for the first time can be controlled on a distributed switch, you know, where everything is under 100% edge control, again, given the name of this conference. That would be in the form of a question, 98 is the answer. I'm going to have to answer you at 98. Full proposition. Who wants a brighter light bulb? And we're below the internet protocol layer. Just give IP a better road to run on. Sounds good. We do have the Slack channel listed in the chat. If you want to continue the conversation, but I will leave it up to you, Jonathan, if you want to end it. Yeah, we can end it and I'll flip over to Slack and see if anybody has any questions they haven't thought of yet. Thank you so much for your time, Jonathan. Appreciate it. My pleasure. Take care from LA.