6LOWPAN is a very good choice for this, but it is part of the TCP/IP suite of standards. The advantage to it is that it can easily be mapped into a full IPv6 network, so it can be gatewayed into the wider Internet. That only fills out the bottom layers of the protocol stack, though. Application - level protocols will be necessary for real integration of these devices at the network level.
I agree Bert, this doesn't seem to me like a useful action...and without puting any money in nothing will happen anyways so maybe we should not worry too much...what will happen will be driven by business sense and market needs
This also makes my eyes roll to the back of my head. My knee jerk reaction being, thank goodness that in the US, at least, innovation happens without "help" from politically motivated politicians.
I'll acknowledge that sometimes an external force providing "focus" is helpful, however the outcome of such "focus" is usually not very productive. Even if results are achieved.
The IoT (so-called), which already exists in truth, will continue to develop. Not because a politician spurs it along, but because it provides solutions to real needs. The White House does not need to concern itself that the electric light switches in my house are not all networked together. I'm sure it's possible to coerce me into building such a network, and then I can show it to grandma.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.