LoRaWAN (Long Range Wide Area Network) and LoRa (Low Power Wide Area Network) are communication technologies used in Internet of Things (IoT) applications, including monitoring traffic, parking, and air quality in smart cities. Although they use similar underlying LoRa modulation technology, their focus and applications are different.

LoRaWAN:

Focus: LoRaWAN is a wide-area network protocol whose main focus is to provide a long-distance, low-power wide-area IoT communication solution. It focuses on connecting large numbers of low-power sensors and devices to enable communication over long distances.

Network Topology: LoRaWAN usually adopts a star network topology, where end nodes (sensors and devices) are connected to a central network server through a gateway. This structure is suitable for large-scale sensor deployment, such as sensor networks in smart cities.

Security: LoRaWAN has strong security features, including data encryption and authentication, to ensure that transmitted data maintains confidentiality and integrity.

Device Management: LoRaWAN supports device management and remote device configuration to simplify large-scale device deployment and maintenance.

Open Standards: LoRaWAN uses open standards, allowing devices and networks from different vendors to work together, improving interoperability.

LoRa:

Focus: LoRa is the underlying physical layer technology of LoRaWAN, which mainly focuses on providing long-distance, low-power communication. It can be used for a variety of different communication protocols and applications, not just LoRaWAN.

Communication flexibility: LoRa is generally more flexible and can be used for point-to-point communication, point-to-multipoint communication or other communication with specific needs. It can be customized according to the requirements of the specific application.

Low power consumption: LoRa's low power consumption characteristics make it suitable for battery-powered sensors and devices, allowing long-term operation.

Proprietary or custom protocols: LoRa can be used with custom or proprietary communication protocols, customized to the needs of specific applications.

In general, LoRaWAN is more suitable for large-scale IoT deployments, such as monitoring systems in smart cities. It provides a standardized, secure, and low-power communication solution. LoRa is more flexible and can be used for various specific purposes of communication, but usually requires more customization and configuration. In practical applications, the choice of which technology to use depends on the specific needs and deployment situation.

With the continuous development of Internet of Things technology, LoRa (Low Power Wide Area Network) modules are widely used in various fields. This article will discuss how the LoRa module plays a role in remote weather monitoring projects, providing an efficient and reliable solution for the collection, transmission and analysis of weather data.

introduction:

Remote weather monitoring plays an important role in fields such as agriculture, meteorological research and environmental protection. As a communication technology with low power consumption and strong long-distance transmission capability, LoRa has gradually been applied in weather monitoring projects.

2. Overview of LoRa technology:

Based on the characteristics of long distance, low power consumption and low data rate, LoRa technology is suitable for long-running wireless sensor networks. The LoRa module can cover a wide area and has excellent penetration, making it excellent in remote weather monitoring.

3. Application of LoRa in remote weather monitoring:

Meteorological data collection: LoRa nodes can be connected to a variety of meteorological sensors, such as temperature, humidity, air pressure and wind speed sensors, to collect meteorological data in real-time.

Data transmission: Through the LoRa module, the collected meteorological data can be remotely transmitted to the base station or cloud platform to realize real-time monitoring and data sharing.

Geographical distribution: Multiple LoRa nodes can be distributed in a wide weather monitoring area to achieve full coverage and ensure data accuracy and integrity.

Low power consumption: The low power consumption characteristics of the LoRa module make it suitable for long-term operation, and can be powered by batteries to reduce maintenance costs.

Advantages of LoRa in remote weather monitoring projects:

Cost-effectiveness: The deployment and maintenance costs of LoRa nodes are low, which is suitable for large-scale weather monitoring networks.

Long-range transmission: LoRa technology can realize data transmission in a long distance, which is suitable for meteorological monitoring in remote areas.

Stability: The LoRa module has strong signal penetration capability and can maintain stable data transmission in complex environments.

Real-time data: Through the LoRa module, meteorological data can be transmitted in real-time to help with timely warning and decision-making.

Speaking of the wireless communication technology of the Internet of Things, everyone must be familiar with LoRa, because it adopts the principle of spread spectrum modulation and a unique error correction mechanism to achieve ultra-long-distance wireless transmission. Wireless communication distance is longer.
Of course, the focus of this article is not to discuss the characteristics of LoRa, but to talk about several key core parameters in LoRa modulation.

1. Spreading Factor (SF)
LoRa spread spectrum employs multiple information chips to represent each bit of payload information. The speed at which spread information is sent is called the symbol rate (Rs), and the ratio between the chip rate and the nominal symbol rate is the spreading factor, which represents the number of symbols sent per information bit. The popular understanding is to represent a single data bit with multiple information chips.
To simplify the explanation in the digital domain, if we agree that 101110 means that the actual data bit is 1, a valid data packet such as 0xFF needs to be transmitted in the application, and the corresponding binary representation is: 1111 1111, then the information chip to be actually transmitted is:

Through the above method, the bit error rate of transmission can be reduced, thereby increasing the effective communication distance. However, when the number of transmitted information symbols is the same, the actual amount of effective data transmitted is reduced. Therefore, when other parameters are the same, The larger the SF parameter is set, the smaller the actual transmitted data rate.

LoRa spreading factor value range:

Note:
① The above table is taken from the SX127x data sheet;
② SF=6 can only be used in ImplicitHeader mode;
③ SX126x series can support SF=5
2. Modulation bandwidth BandWidth(BW)
Channel bandwidth is used to limit the frequency range allowed to pass through the current channel, which can be understood as a frequency passband.
The frequency allowed by a channel is usually 433.125MHz to 433.250MHz, and the corresponding BW=125kHz.
According to Shannon's theorem, increasing the channel bandwidth can increase the effective data rate to shorten the air delay time

Shannon's theorem
However, it can be seen from the digital sensitivity calculation formula that increasing the channel bandwidth will reduce the system sensitivity, thus shortening the wireless communication distance.
Receive sensitivity S = 10lg⁡(KTB) + NF + SNR, where B represents the channel bandwidth.
In LoRa modulation, the channel bandwidth is bilateral bandwidth (full channel bandwidth), while the BW of traditional FSK modulation refers to unilateral bandwidth or receiving bandwidth.

3. Coding Rate(CR)
In the process of LoRa communication, cyclic forward error correction technology is used internally, that is, part of the data in the actual data packet transmitted over the air is used for error correction decoding, and the ratio of the effective data length to the actual length of the air transmitted data packet is called encoding rate.
LoRa encoding rate value range and corresponding overhead ratio:

Note: The above pictures are taken from the SX127x data sheet
Based on the above, it can be seen that using the error correction algorithm will increase the link overhead and reduce the effective data transmission rate. However, due to the existence of the error correction code, the transmission has strong anti-interference ability and higher reliability.
Speaking of this, I feel that I need to go deeper, otherwise I will not be able to reflect my own level
Relationship between LoRa signal bandwidth BW, symbol rate Rs and data rate DR

Chip speed Rc:
As mentioned earlier, the bandwidth has a great relationship with the transmission rate of the signal. Here, the transmission rate of the chip is equal to the value of the bandwidth (unit Hz), that is:
Rc=BW = |BW|chips/s

Symbol rate Rs:
Each symbol has 2^SF chips, and the transmission rate of the chips is Rc, so the symbol transmission rate Rs is:
Rs= Rc/2^SF = BW/2^SF

Data transmission rate DR (or bit Rate):
DR= Rb(bits/sec) = SF * Rs * CR = SF * (BW/2^SF) * CR

4. Low Data Rate Optimization
In the cognition of many people, the core parameters of LoRa seem to be only SF, BW, and CR. The parameter value setting of Low Data Rate Optimization is easy to be ignored, but in the design process, this parameter is still very important, especially In the application process of low rate and large data packet transmission, the long-term continuous transmission of the transmitter may cause system frequency deviation and reduce the communication success rate. After enabling the Low Data Rate Optimization option, it can improve the communication robustness of LoRa under low rate conditions. sex.
The specific setting condition is that when the transmission time of a single symbol exceeds 16 milliseconds, the LowDataRateOptimize bit must be enabled, and both the transmitter and the receiver must have the same LowDataRateOptimize setting.
Take BW=500K, SF=9 as an example:

At this time RS =500kHz / 512, TS = 1 / RS = 512/500kHz= 1 ms
In this case, it is not necessary to enable Low Data Rate Optimization.
Take BW=25K, SF=10 as an example:
At this time RS =25kHz / 1024, TS = 1 / RS =1024/25kHz= 40.96 ms
In this case, Low Data Rate Optimization must be turned on.

If I had to choose three reasons why the adoption of the IoT it´s delayed several years, one of the three would include would be the mistake in their strategy, faith, IoT employee sales skills and poor investment in key industries by Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) in this business.

When I wrote more than 5 years ago my post “How to select your M2M/IoT Service Provider” I referenced several annual reports from analysts like Gartner and vendors like Ericsson or Cisco. All of them presented very optimistic predictions that unfortunately have not been fulfilled.

During this time Mobile Network Operators have adapted to the market crude reality of the market with sometimes erratic strategies. Despite this fact has not discouraged new entrants that have energized a market with again high growth expectations. Today Tier 1 and Tier 2 Mobile Network Operators are competing with many IoT Connectivity providers in all industries and use cases. The good news for these new entrants is that the MNOs have not known captivate their customers.

What do I think the MNOS are thinking now?

1-    The Technological Battle of LPWAN networks

I do not want to open in this article a debate on which LPWAN connectivity technology (5G, NB-IoT, LTE-M, LoRA, Sigfox, ….) is the best. Each of these technologies will likely play an important role in the IoT space depending on the use case, so understanding the features and differences of each is critical.

You must not forget other IoT connectivity technologies (Satellite, Mesh networks, WiFi, Zigbee,..). I have always championed the idea of multiple IoT network coexistence in which objects will connect to provide an IoT service or be part of an aggregated IoT service. And those services can be provided by both licensed and unlicensed cellular networks. Let's assume that we will not have a single protocol that regulates all of them in a long time. We are also not going to ask manufacturers of objects to incorporate the different connectivity possibilities in their designs for obvious reasons of cost and battery life. What would be very valuable is that all IoT devices could add a unique identifier that allow will be part of a SuperIoTNet that works like the current internet. But now is future fiction.

2-    The Connectivity Services Offering 

Ideally we should try to find in our IoT Connectivity Service Provider offering something like Telefonica, an end-to-end complete commercial IoT connectivity offer that allow design and build a tailored secure IoT solution. But this in not gold all that glitters. We must evaluate the ability of these IoT Connectivity Service Providers to make easy the adoption of IoT in Small and Medium Business (SMBs) with pre-integrated industry solutions based on a rich ecosystem.

Customers wants to receive specialised advice to solve any IoT need at a one-stop-shop, including full stack technology solutions from hardware selection to middleware, application development and SaaS operations. Not many IoT Connectivity Providers have the internal resources to provide these services, in that cases customers should involve either or a partner or better an independent consultant as myself.

For some customers an offering like “IoT connectivity as a Service” provided by Arkessa can be an advantage, for others “The 1NCE IoT Flat Rate”, an all-inclusive connectivity package that comprises all elements and features that IoT customer need while having their assets connected is more important. For experienced M2M customers, the portfolio Kore Wireless and industry specialization is attractive. Eseye for instances solve your IoT challenges from device to AWS cloud. In Europe SMBs must consider in the short list Wireless Logic with 4 million devices connected to its platforms globally. Special mention to module companies like Sierra Wireless that offers a Connectivity and Device Management service that connects to 600+ partner networks around the globe with multiple redundant routes in every country to eliminate local coverage gaps or Telit which  Connectivity Service allow companies Monitor, Manage & Monetize their assets.

I am expecting the unlimited opportunities with the Internet of Things after the announcement a few days ago by DT Deutsche Telekom to spin out IoT unit and launch a global open ‘hub.’  More info about new DT IoT offering here: “From vertical to horizontal and back to vertical: our way to the new horizon”

Sorry, I can not extend this paragraph with more companies, but in the picture there are many other companies with attractive services that must be considered for your unique Business case.

3-    eSIM: Threat or Opportunity

The SIM card has also been evolving since its creation in 1991. From the size of a credit card it went to mini-SIM or the classic SIM that began to reduce in size, first to microSIM and then to nanoSIM and finally the embedded SIM (also called eSIM or eUICC or MMF2 UICC).

Presented in the preludes of the Mobile World Congress 2016, the eSIM is still a SIM but it will be embedded in the devices, without the possibility of withdrawing it. eSIM is a global specification by the GSMA which enables remote SIM provisioning of any mobile device. The eSIM is designed to remotely ​manage multiple mobile network operator subscriptions and be compliant​ with GSMA's Remote SIM Provisioning specifications​.  Install one eSIM during manufacturing and change the carrier on the fly.

To date, 200 mobile carriers in more than 80 countries offer eSIM consumer services. The embedded UICC is expected to reach over 200 million shipments in 2019 (source: Eurosmart, November 2019).

GSMA promises not to rig the eSIM standard in favour of its members.

eSIM now allows consumers to store multiple operator profiles on a device simultaneously, and switch between them remotely, though only one can be used at a time. The specification now extends to a wider range of devices. Manufacturers and operators can now enable consumers to select the operator of their choice and then securely download that operator’s SIM application to any device.

At first glance, building or supporting a global eSIM solution presents a major challenge (integration with other service providers and guarantee customer experience is expensive) and not appear to benefit Communication Service Providers. Looks like stupid to invest in a solution that make easier for customers to leave them. That´s why they have not done much to extend its use.

Why is good for IoT?.  UICC and eSIM technology gives enterprises control of IoT connectivity, simplifies international deployments of IoT devices and the transition to mobility services. Large scale international deployments are possible using a single factory installed SIM. The user subscription can be updated when the device is in the field.

ARM white paper introduces 7 top  Innovative eSIM use cases: Automotive, Shipping and Logistics, Object tracking and site monitoring, Smart Energy, Wearables, Agriculture, Home Security.

Sources:

GSMA: https://www.gsma.com/esim/

Cisco Blog: “Manufacture there, connect anywhere: Cisco eSIM Flex enables global connectivity for enterprises and service providers”

Xataka: https://www.xatakamovil.com/conectividad/esim-que-que-ventajas-aporta-cuando-llegara-masivamente-todo-tipo-dispositivos

Thales: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/digital-identity-and-security/mobile/connectivity/esim/esim

Arkessa: https://www.arkessa.com/euicc/

ARM:  7 Top eSIM use cases

Choosing IoT Connectivity Service Providers

Choosing the right IoT Connectivity Service provider is not as easy as many can think. You can make a preselection using the lasts Gartner Magic Quadrant, also explore the local cellular Operators that have deployed a NB-IoT or LTE-M network and finally analyze other operators that maybe you never heard about them as I did.

The selection of the right IoT Connectivity Service Provider is a strategic decision for any Digital Transformation initiative, especially in enterprises adopting new resilient business models and optimizations of business processes. Some criteria you must consider selecting  your IoT CSP are:

• Your internal capabilities
• The offering: IoT Connectivity Services / IoT Managed Connectivity Services / IoT Connectivity Security Service / eSim Services
• The cost of the IoT Connectivity Services and the flexibility of the tariffs
• The type of IoT networks they have deployed and the coverage
• The alliances with other IoT Connectivity Service Providers for global deployments
• The types of M2M/IoT certified devices / modules and their applicability to your use cases.
• The experience and references in your industry and vertical solution
• The capabilities of their IoT Connectivity and Device Management Platforms
• Open APIS for Integration with your Enterprise Systems
• BSS/OSS systems and their applicability to your use
• New business models eg IOTConnectivity as a Service
• Levels of Support
• Ecosystem of partners

Key Takeaways

It is not worth spending one minute more crying for the reasons that MNOs were unable to energize the IoT market earlier. We are where we are and the future is still bright, for those who really know how to see it.

The selection of the right IoT Connectivity Service Provider for your enterprise is a strategic decision. When my clients ask which is the best IoT Connectivity Service Provider? my first advice is: ". Let's define together your digital strategy, prioritize key uses cases, analyze new business model and your internal capabilities first and then work on the IoT Connectivity technology needed , which connectivity services comply with your requirements  and finally build a detailed business case that justify the value of your investment".

There is no best IoT connectivity Technology. It all depends on the use cases and the business model.

Guest post by Peter A. Liss.

Connectivity is wrongly thought of as a commodity, including in the IoT context. This article will give an overview of current developments in IoT Connectivity, and look at their effect on Network Operators, Platform vendors, IoT Solution Providers, and Enterprise & Consumer customers. 

I also cover the likely impact of 5G, Narrowband IoT and programmable SIM cards, and SDN (Software Defined Networks). These new connectivity technologies will bring differentiation, innovation and new revenue from IoT.

OVERVIEW – CONNECTIVITY AND DIFFERENTIATION IN IOT

These new IoT developments include:

1.   Newer networks such Sigfox, LoRA, Narrowband IoT, and soon 5G.

2.   IoT platforms that can manage all types of connectivity.

3.   The growth of eUICC (e-SIMs) or programmable SIMs.

4.   IoT connectivity platforms using SDN (Software Defined Networks).

There are two opposing views about connectivity. On the one extreme, some Vendors pitch that “IoT Connectivity is the foundation of differentiation” (recent Ericsson Webinar). At the other extreme, some Enterprise customers buying these services assume “all IoT connectivity is the same”. 

In my view, the truth is in the middle. On the one hand, IoT hardware such as sensors and IoT applications could drive even bigger differentiation and innovation than the type of IoT connectivity. On the other hand, IoT connectivity should never be viewed as just a commodity that is plug and play.

HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE WITH IOT CONNECTIVITY:

Let’s take a closer look:

1)   There are many different types of Connectivity to choose from (cellular, WiFi, Zigbee, Satellite, and different types of LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Networks). The criteria for selection include data cost, device cost, data rate/speed, battery life, outdoor and in-building coverage, and latency. Some of the much talked about networks like 5G are not yet available, and Narrowband IoT is in its infancy.

2)   The variety of connectivity offerings are increasing. Even taking a single technology like 4G, the offerings in terms of coverage, cost, roaming, integration effort, and customer service do differ widely.

3)   Costs are declining– the cost per MB has decreased, however, this is not the same as connectivity being a commodity (i.e. indistinct service). On the contrary, with more offerings and price competition, there is a greater need to choose the connectivity provider carefully. Pricing models may differentiate not only on cost per MB, but also with additional charges for VAS, the period charged for (monthly, per annum etc.) or number of connections included, or amount of data included in a packaged price. In the case of LPWA, charging can be per message, and not just per MB.

4)   The IoT Connectivity platform is where some of the disruption is happening. This platform manages the cost of connection, quality of service, SIM and device status. Along with the type of connectivity chosen, hardware (gateways & sensors), and IoT Applications built, the connectivity platform will be a key differentiator to your business case or service launch. 

My scheme below shows the place of the IoT Connectivity Management platform as the foundation of the IoT technology stack. Some differentiation could be achieved at any level in the Stack, but the effort required to offer a total solution will depend greatly on the Connectivity chosen at the bottom of the stack.

WHAT USER CASES WILL NARROWBAND IOT SUPPORT?

Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) greatly improves network efficiency and spectrum efficiency and can thus support a massive number of new connections. The same is true of the sister technology Cat-M1 in US, which may also play a role in Europe in future. The majority of these new IoT connections will be industrial IoT (IIoT) solutions that require long battery life, and ubiquitous coverage (including remote areas or indoors). These user cases also require competitive pricing models for low bandwidth solutions, since many industrial IoT cases are not data hungry. 

Some examples of Industrial use cases are monitoring of oil and gas pipelines for flow rates and leaks, noting that often there is no external power in inaccessible areas. Warehouses are another industrial user case for tracking goods with pallets equipped with an NB-IoT module. NB-IoT modules have a long service life, require no maintenance and have a link budget gain of 20 decibel compared with a conventional LTE deployment, giving approximately 10x more coverage than a normal base station, thus penetrating deep underground, and into enclosed spaces indoors. 

Consumer examples of NB-IoT are luggage tracking (click for link to Sierra Wireless Case study), air quality monitoring, and children’s communication devices, and parking solutions.

NB-IoT, is a software upgrade to existing cellular Base Stations (or if the Base Station is old, a new circuit board must be inserted). The Core network also needs some upgrading. NB-IoT is reliant on a SIM card in the IoT device/gateway and partly because of the SIM it offers the same security & privacy features expected of cellular networks. LPWA technologies, such as NB-IoT and category M1 (LTE-M), also offer increased network coverage over a wide area, at a low cost, and with very limited energy consumption. In the case of Narrowband IoT, a battery life of over 10 years or more, is promised by Vendors (it remains to be seen - in the field, it might need a larger battery at an extra cost of approximately 20 Euro).

NB-IoT networks are already becoming available, for example, Deutsche Telekom has rolled out its NB-IoT network to approximately 600 towns and cities across Germany since launch in June 2017. According to Telekom, more than 200 companies now trialling the technology already via commercially available test packages. Nationwide rollout in the Netherlands was completed in May 2017 and Deutsche Telekom brought the technology to six further European markets by the end of 2017. Other major operators have similar roll outs for NB-IoT.

As expected, many IoT platforms are now being designed or upgraded to offer Narrowband IoT connectivity management. Cisco already announced in 2018 the availability of NB-IoT on its Jasper Control Center platform.

WHAT WILL 5G BRING TO IOT?

5G is not yet available commercially, and we can expect the first roll-outs in selected countries in 2019, and even then, just city coverage, or home-based 5G. High speed, high reliability and low latency are the main benefits of 5G.  Whilst NB-IoT is targeted specifically at the IoT Market, 5G is targeted at business & consumer users too. Also, worth noting is that the NB-IoT roll-out is ahead of 5G.

Regarding the high bandwidth of 5G, example uses include security cameras and monitoring, computer vision used in Industrial production, connected car user cases (infotainment, autonomous vehicles, and safety), and traffic control in Smart Cities. The increase in speed between 4G and 5G can be as much as 100 times. This makes a big difference to user cases that require uploading and downloading of video-based content faster and in larger volume.  It remains to be seen whether IoT applications will need to use such high data speeds. Perhaps it will be the Augmented or Virtual Reality cases (AR and VR) that utilise this bandwidth.

With 5G there is very high reliability, which is important to support mission critical services in IoT (e.g. medicine, industry, traffic control). However, the real benefit for IoT is likely to be with the low latency of 5G. Low latency allows more of the computer processing or data analysis required by a device (IoT Gateway or Smartphone) to happen in the cloud. With latency of under a millisecond, there is almost no difference that the data is processed in the cloud rather than the device. This has perhaps more implications for the IOT Solution architect, rather than the user.

Indeed, the user cases that depend on 5G’s low latency are still to be proven in practice. For non-IoT user cases (i.e. human interaction), the latency (such as changing of a pixel on a TV, or response time for instant messaging and online Presence) might not be noticed. However, for an M2M or IoT application in theory there is a great need for low latency and a machine might notice the difference in latency when a human does not. For this reason, the low latency is being pushed by the 5G industry as compelling for IoT (but yet to be proved). IoT user cases that are expected to benefit are remote industrial control, and autonomous vehicles, where milliseconds could be critical.

As explained in the discussion of latency, one change with 5G could be more processing in the Cloud, especially with Edge computing being a focal point in the architecture, and this might help reduce 5G IoT device prices. Other Emerging developments that might affect IOT include virtualised RAN (Radio Access Network) and network slicing. Virtualised RAN is intended to offer bandwidth with lower network costs, since by “slicing” the RAN, it is not necessary to utilise the whole core network, but rather allocate a part of it and the associated costs, thus allowing for profitable use cases with 5G.

WHAT ADVANTAGES DOES A PROGRAMMABLE SIM OFFER IN IOT?

Programmable SIM cards (also called eSIMS or eUICC ) are not new. What has changed is the number of service providers that offer them for IoT. Some prominent examples are Stream, EMnify, Cubic Telecom, KORE, Nokia WING and Teleena. Furthermore, the new generation of Smart SIM and associated management platforms are challenging the MNOs in terms of quality of service and signal coverage. They might also challenge MNOs in terms of cost - see the section below on SDN.  

The “e” in eSIM can mean both electronic (it can switch network and be programmed over the air) and embedded (i.e. deep inside machinery, a car or a remote location). In other words, you do not need physical access to the embedded SIM to update it or to change network, service or security settings.

The advantages of an eSIM are that it can be programmed over the air to find the strongest signal, or according to customer network & service preferences. When a data-service failure is detected, the eSIM can switch dynamically to the best network service. Consider a user case such as Smart Metering. The meter is always connected by being programmed not only to select the strongest signal, but also to select the signal that is best for your Meter technology and customer requirements.

In sum, the IoT Service Provider does not own a network, but can still offer the following to its customers:

•Issue own SIM cards, that can be embedded and switch operator over the air.

•Attach to the best or cheapest radio signal (RAN) – automatically

•Billing capabilities, often in real time, for the pricing of new IoT services.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF SDN ON IOT?

As explained above, the e-SIM is the first disruptive step to being able to offer an IoT service, without being tied to one specific radio network (RAN). The second step is to bypass the Operator’s core network. This is now possible with some Service Providers using Software Defined Networks (SDN) and NFV (Network Feature Virtualisation). They have built their own virtualised core network that is cloud hosted. EMnify is one example that can offer the following advantages:

•Low cost, because designed for IoT, and using proprietary technology (therefore no licencing costs)

•Auto-configuration and scaling. Because it is Cloud Based the service is truly elastic (i.e. can be quickly and simply expanded to meet customer demand for increased data volume, or larger number of SIM cards)

•Pay-as-you-grow pricing

•Flexible and Real time billing that is accessible online

•Have own numbering resources (IMSI, IPv6, MSISDN)

•Manage your own virtual mobile IoT network including Elastic Packet Core, Subscriber Management, OSS/BSS, Management Portals and open APIs. 

•A private and secure device cloud and implement own security policies (such as own VPN – virtual private network - in the core network in the cloud).

The “Gorilla” MNO (e.g. Telekom, Verizon, Vodafone etc) is reduced to providing only the radio network, and with the eSIM you can actually switch networks. To be clear, you are not reliant on the operator for the core network at all, and you have a choice of radio network. In sum, the advantage is that such a virtual network in the Cloud allows IoT user cases that have lower revenues, because the IoT platform is designed for lower connectivity costs.

CONCLUSION – DISRUPTION IN THE IOT CONNECTIVITY MARKET

I have built the case that “boring” connectivity is going to be disruptive for IoT, and it will generate growth. In sum, this is because many IoT business models require lower costs for the lower “micro” or “mini” ARPU/revenue that they generate. Secondly, these new network technologies bring improved speed, latency, battery life, and coverage. Thirdly, new technologies like eSIM and SDN, give the customer choice and independence from the MNO.

Enterprise customers will need to get more knowledgeable about the types of connectivity on offer, and the pros and cons, and costs of each technology. Disruption in the market is starting, due to many new offerings from MNO, and MVNOs that are IOT focussed. 

Price declines for NB-IoT and 5G enabled devices will also be business drivers. Many connectivity platforms will struggle to distinguish themselves, but can do so, for example by focussing on particular Verticals, or a specific geographical focus, or own Cloud-based packet core. Enterprise customers need to get the balance between a price that enables the business case, but also choosing connectivity that provides the best service level. 

LPWA technologies such as Narrow-Band promise to open-up new business models due to lower device and connectivity costs better coverage and longer battery life. NB-IoT is still in its infancy and these benefits like lower device costs are still to be proven.  Importantly, the connectivity costs of NB-IoT (as well as module/device costs) will need to be low enough to support the proposed new business cases like parking meters, water meters, luggage tracking, pipe monitoring, and tracking goods in warehouses. 

5G for IoT will enable data hungry business models, insure against capacity constraints, and provide wider coverage and almost no latency. Since 5G roll-out is still in the future, it remains to be seen if (or when) the required network density (using such small cells) is enough to provide the wider coverage and higher data rates promised. Almost zero latency is likely to be the most interesting feature of 5G for the IoT World, especially for critical applications like autonomous driving and industrial control.

Big data, Analytics and Application Enablement Platforms/AEP might sound more exciting and promising for innovation and differentiation in IoT. They sound more compelling than a connectivity management platform and new types of connectivity. However, Connectivity is still the foundation of the IoT business case. It is not a commodity. In particular, Narrow-Band IoT, eSIM and SDN will drive new growth in IoT, together with the imminent roll-out of 5G.

Copyright: Peter A. Liss, an independent and commercially focussed IoT expert, based in Germany, who is also available for freelance consulting work.

This post originally appeared here.

Cover photo by Federico Beccari on Unsplash

Last week I had the pleasure of speaking with Vivek Mohan, director for Semtech’s Wireless and Sensing Products Group. I originally inquired about a piece I was working on around IoT and agriculture. (I love stories about IoT and agriculture. We have several takes on it here, here and here.) Turns out they had an announcement with Chipsafer whereby cattle tags now allow ranchers to monitor vital signs and reduce cattle theft. While we discussed innovations in ranching, we also talked about the rapid growth of LoRA, a long range, low power wireless platform for building IoT networks.

LoRa has gone from inception in 2013 to over 500 members in the LoRa Alliance in 2017. What is driving so much interest in LoRa?

Clearly there was a market need for a disruptive technology, such as Semtech’s LoRa® devices and radio frequency technology (LoRa Technology), guided by a collaborative, open industry alliance which was not being addressed by existing solutions. LoRa Technology’s feature set allows for expansion and adoption at a price point that works for most consumers, be it a cattle rancher in Brazil or a shipping giant in the United States. LoRa Technology covers a wide area, requires little to no maintenance, costs less to deploy, and costs less to maintain in service.

Before LoRa, what options were there for companies and what are the other options today?

Before LoRa, the main options were Bluetooth, WiFi and cellular networks and many proprietary implementations. Those technologies don’t work best for the growth of IoT anymore and certainly don’t address LPWAN the way that LoRa does, given their network and cost limitations. LoRa Technology’s purpose is to drive the growth of IoT by making devices with a powerful feature set, making it easy to deploy and is financially viable to benefit consumers and manufacturers.

What sectors are best suited for LoRa?

LoRa Technology has many applications, including supply chain & logistics, smart cities, smart buildings and homes, agriculture, metering, environmental safety, and industrial. With its key three features – low-power, low-cost and an open interoperable standard – LoRa is desirable for any industry that want to develop an IoT solution.

You recently announced with Chipsafer that you’ve conducted three pilot programs for its cattle management solutions in Namibia, Kenya, and Luxembourg. What was that all about?

Chipsafer used LoRa-enabled devices to tag cattle to monitor their location and vital signs, and used LoRaWAN-based gateways to create a network for the ranchers. Chipsafer was able to bring IoT and valuable data to ranchers in remote locations. Chipsafer is now expanding its pilot program to Brazil and Uruguay, as well as other locations around the globe. This has a lot of practical benefits previously not available to cattle ranchers around the world and improves quality and safety for consumers.

What’s next for the LoRa standard?

The LoRa Alliance membership is growing and LoRaWAN networks are expanding constantly. Actility and LORIOT were part of LoRaWAN network expansions in China and Mexico, respectively. The LoRaWan standard gives users, developers and businesses freedom to use IoT in the ways that they need. 

What do you think the most pressing challenges are when it comes to IoT?

The most pressing challenges for IoT are: interoperability of various networks as the market is still fragmented with many technology platforms, security for billions of sensors and the data they produce, providing carrier grade quality, and reliability at consumer price points as these sensors will last for multiple years and in some cases may be hard to reach/replace. These challenges are tied together because adoption will slow down if IoT options are not available at accessible prices, and the devices will not be economically-feasible if there is little adoption. This is why the LoRa Alliance is so important; we are more than 500 members developing devices, technologies and applications under the same set of guidelines, with the same purpose of making the Internet of Things possible.

What excites you most about the future of IoT? Any examples you can give of applications LoRa will enable in the near future?

It is the seemingly endless number of applications people are finding for IoT. IoT is modernizing industries that were in dire need of an update, and promoting the importance of data intelligence across all sectors. More and more devices and applications come out every day it seems, and that is very exciting for Semtech to see. In the near future we will see more solutions leveraging artificial intelligence and Cloud computing to realize the full potential of IoT.

Anything else you’d like to add?

Our goal with LoRa is to make IoT accessible to everyone in every sector, and provide the highest quality products and service at a price that makes adoption possible. The LoRa Alliance continues to grow and we are committed to establishing a strong IoT network that our customers can leverage to build cutting-edge IoT applications.

*Semtech, the Semtech logo, and LoRa are registered trademarks or service marks, and LoRaWAN is a trademark or service mark, of Semtech Corporation or its affiliates.

Guest post by Preston Tesvich. This article originally appeared here.

Let’s say you’re in the planning phase of an IoT project. You have a lot of decisions to make, and maybe you're not sure where to start:

In this article, we focus on a framework of how you can think about this problem of standards, protocols, and radios. 

The framework of course depends on if your deployment is going to be internal, such as in a factory, or external, such as a consumer product. In this conversation we’ll focus on products that are launching externally to a wider audience of customers, and for that we have a lot to consider.

Let’s look at the state of the IoT right now— bottom line, there’s not a standard that’s so prolific or significant that you’re making a mistake by not using it. What we want to do, then, is pick the thing that solves the problem that we have as closely as possible and has acceptable costs to implement and scale, and not worry too much about fortune telling the future popularity of that standard.  

So, it first comes down to technical constraints:
    - What are the range and bandwidth requirements? 
    - How many nodes are going to be supported in the network?
    - What is the cost for the radio? 

That radio choice has big impacts—not only is it a hefty line item on your BOM on its own, it’s also going to determine the resources that the device needs as well. For example, if you have a WiFi radio at the end, there’s considerable CPU and memory expectations, whereas if we have BLE or some mesh network, it’ll need a lot less. There’s infrastructure scaling costs to consider as well. If we go WiFi: is there WiFi infrastructure already in place where this is being deployed? How reliable is it? If we’re starting from scratch, what’s the plan for covering a large area? That can become very costly, especially if you’re using industrial grade access points, so it’s important to consider these effects that are downstream of your decision.

Zooming in on specific standards

In our opinion, the biggest misconception we find: “Isn’t there going to be one standard to rule them all?” There’s no future of that, and it’s not just because we’re never going to all agree on stuff as an industry, it’s because in many cases different standards aren’t solving the same problems differently, they are solving different problems. So understanding that, we can now look at what each protocol attempts to solve and where they live on the OSI model, or "the stack."

MQTT

Some would suggest that it is a full protocol to do communication from a device to a server, but it’s not quite that. MQTT is used as a data format to communicate to something, and that payload can be sent over any transport, be it WiFi, mesh, or some socket protocol. What it tries to solve is to define a way to manipulate attributes of some thing. It centers around reading and writing properties, which lends itself very well to an IoT problem. It certainly saves development time in some regards, but depending on how strictly you’re trying to implement it, it may cost you more development time. As soon as you one-off any part of it, you have to document it really well, and at some point you approach a time and cost factor where implementing your own payload scheme may be a better option.

Is it prolific enough to where you should absolutely use it? No, it hasn't reached that level, and it won’t likely reach that level. What it is right now is a convenient standard for device-direct-to-cloud where we don’t control both ends because it gives some measure of a common language that we can agree on; however, the thing to keep in mind is that most of the time it does in fact need additional documentation—what properties are being read/written and what the exact implementation looks like—ultimately, you’re not getting out of a lot of work using MQTT.

Zigbee and Z-wave

Also starting at the network layer, Zigbee and Z-wave are the big incumbents everyone likes for mesh networking. They attempt to solve two problems: provide a reasonable specification to move packets from one place to another on a mesh network, and actually suggest how those packets should be structured; so, they both reach up higher in the stack. And that's the part hinders their futures. For example, Zigbee uses a system called profiles, which are collections of capabilities, such as the smart energy profile or the home automation profile. When a protocol gets so specific as to say ‘this is what a light bulb does’ it’s pretty difficult to implement devices that aren’t included in the profile. While there are provisions for custom data, you’re not really using a cross-compatible spec at that point—you’re basically off the standard as soon as you’re working with a device not defined in the profile.  

The other consideration with these two is that they are both routed mesh networks. We use one node to communicate with another node using intervening nodes. In other words, we can send a message from A to B to C to D, but in practice we’ve sent a message from A to D. As routed meshes, each node understands the path the message needs to take, and that has an in-memory cost associated with it. While Z-wave and Zigbee have a theoretical limit of 65,535 nodes on a network (the address space is a 16-bit integer), the practical limit is closer to few hundred nodes, because these devices are usually low power, low memory devices. The routing also has a time cost, so a large mesh network may manifest unacceptable latency for your use case. Another consideration, especially if you’re launching a cloud controlled consumer product, is that these mesh networks can’t directly connect to the internet—they require an intervening bridge (a.k.a gateway, hub, edge server) to communicate to the cloud.   

A final caveat is that Z-wave is a single source supplier—the radios are made and sold by Zensys, so you have to buy it from them. Zigbee has a certification process, and there are multiple suppliers of the radio, from Atmel to TI.

Bluetooth

You really just can’t compete with the amount of silicon being shipped based on Bluetooth. 10,000 unique SKUs were launched in Bluetooth in 2014. Other than WiFi, there’s nothing that compares in terms of adoption. Bluetooth was originally designed for  ‘personal area networks,’  with the original standard supporting 7 concurrent devices. And now we have Bluetooth low energy (BLE) which has a theoretically infinite limit. BLE did a ton to optimize around IoT challenges. They looked heavily at the amount of energy required to support a communication. They considered every facet of "low energy," not just the radio-- they looked at data format, packet size, how long the radio needed to be on to transmit those packets, how much memory was required to support it, what the power cost was for that memory, and what the protocol expects of the CPU, all while keeping overall BOM costs in mind. For example, they figured out that the radio should only be on for 1.5ms at a time. That’s a sweet spot—if you transmit for longer, the components heat up and thus require more power. They also figured out that button cell batteries are better at delivering power in short bursts as opposed to continuously. Further, they optimized it to be really durable against WiFi interference because the protocols share the same radio space (2.4GHz).

And then CSR came along and implemented a mesh standard over Bluetooth. Take all the advantages afforded with BLE, and then get all the benefits of a mesh network. The Bluetooth Mesh is flood mesh, meaning instead of specific routing to nodes, a message is sent indiscriminately across all nodes. This scales better than routed mesh because there’s no memory constraints. It’s a good solution for many problems in the IoT and at scale is probably going to be the lowest cost to implement. 

Thread

An up and coming standard that’s built on top of the same silicon that powers the Zigbee radio. It solves the problem of mesh nodes not being able to communicate directly to the cloud by adding IPv6 support, meaning that nodes on the network can make fully qualified internet requests. There’s a lot of weight behind this standard. Google seems to think it’s interesting enough to make their own protocol (known as “Weave”) on top of it. And then there’s Nest Weave which is some other version of Google Weave. As it stands, it takes a long time for a standard to really take hold-- you can immediately see how the story with Thread is a little muddier, which will not help its adoption. It’s also solving a problem that it just doesn’t seem that many devices have. Let’s take sensors as an example. Do these low power, lightweight, low cost, low memory, low processing, fairly dumb devices NEED to make internet requests directly? With Thread, each node now knows a lot more about the world—where your servers are for example, and maybe they shouldn’t be concerned with those things, because not only do the requirements of the device increase, but now the probability and frequency of having to update them in the field goes way up. When it comes to the actual sensors and other endpoints, philosophically you want minimize those responsibilities, except in special cases where offline durability, local processing and decision making is required (this is called fog computing).

When Thread announced their product certification last year, only 30 products submitted. Another thing to note about Thread's adoption is that the mesh-IPv6 problem has been solved before-- there’s actually a spec in Bluetooth 4.2 that adds IPv6 routing to Bluetooth, but very few people are using it. Although Nordic Semiconductor thought it was going to be a big deal and went ahead and implemented it first, it just hasn’t come up much in the industry—that happened Q4 2014 and no one’s talking about it.

One thing Thread does have going for it is that it steps out of defining how devices talk to each other, and how devices format their data—doing this makes it more future proof. This is where Weave comes in, because it does suppose how the data should be structured. So basically a way to look at it is that Weave + Thread = direct Zigbee/Z-wave competitor. We haven’t seen anyone outside of Google really take an initiative on Weave, other than Nest who have put a good marketing effort into making it look like they are getting traction with it.

AllJoyn

Other protocols live higher in the stack and remain agnostic at the network layer. The most well known of these is probably Qualcomm’s Alljoyn effort. They have the Allseen Alliance, although their branding is a bit murky—Allplay, AllShare, etc. We’ve seen some traction with it, but not a ton-- the biggest concern that it’s fighting is that it’s a really open ended protocol, loosely defined enough that you’re really not going to build something totally interoperable with everything else. That’s a big risk for product teams. If there aren’t enough devices in the world that speak that language, then why do I need to speak it? That said, LIFX implemented it, and it worked really well for them, especially since Windows implemented it as well. Now it’s part of Windows 10—there’s a layer specifically for AllJoyn stuff and it seems to do well. There's evidence with AllJoyn that you can bring devices to the table that don’t know anything about each other and get some kind of durable interoperability. However, at a glance, it seems complicated—the way authorization is dealt with and the way devices need to negotiate with each other. There really isn't runaway adoption. 

IEEE’s WiFi

They’ve ruled the roost with their 802.11 series. B then G then A, and now we have AC. 802.11 has been really good at being simple to set up and being high bandwidth. It doesn’t care about power consumption, it’s more concerned with performance because it’s meant to be a replacement for wires. Almost 2 years ago, they announced 802.11 AH which they’ve branded as HaLow, which attempts to address power, range, and pairing concerns of classic WiFi. Most WiFi devices are not headless ("headless" - no display or other input), they have a rich user interface—meaning we can login and configure them to connect to WiFi. Pairing headless devices has been a very tedious process. With HaLow, they’re solving two problems—how do we get things on easier, and how do we decrease the expectations (particularly power) of the device running the radio. It’s too early to know what type of traction this will get, but IEEE has a great track record at standards adoption.

LoRa and SIGFOX

More like: LoRa vs. SIGFOX. With these protocols we’re looking at how to connect things over fairly long distances, such as in smart city applications. LoRaWAN is an open protocol that's following a bottoms-up adoption strategy. SIGFOX is building out the infrastructure from the top down, and handing APIs to their customers. In that way, SIGFOX is more like a service. It'll be interesting to see the dance-off between these two as the IoT is adopted in these more public-type applications. 

That’s the body of standards that need to be addressed. There’s a ton more, but we don’t see them as exciting for the IoT today.

- P