Supplier eBooks

17 In contrast, LPWAN providers have no such advantages. As they are entirely new entities in the wireless world, every system in every area where coverage is desired must be built from the ground up. They also have a limited time in which to deploy these networks in key (typically urban) areas, as the cellular industry is rapidly rolling out its IoT-centric data plans. Fortunately, LPWAN systems are less expensive to build and deploy than cellular networks, do not always require leasing space on a tower, and can cover wide geographical areas with fewer base stations. The question today is whether LPWAN providers can survive in a cellular-dominated world. Most analysts believe they will, as they offer similar capabilities to cellular networks such as carrier-grade security and other mandatory features, and may become cost-com- petitive for customers. Analysts also suggest that at least half of IoT use cases can be served by LPWANs. So, it's a relatively safe bet that, while the cellular industry will have a commanding presence in delivering IoT connectivity, there will still be room for LPWAN providers in what is likely to become a price war within individual markets. Cellular IoT As mentioned previously, the cellular industry is developing solutions for IoT connectivity based on LTE. The industry's overall roadmap is to build on current versions of LTE and continue to refine it, including reducing its complexity and cost. As this process unfolds, cellular technology will become better suited to a wider variety of IoT applications, ultimately leading to the introduction of the fifth generation of cellular technology, 5G. The consensus in the industry appears to be based on the use of three different standards mostly introduced in Release 13 to achieve this goal, ultimately resulting in what is included in the 5G standards. These solutions should ideally be implemented at frequencies below 1GHz where propagation conditions are more conducive to longer-range and building penetration: • LTE-M: Also called enhanced Machine Type Communica- tion (eMTC), evolved from the LTE standard in Release 12 (2014) with further advances included in Release 13. • NB-IoT: A narrowband version of LTE for IoT included in Release 13. • EC-GSM-IoT: Extended Coverage-GSM for IoT is an extended coverage variation of Global System for Mobile Communi- cations technology that was optimized for IoT in Release 13 and can be deployed along with a GSM carrier. • 5G: Will be standardized by 2020, enhancing NB-IoT and EC-GSM-IoT. The presumption is that, as the requirements for IoT are significantly different than those for traditional cellular operation, future developments should positively impact battery life using a power saving mode, reduce the complexity and thus cost of devices, reduce the cost of deployment by sharing carrier capacity, and enable broad coverage through the adoption of more advanced coding and increasing signals' spectral density. Table 1 illustrates the evolution of cellular technology. For example, Release 8 offered peak downlink rates up to 150mbs as it was designed for traditional cellular applications. However, data rates decline precipitously to 150kbs in narrowband to accommodate IoT requirements. The same is true for the channel bandwidths of user equipment, which declines from a maximum of 18MHz in Release 8 to 180kHz in narrowband IoT. Another important factor is the complexity of the modem, which decreases by 85 percent over time. In short, the evolution of cellular technology to meet the needs of IoT is in many respects precisely the opposite of what is hoped to be achieved in 5G for traditional voice and data services. That is, rather than increasing data rates, it reduces them along with the overall complexity of cellular IoT networks and their components. The LPWAN Alternatives LPWAN providers use either open standards such as LoRaWAN, administered by the LoRaWAN Alliance, or proprietary solutions like Sigfox, both of which operate in unlicensed spectrum. Although Sigfox claims it's the world's leading IoT connectivity service with service available in 32 countries (mostly in Europe), LoRaWAN has gained the widest industry acceptance with more than 400 members in the alliance. This translates into continually decreasing cost of LoRa baseband and RF hardware, which has already dropped by more than half and will likely decline further as volume increases. LoRaWAN It's important to differentiate LoRa, LoRaWAN, and offerings by LinkLabs, as it can be a bit confusing. LoRa is the physical layer of the open standard administered by the LoRaWAN Alliance, while LoRaWAN is the Media Access Control (MAC) layer that provides networking functionality. LinkLabs is a member of the LoRaWAN Alliance that uses the Sematech LoRa chipset and provides a solution called Symphony Link that has features unique to the company, such as the ability to operate without a network server. Symphony Link uses an eight-channel base station operating in the 433MHz or 915MHz Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) bands as well as the 868MHz band used in Europe. It can transmit over a range of at least 10 miles and backhauls data using either Wi-Fi, a cellular network, or Ethernet using a cloud server to handle message routing, provisioning, and network management. Sigfox Sigfox was created by the French company by the same name. One of the major differences between it and LoRaWAN is that Sigfox owns all of its technology from the edge to the server and endpoint, and it effectively functions as the supplier of the entire ecosystem or, in some cases, as the network operator itself. However, the company allows its endpoint technology to be used free of charge by any organization that agrees to its terms, so it has been able to establish relationships with major IoT device suppliers and even some wireless carriers. Along with LoRaWAN, Sigfox continues to gain in market share, especially in Europe where its transmission length adheres to European Union guidelines. The version used in the U.S. is signifi- cantly different in order to meet Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules. The only drawback of Sigfox is its proprietary nature. Weightless Weightless is an anomaly among IoT connectivity solutions, as it was developed as a truly open standard managed by the Weightless Special Interest Group. It gets its name from its "lightweight" protocol that typically requires only a few bytes of data per transmission. This makes it an excellent choice for IoT devices that communicate very little information such as some types of industrial and medical equipment, as well as electric Table 1: The Evolution of Cellular IoT Technology Specification Release 8, Cat. 4 Release 8, Cat. 1 Release 13, Cat. 1 (eMTC, LTE-M) Release 13, Cat. NB1 (NB-IoT) Peak download rate 150 Mb/s 10 Mb/s 1 Mb/s 170 kb/s User device receive (channel) bandwidth 1 to 18 MHz 1 to 18 MHz 1.08 MHz 180 kHz Maximum user device transmit power (dBm) 23 23 20/23 20/23 Modem complexity (%) 100 (baseline) 80 20 15

• Cover