Daniel - Sjöström With Cover PDF

DEGREE PROJECT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING,
SECOND LEVEL
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2017
Unlicensed and licensed

low-power wide area networks
Exploring the candidates for massive IoT
DANIEL SJÖSTRÖM
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
Unlicensed and licensed
low-power wide area networks
Exploring the candidates for
massive IoT
Daniel Sjöström
2017-09-24
Master’s Thesis
Examiner
Gerald Q. Maguire Jr.
Academic adviser
Anders Västberg
Industrial adviser
Viktor Dahl
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Department of Communication Systems
SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
i
Abstract
In the Internet of things (IoT), many applications will require low-power
and low-cost to achieve long lifetime and scale (respectively). These types of
applications are referred to as massive IoT, as opposed to critical IoT, which
emphasizes ultra-high reliability and availability and low latency. One type
of network catering to massive IoT applications are Low-Power Wide Area
Networks (LPWANs), and presently, many LPWAN standards are trying to
assert their role in the IoT ecosystem.
This thesis explores LPWANs from both technical and non-technical

perspectives to ascertain their use-case versatility and influence on the
future telecommunications’ landscape. With respect to spectrum, the studied
LPWANs may be categorized as unlicensed LPWAN or licensed LPWAN.
The prior category typically refers to proprietary solutions and in this
thesis are represented by SigFox and LoRaWAN. The latter group includes
EC-GSM-IoT, eMTC, and NB-IoT and can be considered synonymous with
cellular LPWAN because they are designed to be integrated into existing
cellular infrastructures.
The results indicate that all of the different types of explored LPWANs
support applications without strict downlink, payload size, and latency
requirements. For use cases without these specific demands (typically
sensors, meters, tracking, etc.), it is not a question of whether or not a
network fulfills the requirements, but rather how flexible the requirements
are. As a result the choice of network will be determined by non-technical
aspects and a cost versus functionality trade-off where unlicensed LPWAN
is typically cheaper. Hence, both categories of LPWANs offer a unique
value proposition; therefore, they can be considered complementary. This
notion is reinforced when looking at non-technical aspects such as ecosystem,
regulation, network ownership and control, and network coordination,
which differ quite significantly. Furthermore, unlicensed LPWANs are likely
to be the vanguard of a new type of competitor offering the core service of
connectivity.
iii
Abstrakt
Inom Internet of Things (IoT) kommer många applikationer att kräva låg
effekt och låg kostnad för att uppnå en lång livstid och skala. Dessa typer av
applikationer refereras till som massiv IoT, vilket står i motsats till kritisk IoT
som kräver ultrahög tillförlitlighet och tillgänglighet och låg fördröjning. En
typ av nätverk som ämnar tillgodose kraven av massiv IoT är Low-Power
Wide Area Networks (LPWANs), och idag försöker många av dessa hävda
sig inom IoT ekosystemet.
Detta examensarbete undersöker LPWANs from ett teknisk och

icke-tekniskt perspektiv för att utröna deras mångsidighet och påverkan
på det framtida telekomlandskapet. Med avseende på spektrum kan de i
detta examensarbete undersökta nätverken kategoriseras som olicensierat
LPWAN eller licensierat LPWAN. Den tidigare hänvisar typiskt till
proprietära lösningar och representeras i detta arbete av SigFox och
LoRaWAN. Den senare kategorin består av EC-GSM-IoT, eMTC, och NB-IoT
och kan betraktas som synonymt med mobil LPWAN eftersom de designade
för att bli integrerade i existerande mobila nätverk.
Resultaten indikerar att alla nätverk stödjer applikationer utan strikta

krav när det gäller nedlänkens funktionalitet, mängden data per
meddelande, och fördröjning. För applikationer utan dessa specifika krav
(typiskt sensorer, mätare, spårning, etc.) är det inte en fråga om huruvida ett
nätverk uppfyller kraven eller ej, utan snarare hur flexibla kraven är. Därför
kommer valet av nätverk att bestämmas av icke-tekniska aspekter och en
avvägning mellan kostnad och funktionalitet vari olicensierat LPWAN är
vanligtvis billigare. Därmed erbjuder båda kategorier av nätverk en unik
värde proposition och kan därför betraktas som komplementerande. Denna
föreställning är förstärkt av att nätverken skiljer sig signifikant när det gäller
deras icke-tekniska aspekter såsom ekosystem, reglering, ägandeskap och
kontroll, och nätverks koordinering. Dessutom är olicensierade LPWANs
troligen är förtruppen av en ny typ av konkurrent som erbjuder den
grundläggande servicen av konnektivitet.
v
Acknowledgements
This work was carried out during 2017 at EY (Stockholm) and the school of
information and communication technology at KTH.
I would like to thank my supervisor Viktor Dahl, management consultant

at EY, for our insightful discussions and for giving me the opportunity to
write this thesis at EY. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor
Gerald Q. Maguire at KTH for accepting my thesis proposal, taking on
the role of examiner, and especially for his support and understanding. I
also owe my thanks to Mats Landstedt, CEO of IoT Sweden, and Magnus
Sparrholm, founder of Talkpool, for our valuable discussions.
vii
Contents
Abstract i
Abstrakt iii
Acknowledgements v
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Structure of thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Background 7
2.1 LPWANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Regulation and standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Standardization terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3 US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 SigFox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Spectrum and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2 Technology of SigFox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Physical layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Co-existence and resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Cloud/backend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Security & authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Base stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Roaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SigFox Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.3 SigFox’s Non-technological Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Business model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Intellectual property rights and compliance . . . . . . . 23
Commercial aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Actors and activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 LoRaWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
viii

2.4.3 Technology of LoRaWAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Physical layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Co-existence and resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Cloud/backend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Security & authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Base stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Roaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
LoRaWAN Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4.4 LoRaWAN’s Non-technological Aspects . . . . . . . . . 39
Business model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Intellectual property rights and compliance . . . . . . . 40
Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Actors and activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Commercial aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.5 Cellular technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.1 3GPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.2 From Existing M2M to cellular LPWAN . . . . . . . . . 45
2.6 EC-GSM-IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.6.2 Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.6.3 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.6.4 Co-existence and resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.6.5 Security & authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.6.6 Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
PSM and eDRX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
EC-GSM-IoT modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.6.7 Roaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.6.8 EC-GSM-IoT Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.6.9 Ecosystem and commercial aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.7 LTE-IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.7.2 Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.7.3 Physical Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
eMTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
NB-IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.7.4 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
eMTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
NB-IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.7.6 Security & authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.7.7 LTE-IoT Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.7.8 Ecosystem and commercial aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
eMTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
NB-IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
ix
2.8 Current debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2.8.1 Licensed LPWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
GSMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Ericsson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Nokia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.8.2 Unlicensed LPWANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
SigFox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
LoRa Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3 Methodology 69
3.1 Research Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2 Research Paradigm and research gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.3 Assessing reliability and validity of the data collected . . . . . 70
4 Interviews 71
4.1 IoT Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2 Talkpool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5 Analysis & Discussion 75

5.1 Technical Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.1.1 Data rate and coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.1.2 Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.1.4 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Device and message capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.1.5 Mobility and positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.1.6 Battery lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.1.7 Results of Technical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.2 Non-technical comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.1 Ecosystem and Intellectual property . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.2 Radio Module Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2.3 Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2.4 Subscription Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.5 Base station cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.2.6 Results of non-Technical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3.1 Use Case Technical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3.2 Use Case Non-Technical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.3.3 Future Telecommunications Landscape . . . . . . . . . 95
6 Conclusions and Future work 97

6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.2 Ethical and Sustainability Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.3 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
xi
List of Figures
1.1 M2M and IoT paradigms with respect to commercial aspects.

This figure appears here with the permission of Nick Hunn [6]. 2
1.2 IoT technologies grouped by range, courtesy of Keysight
technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 LPWA entities, adapted from [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 SigFox’s network topology, adapted from [49] . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 SigFox’s coverage in Europe as of 2017-05-25. Blue and
purple represents live coverage and country under roll-out
respectively [61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 Semtech SX1272 chip, Spreading factor & bandwidth vs.
Sensitivity (range), data points from [75] . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5 LoRaWAN network topology, adapted from [74] . . . . . . . . 31
2.6 LoRaWAN deployments [98] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.7 3GPP IoT standardization, adopted from Rohde & Schwarz
[12], [116]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.8 PSM and eDRX battery life optimization, adapted from
Qualcomm [126]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1 Thesis flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.1 Maximum data rate and coverage profiles in different

environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.2 SigFox battery lifetime for 2 or 12 messages per day (24 h)
for both an ideal and non-ideal battery (2% self-discharge per
month) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.3 Technical comparison: Performance is indicated on a scale
from low (0) to high (10). The confidence of each ranking is
indicated by the percentage associated with the name of each
metric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
xiii
List of Tables
2.1 Regulatory parameters for the EU 863-870 MHz SRD band and
sub bands [33] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Atmel ATA8520E [56] with pricing information from [57]. . . . 20
2.3 Overview of SigFox’s technological characteristics according
to SigFox and other sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 The available offerings from SigFox’s official web shop [70]. . 25
2.5 The SigFox partner network [72]. Note not all SigFox entities
are registered as a SigFox partner, and some companies may
appear in several categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6 LoRa modules, all uncited data is from Semtech [87] . . . . . 36
2.7 Overview of LoRaWAN’s technological characteristics
according to the LoRa Alliance, Semtech and other sources. . . 38
2.8 A selection of LoRaWAN deployments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.9 Technological EC-GSM-IoT characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.10 3GPP LTE UE category evolution, adopted from Nokia [127],
Radio-electronics.com [130] and Qualcomm [126]. . . . . . . . 54
2.11 Commercially available LTE-IoT modules . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.12 Technological LTE-IoT characteristics according to various
sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.13 Use case categories and characteristics according to GSMA
[22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.14 Use case categories and characteristics according to Ericsson
[20] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.1 Calculated NB-IoT lifetime, by Ratasuk et al. [160] . . . . . . . 84

xv
List of Abbreviations
3GPP 3rd Generation Ppartnership Project

ABP Activation By Personalization
API Application Program Interface
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
CEPT Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
EAB Extended Access Barring
EC-EGPRS Extended Coverage - Enhanced GPRS
EC-GSM-IoT Extended Coverage GSM-IoT
EDGE Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (Also known as EGPRS)
EGPRS Enhanced GPRS
eMTC Enhanced Machine Type Communication
EPS Evolved Packet System
ERC European Radiocommunications Committee
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
FCC (United States of America) Federal Communications Commission
FCC e-CFR FCC electronic Code of Federal Regulations
FEC Forward Error Correction
FHSS Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum
FOTA Firmware Over The Air
GFSK Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GSM Global System for Mobile Communications
GSMA GSM Association
HARQ Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
ISM bands Industrial, Scientific, and Medical bands
xvi
ITU International Telecommunications Union

IoT Internet of Things
LPWA Low-Power Wide Area
LTE Long Term Evolution (4G)
M2M Machine-2-Machine
MAC Media Access Control
MNO Mobile Network Operator
MTC Machine Type Communication
NB-IoT Narrow Band IoT
OFDM Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing
OTAA Over-The-Air Activation
PAPR Peak-to-Average Power Ratio
PTS The Swedish Post and Telecom Authority
QoS Quality of Service
SC-OFDM Single Carrier-OFDM
SRD Short Range Device
SLA Service Level Agreement
SIG Special Interest Group
SoC System on Chip
TOA Time On Air
UNB Ultra Narrow Band
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Machine Type Communication (MTC), Machine-to-Machine (M2M)

communication, and the Internet of things (IoT) are three terms that
are part of a grand vision of the near-future. Ericsson calls this vision the
Networked Society, in which everything and everyone that benefits from
being connected, will be connected [1].
Laya, Ghanbari, and Markendahl claim that the three terms above are
used interchangeably, and although they complement each other, they are
not equivalent [2]. They offer the following definitions [2]: M2M is the
communication between machines and central management applications.
MTC has a similar definition; the difference is that at least one party must be
a machine, but not all. Within the field of telecommunications, MTC is more
or less regarded as the segment of M2M carried over cellular networks . IoT
was coined in 1999 by K. Ashton to describe "a world of seamless connected
devices that would save us time and money" [3]. Unlike MTC and M2M, the
term IoT includes access to the broader Internet.
Minerva, Biru, and Rotondi in contrast with Laya, Ghanbari, and

Markendahl argue that there exists no clear all-inclusive definition of
IoT that covers the range from small localized systems to larger globally
distributed systems [4]. This raises the issue of different types of systems
differentiated by communication range as will be highlighted in Section 1.1.
The most official definition of the Internet of Things is arguably the

international telecommunications union’s (ITU) version:
"A global infrastructure for the information society, enabling advanced services
by interconnecting (physical and virtual) things based on existing and evolving
interoperable information and communication technologies." [5]
Another point of view regarding the terms IoT and M2M is expressed
by Nick Hunn [6]. Hunn suggests that the term IoT was a moniker given to
M2M in an attempt to either revive a flagging M2M market by introducing
a more exciting name or to democratize M2M beyond its vertical sectors [6].
Hunn claims that the acronym was brought back from obscurity into the
mainstream by Ericsson in their annual report of 2009, and their discussion
paper titled "Towards 50 Billion Connected Devices", published in 2010
2 Chapter 1. Introduction
[6]. Ericsson’s annual report of 2009 mentions 50 billion connected "things"

[7], and their discussion paper "Towards 50 Billion Connected Devices"
published the following year uses the term "Internet of Things" [8].
Hunn goes on and offers a definition of M2M and IoT with respect to the
value of data, number of things, and cost of deployment over time, conveyed
in Figure 1.1 [6]. That the number of connected things increases because the
cost of deployment decreases is self-explanatory. A more intricate proposal
is that the value of the data will decrease before it starts to increase [6]. This
is explained by the fact that as the cost decreases, sensors will become less
application specific, therefore the data per sensor will decrease [6]. Instead,
the value of the data will arise from long-term accumulation of data or by
combining data from multiple sensors, which both take time to achieve [6].
F IGURE 1.1: M2M and IoT paradigms with respect to

commercial aspects. This figure appears here with the
permission of Nick Hunn [6].
Yockelson expresses an opinion [9] that builds on Hunn’s interpretation

of IoT. He claims that the winners in IoT are those best able to process the
harnessed information to create value for the masses and other organizations
[9]. This is in contrast to the M2M paradigm, in which the generated
information tends to be tied to a single application, and used for a single
purpose.
1.1 Background
Ericsson defines two segments within IoT: Massive IoT and Critical IoT.
Massive IoT refers to applications that require large numbers of devices, low
cost, low energy, and little data per message [10]. In contrast, Critical IoT
requires very low latency, high reliability, and availability [10]. However,
these two are considered as the extremes ends of the spectrum, and there are
1.1. Background 3
many use cases in between them.
A fundamental categorization of different IoT network technologies may

be made with respect to range, as seen in Figure 1.2 from KeySight. In each
of these categories, and to some extent in between them, several technologies
label themselves as the sole enabler of IoT. In fact, Aref Meddeb maintains
that there are so many IoT standards in development, that fragmentation
is a real issue [11]. Among other things, Meddeb claims that without
common standardization efforts, seamless interoperability will be difficult
to achieve, and therefore obstruct the realization of IoT [11]. In addition,
Meddeb proposes that the sheer number of proposals is likely to exacerbate
the on-going discussion of what IoT really is, thereby delaying necessary
regulatory frameworks [11].
F IGURE 1.2: IoT technologies grouped by range, courtesy of

Keysight technologies.
This thesis will explore networks that cater to the long range Massive
IoT segment, indicated as Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs) in
Figure 1.2. Thus far unlicensed proprietary LPWANs (LoRa, SigFox, and
others in Figure 1.2) have commercial deployments. These proprietary
players are arguably the vanguard of the IoT paradigm defined by Hunn,
as depicted in Figure 1.1. In response, the cellular industry has via the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) scrambled to standardize equivalent
licensed cellular LPWANs (Narrowband (NB)-IoT in Figure 1.2). To use
more dramatic terms, one could describe the current situation as a prelude
to war between the cellular hegemony and new entrants.
Because IoT is already happening, especially regarding massive IoT, the

role of 5G within IoT is in the present context increasingly diminishing.
4 Chapter 1. Introduction
However, 5G will to a large extent be an evolution of 4G technology. Hence,

the two cellular LPWANs based on 4G that are explored in this thesis,
NB-IoT, and eMTC, are likely to pave the way for 5G IoT, as mentioned by
Rhode & Schwarz [12].
1.2 Problem definition

Mobile network operators (MNOs) and other players will have to decide
which LPWAN or combination of LPWANs to include in their connectivity
portfolios. However, before doing so, it is necessary to ascertain the value
proposition of each LPWAN and whether or not it overlaps with others .
Some MNOs are quite clear about their choice: According to Vodafone’s
director of innovation and architectures Matt Beal, NB-IoT will "crush"
proprietary LPWANs such as SigFox and LoRa [13]. In Sweden, MNOs have
to some extent already started to explore their options. Hans Dahlberg,
Vice President of Telia Global IoT Solutions, says that Telia awaits cellular
LPWAN connectivity and are unlikely to make use of unlicensed LPWANs,
according to Iain Morris at LightReading [14]. Tele2 recently deployed a
LoRa network in Gothenburg [15], and Ervins Kampans, CTIO of Tele2
Estonia, claims that Tele2 has positioned itself at the "forefront of NB-IoT
commercialization in Europe and worldwide" [16].
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to compare the value propositions of SigFox,
LoRaWAN, EC-GSM-IoT, NB-IoT, and eMTC to conclude which ones are
needed and which not.
1.4 Goals
The goals of this degree project are:
• Ascertain the need for different LPWANs, and therein the need for
licensed or unlicensed LPWANs, by mapping use case requirements
to the following categories:
– Not possible with one or more LPWANs or

– Possible with all LPWANs, but favored by one of them.
• Discuss the implications and role of LPWANs in the future

telecommunications landscape.
1.5. Delimitations 5
1.5 Delimitations
The choice of which unlicensed LPWANs to explore was based on
commercial relevance and availability. According to Aris Xylouris at
Analysys Mason, the two proprietary LPWNAs with the highest number of
deployed networks are SigFox and LoRaWAN [17]. Furthermore, SigFox and
LoRaWAN each have a different technology, business model, and approach
regarding their intellectual property, which in turn makes a comparative
assessment all the more interesting.
Concerning technological delimitation. Unlicensed LPWANs are by

nature simplistic and are therefore explored to a greater extent than
unlicensed LPWANs. This is because licensed LPWANs, which is in this
thesis synonymous with cellular LPWANs, is integrated into the already
existing complex wide area cellular networks and would require another
thesis to explain fully. Hence, for unlicensed LPWANs, the cellular
network is only described to the extent that is necessary to understand the
enhancements and modifications resulting in cellular LPWAN. A reader
interested in gaining a complete understanding of cellular networks is
referred to Sauter [18].
1.6 Structure of thesis

Chapter 2 presents background information about each of the compared
LPWANs. Chapter 3 explains the methodology used to perform said
comparison in order to ascertain the "need" for the respective LPWANs.
Chapter 4 contains novel information gathered by interviews. The analysis
based on the information presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 is performed
in Chapter 5. Then, last but not least, conclusions along with future work are
presented in Chapter 6.
7
Chapter 2
Background
This chapter conveys information about each LPWAN based upon publicly
available information. SigFox is presented in Section 2.3 and LoRaWAN in
Section 2.4. Cellular LPWAN, included in Sections 2.6 and 2.7, is preceded
by an introduction to the development of cellular technology in Section 2.5.
Finally, the results of previous use case analyses are explored in Section 2.8.
2.1 LPWANs
Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara state that LPWANs are designed to meet
the requirements of Massive IoT [19]. As such, LPWANs features wide-area
connectivity for delay tolerant, low power, low data rate devices [19].
Furthermore, Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara argue that proprietary
LPWANs developed by new entrants are gaining much attention since
they both complement and supersede legacy wireless technologies [19]. In
response, rather than waiting for 5G-IoT, the cellular industry has raced to
develop cellular LPWAN techniques that can operate on top of their existing
cellular network.
According to Aris Xylouris at Analysys Mason, the number of deployed

LPWA networks (unlicensed and licensed) tripled in 2016 compared to 2015,
i.e. going from 29 to 85 [17].
The forecasts for number of devices to utilize IoT LPWANs varies quite
significantly. In Ericsson’s latest mobility report, published November
2016, Ericsson anticipates a total of 29 billion devices by 2022 including
everything ranging from phones, IoT devices, and tablets to PCs, fixed
phones, and laptops [20]. Ericsson further claims that 16 billion of these
devices will be short-range IoT devices (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi), and 2.1 billion
will be wide-area massive- and critical IoT devices [20]. In comparison, 2016
had 400 million wide-area massive- and critical IoT devices [20]. According
to the latest forecast by GSM Association (GSMA) (a special interest group
(SIG) representing MNOs worldwide), the number of LPWAN devices are
predicted to overtake 2G, 3G, and 4G as the leading form of IoT connectivity
by 2022 with 1.4 billion connections [21]. In an earlier report in 2016, GSMA,
anticipated 5 billion LPWAN devices by 2022 [22]. According to SigFox, the
LPWAN market is expected to grow 90% annually and reach $24.5 billion in
8 Chapter 2. Background
annual revenue 2021 [23].
As for the LPWAN providers themselves, the most prominent proprietary

alternatives are: SigFox based in France, founded in 2009; LoRa(WAN);
Ingenu headquartered in the US, founded in 2008; and Telensa. However,
as explained in Section 1.5, only SigFox and LoRaWAN are explored in
this thesis, but it is important to remember that there are many competing
technologies. There are quite a few standardized LPWANs, as indicated in
Figure 2.1. However, in this thesis, only unlicensed LPWANs are considered
in depth.
F IGURE 2.1: LPWA entities, adapted from [19]
2.2 Regulation and standards

There are several international organizations involved in the regulation and
standardization of telecommunications. Pertinent to this particular thesis are
those regulations and standards governing the use of spectrum in both North
America and Europe. In addition, the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU), a United Nation’s specialized agency in ICT technologies,
assists and coordinates the development of technical standards. ITU
develops so-called International-Mobile-Telecommunications(IMT)
standards for mobile telecommunications [24]. Furthermore, each
IMT consist of a set of ITU-R recommendations [24]. Although these
IMT requirements are referred to in the industry as different cellular
generations, ITU emphasizes that it does not recognize the terminology of
2.2. Regulation and standards 9
generations, and does not take any position on whether or not a specific
IMT recommendation is labeled as 3G or 4G, see for example [24]. However,
broadly speaking, IMT-2000 is commonly referred to as 3G, IMT-Advanced
as 4G, and IMT-2020 as 5G.
2.2.1 Standardization terminology

This thesis utilizes the following definitions regarding standards and
intellectual property:
• ITU writes that "Open Standards" are standards made available to the
general public and are developed (or approved) and maintained via a
collaborative and consensus driven process. "Open Standards" facilitate
interoperability and data exchange among different products or services and
are intended for widespread adoption. [25]
• PCMag states that proprietary standards are: "Specifications for

hardware or software that are controlled by one company." [26]
• The European Commission defines a harmonised standard as: "A

harmonised standard is a European standard developed by a recognised
European Standards Organisation: CEN, CENELEC, or ETSI. It is
created following a request from the European Commission to one of these
organisations." [27]
2.2.2 Europe
In Europe, the entities of interest are the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI), the European Conference of Postal
and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), and Electronic
Communications Committee (ECC). The Swedish Post and Telecom
Authority (PTS) explains that CEPT, founded in 1959, is a cooperation
between European post and telecom regulatory bodies, and is since 1992
exclusively involved in regulatory issues [28]. PTS also writes that ECC
is CEPT’s committee for electronic communications [28]. According to
CEPT, ECC was formed as the result of the merger between ECTRA
(responsible for general telecommunications matters) and ERC (European
Radiocommunications Committee) [29]. In 1988, PTS writes that ETSI was
founded with the purpose of taking on CEPT’s standardization efforts,
and it is today a cooperation between telecom authorities, operators,
manufacturers, service providers, and users [28].
Real Wireless claims in their whitepaper on M2M technologies that

LPWAN devices falls under the category of Short Range Devices (SRDs)
within the regulatory framework [30]. Similarly, ETSI states that SRDs are
"essentially low power radio communication systems", and may include data,
audio, video, telemetry, sensors, radar, etc. [31]. Provided that they conform
to the relevant ETSI standard to ensure coexistence, SRDs can operate license
free in Europe in some bands [31]. Furthermore, ETSI states that once
compliance has been demonstrated, there is no need for an end user license
or any paperwork, and a compliant device may be used freely throughout
Europe [31].
In a pamphlet on regulatory matters published by ETSI, it is stated

that ETSI’s Technical Committee for EMC and Radio Spectrum Matters
are responsible for SRD standardization [31]. The standards governing
LPWANs include technology-specific standards (wideband, narrowband,
radar, inductive, etc.) and generic standards for different bands of the
spectrum [31]. The harmonized and generic standard for communication
between 25 MHz to 1000 MHz is ETSI EN 300 220 [31]. EN 300 220 specifies
conformance limits and associated certified testing methods [32].
ETSI indicates that the regulatory parameters included in the harmonized

ETSI standards are not based on ITU’s recommendations. This is because
SDRs are not, as ITU defines it, considered to be a "Radio Service" [31].
The regulatory parameters in the harmonized ETSI standards are instead
based on recommendations laid forth by CEPT or ECC [31]. The ECC
recommendation (REC) for SRDs is ERC/REC 70-03 [33]. Hence, according
to Real Wireless, RRC/REC 70-03 is the recommendation that applies for
SRDs / license-exempt devices, including LPWANs [30]. Note that although
ERC/REC 70-03 represents the most accepted position regarding SRD
frequency allocation throughout the EU, this allocation is not mandated and
not all countries have adopted it, hence national implementations differs [33].
It is often claimed that LPWANs operate within the ISM bands.

According to ITU, the organization that allocates ISM bands worldwide,
ISM applications are in the ITU radio regulations (RR) defined as "Operation
of equipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally radio frequency
energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding
applications in the field of telecommunications." [34]. The ISM bands are defined
in ITU RR No. 5.138 and 5.150 [34].
Haim Mazar, the vice-chairman of ITU-R study group 1 (Spectrum

management) and author of Radio Spectrum Management: Policies,
Regulations, and Techniques [35], writes that SRDs are not ISM applications
as defined by ITU Radio Regulations [36]. Mazar states SRD bands are
different from ISM bands, but that it is a common mistake to confuse the
two [35]. However, Mazar writes that SRDs may be deployed in both ISM
bands and non-ISM bands [36]. Furthermore, the SRD bands, as defined
by the ERC/REC 70-03, are also designated for industrial, scientific, and
medical (ISM) applications as defined by the ITU according to ERC/REC
70-03 [33]. Mazar further writes that individual licenses for SRDs are usually
not required [36]. This is in line with ETSI’s view on the matter (that no
license is required) as was described above.
2.2. Regulation and standards 11
According to Real Wireless, ERC/REC 70-03 identifies bands at 169 MHz,

433 MHz, 863 MHz, 860 MHz, and 915 MHz as suitable for LPWANs [30].
Moreover, Real Wireless states that the 863-870 MHz, 870-875.6 MHz, and
915-921 MHz band are the most practical for LPWANs [30]. This is because
the 169 MHz band would require large antennas, while the 433 MHz band
permits too little radiated power [30]. Real Wireless points out that almost all
CEPT countries have adopted the ERC/REC 70-03 recommendation within
the 863-870 MHz band [30]. Real Wireless goes on and justifies the popularity
of this band by that it provides a good balance between range, building
penetration, and the ability to use small antennas [30]. The European 863-870
MHz bands and sub-bands as defined by ERC/REC 70-03 are summarized
in Table 2.1.
TABLE 2.1: Regulatory parameters for the EU 863-870 MHz
SRD band and sub bands [33]
70-03 annexes Band Power Spectrum access & mit- Notes

igaiton requirements
h1.1 863-870 MHz 25 mW e.r.p ≤ 0.1 % duty cycle or FHSS
LBT (See below)
h1.2 863-870 MHz 25 mW e.r.p ≤ 0.1 % duty cycle or Wideband tech-
LBT + AFA (See below) niques other than
FHSS
h1.3 863-870 MHz 25 mW e.r.p ≤ 0.1 % duty cycle or Narrow/Wide-band
LBT + AFA (See below) modulation
h1.4 868-868.6 MHz 25 mW e.r.p ≤ 1 % duty cycle or LBT Narrow/wide-band
+ AFA modulation
h1.5 868.7-869.2 25 mW e.r.p ≤ 0.1 % duty cycle or Narrow/wide-band
MHz LBT + AFA modulation
h1.6 869.4-869.65 500 mW e.r.p ≤ 10 % duty cycle or Narrow/wide-band
MHz LBT + AFA modulation
h1.7 869.7-870 MHz 5 mW or 25 mW No req. for 5 mW. ≤ 1 Narrow/wide-band
e.r.p. % duty cycle or LBT + modulation
AFA for 25 mW e.r.p.
In Table 2.1, the duty cycle may be increased to ≤ 1% for bands h1.1, h1.2,
and h1.3 if the band is limited to 865-868 MHz [33]. The duty cycle is defined
as "the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the maximum transmitter "on" time
monitored over one hour, relative to a on hour period" [32]. Hence, ≤ 1% equates
to less 36 seconds time on air (TOA) per device per hour. The duty cycle
restriction may be lifted if the devices employ adaptive frequency agility
(AFA) or listen before talk (LBT). However, considering the scope of this
thesis, these methods are irrelevant since neither LoRaWAN [37] or SigFox
employs them. All of the bands in Table 2.1 have been adopted by all of the
CEPT member countries (i.e., most of the EU), with the exception of Georgia
(none adopted), Sweden (h1.1, h1.2, h1.3 not adopted), Russia (h1.4, h1.6,
h1.7 not implemented), and Ukraine (h1.5, h1.6, h1.7 not implemented) [33].
2.2.3 US
In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates
communication including wireless transmission. According to Mazar,
regulation regarding radio frequency devices (without an individual license)
is stipulated in the FCC Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
part 15, and ISM regulation in part 18 [36]. Real Wireless writes that
for transmission within the 902-928 MHz ISM band, which SigFox and
LoRaWAN use in the US (see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.4.2), e-CFR part 15 §15.247
[38] is the relevant provision and is summarized below [30]:
• There are no duty cycle limitations in the US. However, there

are limitations on dwell times (time spent transmitting in one
frequency/channel).
• Maximum dwell time:

< 250 kHz bandwidth: 0.4 second within a 20 second period and
more than 50 different channels.
> 250 kHz bandwidth: 0.4 second within a 10 second period and
more than 50 different channels.
• Maximum transmit power:
– At least 50 channels: 1 W.
– Less than 50 channels, but at least 25 channels: 0.25 W.
2.3. SigFox 13
2.3 SigFox
This section describes SigFox in terms of technical- and non-technical aspects.
2.3.1 Spectrum and Regulation

SigFox says that it transmits in the 868 MHz ISM band in Europe and the 900
MHz ISM band in North America [39]. Strictly speaking, the 868 MHz band
is not defined as an ISM band in Europe, according to ITU RR No. 5.138 and
5.150 [34]. Hence, the correct terminology would be referring to it as an SRD
band, as defined by the ERC(REC 70-03) [33]. The 900 MHz band, however,
is an ISM band, in the sense that RR No. 5.150 defines 902-928 MHz as an
ISM band for North America [34].
SigFox documentation does not specify which sub-bands are used.

However, looking at the frequencies specified for a typical SigFox chip gives
an indication. In the EU, the Atmel ATA8520E, summarized in Table 2.2 in
Section 2.3.2, transmits in the frequency ranges 868-868.6 MHz and receives
in 869.4-869.65 for the uplink and downlink respectively. In the US, the
uplink and downlink frequency ranges are within 902-906 MHz.
The regulatory parameters in Europe for the 868 MHz band, as

recommended by CEPT/ECC, and adopted by ETSI [32], are summarized in
Table 2.1 in Section 2.2.2. The regulatory parameters in the US for the 900
MHz band are imposed by the FCC in e-CFR §15.247 [38] and are described
in Section 2.2.3.
The regulatory parameters in Section 2.2.2 translate to a maximum

number of allowed messages per day. For example, for the EU uplink
band, 868-868.65 MHz band, limited by ≤ 1% duty cycle and 25 mW e.r.p,
SigFox claims that the uplink duty cycle restriction restricts the number of
messages sent per device to 140 per day [39]. Assuming per day here implies
24 hours, this equates to 6 messages per hour, which is in agreement with
Radiocrafts AS’s interpretation [40]. Similarly, the less than 10% duty cycle
restriction on the downlink band can be used to calculate the maximum
allowed number of downlink messages per day per device. Raza, Kulkarni,
and Sooriyabandara set this number to 4 messages per day [19]. There is
no equivalent duty cycle restriction in North America. However, North
American regulations, as stated in Section 2.2.3) on dwell time lead to a
limitation on number of message per day per device according to Singh and
Kaur because they claim that a SigFox transmission usually takes around 3
seconds, which is much more than the allowed 0.4 seconds [41].
SigFox writes that the SigFox protocol is designed to comply with ETSI
and FCC regulations [39]. Furthermore, SigFox chips may support both
FCC and ETSI compliance, such as the Atmel ATA8520 (see Table 2.2), or
only compliance with one set of regulations, such as the ETSI compliant
M2COMM M2C8001 [42].
2.3.2 Technology of SigFox

This section presents the technological aspects of SigFox.
Physical layer
Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara state that the physical layer is based
on ultra-narrow band (UNB) technology in regional sub-GHz ISM bands
[19]. KeySight claims that the number of supported uplink channels are
360 UNB 100 Hz channels [43], and that multiple access is realized through
frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) [43]. Raza, Kulkarni, and
Sooriyabandara and Laya et al. explains that to increase the likelihood of
successful reception, each device transmits three times on different and
randomly selected UNB channels [19] [44].
SigFox has designed a communication system capable of transmitting

signals over long distances at the expense of data rate. SigFox has achieved
this by operating in sub-GHz bands using UNB in combination with robust
(simple) modulation techniques.
There are several reasons why UNB may increase the attainable range.
One is that UNB receivers listen to an equally narrow portion of the
spectrum and therefore capture less noise, which in turn increases the range.
Another inherent benefit in UNB is that receivers employ very steep filters,
which effectively cancels out sideband noise. Moreover, using FHSS with a
small signal bandwidth (100 Hz) and a relatively large listening bandwidth
(200 kHz) mitigates frequency-selective fading according to Real Wireless
[30]. Furthermore, SigFox claims that, compared to wideband techniques,
allocating the energy in a UNB channel increases the signal to noise ratio
[45]. Last but not least, a small bandwidth translates to a long symbol period,
thereby increasing the energy per symbol, and therefore the range. The
downside is that a long symbol period results in a low a data rate. Indeed,
such is the fundamental trade-off in any radio system; an increase in data
rate (bandwidth) will decrease the energy per bit, and therefore decrease the
range.
KeySight notes that the uplink modulation is differential binary phase

shift keying (D-BPSK) [43]. This is a robust modulation because there are
only two states possible (1 bit per symbol), thereby reducing the possibility of
erroneous interpretation by the receiver. Furthermore, since the "resolution"
of the signal or symbols are degraded over distance, having only two states
increases the range. In BPSK, these two states (1 and a 0), are conveyed by
changing (modulating) the phase of the carrier wave. Hence, with respect
to a reference signal, a cosine might represent 1, whereas a sine would
2.3. SigFox 15
correspond to a 0. However, in D-BPSK it is the change of phase, not the

phase itself, that represents the data. Hence, a D-BPSK transmission can
operate with respect to only itself, which simplifies implementation and
lowers the cost, since the demodulator does not need to have a copy of the
reference signal. Also according to KeySight the downlink, which does not
have the same power constraint as the end nodes, uses Gaussian frequency
shift keying (GFSK) [43].
Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara write that the range is 10 km and

50 km in urban and rural environments respectively [19]. According to
M. Centenaro et al. the range is 3-10 km and 30-50 km in urban and rural
environments respectively [46]. According to KeySight [43] the maximum
acceptable path loss (including fading) is in between 146-162 dB.
Regarding the transmission of data, Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara

and KeySight specify the uplink- and downlink data rate as 100 bps and 600
bps (respectively) [43] [19]. Link Lab explains this asymmetry is because the
endpoint’s receiver sensitivity is not as good the more expensive base-station
receiver [47]. The number of allowed messages per day was explored in
Section 2.3.1. Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara write that the size per
message is 12 bytes for the downlink and 8 bytes for the uplink [19].
Network
The network topology, shown in Figure 2.2, is a star network as stated by
Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara [19], in which each gateway realizes a
cell. Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara note that an end node is not tied
to a single gateway. Instead, each end node’s transmission is picked up by
all gateways in range [19]. Hence, SigFox writes that there is no need for a
handover procedure since that capability already is inherent in the SigFox
network [39]. Centenaro et al. write that SigFox claims that each gateway
can handle up to a million connected devices [46]. Although bi-directional
communication is supported, Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara observe
that the radio access is asymmetric because only 4 downlink messages per
day per device is allowed and downlink communication can only occur if
an uplink communication (immediately) precedes it as the end device can
open a receive window and listen for a while after it has sent a message
[19]. According to Nicolas Lesconnec of SigFox’s developer relations, SigFox
supports acknowledgment: When sending a uplink message, a device can
request a downlink acknowledgment [48].
F IGURE 2.2: SigFox’s network topology, adapted from [49]
Laya et al. state that SigFox employs no carrier sensing [44]. Similarly,
SigFox’s founder and CSO Christopher Fourtet mentions that there is no
channel management and hence no means of collision-avoidance [49]. In
other words, SigFox is a contention-based protocol, in which end nodes
are "free running" as Fourtet puts it [49] and transmit asynchronously (as
mentioned by Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara [19]). Furthermore, as
pointed out by Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara and Laya et al., each
message is transmitted three times on random channels [19][44]. Moreover,
SigFox states that UNB reduces the likelihood of collision compared to
wide-band techniques [39]. Allegedly, this is because more UNB signals
can simultaneously co-exist and be carried over a given bandwidth than
wide-band signals [39]. Finally, SigFox claims that the likelihood of collision
is close to zero [39].
SigFox claims that its lightweight protocol has eliminated the need for
signaling and reduces the required overhead [45]. Allegedly, this reduced
both design cost and power consumption [45]. Furthermore, less overhead
means that more data can be carried in each message [45]. SigFox claims
that 14 bytes of overhead are required for a payload of 8 bytes [45]. Along
the same line of reasoning, Laya et al. note that SigFox has a Media Access
Control (MAC) layer equivalent to an unslotted (pure) ALOHA and argues
that it is an energy-efficient and cost-efficient scheme [44]. Laya et al. explain
that asynchronous transmission does not involve listening to the channel
(which would require power) [44]. Laya et al. explain that asynchronous
transmission also removes the need for time synchronization in the network;
therefore, there is no need for expensive oscillators in SigFox devices [44].
This observation is in agreement with one of the rationales behind SigFox as
expressed by Fourtet:
"Network should not ask modems for long disciplining processes. But it should
be at the service of modems to compensate for their imperfection, contributing to
their low cost" [49].
2.3. SigFox 17
Co-existence and resilience

Regarding co-existence with other communication systems, Real Wireless
conducted a co-existence analysis that mapped the impact of different
interference conditions [30]. The impact of the interference was categorized
as (i) easily mitigated, (ii) mitigated against with some effort, and (iii)
difficult to mitigate [30]. Interference from a UNB system on another
UNB system was categorized as (ii) mitigated against with some effort.
Interference from a wide-band technique (DSSS) was deemed to be (iii)
difficult to mitigate [30]. However, SigFox claims that UNB allows for
coexistence with other communication system using broadband techniques
due to its ultra narrow bandwidth [39].
Juan Carlos Zuniga and Benoit Ponsard in a talk at a meeting of

the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) write that SigFox exhibits
anti-jamming capabilities due to the intrinsic ruggedness of UNB combined
with the fact that multiple base stations may receive each message (spatial
diversity) [50]. Furthermore, according to Grover, Lim, and Yang FHSS
is regarded as a general anti-jamming technique [51]. The same authors,
however, observe that there are some jamming techniques like channel
hopping, pulsed noise, and flow jamming that can affect multiple channels
at once [51]. Furthermore, these authors claim that so-called follow-on
jamming is particularly effective against systems using FHSS [51]. SigFox
contends that non-compliant jamming signals have no impact on SigFox
devices [39].
Cloud/backend
SigFox explains that a SigFox solution must connect to the SigFox cloud
to retrieve messages and, if necessary, to manage devices and users
[52]. Moreover, the SigFox cloud supports services such as device
information (signal quality, events, statistics, and more), billing, user-
and fleet management, network management suite, service maps, and so on
[52].
SigFox describes its cloud as reachable via three different types of

interfaces: Internet, Application Program Interfaces (APIs), and callbacks
[52]. Via internet, i.e. a simple web browser can be used to access a SigFox
web-portal that provides access to all SigFox cloud functions [52]. The API is
used to facilitate service delivery and to integrate SigFox functionality, such
as device registration, in third party platforms [52]. The data itself is pushed
automatically to the customer’s application server using callback functions
[52].
Access to the SigFox cloud services and tool suite depend on the type
of user according to SigFox [52]. These types range from an administrator
(who manage users/fleet, contracts, see service maps, etc.), distributor (who
creates contracts), and operator (whom has access to a radio planning tool
and a network monitoring suite) [52].
Security & authentication

Radiocrafts AS explains that each device is programmed with a device ID,
porting authorization code (PAC), and an AES-128 encryption key [40]. The
device ID and PAC are required to register the device in the SigFox network
[40].
Similarly, the RF module company "TD next" writes that each end node is
associated with a device ID and a porting authorization code (PAC) and that
both of these are required to register the SigFox device in the SigFox cloud
[53]. TD next writes that the SigFox ID is stored in the module memory
when it is manufactured [53]. Both the device ID and PAC code are sold with
the connectivity module used in the end device, and these values are either
printed on the packaging or embedded in the device [53]. Furthermore,
TD next emphasizes that the device’s SigFox ID is unique and it will not
change during its lifespan [53].
TD next further explains that the PAC code corresponds to the device
ID, and its purpose is to manage the ownership of SigFox devices [53],
specifically it is used to establish ownership of the device, or to port
(transfer) ownership of the device. Once it is used, it is discarded and a new
PAC code is generated, so that future porting is possible [53].
According to Radiocrafts AS, network authentication is carried out with

an AES-128 encrypted [40] code in the header of each transmitted message.
This code is inspected by the SigFox cloud before the data is forwarded to the
application server [54]. Radiocrafts AS further describes that the encryption
key is securely stored in the device and it cannot be accessed, thus this
avoids man-in-the-middle and replay mechanisms [40]. The payload data is
not encrypted; however, SigFox points on that developers may implement
encryption at the application layer [45].
SigFox explains that spoofing is averted by including a sequence counter

in each transmission, which is then verified by the SigFox network [54].
2.3. SigFox 19
Modules
A chip, or system on chip (SoC), or integrated network transceiver circuit,
will typically realize the physical layer and the MAC layer. Vendors
generally provide a reference design (which may be tweaked and added to
in terms of functionality) for each of their products. This is valuable because
building upon an already working reference design enables a designer to
rapidly get a new end-product to the market rather than needing to develop
the platform from scratch. Additionally, the network transceiver chip
may include a microcontroller that implements some upper protocol stack
and security. If the chip includes application layer software or supports
application development (often via AT commands), then the chip may be
regarded as a radio module with additional functionality.
By having the network compensate for the end node’s weaknesses,

SigFox’s founder Christophe Fourtet claims that there is no need for signal
processing and expensive hardware in the end nodes which enables basic-
and low-cost devices [49]. Anthon Charbonnier, Head of Startups Relations
& Programs from Sigfox, emphasizes that the end nodes are designed to be
energy efficient and that a transmission which typically takes a few seconds
draws 20-35 mA at 25 mW (14 dBm) output power [55]. Another point that
Charbonnier highlights is that the devices are idle (and hence the radios
need not be powered on) more than 99 % of the time [55].
Besides the data-rate and other network imposed properties, common

to all SigFox chips, individual properties such as current consumption
(and hence operating lifetime) and device cost are important aspects in
determining the viability of an application. As an example of SigFox
single-chip transceiver, the properties of Atmel ATA8520E is summarized in
Table 2.2 (see next page).
Besides the power consumption of the radio module, the battery lifetime
depends on how often the devices transmit as well as upon the battery itself.
According to Radicrafts, a device communicating one message per day can
last more than ten years using a 3.6V lithium AA-cell battery [58]. Another
example by Radiocrafts AS is that a device transmitting ten times a day
would last six years using the same battery [58]. SigFox claims that two
messages a day equate to a 20 year lifetime using the energy contained in
one AA battery [45].
TABLE 2.2: Atmel ATA8520E [56] with pricing information

from [57].
Properties Atmel ATA8520E

Description Integrated SoC that provides connectivity, embedded firmware,
protocol handling and, ID/PAC. The SoC consist of a RF front end,
digital baseband, and 8-bit micro controller.
Cost per +1500 units: US$2.276
device +6000 units: US$2.15
+15000 units: US$2.065
Frequencies EU: uplink 868.0 - 868.6 MHz, downlink 869.4 - 869.65 MHz.
US: uplink and downlink 902 - 906 MHz.
Output EU: 13.8 dBm (typical)
power US: 9.5 dBm (typical)
Current Supply voltage: 3 V and 3.3V to 5.5V
consumption Transmit: 32.7mA (EU) / 16.7mA(US)
(typical) Receive: 10.4mA (EU) / 10.5mA (US)
Off: 5nA
Base stations
There is no information publicly available about SigFox base stations.
Moreover, the only manufacturer seems to be SigFox. It is likely that only
certified SigFox operators (see Section 2.3.3 can buy SigFox base stations.
According to RadioCrafts AS, SigFox base stations are only provided by
SigFox [40]
Roaming
As stated bt Juan Carlos Zuniga and Benoit Ponsard (IETF), SigFox
authentication is global, and there are therefore no roaming requirements
[50]. The user can enjoy seamless mobility across the global SigFox network
[39]. However, for devices to roam internationally (assuming coverage is
provided), they must support the local RF regulations, such as ETSI and
FCC compliance [39].
SigFox Technical Summary

Table 2.3 summarizes SigFox’s technical characteristics.
2.3. SigFox 21
TABLE 2.3: Overview of SigFox’s technological characteristics

according to SigFox and other sources.
Characteristic SigFox
Frequency EU: 868 MHz ISM band [39]
EU uplink: 868.0 - 868.6 MHz (Atmel ATA8520E) [56]
EU downlink: 869.4 -869.65 MHz (Atmel ATA8520E)
[56]
North America: 900 MHz ISM band [39]

US uplink & downlink 902 - 906 MHz. (Atmel
ATA8520E) [56]
Multiple access method uplink & downlink: Proprietary FHSS/UNB [43]
MAC Asynchronous / Unslotted ALOHA [19] [44] (transmit 3
times and hope for the best)
Overhear/Signaling No Signaling, 14 bytes overhead per uplink message
[45]
Modulation GFSK (downlink), DBPSK (uplink) [43]
Range 3-10 km (URBAN), 30-50 km (RURAL) [19] [46]
Link budget ∼ 146-162 dB [43]
Forward Error Correction (FEC) No [19]
Output power Max. 25 W (14 dBm) [33]
Bandwidth Total/listening bandwidth: 200 kHz [43]
Channel bandiwdths: 100 Hz (uplink), 600 Hz
(downlink) [43]
Number of UNB channels 360 [19]
Peak data rate 100 bps (uplink), 600 bps (downlink) [19]
Payload length 12B (uplink), 8B (downlink) [19]
Allowed number of messages (Europe) per day 140 (uplink), 4 (downlink) [39] [19]
Network topology Star [19]
Roaming Yes [50]
Handover Not needed, devices are not tied to a single base station
[19]
Co-existence and resilience Although sophisticated anti-FHSS jamming techinques
exist (e.g. follow-on), it is likely that the inherent
narrowness and hence ruggedness of UNB effectively
mitigate jamming and co-existence issues (See section
2.3.2)
Adaptive data rate No [19]
Bidirectional Yes [19]
Authentication & security AES-128 encrypted authentication [40]
Unique device ID and PAC code [53]
VPN tunnel from gateway to SigFox cloud[45]
No Payload encryption [45]
Over The Air (OTA) updates No [19]
SIM form factor No cards, eUICC or Soft-Sim equivalent. See Section
2.3.2
Localization No [19]
Nodes per base station (BS) Variable
1 million [46] (No specified assumptions on msgs / day
/ device)
Battery lifetime 3.6V AA battery:
1 msg / day: 10 years [58]
10 msg / day: 6 years [58]
2 messages a day using one AA battery with equates to

20 years [45].
Atmel ATA8520E Current consumptiom:

Transmit: 32.7mA (EU) / 16.7mA (US) [56]
Receive: 10.4mA (EU) / 10.5mA (US) [56]
Off: 5nA [56]
2.3.3 SigFox’s Non-technological Aspects

This section presents non-technological aspects of SigFox’s LPWAN.
Business model
SigFox, launched in 2009, was the first proprietary LPWAN to hit the
IoT market, and since then it has been growing rapidly [46]. According
to Ingrid Lunden at TechCrunch, SigFox has received investments from
Silicon/product manufacturers such as Samsung and Intel, utility giant
Air Liquide, and service providers such as Telefonica and Eutelsat [59].
According to Aris Xylouris at Analysys Mason, SigFox increased their
number of active or planned networks from 9 in 2015 to 27 in 2016 [17].
Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara summarize the offering by SigFox as
end-to-end LPWAN connectivity or device-to-cloud connectivity based on
patented technology [19].
According to Link Labs, SigFox’s business model revolves around two

approaches [47]. The first business model is to deploy the network itself and
act as a operator, as they have done in France and the US [47]. The second
business model is to allow another operator to exclusively deploy and
commercialize their network in a particular area in exchange for royalties
[47]. Such operators are referred to as certified SigFox operators. Bob
Emmerson at No Jitter (part of UBM Technology) summarizes his view of
the SigFox business model with the following [60]
"All a new entrant needs to do, apart from writing the app, is buy compatible
devices. They don’t need SIM cards or multi-band air interfaces. SIGFOX issues
IDs to the modem manufacturers, who subsequently give them to their customers,
and then they use the local service provider to activate them. This allows each
customer to manage their devices and subscribe to the messages they send."
Judging from SigFox’s web page, there are 34 SigFox operators (referred
to as local service providers in above quote), each in a different country [61].
The majority of these operators focus solely on SigFox connectivity, whereas
others use this service offering to complement their existing connectivity
portfolios, such as is the case for Arqiva or Cellnex [61]. Some SigFox
operators have struck deals with traditional MNOs. For example, a press
release by Tele2, revealed their partnership with the SigFox operator Aerea
in the Netherlands [62]. Similarly, Telefonica is in negotiation with local
Brazilian SigFox operator WND [63].
2.3. SigFox 23
Intellectual property rights and compliance

Although SigFox is a proprietary standard (as defined in Section 2.2.1),
SigFox says that it gives away the protocol stack (which defines the physical
layer up to the transport layer) to modem manufacturers free of charge, i.e.,
without royalties [64].
As a means of ensuring compliance, SigFox says that "Any device operating

on the SigFox network must pass certification delivered by SigFox" [65]. It is
further stated that technical testing required for the SigFox ready certificate is
accredited by external labs selected by SigFox [65]. Furthermore, according to
Atmel, modem (transceivers) integrating basic SigFox connectivity must be
certified as SigFox compliant, in order to be used by a SigFox ready product
[66]. Atmel also points out that the SigFox certificate does not cover local
regulatory compliance, such as that imposed by ETSI or the FCC [66].
Commercial aspects
Information concerning infrastructure cost, such as price per base station, is
not publicly available. However, according to Bob Emmerson at No Jitter,
the nationwide SigFox network in France, consisting of around 1000 base
stations cost US$4 million [60]. Emmerson further claims that this is about
100 times cheaper than an equivalent GSM/CDMA cellular network [60].
SigFox calls their modules starting at US$2.00 ultra-low cost modules

and claims that they are up to 20 times cheaper than LTE cellular modules
and five times cheaper than the closest competing technologies [23].
SigFox points out that a data subscription is required for a certified

SigFox chip to communicate over the network [39]. Furthermore, SigFox
explains that the subscription price depends on the subscription level, which
defines the maximum number of messages per day per device and the total
number of connected devices [39].
Reach
According to SigFox, they are present in 29 countries, in reach of 471 million
people [67], and on track to be present in 60 countries by 2018 [68]. The
total coverage in Europe is shown in Figure 2.3. In the US, in spite of
the regulatory obstacles explain in Section 2.3.1, SigFox writes that it has
attained a 20 percent population coverage, and they are rolling out networks
in more than a 100 cities [69].
F IGURE 2.3: SigFox’s coverage in Europe as of 2017-05-25. Blue

and purple represents live coverage and country under roll-out
respectively [61]
Actors and activity

According to SigFox’s founder Christophe Fourtet, the simplistic nature
of the SigFox connectivity implies "that almost every available chip can run
SigFox!" [49]. Indeed, the simplistic design, combined with their giveaway
of their intellectual property (see Section 2.3.3) to chip manufacturers, has
facilitated a thriving hardware ecosystem. So far, large manufacturers such
as STMicroelectronics, Atmel, and Texas Instruments are manufacturing
SigFox chips [47].
The two reasons behind this approach, according to Anthony

Charbonnier who is responsible for SigFox startup relations, are cost
effectiveness and selection diversity [55]. Charbonnier highlights that
because of the wide range of different radio modules available, each new
product or device has a greater opportunity of finding a chip which fits
the intended use [55]. As shown in Table 2.4, there is there is a wide
variety of hardware, solutions, and services presently available in the SigFox
ecosystem.
Table 2.4 includes a wide variety of chips, meters, sensors, actuators

monitors, and other low-end devices along with more niche solutions such
as smoke detectors, outdoor parking management systems, beehive scales,
street lighting management, or a simple watch with an alarm button for
older persons in case they fall [70]. SigFox emphasizes that the development
kits can both accelerate and simplify the prototyping stage, although these
development kits are not intended for industrial use [55]. Indeed, Arduino
and Raspberry Pi, which are extremely popular hardware development
platforms, are both compatible with the SigFox network [55].
2.3. SigFox 25
TABLE 2.4: The available offerings from SigFox’s official web

shop [70].
Type of offering Comment Number

Development kits Used for prototyping and testing 44
Transceivers Required for basic SigFox connectivity 4
SoC Basic SigFox connectivity with a 7
reference design to alleviate design
process
Modules Integrates everything required for 39
SigFox connectivity and additional
functionality
Devices Sensors, actuators etc 150
Solutions Includes one or more devices, cliud 19
connectivity and SigFox subscription
Cloud IoT Provides data services connected to 40
platforms the SigFox cloud
In March, 2016, SigFox launched the so-called SigFox partner network

[71]. The SigFox partner network is intended to bring together key partners,
ranging from technology enablers, operators, and solution enablers to
startups [71]. New players who wish to design their product can, in SigFox’s
words: "Using this platform, contact the SIGFOX ecosystem partners directly,
including chip manufacturers, module makers, device makers, solution providers,
and design houses" [71]. The different type of companies that have joined the
SigFox partner network are listed in Table 2.5.
TABLE 2.5: The SigFox partner network [72]. Note not all
SigFox entities are registered as a SigFox partner, and some
companies may appear in several categories.
Company type Comment Number

Antenna designers Provide service in antenna design for SigFox 4
devices
Chip makers Provide either transceiver chips (PHY layer) or 7
System on Chip (SoC)
Consulting Provides assistance in IoT projects 7
companies
Design houses Provides custom hardware & electronic designs 31
Device makers Companies that develop different kinds of 80
devices/solutions compatible with the SigFox
network
Manufacturers OEM/ODM/EMS 19
System integrators Integrators have experience rolling out connected 18
solutions for larger corporations and integrating
them with their IT system
IoT platform Wide range of solutions for data-management, 52
providers infrastructure (IaaS), hosting, vertical-specific
platforms etc
Kit makers Chip or module makers that also builds evaluation 18
boards, development boards, development boards,
SDKs
Module makers Modules include everything needed for 17
connectivity with the SigFox network and typically
additional functionality
Solution providers Provides complete end-to-end solutions (usually an 43
app, device and SigFox connectivity)
Tech hubs Accelerators or Incubators for startups within 4
SigFox IoT
SigFox operators Sigfox Operators roll-out and commercialize Sigfox 34
connectivity around the world
2.4. LoRaWAN 27
2.4 LoRaWAN
This section describes LoRaWAN in terms of technical- and non-technical
aspects.
2.4.1 Overview
Before diving into the details, there is a need to clarify the following terms
that are used throughout in this section: LoRa, LoRaWAN, and the LoRa
Alliance. Centenaro et al. define LoRa (Long-Range) a novel physical layer
for LPWANs by Semtech Corporation [46]. According to Semtech, LoRa
is "agnostic" to higher-layer implementations, thereby allowing LoRa to
coexist and interoperate with existing network protocols [73]. On top of
LoRa, which is Semtech’s proprietary intellectual property, a special interest
group (SIG) named LoRa Alliance, comprised of industrial- and commercial
partners are developing an open standard referred to as LoRaWAN for the
MAC layer (data link layer) [74]. The LoRa alliance states that "LoRaWANTM
defines the communication protocol and system architecture for the network while
the LoRa R
physical layer enables the long-range communication link." [74].

According to the LoRa Alliance in 2015, LoRaWAN is compatible with
European and North American regulation [74]. However, significant
progress has arguably been made; for example, Sk Telecom has deployed
LoRaWAN in South Kora as will be mentioned in Section 2.4.4. LoRaWAN
transmits in Europe within the 863-870 MHz ISM band [37]. However, as
explained in Section 2.3.1, it is strictly speaking an SRD band, and not an
ISM band. In the US, the LoRaWAN specifications state that it transmits in
the 902-928 MHz ISM band as regulated by the FCC [37].
As to which specific sub-bands are employed, the LoRaWAN

specification states that all devices must be capable of transmitting within
the 863-870 MHz ISM band within the EU [37]. The specific bands that are
mentioned are three defaults which each device must be able to transmit
in (within the 868-868.6 MHz band, corresponding to h1.4 in Table 2.1). In
North America, the LoRa Alliance explains that the segments 902.3 to 914.9
MHz, 903-914.9 MHz, and 923.3-927.5 MHz are used (their particular use is
described in Section 2.4.3) [74].
The regulatory parameters in Europe for the 868 MHz band, as

recommended by CEPT/ECC, and adopted by ETSI [32], were summarized
in Table 2.1. It is difficult to define the maximum allowed number of
messages per day since this depends on the time on air (TOA), which in
turn depends on the data rate, which is variable (see Section 2.4.3). The
regulatory parameters in North America for the 900 MHz band are imposed
by the FCC in e-CFR §15.247 [38] and were described in Section 2.2.3. The
LoRaWAN specification states that transmitters shall use duty-cycle limited
transmissions exclusively and by default transmit at 25 mW [37]. Worth
mentioning, however, is that LoRaWAN uses a frequency hopping scheme
(described in Section 2.4.3) to circumvent the maximum allowed dwell time
in North America.
2.4.3 Technology of LoRaWAN

This section presents the technological aspects of LoRaWAN.
Physical layer
Semtech explains that the LoRa physical layer is based on spread spectrum
techniques, such as direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) [73]. However,
there are certain issues in utilizing DSSS for LPWAN purposes, which
Semtech claims to have resolved by using a variation of so-called Chirp
spread spectrum (CSS) [73].
In DSSS, Semtech states that the data that is to be transmitted is

multiplied (encoded) with a spreading code, i.e., a chip sequence [73]. For
multiple DSSS signals to be transmitted simultaneously, the codes must be
uncorrelated with each other, i.e., orthogonal [73]. Metaphorically speaking,
this is equivalent to a room full of persons talking at the same time, with each
conversation in a distinct language, thereby making it easier to distinguish
each conversation from the background noise. The spreading sequence itself
utilizes a much higher data rate than the original data and therefore occupies
a much larger bandwidth [73]. Hence, we say that the underlying data
signal is "spread out" in frequency when multiplied with the chip sequence.
The receiver multiplies the received message by the inverse of the spreading
sequence, thereby de-spreading the signal back to its original bandwidth,
and is then able to recover the original data [73].
The strength of spread-spectrum techniques such as DSSS lies in the

spreading and subsequent despreading of the signal. In short, the process
strengthens the desired signal compared to undesired signals. Semtech
maintains that it enables the receiver to successfully recover the data
even if the received noise power is larger than the signal power (negative
signal-to-noise ratio when expressed in decibels) [73]. According to Semtech,
the degree of spreading depends on the length of the spreading sequence
and the rate with which it changes, i.e., the so-called "chip rate" [73].
Furthermore, Semtech writes that the "de-spreading" process by the receiver
on the signal has an opposite effect on interfering signals, making them look
like noise to the receiver and therefore easy to filter out [73].
2.4. LoRaWAN 29
The downside of DSSS, according to Semtech, is that it requires a highly

accurate, and therefore expensive, reference clock for synchronization
between transmitter and receiver (coherent-demodulation) [73]. Also,
Semtech says that devices which are not "always-on" will need to repeatedly
and rapidly synchronize every time they are turned on [73]. Another
complication is the longer a spreading sequence is, the longer time it will
take for the receiver to correlate it with one of the codes it knows, unless it
implements multiple "correlators" in parallel [73]. Semtech states that these
aspects of DSSS make it ill-suited for applications requiring low cost and
low power consumption (LPWAN), and claims that LoRa’s spread spectrum
modulation addresses all of these issues [73].
LoRa’s modulation is a proprietary spread spectrum modulation

technique [75], based on DSSS and a variation of CSS , as described by
Semtech [73]. In CSS, Semtech describes that the spreading is achieved by
a chirp signal that continuously varies in frequency [73]. In short, Semtech
claims that this allows the timing and frequency offsets between transmitter
and receiver to be identical, which reduces the complexity of the receiver
design [73].
To allow optimization for a given application, Semtech states that

designers have access to three critical design parameters inherent in LoRa
modulation: spreading factor, coding rate, and bandwidth [75]. These
parameters allow the designer to find the ideal trade-off between data
rate, occupied bandwidth, and link budget improvement and immunity to
interference [75].
The spreading factor (SF) is a relative measure of the extent to which the
signal is spread out; hence a higher SF implies a wider spreading. However,
a larger SF will always result in an increased receiver sensitivity (i.e. longer
range) [75]. In LoRa, the SF can be viewed as the ratio of the chip rate and
the symbol rate (data rate) [75].
Figure 2.4 illustrates how the range may be increased for a given
bandwidth (i.e. chip rate) by decreasing the data rate (increasing SF), or by
reducing the signal bandwidth (less noise captured by the receiver) in the
Semtech SX1272/73 transceiver [75]. Note that a higher bandwidth does not
increase the data rate since the noise captured by the receiver is increased, as
written by Semtech [75].
125 Khz
−115
250 kHz
500 kHz
Sensitivity dBm
−125
−135
−145
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Spreading factor
F IGURE 2.4: Semtech SX1272 chip, Spreading factor &

bandwidth vs. Sensitivity (range), data points from [75]
Semtech further describes that LoRa integrates variable FEC to enhance

the link budget and resilience towards interference [75]. FEC requires
that the data is encoded redundantly [76]. The extra space which said
redundancy occupies in the transmitted message is overhead, and the
degree of redundancy is referred to as the coding rate. Therefore, a higher
coding rate will require a larger overhead which for a fixed frame size comes
at the expense of transmitted data. The designer may choose to increase the
coding rate and thus decrease the data rate, or vice versa [76].
The LoRa alliance says that the rates of LoRa range from around 0.3 to 50
kbps depending on the setting [77]. In another document, the LoRa Alliance
argues that the data rates of LoRaWAN also ranges from 0.3 to 50 kbps [74].
However, according to Adelantado et al. LoRaWAN supports a different set
of data rates: 0.3-27 Kbps and the maximum data rate of the FSK modem is
50 kbps [78]. Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara claim that the data rate is
0.3-37.5 kbps depending on SF and bandwidth [19]. Similarly, the attainable
range depends on the trade-off between sensitivity and data-rate. According
to Semtech, LoRaWAN uses primarily a bandwidth of 125 kHz [79].
Adelantado et al. maintain that the range is between 2-5 km in urban

areas and 15 km in suburban areas [78], and similar numbers are presented
by Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara [19]. The payload length is according
to Adelantado et al. in between 51 bytes and 222 bytes depending on the SF
[78], whereas Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara claim that it is up to 250
B depending on region and setting [19].
Network
The official LoRaWAN network specifications are contained within the
LoRaWAN specifications published by the LoRa Alliance. The latest
2.4. LoRaWAN 31
available version is V1.0.2, published July 2016, [77] and the upcoming
version is V1.1 [80]. V1.1, due in mid 2017 [81], will include backward
compatibility, so that a V1.1 end device or network server is compatible with
a V.1.0.X device or network server [80].
As shown in Figure 2.5, LoRaWAN is similar to SigFox in that it

essentially is a network in which gateways relay messages from end-devices
to a central network server [77]. Semtech mentions that LoRa is compatible
with other proprietary protocols [79], but in this thesis, only LoRaWAN
is explored with respect to interoperability with LoRa. According to the
LoRaWAN specification, LoRaWAN is compatible with both LoRa and
standard FSK techniques [77]. Additionally, LoRaWAN communication is
bi-directional, although uplink communication is expected to account for
the majority of the traffic [77].
According to Semtech, LoRa can be used in almost all network topologies,

such as mesh, point to point, or star [79]. For LoRaWAN, Semtech describes
how the star topology shown in Figure 2.5 was chosen to optimize network
capacity, battery lifetime, and installation ease [79]. In a star architecture, an
end device communicates with a BS via a single-hop radio link. The base
stations are in turn connected to a common cloud implemented network
server (shown here as NetServer) using standard Internet technologies, such
as Wi-Fi, cellular, or Ethernet link layer technology [74]. The LoRa Alliance
highlights that end points are not associated or tied to a particular gateway;
hence a transmission will be received by all gateways in range, which in
turn increases robustness and allows for endpoint localization [74] [19].
Furthermore, this transparency eliminates the need for handovers between
gateways [74].
F IGURE 2.5: LoRaWAN network topology, adapted from [74]
To simplify the end-device’s structure, the LoRa alliance details how

the intelligence in LoRaWAN (such as network management, security,
and optimization with respect data rate and reliability) is provided
at the network server [74]. Furthermore, LoRaWAN end nodes are
bi-directional and communicate whenever they have data ready to send,

i.e. asynchronously (referred to as an ALOHA access protocol according to
the LoRa Alliance) [74]. Moreover, as stated in the LoRaWAN specification,
endpoints are categorized in classes A, B, and C according to their ability to
receive messages from the gateways [77]. The main difference between these
categories is how the uplink/downlink is established: For class A devices,
an uplink transmission is followed by two short downlink receive windows
[77]. Class B devices have, in addition to class A functionality, the ability
to open receive windows at scheduled times. This is performed by using
a synchronized beacon gateway so that the server knows the end-device
is listening [77]. Class C devices have continuously open receive windows
which only close when transmitting [77]. As such, Class C devices exhibit
the lowest latency and bi-directionality but requires more power than Class-
A and B devices [77]. Typically, Class C devices are limited to nodes without
any energy constraints.
Regarding latency, Class C devices exhibit no latency for downlink

communication because the devices are always listening. Class B devices
offer the possibility to have no downlink latency at scheduled slots, whereas
class A devices have no latency constraints. The uplink latency, assuming
asynchronous transmission, is arguably on the scale of seconds.
According to the LoRa Alliance, LoRaWAN supports acknowledgment

and retransmission, i.e. confirmation that either an uplink- or downlink
message has been received [77]. In short, the uplink ACK procedure allows
the end device to listen for a downlink ACK in the receive window(s)
[77]. If the device does not receive an ACK, it may retransmit the message.
Similarly, a downlink message may be acknowledged by the end device by
sending an ACK to the base station [77].
A LoRaWAN packet consists of a preamble, payload, and optional header

[75]. Disregarding the header, the preamble is typically 8 bytes according to
Adelantado et al. [78]. The overhead ratio (coding rate) ranges from 1.25 to
2 [75].
Concerning channels, European devices (868 MHz band) should be able

to utilize 16 different channels according to the LoRa Alliance, where a
channel is defined as a set of data rates usable on a particular frequency [37].
The LoRa Alliance says that these channels may be freely assigned by the
network operator.
By exploiting the inherent orthogonality among different spreading

factors (data-rates), the LoRa Alliance maintains that gateways can receive
data from all supported data rates in each channel simultaneously [74].
However, according to a traffic model by Adelantado et al., this also means
that messages that are transmitted simultaneously with the same SF and
frequency will collide [78]. In this traffic model, Adelantado et al. show
2.4. LoRaWAN 33
that the number of successfully received packets drops when the number of
end-devices increases, due to the effect of collisions [78]. Centenaro et al.
write that current LoRa gateway technology claims the capability of serving
15 000 nodes per gateway [46]. However, as Adelantado et al. show, the
supported number of devices depends on how often they transmit and the
size of their messages [78].
With regard to collisions, The Things Network (TTN), a decentralized,

open source crowd network, has implemented a so-called fair access policy
[82]. According to Thomas Telkamp, network architect at TTN, operation at
the maximum allowed duty cycle does not scale, and the fair access policy is
required to reduce the number of collision [82]. Telkamp observes that the
advertised 20 000 or 60 000 nodes per gateway assume that nodes are not
sending more than one message per hour [82]. Telkamp writes that to allow
for 1 000 nodes per gateway, the TOA per node must be at most 30 seconds
per day [82]. With that restriction, Telkamp says that devices may transmit a
10-byte payload 20 times per day with a spreading factor of 12 (slower data
rate), or 500 times per day with a spreading factor of 7 (faster data rate) [82].
In the EU, the LoRa Alliance maintains that three default channels must
be implemented in every EU device and listened to by every EU gateway
[37]. In one instance, the LoRa Alliance claims EU gateways typically use 8
channels [81], and in another, puts forth that LoRaWAN defines 10 channels
for EU [74]. Out of these 10, eight are multi data rate channels ranging from
250 bps to 5.5 kbps, one is a high data rate LoRa channel at 11 kbps, and the
last one is a single 50 kbps FSK channel. In [37], the LoRa Alliance defines for
the 863-870 EU band, 7 different data rates, each with a unique combination
of bandwidth and spreading factor and one FSK data rate at 50 kbps [37].
In North America, the LoRa Alliance defines 64 different 125 kHz uplink
channels within the range 902.3 to 914.9 MHz in 200 kHz increments [74].
They also define 8 500 kHz channels each for the uplink and downlink
channels (respectively) in the ranges 903-914.9 MHz and 923.3-927.5 MHz
[74].
As mentioned previously, end devices transmit asynchronously.

However, to do so, they must adhere to the following rules:
• In order to achieve frequency diversity and thus resilience towards

interference the end-devices must change channel in a pseudo-random
fashion for every transmission [77],
• The end devices must respect local regulations as to channel access

(duty cycle) [77], and
• The end devices must respect local regulations regarding the maximum
dwell time (see Section 2.2.3) [77].
Besides the mandatory pseudo-random hoping mentioned above,

LoRaWAN integrates optional FHSS [75]. Semtech writes that the
principle behind its FHSS scheme is that a portion of each LoRa packet
is transmitted on each available hopping channel [75]. The channel selection
is implemented by a look-up table managed by the host micro-controller
[75]. Semtech also points out that FHSS is typically employed when the
duration of a single packet could exceed the maximum permissible channel
dwell time [75].
Co-existence and resilience

Concerning co-existence with other communication systems, Real Wireless
conducted a co-existence analysis that mapped the impact of different
interference conditions [30]. The impact of the interference was categorized
as (i) easily mitigated, (ii) mitigated against with some effort, and (iii)
difficult to mitigate [30]. Interference from one spread spectrum system on
another spread spectrum system was deemed as (iii) difficult to mitigate.
Similarly, interference from another UNB network was categorized as (iii)
difficult to mitigate [30].
According to Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara the spreading

processes inherent in CSS (explained in Section 2.4.3) gives the signal
noise-like properties, thereby making it resilient to eavesdropping, jamming
and interference [19]. Likewise, Grover, Lim, and Yang claim that the
inherent wide-band in DSSS disguise it as white noise, thereby preventing
the attacker from detecting which bands are used for communication [51].
Furthermore, the pseudo-random channel selection and the optional FHSS
scheme offers further resilience to jamming [51]. However, there may exist
broadband jamming, against which the noise-like appearance of LoRaWAN
offers little protection [83].
Cloud/backend
The network server, or cloud, will receive transmissions forwarded from the
gateways. The LoRa Alliance says that the server will filter out redundant
received packets, perform security checks, schedule acknowledgment,
manage the network, and perform adaptive data rate (ADR), and more [74].
According to the LoRaWAN specification, the network server manages

the data rate and RF output for each node, thus achieving ADR [77].
Semtech highlights that the purpose of ADR is to ensure that each message
is delivered reliably and to optimize network performance, capacity, and
battery life of the end devices [79]. For instance, a node near the BS may use
a high data-rate and lower output power, whereas nodes at the edge of the
cell would (given a comparable amount of data to transmit) use the lowest
data rate (hence offering the highest sensitivity) and highest effective output
2.4. LoRaWAN 35
power [79] .
There is no single official LoRa cloud to which all devices are connected,
unlike the SigFox cloud in a SigFox network. It is the responsibility of each
operator to arrange cloud access and services. There are both open source
alternatives and a range of companies that provide LoRa cloud services. An
example of such a company is LORIOT, which offer operators a server as was
shown in Figure 2.5, which incorporates network management, operations
(OSS), and billing (BSS) [84]. LORIOT offers different cloud solutions, such
as a (1) shared instance suitable for development, testing, and small scale
and noncritical private networks or (2) a private instance perfect for any size
of the network (small to nation-wide), either private or public [84].
Security & authentication
LoRaWAN implements encryption on both the network and application
layers [74]. The network layer ensures reliable authentication, while
the application layer ensures that the payload is accessible only by the
application server [74]. Hence, an end device must have a valid AES 128
network session (NwkSKey) key and a valid AES 128 application session
key (AppSkey) [74].
The LoRa Alliance provides the following description of these keys. The
NwkSKEY is used by the server and device to verify the integrity of the
message [77] and to ensure the authenticity of the node in the network [74].
The AppSKey is used for end-to-end encryption between the end device
and application server [77]. Networks are differentiated based upon using
a Network ID (NetID) allocated by the LoRa Alliance [85]. In addition,
each end-device has a unique device address (DevAddr) that is included in
every frame to identify transmissions of the end-device within its current
network [77]. Moreover, the DevAddr is partly based on the device’s NetID,
thereby enabling use of the correct session keys and the network addresses
to identify messages meant for other networks [81].
Both the NwkSKEY and AppSkey are unique per device and are
depending upon the device, whether it be a static or session-dependent
pattern. A LoRa device can join a LoRaWAN network via Over-the-Air
Activation (OTAA) or Activation by Personalization (ABP). With OTAA,
the session keys are derived dynamically and uniquely for every activation.
With ABP, the session keys for a particular network are stored within the
device during its production and then remain the same until changed by the
developer [81].
The OTAA procedure defined in the LoRaWAN specification enables

an end device to transmit a join request to the application server with a
pre-provisioned application key (AppKey) and a globally unique end-device
identifier (DevEUI) as part of the manufacturing process [81]. Then, after
some negotiation between the end device and the network server, the
network server generates NwkSKey and AppSkey, encrypts them using

the AppKey and transmit them to the device. A device, once it knows the
AppKey, decrypts and installs the two session keys [81].
Replay attacks are thwarted by resetting an uplink- and downlink frame

counter to 0 for every activation procedure [77]. More specifically, each end
device holds an uplink counter incremented by the device and a downlink
counter incremented by the network server [77]. The uplink counter is
generated by the network by adding one to the previous uplink count,
and the downlink counter is generated by the device by adding one to the
previous downlink count [77]. The receiving side checks that the received
counter values have incremented by one compared to the current counter
value. Therefore, the network server must keep track of the counters for
each device and can then ignore messages that do not include the correct
counters. Note that the counters are not incremented unless the message is
acknowledged, as detailed in the LoraWAN specification [77]).
Modules
Semtech has not released their patented LoRa technology in order to become
"Silicon agnostic.", but rather, the only manufacturer of LoRa chipsets is
Semtech, as noted by Centenaro et al. [46]. However, Semtech has announced
an agreement with STMicroelectronics to enable STMicroelectronics to also
manufacture chipsets [86]. At the time of writing, Semtech is the exclusive
manufacturer of LoRa RF products, and the end-device LoRa transceiver
product family is SX127X (as summarized in Table 2.6).
TABLE 2.6: LoRa modules, all uncited data is from Semtech [87]
Semtech LoRa transceivers

Model Frequency Link budget Tx/Rx current (mA) # units/ unit price
range (MHz) (dB)
SX1272 862-1020 158 Rx: 10 unit price: US$7.56 [88]
Tx: 28 @ 13 dBm [75] +1000: US$4.333 [88]
+3000: US$3.97 (TR) [88]
Tx: 28 @ 13 dBm [75] +1000: US$3.370 [89]
+3000: US$3.05 (TR) [89]
SX1276 137-1020 168 Rx: 11 +1000: US$4.622 [91]
Tx: 28 @ 13 dBm [90] +3000: US$4.24 (TR) [91]
SX1277 137-1020 158 Rx: 11 N/A
Tx: 28 @ 13 dBm [90]
Tx: 28 @ 13 dBm [90] +1000: US$3.697 [92]
+3000: US$3.394 (TR) [92]
2.4. LoRaWAN 37
In addition to a LoRa spread spectrum modem, Semtech transceivers

also integrate an FSK/OOK modem that supports a number of standard
techniques such as MSK, GFSK, OOK, FSK, and GMSK [75]. Semtech claims
that this enables the support of additional protocols, such as IEEE 802.14.4.g
or WMBus [75].
Concerning battery lifetime, Digi-Key claims that a lifetime longer than

ten years is possible [93].
Base stations
Semtech’s SX130X product family of digital baseband chips are the only
chips integrating the proprietary LoRa concentrator (gateway) intellectual
property. The gateway RF front end intellectual property is available via
Semtech’s SX1257 module. Using the SX130X family and SX1257, a wide
range of other companies offers a complete gateway solution, as can be
seen in the selection offered by LORIOT [94]. For instance, Cisco’s IR 910
gateway utilities two SX1257 modules and one SX1303 chip [94]. It is also
possible to build a gateway using a Raspberry Pi connected to an SX1301
concentrator [94]. These gateways may incorporate additional functionality
such as 4G LTE or Ethernet for backhaul, cooling, more powerful processors,
and increased local storage, outdoor weather resilience, etc. [94].
Depending on the complexity and functionality desired, a LoRa gateway

has a wide range of prices. For example, the IMST GmbH iC880A
concentrator consists of a PCB integrating two SX1257 chips and one SX1301
chip [95] and costs around 130 e [96]. The high-end selection of gateways
(of those that are ready to be deployed) includes the Kerlink Wirnet station
priced at 1750 e [97].
Roaming
A LoRaWAN network can have many different shapes and forms. It can be
private or public and utilize various infrastructure and backend solutions.
However, supporting roaming between LoRaWAN networks is expected to
become a crucial aspect in enabling global interoperability.
The current version of LoRaWAN, V1.0.x, does not support device

nomadicity [80]. This means that devices cannot move between networks.
However, an operator can service devices in multiple public networks
by the internetworking of customer data [80]. According to the LoRa
Alliance, V1.1 will enable nomadic device roaming by defining passive
and hand-over-roaming together with the necessary core network back-end
interfaces (such as the network server to network server interface) [80].
LoRaWAN Technical Summary

Table 2.7 summarizes LoRaWAN’s technical characteristics.
TABLE 2.7: Overview of LoRaWAN’s technological

characteristics according to the LoRa Alliance, Semtech
and other sources.
Characteristic LoRaWAN/LoRa
Frequency EU: 863-870 MHz ISM band [37]
US: 902-928 MHz ISM band [37]
Multiple access method uplink & downlink: Proprietary chirp spread spectrum (CSS) [73]
Pseudo-random channel selection [77]
Optional FHSS [75]
MAC Asynchronous / Unslotted ALOHA [74] (transmit and hope for the
best)
Overhear/Signaling No Signaling, coding rate ranges from 1.25 to 2 [75], preamble size 8
bytes bytes overhead per uplink message [78]
Modulation LoRa, standard FSK techniques [75]
Range Variable [76] [75]
2-5 km (URBAN), 15 km (suburban) [78]
Link budget variable [75]
∼ 150-157 dB [43]
FEC Yes [75]
Output power Maximum 25 W (14 dBm) [33]
Bandwidth Primarily 125 kHz, but also 200 kHz and 500 kHz [75] [43]
Number of frequency channels EU: 8-10 [81] [74]
Note: Different spreading factors equates to additional "virtual"
channels per frequency channel [74]
Number of spreading factors EU: 7 [74]
North America: 5 [74]
Peak data rate 0.3 to 50 kbps [74]
Payload length Variable [78]
51-222B [78]
Up to 250B [19]
Allowed number of messages per day Variable (depends on data rate)
Network topology Star [79]
Roaming There is no mechanism for cross network nomadicity (a device
cannot move between networks) [80].
However, operators of public networks may internetwork customer
data [80].
The upcoming LoRaWAN specification is claimed to support
nomadic roaming [80].
Handover Not needed (devices not tied to a single BS) [74]
Co-existence and resilience Potential co-existence issues with other UNB- and spread spectrum
networks [30]. The inherent noise like properties of spread spectrum
makes LoRaWAN resistant to jamming [19]. However, broadband
jamming, is likely an issue [83].
Adaptive data rate Yes [77] [79]
Bidirectional Yes [77]
Authentication & security AES-encrypted authentication [74]
AES encrypted payload [74]
OTA updates Yes [79]
SIM form factor No cards, eUICC or Soft-Sim equivalent. See Section 2.4.3
Localization Yes [19]
Nodes per BS Variable
20 000 - 60 000 (less than 1 message per hour / device) [82]
1000 (20 or 500 messages per day depending on data-rate, 10 byte
payload) [82]
10 000 [46]
Battery lifetime More than 10 years (battery and number of message is unspecified)
[93]
Typical current consumption (SX127X family)
Transmit: 28 mA at 13 dBm [87]
Receive: 10-11 mA [87]
Register retention: 100 nA [75]
supply voltage: 3.3 V [75]
2.4. LoRaWAN 39
2.4.4 LoRaWAN’s Non-technological Aspects

This section presents the non-technological aspects of LoRaWAN.
Business model
The LoRa Alliance is an open, non-profit organization with the objective
of making LoRaWAN an open global standard for secure IoT LPWAN
connectivity [98]. LoRa, LoRaWAN, and the LoRa Alliance are exclusive
trademarks of Semtech Corporation [99]. The alliance defines the LoRaWAN
standard and ensures interoperability by a certification and compliance
program [100]. The LoRa Alliance claims that having an open standard is a
proven strategy for adoption and extensive deployments [100]. Furthermore,
Link Lab points out that companies who adopt LoRaWAN can add value to
the alliance as a whole and its members [47].
According to the LoRa Alliance, the main target applications for LPWANs
are those that require a long battery life to enable "fit and forget", disposable
end-devices, a low-cost sensor or end-device bill of materials (BOM). and
long range connectivity [100].
According to a white paper on LoRa by Mobile World Live, the LoRa

Alliance does not dictate the deployment of LoRaWAN networks nor the
pricing of services [101]. Link Labs notes that, like SigFox, the LoRa Alliance
wants operators to deploy LoRaWAN [47]. In addition, they also want
startups and private companies to deploy their network [47]. Jonas Rydberg
at NyTeknik writes that "Anyone can deploy a number of base stations or routers
in order to cover a whole city." [102]. For example, according to Jonas Rydberg,
in 2015, ELSYS (a smaller Swedish company specializing in wireless sensors)
decided to deploy a LoRa network in the city of Umeå, Sweden [102] .
One example of an operator rolling out LoRa is the Korean operator SK

Telecom, who completed a nationwide deployment of LoRa (achieving
coverage of 99 % of the population) in June 2016 [103]. Nearly
simultaneously, they completed a nationwide LTE-M rollout in March
2016 [103]. SK Telecom expects to have over 4 million devices connected to
its IoT-dedicated networks by the end of 2017 [103]. Another example is the
deployment of LoRaWAN in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden by Tele2 [15].
Intellectual property rights and compliance

As mentioned earlier, LoRaWAN is a standard for the MAC layer. It has
been designed to operate on top of Semtech’s LoRa technology [74]. Actility,
a sponsor member (see Section 2.4.4) of the LoRa Alliance, writes that [104]:
The LoRaWAN standard is based on an open protocol approach managed by the

LoRa AllianceTM which supervises the development of the standard and ensures
interoperability between all LoRaWAN networks.
Furthermore, according to Link Labs, anyone can download the

LoRaWAN specifications and build a LoRaWAN module or base station
that conforms to it [47]. However, the transceiver chip itself is Semtech’s
proprietary intellectual property and must be bought from Semtech.
Moreover, members of the LoRa Alliance may, depending on their
membership, contribute to the standardization process [105]. Hence,
according to the definitions outlined in Section 2.2.1, LoRa is a proprietary
standard, whereas LoRaWAN is an open standard.
LoRAWAN product compliance and interoperability is ensured through

a LoRa Alliance certification program [106]. This certification ensures that
products meet the required regulation and LoRaWAN features to ensure
interoperability [106]. The certification program also ensures compliance
with the LoRaWAN specifications for network infrastructure, components,
and offerings [106].
2.4. LoRaWAN 41
Reach
According to the LoRa Alliance, LoRaWAN has 34 publicly announced
operators and more than 250 on-going trials and city-wide deployments [98]
as illustrated in Figure 2.6.
F IGURE 2.6: LoRaWAN deployments [98]
Figure 2.6 does not convey the actual network coverage, but only shows
the countries where there are known deployments. Ongoing and completed
deployments are summarized in Table 2.8.
TABLE 2.8: A selection of LoRaWAN deployments.
Country Deployer Comment Status

The KPN (Dutch landline and Nationwide coverage Completed
Netherlands mobile telco) [107]
India Tata Communications Semi-Nationwide On going
(CSP) coverage reaching over [107]
400 million people
France Orange (CSP) Semi-Nationwide On going
coverage covering 2,600 [108]
towns
Germany Actility (LPWAN Nationwide coverage On-going
infrastructure company) [109]
and Telent (network
systems and solutions
provider)
Actors and activity

The LoRa Alliance is comprised of industrial- and commercial members.
The alliane has over 400 members [110]. The LoRa Alliance membership is
divided into five categories: sponsor, contributor, institutional, adopter, and
public member. Each category of membership has different costs (ranging
from US$50 000 to free) and various benefits, such as greater power in the
standardization process [105]. At the time of writing, the LoRa Alliance has
20 sponsor members, 42 contributor members, around 324 adopters, and 36
institutional members [111].
The companies that have joined the LoRa Alliance include technology
companies (such as IBM, Cisco, and HP), product oriented companies
(such as Bosch and Schneider), and telecommunication network operators
(such as Orange and Swisscom), as well as small/medium sized enterprises
(SMEs) and startups [111]. The ecosystem also benefits from a number
manufacturers and service providers, thus enabling a multi-source value
chain, i.e. providing a variety of modules, devices, base stations, network
servers, and application servers [111]. Actility, a LoRa Alliance sponsor
claims the following about LoRaWAN [104]:
It is the fastest growing tech ecosystem in the technology world with more than
400 members, including mobile network operators, base station suppliers, sensor
manufacturers and system integrators.
As for available and certified LoRaWAN products, the LoRa Alliance

lists 45 products on their website [112]. These include basic transceiver
modules (based on Semtech’s chips summarized in Section 2.4.3), sensors,
and complete solutions and products [112]. It should be mentioned that
many products that are advertised as LoRaWAN products are not included
in this list.
Commercial aspects
For a LoRaWAN operator, the overall cost of a LoRaWAN network will
depend on which commercial infrastructure is implemented and whether
or not one wants to provide services beyond simply providing connectivity.
The price of LoRa gateways was given in Section 2.4.3 as between 130-1750
e. Note that the 130 e version is just a PCB, and hence not ready to be
deployed in the field. Similarly, unless developed in-house, the cost of the
back-end will vary as it is offered as a service by many different companies.
SK Telecom announced in 2016 that they planned on investing US$84

million in their LoRa strategy which includes deploying it nationwide,
developing IoT dedicated modules, and upgrading their current IoT
platform [113]. ATA Communications is deploying a network in India
that is expected to be capable of reaching 400 million people [107]. ATA
Communications has signed a commercial agreement with Kerlink for 10
2.5. Cellular technology 43
000 Wirnet base stations [107], which are roughly around 1750 e (without
considering a volume discount). Meanwhile, ELSYS’s roll out in Umeå,
Sweden, required only five base stations according to Joannes Karlsson,
CTO, at cost of between 50 000 SEK (≈ US$5700) and 100 000 SEK (≈
US$11400) in total according to Jonas Rydberg at NyTeknik [102].
There is no pre-determined price plan for LoRaWAN published by the

LoRa Alliance, but rather it is up to the owner of the network to define their
pricing plan. For example, SK Telecom (who operates a nationwide LoRa
network in South Korea) recently revealed their LoRa pricing plan, which
they claim costs one-tenth of their cellular-based IoT services [103]. The
SK Telecom price plan is divided into six monthly flat rate tiers [103]. The
cheapest tier, suitable for simple metering and monitoring services, costs 350
KRW (US$0.32) and allows for sending 100 KB per month [103]. The most
expensive tier costs 2000 KRW (US$1.78) and includes 100 MB of data [103].
Jonas Rydberg at NyTeknik writes that depending upon how much data is
transmitted, it will cost around 10 SEK (≈ US$1.1) per year to connect a pallet
to Tele2’s LoRaWAN network in Gothenburg [102].
2.5 Cellular technology

This section describes the process by which cellular technology is developed
and coordinated.
2.5.1 3GPP
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) describes itself as a
collaborative agreement between seven telecommunications standard
development organizations from different regions [114]. 3GPP describes
these tandard development organizations as having an officially recognized
status and the authority to define, publish, and set standards in a nation
or region [115]. Presently, 3GPP consists of the following partners: ETSI
(Europe), CCSA (China), ARIB (Japan), ATIS (US), TTA (Korea), TTC (Japan)
and, TSDSI (India) [115]. 3GPP writes that its purpose is to prepare, approve,
and maintain the following:
• "A 3rd Generation Mobile System based on the evolved GSM core network,
and the Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA)."
• "further development of radio technologies such as LTE, coupled with

evolution of core network elements such as the Evolved Packet Core (EPC)."
• "continuing evolution of the 2nd generation GSM/EDGE Radio Access

Network (GERAN)."
3GPP states that its member organizations shall transpose these

specifications and reports into appropriate deliverables (standards) [115].
Hence, as mentioned by Sauter, 3GPP is responsible for developing and
enhancing existing cellular standards [18]. 3GPP states that it takes the
recommendations of ITU into account (see Section 2.2), and that the result
of its work shall form the basis of member contributions to the ITU [115].
With respect to the technologies that comply with the IMT standards, 3GPP
refers to them in terms of cellular generations, i.e. 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G, which
are typically identified by different milestones with regard to the RAN- and
Core network technologies [114].
Different entities, such as 3GPP, compete to have their standard emerge

as the dominant one. For instance, two technologies are compliant with
IMT-2000 and therefore branded as 3G: 3GPP’s 3G standard UMTS and
3GPP2’s 3G standard CDMA2000.
As explained by 3GPP, improvements, changes, and new standards

proposed by 3GPP are summarized in documents referred to as releases (see
Figure 2.7) [114]. The development of a new generation can be mapped to
a number of releases [114]. Initially, these releases were named after the
year of ratification, which is why the release in 1999 containing GSM/UMTS
specifications was called release 99 [114]. However, in subsequent versions, a
number was used, starting with Release 4 [114]. Once a release is completed,
it is frozen, and only necessary corrections are allowed. As indicated by
3GPP, the releases which presently have active work taking place are releases
14 and 15, as indicated by 3GPP [116].
F IGURE 2.7: 3GPP IoT standardization, adopted from Rohde &

Schwarz [12], [116].
The 3GPP releases of interest to this thesis are those that specify cellular
MTC or IoT technologies. According to Rohde & Schwarz, the initiative
to standardize cellular technology to support a large number of devices
(massive IoT) began with Network Improvements for Machine-Type
2.5. Cellular technology 45
Communications (NIMTC) in release 10 and System Improvements to

Machine-Type Communications (SIMTC ) in release 11 [12]. Both NIMTC
and SIMTC served to protect against overloading as a result of too many IoT
devices via overload control and signaling reduction [12].
In release 10, NIMTC was justified by 3GPP with the following statement:
"It appears that there is market potential for M2M beyond the current "premium
M2M market segment" [117]. Arguably, 3GPP refers here to IoT characterized
primarily by large volumes, as discussed in Chapter 1. According to
Rohde & Schwarz, release 12 included further machine type communications
enhancements(MTCe) and low-cost LTE (LC-LTE) [12]. Mainly, release 12
introduced a power saving mode (PSM) described in Section 2.6.6 suitable
for sensors. Release 13 and 14 specify all the cellular LPWANs, as will be
presented in Section 2.5.2, and thus embody the armament of the cellular
industry in the LPWAN war.
2.5.2 From Existing M2M to cellular LPWAN

Hunn writes that existing cellular M2M modems cost between US$10-40
(December 2015) and that the price needs to come down to US$1 for the IoT
paradigm, depicted in Figure. 1.1, to take off. Hunn states that the cheapest
option in existing M2M is GPRS while 3G and 4G M2M are expensive
alternatives [6]. Likewise, Frank Rayal claims that an M2M GSM or GPRS
modem cost US$ 10 whereas LTE and 3G modems are still more expensive
[118].
Because 2G is the cheapest alternative in existing M2M, it accounts for

77% of cellular M2M connections (March 2015), as mentioned by Frank
Rayal [118]. Similarly, Anton-Haro and Dohler wrote in December 2014 that
the majority of M2M applications were carried over GPRS [119]. Ericsson
wrote in January 2016 that the vast majority of cellular M2M applications
use GSM/GPRS/EDGE [10].
Besides modem cost, Hunn says that the often overlooked provisioning
cost is the second element of ascertaining the total deployment cost [6].
Hunn defines provisioning cost as including the cost of attaching the unit
to the network, maintenance, and the cost of billing it [6]. Hunn sets, as
of December 2015, the provisioning cost to US$50-1000, and claims that it
should be around US$2 in the IoT paradigm depicted in Figure 1.1.
On a more technical note, Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara write that

M2M over conventional LTE (4G) offers connectivity at a cost and power
consumption unacceptable for several MTC use cases [19]. They explain that
traditional cellular technologies are too complex, optimized for voice and
high-speed data service, and do not exhibit a high enough energy efficiency
[19]. They further emphasize that there is a need to strip existing cellular
M2M of its complexity in order to reduce cost and observe that efforts in this
direction are underway by 3GPP [19].
In a presentation by Philippe Reininger, Chairman of 3GPP RAN WG3, it

can be seen that the efforts described by Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara
correspond to work done by 3GPP in Release 13 and on-going work in release
14 [120]. Reininger writes that 3GPP has made a major effort to address the
IoT market by introducing the following standards [120]:
• eMTC: Further LTE enhancements for MTC, building on work started

in release 12.
– Also known as LTE-M according to Rohde & Schwarz [12].
• NB-IoT: A new radio for the LTE platform optimized for the low end of
the market.
• Extended Coverage - GSM - IoT (EC-GSM-IoT): (Extended Coverage -
GSM - IoT): EGPRS enhancements aimed at the GSM/EDGE market:
– Formerly known as extended coverage Enhanced GPRS
(EC-EGPRS)) according to Harald Welte (co-founder of
Sysmocom) [121].
Ericsson and GSMA refers to these standards as standardized LPWAN

solutions [22] [10]. Ericsson writes that they are, as a family of solutions,
superior with respect to meeting the requirements of massive IoT [10].
GSMA claims that the cellular LPWANs specified in release 13 possess
particularly attractive characteristics, such as low power consumption, low
device cost, and the benefits of licensed spectrum (described as offering less
interference and better reliability) [22].
2.6 EC-GSM-IoT
This section describes 2G improvements that EC-GSM-IoT entails.
3GPP defines the objectives of EC-GSM-IoT as long battery life, low

device cost (compared to GPRS/GSM devices), extended coverage, variable
data rate, massive number of devices (at least 50 000 per cell), and enhanced
security compared to GSM/EDGE [120].
According to Harald Welte, EC-GSM-IoT was formerly known as

EC-EGPRS but re-branded for marketing purposes [121]. This is confirmed
in a press release by Ericsson which states that EC-SM-IoT was previously
known as EC-EGPRS [122].
2.6. EC-GSM-IoT 47

GSMA explains that EC-GSM-IoT transmits in the same sub-bands as legacy
GSM between 850-900 MHz and 1800-1900 MHz [22]. To achieve as much
coverage as possible, GSMA writes that the initial deployments are likely
to occur in the lower frequency bands [22]. GSMA further states that these
bands are a part of licensed spectrum, which means that they are at the
disposal of the operator who has a license for the specific band that they
will operate in [22].
2.6.2 Physical Layer

Reininger explains that in EC-GSM-IoT, multiple access is accomplished
as in 2G, i.e. by TDMA (Time-Division Multiple Access) and FDMA
(Frequency-Division Multiple Access) [120].
As explained by Sauter, TDMA divides the transmissions into different

time slots, thereby allowing more than one user to utilize a single frequency
band [18]. Sauter writes that there are eight time slots per frequency band
in GSM [18]. Nielsen (GCF) claims that EC-GSM-IoT utilizes four time slots
[123]. The bandwidth per channel (or band) in EC-GSM-IoT is 200 kHz
(the same as legacy GSM) according to Philippe Reininger [120]. FDMA
divides the communication over different frequency bands [18]. Therefore,
by multiplexing information in different time slots and bands multiple
simultaneous transfers can occur.
Wang XinHui, Vice Chairman of 3GPP Technical Specification Group,

claims that that the aspired coverage improvement will stem from "blind
physical layer repetitions" in which each message is repeated without any
feedback from the receiver (i.e. transmitted "blindly") [124]. ETSI further
explains that phase continuity and thus phase coherence is required [125].
This is because the repetitions are added together constructively at the
receiver, which results in the increased SNR (enabling increased coverage)
[125]. Another way to think of it is that each repetition provides more
evidence for the receiver of what the intended message is.
The modulation for EC-GSM-IoT is GMSK (2 bits/symbol) or an optional

8-PSK modulation (3 bits/symbol) [120]. Reininger defines the objective
regarding coverage or maximum coupling loss as 164 dB (33 dBm power
class) and 154 dB (23 dBm power class) [120]. Depending on coverage, the
desired data rates are between 70 and 350 kbps when using GMSK [120].
Ericsson states that the extended coverage equates to an additional 20 dB
compared with 900 MHz GPRS [10].
2.6.3 Network
GSMA states that EC-GSM-IoT is based on EGPRS and that it reuses existing
GPRS core network functionality [22]. Ericsson explains that EC-GSM-IoT
is realized by mapping a new set of control and data channels over legacy
GSM [10]. Similarly, Reininger writes that the main features are new logical
channels designed for extended coverage [120].
Concerning actual deployment, GSMA claims that EC-GSM may be

integrated with legacy GSM networks with a firmware upgrade [22].
Regarding signal overhead, in a future IoT smart city scenario using

cellular connectivity, Ericsson claims that the total frame size will range from
250-300 bytes, 100 to 150 bytes of which are raw payload data [20].
2.6.4 Co-existence and resilience

Concerning coexistence with existing traffic, Ericsson contends that the
traffic of EC-GSM-IoT devices is multiplexed with legacy EDGE and GPRS
traffic[10]. GSMA writes that the technology will allow for resource sharing
between EC-GSM-IoT and legacy packed-switches services [22]. Hence,
GSMA claims that there is no need to reserve dedicated resources for IoT
[22]. Furthermore, GSMA states that besides avoiding an adverse impact on
legacy GSM, WCDMA and LTE systems will not be negatively affected [22].
As for jamming, GSM is susceptible to jamming and GSM jammers are

widely available.
2.6.5 Security & authentication

Reininger states security will be improved compared to GSM and EDGE
with the help of integrity protection, mutual authentication, and stronger
ciphering algorithms [120]. Likewise, GSMA writes that compared to GSM
and EDGE, the security framework has been improved and that it maintains
an updated LTE grade security framework [22].
Next follows a recapitulation of different SIM card options. Ericsson

says that traditionally, the security mechanisms have been based on a
physical SIM card attached to the device, referred to as Universal Integrated
Circuit Card (UICC). However, Ericsson writes that in future IoT, the SIM
functionality will be integrated via an embedded chip (eUICC or eSIM) or
handled as a soft-SIM in a trusted run-time environment (of a processor)
[10]. Generally, SIM refers to the function of the UICC, i.e. as an application.
Likewise, Universal-SIM (USIM), is also an application, introduced with the
advent of UMTS.
As for cellular LPWANs, GSMA writes that EC-GSM-IoT, NB-IoT, and

eMTC require a UICC which can be of different form factors including eUICC
[22].
2.6. EC-GSM-IoT 49
2.6.6 Modules
This section describes EC-GSM-IoT modules and power saving mechanisms
supported by all of EC-GSM-IoT, eMTC, and NB-IoT.
PSM and eDRX

GSMA report that EC-GSM, eMTC, and NB-IoT support a new power saving
mode (PSM) and extended idle-mode Discontinuous Reception (eDRX) [22].
Ericsson writes that both PSM and eDRX extend battery life by allowing the
device contact or be contacted on a per-need-basis [10].
GSMA explains that PSM reduces power consumption by enabling

devices to enter a new deep sleep mode [22]. GSMA distinguishes PSM
from a normal power-off (sleep) because the device remains registered with
the network, thus removing the need to re-establish packet data network
connections when the device is activated [22]. However, as emphasized by
Qualcomm, the device is unreachable when PSM is active [126].
Qualcomm states that eDRX reduces power consumption by extending

the maximum time between data reception from the network in connected
mode [126]. In addition, the time between page network updates and paging
(asking the device which cell it is in and so on) sessions while in idle mode
is extended [126], as illustrated to the right in Figure 2.8. In short, eDRX
allows the device and network to coordinate longer sleep periods, thereby
allowing the device to check for network messages less frequency. GSMA
writes that during eDRX the device is not listening for paging or downlink
control channels and it may turn off some of its circuitry GSMA[22].
F IGURE 2.8: PSM and eDRX battery life optimization, adapted

from Qualcomm [126].
GSMA emphasizes that a device can support both PSM and eDRX and
that it is up to the network to decide whether or not to allow both, none, or
only one of them [22]. Furthermore, as indicated by GSMA and Reininger
(3GPP), the implementation of PSM and eDRX differ slightly for EC-GSM,
eMTC, and NB-IoT, such as with respect to the maximum allowed eDRX
cycle [120] [22].
EC-GSM-IoT modules
GSMA points out that EC-GSM-IoT is realized by streamlining and
improving protocol layers to minimize device complexity and to facilitate
superior battery life [22]. Moreover, according to Reininger, EC-GSM
supports both PSM and eDRX [120]. According to GSMA, the maximum
eDRX cycle is 52 minutes [22]. An additional power saving modification
highlighted by Reininger is relaxed idle mode behavior, which is a reduction
in the degree of monitoring of neighboring cells [124] [120].
According to Reininger, the target life length of an EC/GSM/IoT device

is approximately ten years of operation with a 5Wh battery, depending on
traffic and coverage requirements [120].
Other features or lack thereof worth mentioning is that EC-GSM-IoT

modules are likely to support E-GPRS capability according to GSMA
[120] and that inter-RAT handover (handover between different network
types, such as 2G, 3G or Wi-Fi) is unsupported in order to reduce device
complexity, as noted by Reininger [120]. Concerning cost, the reader is
referred to Section 2.6.9.
2.6.7 Roaming
GSMA writes that "Indeed, the very architecture of mobile technologies worldwide
also apply to cellular LPWA, allowing for seamless roaming of devices between
different network operators in different countries (or even within the same country
- national roaming)." [22]. Furthermore, GSMA states that the roaming
agreements used presently will be compatible with cellular LPWANs [22].
This should allow devices to roam between networks operated by different
operators.
2.6.8 EC-GSM-IoT Technical Summary

Table 2.9 summarizes EC-GSM-IoT’s technical characteristics.
2.6. EC-GSM-IoT 51
TABLE 2.9: Technological EC-GSM-IoT characteristics
Characteristic EC-GSM-IoT
Frequency Typical System bandwidth: 2.4 MHz [120]
GSM bands: [22] [43]
850-900 MHz
1800-1900 MHz
Multiple access method Legacy TDMA/FDMA [120]

MAC A new set of control- and data channels over legacy
GSM [10]
Overheard/Signaling GSM based signaling, 100-200 bytes overhead per
uplink message (Section 2.6.3)
Modulation GMSK and 8PSK (optional) [120]
Physical layer blind repetitions with overlaid CDMA
[120]
Range See link budget
Link budget 164 dB MCL (33 dBm power class) [120]
154 dB MCL (23 dBm power class) [120]
Latency Fundamentally, this is determined by which mode the
device is in (connected or idle). The latency in either
mode could not be found. However, in idle mode, the
latency is partly determined by the different eDRX and
PSM duty cycles.
FEC The specifics are unknown, but it is enhanced due to the
blind physical layer repetitions (multiple transmissions
of the data).
Output power 23/33 dBm [120]
Bandwidth 200 kHz (uplink), 200 kHz (downlink) [43] [120]
Number of channels Depends on spectrum
Peak data rate 350-70 kbps for GMSK [120]
Up to 240 kbps for 8-PSK [120]
Payload length In a generic smart city scenario devised by Ericsson,
cellular LPWAN connectivity will support a frame size
capable of a 100 to 150 byte payload [20].
Allowed number of messages (Europe) per day Licensed spectrum: No regulatory restrictions [22]
Network topology GSM/EDGE
Roaming Yes [22]
Handover Yes (intra-RAT handover).
Co-existence and resilience Co-existent with legacy cellular networks [22].
Adaptive data rate Unknown
Bidirectional Yes
Authentication & security In general, cellular LPWANs integrate: Device/network
authentication [22]
Secure communication channels [22]
Optional "end-to-end security" at application level [22]
Secure provisioning and storage of device identity and
credentials [22]
EC-GSM-IoT specifically integrates:
Improved GSM/EDGE security [120]
Updated LTE grade security framework [22]
OTA updates Yes [127]
SIM form factor Different form factors (UICC/eUICC/GSMA Remote
SIM Provisioning) [22]
Localization To be supported in release 14 [120].
Nodes per BS 50 000 [120]
Battery lifetime Depending on traffic and coverage:
10 years of operation with 5 Wh battery [120]
2.6.9 Ecosystem and commercial aspects

GSMA writes that after pre-commercial pilots and trials during 2016,
cellular LPWANs (EC-GSM-IoT, NB-IoT, and eMTC) would be launched
commercially in 2017 and benefit from a well established 3GPP ecosystem.
Lars Nielsen, General Manager of The Global Certification Forum (CGF),
writes that cellular LPWANs will enable some 800 operators serving 220
countries to leverage existing 3GPP networks to offer carrier-grade IoT
connectivity in licensed spectrum [123]. Furthermore, GSMA claims that
EC-GSM-IoT is supported by all the key mobile equipment, chipset, and
module manufacturers [128].
GSM and EDGE cover most of the world’s population (around 90%),
which is more than LTE and UMTS, as indicated by Ericsson [10]. However,
some MNOs have announced the decommissioning of their GSM networks,
as mentioned by Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara [19].
Regarding module cost, GSMA writes that E-GPRS already meets

module requirements of low-complexity and cost efficiency and because
EC-GSM-IoT is an evolution of E-GPRS, it does not need any further
reduction in complexity [22]. Moreover, GSMA expects a price reduction to
occur as a result of increased production volumes [22].
2.7. LTE-IoT 53
2.7 LTE-IoT
Both eMTC and NB-IoT are collectively referred to as LTE-IoT according
to Qualcomm [126] and are both based on 4G. Hence, to avoid repetitive
text, eMTC and NB-IoT are both described in this section. 3GPP defines the
objectives of eMTC and NB-IoT as:
• eMTC
– Extended Coverage
– Prolonged battery life
– Low device cost (compared to GPRS/GSM devices)
– Variable data rates
• NB-IoT
– Extended Coverage
– Prolonged battery life
– Even lower device cost than eMTC
– Support for massive number of devices: at least 50 000 per cell

As mentioned by GSMA, eMTC and NB-IoT can utilize LTE spectrum
between 450 MHz and 3.5 GHz [128]. According to Qualcomm, NB-IoT can
also be deployed in re-farmed 2G/3G bands [126], as explained in Section
2.7.4. GSMA further emphasizes that licensed spectrum is at the disposal of
the operator (free from additional regulatory restrictions) [128].
2.7.2 Modules
Before exploring LTE-IoT modules, the concept of 3GPP user equipment
categories (UE category) is introduced. UE categories specify device
requirements enforced by 3GPP standards (modulation schemes, radio
protocol, antennas, and so on) [129]. Hence, a given device must fulfill one
of the UE categories defined for the network in which it is operating. The
reason why 3GPP has defined multiple UE categories per network is that it
enables device differentiation [129].
The UE categories that 3GPP has defined as part of its IoT standardization
effort are shown in Table 2.10. Device category Cat M1 and Cat NB1
correspond to eMTC- and NB-IoT devices respectively [126].
Qualcomm attributes the reduction in cost and power consumption to the

reduction of UE complexity throughout the releases [126]. As seen in Table
2.10, Cat M1 and Cat NB1 are the results of reducing modem complexity,
data rate, the number of antennas, bandwidth, and more.
TABLE 2.10: 3GPP LTE UE category evolution, adopted from

Nokia [127], Radio-electronics.com [130] and Qualcomm [126].
Release 8 Release 12 Release 13

UE Cat 4 Cat 1 Cat 0 Cat M1 Cat NB1
Category (eMTC) (NB-IoT)
Downlink 150 Mbps 10 Mbps 1 Mbps 1 MBps 170 kbps
peak rate
Uplink 50 Mbps 5 Mbps 1 Mbps 1 Mbps 250 kbps
peak rate
Number of 2 2 1 1 1
antennas
Duplex Full duplex Full duplex Half duplex Full/Half Half duplex
mode duplex
UE receive 1.08-18 MHz 1.08-18 MHz 20 MHz 1.4 MHz 200 kHz
bandwidth
UE transmit 23 dBm 23 dBm 23 dBm 20/23 dBm 20/23 dBm
power class
Multiplexed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes/No
within LTE
Modem 100% 80% 40% 20% 15%
complexity
The reduction in bandwidth is of particular importance. Dahlman, S.

Parkvall, and J. Skold write that a narrower device RF bandwidth implies
a further reduction in complexity and thus cost [131]. Nokia claims that
decreasing the bandwidth from 20 MHz to Cat M1’s 1.04 MHz (1.4 MHz
including guard bands) or Cat NB1’s 180 kHz yields an 11.5 dB or 20 dB
coverage improvement respectively [127].
To further reduce power consumption and increase battery lifetime Cat

M1 and Cat NB1 support PSM and eDRX (see Section 2.6.6). GSMA specifies
the maximum eDRX cycle as 44 minutes for eMTC and 175 min for NB-IoT
[22].
As for EC-GSM-IoT, the aspired battery lifetime for eMTC and Nb-IoT is
ten years with a 5 Wh battery, depending on traffic and coverage, according
to Reininger (3GPP) [120]. Nokia writes that the most realistic scenario for
both eMTC and NB-IoT, assuming a daily update of 200 bytes and taking
into account leakage current and battery self-discharge, results in a battery
lifetime of 10 years [127].
At the time of writing, very few eMTC and NB-IoT modules are
commercially available. The modules that could be found are summarized
in Table 2.11.
2.7. LTE-IoT 55
TABLE 2.11: Commercially available LTE-IoT modules
Cat M1 NB NB1
Manufacturer NimbelInk Ublox Telit Quectel
Model NL-SW-LTE SARA-R404M NE866B1 [133] BC95 [134]
SVZM20-ES [132]
Data rate Unknown. Half-duplex uplink: Up to ≤ 100 kbps
uplink and 20 kbps (single [134]
downlink: tone)
375 kb/s [132] downlink: Up
to 250 kbps
[133]
Current, Supply voltage: Supply voltage: Supply voltage: Supply voltage:
supply 3.8 V. 3.8 V. 3.8 V. 3.8 V.
voltage or Rx & Tx PSM current: 9 µA. Output power: Output power:
power current: up to Idle Mode current: 23 dBm [133] 23 dBm.
500 mA [135] 9 mA. Sleep current:
Tx current (max 5 uA.
power): 125 mA Idle current:
[132] 6 mA [134]
SIM Form Micro Sim card (u)SIM interface 1.8 V SIM SIM/USIM
factor [135] (1.8 V / 3 V) [132] interface [133] interface [134]
Cost 1 unit: US$75. Unknown. 1 unit: US$35. Unknown.
500+ units: [137]
US$63.
1000+ units:
US$52. [136]
2.7.3 Physical Layer

Both NB-IoT and eMTC introduces a number of simplifications of the
physical layer, as was shown in Table 2.10.
According to Reininger, LTE-IoT employs OFDMA (Orthogonal

Frequency-Division Multiple Access) for the downlink while SC-FDMA
(Single Carrier - FDMA) is utilized for the uplink [120]. This is because,
as explained below, SC-FDMA requires less power than OFDMA, thereby
enabling a longer device lifetime.
OFDMA transmits with multiple tightly spaced orthogonal narrowband

carriers. The term orthogonality stems from the fact that the carriers are
spaced with the minimum frequency needed for (in theory) zero inter-carrier
interference. Sauter explains that the high Peak to Average Power Ratio
(PAPR) of OFDM makes SC-FDMA more suitable for uplink communication
because it increases the power consumption of the transmitter [18]. Sauter
writes that SC-FDMA is similar to OFDMA but with an additional processing
step that distributes the information of each bit onto all subcarriers (rather
than distributing different bits onto different subcarriers as in OFDM) [18].
Although not shown here, Sauter claims that SC-FDMA can mathematically
be shown to reduce the PAPR and thus power consumption [18].
The bandwidth reduction in eMTc and NB-IoT can be explained in terms

Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs). In LTE, a PRB is the smallest element of
resource allocation that the network (base station) can assign. A PRB is
defined as 12 consecutive subcarriers during one time slot. Section 2.7.3 and
2.7.3 explores eMTC and NB-IoT in more detail (respectively).
eMTC
As mentioned by Reininger, the sub-carrier spacing (the distance between
equivalent points on adjacent sub-carriers) for both the uplink and downlink
is 15 kHz [120]. Therefore, one sub-carrier is 15 kHz wide (narrow band).
Conventional LTE supports scalable carrier bandwidths ranging from 6 to
100 PRBs, corresponding to carrier bandwidths of 1.4 MHz to 20 MHz, as
explained by Qualcomm [126]. Qualcomm states that in eMTC, the CAT M1
device bandwidth is 1.4 MHz, which includes 6 PRBs (1.08 MHz) and guard
bands [126].
Regarding modulation, Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold write that

the uplink- and downlink modulation is QPSK (2 bits/symbol) and 16
QAM (4 bits/symbol) [131]. However, Reininger mentions 16 QAM as the
modulation format for both directions [120]. The peak data rate is variable;
between 10 kbps and 1 Mbps for both uplink and downlink.
Rico et al. state that the coverage of eMTC of 155.7 dB is obtained

by frame repetition and that it is a 15 dB coverage enhancement with
respect to release 12 LTE [138]. Likewise, Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J.
Skold claim that the coverage is enhanced by multi-subframe repetition,
which in essence repeats each bit [131]. This increase the probability for
the receiver to successfully decode the bits. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J.
Skold claim that there are two Coverage enhancement (CE) modes, CE A
and CE B, distinguished by the number of allowed repetitions. CE A targets
situations requiring a modest CE whereas CE B allows for more extensive
improvement by utilizing a higher number of repetitions [131].
Rico et al. write that frequency diversity is accomplished by the use of

frequency hopping [138]. Similarly, Qualcomm claims that CAT-M1 devices
will utilize frequency tuning to achieve scalable resource allocation and
frequency diversity [126].
NB-IoT
Qualcomm state that the total bandwidth of NB-IoT has been reduced to 200
kHz [126].
2.7. LTE-IoT 57
Unlike eMTC which utilizes all available subcarriers per transmission (6

PRBs or 72 sub-carriers), NB-IoT supports single-tone (only one subcarrier)
and multitone transmission (different numbers of subcarriers). Specifically,
Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold describe that NB-IoT uplink transmission
can be accomplished with one, three, six, or twelve subcarriers (one PRB)
[131]. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold explain that this allows for extreme
coverage situations and allows multiple devices to multiplex their uplink
within one 200 kHz uplink carrier [131]. Similarly, as stated by Reininger
(3GPP), NB-IoT uplink supports multitone (all subcarriers) SC-FDMA using
15 kHz sub-spacing or single tone transmissions (only one subcarrier) with
a bandwidth of 3.75 kHz or 15 kHz [120]. For instance, if single-tone 3.75
kHz uplink transmission is employed, there would be 180 kHz (with 20 kHz
reserved for guard bands) divided by 3.75 kHz number of subcarriers, or
uplinks, i.e. 48.
Regarding modulation, KeySight claims that the uplink modulation is

BPSK (1 bits/symbol), QPSK (2 bits/symbol), 8PSK (3 bits/symbol), or
optionally 16 QAM (4 bits/symbol) [43]. The same options (except for 8PSK)
are available for the downlink [43].
The data rate is variable depending on whether or not multitone or

single-tone is used, as indicated in Table 2.11. Although Nokia specifies the
peak downlink and uplink data rates as 170 kbps and 250 kbps respectively
(Table 2.10), 3GPP specifies the downlink and multitone uplink rates as
50 kbps and the single tone uplink as 20 kbps [120]. Qualcomm sets the
downlink- and uplink peak rates as 20 kbps and 60 kbps respectively.
KeySight claims the downlink data rate is up to 250 kbps, and that the
uplink data rate ranges from 20 kbps to 250 kbps depending on the number
of tones (sub-carriers) [43].
Reininger (3GPP) and KeySight write that the MCL is 164 dB [120]
[43]. According to Ericsson, this constitutes a 20 dB improvement over
conventional LTE [10].
2.7.4 Network
This subsection gives a short recapitulation of LTE network theory. In LTE,
both the uplink and downlink are called physical signals. These physical
signals are realized by TDD (Time Division Duplex) and FDD (Frequency
Division Duplex). FDD divides the available bandwidth into several bands.
Similarly, TDD divides the "time" into several recurring timeslots that
are allocated to different signals. Hence, by using synchronized switches
managed by synchronization channels, at the transmitter and receiver,
a signal is either transmitted or received during a given time slot in an
alternating pattern. The management or mapping of these physical signals
onto the time-frequency lattice is accomplished by broadcast messages sent
by the base stations.
Qualcomm explains that both eMTC and NB-IoT can be deployed in

an existing LTE advanced infrastructure [126]. More specifically, and in
agreement with Figure 2.7, Qualcomm states that LTE Advanced Pro (release
13) delivers these new LTE-IoT technologies [126]. Likewise, Nokia affirms
that LTE Advanced Pro supports Cat M1 and NB-IoT devices [127].
Qualcomm emphasizes that LTE-IoT traffic will make up a small fraction

of the total capacity requirement and that the network capacity per se is not
the limiting factor in LTE-IoT (as it is for mobile broadband services) [126].
The bottleneck is the ability to handle the increased signaling [126]. Ericsson
write that a few as 500 aggressive devices can cause a network "signaling
storm" and thereby congestion (blocking of new connections, packet loss, or
queuing delay) [20].
Qualcomm states that an optimized version of the LTE core is the

solution to unwanted congestion and refers to it as Evolution Packet Core
Lite (EPC-lite) [126]. EPC-lite will according to Qualcomm provide more
efficient signaling and resource management [126]. Signaling is decreased
by mechanisms such as Extended Access Barring (EAB) that prevent
devices requesting access to the network when it is congested, as stated by
Qualcomm in [126]. Other efficiency enhancements include group-based
paging and messaging [126]. Moreover, EPC-lite will allow operators to
optimize for lower OPEX and minimize CAPEX [126].
Additional improvements are control- and user-plane optimizations

referred to as Cellular IoT (CIoT) Evolved Packet System (EPS), defined in
Release 13, as described by GSMA [22]. In short, CIoT EPS optimizes the
transmission of small amounts of data. GSMA writes that the control plane
optimization intends to concentrate control plane procedures for mobility
management and data transfer [22]. The user plane optimization builds
on removing the need for renegotiating device association when a device
transitions from idle to active [22]. GSMA states that CIoT EPS is optional
for eMTC but required for NB-IoT [22].
2.7. LTE-IoT 59
Resource management is another area to receive improvements according

to Qualcomm [126]. Qualcomm refers to this as device management
consolidation that allows a large set of devices to share a subscription and
thereby enables collective provision, control, and billing [126].
QoS is based on being able to confirm whether or not a message was

received and to request another transmission if it was not. According
to Reininger, Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) enabling these
abilities is supported by both eMTC and NB-IoT [120]. As emphasized b
Qualcomm, cellular LPWANs will benefit from guaranteed QoS because it
operates in licensed spectrum. In short, Qualcomm writes that operators
may allocate network resources to LPWAN devices in order to manage, and
mitigate interference and congestion [126].
Cat NB1 (NB-IoT) does not support handover between cells according to
Sequans [139]. Furthermore, Sequans claims that Cat M1 (eMTC) does not
support handover between cells while in extended coverage enhancement
mode [139]. In short, Sequans writes that eMTC is needed for mobile use
cases [139]. Rhode & Schwarz explains that for NB-IoT, cell reselection is
only supported if the device is the idle state (see Figure 2.8) [140].
eMTC
Nokia writes that eMTC utilizes a simplified LTE design accomplished by
eliminating legacy LTE control links except for EPDCCH (Enhanced Physical
Downlink Control Channel) [127]. Similarly, Qualcomm writes that eMTC
introduces new control- and data channels while leveraging legacy LTE
synchronization signals [126].
GSMA claims that an eMTC deployment scenario is to roll out new

software to an existing LTE installed base [22]. According to Nokia, the 1.4
MHz eMTC carrier can be allocated inside a legacy LTE carrier (such as a 20
MHz carrier) [127]. Furthermore, GSMA states that each legacy LTE carrier
can be shared by several Cat M1 devices [128].
Sequans claims that the latency of eMTC is approximately 10-15 ms [139].
NB-IoT
Qualcomm writes that a new set of NB-IoT synchronization, control, and
data channels were introduced to accommodate the narrower bandwidth
[126].
GSMA writes that regarding deployment, the majority of base station

sites can support NB-IoT with a software upgrade [22].
There are three deployment options according to Qualcomm: in-band

LTE, within LTE guard bands, and standalone in re-farmed 2G/3G bands
[126]. The main distinction between these modes is the available power;
in-band LTE and guard-band operation implies a higher degree of power
sharing with conventional LTE services.
The latency f NB-IoT is according to Sequans between 1.4-10 seconds

[139].

GSMA write that NB-IoT has been demonstrated to coexist with legacy
2G/3G/4G [22]. Similarly, Qualcomm writes that LTE-IoT is compatible
with existing LTE networks and spectrum without causing interference
[126]. Moreover, as explained in Section 2.7.4, LTE-IoT can be deployed
within legacy LTE carriers.
Regarding jamming, Lichtman et al. concluded in their investigation that

conventional LTE is highly vulnerable to adversarial jamming [141].
2.7.6 Security & authentication

Concerning end-to-end security, Qualcomm writes that "LTE IoT will inherit
the established/trusted security and authentication features delivered by LTE,
meeting the most stringent requirements of many high-security applications."
[126].
In Table 2.11, one Cat M1 module explicitly states that a physical micro
SIM card is required. The other modules specify SIM interfaces which
indicate that the modules can interface with a physical SIM card or/and an
embedded SIM (eSIM/eUICC).
As mentioned in Section 2.6.5, GSMA writes that EC-GSM, NB-IoT, and

eMTC require a UICC which can be of different form factors, including
embedded UICC (eUICC) [22].
2.7.7 LTE-IoT Technical Summary

Table 2.12 summarizes eMTC’s and NB-IoT’s technical characteristics.
2.7. LTE-IoT 61
TABLE 2.12: Technological LTE-IoT characteristics according to

various sources
Characteristic eMTC NB-IoT

Frequency Legacy LTE: Legacy LTE:
450 MHz - 3.5 GHz [128] 450 MHz - 3.5 GHz [128]
Multiple access Multi-subframe repetition/frequency hopping [131] uplink: SC-FDMA (multitone/single tone) [120]
method [138] downlink: OFDMA [120]
uplink: SC-FDMA [120]
downlink: OFDMA [120]
MAC Optimized LTE (Time slotted synchronous) (Section Optimized LTE (Time slotted synchronous) (Section
2.7.4) 2.7.4)
Overheard/Signaling LTE based signaling, 100-200 bytes overhead per LTE based signaling, 100-200 bytes overhead per
uplink message (Section 2.6.3) uplink message (Section 2.6.3)
Modulation uplink: QPSK, 16 QAM [43] uplink: BPSK, QPSK, 8PSK optional 16QAM [43]
downlink: QPSK, 16 QAM, 64 QAM [43] downlink: BPSK, QPSK, optional 16QAM [43]
Range See link budget See link budget

Link budget 155.7 dB (MCL) [120] 164 dB (MCL) [120]
Latency 10-15 ms [139] 1.4-10 sec [139]
FEC Turbo code [120] Only uplink, Turbo code [120]
Output power 20/23 dBm [127] 20/23 dBm [127]
Bandwidth Device receive: 1.4 MHz [126] Device receive: 200 kHz [126]
Number of Depends on spectrum Depends on spectrum
channels
Peak data rate 10 kpbs to 1 Mbps [120] downlink: 250 kbps
uplink Singletone: 20 kbps
uplink multitone: 250 kbps
See section 2.7.3
Payload length Unknown, total size of message (transport block) is Unknown, Maximum transport block size (TBS) 680
limited to 1000 bits (125 Bytes) [131] bits in downlink, 1000 bits in uplink [142].
Allowed number of Licensed spectrum: No regulatory restrictions [22] Licensed spectrum: No regulatory restrictions [22]
messages (Europe)
per day
Network topology LTE based LTE based
Roaming Yes [22] Yes [22]
Handover Not in extended coverage mode [139] Only in idle state [140] .
Co-existence and Co-existent with legacy cellular networks [126]. Co-existent with legacy cellular networks [126].
resilience
Adaptive data rate Unknown Unknown
Bidirectional Yes, Full / half duplex [127] Yes, Half duplex [127]
Authentication & LTE IoT will inherit the established/trusted security LTE IoT will inherit the established/trusted security
security and authentication features delivered by LTE. [126] and authentication features delivered by LTE. [126]
In general, cellular LPWA integrate: In general, cellular LPWA integrate:
Device/network authentication [22] Device/network authentication [22]
Secure communication channels [22] Secure communication channels [22]
Optional "end-to-end security" at application level Optional "end-to-end security" at application level
[22] [22]
Secure provisioning and storage of device identity Secure provisioning and storage of device identity
and credentials [22] and credentials [22]
OTA updates Yes [127] Yes [127]

SIM form factor UICC or eUICC/eSIM UICC or eUICC/eSIM
Localization To be supported in release 14 [120]. To be supported in release 14 [120].
Nodes per BS Unknown At least 50 000 per cell [120]
Battery lifetime Depending on traffic and coverage: Depending on traffic and coverage:
10 years of operation with 5 Wh battery [120]. Cat 10 years of operation with 5 Wh battery [120] [120].
M1 modules in Table 2.11: Cat NB1 modules in Table 2.11:
PSM: 9 µA PSM: 5 µ A
Idle: 9 mA Idle: 6 mA
Tx: 105-500 mA Tx: > 52 mA
2.7.8 Ecosystem and commercial aspects

GSMA write that after pre-commercial pilots and trials during 2016, all
cellular LPWANs will be launched commercially in 2017, and that they will
benefit from a well established and large 3GPP ecosystem. GSMA claims
that eMTC is supported by all the major equipment, chip and module
manufacturers [143] [144].
eMTC
GSMA has established an LTE-M task force for the purpose of accelerating
the adoption of 3GPP eMTC [143]. It is comprised of operators (AT&T,
Verizon, TeliaSonera), manufacturers (Nokia, Huawei), and more [143].
According to Aris Xylouris at Analysys Mason, eMTC was actively

deployed and/or planned two times in 2016 [17]. Link Labs and Verizon
published 2017-04-13 the result of their live LTE-M (eMTC) test that
demonstrated coverage around Baltimore [145]. The companies also claim
that eMTC now is live across the US [145].
GSMA claims that the cost of a LTE-M modem will be reduced by 20-25%
compared to current EGPRS modems [143]. The CEO of Sequans (a chipsets
manufacturer), Georges Karam, anticipates that they will sell their Cat M1
modules for less than US$ 10 each [146].
NB-IoT
Similarly to the LTE-M task force, GSMA has established an NB-IoT forum
aimed at promoting NB-IoT adaptation, comprised of major operators
(Tele2, Telit, T-Mobile), manufacturers (Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia), and more
[144].
According to Aris Xylouris at Analysys Mason, NB-IoT was actively

deployed and/or planned to be deployed 25 times in 2016 [17].
Regarding cost, as stated in Section 2.7, one objective of NB-IoT is to be

even cheaper than eMTC. Huawei writes that a common view in the industry
is that the ideal price for NB-IoT is less than US$5 [147].
2.8 Current debate

This section discusses previous analyses and allegations about use cases and
their requirements.
2.8. Current debate 63
2.8.1 Licensed LPWA

This section summarizes the views of different entities focusing on licensed
spectrum.
GSMA
GSMA writes that the most important benefits of standardized cellular
LPWANs compared to unlicensed solutions are the support of a huge
ecosystem, standardization to ensure interoperability, a minimum level
of performance, and economies of scale [22]. Furthermore, GSMA claims
that the device simplicity and cost efficiency of cellular LPWANs are
comparable with unlicensed solutions [22]. GSMA further claims that
operators are better off with cellular LPWAN connectivity because of the
inherent limitations in unlicensed spectrum regarding scalability, capacity,
and regulatory constraints [22].
Table 2.13 describes the use case requirements of 24 use cases categories
that GSMA has deemed suitable for LPWAN connectivity [22]. Note that
GSMA specifies identical downlink requirements for all of the use cases
shown in Table 2.13 [22].
TABLE 2.13: Use case categories and characteristics according

to GSMA [22].
Use case Number of Payload size Lifetime Mobility

(category) messages / 24 h [bytes]
Consumer - 10 20 bytes 1-3 years High to low
wearables mobility,
mostly nomadic
Consumer - VIP 48 50 bytes 1-4 years High to low
/ pet tracking mobility,
mostly nomadic
Consumer - 192 50 bytes 2-5 years High to low
Smart bicyles mobility,
mostly nomadic
Assisted living 8 100 bytes 2-5 years High to low
/ Medical mobility,
mostly nomadic
Micro-generation 2 100 bytes 10 years Nomadic and
stationary
Smoke detector 2 20 bytes 5 years Nomadic and
stationary
Agriculture, 100 50 bytes 5 years Nomadic and
real time stock stationary
tracking
Environmental 5 50 bytes 5-10 years Nomadic and
monitoring stationary
Industrial - 100 50 bytes 2-10 years Nomadic and
asset tracking stationary
Industrial - 2 100 bytes 5-10 years Nomadic and
tank process / stationary
safety
monitoring
Water/gas 8 200 bytes 15 years Stationary
metering
City - parking 60 50 bytes 5 years Stationary
Building 5 50 bytes 20 years Stationary
automation -
alarms,
actuators
Home 5 50 bytes 5 Stationary
automation
Industrial – 100 50 bytes 10 years Stationary
machinery
control
Smart grid 10 20 bytes 10 years Stationary
Propane tank 2 100 bytes 10 years Stationary
monitoring
Agri – 4 100 bytes 10 years Stationary
stationary
Tracking/monitoring
City - Waste 24 10 bytes 10 years Stationary
Management
Environmental 24 200 bytes 10 years Stationary
monitoring:
data collection
City - lightning 5 100 bytes 10-15 years Stationary
(powered)
Consumer - 3 20 bytes 10 years Stationary
white goods (powered)
Vending 24 1000 bytes 10 years Stationary
machines – (powered)
general
Vending 100 100 bytes 10 years Stationary
machines – (powered)
general
Ericsson
Ericsson claims that unlike licensed LPWANs, unlicensed LPWANs such
as SigFox and LoRa address solely the ultra-low-end sensor segment with
very limited demands on throughput, reliability, and QoS [10]. According to
Ericsson, the advantages of cellular LPWANs include global reach, a large
ecosystem, low total cost of ownership, scalability, diversity, and security
[10]. Concerning cost, Ericsson writes that the reduced complexity of Cat
NB1 modules will enable it to rival unlicensed LPWAN technologies [10].
Ericsson envisions six massive IoT use cases in their mobility report
of 2016 [20]. These are shown in Table 2.14. Ericsson calculated the total
cumulative capacity of the use cases sown in Table 2.14 as 20 kbps per km2 ,
corresponding to 6% of the total capacitive of a single NB-IoT carrier [20].
This reemphasizes that IoT traffic is not the main issue, rather it is the ability
to handle the increased amount of signaling, as discussed in Section 2.7.4.
TABLE 2.14: Use case categories and characteristics according

to Ericsson [20]
Use case Number of messages / 24 h Payload Device

(category) size [bytes] density
Water meters 2 100 10 000/km2
Electricity meters 1 100 10 000/km2
Gas meters 48 100 10 000/km2
Vending 1 150 150/km2
machines
Bike fleet 48 100 200/km2
management
Pay-as-you-drive 144 150 2 250/km2
Nokia
Nokia writes that while operators are reviewing their connectivity roadmap
and taking into account potential threats from new entrants, their view is
that LTE-M, NB-IoT, and EC-GSM are the superior solutions to meet the
connectivity profiles and requirements for IoT [127]. Nokia motivates this
by claiming that cellular LPWANs constitutes a simple software upgrade of
existing networks and provide optimized device key performance indicators
(KPIs), battery life, coverage, and cost [127]. Nokia also claims that all three
solutions exhibit a significantly lower total cost of ownership[127].
Huawei
Huawei recognizes that there are several candidate IoT technologies but
that NB-IoT is the most suitable regarding coverage, power consumption,
and price [147]. Moreover, Huawei claims that a LoRa module cost US$8, a
SigFox module US$ 9, and that the ideal price for NB-IoT is less than US$5
[147].
Without any technical specifications, Huawei presents Smart metering

(water, gas, electricity, etc.), alarms & event detectors, smart garbage bins,
logistics tracking, asset tracking, smart agriculture, wearables, smart bicycle,
and kids monitoring as NB-IoT use cases [147].
2.8.2 Unlicensed LPWANs

This section summarizes the views of different entities focusing on
unlicensed spectrum.
SigFox
SigFox writes that their connectivity can be implemented across all
industries such as utilities (water, electricity, and fuel metering), industry
(goods- and predictive management), automotive and fleet management,
retail, agriculture, smart cities, health, assisted living, and smart homes [148].
LoRa Alliance
In a white paper by Mobile Experts, sponsored by the LoRa Alliance, it is
claimed that MNOs have invested in unlicensed LPWAN connectivity as
insurance against future market uptake due to the late arrival of cellular
LPWANs [149]. Furthermore, Mobile Expert writes that cellular LPWANs
suffers from a cost disadvantage because 5-10% of the cost of a 2G/3G/4G
device constitutes a collection of royalty payments to different recipients
and that no single company can unilaterally change this to make 3GPP
technology more cost effective [149].
Mobile Experts states that SigFox, LoRaWAN, and others are competing
for different vertical markets such as street lighting and energy metering,
therefore the market will remain fragmented for some time [149]. Mobile
Experts expect that LoRaWAN will emerge with a solid grip on a few key
verticals with the help of operators (such as Orange, Swisscom, and SK
Telecom) and other companies (such as Cisco and IBM) [149].
In a white paper written by Hardy Schmidbauer, commissioned by

the LoRa Alliance, Betrrand Waels (head of Alternative Technologies at
Orange) says that Orange will deploy multiple solutions to serve as many
IoT applications as possible and that they see a unique and strong value
proposition in LoRaWAN [150]. Schmidbauer writes that NB-IoT is the

best option for applications requiring frequent communication with large
amounts of data or at a very low latency while LoRaWAN is more suitable
for applications requiring long lifetime and low-cost [150].
Schmidbauer claims that cellular communication is designed for optimal

spectrum utilization at the expense of end node simplicity and thus cost;
whereas the reverse is true for LoRaWAN. More specifically, Schmidbauer
claims that the synchronous protocol inherent in cellular LPWANs requires
devices to check in on a regular basis while LoRaWAN devices can sleep for
as long as the application wishes [150].
Schmidbauer challenges the statements that NB-IoT is easily integrated

at a low cost by arguing that this only applies to a particular type of 4G/LTE
base stations [150]. In addition, Schmidbauer claims that it would cost up
to US$15 000 to upgrade a single 4G LTE base station to NB-IoT; therefore,
LoRaWAN is cheaper [150].
In a white paper for the LoRa Alliance by Machina Research, Machina

Research also identified the following six different entities that could benefit
from LoRaWAN LPWAN connectivity [151]:
• MNOs could deploy LPWNAN as a natural extension of their core

offerings.
• Non-MNO network providers and MVNOs could deploy an IoT

network as a complement to existing offerings.
• System integrators (SIs) can extend their support for different IoT
solutions by LPWANs. SIs could also deploy their own LPWAN to gain
more control of coverage, performance, and so on.
• Large industrial sites and campuses could benefit from monitoring and
actuator control through an LPWAN.
• Product manufacturers could leverage and expand the range of

connected device solutions offered by products manufacturers
• Sensor original equipment manufacturers stand to gain new market

segments by incorporating LPWAN support in their sensors.
69
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology of this thesis, why it was chosen,
and its flaws.
3.1 Research Process

This thesis is a theoretical study in the sense that there exists no external
system capable of providing novel information based on a cause and
effect relationship such as a simulation, machine, or equation. However, a
simple way to create tangible results without such an "external" source of
information is to perform a comparison by gathered data along different
dimensions.
This thesis compares the technical and non-technical characteristics of

the different networks to map use case requirements as either possible or
impossible for each type of network (as stated in Section 1.4).
The metrics of interest are those exhibiting the most variance across the
different networks. For example, if only network A ranks "high" on technical
metric X (say latency, range, or security), there are potentially a set of use
cases only possible with network A.
The project’s workflow is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
F IGURE 3.1: Thesis flowchart

70 Chapter 3. Methodology
3.2 Research Paradigm and research gap

The academical context of this thesis is Tele-economics: the inter-exchange
of telecommunications and economics. Regarding the future
telecommunications landscape, the focus has been on new potential roles for
traditional MNOs, and it is assumed that they will remain unrivaled within
their core service of connectivity. This thesis challenges that assumption by
shedding light on a new type of proprietary actor operating in unlicensed
spectrum. Hence, the academic contribution of this thesis is to understand
the value propositions of newer entrants operating in unlicensed spectrum,
especially compared to the offerings of conventional MNOs.
3.3 Assessing reliability and validity of the data

collected
Regarding the reliability of potential conclusions, this thesis is based on
information stemming from biased actors (interviews) and publicly available
data, which is both quite scarce and to a large extent may be considered as
advertising or marketing material. Hence, the results are to a large extent
based on biased data. The true technical limitations of each network will not
be unraveled until they are put under strain in real deployments.
71
Chapter 4
Interviews
As a complementary source of information, interviews were conducted with

actors in the field of LPWA. Section 4.1 presents an interview with IoT
Sweden, the certified SigFox operator in Sweden. Section 4.2 contains an
interview with TalkPool, a network infrastructure company.
4.1 IoT Sweden

This in-person interview was conducted on 2017-03-09 with Mats Landstedt,
CEO of IoT Sweden, the certified SigFox operator within Sweden.
• Why SigFox?
”The strongest argument favoring SigFox is that it has a complete
ecosystem, that’s our main reason for investing in it, the technology is
secondary. Generally, we also say that SigFox is 90% cheaper and 90% better
than existing solutions”.
Regarding technology, Landstedt claims that SigFox can guarantee

99% uptime/reception. The future functionality of SigFox may include
connectivity enhancement, such as sending a much larger message
by chopping it up and transmitting it via several sensors. Moreover,
voice is also on the horizon according to Landstedt. He also mentions
that SigFox now supports localization via triangulation and that one
SigFox base station can handle 1 million messages per day, or up to 300
simultaneous messages per second and concludes that with on average
a base station can handle one million devices.
Landstedt emphasizes that the disadvantage of Wi-Fi is that the

customer controls the base station and therefore they might simply
turn it off. For this reason, Bosh (Robert Bosch GmbH) decided that
their applications will include SigFox connectivity.
• What are your thoughts on LoRa?

“Although LoRa is a good network from a technological point of view, it’s
a bit too hobby-oriented, and would probably be more suitable as a campus
net, rather than a nationwide or citywide network”.
72 Chapter 4. Interviews
Landstedt also points out that LoRa is commercially unsuitable in that

a LoRa network owner is not required to provide coverage, and may
choose to remove their base stations at any time.
• What about cellular LPWA such as NB-IoT?

“We see all cellular technology as complementary and vice versa."
• What is IoT Sweden’s business plan?

"Our business case assumes a 10 % market share of the Swedish market
(around 10-15 million numbers of connections) by 2022.”
Concerning price plans, Mats Landstedt says that a customer may

choose between a "Pay as You Grow" plan untied to any specific
volumes of data at the expense of a higher price or a "Committed
Volume Plan". Furthermore, he says that, as a rule of thumb, the
subscription cost ranges from less than one SEK to a few SEK per
month depending on the subscription and service level. Landstedt also
says that IoT Sweden will receive 60% of the income generated from
data subscriptions in Sweden, while SigFox receives the rest.
As for the nationwide deployment in Sweden, Landstedt says that it

will require around 400 base stations. Furthermore, the cost for a single
base station is 60 000 SEK (approximately US$6 700), and the total cost
is around 50 million SEK (roughly US$5.6 million).
• And 5G?
“5G is not relevant to us, it’s too far away.”
• Back to SigFox, how would you describe IoT Sweden’s part?

“SigFox and its certified operators are essentially to be thought of in
unison; as one global IoT operator. We’re required to provide coverage as part
of our contract with SigFox. So IoT Sweden simply builds the network; we are
not in contact with the end user.”
4.2 Talkpool
Interview with Magnus Sparrholm, founder of TalkPool, conducted
2017-04-27.
• Given that TalkPool has deployed both LoRaWAN (Gothenburg with

Tele2) and SigFox (Germany), what is your view on these two networks,
and is there room for both of them?
“Sigfox and LoRa are competitors. SigFox is more proprietary, and owns
the whole chain from operating the network to providing back-end and a
specific development environment. Similar to App Store, the ecosystem is
4.2. Talkpool 73
closed and controlled. Meanwhile, LoRa is more open; anyone can set up a
gateway, anyone can do backend, network servers, and so on. LoRaWAN is
open source. Semtech just wants to sell chips, and they’re happy with that;
they have no need for controlling or managing the network itself."
“SigFox had a head lead on LoRa a couple of years ago. They had the chance to
take market segments, but they were quite strict in their way of doing things,
so they lost a bit of speed. In addition, I think that the lack of open source
in SigFox constituted a void that LoRa is now occupying. LoRa exhibits
more bandwidth for both the uplink and the downlink. SigFox is not ideal for
tracking moving objects such as a car or a bike, possibly due to the Doppler
Effect".
“TalkPool deploys and manages networks for its clients, but stops short
of assuming the network operator role. We’ve invested in development of
LoRaWAN end-devices and network back-end technology in order to offer
secure and customizable solutions."
• A LoRaWAN network may consist of many different combinations

of hardware- and software solutions. Furthermore, there are no
pre-defined data subscriptions in LoRaWAN, as there are in SigFox. In
LoRa, it is up to each operator to decide these things. Do you think
these aspects will obstruct interoperability and nomadic roaming?
“The LoRaWAN standard is comprehensive. LoRa resembles 3GPP in
that sense. Hence, I’d say LoRaWAN follows the more traditional way of
doing things whereas SigFox is pretty unique in that they are doing it all by
themselves; they’re taking on the roles of both operator and equipment vendor.
Both within 3GPP backend and LoRaWAN backend, the operator can choose
between a range of vendors with competing solutions. The LoRa Alliance is
working on setting up nomadic roaming in LoRa, but LoRa roaming is still
not available. The pontential LoRa roaming would be an important step,
that’d make LoRa more comparable to SigFox. Once the technological part
of roaming is done, “roaming houses” that manage roaming agreements are
likely to emerge to offer LoRa interoperability."
• Vodafone says they will crush SigFox and LoRa once NB-IoT is
launched. What are your thoughts on cellular LPWA?
“Difficult to say, it’s still quite an early stage. I’d say that NB-IoT has
a different focus. Mobile operators can just upgrade their existing network
infrastructure via software to offer NB-IoT. But probably they are 2-3 years
away from having real solutions. I don’t think NB-IoT will affect SigFox and
LoRa that much during the next few years. So far, there’s no real demand for
IoT connectivity. We haven’t seen much of the anticipated LPWA volumes,
so SigFox and LoRa have had difficulty getting customers. It’s doubtful that
NB-IoT would change that and suddenly gain new customers, especially since
NB-IoT will be more expensive. NB-IoT is more or less a way for the cellular
74 Chapter 4. Interviews
industry to have a foot in the door and to be part of the LPWA bandwagon. I
see it as a temporary positioning strategy; real things won’t start happening
until in a couple of years when 5G is launched."
75
Chapter 5
Analysis & Discussion
Before comparing the networks, it can be concluded that each network is

based on "good technology" in the sense that each one has a clear outlined
design to accomplish its proclaimed capabilities.
Regarding the cellular network, alleged enhancements are backed up

by presenting appropriate modifications. For instance, prolonged battery
life is realized by PSM and eDRX (Section 2.6.6). Moreover, both eMTC
and NB-IoT constitute a tangible reduction in complexity and hence energy
consumption and cost. At the physical layer, EC-GSM-IoT enhances
coverage by blind physical layer repetitions (Section 2.6.2). Likewise, eMTC
improves coverage by frame repetition and a decrease in carrier bandwidth
and a longer lifetime by utilizing SC-FDMA on the uplink. NB-IoT, which
also utilizes SC-FDMA on the uplink, has an even greater reduction in
bandwidth due to its single-tone and multitone tone capability (Section
2.7.3). In addition, all cellular LPWANs are on a network level defined by a
novel set of channels optimized for IoT. Legacy channels (control and data)
are replaced by new ones optimized for IoT. Moreover, LTE-IoT is achieved
by optimizing the LTE core network (EPC lite including EAB, CIoT EPS, and
more) to reduce signaling and hence congestion (Section 2.7.4).
SigFox achieves long range due to the intrinsic ruggedness of ultra

narrow band transmission. The SigFox network protocol revolves around
simplicity. It does not incorporate any coordination and devices transmit
asynchronously and "hope for the best". This decreases overhead and
eliminates the need for signaling which allows transceiver modules to be
simple, cheap, and energy efficient.
LoRa is unlike SigFox based on wide-band operation, meaning that

rather than focusing the energy in a narrow band, the transmission is spread
out via spread spectrum operation. The strength of spread-spectrum lies
in the spreading and subsequent despreading of the signal. This process
strengthens the desired signals compared to undesired signals. Moreover,
by using CSS, Semtech have been able to reduce the complexity of the radio
module than when compared to DSSS (see Section 2.4.3). The LoRaWAN
network protocol utilizes energy efficient and simple asynchronous
transmission similar to SigFox but with a bit more functionality.
76 Chapter 5. Analysis & Discussion
The analysis in this thesis consists of a comparative assessment of the

different LPWANs. A technical analysis is performed in Section 5.1 and a
non-technical analysis in Section 5.2. In Section 5.3, the results obtained in
the preceding analyses are discussed.
5.1 Technical Comparison

This section compares the LPWA networks along different dimensions
deemed relevant from a use-case perspective. It is predominantly a relative
comparison intended to rank the networks within each metric. The results
are shown in Section 5.1.7.
All technical data along and sources were summarized in Table 2.3 for
SigFox, Table 2.7 for LoRaWAN, Table 2.9 for EC-GSM-IoT, and Table 2.12 for
eMTC and NB-IoT.
5.1.1 Data rate and coverage

Figure 5.1 displays the link budget and the equivalent range depending on
the environment as well as the data rate for all of the LPWANs considered.
Link budget indicates the achievable range because it represents the
maximum allowable signal loss sustained throughout the signal path. If
the link budget is surpassed, the receiver will have difficulties in decoding
the signal. Note that Figure 5.1 conveys, except for SigFox, a generous
representation because it does not take into account the general trade off
between link budget and data rate (a decrease in data rate increases the link
budget and vice versa).
Ignoring sporadic interference, the signal loss is predominantly

determined by shadowing (obstructions such as buildings or other
obstacles). The three bottom axises in Fig. 5.1 translate the link budget
to obtainable ranges in different environments. This was done using a crude
model in which the path loss is proportional to the inverse of the distance
raised to the powers of 3, 4.2, and 5 to model the environments of a rural
environment, a city with low shadowing, and a city with high shadowing
respectively.
The results demonstrate that as expected the range is highly dependent

on the signal path environment. Moreover, all LPWANs achieve comparable
ranges in a city environment in the sense that the signal path environment
between a particular gateway and device have greater effect in determining
the range rather than which particular LPWA is used. However, although the
networks are in a broad sense comparable, NB-IoT, SigFox, and EC-GSM-IoT
(33 dBm Tx) are more suitable for particularly obstructed devices, such as
underground devices. In conclusion, all LPWANs can achieve comparable
ranges and signal penetration for the clear majority of use cases.
5.1. Technical Comparison 77
F IGURE 5.1: Maximum data rate and coverage profiles in

different environments.
Besides link budget, there are other ways of enhancing the range. A
LoRaWAN gateway may be deployed outdoors, indoors, or underground to
ensure coverage, as pointed out by Schmidbauer (Section 2.8.2). The same
argument is true for SigFox, although the gateway must be deployed by
the regional SigFox operator. Cellular LPWA, which requires conventional
base stations, will piggyback on existing cellular base stations. However,
something similar could be achieved with a distributed antenna network,
although such additional measures are not included in the advertising of
cellular LPWA.
Concerning data rate, the second conclusion is that in light of the

requirements of massive IoT (very small payloads) LoRaWAN exhibits data
rates similar to cellular LPWA, whereas SigFox has a significantly lower data
rate than all other technologies.
5.1.2 Security
Sections 2.3.2 and 2.4.3 noted that SigFox and LoRaWAN (respectively)
integrate symmetric encryption designed to support authentication and
prevent spoofing (masquerading) and replay attacks. They exhibit no
obvious security weaknesses.
Cellular LPWA offer a more heavyweight carrier grade security (see

Sections 2.6.5 and 2.7.6), which is arguably more secure than SigFox and
LoRaWAN, as suggested by a white paper on LPWA security by Franklin
Heath Ltd (further described below ) [152].
In said white paper, it is emphasized that the relevance of security

is highly dependent on the use case in question. Furthermore, privacy,
commercial interest, and safety are identified as the main drivers for LPWA
security [152]. The paper ranks the different networks by exploring five
representative use cases (smart lighting, pallet, agriculture, smoke detectors,
and water metering). The results are in essence that the SigFox’s security
is deemed as poor or adequate, LoRaWAN as adequate, and EC-GSM-IoT
as adequate or good, while both eMTC and NB-IoT are deemed to be good
[152].

Judging from Sections 2.3.2 (SigFox), 2.4.3 (LoRaWAN), 2.6.4 (EC-GSM-IoT),
and 2.7.5 (LTE-IoT), all five LPWANs can be jammed, although the required
techniques might vary in complexity.
SigFox is likely to be the most resilient to jamming due to its UNB FHSS
scheme. SigFox claims that jamming signals have no effect. However, a
precise follow-on jammer can be difficult to mitigate (see Section 2.3.2).
Looking at the power spectral density (PSD) of each network’s

transmission scheme could indicate resilience to jamming. PSD refers
to the frequency distribution of power and can be thought of as the
"sharpness" with which the signals slices through jamming, interference,
or noise. In reality, the PSD is determined by the modulation according
to some function. However, restricting ourselves to the most robust
uplink modulation techniques for each network: DPBSK (SigFox), GMSK
(EC-GSM-IoT), QPSK (eMTC), and BPSK (NB-IoT) all have similarly
"formed" PSDs. Hence, assuming a uniform power distribution across the
given bandwidth is arguably equally "wrong" for all schemes. Moreover, we
assume the most optimal SNR setting for each network. The results are:
• SigFox 14 dBm Tx: 25 mW / 100 Hz = 0.25 mW / Hz
• NB-IoT UL: 23 dBm Tx: 200 mW / (200 to 3.75) kHz = 0.001 mW / Hz to 0.053
mW / Hz
• EC-GSM-IoT 33 dBm Tx: 2000 mW / 200 kHz = 0.01 mW / Hz
• EC-GSM-IoT: 23 dBm Tx: 200 mW / 200 kHz = 0.001 mW / Hz
• LoRa 14 dBm Tx: 25 mW / 125 kHz = 0.0002 mW / Hz
• eMTC 23 dBm Tx: 200 mW / 1.4 MHz = 0.00014 mW / Hz

Regarding power per frequency component, SigFox has between 4 and

250 times more power than NB-IoT, between 25 to 250 times more power
than EC-GSM-IoT, and 1785 times power than eMTC. However, cellular
LPWA compensates by incorporating more advanced digital communication
methods (error correction, HARQ, etc.). On the other hand, these schemes
rely to a large extent on retransmissions and signaling, which jamming may
obstruct as well. It is somewhat unfair to include LoRa in this comparison
because spread spectrum techniques do not rely on SNR as much as the
other networks (even a negative SNR is allowed). In reality, the jamming
signal will not be "despreaded" by the receiver as the desired signal (as
explained in Section 2.4.3), and therefore spread spectrum systems are quite
resistant to jamming (as stated by Real Wireless [30]).
As for co-existence, i.e. the ability to operate without disruption alongside

other networks within the same spectrum, cellular LPWA is superior because
it operates undisturbed within licensed bands. Co-existence of unlicensed
LPWA was explored by Real Wireless, who concluded that spread spectrum
techniques (such as LoRa) are more prone to being disrupted by other
networks than narrowband systems [30].
5.1.4 Network
This section compares the number of devices per gateway, number of
messages per device, and the uplink and downlink functionality.
An important distinction worth keeping in mind is that unlicensed LPWA

transmits in an uncoordinated manner, i.e., asynchronously, whereas cellular
LPWA transmits in a coordinated manner (as explained in Section 2.7.4).
SigFox and LoRaWAN devices communicate when they need to without any
prior arrangements while cellular LPWA devices must be allocated a time
slot and frequency band by the base station or network.
Device and message capacity

Beginning with the maximum number of messages that an LPWA device
may transmit per day, cellular LPWA is essentially limited by congestion
whereas regulations and collisions limit LoRaWAN and SigFox.
Without a clear restriction that determines the maximum number of

messages per day per device, it is difficult to determine how frequently
an LPWA device can communicate. However, how often a device can
communicate is fundamentally determined by congestion or collisions.
Hence, one way of quantifying and comparing how "talkative" a particular
LPWA device is allowed to be, is by looking at the upper limit of the number
of nodes per base station, which bounds the cumulative number of messages
per device per day and vice versa. However, it is difficult to add anything
to the alleged capabilities of each network. The true limitations will not
come to light until the networks are put under strain in real deployments.
Accepting our inability to unravel the true limitations of each network in
terms of message per day per device, we proceed to compare the number of
nodes per base station based on the alleged maximum number of nodes per
gateway.
SigFox’s methodology is to squeeze as many UNB signals as possible

into allocated bands and rely on probability, i.e. hoping that they do not
collide with each other. Centenaro et al. mention the ballpark figure of one
million nodes per gateway. Similarly, the Swedish certified SigFox operator
IoT Sweden (Section 4.1) says that on average a base station can handle
one million devices per day, one million messages per day, or up to 300
simultaneous message per second. These figures are difficult to interpret
without a priori assumptions on how many devices there are and how
frequently they communicate. For relative benchmarking and in the absence
of a better estimate, assuming a uniform distribution of devices per use case
and looking at the use case requirements put forth by GSMA (see Section
2.13), the average number of messages per day (24 h) per device is 36. This
would allow a SigFox base station to handle up to 28 000 "average talkative"
devices, in light of the limitation to one million messages per day per base
station.
For LoRaWAN, spread spectrum collisions occur if a signal is transmitted

in the same band and with the same spreading code. Therefore, the
number of available spreading codes and the spatial distribution of these
will influence the allowable number of nodes per gateway. In addition,
LoRaWAN is as SigFox limited by frequency-overlapping signals, although
to a lesser degree: A virtual channel will treat all others as noise unless
there are so many that the signal to noise ratio becomes unacceptable. This
notion is reinforced by Real Wireless (Section 2.4.3) who concludes that
spread spectrum techniques have difficulty mitigating interference from
other spread spectrum systems. Moreover, the issue is exacerbated by the
fact that anyone may put up a LoRaWAN gateway or network and thereby
flood local air interfaces.
Continuing with the acceptable number of nodes per LoRaWAN

gateway, TTN (see Section 2.4.3) emphasizes the dilemma by stating that
the advertised limit of LoRaWAN, 20 000 - 60 000 nodes per gateway
assumes that each device transmits less than one message per device per
hour. Assuming a fixed figure of 24 messages per day and normalizing
the advertised range with the average messages per day per use case
(as introduced earlier in this section in the discussion about SigFox) for
24
a relative comparison, we get 36 (20 000 − 60 000) = 13 000 − 40 000
"average talkative" devices per gateway. However, TTN argues that their fair
access policy allows more than 1 000 nodes per gateway, which is quite small.
3GPP specifies at least 50 000 nodes per cell for NB-IoT and EC-GSM-IoT
but without giving any indication of how talkative they assume the
devices are. Moreover, no figure could be found for eMTC, although it
is probably comparable. The benefit of a coordinated approach is that
it reduces the number of collisions and enables mechanisms to ensure
performance and reliability (QoS) that in turn allows a higher degree of
service-level agreement. The lack of QoS in unlicensed LPWA is pointed out
as a disadvantage by the cellular industry (See section 2.8.1 for example).
However, the potential downside with a coordinated approach is that it
requires signaling: every transmission in LTE-IoT requires additional control
transmissions, therefore the network is susceptible to congestion. As stated
by Qualcomm (see Section 2.7.4), the bottleneck in cellular LPWA is the
ability to handle this increased signaling. Similarly, Ericsson claimed that
only 500 aggressive devices could cause a network signaling storm (see
Section 2.7.4). As such, whether or not 50 000 nodes per cell will be achieved
in practice remains to be seen.
Besides the risk of congestion, another potential issue inherent in

providing QoS to mobile phones and massive IoT devices on the same
network is due to the unpredictable user behavior of mobile phone users.
For example, sudden spikes in activity during a particular event could affect
massive IoT devices as well.
In conclusion, LoRaWAN can support roughly the same number of

nodes per gateway as SigFox. Cellular LPWA may support a slightly
higher number of nodes per gateway than SigFox if congestion as a result
of increased signaling can be avoided. The same ranking applies to the
maximum acceptable number of messages per device per day because the
allowable number of nodes per gateway limits how talkative a node is
allowed to be (with the exception of SigFox devices that cannot exceed 140
messages per day due to regulatory duty cycle restrictions).
Functionality
A SigFox device can request a downlink acknowledgment after an uplink
transmission (Section 2.3.2). However, SigFox offers only four downlink
messages per day per device. The downlink functionality of a LoRaWAN
Class A device works in the same fashion. However, class B devices, have
in addition to Class A device functionality, the ability to schedule receive
windows using a beacon (which requires some energy consumption by the
device to listen for the beacon). Finally, a LoRaWAN class C device has a
nearly continuously open receive window (however, this requires that the
device has no energy constraints). In cellular LPWA, downlink availability
will be determined by the allocation of network resources. Hence, a cellular
LPWA device can receive at any given time, provided it is allotted the
required network resources and is powered up and receiving at the time.
Specific downlink functionality includes actuator control,

acknowledgment, retransmission, and firmware over the air (FOTA).
All of which are vital to many use cases.
The maximum allowed number of downlink messages per day for a

SigFox device obstruct most downlink functionality. For example, actuator
control and acknowledging (or retransmitting) every uplink transmission
is impossible for use cases requiring more than four downlink messages
per day. Moreover, FOTA is in practice impossible because the maximum
downlink payload size is a mere 12 bytes. However, as mentioned by SigFox,
one could change between pre-configured settings via downlink commands
[39].
LoRaWAN supports acknowledging over both the downlink and uplink

as well as retransmission (Section 2.4.3), and there is no explicit limit
regarding the number of downlink messages per day per device (beyond
duty cycle restrictions). Hence, actuator control and acknowledging and
retransmitting every message is in theory possible. The downlink size of
255 bytes is not a large payload size for transmitting firmware. However, a
firmware upgrade could be transmitted in parts over several messages, but
this would use up time on air that otherwise could be spent on transmitting
data.
Brian Ray at Link Labs claims that LoRaWAN gateways are unsuitable for
downlink applications because they might transmit while there are incoming
uplink messages that would be lost if the gateway is not listening [153].
However, LoRaWAN class B devices are capable of downlink scheduling,
and the LoRaWAN front end (SX1257, Section 2.4.3) supports both half-
and full-duplex operation[154]. Ray’s observation is more valid for SigFox
because it does not support full duplex operation, as mentioned by Ryan
Derouin, Developer Relations at Sigfox [155]. Another remark by Ray is
that the permissible TOA will be depleted by acknowledgments and "MAC
control", thereby leaving no resources left for FOTA [153].
Cellular LPWA has no externally imposed downlink constraints because

it operates in licensed spectrum. Hence, link functionality is determined
by technology and the allocation of network resources. Therefore, if an
actuator requires control messages it will receive these messages assuming
the network permits it. Both eMTC and NB-IoT support HARQ (Section
2.7.4). Arguably, because EC-GSM-IoT devices are compatible with legacy
EGPRS technology, which supports HARQ, EC-GSM-IoT supports it as well.
Moreover, cellular LPWA supports FOTA, as explicitly stated by Simon
Glassman, Senior Principal Strategic Partnerships at u-blox [156].
A network characteristic worth comparing is uplink latency, which is

around 10-15 milliseconds for eMTC and 1.4-10 seconds for NB-IoT (See
Table 2.12). Downlink latency or round-trip delay time is superior for cellular
LPWA because SigFox and LoRaWAN class A devices (the most common
class) can not receive downlink communication until an uplink message
has been sent. The downlink latency of LoRaWAN class B- and C devices
are comparable to cellular LPWA (see Section 2.4.3). Uplink latency could
not be found for EC-GSM-IoT. Nevertheless, since EC-GSM-IoT is allegedly
backward compatible with existing M2M EGPRS (see Section 2.6.6) and
because no latency enhancements have been found, one can assume that the
uplink latency is similar to the latency of existing 2G M2M. According to
Beth Princip at Telecom Engine, the latency of existing 2G M2M is one or two
seconds [157]. For LoRaWAN, the uplink latency will depend on the data
rate, which is a bit lower than EC-GSM-IoT. SigFox probably has an uplink
latency comparable to NB-IoT’s because its TOA is around 3-6 seconds.
5.1.5 Mobility and positioning

All of the different LPWANs support inter-cell mobility in one way or
another. LoRaWAN and SigFox integrate it by default since devices are
not tied to a single gateway. NB-IoT, on the other hand, only supports
handover while in idle mode (see Figure 2.8) and eMTC does not support
handover while in extended coverage mode (explained in Section 2.7.3). Cell
reselection being restricted to idle mode means that an NB-IOT device must
wake up from power saving modes (PSM or eDRX, Figure 2.8) and shift into
idle mode for the network to keep track of the device.
Further considering mobility, Magnus Sparrholm claims (see Section 4.2)

that SigFox is not ideal for a moving object, such as a car or bike, due to the
Doppler effect. A test by "disk91" in 2015, a well-known blogger within the
LPWA domain showed that the chance of successful reception decreased
as the device’s speed increased, more specifically at 90 km/h 27% of the
total transmitted frames were lost [158]. However, because each message
(frame) is sent three times the chance of actual data loss is much smaller.
Nevertheless, communicating with poor signal reception or traveling at even
higher speeds (with 44% of frames lost at 130 km/h) [158] could be an issue.
LoRaWAN, which employs CSS, is basically immune to the Doppler effect,
as stated by A. Augustin et al. [159]. Concerning LTE-IoT, it is unknown if
it will utilize Doppler correcting mechanisms integrated into conventional
cellular networks (using pilot signals, etc.). Moreover, the smaller subcarrier
spacing in NB-IoT (from 15 kHz to 3.75 kHz) might increase the sensitivity
to Doppler shifts because the narrower the band the more precise re-tuning
is required.
Regarding network integrated positioning (i.e., positioning without

using GPS), LoRaWAN and now SigFox (according to Mats Landstedt in
Section 4.1) support positioning. Cellular LPWA is expected to support
positioning in 3GPP release 14 (to be releases mid 2017) [120].
5.1.6 Battery lifetime

Figure 5.1 indicates that LoRaWAN and SigFox transmit with 4 (6 dBm) to
80 (19 dBm) times less power than cellular LPWA. The more heavyweight
network protocol of cellular LPWA is reflected in the higher idle or off
current consumption of cellular LPWA modules. Indeed, a Cat M1 device
consumes in PSM mode (see Table 2.11) around 1000 times more current
than a SigFox device in the off state (see Table 2.2), or around 100 times more
current than a LoRaWAN device in register retention mode (see Table 2.7).
Because the supply voltages are roughly the same, this translates to much
higher power requirements for cellar LPWA than LoRaWAN or SigFox.
However, these figures are meaningless without specifying durations.
Introducing transmission and receiving into the comparison, cellular

LPWA and LoRaWAN benefit from a high data rate, enabling a much
shorter TOA, thereby reducing the duration during which power consuming
components are active (antenna, amplifiers, etc.). Moreover, the battery
lifetime of cellular LPWA is reduced by the required signaling, since for
each payload transmission, some signaling and control messages must be
transmitted and received. Hence, to accurately compare the battery lifetime
of the LPWANs in question one must know how long devices spend in the
different modes (transmitting, receiving, idle, off, etc.).
As for alleged battery lifetimes, as stated in Chapter 2, Digi-key claims

that a LoRaWAN device may achieve a ten year battery lifetime. Likewise,
Radiocraft says that a SigFox device transmitting one message per day
would last over ten years with a 3.6 V lithium AA battery, whereas SigFox
claims that two messages per day equate to a 20 year lifetime with an AA
battery. According to 3GPP, a battery powered cellular LPWA is said to last
for ten years on a 5 Wh battery. More specifically, Nokia calculated for eMTC
and NB-IoT that when taking battery degradation into account, a ten year
lifetime is achievable for a device transmitting one 200 byte message per day.
Likewise, although not presented in Chapter 2, Ratasuk et al. calculated the
lifetimes for both stand-alone- and in-band deployment. These results are
shown in Table 5.1 for NB-IoT assuming a 5 Wh battery [160].
TABLE 5.1: Calculated NB-IoT lifetime, by Ratasuk et al. [160]
Packet size, Lifetime Lifetime In-band

reporting interval Stand-alone [years]
[years]
50 bytes, 2 hours 2.6 2.4
200 bytes, 2 hours 1.2 1.2
50 bytes, 1 day 18 16.8
200 bytes, 1 day 11 10.5
Except for the results by Ratasuk et al. presented in Table 5.1, we only
have a set of vendor claims regarding battery lifetimes with undisclosed
or different assumptions. A real comparison will be impossible unless the
battery lifetime is calculated using identical assumptions. Hence below,
SigFox is simulated with the same basic assumptions as for the results
shown in Table 5.1. LoRaWAN, eMTC, or EC-GSM-IoT were not simulated
because necessary parameters (such as TOA) could not be found. Moreover,
these different types of devices have variable data rates and signaling which
in turn complicates the model. In contrast, SigFox has a constant data rate
with a TOA of 6 seconds according to SigFox [48]. Furthermore, because
of SigFox’s simplicity, the TOA is all we need to attempting to model the
lifetime of a SigFox device.
Beginning with the power source (battery), we assume a SigFox

compliant supply voltage of 3.6 V (see Table 2.2). Calculations are performed
for both an ideal battery and a non-ideal battery with a 2% self-discharge
per month (the typical self-discharge rate of a Lithium battery according to
Woodbank Communications Ltd [161]). Then, rather than specifying the
battery capacity further (mAh) it is assumed to be such that it has the same
energy capacity as the power source for which cellular LPWA is supposed
to last ten years, that is 5 Wh or 18 000 joules. The modeled SigFox module
itself is based on the ATA8520E chip (Table 2.2). Hence, the off current is 5
nA, and the transmit current is 32 µA. The time spent in off state is all of the
time not spent transmitting. Moreover, the model assumes zero downlink
transmissions. The results are shown in Figure 5.2.
F IGURE 5.2: SigFox battery lifetime for 2 or 12 messages

per day (24 h) for both an ideal and non-ideal battery (2%
self-discharge per month)
Comparing Figure 5.2 and Table 5.1 shows that SigFox achieves a
longer lifetime than NB-IoT regardless of taking into account battery
self-discharge or not when transmitting 12 messages per day. Furthermore,
when transmitting one message per day, SigFox achieves a longer lifetime
than NB-IoT when NB-IoT transmits with a 200 byte payload, but not
for a 50 byte payload. It should be emphasized that Ratasuk et al. did
not specify the data rate or whether their results are based on an ideal or
non-ideal power source. However, their results are not linear in the sense
that transmitting one message per day instead of 12 results in 12 times
longer lifetime, which indicates that some non-linear degradation was
accounted for. Moreover, when transmitting one or two messages per day,
the unrealistically longer lifetime of a SigFox device powered by an ideal
source suggests that Ratasuk et al. modeled a non-ideal battery. Combining
the results displayed in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.1 with the uncertainty in
differences in the underlying assumptions of the models, such as battery
degradation, it is likely that SigFox has a slightly longer lifetime than NB-IoT.
All cellular LPWANs support PSM and eDX and have a target life length
of ten years with a 5 Wh battery. However, eMTC probably has a slightly
shorter lifetime than NB-IoT because its modules are more complex (see
Table 2.11) and because it has a shorter maximum eDRX cycle (44 minutes
compared to NB-IoT’s 175 minutes, Section 2.7.2). EC-GSM-IoT has an
eDRX cycle of 52 minutes, however, it constitute a very small or nonexistent
reduction in complexity (see Section 2.6.9) compared to LTE-IoT. Therefore,
EC-GSM-ioT is likely to have a slightly shorter battery lifetime than LTE-IoT.
Although LoRaWAN has a heavier network protocol and spread

spectrum requires more processing power than SigFox, LoRaWAN
modules consume approximately as much power as SigFox modules
when transmitting and receiving and can additionally reduce its TOA
significantly by using higher data rates. Hence, LoRaWAN and SigFox are
likely to have comparable battery lifetimes.
5.1.7 Results of Technical Analysis

Figure 5.3 compiles the results of the technical analysis (based upon Section
5.1) of the LPWA networks. The strength of each analysis has been assessed
and is indicated by the percentages (50% reflect simply guessing) in Figure
5.3.
5.2. Non-technical comparison 87
F IGURE 5.3: Technical comparison: Performance is indicated

on a scale from low (0) to high (10). The confidence of each
ranking is indicated by the percentage associated with the name
of each metric.
5.2 Non-technical comparison

This section compares the LPWA networks along different non-technical
dimensions deemed relevant from an operator and use-case perspective.
The results are summarized in Section 5.2.6.
5.2.1 Ecosystem and Intellectual property

The SigFox ecosystem has no element of open source. The whole chain
from radio module to cloud is specified by proprietary SigFox intellectual
property. SigFox have released their end device modem intellectual property
to manufacturers (see Section 2.3.3). Hence, the SigFox ecosystem offers
a variety of low-cost radio modules. However, operators deploying a
proprietary end-to-end solution do not have the option of replacing different
parts of the technology (for example base stations or different core network
functionality) as in a multi-vendor ecosystem such as LoRaWAN. Hence,
choosing SigFox is a "putting all your eggs in one basket" type of risk.
The deployment of SigFox infrastructure is controlled by SigFox. An

operator must join SigFox (i.e. become a certified SigFox operator) and
commit by contract as stated by Mats Landstedt (in Section 4.1): "SigFox and
its certified operators are essentially to be thought of in unison; as one global IoT
operator". Hence, as Magnus Sparrholm puts it (in Section 4.2), SigFox are
taking on the role of both operator and equipment vendor. The advantage
of a fully defined proprietary network is that it is guaranteed to offer the
same functionality and service worldwide. The downside of a centrally
governed network is that it leaves the regional operators with little control
of the network or provided services.
LoRaWAN specifies the communication between network nodes (data

link layer) on top of the LoRa physical layer, as explained in Section 2.4.4.
Regarding the release of intellectual property, LoRaWAN is the inverse of
SigFox. Semtech has not released any modem intellectual property (LoRa)
and LoRaWAN is an open standard maintained by the LoRa Alliance.
However, although every end device and gateway requires a Semtech chip,
anyone can buy and use them (to build a gateway or other devices). As
suggested by Sparrholm (see Section 4.2), Semtech is simply interested in
selling chips, not managing or controlling networks. LoRAWAN benefits
from an open source multi-vendor hardware ecosystem based on Semtech’s
proprietary modem intellectual property. In the LoRaWAN ecosystem, via
which an operator may assemble a network by choosing from a selection of
compatible hardware and cloud solutions.
In contrast with SigFox, a LoRaWAN operator owns and control the

network. This is why LoRaWAN is seen as a "campus network" by some
(such as Mats Landstedt in Section 4.1). However, this lack of central control,
might obstruct interoperability and network coordination. There are no
pre-determined price plans and anyone can deploy or remove a LoRaWAN
network at any time, which might be a deterrent to IoT customers and use
cases seeking long-term "infrastructure stability".
LoRAWAN and cellular LPWA are open standards, maintained by the

LoRa alliance and 3GPP respectively. Additional similarities are that the
operators are in full control of their purchased networks and that cellular
LPWA specifies the physical layer and lower network layers. Hence, cellular
LPWA also benefits from a multi-vendor ecosystem. However, a noticeable
difference with unlicensed LPWA is that one must purchase (assuming they
are for sale) the rights to operate within a given band of licensed spectrum.
Because SigFox and LoRaWAN have been deploying commercial

networks for some time, their ecosystems have had a head start, and are
both vibrant and growing (as indicated in Sections 2.3.3 for SigFox and 2.4.4
for LoraWAN). However, cellular LPWA should benefit from the existing
3GPP ecosystem.
5.2.2 Radio Module Cost

Each network device requires a network radio module or SoC implementing
the network protocol and to different extents the radio frequency front end
(as explained in Section 2.3.2. Hence, the cost of the radio module may
significantly influence adoption and overall success of the network.
LoRaWAN connectivity modules are priced at US$3-7 depending on

quantity (see Table 2.6). SigFox modules are the cheapest ones: US$2-2.3 for
quantities in the order of thousands (see Table 2.2). Assuming the same price
spread as for LoRaWAN, the SigFox unit price for SigFox radio module is
then ∼ US$5.
EC-GSM-IoT modules are likely to cost as much as legacy M2M EGPRS

modules, i.e. around US$10-15 (see Section 2.5.2). This is because legacy
EGPRS modules already meet the requirements regarding complexity and
cost (see Section 2.6.9). According to GSMA, cost reduction will stem
exclusively from large volumes.
For eMTC and NB-IoT, it is important to distinguish between target cost

and current cost. The target cost for eMTC modules is US$7-13 USD (see
Section 2.7.8) or around around 20-25% less than existing EGPRS modules.
According to Huawei, the target cost for NB-IoT modules is less than US$5.
Presently, one of the few Cat M1 modules currently available costs between
US$52-75 depending on quantity (see Table 2.11). The onlyNB-IoT module
with a publically available price is the Telit NE866B1 module shown in Table
2.11 (at a cost of US$35) [137]. Hence, there is an apparent disparity between
the target cost and current cost. As stated earlier, GSMA writes that the
reduction in price will stem from large volumes. However, this is based
on the assumption that there will be a high demand for cellular LPWA,
the validity of which is uncertain considering that LoRaWAN and SigFox
already offer modules at a much lower cost.
5.2.3 Regulation
Unlike unlicensed LPWA which is restricted by regulation within the given
band of operation, cellular LPWA operates in licensed spectrum and is
therefore less susceptible to regulatory "disruption". Fundamentally, a
risk for cellular LPWA (and the 3GPP ecoystem in general) is that more
bandwidth is made license free. Likewise, a risk for unlicensed LPWA
technology is that more bandwidth is licensed.
Not all regulatory change is negative. For example, the regulating body
of South Korea proposed to increase the maximum allowed transmitting
power from 10 mW to 200 mW in the 900 MHz band [162]. As for changes
that could prove damaging, ECC (see Section 2.2) might decide to decrease
the maximum allowed duty cycle to counterbalance the increasing number
of transmitting devices.
5.2.4 Subscription Cost

According to Mats Landstedt at IoT Sweden (see Section 4.1), the
subscriptions offered by SigFox are either a predetermined data volume plan
(committed volume plan) or a "pay as you grow" plan. As a rule of thumb,
Landstedt says that the subscription cost will range from less than one SEK
to a few SEK per month per device (1 SEK = US$0.11 as of 2017-05-22).
Likewise, Radiocraft writes that the typical yearly fee will range from 1 e to
14 e per device (1 e = US$1.2 as of 2017-06-15) [163].
For LoRaWAN, there are no pre-determined price plans, they are

determined by the owner of the network. In South Korea, SK Telecom
subscription cost ranges from US$0.32 to US$1.78 per month per device (see
Section 2.4.3). Similarly, Jonas Rydberg at NyTeknik claimed that a pallet
connected to Tele2’s network in Gothenburg would cost around US$1.1 per
year.
The subscription cost for cellular LPWA could not be found. Existing
cellular M2M data-subscriptions over conventional 2G/3G/4G cost
significantly more than SigFox and LoRaWAN. In Sweden, according to the
retailer m2mbutiken, Telia’s cheapest subscription has a monthly fee of 35
SEK (US$4) and an installation fee of 100 SEK (US$11.45) [164]. Ignoring the
subscription fee, the cheapest option of existing cellular M2M costs US$48
per year per device. Hence, the cellular industry will have to lower their
prices significantly to compete with unlicensed LPWA.
5.2.5 Base station cost

Cellular LPWA is advertised as having zero cost of deployment. However,
according to Schmidbauer, it can cost up to US$15 000 to upgrades an
existing 4G base station to NB-IoT (see Section 2.8.2). Furthermore, Nokia
and Qualcomm state that NB-IoT and eMTC are supported by LTE Advanced
Pro (see Section 2.7.4). Hence, NB-IoT and eMTC are arguably a part of LTE
Advanced Pro in the sense they are all specified in 3GPP Release 13 (see
Figure 2.7). Therefore, an operator may have to acquire LTE Advanced Pro
as a whole to deploy cellular LPWA, which is unlikely to be free of charge.
According to IoT Sweden (see Section 4.1), a SigFox base station costs
US$6 879 (60 000 SEK) and covering the whole of Sweden requires 400 base
stations (costing US$2.75 million in total). Bob Emmerson at No Jitter (a
website of the UBM Technology Group) claims that a SigFox network is
about 100 times cheaper than an equivalent GSM/CDMA network and that
nationwide SigFox coverage in France required 1 000 base stations costing
in total US$4 million (See section 2.3.3). A popular LoRaWAN gateway, the
Kerlink Wirnet station, costs US$1 900 (1750 e). A LoRawan nationwide
network in India covering 400 million people will require more than 10 000
Kerlink Wirnet gateways [165].
5.2.6 Results of non-Technical Analysis

Table 5.2.6 summarizes the results of the non-technical analysis (see Section
5.2).
SigFox LoRaWAN NB-IoT eMTC EC-GSM-IoT
Network Operator must join SigFox to Anyone can deploy a Same as Same as Same as LoRaWAN, but
ownership- build a network with regional LoRaWAN network without LoRaWAN, but LoRaWAN, but spectrum rights must
and control exclusivity in exchange for a predetermined conditions spectrum rights spectrum rights be purchased.
percentage of generated must be must be
income. No direct control over purchased. purchased.
offered services (SigFox is).
Roaming Yes. Nomadic devices to be Yes. Yes. Yes.
supported in 2017.
QoS No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Maturity Founded in 2009. Covers large Newer than SigFox. Started Specified in Specified in Specified in release 13.
and reach parts of Europe, large-scale gaining attention in 2015. release 13. Trials release 13. Trials Trial runs during 2016
roll-outs underway in other Several nationwide during 2016 with during 2016 with with commercial
countries (see Figure 2.3). deployments as well smaller commercial commercial deployment 2017.
local deployments (see Section deployment deployment Deployed into existing
2.4.4). 2017. Deployed 2017. Deployed GSM/EGPRS
into existing LTE into existing LTE Infrastructure, thereby
Infrastructure, Infrastructure, achieving worldwide
thereby thereby coverage quickly.
achieving achieving However, some
worldwide worldwide operators are planning
coverage coverage on decommissioning
GSM networks.
Intellectual Whole chain from device All but modem intellectual Open network Open network Open network protocol
property modem intellectual property to property is open source; LoRa protocol protocol standard developed by
and including cloud is physical layer is proprietary standard standard 3GPP.
proprietary. Device modem and owned by Semtech. developed by developed by
intellectual property has been LoRaWAN is an open network 3GPP. 3GPP.
released to chip manufacturers. protocol (MAC) standard
maintained by the LoRa alliance
and the higher layers are
undefined.
Ecosystem Growing rapidly, revolves Growing rapidly, Multi-vendor Multi-vendor Multi-vendor Multi-vendor value
around end devices. 300 + value chain. +400 LoRa alliance value chain. In its value chain. In its chain. In its infancy,
actors including operators, members including operator, infancy, backed infancy, backed backed by existing
hardware manufacturers, device- and product by existing 3GPP by existing 3GPP 3GPP ecosystem.
platform providers, and design manufacturers. ecosystem. ecosystem.
houses.
Developer Developing a SigFox product is Developing a LoRaWAN Unknown. Unknown. Unknown.
barrier to simple; SDKs are available and network component (device,
entry the cost is low. Compatiable gateway, cloud) is low cost and
with Arduino and raspberry pi open source. LoRaWAN
etc. SigFox compliance is compliance is ensured through
ensured through certification. certification.
Regulation Yes. Yes. No. No. No.
Connectivity Cheapest option cost US$2-5 US$3-7 depending on quantity. US$35 (unit US$52-75 Unknown, but probably
module depending on quantity. price) depending on as much as existing
cost quantity. EGPRS M2M modems
(US$10-15 depending
on quantity)
Data Roughly US$1-15 per year per No universal pre-determined Unknown. Unknown. Unknown.
subscription device. Pay as you grow or price plan.
cost committed volume plan. SK Telecom charges
US$0.32-1.78 per month per
device depending on data
volume.
Base Around US$6 900. LoRaWAN have a wide variety Deployed via Deployed via a Deployed via firmware
station cost of gateways. The Kerlink firmware firmware upgrade, cost
Wirnet station cost US$1 900. upgrade,cost upgrade, cost unknown.
unknown. unknown.
5.3 Discussion
’
The results from the technical comparison (Figure 5.3) and the
non-technical comparison (Table 5.2.6) and their significance for different
use cases are discussed in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 respectively. A discussion
of the future telecommunication landscape is conducted in Section 5.3.3.
5.3.1 Use Case Technical Aspects

Two groups of use cases are identified in this section. The first group are use
cases technologically confined to one or more specific LPWANs, identical
to the first category defined in Section 1.4. The second group are use cases
supported by all LPWANs but favored by one because of non-technical
aspects and a cost versus functionality trade-off.
Uses cases included in the first group are those that place great weight on
the technical characteristics exhibiting the most variance in Figure 5.3. These
are data rate, downlink functionality, uplink latency, maximum payload
size, and the maximum number of messages per device.
Starting with the data rate, a typical LPWAN use case does not use
more than 100 bytes per message. Therefore, the need for a high data-rate
is non-existent in and of itself (i.e. unless it serves to reduce power
consumption, comply with regulations, enhance multiple-access, etc.) .
Regarding the maximum number of messages per device, only one of the
24 use cases presented by GSMA exceeds SigFox’s limit of 140 per device
per day. The Remaining LPWANs are not affected because they can allocate
network resources or increase the data rate to provide a greater number of
messages per day per device. Hence, data payload size, uplink latency, and
downlink functionality are the three most important aspects in determining
whether or not a use case is technologically possible with a specific LPWAN.
Continuing to focus on payload size, downlink functionality, and

uplink latency, all three render some use cases out of SigFox’s reach. For
example, use cases requiring a low uplink latency such as those requiring
immediate responses (warnings, proximity sensors, and alarms). Similarly,
use cases with stringent downlink functionality include critical metering
(requiring acknowledgments and retransmission), actuators (requiring
timely downlink control signals), applications requiring FOTA (for changing
runtime environments), and all use cases requiring more than four downlink
messages times per day are example of uses cases that cannot be addressed
by SigFox. The issue of payload size is self-explanatory as some use cases
require more than 12-byte messages.
LoRaWAN will not be significantly affected by the payload size as it

supports quite a large maximum payload size, but LoRaWAN might have
5.3. Discussion 93
difficulty fulfilling demanding downlink functionality and uplink latency

requirements (as explained in Section 5.1.4). Last but not least, although
not included in Figure 5.3, cellular LPWAN connectivity exhibits superior
round-trip delay (which could be essential for low latency actuators) when
compared to SigFox and LoRaWAN class A devices. However, class B
devices can achieve a manageable round-trip delay at the expense of
decreased battery lifetime.
The second group are use cases are supported by all networks but with
varying functionality. For these, a developer could benefit from increased
functionality by using cellular LPWANs at the expense of a more expensive
product (and probably a higher data cost). Hence, it is not necessarily a
question of whether or not a network fulfills the requirements of a particular
use case, but rather how flexible these requirements and the budget are.
The notion suggested in the previous paragraph is reinforced by the fact

that SigFox and LoRaWAN implement use cases that they should not be
able to (such as asset tracking, smoke detector, metering, street lighting, and
parking management) according to GSMA’s use case analysis (see Section
2.8.1). Hence, it is apparent that use cases are frequently constructed to
support the technology that a vendor wants to sell.
Continuing with the second group of use cases, the choice of network
will be determined by non-technical aspects explored in Section 5.3.2 and
a cost versus functionality trade-off. In general, a developer will arguably
strive to minimize cost, which would make unlicensed LPWANs the desired
preferred choice assuming the technical requirements are not too high.
Focusing solely on cellular LPWAN connectivity, EC-GSM-IoT offers,

in theory, the unparalleled reach of 2G (EGPRS) combined with backward
compatibility with existing E-GPRS M2M for regions where EC-GSM-IoT has
not yet been implemented. Between NB-IoT and eMTC, NB-IoT is optimized
for simple sensors, meters, and long range. Applications generating more
data are more suitable with eMTC because of its higher data rate. Moreover,
eMTC has the lowest uplink latency.
Regarding mobility, as discussed in Section 5.1.5, there is a potential issue

with eMTC for mobile use cases requiring simultaneously extended coverage
and mobility, such as subway applications.
5.3.2 Use Case Non-Technical Aspects

Besides technical compatibility, a network may be preferable because of
other aspects such as cost, QoS, and ecosystem. Table 5.2.6 summarized
these non-technical aspects deemed most relevant.
The ecosystem, determined by the degree of openness or proprietary

nature of the intellectual property, sets the stage for many aspects such as
cost, adaptation, innovation, diversity, and more. SigFox and LoRaWAN are
based on two different approaches. LoRaWAN is an open standard, and the
layers above it are open source (hence undefined by LoRaWAN), thereby
allowing many third-party actors to enter the ecosystem with their offerings.
For SigFox, the inverse is true: there is only a limited variety of end point
chips, and the rest of the protocol stack (up to the transport layer) is SigFox’s
proprietary solution. Hence, use case developers requiring more freedom in
their solutions are better served by LoRaWAN. Cellular LPWANs also has
a multi-vendor ecosystem and therefore a greater degree of freedom than
SigFox.
Regarding ownership and control, LoRaWAN enables end customers to

take on the role of operator. For instance, a factory or mine could deploy a
local LoRaWAN network and benefit from full control, independence, and
no data cost. In contrast, SigFox’s network is controlled solely by SigFox,
the benefit of which is a higher degree of uniformity and interoperability.
Hence, at the moment, applications requiring seamless connectivity and a
fixed SLA across regions and countries are better suited to SigFox. However,
cellular LPWANs will support roaming, and LoRaWAN will implement
roaming this year (2017). Cellular LPWANs are in theory available to any
network purchaser, but spectrum rights are required.
One side-effect of LoRaWANs unregulated network deployment is that

the lack of mandated coverage acts as a deterrent to developers seeking
long-term stability. Indeed, although anyone can deploy a LoraWAN
gateway, that same gateway could also be removed at any point in time.
Certified SigFox operators, on the other hand, must provide coverage.
Likewise, cellular LPWANs operate in purchased spectrum which carries
a liability to provide coverage. Along the same line of reasoning, the faith
of unlicensed LPWANs is ultimately decided by regulatory bodies, as
explained in Section 5.2.3, which in theory could either kill or enhance it by
changing the allowed duty cycle or radiated power.
Besides interoperability, applications such as asset tracking are dependent

on network reach, which SigFox and LoRaWAN have achieved to a
comparable degree. Moreover, because both networks have lower cost base
stations compared to a conventional mobile network, deploying a base
station for a single use case is not necessarily economically unsound. For
instance, SigFox has deployed a gateway at the Princess Elizabeth Science
Station in Antarctica solely for the purpose of enabling GPS coverage for the
up to 40 scientists working there, as explained by Marion Moreau at SigFox
foundation [166]. However, worldwide reach is obstructed for unlicensed
LPWANs because of varying regional regulation.
The reach of licensed LPWANs is still in its infancy and is therefore yet
5.3. Discussion 95
to rival unlicensed LPWANs. On the other hand, as it can be deployed

using existing cellular infrastructure it has the potential to quickly attain
worldwide reach, especially EC-GSM-IoT (as 2G is still offering the widest
network coverage). However, one should keep in mind that 2G faces
impending decommissioning by some MNOs.
QoS will enable cellular LPWANs to prioritize one use case over another
when network resources are scarce. Blue light services, critical actuators
and meters are examples of use cases that would benefit from this ability.
However, as discussed in Section 5.1.4, implementing QoS for massive IoT
can cause congestion and unpredictable user behavior (as conventional
mobile services operate on the same network) may affect the devices’
performance.
Regarding cost, the data cost is extremely small for unlicensed LPWANs
compared to existing M2M, and cellular LPWAN connectivity is initially
unlikely to be as inexpensive (at least initially). Hence, use cases requiring
large scale collections of huge amounts of data in the aggregate are at the
moment better suited to SigFox or LoRaWAN
5.3.3 Future Telecommunications Landscape

The investigated networks are likely to co-exist in massive IoT in a
complementary fashion because they each offer a unique value proposition.
Moreover, although not studied in this thesis, the requirements of critical IoT
are not presently met by any unlicensed spectrum technology and will thus
likely be carried over the cellular network. Critical IoT applications include
remote operation of machines and vehicles, or industrial control requiring
ultra low latency, high- availability, and reliability.
Traditional MNOs can be in for an unpleasant awakening as unlicensed

LPWANs may be the first generation of a new breed of competitors operating
in unlicensed spectrum. It is likely that the future will bring more actors such
as SigFox for two reasons. First, the migration of hardware functionality into
the digital domain has significantly reduced the cost of building connectivity
solutions. Secondly, advances in digital communications will continue to
increase spectral efficiency and signal resilience, thereby making unlicensed
spectrum more attractive. The notion of offering mobile broadband in
unlicensed bands will become increasingly viable, especially at higher
frequencies.
The exploitation of unlicensed spectrum has to some extent already

started. 3GPP is standardizing new technologies to offer broadband
service in unlicensed spectrum. Additionally, Nokia writes that "[...] radio
access technologies are rapidly evolving to guarantee efficient and reliable use of
unlicensed spectrum in ultra-dense small cell deployments. This is encouraging
traditional cellular operators, as well as new players, to look at the widely

available and affordable unlicensed spectrum to create new business opportunities.".
Moreover, Facebook has recently launched OpenCellular: an open source
cellular network compatible with protocols operating in both licensed
and unlicensed spectrum and capable of supporting both voice and data.
According to the Register, other initiatives by Facebook include Terragraph
that aims to provide small cell Wi-Fi like coverage in unlicensed 60 GHz
bands [167].
In Sweden, Telia has been warming up to unlicensed LPWAN

connectivity. At the beginning of this thesis, as mentioned in Section
1.2, Telia indicated a skepticism towards unlicensed LPWANs, especially
regarding actual deployment. However, to complement their offerings, Telia
has according to SigFox entered into a "strategic partnership" with SigFox in
Estonia [168].
With regard to MNOs’ strategy, larger MNOs may be able to kill the
competition introduced by unlicensed LPWAN connectivity by bundling
or even offering cellular LPWAN connectivity for free (at least initially).
However, given its potential, unlicensed LPWANs are a low cost investment
for an MNO and many other actors. Indeed, compared with the total
investment in cellular infrastructure (and that of 5G), the required CAPEX
for unlicensed LPWAN connectivity is negligible and not necessarily
more expensive than integrating cellular LPWANs. In short, an MNO’s
options include deploying a nationwide unlicensed LPWAN connectivity,
collaboration with existing unlicensed LPWAN actors, or acquiring
proprietary unlicensed LPWAN technology. However, the opportunities
for these types of commitments are diminishing because new entrants
are taking advantage of them. For instance, many countries, especially in
Europe, already have a certified SigFox operator and many countries are
already seeing nationwide LoRaWAN roll-outs.
97
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Future work
The conclusions of this thesis are presented in Section 6.1, the ethical and
sustainability issues are reflected upon in Section ??, and a discussion about
future work is presented in Section 6.3.
6.1 Conclusion
The results shown in the previous chapters are that unlicensed and licensed
LPWANs are generally speaking technically comparable. The exceptions are
downlink functionality and uplink latency which LoRaWAN might have
some issues with and undoubtedly these aspects render some LPWAN use
cases out of reach for SigFox (for instance: critical metering, actuators, and
proximity warning systems). The same limitations also arise due to SigFox’s
limited payload size.
The results indicate that all of the different types of explored LPWANs
support applications without strict downlink, payload size, and latency
requirements. For use cases without these specific demands (typically
sensors, meters, tracking, etc.), it is not a question of whether or not a
network fulfills the requirements, but rather how flexible the requirements
are. As a result the choice of network will be determined by non-technical
aspects and a cost versus functionality trade-off where unlicensed LPWAN
is typically cheaper. Hence, both categories of LPWANs offer a unique value
proposition; therefore, they can be considered complementary. This notion
is reinforced when looking at non-technical aspects such as ecosystem,
regulation, network ownership and control, and network coordination,
which differ quite significantly. Furthermore, unlicensed LPWANs are likely
to be the vanguard of a new type of competitor offering the core service of
connectivity. For instance, a factory could choose an "out of the box" solution
with SigFox or cellular LPWAN connectivity, or deploy a local LoRaWAN
network and benefit from full control, independence, and no data cost.
It is furthermore concluded that unlicensed LPWANs are likely to be the
vanguard of a new type of competitor within the core service of connectivity
operating in unlicensed spectrum.
98 Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future work
6.2 Ethical and Sustainability Issues

There are many ethical issues in IoT. Privacy is usually the first issue that
comes to mind simply because it can potentially affect our everyday lives.
Exactly how the regulations governing the privacy of IoT will look like is
difficult to foretell. However, it is very likely that everyone will have to
take a stance regarding how their personal data is handled, which in and of
itself can become an imposition. Hence, there is a risk that anonymity is not
the default because of the sheer complexity of the future IoT. For instance,
imagine if every product that is bought includes a number of choices
regarding privacy, an online user account, or a complicated disclaimer
about how the generated data is shared. It is not difficult to imagine being
overwhelmed and that anonymity will require an active and constant effort.
Another potential issue alludes to the fact that the economy is partly
based on that our knowledge about the world is limited, which in turns
makes our predictions about the future uncertain. By increasingly making
more information available, the economy itself may change drastically,
which in turn may be to a disadvantage for different groups of individuals.
For instance, an insurance is bought to secure oneself against an unwanted
outcome. However, as the available information increases, the insurance
eventually becomes either very expensive or very cheap. There is a risk
that this could indirectly single out different individuals. That is, some
individuals might have to pay a very large cost for their insurance. For
instance, individuals living in an environment of highly polluted air, with
a specific medical condition, or just with certain personal habits deemed
perilous by the insurance company.
Regarding sustainability, IoT is a two-edged sword. Sensors or other

IoT devices deployed around the world are potentially hazardous for the
environment. On the other hand, by deploying sensors around the globe
we will learn more about it, and thereby be more able to understand
and mitigate our environmental impact. A more immediate observation
regarding sustainability is the trade-off between an environmentally friendly
IoT endeavor and a low-cost one. The former is preceded by a thorough
life-cycle analysis and the latter is not. Undoubtedly, in an industry where
cost is everything, some actors will be tempted to ignore their environmental
responsibly to beat the competition.
6.3 Future work

Once all of these different forms of networks have been commercially
deployed, real life measurements may be performed to ascertain their true
power consumption, rate of collision/congestion, mobility, etc. in different
situations. Simulations may also be performed, although much of the
required information may remain proprietary.
99
Bibliography
[1] “LTE Release 13”, published by Ericsson April 2015, doc number Uen
284 23-8267. [Online]. Available: https://www.ericsson.com/
res/docs/whitepapers/150417-wp-lte-release-13.pdf.
[2] A. Laya, A. Ghanbari, and J. Markendahl, “Tele-Economics in MTC:
What numbers would not show”, EAI Endorsed Transactions on Internet
of Things, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015.
[3] A. Wood, “The internet of things is revolutionising our lives, but
standards are a must”, published by the Guardian 2015-03-31,
accessed 2017-02-28. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
theguardian . com / media - network / 2015 / mar / 31 / the -
internet - of - things - is - revolutionising - our - lives -
but-standards-are-a-must.
[4] R. Minerva, A. Biru, and D. Rotondi, “Towards a definition of the
internet of things (iot)”, IEEE Internet Initiative, Torino, Italy, 2015.
[5] “Overview of Internet of Things”, ITU-T Y.2060, 2012, a
recommendation on IoT by ITU, published by ITU.
[6] N. Hunn, “LoRa vs LTE-M vs Sigfox”, published by the Nick Hunn
2015-12, accessed 2017-02-28. [Online]. Available: http : / / www .
nickhunn.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/12/
LoRa-vs-LTE-M-vs-SigFox.pdf.
[7] “Smart Thinking Smart Living”, Ericsson Annual report 2009,
published by Ericsson. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
ericsson . com / assets / local / investors / documents /
financial - reports - and - filings / annual - reports /
ericsson-annual-report2009-en.pdf.
[8] “Toward 50 billion connected devices - how australian telecom
operators can ride the industry vertical”, Ericsson discussion paper,
published by Ericsson, November 2010.
[9] D. Yockelson, “IoT Will Drive the “Golden Rule” for Data as a
Service (DaaS) or Data Broker Opportunities”, published by Gartner,
2016-03-22. [Online]. Available: http : / / blogs . gartner . com /
david - yockelson / 2016 / 03 / 22 / iot - creating - data -
service-daas-opportunities/.
[10] “Cellular networks for Massive IoT”, Ericsson white paper, no.
Uen 284 23-3278, published by Ericsson, January 2016. [Online].
Available: https : / / www . ericsson . com / assets / local /
publications/white-papers/wp_iot.pdf.
100 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[11] A. Meddeb, “Internet of things standards: Who stands out from the
crowd?”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 40–47,
2016.
[12] “EMTC and NB-IoT pave the way to 5G/IoT”, [Online]. Available:
https : / / www . rohde - schwarz . com / us / solutions /
wireless- communications/lte/in- focus/emtc- and- nb-
iot-pave-the-way-to-5g-iot_230416.html.
[13] I. morris, “Vodafone to ’Crush’ LoRa, Sigfox with NB-IoT”, published
by the LightReading 2016-04-25, accessed 2017-03-01. [Online].
Available: http://www.lightreading.com/iot/vodafone-
to-crush-lora-sigfox-with-nb-iot/d/d-id/722882.
[14] I. Morris, “Telia ’Betting’ on NB-IoT Over LoRa, Sigfox”, published
by LightReading 2016-11-21, accessed 2017-03-01. [Online]. Available:
http://www.lightreading.com/iot/telia-betting-on-
nb-iot-over-lora-sigfox/d/d-id/728497.
[15] P. Henricsson, “Tävla i Tele2:s Loranät”, published by the Elektronik
Tidningen 2017-01-13, accessed 2017-03-01. [Online]. Available:
http : / / etn . se / index . php / nyheter / 63067 - taevla - i -
tele2-s-loranaet.
[16] A. Schaelicke, “Tele2 beats the heat in Estonia with NB-IoT”,
published by Nokia 2016-06-24, accessed 2017-03-07. [Online].
Available: https://blog.networks.nokia.com/iot/2016/
06/24/tele2-beats-heat-estonia-nb-iot/.
[17] A. Xylouris, “LPWA announcements increased significantly in 2016
and NB-IoT is at the forefront”, published by Analysys Mason
2017-01-19, accessed 2017-03-01. [Online]. Available: http://www.
analysysmason.com/Research/Content/Comments/LPWA-
NBIoT-2016-Jan2017-RDME0/.
[18] M. Sauter, From GSM to LTE: An introduction to mobile networks and
mobile broadband. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[19] U. Raza, P. Kulkarni, and M. Sooriyabandara, “Low Power Wide Area
Networks: An Overview”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
2017.
[20] Ericsson, Ericsson Mobility Report, published November 2016.
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . ericsson . com / assets /
local / mobility - report / documents / 2016 / ericsson -
mobility-report-november-2016.pdf.
[21] “Low Power Wide Area Networks to lead IoT connections by 2022”,
Press release published by GSMA 2017-02-01, Accessed 2017-03-3.
[Online]. Available: http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-
release / low - power - wide - area - networks - lead - iot -
connections-2022/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 101
[22] “3GPP Low Power wide Area Technologies”, GSMA white paper,
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . gsma . com / iot / wp -
content/uploads/2016/10/3GPP-Low-Power-Wide-Area-
Technologies-GSMA-White-Paper.pdf.
[23] “Sigfox’s ecosystem delivers the world’s first ultra-low cost modules
to fuel the Internet of Things mass market deployment”, Published by
SigFox 2016-11-07, accessed 2017-03-13. [Online]. Available: https:
/ / www . sigfox . com / fr / presse / sigfox - s - ecosystem -
delivers-world-s-first-ultra-low-cost-modules-to-
fuel-internet-of-things.
[24] G. Petrin, “Iinternational Telecommunication Union –
Radiocommunication sector ITU-R FAQ on international mobile
telecommunications (IMT)”, Q and A published by ITU 2014.
[Online]. Available: http : / / www . itu . int / en / ITU -
R/Documents/ITU-R-FAQ-IMT.pdf.
[25] “Definition of "Open Standards"”, Published the ITU, accessed
2017-03-27. [Online]. Available: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/ipr/Pages/open.aspx.
[26] “Definition of: proprietary standards”, 2016, published pcmag,
accessed 2017-03-27. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . pcmag .
com/encyclopedia/term/49870/proprietary-standards.
[27] “Harmonised Standards”, published the European Commission, last
updated 2017-03-28, accessed 2017-03-28. [Online]. Available: http:
/ / ec . europa . eu / growth / single - market / european -
standards/harmonised-standards/.
[28] “Internationella organisationer”, Published by Post- och telestyrelsen
(PTS), accessed 2017-03-13. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
pts . se / sv / Om - PTS / Omvarldslankar / Internationella -
organisationer/.
[29] “Who we are”, published by by CEPT 2017-02-16, accessed
2017-03-15. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . cept . org /
ecc/who-we-are.
[30] “A Comparison of UNB and Spread Spectrum Wireless Technologies
as used in LPWA M2M Applications”, Real Wireless, 2015.
[31] “Short Range Devices”, SRD information pamphlet published by
ETSI. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . etsi . org / images /
files/ETSITechnologyLeaflets/ShortRangeDevices.pdf.
[32] “300 220-1 (v2. 4.1): Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio
spectrum Matters (ERM); Short Range Devices (SRD)”,
Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM),
2012, published by ETSI 2012.
[33] “Erc recommendation 70-03 relating to the use of short range devices
(srd)”, CEPT ECC, Troms, edition of February 2017, published by
CEPT, ECC.
102 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[34] “Radio Regulations Articles”, Radiocommunication Sector. ITU-R.

Geneva, published 2012 by ITU, accessed 2017-03-28.
[35] H. Mazar, Radio Spectrum Management: Policies, Regulations and
Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[36] D. H. Mazar, “International, Regional and National regulation of
electronic devices SRD’s”, Published by Dr. Haim Mazar, accessed
2017-03-28. [Online]. Available: http : / / mazar . atwebpages .
com / Downloads / Regulation % 20of % 20SRDs _ Mazar _ TCBC _
Baltimore_15April2015.pdf.
[37] “LoRaWAN Regional Parameters V1.0”, Published the LoRa Alliance
Technical comittee July 2016.
[38] “Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and
5725-5850 MHz.”, FCC regulation published the US Government
Publishing Office (GPO), current as of 2017-03-13, accessed
2017-03-15. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . ecfr . gov / cgi -
bin/text-idx?SID=cec2a885ae7a37dec66c9ca44671b1b0&
mc=true&node=se47.1.15_1247&rgn=div8.
[39] “External SigFox FAQ”, no. V2.4 15061, Used with permission from
SigFox (Not up to date according to SigFox). Published by SigFox.
[40] “SigFox Frequently Asked Questions - Doc nr AN018”, published
2016 by Radiocrafts Embedded Wireless Solutions. [Online].
Available: https : / / radiocrafts . com / uploads / AN018 _
SIGFOX_Frequenty_Asked_Questions_2_1.pdf.
[41] B. Singh and B. Kaur, “Comparative study of Internet of Things
Infrastructures & Security”, in Global Wireless Submit 2016, 2016.
[42] “Uplynx Sigfox Verified RCZ1 Module”, Uplynx-M-RCZ1 - Product
Brief, M2C1106 Rev 1.0. Published by M2COMM 2016.
[43] “Internet of Things (IoT)”, poster published by Keysight, printed
2016-04-16.
[44] A. Laya, C. Kalalas, F. Vazquez-Gallego, L. Alonso, and J.
Alonso-Zarate, “Goodbye, aloha!”, IEEE access, vol. 4, pp. 2029–2044,
2016.
[45] “SigFox Technical 101”, presentation by SigFox.
[46] M. Centenaro, L. Vangelista, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, “Long-range
communications in unlicensed bands: The rising stars in the IoT and
smart city scenarios”, IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 5,
pp. 60–67, 2016.
[47] “SigFox Vs. Lora: A Comparison Between Technologies & Business
Models”, Published by Link Labs 2016-01-13, accessed 2017-01-13.
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . link - labs . com / sigfox -
vs-lora/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 103
[48] Nicolas Lesconnec, “SigFox basics”, published by SigFox, 2015-06-16.

Accessed 2017-05-02. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
slideshare.net/nicolsc-slides/sigfox-basics.
[49] C. Fourtet, “The technical challenges of future IoT networks and
their consequences on modem’s and SoC’s design”, Presentation
on SigFox by SigFox founder Christophe Fourtet, accessed
2017-02-13. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . slideshare .
net / Reseauxetservicestpa / rs - 10 - juin - 2015 - sigfox -
christophe.
[50] Juan Carlos Zuniga and Benoit Ponsard, “Sigfox System Description”,
Published by IETF 2016-01-13, accessed 2017-04-13. [Online].
Available: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/
slides - 97 - lpwan - 25 - sigfox - system - description -
00.pdf.
[51] K. Grover, A. Lim, and Q. Yang, “Jamming and anti-jamming
techniques in wireless networks: A survey”, International Journal of
Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 197–215, 2014.
[52] “Sigfox Cloud Interfaces”, Video published by SigFox via Youtube
2016-11-28, accessed 2017-03-08. [Online]. Available: https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=7gTwFbiiJwE.
[53] “Getting started with TD SIGFOXTM certified modules”, published by
TD next RF modules, accessed 2017-03-03. [Online]. Available: http:
//rfmodules.td-next.com/modules/.
[54] Ryan Derouin, “Getting started on SigFox”, published by Ryan
Derouin (SigFox) 2016-04-13, accessed 2017-03-03. [Online]. Available:
https : / / www . slideshare . net / RyanDerouin / get -
started-on-sigfox.
[55] A. Charbonnier, “Introduction to the Sigfox LPWAN Low Power
Wide Area Network”, published by SigFox 2016-07-12, accessed
2017-02-13. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . youtube . com /
watch?v=Xg_T8Q2W-OU.
[56] “Single-Chip SIGFOX RF Transceiver ATA8520E”, Datasheet
published by Atmel 2016. [Online]. Available: http : / / ww1 .
microchip . com / downloads / en / DeviceDoc / Atmel - 9409 -
Smart-RF-ATA8520E_Datasheet.pdf.
[57] “ATA8520E-GHPW Microchip Single-Chip SIGFOX RF Transmitter”,
Published by Avnet, accessed 2017-03-10. [Online]. Available: https:
//products.avnet.com/shop/en/ema/rf-and-microwave/
rf-transceiver/ata8520e-ghpw-3074457345627330066/.
[58] “What is the battery lifetime of a SIGFOX device?”, published by
Radiocrafts 2017-01-11, accessed 2017-03-21. [Online]. Available:
https : / / radiocrafts . com / kb / battery - lifetime -
sigfox-device/.
104 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[59] I. Lunden, “IoT startup Sigfox is raising 100M −200M at a

600M valuationtogrowglobally”, Published by techrunch 2016-10-06,
accessed 2017-03-15. [Online]. Available: https : / / techcrunch .
com/2016/10/06/iot-startup-sigfox-is-raising-100m-
200m-at-a-600m-valuation-to-grow-globally/.
[60] B. Emmerson, “License-Free Spectrum Goes Cellular”, Published by
NoJitter 2014-04-30 Accessed 2017-03-29. [Online]. Available: http:
/ / www . nojitter . com / post / 240168055 / licensefree -
spectrum-goes-cellular.
[61] SigFox, SigFox’s official web page, accessed 2017-03-03. [Online].
Available: http://www.sigfox.com/en/coverage.
[62] “Tele2 i partnerskap med Aerea, exklusiv SIGFOX-operatör i
Nederländerna”, Published by Tele2 2015-01-22 accessed, 2017-03-08.
[Online]. Available: http : / / www . tele2 . com / sv / Media /
pressmeddelanden / 2015 / tele2 - i - partnerskap - med -
aerea-exklusiv-sigfox-operator-i-nederlanderna/.
[63] K. Majithia, “Telefonica seeks IoT boost through Sigfox partnership”,
Published by Mobile World Live 2017-02-22 accessed, 2017-03-08.
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . mobileworldlive . com /
featured - content / top - three / telefonica - seeks - iot -
boost-through-sigfox-partnership/.
[64] “What Is The Sigfox Protocol Stack?”, Video published by SigFox via
Youtube 2017-02-08, accessed 2017-03-13. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGmFgaxKPRU.
[65] “Sigfox Ready certification for end products - Overview”, Video
published by SigFox via Youtube 2016-11-18, accessed 2017-03-31.
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . youtube . com / watch ? v =
6yp70wLHm98.
[66] Atmel, “ATA8520 FAQ”, no. ATAN0129, Application note published
by Atmel 2016. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . atmel . com /
Images/Atmel- 9420- ATA8520%20FAQ_Application- Note.
pdf.
[67] SigFox, SigFox’s official web page, accessed 2017-03-03. [Online].
Available: https://www.sigfox.com/.
[68] “Sigfox expands its Global Internet of Things (IoT) network in
Sweden in partnership with IoT Sweden”, Published by SigFox
2017-02-24, accessed 2017-03-07. [Online]. Available: https :
/ / www . sigfox . com / en / press / sigfox - expands - its -
global - internet - of - things - iot - network - sweden -
partnership-iot-sweden.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 105
[69] “Sigfox Achieves Record Growth in the U.S., Confirms Network

Coverage in 100+ U.S. Cities”, Published by SigFox 2016-12-19,
accessed 2017-01-25. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . sigfox .
com / en / press / sigfox - achieves - record - growth - u - s -
confirms-network-coverage-100-u-s-cities.
[70] SigFox, SigFox’s official webshop, accessed 2017-03-07. [Online].
Available: https : / / partners . sigfox . com / products /
device.
[71] “SigFox Partners Network”, Published by SigFox 2016-03-14, accessed
2017-03-08. [Online]. Available: https://www.sigfox.com/en/
news/sigfox-partners-network-0.
[72] SigFox, SigFox’s official partner network website, Accessed
2017-03-08. [Online]. Available: https : / / partners . sigfox .
com/companies/device-maker.
[73] Semtech, “LoRaTM Modulation Basics”, no. AN1200.22, Published
2015-04-02 by Semtech. [Online]. Available: http://www.semtech.
com/images/datasheet/an1200.22.pdf.
[74] LoRa Alliance, “A technical overview of LoRa R and LoRaWANTM ”,
Published by the LoRa alliance, accessed 2017-03-27. [Online].
Available: https : / / www . lora - alliance . org / portals / 0 /
documents/whitepapers/LoRaWAN101.pdf.
[75] Semtech, “Sx1272/73 - 860 MHz to 1020 MHz Low Power Long Range
Transceiver”, Published March 2015 by Semtech, Rev. 3. [Online].
Available: http : / / www . semtech . com / images / datasheet /
sx1272.pdf.
[76] “LoRa Modem Design Guide”, Published 2015-04-02 by Semtech, Doc
nr. AN1200.13. [Online]. Available: https://www.semtech.com/
images/datasheet/LoraDesignGuide_STD.pdf.
[77] N. Sornin (Semtech), M. Luis (Semtech), T. Eirich (IBM), T. Kramp
(IBM), O.Hersent (Actility), “ LoRaWAN Specification V1.0.2”,
Published July 2016 by the LoRa alliance.
[78] F. Adelantado, X. Vilajosana, P. Tuset-Peiro, B. Martinez, J. Melia,
and T. Watteyne, “Understanding the limits of LoRaWAN”, IEEE
Communications Magazine, 2017.
[79] Semtech Corporation, “LoRaTM -FAQ”, Published by Semtech
Corporation. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . semtech . com /
wireless-rf/lora/LoRa-FAQs.pdf.
[80] Dave Kendal, “The LoRaWANTM Specification Developments”,
Published by the LoRa Alliance. [Online]. Available: http :
/ / portal . lora - alliance . org / DesktopModules /
Inventures _ Document / FileDownload . aspx ? ContentID =
1080.
106 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[81] LoRa Alliance, “LoRaWAN TM 101 A Technical Introduction”,

published by the LoRa Alliance. [Online]. Available:
https : / / docs . wixstatic . com / ugd / eccc1a _
20fe760334f84a9788c5b11820281bd0.pdf.
[82] W. Giezeman, “The Things Network 2016 Update”, Published
by Wienke Giezeman 2016-01-08. Accessed 2016-04-06. [Online].
Available: https://speakerdeck.com/wienke/the-things-
network-2016-update#28.
[83] Sesp group advanced jamming solutions, “Very High Power
Broadband Jammers”, Published by Sesp Group accessed
2017-04-21. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . sesp . com /
VeryHighPowerBroadband.asp.
[84] LORIOT, “LoRaWAN Software and Services”, Published by LORIOT.
Accessed 2017-03-23. [Online]. Available: https://www.loriot.
io/pricing.html.
[85] Nicolas Sorning, “The LoRaWAN Specification update and
roadmap”, Published by the LoRa Alliance.
[86] Link Labs, “A comprehensive look at Low Power, Wide Area
Networks”, Published by Link Labs.
[87] Semtech, “Semtech Products - Short Form Catalog v.32”, Published
by Semtech 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.semtech.com/
images/mediacenter/collateral/shortformcatalog.pdf.
[88] Digi-Key, SX1272 product overview, price, and procurement.
Published by Digi-Key. Accessed 2017-03-23. [Online]. Available:
http://www.digikey.com/product- detail/en/semtech-
corporation / SX1272IMLTRT / SX1272IMLTRTDKR - ND /
4259550.
[89] Digi-Key , SX1273 product overview, price, and procurement,
corporation/SX1273IMLTRT/SX1273IMLTRTCT-ND/5226786.
[90] Semtech, “SX/77/78/79 - 137 MHz to 1020 MHz low power Long
Range Transceiver”, published August 2016 by Semtech, Rev. 5.
[Online]. Available: http : / / www . semtech . com / images /
datasheet/sx1276.pdf.
[91] Digi-Key , SX1276 Product overview, price and procurement,
4259552.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
[92] Digi-Key, SX1278 Product overview, price and procurement.

5226822.
[93] Digi-Key , “LoRaWAN Part 1: How to Get 15 km Wireless and 10-year
Battery Life for IoT”, Published by Digi-Key 2016-11-22, accessed
2017-04-21. [Online]. Available: https://www.digikey.com/en/
articles/techzone/2016/nov/lorawan- part- 1- 15- km-
wireless-10-year-battery-life-iot.
[94] LORIOT, “LoRa Gateways and Concentrators”, Published by LoRIOT
2016, accessed 2017-03-23. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
loriot.io/lora-gateways.html.
[95] IMST GmbH, “iC880A - LoRaWAN Concentrator 868MHz”,
Published by IMST GmbH 2017, accessed 2017-03-23. [Online].
Available: https : / / wireless - solutions . de / products /
radiomodules/ic880a.html.
[96] IMST GmbH, “iC880A-SPI – LoRaWAN Concentrator 868MHz”,
iC880A Product overview, price and procurement. Published
by IMST 2017, accessed 2017-03-23. [Online]. Available: http :
//webshop.imst.de/ic880a-spi-lorawan-concentrator-
868mhz.html.
[97] GLYN, “Kerlink Wirnet LoRa base station”, Kerlink Wirnet Product
overview, price and procurement. Published by GLYN, accessed
2017-03-23. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . glynstore . com /
kerlink-wirnet-lora-base-station/?setCurrencyId=4.
[98] LoRa Alliance, “Enabling things to have a global voice”, Published by
LoRa 2017, accessed 2017-03-22. [Online]. Available: https://www.
lora-alliance.org/.
[99] LoRa Alliance , “Bylaws of LoRa Alliance, Inc. (the “Bylaws”)”,
amendments approved by the Board of Directors on April 4, 2016.
[100] LoRa Alliance, “ LoRa AllianceTM FAQ”, Published by the LoRa ,
accessed 2017-03-22. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . lora -
alliance.org/The-Alliance/FAQ.
[101] Mobile World Live, “Whitepaper: LoRa Technology: Ecosystem,
Applications and Benefits”, published by Mobile World Live 2017.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nnnco.com.au/wp-content/
uploads/2017/05/LoRa_technology_Whitepaper.pdf.
[102] Jonas Ryberg, “Målet: Superbilliga pryl-nät”, published by NyTeknik
2016-06-20. Accessed 2017-03-24. [Online]. Available: http://www.
nyteknik . se / digitalisering / malet - superbilliga -
pryl-nat-6579536.
108 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[103] SK telecom, “SK Telecom Commercializes Nationwide LoRa Network

for IoT”, Published by SK telecom 2016-07-04. Accessed 2017-03-24.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sktelecom.com/en/press/
detail.do?idx=1172.
[104] “LoRaWANTM : Global standard for Low Power Wide Area IoT
networks”, White paper published 2016. [Online]. Available: https:
/ / www . actility . com / wp - content / uploads / 2017 / 01 /
LoRaWAN-_system_Infographics.pdf.
[105] LoRa Alliance, “ Membership Benefits”, published by the LoRa
alliance. Accessed 2017-03-27. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
lora-alliance.org/Join/Membership-Benefits.
[106] LoRa Alliance , “LorawanTM for developers”, Published by the LoRa
lora-alliance.org/For-Developers/LoRaWANDevelopers.
[107] “Midweek M2M: IoT and machine-to-machine developments”,
Published by Telegeography 2017-03-22, accessed 2017-03-24.
[Online]. Available: https : / / www . telegeography . com /
products/commsupdate/articles/2017/03/22/midweek-
m2m-iot-and-machine-to-machine-developments/.
[108] Orange, “ Orange continues deployment of its LoRa R network in
France”, published by Orange 2017, accessed 2017-03-24. [Online].
Available: https : / / www . orange . com / en / Press - Room /
press - releases - 2017 / press - releases - 2016 / Orange -
continues - deployment - of - its - LoRa - R - network - in -
France.
[109] “Telent and actility partner to launch Netzikon, a national LoRaWAN
network for the internet of things in Germany, powered by
ThingPark”, Published by Business Wire 2016-10-04 , accessed
2017-03-24. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . businesswire .
com / news / home / 20161004005616 / en / telent - Actility -
partner-launch-Netzikon-national-LoRaWAN.
[110] LoRa Alliance , “LoRa Overview”, Published by the LoRa alliance.
Accessed 2017-03-27. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . lora -
alliance . org / portals / 0 / documents / alliance /
LoRaOverview.pdf.
[111] LoRa Alliance, “ LoRaWANTM Member list”, Published by the LoRa
lora-alliance.org/The-Alliance/Member-List.
[112] LoRa Alliance , “ LoRaWANTM Certified Products”, Published by the
LoRa alliance, accessed 2017-03-27. [Online]. Available: https : / /
www.lora-alliance.org/Products/Certified-Products.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 109
[113] SK telecom, “SK Telecom Announces Nationwide Roll-out of LPWA

Network for IoT”, published by SK telecom 2016-03-17. Accessed
2017-03-24. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . sktelecom . com /
en/press/detail.do?idx=1159.
[114] “About 3GPP”, 2017, Published by 3GPP. Accessed 2017-04-04.
[Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp.
[115] “3GPP Working Procedures”, published by 3GPP, effective from
2016-10-20. Accessed 2017-04-04. [Online]. Available: http :
//www.3gpp.org/ftp/Information/Working_Procedures/
3GPP_WP.htm.
[116] “Releases”, published by 3GPP. Accessed 2017-04-04. [Online].
Available: http : / / www . 3gpp . org / specifications / 67 -
releases.
[117] “Overview of 3GPP Release 10 V0.2.1”, Published by 3GPP 2014-06, .
Accessed 2016-04-06. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/
ftp/Information/WORK_PLAN/Description_Releases/.
[118] F. Rayal, “Meeting the Cost Requirements for IoT Devices”, published
by Frank Rayal 2015-03-30. Accessed 2017-04-05. [Online]. Available:
http://frankrayal.com/2015/03/30/meeting-the-cost-
requirements-for-iot-devices/.
[119] C. Anton-Haro and M. Dohler, Machine-to-machine (M2M)
communications: Architecture, performance and applications. Elsevier,
2014.
[120] Philippe Reininger, Chairman of 3GPP RAN WG 3, “3GPP Standards
for the Internet-of-Things”, Published by 3GPP 2016. Accessed
2016-04-06. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/images/
presentations/2016_11_3gpp_Standards_for_IoT.pdf.
[121] H. Welte, “Ec-gsm-iot: Enhanced Coverage GSM for IoT”, Published
by Harald Welte 2016-07-23. Accessed 2017-04-10. [Online]. Available:
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/blog/20160723- ec_gsm_
iot/.
[122] Ericsson, “Ericsson and Orange in Internet of Things trial with
EC-GSM-IoT”, published by Ericsson 2016-02-19. Accessed
2017-04-10. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . ericsson .
com/news/1987789.
[123] Lars Nielsen, General Manager of the Global Certification Forum,
“Realising the full potential of CAT-M1 and NB-IoT through
GCF certification)”, Published by Mobile World Live 2017-02-27.
Accessed 2017-04-11. [Online]. Available: http : / / mday .
mobileworldlive . com / MobileWorldDaily / 2017 / DAY1 /
html5/index.html?page=41&noflash.
110 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[124] Wang Xinhui , TSG GERAN Vice Chairman, “3GPP TSG GERAN”,
published by 3GPP. Accessed 2017-04-10. [Online]. Available: http:
/ / www . 3gpp . org / ftp / workshop / 2015 - 11 - 15 _ Taipei _
summit_5G/Docs/2_5_2015_ITRI_3GPP_summit_GERANv05.
pdf.
[125] ETSI, “ETSI TS 1 Digital cellular telecomm (3GPP TS 45.0 technical
specification 145 004”, published by ETSI 2016-04, V13.1.0. Accessed
2017-04-10. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . etsi . org /
deliver/etsi_ts/145000_145099/145004/13.01.00_60/
ts_145004v130100p.pdf.
[126] Qualcomm, “Paving the path to Narrowband 5G with LTE Internet of
Things (IoT)”, White paper, published by Qualcomm 2016-06. [Online].
Available: http://www.5gamericas.org/files/1914/6862/
6516 / Whitepaper_ - _Paving _ the _ path _ to _ Narrowband _
5G_with_LTE_Internet_of_Things_-_v1.0.pdf.
[127] Nokia, “LTE evolution for IoT connectivity”, White paper, 2017,
published by Alcatel-Lucent 2017. Accessed 2017-04-11. [Online].
Available: http://resources.alcatel-lucent.com/asset/
200178.
[128] “Extended Coverage – GSM – Internet of Things (EC-GSM-IoT)”,
published by GSMA 2017. Accessed 2017-04-11. [Online]. Available:
http : / / www . gsma . com / connectedliving / extended -
coverage-gsm-internet-of-things-ec-gsm-iot/.
[129] I. Grigorik, High Performance Browser Networking: What every web
developer should know about networking and web performance. O’Reilly
Media, Inc., 2013.
[130] Ian Poole, “LTE UE Category Class Definitions”, published by
Radi-Electronics.com Accessed 2017-04-11. [Online]. Available:
http : / / www . radio - electronics . com / info /
cellulartelecomms / lte - long - term - evolution / ue -
category-categories-classes.php.
[131] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold, 4G, LTE-Advanced Pro and The
Road to 5G. Academic Press, 2016.
[132] “SARA-R404M Size-optimized LTE Cat M1 module”, published by
Ublox 2017, doc nr. UBX-16019228 - R04. [Online]. Available: https:
//www.u- blox.com/sites/default/files/SARA- R404M_
ProductSummary_%28UBX-16019228%29.pdf.
[133] “NE866B1 Series - Datasheet”, published by Telit Wirless solutions
inc. [Online]. Available: http : / / wireless - modules . eu /
datasheets/Telit_Product-Datasheet_NE866B1.pdf.
[134] “Quectel BC95 - Datasheet”, published by Quecetel 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.quectel.com/UploadFile/Product/
Quectel_BC95_NB-IoT_Specification_V1.1.pdf.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 111
[135] “SkywireTM LTE CAT-M1 Embedded Cellular Modem Datasheet”,

published by NimbeLink 2017, doc nr. PN 30163 rev. [Online].
Available: http://nimbelink.com/Documentation/Skywire/
4G_LTE_Cat_M1/30163_NL-SW-LTE-SVZM_Datasheet.pdf.
[136] Digi-Key, NL-SW-LTE-SVZM20-ES Product overview, price, and
procurement. Published by Digi-Key. Accessed 2017-04-18. [Online].
Available: https : / / www . digikey . com / product - detail /
en / nimbelink - llc / NL - SW - LTE - SVZM20 - ES / 1477 - 1045 -
ND/6593333.
[137] “MKT3990251501”, published by Rutronik24. Accessed 2017-05-22.
[Online]. Available: https://www.rutronik24.com/product/
telit/mkt3990251501/8507358.html.
[138] A. Rico-Alvarino, M. Vajapeyam, H. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Blankenship,
J. Bergman, T. Tirronen, and E. Yavuz, “An overview of 3gpp
enhancements on machine to machine communications”, IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 14–21, 2016.
[139] Sequans, “Narrowband LTE: Which apps need Cat M1 and which
need Cat NB1?”, published by Sequans 2016-08-10. Accessed
2017-04-14. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . sequans . com /
narrowband- lte- which- apps- need- cat- m1- and- which-
need-cat-nb1/.
[140] “Narrowband Internet of Things”, Whitepaper, Whitepaper published
by Rohde & Schwarz 2016. [Online]. Available: https : / / cdn .
rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_application/
application_notes/1ma266/1MA266_0e_NB_IoT.pdf.
[141] M. Lichtman, R. P. Jover, M. Labib, R. Rao, V. Marojevic, and J. H.
Reed, “Lte/lte-a jamming, spoofing, and sniffing: Threat assessment
and mitigation”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 4,
pp. 54–61, 2016.
[142] A. Ratilainen, “NB-IoT presentation for IETF LPWAN”, published
by IETF. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . ietf . org /
proceedings / 97 / slides / slides - 97 - lpwan - 30 - nb -
iot-presentation-00.pdf.
[143] “Long Term Evolution for Machines: Lte-m”, published by GSMA
2017. Accessed 2017-04-13. [Online]. Available: http://www.gsma.
com / connectedliving / long - term - evolution - machine -
type-communication-lte-mtc-cat-m1/.
[144] “Narrow band – Internet of Things (NB-IoT)”, published by GSMA.
Accessed 2017-04-20. [Online]. Available: http://www.gsma.com/
connectedliving/narrow-band-internet-of-things-nb-
iot/.
112 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[145] “Test Results: LTE-M Live in US”, published by Link Labs

2017-04-13. Accessed 2017-04-14. [Online]. Available: https :
/ / www . link - labs . com / blog / test - results -
lte - cat - m1 ? utm _ source = hs _ email & utm _ medium =
email & utm _ content = 50621537 & _hsenc = p2ANqtz --
x21kunubts4j3UuewCDTUWDEHXof1H1r4neFLQigm7B3YKbI8xRIWBr1dzDDx-
23PVc7XaaPlDuitxk2ttYKJ2RZfCLFguJq0lizVkwESGVPIo70&
_hsmi=50621537.
[146] M. DeGrasse, “Verizon certifies LTE Cat M1 modules”, Published
by RCR Wireless 2017-01-5. Accessed 2017-04-14. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rcrwireless.com/20170105/chips/verizon-
certifies-lte-m-modules-tag4.
[147] “NarrowBand IoT Wide Range of Opportunities”, published by
Huawei 2016. [Online]. Available: http : / / www - file . huawei .
com / ~ / media / CORPORATE / minisite / mwc2016 / pdf /
NarrowBand - IoT - Wide - Range - of - Opportunities -
en.pdf?la=en.
[148] “IoT Use Cases : Sigfox brings value to your business”, published
by SigFox 2017. Accessed 2017-04-27. [Online]. Available: https://
www.sigfox.com/en/solutions/iot-use-cases.
[149] Mobile Experts, “Mobile Experts White Paper for LoRa Alliance
Where does LoRa Fit in the Big Picture?”, Published by the
LoRa Alliance, accessed 2017-04-25. [Online]. Available: https :
/ / www . lora - alliance . org / portals / 0 / documents /
whitepapers / 20160404JG _ Mobile _ Experts _ Whitepaper _
LoRa_Alliance.pdf.
[150] Hardy Schmidbauer, “NB-IoT vs LoRaTM Technology”, Published
by the LoRa alliance September 2016. [Online]. Available: https :
/ / www . lora - alliance . org / portals / 0 / documents /
whitepapers / LoRa - Alliance - Whitepaper _ NBIoT _ vs _
LoRa.pdf.
[151] Machina Research, “LPWA technologies: Unlock new IoT market
potential”, published by the LoRa alliance. [Online]. Available:
https : / / www . lora - alliance . org / portals / 0 /
documents / whitepapers / LoRa - Alliance - Whitepaper -
LPWA-Technologies.pdf.
[152] “LPWA Technology Security Comparison”, White paper, published
by Franklin Heath Ltd, funded by GSMA, 2017-05-02. [Online].
Available: https://fhcouk.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/
lpwa-technology-security-comparison.pdf.
[153] B. Ray, “Firmware-over-the-air (FOTA) with LoRa”, published by
Light Labs 2016-04-19. Accessed 2017-05-02. [Online]. Available:
https://www.link-labs.com/blog/firmware-over-the-
air-fota-with-lora.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
[154] Semtech, “Datasheet - SX1257 RF Front-End Transceiver Low Power

Digital I and Q RF Multi-PHY Mode Transceiver”, published by
Semtech 2012-02. [Online]. Available: http://www.semtech.com/
images/datasheet/sx1257.pdf.
[155] Nicolas Lesconnec, Developer Relations at Sigfox, “Get started with
SigFox”, published by Nicolas Lesconnec, SigFox, 2016-10-26,
accessed 2017-05-04. [Online]. Available: https : / / www .
slideshare . net / nicolsc - slides / get - started - with -
sigfox-iot-shifts-2015.
[156] Simon Glassman, “IoT and the four reasons why licensed spectrum
technologies have been worth the wait”, [Online]. Available: https:
//www.u-blox.com/en/blog/iot-and-four-reasons-why-
licensed - spectrum - technologies - have - been - worth -
wait.
[157] B. Principi, “ Qualcomm, Sierra Wireless weigh in on 2G in M2M”,
published by Telecom Engine 2012-02-29. Accessed 2017-06-01.
[Online]. Available: http : / / www . telecomengine . com /
article/qualcomm-sierra-wireless-weigh-2g-m2m.
[158] Paul ("Disk91"), “Sigfox on the move !”, published by disk91
2015-07-22. Accessed 2017-05-16. [Online]. Available: https :
//www.disk91.com/2015/technology/sigfox/sigfox-on-
the-move/.
[159] A. Augustin, J. Yi, T. Clausen, and W. M. Townsley, “A study of LoRa:
Long range & low power networks for the internet of things”, Sensors,
vol. 16, no. 9, p. 1466, 2016.
[160] R. Ratasuk, B. Vejlgaard, N. Mangalvedhe, and A. Ghosh, “NB-IoT
system for M2M communication”, in Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC), 2016 IEEE, IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5.
[161] “Battery Performance Characteristics”, published by Woodbank
Communications Ltd 2005. Accessed 2016-05-19. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mpoweruk.com/performance.htm.
[162] A. Kumar, “Good News for IoT World: To promote IoT Korean
government to raise transmit power for 900 MHz to 200 mW”,
published by LinkedIn 2016-04-04. Accessed 2017-05-23. [Online].
Available: https : / / www . linkedin . com / pulse / good -
news - iot - world - promote - korean - government - raise -
transmit-kumar.
[163] “How much does it cost to use SIGFOX?”, published by Radiocrafts
2017-01-11. Accessed 2017-05-22. [Online]. Available: https : / /
radiocrafts.com/kb/much-cost-use-sigfox/.
[164] “ Telia 5MB Abonnemang”, published by m2mbutiken. Accessed
2017-05-22. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . m2mbutiken . se /
telia/telia-5mb-abonnemang.html.
114 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[165] Thorigné-Fouillard, “KERLINK TO PROVIDE 10 000+ LoRaWanTM

STATIONS TO TATA COMMUNICATIONS TO DEPLOY THE
WORLD LARGEST IOT LPWA NETWORK IN INDIA”, Kerlink
press release, published 2017-03-14. [Online]. Available: http :
/ / www . kerlink . fr / images / Kerlink / Presse2 / CP / CP _
Tata_2017EN.pdf.pdf.
[166] SigFox, “How we helped scientists in Antarctica”, published by
The SigFox foundation 2016-09-23. Accessed 2017-06-05. [Online].
Available: http : / / www . sigfoxfoundation . org / how - we -
helped-scientists-in-antarctica/.
[167] Wireless Watch, “Facebook Telecom Infrastructure Project starts
chucking rocks at mobile model”, published by The Register
2016-11-17. Accessed 2017-06-02. [Online]. Available: https://www.
theregister.co.uk/2016/11/17/facebook_tip_starts_
to_hurl_real_rocks_at_mobile_infrastructure_model/.
[168] “Connected Baltics and Telia Estonia Enter Into Internet of Things
(IoT) partnership in Estonia”, press release by SigFox published
2017-03-30. Accessed 2017-06-02. [Online]. Available: https://www.
sigfox . com / en / news / connected - baltics - and - telia -
estonia - enter - internet - things - iot - partnership -
estonia-0.
TRITA-ICT-EX-2017:123
www.kth.se

Daniel - Sjöström With Cover PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Daniel - Sjöström With Cover PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DEGREE PROJECT IN COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING,

Unlicensed and licensed

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

This thesis explores LPWANs from both technical and non-technical

Detta examensarbete undersöker LPWANs from ett teknisk och

Resultaten indikerar att alla nätverk stödjer applikationer utan strikta

I would like to thank my supervisor Viktor Dahl, management consultant

2.4.2 Spectrum and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.8 Current debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5 Analysis & Discussion 75

6 Conclusions and Future work 97

1.1 M2M and IoT paradigms with respect to commercial aspects.

2.1 LPWA entities, adapted from [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Thesis flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.1 Maximum data rate and coverage profiles in different

5.1 Calculated NB-IoT lifetime, by Ratasuk et al. [160] . . . . . . . 84

3GPP 3rd Generation Ppartnership Project

ITU International Telecommunications Union

Machine Type Communication (MTC), Machine-to-Machine (M2M)

Minerva, Biru, and Rotondi in contrast with Laya, Ghanbari, and

The most official definition of the Internet of Things is arguably the

[6]. Ericsson’s annual report of 2009 mentions 50 billion connected "things"

F IGURE 1.1: M2M and IoT paradigms with respect to

Yockelson expresses an opinion [9] that builds on Hunn’s interpretation

many use cases in between them.

A fundamental categorization of different IoT network technologies may

F IGURE 1.2: IoT technologies grouped by range, courtesy of

Because IoT is already happening, especially regarding massive IoT, the

However, 5G will to a large extent be an evolution of 4G technology. Hence,

1.2 Problem definition

– Not possible with one or more LPWANs or

• Discuss the implications and role of LPWANs in the future

Concerning technological delimitation. Unlicensed LPWANs are by

1.6 Structure of thesis

According to Aris Xylouris at Analysys Mason, the number of deployed

annual revenue 2021 [23].

As for the LPWAN providers themselves, the most prominent proprietary

F IGURE 2.1: LPWA entities, adapted from [19]

2.2 Regulation and standards

2.2.1 Standardization terminology

• PCMag states that proprietary standards are: "Specifications for

• The European Commission defines a harmonised standard as: "A

Real Wireless claims in their whitepaper on M2M technologies that

In a pamphlet on regulatory matters published by ETSI, it is stated

ETSI indicates that the regulatory parameters included in the harmonized

It is often claimed that LPWANs operate within the ISM bands.

Haim Mazar, the vice-chairman of ITU-R study group 1 (Spectrum

According to Real Wireless, ERC/REC 70-03 identifies bands at 169 MHz,

70-03 annexes Band Power Spectrum access & mit- Notes

• There are no duty cycle limitations in the US. However, there

• Maximum dwell time:

• Maximum transmit power:

2.3.1 Spectrum and Regulation

SigFox documentation does not specify which sub-bands are used.

The regulatory parameters in Europe for the 868 MHz band, as

The regulatory parameters in Section 2.2.2 translate to a maximum

M2COMM M2C8001 [42].

2.3.2 Technology of SigFox

SigFox has designed a communication system capable of transmitting

KeySight notes that the uplink modulation is differential binary phase

correspond to a 0. However, in D-BPSK it is the change of phase, not the

Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara write that the range is 10 km and

Regarding the transmission of data, Raza, Kulkarni, and Sooriyabandara