Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?

1,010 views

Published on

In this paper, we investigate the challenges facing service providers and enterprises for deploying and monetizing LPWAN solution.
We show in this paper that the traditional M2M approach might not be cost-effective for the needs of LPWAN IoT deployments due to dramatically lower ARPU requirements of IoT compared to traditional M2M. We also examine both cellular IoT (NB-IoT or Cat-NB1, Cat-M1, Cat-1) and LoRaWAN, with the objective to demonstrate the complementary aspects of the two technologies. We show how operators extend existing M2M use cases and swap 2G using cellular IoT, and in addition tap into the new unlicensed IoT market space using LoRaWAN. Interestingly, LoRaWAN is a natural over-the-top play for cellular IoT operators, as cellular IoT is an ideal backhaul technology for unlicensed LPWAN concentrators.
Properly matching a connectivity solution to a use case is a complex multidimensional problem requiring analysis of several factors including battery lifetime, coverage, throughput, latency, total cost of ownership (TCO), amongst other factors. We discuss these factors and attempt to build a technology selection chart, and then build a business case for multi-technology IoT platform that leverages both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT to serve the needs of all IoT use cases. We also provide insights on the service provider strategy for LPWAN deployment with examples from Tier-1 MNOs such as SK Telecom and Orange.
Finally, we conclude the paper with overview of ThingPark Wireless as a multi-technology platform that addresses the challenges for both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT deployments.

Published in: Technology
  • How to improve brain memory power naturally? Boost your brainpower with brain pill now... ♥♥♥ https://tinyurl.com/brainpill101
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • It doesn't matter how long ago you broke up, these methods will make your Ex crawling back! See how at here. ■■■ http://t.cn/R50e2MX
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?

  1. 1. How to build a multi- technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform? © 2018 ACTILITY SA. All rights reserved.
  2. 2. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 1 NOTICE The material provided in this document is believed to be accurate and reliable. However, no responsibility is assumed by Actility SA for the use of this material. Actility SA reserves the right to make changes to the material at any time and without notice. This document is intended for information and operational purposes only. No part of this document shall constitute any contractual commitment by Actility SA. © 2018 ACTILITY SA. All rights reserved. Portions of this documentation and of the software herein described are used by permission of their copyright owners. Actility, ThingPark, are registered trademarks of Actility SA or its subsidiaries may also be registered in other countries. Other denoted product names of Actility SA or other companies may be trademarks or registered trademarks of Actility SA or its subsidiaries, or their respective owners. Headquarters Actility S.A 4 rue Ampère BP 30225 22300 Lannion France www.actility.com
  3. 3. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE .......................................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................2 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................4 2 AUDIENCE............................................................................................................5 3 IOT DEPLOYMENT: THE CHALLENGES FACING MOBILE NETWORK OPERATORS......6 4 BUSINESS CASE FOR MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM..........................................9 4.1 LoRaWAN for capturing LPWAN Market in unlicensed band, and complementing it with Cellular IoT ......................................................................................................................11 4.2 Market Breakdown for LPWAN Connections........................................................13 5 HOW TO MAP USE CASE TO RIGHT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTION?...........................14 5.1 Key Decision Criteria .............................................................................................14 5.2 Example Mapping of IoT Use cases to Connectivity .............................................21 6 OPERATOR CHALLENGES TOWARDS DEPLOYING CELLULAR IOT ..........................23 7 CASE STUDY: SK TELECOM IOT DEPLOYMENT .....................................................26 7.1 SK Telecom's transition to small things.................................................................26 7.2 SK Telecom’s target IoT market: IoST ...................................................................26 7.3 SK Telecom Multi-track IoT network.....................................................................27 8 CASE STUDY: ORANGE IOT DEPLOYMENT ...........................................................29 8.1 LoRa + LTE-M: The winning combination..............................................................30 9 WHAT IS THE RIGHT STRATEGY FOR AN OPERATOR? ..........................................31 10 THINGPARK WIRELESS: A MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR SERVICE & DATA MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR LPWAN CONNECTIVITY........................................33 11 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................35 12 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................36 13 ABOUT AUTHORS…………………………………………………………………………………………….37
  4. 4. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 3
  5. 5. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 4 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The IoT market today is wide and there is no single technology able to address the diversity of use cases, devices and applications entering the market. As the vast majority of future IoT devices will be wireless and battery powered (or using energy harvesting), significant technological developments have been made to provide low power connectivity options optimized for typical IoT communication patterns. However, there is no such thing as a ‘one size fits all’ technology: each one has been designed with a specific market segment in mind and tuned for the corresponding use cases. These market segments are distinct but do have some overlap. As a result, service providers must consider a range of connectivity options, sometimes competing and often responding to different requirements. Choosing the right mix of connectivity solutions for a given use case requires careful consideration. As IoT wireless networks are constantly evolving, and yet devices often must remain in the field for 10 years or more, the demand from the market is that all connected ’things’ will work together seamlessly. This applies not only to the various technologies that may be used for a given customer at a given time, but also to the technology generations that will be deployed over time. To manage this growing variety of connected devices — from smart meters, sensors, wearables, cars, homes, street lights, parking meters, agricultural and industrial automation devices — Operators must be agnostic to radio connectivity. In this paper, we also investigate the challenges facing service providers and enterprises for deploying and monetizing LPWAN solution. Successfully deploying and monetizing LPWAN connectivity solution requires a rethinking of business model. We show in this paper that the traditional M2M approach might not be cost-effective for the needs of LPWAN IoT deployments due to dramatically lower ARPU requirements of IoT compared to traditional M2M. We also examine both cellular IoT (NB-IoT or Cat-NB1, Cat-M1, Cat-1) and LoRaWAN, with the objective to demonstrate the complementary aspects of the two technologies. We show how operators extend existing M2M use cases and swap 2G using cellular IoT, and in addition tap into the new unlicensed IoT market space using LoRaWAN. Interestingly, LoRaWAN is a natural over-the-top play for cellular IoT operators, as cellular IoT is an ideal backhaul technology for unlicensed LPWAN concentrators. Properly matching a connectivity solution to a use case is a complex multidimensional problem requiring analysis of several factors including battery lifetime, coverage, throughput, latency, total cost of ownership (TCO), amongst other factors. We discuss these factors and attempt to build a technology selection chart, and then build a business case for multi-technology IoT platform that leverages both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT to serve the needs of all IoT use cases. We also provide insights on the service provider strategy for LPWAN deployment with examples from Tier-1 MNOs such as SK Telecom and Orange. Finally, we conclude the paper with overview of ThingPark Wireless as a multi-technology platform that addresses the challenges for both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT deployments.
  6. 6. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 5 2 AUDIENCE The audience for this whitepaper is LPWAN service providers, enterprises and end-device manufacturers intending to develop applications leveraging LoRaWAN or Cellular IoT capabilities. This paper builds the business case for multi-technology LPWAN IoT connectivity platform and aims to answer the following key questions around LPWAN: 1. What are the key challenges facing service providers for LPWAN deployment? a. What are the key differences between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT? b. How do they complement each other? 2. How do service providers and enterprises leverage both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT in their portfolio? 3. What are the key requirements for mapping use cases to connectivity? 4. Why is LoRaWAN geared to become the WiFi of LPWAN IoT in unlicensed spectrum 5. What is the business case to combine LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT in a single multi- technology LPWAN IoT platform? 6. What is the right strategy for an operator for LPWAN deployment?
  7. 7. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 6 3 IOT DEPLOYMENT: THE CHALLENGES FACING MOBILE NETWORK OPERATORS Mobile network operators are challenged by a market with multiple requirements that must be satisfied simultaneously. Operators must develop infrastructure platforms carefully to provide the right technology with the lowest TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for each use case. The solution must resolve the customers pain points and deliver the right information to the right person in the most effective and cost-efficient manner. In the IoT world, Operators cannot charge much lower rate for devices as they do for human communications. Therefore, the ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) from IoT devices is much lower compared to human centric devices. In the long run, the massive traffic generated from billions of devices will compensate for the lower ARPU, but in the early years of IoT, traffic is still ramping up and investing in IoT solutions is under severe CAPEX and OPEX constraints. Unlicensed Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs), such as LoRaWAN, have a head start in the IoT market, because they serve mainly the evolution of the traditional ISM band market. This includes many utility applications (gas and water metering, sub-metering), monitoring and security applications (intrusion detection, smoke detectors). The lower OPEX and CAPEX of LPWANs are also giving life to many new use cases, delivering information optimizing processes, and impacting top and bottom lines. LoRaWAN is a proven network, with numerous deployments around the globe, and the LoRa Alliance has a mature and growing ecosystem of 500+ members. In parallel of unlicensed LPWANs, cellular operators are under pressure to evolve their existing networks towards 3GPP R13 (NB-IoT, Cat-M1), as a replacement for 2G/3G M2M and to serve more use cases. While there is some overlap between the use cases served by cellular IoT and LPWANs, most are distinct: ▪ LoRaWAN excels in all local use cases (large number of devices in a small area) such as smart building or smart city applications, and very low traffic IoT applications on low cost battery powered devices. These are the typical characteristics of traditional ISM band use cases, and in a way LoRaWAN is an evolution of this extremely fragmented market towards standards based managed networks. The convergence of many use cases on the same standard lowers costs and creates critical mass, which in turn opens new revenue opportunities for service providers to provide managed connectivity for both public and private IoT networks. However, these use cases do not encompass the whole market: LoRaWAN cannot handle multimedia, and its firmware upgrade capabilities are limited to slow background group upgrades leveraging multicast. ▪ Cellular IoT is ideal in use cases where energy and cost are less constrained such as electric metering or connected cars. It provides much better throughput allowing an easy firmware upgrade for individual devices, as well as supporting some multimedia capability. These improved capabilities do not come without a cost however. Licensed band auctions of the sub-GHz spectrum are typically greater than 500 million dollars per MHz, and power consumption is higher. It is interesting to note that Cellular IoT is
  8. 8. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 7 ideal for backhaul connectivity of LPWAN radio base stations and concentrators. In the same way as WiFi 4G hubs represented a major use case for 4G M2M, we believe that CatM/NB-IoT LoRaWAN gateways will represent a major use case for cellular IoT. This will lead cellular operators to structure their IoT offering into two layers: a primary cellular IoT layer, and a secondary LPWAN layer -operating over-the-top and using cellular IoT for backhaul-. This two-layer architecture allows cellular operators to reach the entire IoT market. Here is the list of key challenges facing the Operators addressing IoT: ▪ Fragmentation of different radio technologies: The value add of operators is to provide all technologies, seamlessly to their customers, as no single radio technology will address all the IoT use cases [10]. Customers cannot choose a single technology. They will require a mix of LPWAN connectivity technologies to address the variety of their use cases. In addition, all technologies will evolve over time, and will need to coexist due to the long lifetime of IoT applications. ▪ Low-cost business model for IoT: Operators traditionally create business opportunities selling connectivity as data plans to consuming users, and into traditional project-based M2M markets. IoT requires a totally different business model because the lower traffic pattern requires dramatic repricing of connectivity, and the long tail nature of IoT means there is almost no room for project fees and consultative selling, unlike traditional M2M markets. IoT markets require operators to be able to profitably sell IoT connectivity at very low ARPU with no upfront fees: this requires 360° optimization, from the infrastructure which needs to be tailored to the IoT traffic patterns, to the OSS/BSS which needs to be strictly zero-touch. ▪ Beyond connectivity, capturing the value: The business opportunity for IoT is only marginally in the connectivity, and shifts to the value-added services leveraging the IoT data. This requires a dramatic change of mindset from selling connectivity to building a platform targeting “high value” apps. Because connectivity is a natural control point, operators are in an ideal position to distribute innovative IoT solutions generated by numerous new suppliers, in an open-garden model. Such an intermediation business model requires an open “IoT marketplace” capable of seamlessly integrating thousands of apps and devices from an open ecosystem. ▪ Evolution of traditional BSS: The BSS systems today are designed for human centric networks. To meet the needs of IoT business models, they will need to be redesigned. The billing systems need to cater to a very different traffic and cost model. The easiest way to provide an optimal BSS for IoT devices is to create a dedicated BSS. This will avoid long integration costs and long-term dependency between human centric and device centric models and have acceptable CAPEX and OPEX levels.
  9. 9. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 8 ▪ Evolution of Core Network: The extreme cost constraints of IoT are difficult to reconcile with existing multi-purpose Home Subscriber Servers (HSS), Packet Gateway (PGW) and Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) licensing models, and drive operators to explore innovative core network licensing models dedicated to the needs of IoT. The cost for IoT devices’ subscription fees and the data consumption per device is significantly lower than human centric devices (phones, tablets, etc). To meet the scale of IoT, it is imperative operators adopt eUICC/eSIM technologies to automate provisioning (zero-touch) and subscription of IoT devices. ▪ Spectrum: Radio spectrum is a scarce resource. There have been significant improvements in the spectrum efficiency of radio technologies, as the demands of applications in terms of throughput is rising at an exponential pace. It has been estimated that there will be up to 29 billion connected devices by 2020 [3]. It is inevitable for mobile operators to adopt unlicensed spectrum-based technologies in their portfolios to address the most cost constrained use cases of IoT. ▪ Converged IoT Platform: To bootstrap their IoT business, Operators will need to adopt a clean slate and cost-effective approach. This requires the adoption of a converged platform able to harmonize licensed and unlicensed radio technologies and is geared towards addressing the business needs of IoT applications. Figure 1: How can operators capture IoT Market?
  10. 10. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 9 4 BUSINESS CASE FOR MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM Ericsson mobility report, 2017 [3] as shown in Fig. 2 predicts 29 billion connected devices by 2022, out of which more than 18 billion will be related to IoT. IoT use cases include connected cars, machines, meters, sensors, point-of-sales terminals, consumer electronics and wearables (only to name a few) and impose wide variety of requirements in terms of cost, and traffic characteristics. Figure 2: IoT Forecast Key Facts: ▪ Short-range and Wide-Area IoT are the key to addressing the entire spectrum of use cases ▪ Unlicensed and licensed technologies must be leveraged to address all the IoT use cases In Figure 2, the IoT market is divided into two segments: 1. Wide Area IoT: This market segment is currently addressed by technologies like LoRaWAN, SigFox in the unlicensed spectrum and by Cellular Cat-M1 and NB-IoT in licensed spectrum deployments. The report also predicts two distinct sub-segments with different requirements: massive and critical applications. Massive IoT connections are high connection volume, low traffic, low-cost, low energy consumption and will exhibit lower ARPU than critical IoT. Many of these massive IoT connections will be connected via capillary networks (for example LoRaWAN) as shown in Figure 3. Critical IoT connections require ultra-reliability, low latency, high throughput and will also exhibit higher ARPU. They are expected to be served by cellular IoT technologies. 2. Short Range IoT: The short-range segment largely consists of devices connected by unlicensed radio technologies, with a typical range of up to 100 meters, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and ZigBee. These networks respond to use cases of smart homes or smart
  11. 11. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 10 buildings. However, these short-range technologies are dependent on being regularly charged, and do not exhibit long battery life (> 10 years), making them incapable to address numerous use cases, and ruling out any smart city initiative. A significant part of this unlicensed IoT market will be captured by LPWAN technologies, like LoRaWAN. LPWAN picocells will be connected to a back-end IoT platform via LTE-M/Cat-M1, Ethernet or DSL line backhaul, which maps perfectly to the capabilities of LTE-M as shown in Fig. 3. LoRaWAN addresses the market segment for long range, long battery life and lowest total cost of ownership (TCO). NB-IoT and Cat-M1 are expected to capture critical and premium IoT applications such as connected cars that can only be served by cellular connectivity. These applications have higher ARPU and are smaller in volume compared to unlicensed LPWAN IoT market. LoRaWAN gateways are very inexpensive to deploy and need a backhaul link which as mentioned above fit the capabilities of LTE Cat-M1 and can serve capillary networks or to provide cell-edge coverage. This is a straightforward way for cellular operators to provide LPWAN managed network services on an on-demand basis, anywhere in the coverage area of their 4G network. Figure 3: Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN deployment scenarios LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT are complementary technologies and address 100% of IoT use-cases from business and technical standpoint
  12. 12. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 11 4.1 LoRaWAN for capturing LPWAN Market in unlicensed band, and complementing it with Cellular IoT Currently, operators have little or no access to the IoT market in unlicensed spectrum, which is a real problem for operators because this segment represents the core of the IoT market today. This market is currently served by technologies such as wireless mMbus, ZigBee, 802.15.4e, etc. The transition to LPWAN technologies is happening quickly, fueled by the weaknesses of existing ISM band technologies, and the desire to reduce fragmentation: ▪ Technologies such as wMBUS are use case specific (metering), and do not fit the requirements of horizontal IoT networks serving multiple use cases. Multi-use case LPWANs exhibit much lower OPEX per device as a result of economies of scale on network costs. ▪ Mesh technologies such as ZigBee and 802.15.4e face three problems: o The need for a dense initial deployment (“big-bang” deployment), which often means all use cases depend on the automated electric metering case as a starting point o All use cases depend on the density of the initial use case providing density and energy to the mesh: electricity. Most utilities do not like to have such 3rd party dependency for their core business. o Finally, there are predictable problems of mesh technology as the noise level in ISM band increases, as multi-hop causes packet error rates to degrade exponentially. Most mesh networks will show sharp degradation of performance with relatively minor increase of noise floor. This transition from a fragmented market of ISM technologies to managed LPWAN networks is very similar to the transition that happened in business telephony between the fragmented PBX market, with multiple incompatible brands, to VoIP managed systems all based on global standards. This transition represents a compelling entry point for operators into the IoT markets. Many operators are creating specific initiatives to capture this market: ▪ Cable operators (like MachineQ in the US) can easily add LoRaWAN picocell functionality to their cable modem footprint [5] to address the smart home market and create a seamless ultra-low-power smart-city radio infrastructure. ▪ Cellular operators provide managed LPWAN connectivity from picocells using LTE Cat- M1 backhaul to serve capillary networks or to fill coverage holes at the cell-edge for deep indoor devices like smart meters ▪ WiFi operators (like Enforta in Russia) add LPWAN capability to their WiFi city coverage [9]
  13. 13. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 12 Figure 4: ARPU Vs Device Volume trend for Cellular IoT Vs LoRaWAN While LoRaWAN is intended to capture the ISM band migration and low-cost appliance markets, there are lots of critical and premium applications that will demand better reliability, low-latency and higher throughput at the cost of higher power consumption, higher device and connectivity costs. These applications represent a segment of the IoT market with higher ARPU but lower volume compared to ISM band migration. Hence, operators need to support Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN in their portfolio to build horizontal platform. Figure 4 shows the ARPU and device volume trade-off for Cellular (Cat-M1, NB-IoT) and LoRaWAN. LoRaWAN opens an entirely new market opportunity for operators in unlicensed spectrum with unique value proposition in combination with Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M) to serve premium applications Value is in: (1) Intermediation of IoT solutions (2) Managed networks (3) Unified connectivity
  14. 14. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 13 Figure 5: LPWAN Connections forecast by market segment 4.2 Market Breakdown for LPWAN Connections Fig. 5 shows the LPWAN market breakdown for different market verticals based on a study conducted by Machina Research [4]. The top 4 vertical industry segments that are poised to grow by volume are smart buildings, utilities, smart cities and consumer. Several of the verticals are “dense” use cases requiring static connectivity in a limited area: Smart Building, Smart-City, Agriculture, Industrial. Each of these verticals have very wide-ranging technical and business requirements which cannot be satisfied by a single IoT connectivity solution and will rely on both licensed and unlicensed technologies. It should also be noted here that there will be a convergence of existing ISM band unlicensed spectrum technologies, which are very fragmented today, towards LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN, due to the technology constraints of legacy technologies (see section above). This transition allows an operator to enter the unlicensed spectrum market with LoRaWAN, as a managed network using cellular backhaul ad-hoc gateways or using a public network. This LPWAN offering needs to be complemented by NB- IoT or Cat-M1 for premium applications and use cases requiring mobility at nationwide scale with constant reach, to cover the needs of all the IoT use cases.
  15. 15. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 14 5 HOW TO MAP USE CASE TO RIGHT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTION? Building a successful IoT solution is all about matching connectivity needs to the right technology or mix of technologies. Whether you choose one network technology or take a multi-network approach, you want the path forward with the best blend of coverage, performance, and value. In this section, we only summarize the different components of the different criteria. However, a more detailed technical analysis is provided in [10]. 5.1 Key Decision Criteria Depending on the IoT application, key decision criteria are more important than others. For example, one factor may be more important than the other based on the deployment environment of your IoT device. However, during the discovery phases of the network selection, all are important considerations to reach a successful final decision. Fig. 6 shows the different criteria that an operator needs to work out when mapping applications to different connectivity options. Figure 6: IoT Use Case Mapping considerations
  16. 16. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 15 Coverage The three IoT wide area network categories discussed in this paper (NB-IoT, LTE Cat-M1 and LoRaWAN) can have very different coverage for IoT devices based on their environment. Coverage depends very strongly on the type of environment, spectrum used for communication, etc. For many IoT use cases, the devices are often shielded by basements or walls when installed in subterranean environments. Mobility It is important to know if the application requires the device to be moving for technology selection. Both Cellular and LoRaWAN networks can technically offer roaming and global coverage, however in practice there are still important limitations. LoRaWAN nationwide coverage is still being deployed, and fully achieved only in a limited number of countries, like Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland and so on. These operators are finalizing roaming agreements so that devices will be able to move across borders and, perhaps more importantly, be activated across borders. The public networks of most LoRaWAN operators covers main urban centers and then ad-hoc locations. Recently, large customers with significant real-estate, such as postal organizations, hotel and retail chains, are also deploying private networks that will be able to roam with public networks. While cellular in general is available country-wide, there are also some limitations: ▪ 4G is available only in urban areas, and therefore also LTE-M/NB-IoT. In many countries, availability of 4G and LoRaWAN will be in the same areas ▪ Roaming is not yet enabled for NB-IoT, and likely to be several years away. Roaming for LTE-M is not yet enabled but should be available soon, piggybacking on existing 4G roaming agreements. In the absence of seamless country-wide coverage, many use cases can be fulfilled by combining public networks with ad-hoc local networks, e.g. on-premise managed networks around main logistic centers, railroads, etc. QoS, Data Rate, Latency and Multicast Throughput represents the data rate exchanged over a network. There are numerous applications such as smart city parking meters, tolls, utility meters, which only exchange a few 10s of bytes every few hours and the data rate is not a significant factor in decision making. However, there are other applications which require streaming of videos, streaming media and telemedicine and need higher throughput which are best served by Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1). Typically, LoRaWAN data rates are below 5 kbps (achievable on managed networks), and often much lower in public networks, and is also subject to duty cycle limitations dependent on the regional ISM band regulation. By contrast NB-IoT has a maximum data rate of 250 kbps followed by LTE-M which has a data rate up to 1Mbps.
  17. 17. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 16 Network latency refers to the time it takes the device and application to interact with each other. Several IoT applications are insensitive to latency as devices are sleeping most of the time. However, latency is very critical for applications such as health care and disaster alarms. Both cellular IoT and LoRaWAN have very low uplink latency (i.e. the time it takes for a message initiated by a device to reach the network). “Low-bitrate” is often confused with “low speed”, but despite being modulated at a lower speed, all radio technologies still travel at the speed of light! LoRaWAN may have higher downlink latency, depending on the device ‘class’: ▪ Class C has a very low downlink latency as these devices are always listening (but also have higher power consumption) ▪ Class B has low downlink latency as it opens periodic listen windows, tunable by the device from tens of seconds to tens of milliseconds ▪ Class A uses a receiver initiated transmit pattern, i.e. downlinks can only follow an uplink. Multicast is also a very critical feature for LPWAN connectivity as it enables several important use cases such as: ▪ Group firmware upgrade. Since it is envisioned to have billions of IoT devices in future, it is impractical to manually replace the software on the devices: instead firmware update servers will identify the categories of devices that need patching, and then will send the update ‘delta’ firmware to the group, using reliable multicast (using forward error correction) ▪ Group device reconfiguration ▪ Synchronized device activation (including demand-response for electric grid balancing) ▪ Emergency actions (shutting-off gas meters in the event of earthquake, alarms signals, etc.) Multicast is available on LoRaWAN networks that support class B and class C. It is not yet available for IoT traffic on current cellular IoT networks (deployed on 3GPP Rel 13) but is part of the 3GPP release 14 and is expected to be deployed in coming years as networks upgrade towards future releases. Battery Lifetime Battery lifetime plays a significant role in most IoT applications. Some of the IoT applications such as asset tracking use rechargeable devices and have a battery lifetime anywhere from 7 to 30 days, but there are applications in which devices are deployed in hard to reach areas and need battery lifetime of 10+ years. In general, LoRaWAN uses minimal power consumption due to the simplicity of the radio and the fact that device is only active when transmitting and sleeps most of the time. The peak current is also relatively low (30 to 40mA), which allows to use the full capacity of primary batteries.
  18. 18. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 17 In cellular technologies, the device has to periodically wake up to synchronize to the network even if it has no data to transmit, and the peak current (about 300 to 400mA) degrades the usable capacity of primary batteries. Despite the significant difference in energy consumption during radio activity, the average difference is smaller, due to the low duty cycle of IoT devices. In general, LoRaWAN is 3-5X more energy efficient compared to NB-IoT [10]. Due to its direct impact on TCO, battery lifetime is indeed one of the most sensitive factors when choosing the right technology for an IoT application. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) There is always the cost to building an IoT network infrastructure. For the case of LTE, it is around upgrading base stations, core network, paying spectrum licenses. The cost of upgrading LTE network from Rel-8 to Rel-13 has several factors depending on the generation of the base-station hardware: ▪ Upgrading of memory card (to support enormous number of sleeping IoT devices) ▪ Upgrading of Baseband card ▪ Manual labor for replacing memory + baseband card ▪ R13 vEPC Upgrade The cost of sub-GHz spectrum which is best suited for Cellular IoT applications can reach 500 million USD/MHz. Obviously, since LoRaWAN runs in unlicensed spectrum, the spectrum is free and has much lower network infrastructure TCO compared to Cellular IoT deployment. Another important aspect of network infrastructure TCO is the possibility to offset some of the public network investment by ad-hoc managed network infrastructure deployed on the customer premises. This is detailed in the next section. The device TCO must also be factored in. The device cost is composed of: ▪ Hardware and firmware costs: Firmware cost is identical in all technologies. Hardware cost is lowest for LoRaWAN followed by NB-IoT and Cat-M1. ▪ Battery cost: Battery cost is as important as hardware cost in the total TCO and may even be more important for devices designed to operate 10+ years. Battery cost and replacements costs are directly proportional to the energy efficiency of the technology used. ▪ Maintenance cost: Maintenance costs concentrate around battery replacement, unless manual firmware upgrades are needed. All cellular IoT technologies are capable of doing unicast firmware upgrades, and multicast firmware upgrade is a recent addition to LoRaWAN. In general maintenance costs will be lower for LoraWAN, unless unicast firmware updates are required frequently.
  19. 19. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 18 In general, LoRaWAN offers much smaller TCO compared to Cellular IoT, which allows to operate a profitable service with lower ARPU, but again not for all IoT market segments. Again, the optimum IoT infrastructure should offer two layers: Cellular IoT for higher ARPU applications requiring unicast firmware updates, low downlink latency, more traffic per device (inclusive of LPWAN infrastructure base stations backhaul which is a perfect use case for cellular IoT), and a LoRaWAN layer for the most energy constrained, lower ARPU devices, as well as managed IoT networks on customer premises. Deployment Model The traditional deployment model for cellular networks has always been led by the operator to provide nation-wide coverage. However, this approach becomes expensive from an ROI perspective to cover the last percentile of the population (which is usually in rural or deep indoor coverage). Most IoT devices are static and will not move, so it is possible to develop lower cost network deployment strategies, by providing ad-hoc coverage in hard to reach areas. In parallel of an initial public network deployment covering large urban and industrial centers (but maybe only 50 to 70% of the population), LoRaWAN being an open standard in the unlicensed spectrum can be used to supplement operator coverage on an on-demand basis, using low cost picocells deployed by private enterprises as part of a managed network offering. Such tuck-in managed networks can be deployed to complement coverage, or to improve QoS in a certain area. Around network picocells, LoRaWAN devices benefit from an increased data rate, resulting in lower airtime, reducing collision rate and power consumption compared to the public network. Such tuck-in networks can either be direct extensions of the public LPWAN network, or roam with the public networks. The LoRa Alliance rules for allocating network IDs require roaming with public networks. Over time the public network capacity and coverage grows because of the synergies with all managed networks running on private premises. LoRaWAN allows a disruptive business model to roll out IoT networks initially with light outdoor coverage in low population density areas and then rely on private enterprises/individuals for densification and building coverage closer to where the devices are generating most of the traffic. This significantly reduces the cost of entry and TCO when leveraging LoRaWAN networks in conjunction with cellular IoT deployments. Ecosystem Maturity Interestingly, the 3GPP and LoRaWAN communities are very distinct ecosystems. The 3GPP M2M community is the natural initial audience and channel for cellular IoT. It consists almost exclusively of module makers, which are integrated in high-volume devices (such as GPS navigation systems, credit card payment systems), or lower volume but high value systems assembled by integrators (maintenance links, backhaul for data concentrators, etc.).
  20. 20. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 19 The ISM band device maker community is the natural initial audience and channel for the LoRaWAN community. It consists of module makers, but also a vast and well-structured distribution network of electronic components, which can reach all device makers and help them assemble low cost solutions directly from the RF components and low power MCUs. Large distributors like Arrow electronics, AVNet, Future electronics, WPG reach into millions of hardware engineers. LoRaWAN is an open standard backed by LoRa Alliance [7], which has 500+ members with 65 announced public networks and 54 Alliance member operators (at the time of writing this paper in Jan’ 2018). The LoRa Alliance has been active since March 2015, has had significant growth in its ecosystem since that time in the ISM band community. In comparison, Cellular IoT technologies have just been launched and it will take several iterations and a little time for NB-IoT, Cat-M1 deployments to become mature and efficient. Despite the 3-year head start of LoRaWAN, it is expected that the module makers will catch- up very fast with cellular IoT. However, the low-cost device community, which builds directly from RF chips and is a complex, long tail market, will be a much tougher nut to crack for cellular IoT which does not have structured distribution to these segments, and needs to switch this audience from doing their own to buying modules. Another important obstacle to reach into the ISM band community is the 3rd party dependency: ISM band solutions typically rely on their own local network, and may prefer to rely on LoRaWAN managed networks rather than switch to a public 4G network. Again a two layer connectivity offering, combining cellular IoT and LoRaWAN, appears to be an optimum strategy to reach into the entire ecosystem, taking into account the specificities of both the M2M and the ISM band communities. Security Security is one of the most important considerations when it comes to IoT. IoT devices are typically very small and it can be quite easy to compromise the hardware. Hence, it is a must that there is security built into the framework both at the radio level and also end-to-end at the application layer. Both the 3GPP and the LoRaWAN ecosystems offer strong security options based on hardware secure elements. Private Enterprise Networks One of the most important verticals to serve for IoT is that for enabling Industry 4.0. In this segment, there is strong need for private enterprise managed deployment. For example, oil and gas companies would want to have their own privately managed service to be able to guarantee high SLA requirements in such markets. Since LoRaWAN is in the unlicensed spectrum, there are already several private enterprise deployments in place. However, 3GPP
  21. 21. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 20 is also working towards MulteFire/CBRS [12][13] which would enable LTE usage in unlicensed spectrum, but it is not mature enough to meet the requirements of IoT applications (esp. when it comes to 10 years battery lifetime). There will be significant developments and maturity of MulteFire/CBRS technology from 3GPP in years to come and the ecosystem will become more mature and developed. Summary Fig. 7 summarizes the positioning of LoRaWAN and cellular IoT technologies such as NB-IoT and Cat-M1 and may be used to assist in designing a market segmentation for connectivity. It is clear from the figure that the market segmentation is based on use case requirements: ▪ LoRaWAN is the lowest TCO technology for all use cases which have no requirement for more than a couple hundred messages per day (or few thousands in managed networks), and do not need 100% nationwide coverage in mobility. The main drivers for selection are low energy consumption, availability of managed networks on private premises, and multicast. ▪ Cellular IoT is the only option when communication requirements exceed the capabilities of LoRaWAN (in terms of volume, or downlink latency). In many countries, it is also the preferred option when large territory coverage is required upfront (however, reduced to 4G coverage), and when energy consumption is not the primary selection factor. Figure 7: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Comparison
  22. 22. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 21 Use Case mapping to IoT technology is a complex multi- dimensional problem and needs to be carried out wisely to monetize IoT Applications 5.2 Example Mapping of IoT Use cases to Connectivity Fig. 8 shows example mapping of different use cases to connectivity technologies. The real- world problem can be much more complex than this example due to wide variation of use cases within each IoT vertical. At the bottom of the pyramid is the LPWAN segment represented by LoRaWAN & NB-IoT and addresses applications which are very sensitive to cost, lower power and long range. These applications are also the ones that exhibit largest volume of devices, however per device throughput is very small (typically few messages/day). Figure 8: Example mapping of use cases to IoT Connectivity Operators need a Multi-technology IoT Platform leveraging both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) to monetize all the IoT Use cases The middle section of the pyramid consists of applications that exhibit higher throughput, for example telematics and connected cars which is best served by Cat-M1.
  23. 23. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 22 The top of the pyramid includes premium IoT applications that demand low latency and high throughput. Note that ARPU in general goes up as you move up the pyramid and number of devices goes up as you go down the pyramid. An operator needs to have a converged platform: ▪ that combines LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT to address the diversity of use cases and channels to market, ▪ which allows easy mapping of connectivity technologies to applications ▪ and which can monetize distribution of value added solutions regardless of technology
  24. 24. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 23 6 OPERATOR CHALLENGES TOWARDS DEPLOYING CELLULAR IOT Figure 9 shows a brief overview of Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) and different cost elements within an operator’s network. The ARPU values presented represent orders of magnitude, not exact values. There is 5-10X difference in ARPU when moving from a traditional M2M business model towards cellular IoT. The dramatically lower ARPU for cellular IoT deserves careful planning and deployment for cellular IoT especially to monetize IoT traffic in early years of deployment when volumes are still relatively low. Figure 9: Business model overview of operators Cellular IoT business case is much different than traditional M2M and requires re-thinking of Operator’s IoT business model Traditional M2M cost optimizations were mostly centered around SIM lifecycle management, SIM monitoring and device provisioning. However, for the case of cellular IoT, here are the different elements that deserve special consideration: 1. OSS/BSS: Traditional OSS/BSS systems are designed for human-centric networks and are usually very costly and complex to upgrade. Moreover, the upgrading of traditional systems can take time and can significantly delay operators’ go to market. Cellular IoT market is only beginning to pick up, however there are applications that need to be addressed soon for the operator to not miss the early opportunities.
  25. 25. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 24 2. Rethinking Core Network License: One of the key drivers that significantly adds to the cost of connectivity is the user subscription in HSS, and traffic management using PGW and PCRF charging features. All these components have traditionally been designed for human-centric networks and need closer integration with OSS/BSS along with new and innovative billing features tailored for IoT. This adds cost/complexity on top of traditional core network equipment. 3. Integration with eSIM/eUICC: One of the key technologies that will significantly bring down the TCO of the device management is the eSIM/eUICC integration with OSS/BSS and IoT platform to manage SIM cards in IoT devices without any human intervention which adds significant cost for IoT deployments for low cost devices 4. Integration with value-added services: Cellular IoT has some very significant ramifications on mobile operator’s business model which has traditionally been B2C or wholesale B2B connectivity. As shown in Figure 10, once the IoT connectivity is successfully built, operators need to move up the value chain and be able to provide value added services. Another interesting point to note from this figure is that margins from IoT connectivity revenues are only 10%, whereas the real margins are in value added services that are built on the top of the connectivity. Mobile operators need OSS/BSS APIs that can be monetize an open ecosystem of 3rd party platforms and cloud platforms such as Amazon AWS, IBM Bluemix and Microsoft Azure. Operators will also need to build data analytics platform that can be used to extract valuable information from IoT data that flows through the operator network. 5. Ecosystem and Operator’s go to market: To foster adoption, operators need to develop an ecosystem of devices, gateways and applications that all need to come together to serve different IoT verticals. The management of this rapidly expanding open ecosystem requires an industrialized open innovation platform that can serve large number of use cases and applications, as required by the long tail nature of IoT markets. ThingPark Market [15] or Click & Go [16] provides such an open-innovation and monetization platform.
  26. 26. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 25 Figure 10: IoT Value Chain (source: Analysis Mason [11]) 6. Integration with LPWAN: This a key component for an operator platform, allowing early entry, capture of the massive ISM band migration market, as well as inclusive IoT service considering the Internet of Small Things (See SK strategy in section 7). Without this offering, operators will not be able to address the IoT market that belongs to the ISM band ecosystem and will face difficulties when competing with LoRaWAN enabled service providers. Furthermore, only technology agnostic service providers can build a credible horizontal offering and intermediation for value added IoT services.
  27. 27. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 26 7 CASE STUDY: SK TELECOM IOT DEPLOYMENT 7.1 SK Telecom's transition to small things SK Telecom has designated IoT as a new growth engine to address the declining sales in traditional LTE. Towards this end, it started launching new IoT solutions in 2017. SK Telecom has done extensive research on finding which specific IoT markets to focus on, what are the underlying technologies and strategies for expanding IoT ecosystem. SK Telecom has identified opportunity in terms of serving the needs of tremendous number of “small things” (e.g. low power-consuming computing devices for measuring/metering small and simple data like temperature, humidity, usage) dominating the market in the near future. This will allow the operator in creating new business opportunities through small/tiny-volume data they constantly generate. The Internet of Small Things (IoST) is predicted to have high marketability and fast market formation. For these reasons, the operator has decided to dedicate its resources to IoST. SKT has subsequently completed the deployment of a nationwide LoRa-based, IoST-dedicated network in 2016. In an effort to promote the formation of an SK Telecom-centered IoST ecosystem, it has also shared an IoST roadmap and some partnership models of the IoST module, device and platform for potential partners. 7.2 SK Telecom’s target IoT market: IoST SK Telecom has categorized IoT into the following three areas based on connectivity requirements: ▪ Area 1: Requires high-volume data, real-time connectivity and mobility (e.g. connected car, self-driving car, connected CCTV, etc.) ▪ Area 2: Requires real-time connectivity and mobility, but not high-volume data (e.g. monitoring and tracking service like vehicle tracking, electronic anklet) ▪ Area 3: Does not require frequent data transmission. Low volumes of data will be transferred but this area will have the most IoST devices (e.g. metering, tracking and monitoring & control service with no or low mobility requirement, like gas/water/electricity metering, street light monitoring, location-based safety management). Areas 1 and 2, which require large and medium volume data, real-time connectivity, mobility and 'always on' connectivity, can still be served using the legacy network upgraded using LTE Cat-M1. However, Area 3 requires a network with very different connectivity features. Besides, to make the area marketable, a sufficient number of devices must be in use in the market and service fees have to be low. To this end, devices must be low-priced (i.e. modules priced lower than $5) and low power consuming (i.e. no re-charging required for 5-10 years), and the network should also be able to support long distance coverage (i.e. up to 10 km or around 6 miles) to keep the base station investment cost low.
  28. 28. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 27 Figure 11: Three IoT areas categorized by connectivity requirements within SK Telecom deployment (source [17]) 7.3 SK Telecom Multi-track IoT network SK Telecom’s strategy for IoT network is to provide IoT networks that are customized for different types of IoT services to ensure connectivity is optimized for each service. As seen in Table 1, Area 1 IoT service, requiring large-volume data transmission, real-time connectivity and mobility, will be offered through the legacy cellular network. Area 2, requiring real-time connectivity, mobility and transmission of data larger than LPWA, will be served through the LTE-M (Cat. 1) network which was launched in March 2016. Finally, Area 3 (small things), requiring small but regular data transmission, and no or low mobility, will be served through a LoRa-based LPWA network which was launched in the end of June 2016. Unlike the legacy cellular network that is fast but expensive, this low capacity, low power-consuming LPWA network will be able to accommodate a wide selection of small things in a very cost-effective manner. This way, the operator should be able to satisfy different levels of connectivity requirements of IoT services in a cost-effective manner, building an appropriate environment for various IoT services.
  29. 29. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 28 Figure 12 : Multi-track IoT network of SK Telecom (source [17]) Table 1 : SK Telecom’s multi-track IoT networks (source [17])
  30. 30. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 29 8 CASE STUDY: ORANGE IOT DEPLOYMENT For many years, Orange has provided IoT and M2M services building on 3GPP mobile networks (based on legacy 2G/3G/4G networks). However, there is emergence of new IoT segment due to the LPWAN connectivity requirements. LPWAN technology provides a way of connecting sensors, trackers and geolocation beacons used in smart cities, industry 4.0 and logistics. As a result, its spread will play a crucial role in the development of the Internet of Things. According to Orange, there is no single universal LPWAN solution; instead, there are two different technical approaches, each with their own set of benefits. ▪ License-free LPWAN: radio networks dedicated to LPWAN that operate on a license- free or shared spectrum, such as LoRaWAN. ▪ LPWAN via licensed frequency bands on Mobile IoT: This is the next step in mobile networks operating on licensed spectrum, optimized for IoT/LPWAN use cases: LTE-M, NB-IoT, EC-GSM-IoT. Figure 13: Multi-track IoT network of Orange (source [14][18][19])
  31. 31. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 30 8.1 LoRaWAN + LTE-M: The winning combination Based on Orange’s technical analysis of LTE-M and on market support, they have chosen this technology as a complementary solution (see Figure 14) to LoRaWAN technology for LPWAN use cases that require additional features, such as speed, real-time connectivity, voice, support, mobility, and worldwide roaming. Figure 14: LoRa +LTE-M - The winning combination (source [14][18][19])
  32. 32. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 31 9 WHAT IS THE RIGHT STRATEGY FOR AN OPERATOR? Operators need to adopt one or both of Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) technologies to address the premium IoT applications. Cellular IoT applications will exhibit higher ARPU, but lesser device volume compared to LPWAN market segment. Cellular IoT however can enable applications within the IoT market segment that cannot be addressed by LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN. The reader should note however that even if there is a successful rollout of a Cellular IoT network, it will take some time for the device ecosystem to be mature and chipset vendors to optimize the firmware to deliver on the promise of ultra-low power consumption. The scaling of ecosystem is also the key to both availability and lowering the cost of Cellular IoT modules. Figure 15: Operator LPWAN Strategy LoRaWAN has had a significant head start with successfully deployed networks and business cases from leading operators such as Orange, KPN, Softbank, Proximus, Comcast and many more. LoRaWAN has also enabled cable operators such as Comcast to provide IoT connectivity in the unlicensed spectrum. The IoT market is fast moving and if it is not addressed at the right time, operators have the risk to miss out on the market potential. Therefore, operators should adopt LoRaWAN to fast track their market presence on critical IoT markets (ISM band migration), and then to serve specific segments (especially the ones with very low data rates and are very sensitive to cost and power consumption). Cellular operators should of course also deploy Cellular IoT to address premium IoT applications. Cellular operators may find this approach counter intuitive since it implies
  33. 33. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 32 investment in two networks, however cost efficiency is possible by sharing lower cost network elements found in LPWAN such as the OSS/BSS equivalents used in cellular networks to provide a cost base that matches the price point expectations of IOT users. Both technologies should be ideally integrated within the same platform, providing a seamless interface to customers, as many IoT verticals demand a combination of LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT technologies. Operators such as Orange [6][14] and SK Telecom [17] have already committed themselves to LoRaWAN and are in the phase of deploying only LTE Cat-M1 right now. There is market potential for both cellular IoT and unlicensed LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN, both technologies address different market segments, will continue to exist, evolve and complement each other in years to come. Operators must have a Multi-technology platform that is agnostic to connectivity type (LoRaWAN, NB-IoT and LTE Cat-M1) and addresses all IoT use cases seamlessly, at a cost which will be in line with generated revenues
  34. 34. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 33 10 THINGPARK WIRELESS: A MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR SERVICE & DATA MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR LPWAN CONNECTIVITY Actility is the world leader in OSS/BSS solutions for the IoT and is the co-founder of LoRa Alliance (along with IBM and Semtech). Actility is leader in country-wide carrier grade LPWAN IoT deployments and holds more than 70% market share in LoRaWAN deployments, with tier- 1 customers such as Comcast, KPN, NTT, Orange, SoftBank, Swisscom, and many other cellular and fixed service providers. Actility has also developed optimized connectivity and OSS/BSS solutions for cellular IoT to help operators maintain profitability despite lower ARPU. As an early pioneer in LPWAN innovation and one of the only technology agnostic players, Actility can help you map your use cases to connectivity. We provide the multi-technology ThingPark Wireless platform for seamlessly integrating LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT technologies. Figure 16: ThingPark Wireless Platform ThingPark Wireless presents a unified user interface and APIs to applications, and a single layer of device and connectivity management for both LoRaWAN and cellular IoT technologies. It exhibits the following high-level features: ▪ Cost-effective Multi-technology radio agnostic Platform to seamlessly manage both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT technologies ▪ OSS/BSS Solution with focus on IoT ▪ Data Mediation layer for building data analytics and interfacing with 3rd party cloud servers (for ex. Amazon AWS)
  35. 35. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 34 ▪ Pre-integrated interface with Click and Go (https://iot.thingpark.com/clickandgo/) or ThingPark Market (http://market.thingpark.com) enabling acceleration of operator go to market through dynamic open ecosystem management, and facilitating the shift of service provider business by tapping into the whole service value, not just connectivity ▪ Billing solution tailored for the needs of IoT use cases ▪ Open and modular with OSS/BSS APIs allowing easy integration with operator’s internal or 3rd party platforms/applications ▪ Strong security options with Secure Element and HSM options, and integration with eSIM/eUICC technologies via OSS/BSS APIs For more information or to arrange a demo in ThingPark Lab@Paris or to contact our sales team, feel free to contact us below: https://www.actility.com/contact/ https://www.actility.com/thingparklab/ ThingPark Wireless allows Operators to build horizontal IoT connectivity platform enabling value chain beyond connectivity
  36. 36. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 35 11 SUMMARY IoT is a complex landscape and has a very different model of selling connectivity that operators/service providers are used to. IoT deployment presents new set of challenges and opportunities for operators, but they need a horizontal platform to deploy multitude of applications and use cases and must work with a trusted partner enabling them to build E2E solutions and build a rich ecosystem with large number of players. In this paper, we also presented LPWAN deployment challenges for operators and gave insights on how they could be potentially solved. We showed that LoRaWAN is most suited for mass-market IoT use cases demanding low-throughput, low cost and lowest power. However, for premium applications, Cellular IoT gives progressively better performance and IoT strategy for operators need to build a multi-technology platform that unifies both the technologies in most suitable manner to meet the application needs for the end-customer. In summary, LoRaWAN and 3GPP complement each other very well and serve the needs of all the IoT use cases when combined in multi-technology IoT platform that is extremely cost-effective and can address very low IoT ARPUs.
  37. 37. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 36 12 REFERENCES [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/UnlicensedSpectrum.pdf. [2] gartner.com/doc/2880717/forecast-internet-things-endpoints-associated [3] Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2017, https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report [4] Machina Research, Global IoT Forecast and Analysis 2015-2025, https://machinaresearch.com/report/iot-global-forecast-analysis-2015-25/ [5] http://www.lightreading.com/iot/iot-strategies/comcast-aims-to-layer-lora-into-xb6- gateway/d/d-id/736347 [6] http://www.telecomtv.com/articles/iot/orange-s-two-track-iot-lora-for-low-power- applications-lte-m-for-high-throughput-15741/ [7] https://www.lora-alliance.org/ [8] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405959517300061 [9] Enforta LoRaWAN Deployment, https://www.actility.com/news/enforta-and-actility-iot-russia/ [10] Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) and LoRaWAN: How do they complement each other? Actility. [11] http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Newsletter/operator-strategies-for- iot-Jan2016/ [12] MulteFire Alliance, https://www.multefire.org/ [13] CBRS Alliance, https://www.cbrsalliance.org/ [14] “IoT & LPWA: low-power networks for high-powered transformations”, Orange; Source:https://partner.orange.com/iot-lpwa-connectivity-white-paper/ [15] ThingPark Market; Source: https://market.thingpark.com/ [16] Click and Go; Source: https://iot.thingpark.com/clickandgo/ [17] https://www.netmanias.com/en/post/blog/10974/iot-lte-sk-telecom/sk-telecom-s- multi-track-iot-network-lte-lte-m-and-lora [18] https://www.actility.com/event/webinar-3gpp-lorawan/ [19] https://www.slideshare.net/erikagelinard/lorawan-and-3gpp-technologies-cover-all- industrial-iot-use-cases
  38. 38. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 37 13 ABOUT AUTHORS Dr. Rohit received B.Tech at the IIT, Roorkee in 2002 and the M.Sc. in 2003 from Nanyang Technological University in Electronics and Communications. He received his Ph.D in 2009 from the University of Washington, Seattle in Electrical Engineering in cross layer design of wireless networks(cellular + WiFi). He has worked in National Instruments, EURECOM, STMicroelectronics, Ericsson, CEA-LETI in several roles related to RnD project management on various topics in wireless communication related to LTE/5G. He currently works in Actility as Senior wireless product manager and manages both LTE and Geolocation related products in Actility. LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/rohit-gupta-2b51503a Olivier is a recognized telecom and technology expert. He founded NetCentrex, a leading provider of VoIP infrastructure for service providers, then became CTO of Comverse after the acquisition of NetCentrex in 2006. Olivier is a recognized thought leader in Telecoms and Energy markets. He is the author of several books on networking technology, VoIP, M2M, Internet of Things(IoT) and the Smart Grid. Olivier graduated from Ecole Polytechnique. Olivier founded Actility, IoT solution provider, in 2010. Via its ThingPark Wireless platform, Actility uses the Lora technology to enable LPWA IoT networks for applications such as Smart Cities. LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/ohersent Pierre Dufour received an Engineer's degree (Electrical Engineering) from INSA, Lyon in 2007. He has more than 10 years of experience in the telecom industry as RF Engineer. He worked for Bouygues Telecom during 7 years, holding different positions (RAN technical engineer in the NOC, PM) and has managed the roll-out of indoor cellular networks for high-value venues (stadium, airports, conference center, high-rise office buildings and events). From 2013 to 2017, he worked for Paris Airports as RF Engineer where he designed various wireless networks (WiFi, TETRA, GSM, VHF, DAS) in complex and highly secure environments. He currently works for Actility since June 2017 where he's in charge of RF related questions (RFP and pre-sales, radio planning, good practices definition, code review and validation for RF features, on-site troubleshooting). LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/pierre-dufour-a547774
  39. 39. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 38 Ramez Soss received an Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering degree from Cairo University in 2005 (distinction with honors). He has 10 years of experience working at Alcatel-Lucent (2005-2015), working on 3GPP technologies GSM/GPRS/EGPRS, UMTS/HSPA, LTE/LTE-A as well as IEEE 802.11 WiFi. He occupied the post of Radio Engineer from 2005 to 2007, then Network Planning and Optimization SME from 2007 to 2011 where he was in charge of Technology Introduction and Support of new BSS products to major Tier-1 Network Operators (Orange, SFR, Deutsche Telekom, CMCC…). From 2011 to 2015, Ramez occupied the post of LTE/LTE-A Senior RF Design Engineer, developing Network Planning Tools for air-interface coverage and capacity dimensioning. He moved to Actility in 2015 as a Senior RF Engineer, focusing on LoRaWAN technology. From 2017, in addition to his role as Director of the Radio & Tools Competence Center, he is also ThingPark Wireless Product Manager. LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/ramez-soss-a9692718
  40. 40. Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France 39

×