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.
IoT connectivity / LPWA Networks overview
Guillaume Crinon – Technical Marketing Manager EMEA
Nov 2015
2 26 November 2015
To be connected or not to be at all ?
Building & Home Automation
Industrial Automation
Fire & Security
...
3 26 November 2015
M2M
IoT
Video
Cloud
Mobile
Apps
BlueTooth
Wireless – wireless – wireless
10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10M
(Byt...
4 26 November 2015
M2M
IoT
Video
Cloud
Mobile
Apps
BlueTooth
Wireless but no gateway / smartphone
10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10...
5 26 November 2015
M2M
IoT
Video
Cloud
Mobile
Apps
Wireless Wide Area Networks – WAN
10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10M
(Bytes / Da...
6 26 November 2015
• PRO:
• Operated by MNOs MVNOs since 20 years
• Massive infrastructure & continued investments
• Licen...
7 26 November 2015
LPWAN for battery-operated devices
Connected
Not worth connecting
Container geolocation tag
Connected H...
8 26 November 2015
• 2012: SIGFOX invented LPWAN with the
deployment of their UNB (Ultra-Narrow-Band)
network in FRANCE
• ...
9 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX is a
proprietary
network while
LoRa Alliance is
an open standard
Lo...
10 26 November 2015
A bit of technology
11 26 November 2015
• A longer listening time per bit helps bring the
noise level down
• Additive White Gaussian Noise
 U...
12 26 November 2015
P
b
p
B
• A longer listening time per bit helps bring the noise
level down
• Two signals have the same...
13 26 November 2015
• SIGFOX or LoRawAN
LPWAN operators are
following similar network
architectures:
• Base-stations in th...
14 26 November 2015
• Both SIGFOX and the LoRa
Alliance have a mandatory
certification program
• Necessary in order to val...
15 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
16 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
LPWAN data plans
cost 10x less than
GPRS/3G data plans
because 10x less
n...
17 26 November 2015
Legacy cellular network layout complexity
18 26 November 2015
• A moving UE (User Equipment) will have to switch to these 4
different cells in order to maintain con...
19 26 November 2015
LPWAN layout simplicity
• 5-10x less base-stations than 3G/4G
cellular networks
• All base-stations li...
20 26 November 2015
Outdoor Indoor = Outdoor – 20dB
French SIGFOX network
21 26 November 2015
Bouygues Telecom
• End 2015 : 30 urban areas over 200k
people, ie 1500 towns
• H1 2016 : 80% populatio...
22 26 November 2015
• Henri Crohas has announced the launch of
a LoRaWAN collaborative network in June
2016
• ARCHOS will ...
23 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX is not
bidirectional while
LoRaWAN is
False: both are
bidirectiona...
24 26 November 2015
• Both Up and Down link in same
unlicensed 868MHz ISM band
• European Telecommunications
Standards Ins...
25 26 November 2015
• Service asymmetry is often pointed as a
service weakness
• Whereas an uplink-only service has a
grea...
26 26 November 2015
SIGFOX
• Sensor-initiated bi-directionnal
communication
LoRaWAN
• Class-A
• Equivalent to SIGFOX with ...
27 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX function
HW cost is $1,
compatible with
all sub-GHz
transceivers i...
28 26 November 2015
• Uplink:
• DBPSK modulation @ 100 bps
• Frequency: 868.13MHz +/- 100kHz
• Link budget = +14dBm (Tx) –...
29 26 November 2015
• Frequency stability…
• Equivalent to phase noise
• Equivalent to RF carrier drift
• 100 bps  10ms b...
30 26 November 2015
• TD-Next modules and SiLabs
EZR reference-design
• TD12xx for Europe/ETSI
• TD15xx for USA/FCC
• Hist...
31 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
LoRa function
HW cost is more
expensive than
SIGFOX, only
compatible with...
32 26 November 2015
• Uplink:
• LoRa CSS (Chirp Spread Spectrum)
• 0.3-5 kbits per second (Adaptive Data Rate)
• Link budg...
33 26 November 2015
• Microchip module
• RN2483 for Europe/ETSI
• AVMS reference-design
• MCU cortex M3
• SX1272 868MHz
• ...
34 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX networks
have a greater
capacity than
LoRaWA Networks
True: Ultra-...
35 26 November 2015
• 200kHz allocated BW in current
implementation
• Simultaneous frequency capacity =
200kHz / 100Hz x 1...
36 26 November 2015
• 8 frequency channels of 125kHz in the 867-
868.5MHz sub-band
• 6 Spreading Factors (SF) orthogonal b...
37 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX base-
stations cannot be
jammed by
LoRaWAN nodes
False: if too man...
38 26 November 2015
SIGFOX immunity to LoRaWAN on shared frequency
SIGFOX BS
SIGFOX BS
L
L
S
S
Masking if
L-31dB > S-7dB
L...
39 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
LoRaWAN
networks cannot
be jammed by
SIGFOX nodes
False: if too many SIGF...
40 26 November 2015
LoRaWAN immunity to SIGFOX on shared frequency
LoRaWAN BS
LoRaWAN BS
L
L
S
S
Solved by
redundancy
Mask...
41 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
SIGFOX does
not support
mobility while
LoRaWAN does
True: SIGFOX has a cu...
42 26 November 2015
• Due to the very low bitrate, messages are very
long in time:
• SIGFOX: 26 bytes = 208 bits = 2.08s
•...
43 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
100m geolocation
without GPS is
possible in a LoRa
network while
impossib...
44 26 November 2015
Geolocation inside a LoRaWAN network
• Measuring distances can be done 2 ways:
• RSSI (Received Signal...
45 26 November 2015
So they say… true or false ?
LoRaWAN is for
private networks
only while SIGFOX
covers countries
False:...
46 26 November 2015
SIGFOX network operators
• France: SIGFOX
• Spain: CELLNEX
• NL: AEREA / TELE2
• UK: ARQIVA
• Portugal...
47 26 November 2015
LoraWAN Private network infrastructure by ACTILITY
• Customer owns, installs and administrates his pri...
48 26 November 2015
LPWAN conquest of the world until…
49 26 November 2015
• 3GPP has launched a NB-IoT initiative in
order to normalize LPWAN in licensed
spectrum worldwide
• B...
50 26 November 2015
• Objective: provide improved
LPWAN services in licensed
cellular spectrum
• Premium bi-directional se...
51 26 November 2015
• Licensed cellular spectrum
• Revamping of 2G channels
• 180kHz sub-bands
• LTE guard-bands
• LTE sub...
52 26 November 2015
NB-IoT – Roadmap to 2020
2016 2017 2018 2019
NB-IoT
standard
initial
release
LTE/NB-IoT
infrastructure...
53 26 November 2015
Visible Things
54 26 November 2015
Sensors and
Actuators
• Product
selection
• Connectivity
• Power
management
Gateways
• Connectivity
Ma...
55 26 November 2015
Scope of the Visible Things Platform
Thank you!
guillaume.crinon@avnet.eu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cellular lpwan paris nov 2015

11,612 views

Published on

LPWAN status

Published in: Technology

Cellular lpwan paris nov 2015

  1. 1. IoT connectivity / LPWA Networks overview Guillaume Crinon – Technical Marketing Manager EMEA Nov 2015
  2. 2. 2 26 November 2015 To be connected or not to be at all ? Building & Home Automation Industrial Automation Fire & Security Metering
  3. 3. 3 26 November 2015 M2M IoT Video Cloud Mobile Apps BlueTooth Wireless – wireless – wireless 10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10M (Bytes / Day) 4G3G2.5G 2.75GSigFox UNB WmBUS WiFi 6LoWPAN LTE-M / NB-IOT LoRaWAN
  4. 4. 4 26 November 2015 M2M IoT Video Cloud Mobile Apps BlueTooth Wireless but no gateway / smartphone 10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10M (Bytes / Day) 4G3G2.5G 2.75GSigFox UNB WmBUS WiFi 6LoWPAN LTE-M / NB-IOT LoRaWAN
  5. 5. 5 26 November 2015 M2M IoT Video Cloud Mobile Apps Wireless Wide Area Networks – WAN 10 100 1k 10k 100k 1M 10M (Bytes / Day) 4G3G2.5G 2.75GSigFox UNB LTE-M / NB-IOT LoRaWAN Legacy cellular Low-Power Wide Area Ntw LPWAN
  6. 6. 6 26 November 2015 • PRO: • Operated by MNOs MVNOs since 20 years • Massive infrastructure & continued investments • Licensed spectrum • Ubiquitous service worldwide • Secure communication (SIM card) • Regulatory body = 3GPP – GSMA • Extensive service offering • Aiming at serving smartphones voice + data • Aiming at increasing bandwidth 2G  3G  4G to fight price erosion • Legacy M2M communication channel • CON: • not suitable for low-cost battery-operated devices Legacy cellular 2G 3G 4G
  7. 7. 7 26 November 2015 LPWAN for battery-operated devices Connected Not worth connecting Container geolocation tag Connected HVAC systems Connected call buttons Catering geolocation Bicycle antitheft and geolocation Industrial logistics Consumer accessories … + >200 new ideas …75% of the M2M market by 2020!
  8. 8. 8 26 November 2015 • 2012: SIGFOX invented LPWAN with the deployment of their UNB (Ultra-Narrow-Band) network in FRANCE • 2012: SEMTECH acquired CYCLEO a French start-up inventor of the LoRa technology • 2014: Inception of the LoRa Alliance. • 2014: HUAWEI acquired NEUL • 2015: 3GPP and GSMA have started working on a NB-IoT standard aiming at providing improved service in licensed spectrum in the frame of a 4G upgrade • Will LoRaWAN & SIGFOX be retained ? • Goal is to deliver a standard by end of 2015 which is a VERY ambitious objective LPWAN for battery-operated devices
  9. 9. 9 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX is a proprietary network while LoRa Alliance is an open standard LoRa Alliance is a SEMTECH proprietary technology while SIGFOX is compliant with most transceivers
  10. 10. 10 26 November 2015 A bit of technology
  11. 11. 11 26 November 2015 • A longer listening time per bit helps bring the noise level down • Additive White Gaussian Noise  Uncorrelated successive samples  Gaussian distribution of amplitude with variance s²  Variance of N-averaged samples = s² / N • Bitrate /2 = bit duration x2 • Energy per bit x2 (+6dB) • Noise energy x sqrt(2) (+3dB)  Improvement of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) by 3dB • From 2G to SIGFOX • 200kbps  100bps • Bit duration extended by factor x2000 • Range improvement x sqrt(2000) = x45 in open space at iso Tx power  Wider cells, less capex for operator  Same for LoRa Why are LPWANs “long-range” ? Listening time per bit
  12. 12. 12 26 November 2015 P b p B • A longer listening time per bit helps bring the noise level down • Two signals have the same power Pt at transmitter output: • Red is narrowband low bitrate • Bandwidth = b << B • Power Spectral Density = P >> p • Green is wideband high bitrate • Bandwidth = B >> b • Power Spectral Density = p << P • Same power Pt = P.b = p.B • After travelling to a distant base-station, the signals have been attenuated • Wideband signal has sunk under thermal noise floor • Narrowband signal still peaks above noise floor and can be demodulated • Same mechanism with spread-spectrum signals although they seem to disappear below noise floor Low bitrate signals travel longer distances Bandwidth (Hz) PSD (dBm/Hz) Power = PSD.BW
  13. 13. 13 26 November 2015 • SIGFOX or LoRawAN LPWAN operators are following similar network architectures: • Base-stations in the field acting as 1 global base- station • Simplified MAC layer cloud- operated • API or callback interface to retrieve or push messages to customer’s application server LPWAN global architecture API CallBack 3G, DSL, Ethernet, Satellite LPWAN operator
  14. 14. 14 26 November 2015 • Both SIGFOX and the LoRa Alliance have a mandatory certification program • Necessary in order to validate that the implementation of the communication is 100% compliant with the specification • In case communication issues arise, a certificate protects the customer against the operator • True with BlueTooth, 3G, WiFi, ZigBee, etc • Pre-certified modules and reference-designs are a great enabler! Certification – why it is mandatory EZR32
  15. 15. 15 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ?
  16. 16. 16 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? LPWAN data plans cost 10x less than GPRS/3G data plans because 10x less network infrastructure required True: for volumes >100k, cost of communication is ~1€/node/y But: be prepared for aggressive competitive 2G/3G M2M data plans in 2016…
  17. 17. 17 26 November 2015 Legacy cellular network layout complexity
  18. 18. 18 26 November 2015 • A moving UE (User Equipment) will have to switch to these 4 different cells in order to maintain connectivity • The network manages this in real-time: Handover • Complex mechanism supposing that the UE is updated in real-time with the frequencies/codes of surrounding cells and that the network pre-allocates bandwidth/slots in surrounding cells in case the UE moves  Your smartphone keeps talking the network even if you do not use it: battery drains in days/weeks • 2G networks were designed for voice service: architecture towards limiting latency to a few 10ms and maintaining audio QoS at an average of 5-12kbps full-duplex • 3G and 4G networks have added the capability to handle transfers of large amount of packetized data at rates up to 50Mbps in order to serve mobile apps with smartphones  Still very different from an LPWAN usage! How it impacts the User Equipment power consumption
  19. 19. 19 26 November 2015 LPWAN layout simplicity • 5-10x less base-stations than 3G/4G cellular networks • All base-stations listen to the same frequencies  Acting together as 1 global base-station • Spatial redundancy helps securing connectivity for objects in harsh environments • Filling the blanks is easier: just drop an extra base-station, no modification of the existing network required • Very attractive for LPWAN operators: low capex, low opex, low complexity
  20. 20. 20 26 November 2015 Outdoor Indoor = Outdoor – 20dB French SIGFOX network
  21. 21. 21 26 November 2015 Bouygues Telecom • End 2015 : 30 urban areas over 200k people, ie 1500 towns • H1 2016 : 80% population • End 2016 : Full nationwide coverage • Total planned number of BS = 4-5k • To be compared with SIGFOX’s current 1400 BS Orange • Current pilot in Grenoble • H1 2016: nationwide deployment • End 2016: full nationwide coverage French LoRaWAN deployments
  22. 22. 22 26 November 2015 • Henri Crohas has announced the launch of a LoRaWAN collaborative network in June 2016 • ARCHOS will subsidize 200,000 LoRa picoWAN plugs and distribute them across Europe at once • Probably along with the sale of a nice peripheral and killer application associated with a service • Each plug will create a small LoRaWAN bubble strengthening the network inside homes and buildings • Very complementary to territorial MNO deployments ARCHOS – LoRaWAN collaborative network
  23. 23. 23 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX is not bidirectional while LoRaWAN is False: both are bidirectional with the same ETSI limitations But: LoRa has a better downlink sensitivity with currently available transceivers
  24. 24. 24 26 November 2015 • Both Up and Down link in same unlicensed 868MHz ISM band • European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) regulates the band usage • Important rule: a base-station cannot talk for more than 10% of the time  1 BS serving 100k – 1M objects cannot answer them all! • + Base-Stations operate in half- duplex mode: blind when transmitting  Network is mostly uplink – downlink used scarcely LPWAN bi-directionality limitation in Europe 1% 10% 1% 1% 1%
  25. 25. 25 26 November 2015 • Service asymmetry is often pointed as a service weakness • Whereas an uplink-only service has a great advantage • Jamming a communication = jamming the receiver • Jamming an uplink protocol = jamming the base-stations with a jammer in immediate proximity  When the object is heard at 20km, very difficult to jam all base-stations simultaneously! • When engineering a service, the return- channel can be served with another technology • Ex: a smoke detector cannot move by itself to improve its network reach How to turn an apparent weakness into a strength ?
  26. 26. 26 26 November 2015 SIGFOX • Sensor-initiated bi-directionnal communication LoRaWAN • Class-A • Equivalent to SIGFOX with same constraints (ETSI) • Class-B • Sensors are synchronized by network beaconing - TDMA • Unlikely in early ISM-band public European deployments • Useful in private networks for throughput optimization • Class-C • Mains-powered sensors/actuators can be in listen-mode full-time LPWAN communication protocols t uplink Tx 868.1MHz Sleep downlink Rx 869.5MHz Dt, Df 1% duty-cycle +14dBm 10% duty-cycle +27dBm
  27. 27. 27 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX function HW cost is $1, compatible with all sub-GHz transceivers in the market False: HW cost for MCU+TRX+TCXO is > $1 Ultra-narrow band modulation is tricky, much more than a stack… But: many transceivers can be « hand- modulated » to do the job
  28. 28. 28 26 November 2015 • Uplink: • DBPSK modulation @ 100 bps • Frequency: 868.13MHz +/- 100kHz • Link budget = +14dBm (Tx) – (-145dBm) (ntw sensitivity) = 159dB >> GPRS • 12-byte payload per message • Message duration = 3x2s - Repeated 3 times on 3 random frequencies within band • Energy spent per message Etx = 3 x 2s x 50mA = 300mAs = 83µAh • Downlink: • FSK modulation @ 500 bps • Frequency: Uplink + 1.4MHz (869.5MHz +27dBm sub-band) • Link budget = +27dBm (Tx) – (-126dBm) (node sensitivity) = 154dB >> GPRS • 8-byte payload per message • Message duration = 300ms with average latency of 10s • Energy spent per message Erx = 10.3s x 15mA = 154mAs = 43µAh • As sensitive as GPS wrt frequency stability! LPWAN radio characteristics – SIGFOX UNB 100Hz
  29. 29. 29 26 November 2015 • Frequency stability… • Equivalent to phase noise • Equivalent to RF carrier drift • 100 bps  10ms bit duration  awfully long! • DBPSK modulation = information born by RF carrier phase increments from bit to bit • Constellation must not rotate from bit to bit • 45° rotation equivalent to 3dB loss of sensitivity at the base-station ! • 45° in 10ms = 0.007ppm/s at 868MHz ! • It takes a little bit more than a TCXO to guarantee this in a careful design…  This is why modules and experts are so useful  Where does lay the complexity in a SIGFOX node ? bit n Demodulator decision boundary updated after bit n 0 1 bit n+1 0.007ppm only drift!
  30. 30. 30 26 November 2015 • TD-Next modules and SiLabs EZR reference-design • TD12xx for Europe/ETSI • TD15xx for USA/FCC • Historical partner of SIGFOX • >400 customers currently developing a solution around this HW • 99.9% of the SIGFOX nodes deployed in the field AVMS recommended SIGFOX modules/chipsets Support/Volume Timetomarket EZR32
  31. 31. 31 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? LoRa function HW cost is more expensive than SIGFOX, only compatible with Semtech TRX True: Semtech is to date the only provider of LoRa chipsets But: no TCXO required with LoRa + other IC vendors are currently acquiring the LoRa license
  32. 32. 32 26 November 2015 • Uplink: • LoRa CSS (Chirp Spread Spectrum) • 0.3-5 kbits per second (Adaptive Data Rate) • Link budget = +14dBm (Tx) – (-142dBm) (ntw sensitivity) = 156dB >> GPRS • 0-250 bytes/message payload • Message duration = 40ms – 1.2s • Energy spent per message Etx = 1.2s x 32mA = 11µAh at full sensitivity • Energy spent per message Etx = 40ms x 32mA = 0.36µAh at min sensitivity • Downlink: • LoRa CSS (Chirp Spread Spectrum) • 0.3-5 kbits per second (Adaptive Data Rate) • Link budget = +27dBm (Tx) – (-137dBm) (node sensitivity) = 164dB >> GPRS • 8dB higher link budget than uplink allowing reducing SF by 3 for downlink (9dB)  8x shorter message, 8x increased capacity, 8x lower power consumption @ sensor • 0-250 bytes/message payload • Message duration = 20-160ms with average latency of 2s • Energy spent per message Erx = 160ms x 11mA = 0.5µAh at uplink-equivalent link budget LPWAN radio characteristics – LoRa technology 125kHz
  33. 33. 33 26 November 2015 • Microchip module • RN2483 for Europe/ETSI • AVMS reference-design • MCU cortex M3 • SX1272 868MHz • Or SX1276 bi-band • >150 customers currently developing a solution around this HW AVMS recommended LoRaWAN modules/chipsets Support/Volume Timetomarket
  34. 34. 34 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX networks have a greater capacity than LoRaWA Networks True: Ultra-narrowband has a greater spectrum efficiency than LoRa But: LoRa has a very powerful adaptive datarate capability enabling scalable capacity with infrastructure density
  35. 35. 35 26 November 2015 • 200kHz allocated BW in current implementation • Simultaneous frequency capacity = 200kHz / 100Hz x 10% = 200 simultaneous messages • 10% is max limit for collisions • Message = 208bits (2.08s) repeated 3 times on 3 random frequencies • Base-station capacity = 200 x 24h x 3600s/h / 6.24s = 2.7M mess/day @ max link budget LPWAN capacity – SIGFOX UNB 868.13MHz Time
  36. 36. 36 26 November 2015 • 8 frequency channels of 125kHz in the 867- 868.5MHz sub-band • 6 Spreading Factors (SF) orthogonal between them yielding bitrates from 300 to 5k bps • Base-station capacity = 8 x 24 x 3600 x 20% = 138k mess/day @ max link budget (SF12) & 20- byte payload • Base-station capacity = 8 x 32 x 24 x 3600 x 20% = 3.3M mess/day @ min link budget (SF7) (= max – 15dB) & 20-byte payload • Capacity optimization with ADR (Adaptive Data Rate) – network controlled • Nodes close to BS are told to communicate at higher bit rate  shorter messages in time  Capacity can be increased with infrastructure densification and depends on application LPWAN capacity – LoRaWAN 868.1 868.3 868.5MHz Time SF SIGFOX
  37. 37. 37 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX base- stations cannot be jammed by LoRaWAN nodes False: if too many 868.1MHz LoRaWAN nodes are close to a SIGFOX BS, they will mask distant SIGFOX nodes from this BS But: if the node is heard by other SIGFOX BS, messages will go through
  38. 38. 38 26 November 2015 SIGFOX immunity to LoRaWAN on shared frequency SIGFOX BS SIGFOX BS L L S S Masking if L-31dB > S-7dB L > S+24dB at base-station Solved by redundancy
  39. 39. 39 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? LoRaWAN networks cannot be jammed by SIGFOX nodes False: if too many SIGFOX nodes are close to a LoRaWAN BS, they will mask distant 868.1MHz LoRaWAN nodes from this BS But: if the node is heard by other LoRaWAN BS, messages will go through
  40. 40. 40 26 November 2015 LoRaWAN immunity to SIGFOX on shared frequency LoRaWAN BS LoRaWAN BS L L S S Solved by redundancy Masking if S > L+20dB (SF12) S > L+5dB (SF7) at base-station
  41. 41. 41 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? SIGFOX does not support mobility while LoRaWAN does True: SIGFOX has a current limitation wrt mobility under certain conditions Although more robust against mobility by nature, LoRaWAN has limitations too
  42. 42. 42 26 November 2015 • Due to the very low bitrate, messages are very long in time: • SIGFOX: 26 bytes = 208 bits = 2.08s • LoRa: 40-60 bytes = 320-480 bits = 1-1.5s • A lot can happen in 2.08s when in urban environment: • Intersection crossing • A car drives by • Etc • … whereas the base-station assumes the channel (ie RF wave propagation path) does not change for the whole duration of the message: Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) channel  Message can be lost  An accelerometer can help assess when to Tx  Time and spatial redundancy help  LoRa error correction mechanism helps a lot Mobility with LPWAN Courtesy of www.aruco.com 2.08s
  43. 43. 43 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? 100m geolocation without GPS is possible in a LoRa network while impossible with SIGFOX True: if a node is seen by at least 3 LoRaWAN base- stations, it can be located with an accuracy of 20-200m
  44. 44. 44 26 November 2015 Geolocation inside a LoRaWAN network • Measuring distances can be done 2 ways: • RSSI (Received Signal Strength) = imprecise • Time-of-Flight of the radio wave = precise • LoRa, given its spectral/time properties, makes it possible to measure a time of flight with a precision of 200ns-1µs under good receive conditions • 200ns . c (3e8 m/s) = 60m • Nodes and network are NOT time synchronized  Not possible to measure distance to 1 BS only • If BS are time-synchronized, they can time-stamp the same message they receive (almost) simultaneously  These tiny time-of-arrival differences can be used to compute the relative distance of a node between 2 BS: locus = hyperbola  3 BS required to compute a location in DTOA (Differential Time of Arrival)  Dense network needed!! BS1 BS2 BS3
  45. 45. 45 26 November 2015 So they say… true or false ? LoRaWAN is for private networks only while SIGFOX covers countries False: both will cover countries But: LoRaWAN is also great for private networks whereas this is not SIGFOX’s business model
  46. 46. 46 26 November 2015 SIGFOX network operators • France: SIGFOX • Spain: CELLNEX • NL: AEREA / TELE2 • UK: ARQIVA • Portugal: NARROW NET • Belgium: ENGIE M2M • Luxemburg: RMS / POST • Italy: NETTROTTER • Denmark: IoT DENMARK • Ireland: VIZOR • Poland: EED • USA: SIGFOX LoRaWAN MNOs • France: BOUYGUES TEL – ORANGE • NL: KPN • Belgium: PROXIMUS • Switzerland: SWISSCOM • South Africa: FASTNET • UAE (United Arab Emirates): du • Russia: LACE • USA: SENET • India: TATA • Private networks everywhere: ACTILITY Who are the operators ? Nov 2015 + 50 pilots for both technologies around the world
  47. 47. 47 26 November 2015 LoraWAN Private network infrastructure by ACTILITY • Customer owns, installs and administrates his private network across his buildings and campuses • Connects sensors, actuators, machines inside Intranet • Compatible with public networks when available • Also useful to strengthen / complement a public network in harsh industrial environments Webhosted IT Webhosted admin Infrastructure guillaume.remond@actility.com
  48. 48. 48 26 November 2015 LPWAN conquest of the world until…
  49. 49. 49 26 November 2015 • 3GPP has launched a NB-IoT initiative in order to normalize LPWAN in licensed spectrum worldwide • Backed by 20+ operators inside GSMA, including VODAFONE, TELEFONICA, AT&T, VERIZON, T-MOBILE, DEUTSCHE TELECOM, TELECOM ITALIA… • Backed by base-station manufacturers, including HUAWEI, NOKIA, ERICSSON, ZTE… • Backed by cellular chipset vendors such as INTEL and QUALCOMM … GSMA & 3GPP strike back!
  50. 50. 50 26 November 2015 • Objective: provide improved LPWAN services in licensed cellular spectrum • Premium bi-directional service • Higher bit rates • Lower power • Standardized across all operators and countries • No extra LPWAN-dedicated infrastructure: native in 5G base- stations • Deployed over full countries overnight NB-IoT – LPWAN integrated in a 5G service
  51. 51. 51 26 November 2015 • Licensed cellular spectrum • Revamping of 2G channels • 180kHz sub-bands • LTE guard-bands • LTE sub-carriers • Modulations • Uplink: 300bps – 300kbps • FDMA – GMSK (NEUL/HUAWEI) • SC-FDMA (Single Carrier FDMA) • Downlink: 200bps – 100kbps • OFDMA • Full balanced bidirectional service • +23dBm sensor Tx power NB-IoT – Bits and pieces of on-going proposals
  52. 52. 52 26 November 2015 NB-IoT – Roadmap to 2020 2016 2017 2018 2019 NB-IoT standard initial release LTE/NB-IoT infrastructure commercially available NB-IoT service commercial launch 2015 Early pilot Full worldwide NB-IoT service complementing unlicensed LPWAN
  53. 53. 53 26 November 2015 Visible Things
  54. 54. 54 26 November 2015 Sensors and Actuators • Product selection • Connectivity • Power management Gateways • Connectivity Management • LAN WAN • Network interface • Cloud messaging • Security Comms infrastructure • Network selection • In field experience • MNO relationships • IT investments Cloud Infrastructure • Messaging • Large volume • New IoT network servers • Enterprise grade • Analytics and reporting Applications and Enterprise IT • Integration with and collection of appropriate data from cloud service • Customer application development Edge to Enterprise Challenges
  55. 55. 55 26 November 2015 Scope of the Visible Things Platform
  56. 56. Thank you! guillaume.crinon@avnet.eu

×