Whitepaper - LoraWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they complement each other?

LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
(NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they
complement each other?

Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France
RCS St Brieuc 522 305 473, Siret 522 305 473 00012, TVA FR62522305473
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

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE .......................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................3
2 AUDIENCE............................................................................................................4
3 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................5
4 TECHNOLOGY COMPARISON OF LORAWAN AND CELLULAR IOT............................7
4.1 LoRaWAN Overview ................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Architecture........................................................................................................7
4.1.2 LoRaWAN Device Classes ...................................................................................8
4.2 3GPP Cellular IoT Overview.....................................................................................9
4.3 Summary ...............................................................................................................10
5 HOW TO MAP USE CASE TO RIGHT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTION.............................13
5.1 Key Decision Criteria .............................................................................................13
5.2 Summary ...............................................................................................................32
6 CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................34
7 ABOUT ACTILITY.................................................................................................35
8 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................37

3
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ericsson’s Mobility Report [3] forecasts that by 2022 more than seventeen billion IoT devices
will be connected by wireless communication technologies. The Internet of Things (IoT)
market targeting low power, low cost and low-data rate devices capable of communicating
over a wide area network -the LPWAN market- is growing very rapidly.
In recent years, there have been significant technological developments in wireless IoT
connectivity, with multiple technologies sometimes competing and often responding to
different IoT use case requirements. Hence, choosing the right mix of connectivity solutions
requires careful consideration. In this paper, we examine both cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1)
and LoRaWAN, and demonstrate that the two technologies are complementary.
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.
IoT wireless networks are evolving to connect and manage a wide variety of devices—from
smart meters, sensors, wearables, cars, and homes to street lights, parking meters, agriculture
and industrial automation devices—the objective being that all can work seamlessly together.
The IoT market today is wide, and there is no single technology able to address the variety of
devices and applications entering the market. To succeed communication service providers
need to build a horizontal and converged platform that meets the needs of multiple IoT use
cases. Matching a connectivity solution to a use case is a complex multi-dimensional problem
that requires analysis of many factors such as battery lifetime, coverage, throughput, latency,
total cost of ownership (TCO).

4
2 AUDIENCE
The audience for this whitepaper is LoRaWAN or Cellular service providers, enterprises and
end-device manufacturers intending to develop applications leveraging LoRaWAN or Cellular
IoT capabilities. This paper will give an overview of the technical capabilities for LoRaWAN and
Cellular IoT, and aims to answer the following key questions:
1. What are the key differences between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT?
a. How do they complement each other?
b. How do service providers and enterprises leverage both LoRaWAN and Cellular
IoT in their portfolio?
2. What are the key requirements for mapping use cases to connectivity?
3. Why is LoRaWAN is geared to become the WIFI of LPWAN IoT in unlicensed spectrum
4. How is Actility building a multi-technology scalable carrier grade LPWAN IoT platform?

5
3 INTRODUCTION
The last two decades have seen exponential growth in traffic from human-centric
communications. The fourth industrial revolution ushers in an era of pervasive connectivity
between machines and objects. The communication systems of future will have to support
more than 29 billion connected devices (“Things”) by 2022 according to Ericsson’s Mobility
Report, 2017 [3] as shown in Fig. 1.
Things are defined as objects that can be identified and integrated into communication
networks, with associated static and dynamic data. With the development of the Internet of
Things (IoT), more and more practical applications are found in many different industries.
Different application domains have specific requirements and considerations, meaning that
different technologies are needed.
Existing short-range radio connection technology, for example Bluetooth and ZigBee, are not
suitable for scenarios that require long-range connectivity, over an industrial campus or a
whole city. As a result, unlicensed LPWAN technology such as LoRaWAN has seen exponential
growth in recent years with numerous deployments and use cases.
Current generation M2M solutions (such as 2G/3G/4G) based on cellular technology offer
extensive coverage, but they consume a lot of energy. IoT requires a better solution to able to
cope with the massive and ever-growing number of devices which deliver key requirements
such as extended battery life-time, better coverage, greater reliability, lower latency, and cost
effectiveness.
Figure 1: IoT Forecast (Source: Ericsson Mobility Report, 2017)
Low-power, wide-area networking (LPWAN) technologies are targeting these emerging
applications and markets. LPWAN is a generic term for a group of technologies that enable
wide area communications at lower cost and significantly reduced power consumption [8].
LPWAN are well suited to IoT applications that only need to transmit small amounts of
information over a long range. As recently as 2013, the term ‘LPWAN’ did not exist [8].

6
However, as the IoT market expanded rapidly, LPWAN has become one of the fastest-growing
domains in IoT.
Several competitive LPWA technologies have been developed, for both licensed and
unlicensed radio spectrum: SigFox, LoRaWAN, LTE Cat-M1 and narrow band (NB)-IoT. Among
those, LoRaWAN, LTE Cat-M1 and NB-IoT are the three leading emerging technologies: they
have many technical differences.
In this paper, we will describe and compare the technical differences between LoRaWAN and
Cellular IoT (LTE Cat-M1, NB-IoT) in terms of physical layer features, network architecture, and
MAC protocol. In addition, we will also compare them based on several factors which are key
for IoT applications, such as quality of service (QoS), battery life, latency, network coverage &
range, deployment model, power consumption and cost. Finally, we will summarize and
present our conclusions, showing how LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT complement each other, and
building a technical and business case for combining LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT in a converged
multi-technology platform.

7
4 TECHNOLOGY COMPARISON OF LORAWAN AND CELLULAR IOT
4.1 LoRaWAN Overview
Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN) is a MAC layer standard developed by the LoRa
Alliance (Fig. 2). LoRaWAN uses a proprietary Long Range (LoRa) physical layer developed by
Semtech, based on Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) with integrated Forward Error Correction
(FEC). LoRaWAN key capabilities are: long range, high robustness, multi-path resistance,
doppler resistance and low power. LoRaWAN is usually deployed in unlicensed spectrum (EU:
868 MHz and 463 MHz, USA: 915 MHz and 433 MHz).
Figure 2: LoRaWAN Overview (source: LoRa Alliance)
4.1.1 Architecture
LoRaWAN deployments use a star topology, as shown in Fig. 3, which offers simple network
deployment, preserves battery lifetime and achieves long-range connectivity. A unique
feature of LoRaWAN is that uplink messages can be received by any gateway (receive macro-
diversity).
It is the function of the Network Server to remove duplicate uplinks and select the best
gateway for downlink transmission based on the uplink RSSI and SNR estimates. This uplink
macro-diversity enables features such as geolocation in LoRaWAN deployments and
significantly improves the network capacity, as well as QoS in presence of interference.
LoRaWAN also uniquely offers Adaptive Data Rate (ADR), allowing Network Servers to
dynamically change the communication parameters of end-devices, such as transmit power
and spreading factor, via downlink MAC commands. ADR is one of the key mechanisms to
increase network capacity and reduce the power consumption of end-devices.

8
LoRaWAN uses industry grade encryption based on AES 128 and exhibits two levels of
encryption:
▪ A Network Session Key (NwkSKey) is dynamically negotiated from a shared master key
(AppKey) as the device first joins the network, and is used to authenticate messages
between the Network server and end-device,
▪ An Application Session Key (AppSKey), also dynamically negotiated during device join
phase provides end-to-end encryption between Application Server in the cloud, and
the application running on the end-device.
Figure 3: LoRaWAN architecture and main characteristics
4.1.2 LoRaWAN Device Classes
End-devices serve different applications and have different requirements. To optimize a
variety of end application profiles, LoRaWAN™ utilizes different device classes. The device
classes trade off network downlink communication latency against battery lifetime. In a
control or actuator-type application for example, downlink communication latency is a key
factor to be minimized.
Class A - No uplink latency, High downlink latency, lowest power
Class A devices are most power efficient and must be supported by all devices. They support
bidirectional communication and devices are sleeping most of the time unless they have
something to send. After uplink transmission, the devices open two receive windows, RX1 and
RX2 to receive downlink messages from the base station.

9
Figure 4: LoRaWAN Device classes (source: LoRa Alliance)
Class B – No uplink latency, Low downlink latency and low power
Class B devices are like class A devices, but they have more opportunities to receive downlink
data from gateway resulting in reduced downlink latency. Class B devices are synchronized to
beacon from the gateway and can receive downlink data during “ping slots” that are anchored
to the beacon, and which have a negotiable periodicity. Class B devices are capable of hearing
both unicast and multicast messages.
Class C – No uplink or downlink latency, powered
Class C devices are least power efficient and are expected to be connected to mains supply.
They are listening all the time and gateway can send downlink messages at any time. Class C
devices are capable of unicast and multicast messages.
Long Range Star Architecture coupled with asynchronous
access for LoRaWAN class A devices is most effective in
preserving battery lifetime while achieving long-range
connectivity
4.2 3GPP Cellular IoT Overview
To optimize the support of IoT by cellular networks and compete with non-3GPP technologies
in the lower data-rate end of the IoT / M2M market, 3GPP has specified three LPWA
technologies: EC-GSM-IoT, LTE Cat M1 and NB-IoT. The common high-level objectives for all
three technologies were to:

10
1. Decrease user equipment (UE) complexity and thus cost
2. Decrease power consumption
3. Increase coverage (about 15-20 dB improvement compared to traditional LTE)
3GPP has also introduced new UE categories in Rel-13 to address the IoT specific
requirements:
1. UE Cat-M1: This UE category re-uses most of traditional LTE physical layer but with
reduced RF bandwidth of 1.4 MHz in uplink and downlink compared to 20 MHz for
other UEs
2. UE Cat-NB1: This UE category has a new physical layer that requires only 180 kHz and
fits into one Resource block of standard LTE cell. This is the lowest category of UE with
lowest cost and device power. This is also referred as NB-IoT within the industry.
3GPP has also introduced several enhancements like Power Saving mode (PSM) to allow the
UE to sleep for very large periods of time, during which the network cannot page the device.
There is also another mechanism called enhanced DRX (eDRX) which increases the DRX cycles
for the UE to sleep significant periods of time, while keeping the ability of the network to page
the UE.
Figure 5: 3GPP Cellular IoT Architecture
4.3 Summary
Table 1 lists significant differences between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1).
LoRaWAN is most suitable for sending few messages/day and consumes much less power
compared to NB-IoT or Cat-M1. However, the throughput of LoRaWAN is also lowest
compared to NB-IoT/Cat-M1.
In general, NB-IoT is more power efficient compared to Cat-M1 and exhibits lesser throughput
compared to Cat-M1.

11
The link budget/coverage of LoRaWAN is at least as good as NB-IoT and better than Cat-M1
deployments. LoRaWAN also allows the building of private networks from enterprises located
in remote locations such as oil and gas mining fields as it runs in unlicensed spectrum.
Cellular IoT has just begun its early deployments in few countries in Q3/Q4 2017. However,
we believe that Cellular IoT ecosystem will mature fast and is poised to serve premium
applications. LoRaWAN already has a rich ecosystem of IoT sensors, devices and applications
that is growing exponentially.
In further sections, we describe in more detail on how LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT complement
each other.
Table 1: LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) Comparison
Parameters LoRaWAN NB-IoT Cat-M1
Spectrum Unlicensed Licensed Licensed
Modulation CSS OFDMA OFDMA
Bandwidth 125-500 KHz 180 KHz 1.4 MHz
Peak Data Rate 290 bps-50 Kbps
(UL/DL)
250 kbps
(UL/DL)
1 Mbps
(UL/DL)
Link Budget 161-175 dB
(*depends on region)
164 dB 155.7 dB
Duty-Cycle/LBT
restriction
0.1-1% or LBT
(depends on region)
No No
Max. # message/day Limited by Duty-cycle or
LBT
(Depends on region)
Unlimited Unlimited
Power efficiency Very High Medium High Medium
Mobility Yes No connected mobility
(only idle mode
reselection)
Yes
Energy Efficiency (*
depends on
traffic/deployment)
>10 years battery life of
devices
5-10 years battery life of
devices
< 5 years battery life

12
Interference
immunity
Very High Low Low
Private Network
support
Yes No No
Target Module Price
(*High volume)
< 2 USD
(+NW license)
< 6 USD
(+NW license)
<10 USD
(+NW license)
Geolocalisation TDoA RSSI RSSI
Multicast Yes Yes
(* after 3GPP Rel 14+)
Yes
(* after 3GPP Rel 14+)
Standardization LoRa Alliance 3GPP Rel.13+ 3GPP Rel.13+
Availability Now Commercial:~ Q3/Q4 2017
(* depends on
region/operator)
Commercial:~ Q3/Q4 2017
(* depends on region/operator)

13
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 one chooses one specific network technology or
takes a multi-network approach, it is most important that the path forward with the best blend
of coverage, performance, and value.
5.1 Key Decision Criteria
The importance of key decision criteria is different for each IoT applications. 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 a customer needs to work out when mapping
applications to different connectivity options.
Figure 6: IoT Use Case Mapping considerations

14
Coverage
The three IoT wide area network categories discussed in this paper (NB-IoT, Cat-M1 and
LoRaWAN) have coverage properties that vary widely according to the environment.
For LPWAN, the devices can often be shielded by basements or walls when installed in
subterranean environments. Table 2 shows the link budget calculation for LoRaWAN for
different regions. Since different regions have different regulations on transmit power and
duty cycle, LoRaWAN coverage varies per region. For example, US and India allow much higher
transmit power resulting in much larger link budget compared to NB-IoT.
Table 3 shows LoRaWAN link budget comparison with that of Cat-M1 and NB-IoT: overall
LoRaWAN link budget is better than Cat-M1 but comparable or slightly better than that of NB-
IoT. Link budget is directly connected to coverage area of a given cell.
Table 2: Link Budget Calculation for LoRaWAN
LoRaWAN Regional parameter
EU India US China
(868MHz) (868 MHz) (915 MHz) (470 MHz)
Limiting Link
(RX2 DL Coverage)
Uplink Uplink Uplink Uplink
LoRaWAN Spreading Factor SF12 / 125KHz SF12 / 125KHz SF10 / 125 kHz SF12 / 125 kHz
UE TX Power (Max Allowed) (1) 16.0 dBm 30 dBm 30 dBm 19.15 dBm
UE Antenna Gain (2) 0 dB 0 dB 0 dB 0 dB
GW Antenna Gain (3) 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB 6 dB
GW Cable losses (4) 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB
Gateway Rx Sens. (5) -140.0 dBm -140.0 dBm -134.7 dBm -140.0 dBm
Link budget
(1)-(4)-(5)+(2)+(3)
161.5 dB 175.5 dB 170.2 164.65

15
Table 3: Link Budget comparison for LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
Max Tx Power (dBm) Link Budget (dB) or MCL
LoRaWAN (EU 868 MHz) 16.0 dBm 161.5
LoRaWAN (India 865 Mhz) 30 dBm 175.5
LoRaWAN (US 915 MHz) 30 dBm 170.2
LoRaWAN (China 470 MHz) 12.15 dBm 164.65
3GPP Cat-M1 (Option 1 [12]) 20 dBm 155.7
3GPP Cat-M1 (Option [12]) 23 dBm 160.7
3GPP Cat NB1 (NB-IoT) 23 dBm 164 (**)
The above comparison of link budget does not consider the interference:
▪ Interference is present in unlicensed spectrum. Typically, this interference can be up
to 10 dB. This interference is usually present mostly in urban/dense-urban areas.
However, in such urban/dense area scenarios we believe the networks are typically
capacity limited, not coverage limited: as a result, there is a dense deployment of
LoRaWAN gateways, and noise does not impact useful cell coverage.
▪ Cellular IoT also suffers from co-channel interference as LTE networks are deployed
with spatial reuse factor of 1. However, the licensed spectrum bands do not suffer from
interference from other sources.
In both scenarios, the interference can be overcome by densifying the gateway
deployment especially in dense-urban and urban scenario. LoRaWAN pico-cells are very
cost-effective to deploy and require very small backhaul that can even be served by LTE
Cat-M1. LoRaWAN is also very resistant to external interference as it uses Chirp spread
spectrum over a wide band. Hence, if there is interference from narrowband signals like
SigFox, LoRaWAN can tolerate such interference due to its wide-band nature.
LoRaWAN offers at least the same or better coverage than
NB-IoT and much better than Cat-M1

16
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.
Capacity, Data Rate and 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.
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’:

17
▪ 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.
LoRaWAN offers enough throughput and capacity for small
infrequent messages while Cellular IoT is most suited for
premium applications demanding high throughput and/or
premium QoS
Multicast
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 [1]. It is not yet
available for IoT traffic on current cellular IoT networks (deployed on 3GPP Rel 13) [2] but is
part of the 3GPP release 14 and is expected to be deployed in coming years as networks
upgrade towards future releases.

18
Figure 7: Multicast Architecture
Key of Large Scale Deployments:
LoRaWAN supports Multicast in existing devices
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.
In cellular technologies, the device must 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.

19
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.
Closer Look at the Access Protocol behind LoRaWAN and NB-IoT
In general, LoRaWAN class A device uses minimal power consumption due to the simplicity of
the radio and the fact that device is only active when transmitting and is sleeping most of the
time (as shown in Fig. 8a).
This is unlike cellular technologies in which device must periodically wake up to synchronize
to the network even if it has no data to transmit. As shown in Fig. 8b, each uplink payload in
NB-IoT has numerous TX/RX/Idle transitions due to the complexity of the protocol and
sophisticated access control. The asynchronous nature of LoRaWAN makes the modem design
very simple and minimizes use of energy, while cellular technologies employ advanced
scheduling algorithms to tightly control the spectral efficiency of expensive licensed spectrum.
Cellular technologies are without doubt designed to make the best use of the spectrum, but
it impacts power consumption of end-devices. Cellular NB-IoT and Cat-M1 have lot of
optimizations in Rel 13 such as power saving mechanism (PSM) and enhanced DRX (eDRX) to
put the device to sleep most of the time, but still the device must wake up periodically to listen
to the network due to the synchronous nature of Cellular IoT system.
Figure 8a. LoRaWAN Class A Operation

20
Figure 8b. NB-IoT Operation
Current Consumption Comparison of LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT
Every modem, whether LoRaWAN or Cellular IoT, must go through different states (Transmit,
Receive, Idle and Sleep). It is the current consumption of these states that defines the power
consumption calculation as we will show later.
Table 4 shows the peak current comparison between LoRaWAN and NB-IoT. LoRaWAN is 3-5X
more efficient in terms of peak current compared to NB-IoT. Cat-M1 modems are even more
power hungry but they allow more throughput for even more premium applications. Cellular
IoT is indeed optimal for high data rates.
As we will see in later section, power consumption is very important for battery powered
applications as it impacts the usable capacity of the battery.
Table 4: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Current Consumption
TX Current RX Current Idle Current Sleep Current
LoRaWAN ** [14]
24-44 mA 12 mA 1.4mA 0.1uA
NB-IoT
(* U-Blox Sara-N2
module [11])
74-220 mA 46 mA 6mA 3 uA
LTE Cat-M1
(* U-blox Sara-R4
module [10])
100-490 mA *(not specified) 9 mA 8uA

21
** Note: The TX Power for LoRaWAN use for TX current calculations is 16 dBm based on EU
Regulations
Airtime comparison of different states
Now, let’s look at the different airtimes between LoRaWAN and NB-IoT. The airtimes are
assuming only 1 uplink payload of 50 Bytes and no downlink traffic. Typical LoRaWAN use case
like smart meters, smart lights, tracking only use a payload of 20 bytes or less few times per
day.
Table 5 shows the airtime comparison between different states (TX/RX/Idle) between
LoRaWAN and NB-IoT and due to the synchronous nature of the Cellular IoT.
NB-IoT modem spends considerable time in Idle/RX states compared to LoRaWAN due to strict
synchronization and scheduling requirements. We show here results for 50 bytes as this was
what we found from 3GPP study item [15].
Table 5 shows that NB-IoT modems spend a lot of time in RX/Idle states due to the
sophisticated access protocol, and that the time spent in these states increases significantly
at MCL 164 dB (which corresponds to cell-edge). The cell-edge power consumption matters
most as lot of IoT devices are not mobile and if they happen to be at the cell-edge, will
discharge significantly faster than other devices.
Table 5: LoRaWAN Vs NB-IoT Airtime Comparison (50 Byte UL Payload)
MCL/
(LoRaWAN SF)
144 dB / (SF7) 154 dB / (SF9) 164 dB / (SF12)
Tx
(ms)
Rx
(ms)
Idle
(ms)
Tx
(ms)
Rx
(ms)
Idle
(ms)
Tx
(ms)
Rx
(ms)
Idle
(ms)
LoRaWAN [14] 118 65 1500 367 238 1500 2793 1725 1500
NB-IoT [11] 49 388 22223 311 565 22451 2190 2672 23387
Energy comparison of LoRaWAN and NB-IoT
Table 6 shows the energy of transmitting single 50 Byte payload. LoRaWAN has much lower
energy consumption than NB-IoT. It should also be noted that LoRaWAN has much lower sleep

22
energy consumption than NB-IoT due to its sleep current being 30X less than current NB-IoT
modules. Since IoT modems are sleeping most of the time, this matters a lot.
Table 6: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Energy Comparison (50 Byte UL Payload)
MCL/
(LoRaWAN SF)
144 dB / (SF7) 154 dB / (SF9) 164 dB / (SF12)
Energy of 1
msg (Joule)
Sleep
Energy/day
(Joule)
Energy of 1
msg (Joule)
Sleep
Energy/day
(Joule)
Energy of 1
msg (Joule)
Sleep
Energy/day
(Joule)
LoRaWAN [14] 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.42 0.03
NB-IoT [11] 0.13 1.3 0.29 1.3 1.50 1.3
Impact of Cell-Edge Coverage on Cellular IoT Power Consumption
From a recent IEEE paper [13] from Nokia, Telenor and Aalborg university, they calculated for
rural deployment that there can be up to 4% and 17% devices in outage for deep-indoor (see
Fig. 9). These devices usually are in the basement (for ex. deep indoor smart meters in
basements) and suffer additional 30 dB indoor penetration loss. However, for dense urban
environments, there can be more users in outage. Typically, cell edge coverage can be used
by deployment of additional small cells but that revenue from 5-10% users might not justify
the investment.
Fig. 10 shows the power consumption of these cell-edge users [13] for different IoT application
scenarios from a study conducted by several researchers from Aalborg university, Nokia
Research and Telenor and it is very clear that for cell-edge users, the power consumption of
NB-IoT grows dramatically and can be orders of magnitude more than LTE Cat-M1. In these
scenarios, it might not be cost-effective for an operator to deploy small cells, but rather use
LoRaWAN to extend its coverage for cell-edge users using LoRaWAN pico-cells at much lower
cost. Operators can even use LTE Cat-M1 as a backhaul for LoRaWAN gateway as shown in Fig.
11 thus offering a very optimized way to combine LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT.

23
Figure 9: Coverage Analysis of Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) [13]
Figure 10: Average device power consumption per day for UEs with MCL above 150 dB.
(Rural scenario) [13]
Cell-Edge power consumption of NB-IoT grows dramatically
(5-6X) compared to Cat-M1

24
Figure 11: Cellular IoT + LoRaWAN complementary deployment to address coverage
problem for Cell-Edge users
LoRaWAN can be deployed in conjunction with Cellular IoT
to augment cell-edge coverage reducing costs and
augmenting battery lifetime of cell-edge nodes
Battery lifetime comparison for LoRaWAN and NB-IoT
Finally, in Fig. 12, we show the battery lifetime for LoRaWAN and NB-IoT for nodes located
near, middle and furthest from the cell for transmitting 50-byte payloads with different
frequency.
LoRaWAN offers 3-5X better power efficiency compared to NB-IoT. We assume a battery of
5Wh assuming only uplink traffic. The nodes that get worst affected on both the technologies
are on the cell-edge and these are for ex. deep indoor water/electricity meters (with
additional 30 dB penetration loss) that are not mobile. The battery lifetime of nodes especially
at cell-edge is very critical for several IoT applications as typically these nodes are static, and
it can be very costly to replace the batteries or deploy LTE small cells thus affecting the ROI
negatively for several IoT applications.

25
Figure 12: Battery lifetime comparison (NB-IoT Vs LoRaWAN)(50 Byte Uplink)
What kind of batteries are possible for LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT?
Fig. 13 shows the impact of current on usable battery capacity. The peak current of LoRaWAN
is lowest due to the lowest complexity of the chip, whereas peak current progressively
increases for NB-IoT and Cat-M1. We describe briefly several types of batteries available in the
market along with appropriate technology fit:
▪LiPo (used in mobile phones): This type of battery is not usable for long term usage due to
~2% self discharge rate per month.
▪Alkaline: It is usable but internal resistance increases towards end of lifetime (cannot
accommodate high to peak current and long lifetime) and at low temperatures. This
battery can be used for both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT, but in the latter case it will drain
the battery faster and high peak current.
▪Lithium-Thionyl-Chloride (LTC): This battery is more expensive, has self-discharge about
3%/year (requires 2x the usable capacity for 15 years lifetime). However, high peak-current
also impacts capacity negatively. This battery can be used for both LoRaWAN and Cellular
IoT

26
▪Coin cell (Wearables): It cannot provide high peak current, so it is usable only for LoRaWAN
and not Cellular IoT
Figure 13: Impact of current on usable capacity
(From technical specification of ER14505M Lithium-thionyl Chloride Spiral Battery)
Due to less complex radio and asynchronous nature of the
protocol, LoRaWAN is 3-5X more power efficient than NB-IoT
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

27
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 can do
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.
Table 7: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Infrastructure Cost
Spectrum cost Hardware cost
LoRaWAN Free $100–$1000/gateway
NB-IoT/Cat-M1 >$500 million/MHz $15k/base station (*new)
$1k-5k/base station (*upgrade)
LoRaWAN offers much lower TCO compared to Cellular IoT
due to unlicensed spectrum deployment
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

28
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
Traditional deployment model for cellular networks has always been led by operator to
provide nationwide coverage and as shown in Fig. 14. However, this approach becomes
expensive from ROI perspective to cover last part of the population (which is usually in rural
or deep indoor coverage). However, there are lot of IoT devices which will be static and will
not move, so it is important to provide ubiquitous coverage in such hard to reach areas.
However, LoRaWAN being open standard in unlicensed spectrum can be used to supplement
operator coverage by private enterprises/individuals which can share the revenue using
roaming agreements. LoRaWAN allows a disruptive business model to roll out IoT network
initially with light outdoor coverage and then rely on private enterprises/individuals for
densification and build coverage closer to where the devices are generating most of the traffic.
This significantly reduces the TCO when leveraging LoRaWAN networks in conjunction with
cellular IoT deployments.
Figure 14: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular Deployment model
LoRaWAN offers disruptive business model utilizing
public/private partnership with Operators to deploy excess
capacity where it’s needed and share the costs and revenue
with Enterprise customers via roaming agreements

29
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.).
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.

30
Figure 15 : LoRa Alliance landscape (source: LoRa Alliance, Nov 2017)
LoRaWAN has had a much better headstart compared to
Cellular IoT and boasts mature ecosystem with worldwide
commercial deployments and use cases
Figure 16: NB-IoT and Cat-M1 Deployment plans (source: GSMA [16], Feb 2018)

31
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 privately managed enterprise networks. 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. However, there are needs for deploying
private Enterprise IoT networks for other verticals.
Since LoRaWAN is deployed in unlicensed spectrum, there are no obstacles to private
deployments. Many private LoRaWAN enterprise deployments already exist, in general they
are managed networks, using hosted network servers provided by service providers, much like
centrex for corporate telephony.
3GPP is also working towards MulteFire/CBRS [18][19] 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). However, there will probably be significant
developments of MulteFire/CBRS technology from 3GPP in years to come and the technology
will mature.
QoS Paradigm Comparison between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
In this section, we briefly discuss how LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT approach the QoS.
For the case of Cellular IoT, it has clean licensed spectrum free from other deployments except
its own. However, as LTE deployment is based on reuse factor of 1, the interference from
operators’ own neighboring cells grows with more traffic. The only way to combat such
interference is to deploy additional LTE small cells and do power control on each cell or by
adding more carriers which is costly (due to sub-GHz licensed band). The cost of adding extra
LTE small cells (incl. backhaul) is approx. 5000 USD [20].
In case of LoRaWAN, as unlicensed spectrum usage increases, the interference will grow
inevitably. However, LoRaWAN has uplink macro-diversity and ADR built into the standard
from beginning. Uplink macro-diversity refers to same message being received by multiple
gateways reducing probability of message loss dramatically. For example, if 3 antennas each

32
have a packet loss probability of 10% individually, then the probability of packet loss for the
group of 3 antennas is only 0.1%. Moreover, the cost of deploying LoRaWAN pico-cells is less
than 300 USD and this can be done with very cheap backhaul (typically LTE-M or Wifi) without
any complex cell planning. This cost is in stark contrast to that of LTE small cells which will be
deployed not just for IoT, but also to serve the needs of other 3G/4G users.
Hence, both LoRaWAN and 3GPP overcome the issue of densification and QoS in slightly
different ways but with the same objective to increase the capacity where it is needed most.
Fig. 17 shows how the LoRaWAN capacity scales with densification of gateways. The results in
the figure are for uplink capacity in terms of message density. The results are part of detailed
study carried out in [4].
Figure 17: LoRaWAN UL Capacity Scaling with Densification
LoRaWAN offers improved QoS with densification, ADR and
UL Macro-Diversity
5.2 Summary
Fig. 18 summarizes the positioning of LoRaWAN and cellular IoT technologies such as NB-IoT/
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.

33
Figure 18: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Comparison
Use Case mapping to IoT technology is a complex multi-
dimensional problem and needs to be carried out wisely to
monetize IoT Applications

34
6 CONCLUSION
In this paper, we showed several aspects of technological comparison between LoRaWAN and
Cellular IoT (Cat-M1, NB-IoT), which are one of the two dominating technologies for LPWAN
IoT connectivity.
Overall, the key difference of energy requirements between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
technologies means that they will serve different segments of the market.
The ultra-low power, low-cost segment will be served preferably by LoRaWAN, particularly in
dense deployments with static devices. The segment of devices that are less energy
constrained, or have traffic requirements exceeding the capabilities of LoRaWAN, will be
served by Cellular IoT. It is interesting to note that an excellent example of Cellular IoT use
case is the backhaul of a LoRaWAN base station: LoRaWAN is a natural “piggy-back”
technology on top of a Cellular IoT network, expanding the addressable market of Cellular IoT
at a marginal incremental cost.
The key to mapping IoT connectivity to an application is to understand the business and
technical requirements of a use case. An important decision factor is whether the use case
accepts dependency on a 3rd party network. Many use cases derive from existing ISM band
applications which use dedicated infrastructure: moving forward, they will be served with
managed networks using on-premise base stations or “picocells”. LoRaWAN is ideally suited
for this type of on-premise deployment and can be considered the “WiFi of IoT”. Cellular IoT
is also working in this direction, but not as mature for now.
The IoT applications space have very wide-ranging requirements hence there will be room for
coexistence of LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT. We do not see at present
the possibility for a single technology to capture the whole market due to technical capability
segmentation. Service providers should be prepared to address both.
Operators must adopt mature LoRaWAN ecosystem while
complementing it with Cellular IoT as it matures and evolves
over the next few years

35
7 ABOUT ACTILITY
Actility is 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 19: 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)
▪ Pre-integrated interface with Click and Go (https://iot.thingpark.com/clickandgo/) or
ThingPark Market (http://market.thingpark.com) enabling acceleration of operator go

36
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/

37
8 REFERENCES
[1] “Extending the life of your device (firmware updates over LoRa) - LoRa AMM”, ARM; The
Things Network; Source:https://www.slideshare.net/janjongboom/extending-the-life-of-
your-device-firmware-updates-over-lora-lora-amm
[2] “LTE IoT is starting to connect the massive IoT today, thanks to eMTC and NB-IoT”,
Qualcomm; Source:https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2017/06/15/lte-iot-starting-
connect-massive-iot-today-thanks-emtc-and-nb-iot
[3] “Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2017”, Ericsson;
Source:https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report
[4] “How to design LoRaWAN for dense deployments?”; Actility
[5] “Comcast Aims to Layer LoRa Into XB6 Gateway”, LightReading;
Source:http://www.lightreading.com/iot/iot-strategies/comcast-aims-to-layer-lora-into-xb6-
gateway/d/d-id/736347
[6] “Orange’s two-track IoT: LoRa for low power applications, LTE-M for high throughput”,
Telecom TV; Source:http://www.telecomtv.com/articles/iot/orange-s-two-track-iot-lora-for-
low-power-applications-lte-m-for-high-throughput-15741/
[7] “LoRa Alliance”, Source: https://www.lora-alliance.org/
[8] “A survey on LPWA technology: LoRa and NB-IoT”, Division of Electronics and Electrical
Engineering, Dongguk University-Seoul, Republic of Korea;
Source:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405959517300061
[9] “NB-IoT - Data Rates and Latency”, Junaid Afzal;
Source:https://www.netmanias.com/en/post/blog/12609/iot-nb-iot/nb-iot-data-rates-and-
latency
[10] “Sara R4-Series Data sheet, LTE Cat-M1 / NB1 modules”, U-blox; Source:https://www.u-
blox.com/sites/default/files/SARA-R4_DataSheet_%28UBX-16024152%29.pdf
[11] “SARA N2-Series Data Sheet, LTE Cat-NB1 modules”, U-blox; Source:https://www.u-
blox.com/sites/default/files/SARA-N2_DataSheet_%28UBX-15025564%29.pdf
[12] “Coverage Analysis of LTE-M Category-M1”, Sierra Wireless;
Source:https://www.sierrawireless.com/resources/white-paper/coverage-analysis-lte-m-cat-
m1/
[13] “Coverage and Capacity Analysis of LTE-M and NB-IoT in a Rural Area”, Dept. of
Electronic Systems, Aalborg University;Nokia Bell Labs, Aalborg; Telenor Denmark, Aalborg;
Source:http://vbn.aau.dk/files/236150948/vtcFall2016.pdf
[14] “Semtech SX1272/73 Datasheet (860 MHz to 1020 MHz Low Power Long Range
Transceiver)”, Semtech; Source:http://www.semtech.com/images/datasheet/sx1272.pdf
[15] “RAN1#82-BIS. NB-IOT - Battery lifetime evaluation”, Ericsson, ZTE, Alcatel-Lucent,
Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, Nokia, Intel, Samsung, LGE;

38
Source:https://portal.3gpp.org/ngppapp/CreateTdoc.aspx?mode=view&contributionId=659
236
[16] “GSMA Mobile IoT Deployment Map (Feb 2018)”, GSMA;
Source:https://www.gsma.com/iot/deployment-map/
[17] "NB-IoT? Not at Those Prices, Say DT Customers”, LightReading;
Source:http://www.lightreading.com/iot/nb-iot/nb-iot-not-at-those-prices-say-dt-
customers/d/d-id/733220
[18] “MulteFire Alliance”; Source:https://www.multefire.org/
[19] “CBRS Alliance”; Source: https://www.cbrsalliance.org/
[20] “The economics of small cells and Wi-Fi offload”, Senza Fili Consulting;
Source:http://www.senzafiliconsulting.com/Portals/0/docs/Reports/SenzaFili_SmallCellWiFi
TCO.pdf

39
9 ABOUT AUTHORS

Whitepaper - LoraWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they complement each other?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Whitepaper - LoraWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they complement each other?

Similar to Whitepaper - LoraWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they complement each other? (20)

More from Actility

More from Actility (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Whitepaper - LoraWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M): How do they complement each other?