O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.
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
Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…5
×

Cellular lpwan paris nov 2015

11.641 visualizações

Publicada em

LPWAN status

Publicada em: Tecnologia

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

×