1

Low Power Wide Area Networks: A SurveyUsman Raza, Parag Kulkarni, and Mahesh Sooriyabandara

Abstract—Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) networks are at-tracting a lot of attention primarily because of their ability tooffer affordable connectivity to the low-power devices distributedover very large geographical areas. In realizing the vision of theInternet of Things (IoT), LPWA technologies complement andsometimes supersede the conventional cellular and short rangewireless technologies in performance for various emerging smartcity and machine-to-machine (M2M) applications. This surveypaper presents the design goals and the techniques, which differ-ent LPWA technologies exploit to offer wide-area coverage to low-power devices at the expense of low data rates. We survey severalemerging LPWA technologies and the standardization activitiescarried out by different standards development organizations(e.g., IEEE, IETF, 3GPP, ETSI) as well as the industrial consortiabuilt around individual LPWA technologies (e.g., LORa™ Al-liance, WEIGHTLESS-SIG, and DASH7 Alliance). We further notethat LPWA technologies adopt similar approaches, thus sharingthe same limitations and challenges. This paper expands on theseresearch challenges and identifies potential directions to addressthem. While the proprietary LPWA technologies are alreadyhitting the market with large nationwide roll-outs, this paperencourages an active engagement of the research community insolving problems that will shape the connectivity of tens of billionsof devices in the next decade.

Index Terms—Internet of Things, Low Power Wide Area,Machine-to-Machine, Low Throughput Networks, LPWA

I. INTRODUCTION

THE Internet of Things (IoT) promises to revolutionize theway we live and work. It could help us in overcoming

the top global challenges due to population explosion, energycrisis, resource depletion, and environmental pollution. Torealize this vision, things need to sense their environment,share this information among themselves as well as withhumans to enable intelligent decision making for positivelyaffecting our entire ecosystem. Due to this promise, an interestin IoT is phenomenal. Multiple independent studies haveforecasted a rampant growth in volume and revenue of IoTand Machine-to-Machine (M2M) industry in the next tenyears. Number of connected M2M devices and consumerelectronics will surpass the number of human subscribers usingmobile phones, personal computers, laptops and tablets by2020 [1]. Moving forward, by 2024, the overall IoT industry isexpected to generate a revenue of 4.3 trillion dollars [2] acrossdifferent sectors such as device manufacturing, connectivity,and other value added services. Recent improvements in cheapsensor and actuation technologies along with an emergence ofnovel communication technologies are all positive indicators,supporting the forecasted trends.

Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) networks represent a novelcommunication paradigm, which will complement cellularand short range wireless technologies in addressing diverse

All authors are with Toshiba Research Europe Limited, UK, Email:{usman.raza, parag.kulkarni, mahesh.sooriyabandara}@toshiba-trel.com

10 m 100 m 1 km 10 km

Pow

er

con

su

mpti

on

Range

Wi-Fi,

HiperLANCellular

2G, 3G, 4G

Z-Wave

Blutetooth

ZigBee

IEEE 802.15.4

WLANs

Short-range

Wireless

Low Power Wide Area

Fig. 2. LPWA vs. legacy wireless technologies

requirements of IoT applications. LPWA technologies offerunique sets of features including wide-area connectivity forlow power and low data rate devices, not yet provided bylegacy wireless technologies. Their market is expected to behuge: approximately one fourth of overall 30 billion IoTdevices are to be connected to the Internet using LPWAnetworks using either proprietary or cellular LPWA tech-nologies. Figure 1 highlights variety of applications acrossseveral business sectors that can exploit LPWA technologies toconnect their end devices. These business sectors include butnot limited to smart city, personal IoT applications, smart grid,smart metering, logistics, industrial monitoring, agriculture,etc.

LPWA networks are unique because they make differenttradeoffs than the traditional technologies prevalent in IoTlandscape such as short-range wireless networks e.g., ZigBee,Bluetooth, Z-Wave, wireless local area networks (WLANs)e.g., Wi-Fi, and cellular networks e.g. Global System forMobile Communications (GSM), Long-Term Evolution (LTE)etc. Figure 2 highlights these differences. The legacy non-cellular wireless technologies are not ideal to connect lowpower devices distributed over large geographical areas. Therange of these technologies is limited to a few hundred metersat best. The devices, therefore, cannot be arbitrarily deployedor moved anywhere, a requirement for many applications forsmart city, logistics and personal health [3]. The range of thesetechnologies is extended using a dense deployment of devicesand gateways connected using multihop mesh networking.Large deployments are thus prohibitively expensive. WLANs,on the other hand, are characterized by shorter coverage areasand higher power consumption for machine-type communica-tion (MTC).

A wide area coverage is provided by cellular networks, a

arX

iv:1

606.

0736

0v1

[cs

.NI]

23

Jun

2016

2

Fig. 1. Applications of LPWA technologies across different sectors

reason of a wide adoption of second generation (2G) and thirdgeneration (3G) technologies for M2M communication. How-ever, an impending decommissioning of these technologies [4],as announced by some mobile network operators (MNOs), willbroaden the technology gap in connecting low-power devices.In general, current cellular technologies do not achieve energyefficiency high enough to offer ten years of battery lifetime.The complexity and cost of cellular devices is high due to theirability to deal with complex waveforms, optimized for voice,high speed data services, and text. For low-power MTC, thereis a clear need to strip complexity to reduce cost. Efforts inthis direction are underway for cellular networks by the ThirdGeneration Partnership Project and are covered as part of thediscussion in Section IV.

With a phenomenal range of a few to tens of kilometers [5]and battery life of ten years and beyond, LPWA technologiesare promising for the Internet of low-power, low-cost, and low-throughput things. A very long range of LPWA technologiesenables devices to spread and move over large geographicalareas. IoT and M2M devices connected by LPWA technologiescan be turned on anywhere and anytime to sense and interactwith their environment instantly. It is worth-mentioning thatLPWA technologies achieve long range and low power oper-ation at the expense of low data rate (typically in orders oftens of kilobits per seconds) and higher latency (typically inorders of seconds or minutes). These technologies do not caterto high throughput applications requiring ultra-low latencysuch as wireless industrial control. Nevertheless, a plethora ofapplications for smart cities, smart metering, home automation,

wearable electronics, logistics, environmental monitoring etc.exchange small amount of data and that also infrequently.Therefore, appeal of LPWA technologies, although limited byits low data rate, is still broad. This is the reason why LPWAtechnologies generated so much interest after the proprietarytechnologies such as SIGFOX [6] and LORa [7] hit the market.

At this moment, there are several competing LPWA tech-nologies, each employing various techniques to achieve longrange, low power operation, and high scalability. Section IIpresents these design goals and describes how a combina-tion of different novel techniques actually achieves them.Section III then discusses several early proprietary LPWAtechnologies and their technical features, highlighting the needfor standardization to flourish IoT ecosystem. To this effect,several well-known standard developing organizations (SDOs)such as European Telecommunications Standard Institute(ETSI) [8], Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) [9],Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) [10],and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [11] are workingtowards the open standards for LPWA technologies. Further,multiple industrial alliances are built around individual LPWAtechnologies to promote new standards. LORa™ Alliance [12],WEIGHTLESS-SIG [13] and DASH7 Alliance [14] are a fewexamples of such special interest groups (SIGs). Section IVcovers the standardization efforts led by all these SDOs andSIGs.

On a technical side, LPWA providers need to push in-novative solutions to overcome the challenge of connectingmassive number of IoT and M2M devices. It is indeed not

3

an easy task especially when the heterogeneous LPWA tech-nologies share limited radio resources to render scalable andsecure connectivity to low-power and inexpensive end devices.Multiple tradeoffs made by the LPWA technologies bringseveral challenges, which are discussed in Section V alongwith possible research directions to address them. Section VIthen highlights business considerations for LPWA technologiesbefore finally concluding this paper.

II. DESIGN GOALS AND TECHNIQUES

The success of LPWA technologies lies in their ability tooffer low-power connectivity to millions of devices distributednationwide at an unprecedented low-cost. This section de-scribes the techniques LPWA technologies used to achievethese often conflicting goals.

A. Long range

LPWA technologies are designed for a wide area coverageand an excellent signal propagation to hard-to-reach indoorplaces such as basements. Quantitatively, a +20 dB gain overlegacy cellular systems is targeted. This allows the end-devicesto connect to the base stations at a distance ranging froma few to tens of kilometers depending on their deploymentenvironment (rural, urban, etc.). Sub-GHz band and specialmodulation schemes, discussed next, are exploited to achievethis goal.

1) Use of Sub-1GHz band: With an exception of a fewLPWA technologies (e.g., WEIGHTLESS-W [13] and IN-GENU [15]), most use Sub-GHz band, which offers robustand reliable communication at low power budgets. Firstly,compared to the 2.4 GHz band, the lower frequency signalsexperience less attenuation and multipath fading caused byobstacles and dense surfaces like concrete walls. Secondly,sub-GHz is less congested than 2.4 GHz, a band used by most-popular wireless technologies e.g., Wi-Fi, cordless phones,Bluetooth, ZigBee, and other home appliances. The resultinghigher reliability enables long range and low power commu-nication. Nevertheless, the INGENU LPWA technology [15]is an exception that still exploits 2.4 GHz band due tomore relaxed spectrum regulations on radio duty cycle andmaximum transmission power in this band across multipleregions.

2) Modulation Techniques: LPWA technologies are de-signed to achieve a link budget of 150± 10 dB that enables arange of a few kilometers and tens of kilometers in urban andrural areas respectively. The physical layer compromises onhigh data rate and slows downs the modulation rate to put moreenergy in each transmitted bit (or symbol). Due to this reason,the receivers can decode severely attenuated signals correctly.Typical sensitivity of state of the art LPWA receivers reachesas low as -130 dBm. Two classes of modulation techniquesnamely narrowband and spread spectrum techniques have beenadopted by different LPWA technologies.Narrowband modulation techniques provide a high link bud-get by encoding the signal in low bandwidth (usually lessthan 25kHz). By assigning each carrier a very narrow band,these modulation techniques share the overall spectrum very

efficiently between multiple links. The noise level experiencedinside a single narrowband is also minimal. Therefore, noprocessing gain is required to decode the signal at the receiver,resulting in simple and inexpensive transceiver design. NB-IoT and WEIGHTLESS-P are examples of narrowband tech-nologies.

A few LPWA technologies squeeze each carrier signal inan ultra narrow band (UNB) of width as short as 100Hz(e.g., in SIGFOX), further reducing the experienced noiseand increasing the number of supported end-devices per unitbandwidth. However, the effective data rate for individualend devices decreases as well, thus increasing the amount oftime the radio needs to be kept ON. This low data rate incombination with spectrum regulations on sharing underlyingbands may limit maximum payload size and transmissionfrequency of data packets, limiting number of business usecases. SIGFOX, WEIGHTLESS-N and TELENSA [16] are a fewexamples of LPWA technologies that use UNB modulation.Spread spectrum techniques spread a narrowband signal overa wider frequency band but with the same power density. Theactual transmission is a noise-like signal that is harder to detectby an eavesdropper, more resilient to interference, and robustto jamming attacks. More processing gain is however requiredon the receiver side to decode the signal that is typicallyreceived below the noise floor. Spreading a narrowband signalover a wide band results in less efficient use of the spectrum.But, this problem is typically overcome by the use of multipleorthogonal sequences. As long as multiple signals use differentorthogonal sequences or spreading factors, all can be decodedconcurrently, resulting in a higher overall network capacity.Different types of spread spectrum techniques are used byexisting standards. Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS)and Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) are used by INGENU andLORa respectively.

B. Ultra low power operation

Ulra-low power operation is a key requirement to tap intothe huge business opportunity provided by battery-poweredIoT/M2M devices. A battery lifetime of 10 years or more withAA or coin cell batteries is desirable to bring the maintenancecost down.

1) Topology: While mesh topology has been extensivelyused to extend the coverage of short range wireless networks,their high deployment cost is a major disadvantage in con-necting large number of geographically distributed devices.Further, as the traffic is forwarded over multiple hops towardsa gateway, some nodes get more congested than others depend-ing on their location or network traffic patterns. Therefore,they deplete their batteries quickly, limiting overall networklifetime to only a few months to years.

On the other hand, a very long range of LPWA technologiesovercomes these limitations by connecting end devices directlyto base stations, obviating the need for the dense and expensivedeployments of relays and gateways altogether. The resultingtopology is a star that is used extensively in cellular networksand brings huge energy saving advantages. As opposed to themesh topology, the devices need not to waste precious energy

4

in busy-listening to other devices that want to relay their trafficthrough them. An always-on base station provides convenientand quick access when required by the end-devices.

In addition to star, a few LPWA technologies support treeand mesh topologies but with extra complexity in protocoldesign.

2) Duty Cycling: Low power operation is achieved byopportunistically turning off power hungry component ofM2M/IoT devices e.g., data transceiver. Radio duty cyclingallows LPWA end devices to turn off their transceivers, whennot required. Only when the data is to be transmitted orreceived, the transceiver is turned ON.

LPWA duty cycling mechanisms depend on application,type of power source, and traffic pattern. If an applicationneeds to transfer the data only over the uplink, the end devicesmay wakeup only when data is ready to be transmitted. Incontrast, if downlink transmissions are required as well, theend devices make sure to listen when the base station actuallytransmits. The end devices achieve this by agreeing on alistening schedule. For example, the end devices may listen fora short duration after their uplink transmissions to receive areply back. Alternatively, they may wakeup at a scheduled timeagreed with the base station. For main-powered end devicesrequiring an ultra-low latency downlink communication, radiotransceiver can stay in an always on mode. Different LPWAstandards such as LORAWAN define multiple classes of theend devices based on their communication needs in uplink ordownlink.

In realm of LPWA technologies, duty cycling the datatransceiver is not only a power saving mechanism but alsoa legislative requirement. Regional regulations on sharingspectrum [17] may limit the time a single transmitter canoccupy to assure its coexistence with other devices sharingthe same channel.

Duty cycling can also be extended beyond the transceiverto other hardware components, as explored in the context ofmany low-power embedded networks. Modular hardware de-sign may provide ability to choose different operational modesand turn on or off individual hardware components (such asauxiliary components and storage and micro-controllers). Byexploiting these power management techniques, LPWA appli-cation developers can further reduce the power consumptionand increase the battery lifetime.

3) Lightweight Medium Access Control: Most-widely usedMedium Access Control (MAC) protocols for cellular net-works or short range wireless networks are too complex forLPWA technologies. For example, cellular networks synchro-nize the base stations and the user equipment (UE) accuratelyto benefit from complex MAC schemes that exploit frequencyand time diversity. The control overhead of these schemes,while justifiable for powerful cellular UEs, is substantial forthe LPWA end devices. Put differently, the control of theseMAC protocols may be even more expensive than the short andinfrequent machine type communication of LPWA devices.Further, a very tight synchronization needed by these schemesis difficult to be met by ultra low-cost ($1-$5) end deviceshaving low quality cheap oscillators. When accessing thespectrum, these devices experience drift in both time and

frequency domains, making an exclusive access a primarychallenge for the competing devices. Due to this reason,simple random access schemes are more popular for LPWAtechnologies.

Carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance(CSMA/CA) is one of the most popular MAC protocolssuccessfully deployed in WLANs and other short range wire-less networks. The number of devices per base-station arelimited for such networks, keeping the hidden node prob-lem at bay. However, as the number of these devices growin LPWA networks, carrier sensing becomes less effectiveand expensive [18] in reliably detecting on-going transmis-sions, negatively affecting the network performance. Whilevirtual carrier sensing using Request to Send/ Clear to Send(RTS/CTS) mechanism is used to overcome this problem,it introduces extra communication overhead over the uplinkand the downlink. With massive number of devices, LPWAtechnologies cannot usually afford this excessive signalingoverhead. In addition, link asymmetry, a property of manyLPWA technologies today, reduces the practicality of virtualcarrier sensing. .

Due to these reasons, multiple LPWA technologies suchas SIGFOX and LORAWAN resort to the use of ALOHA, arandom access MAC protocol in which end devices transmitwithout doing any carrier sensing. A simple design of ALOHAis thought to help battery powered end-devices in savingenergy at the MAC layer .

4) Offloading complexity from end devices: In terms ofenergy, the end-devices are the most-constrained elements inLPWA networks. Therefore, most technologies simplify thedesign of end devices by offloading complex tasks to thebase stations or to the backend system constituted by networkand application servers. Typically, the base stations exploithardware diversity and are capable of transmitting to andlistening from multiple end devices using different channels ororthogonal signals simultaneously. The backend system maybe responsible for mechanisms to adapt data rate (e.g., to max-imize link capacities), support mobility and suppress networkduplicates. LORAWAN is an example of LPWA standards thatexplicitly makes such choices to conserve energy for the end-devices.

C. Low Cost

The commercial success of LPWA networks is tied to con-necting a large number of end devices, while keeping the costof hardware below 5$ and the connectivity subscription perunit as low as 1$. This affordability enables LPWA technolo-gies to not only address a wide-range of applications, but alsocompete favorably within the domains where the short-rangewireless technologies and the cellular networks are alreadywell-established. LPWA technologies adopt several ways toreduce the capital expenses (CAPEX) and operating expenses(OPEX) for both the end-users and network operators.

1) Reduction in hardware complexity: Compared to thecellular and the short range wireless technologies, LPWAtransceivers need to process less complex waveforms. It en-ables them to reduce transceiver footprint, peak data rates, and

5

memory sizes, minimizing the hardware complexity and thusthe cost.

2) Minimum infrastructure: Traditional wireless and wiredtechnologies suffer from limited range, requiring dense andtherefore an expensive deployments of infrastructure (gate-ways, power lines, relay nodes etc.). However, a single LPWAbase station connects tens of thousands of end devices dis-tributed over several kilometers, significantly reducing thecosts for network operators.

3) Using license-free or owned licenced bands: The costto network operators for licensing new spectrum for LPWAtechnologies conflicts with low-cost deployment and shorttime-to-market. Therefore, most LPWA technologies are de-ployed in the license-exempt bands including the industrial,scientific and medical (ISM) band or TV-white spaces. NB-IoT, the LPWA standard from 3GPP, may share the existingcellular bands to avoid additional licensing cost. However, toget a better performance, a stand-alone licensed band can beacquired as well, a trend proprietary LPWA technologies mayeventually follow to avoid performance degradation due to anincrease in number of connected devices.

D. Scalability

The support for massive number of devices sending lowtraffic volumes is one of the key requirements for LPWA tech-nologies. These technologies should work well with increasingnumber and densities of connected devices. Several techniquesare considered to cope up with this scalability problem.

1) Diversity techniques: To accommodate as many con-nected devices as possible, efficient exploitation of diversity inchannel, time, space, and hardware is vital. Due to low-powerand inexpensive nature of the end devices, much of this isachieved by cooperation from more powerful components inLPWA networks such as base stations and backend systems.LPWA technologies employ multi-channel and multi-antennacommunication to parallelize transmissions to and from theconnected devices. Further, communication is made resilientto interference by using multiple channels and doing redundanttransmissions.

2) Densification: To cope up with increased density of theend devices in certain areas, LPWA networks, like traditionalcellular networks, will resort to dense deployments of basestations.

3) Adaptive data rate: Not only the LPWA systems shouldscale to number of connected devices, but each individuallink should be optimized for reliable and energy efficientcommunication. Adapting the modulation schemes to reachdistances while guaranteeing reliable communication at thesame time requires efficient monitoring of link qualities andcoordination between end devices and network.

E. Quality of Service

LPWA technologies target diverse set of applications withvarying requirements. At one extreme, it caters to delay toler-ant smart metering applications, while on other end it shoulddeliver the alarms generated by home security applications inminimum time. Therefore, network should provision quality of

ProprietaryLPWA

Technologies

QOWISIO

TELENSA

INGENURPMA

LORa

SIGFOX

Fig. 3. Emerging proprietary LPWA technologies.

service (QoS) over the same underlying LPWA technology. Forcellular standards where the underlying radio resources maybe shared between LPWA and mobile broadband applications,mechanisms should be defined for co-existence of differenttraffic types. To the best of our knowledge, current LPWAtechnologies do not provide QoS guarantees.

III. PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGIES

In this section, we highlight and compare emerging pro-prietary technologies shown in Figure 3 and their technicalaspects summarized in Table I. Some of these technologiesare being made compliant to the standards proposed by thedifferent SDOs and SIGs. We dedicate Section IV to brieflydescribe these standards and their association with any propri-etary technologies described next.

A. SIGFOX

SIGFOX itself or in partnership with other network operatorsoffers an end-to-end LPWA connectivity solution based onits patented technologies. SIGFOX Network Operators (SNOs)deploy the proprietary base stations equipped with cognitivesoftware-defined radios and connect them to the backendservers using an IP-based network. The end devices con-nect to these base stations using Binary Phase Shift Keying(BPSK) modulation in an ultra narrow (100Hz) SUB-GHZISM band carrier. By using UNB, SIGFOX utilizes bandwidthefficiently and experiences very low noise levels, resulting inhigh receiver sensitivity, ultra-low power consumption, andinexpensive antenna design. All these benefits come at an ex-pense of maximum throughput of only 100 bps. The achieveddata rate clearly falls at the lower end of the throughputoffered by most other LPWA technologies and thus limits thenumber of use-cases for SIGFOX. Further, SIGFOX initiallysupported only uplink communication but later evolved intoa bidirectional technology, although with a significant linkasymmetry. The downlink communication can only precedeuplink communication after which the end device should waitto listen for a response from the base station. The numberand size of messages over the uplink are limited to 140 12byte messages per day to conform to the regional regulationson use of license-free spectrum [17]. Radio access link is

6

TABLE ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF VARIOUS LPWA TECHNOLOGIES (?=NOT KNOWN)

SIGFOX LORAWAN INGENU TELENSA

Modulation UNB DBPSK(UL), GFSK(DL) CSS RPMA-DSSS(UL), CDMA(DL) UNB 2-FSK

Band SUB-GHZ ISM:EU (868MHz),US(902MHz)

SUB-GHZ ISM:EU (433MHz868MHz), US (915MHz), Asia

(430MHz)ISM 2.4GHz

SUB-GHZ bands includingISM:EU (868MHz), US

(915MHz), Asia (430MHz)

Data rate 100 bps(UL), 600 bps(DL) 0.3-37.5 kbps (LORa), 50 kbps(FSK) 78kbps (UL), 19.5 kbps(DL) [19] 62.5 bps(UL), 500 bps(DL)

Num. of channels/ orthogonal

signals360 channels 10 in EU, 64+8(UL) and 8(DL) in

US plus multiple SFs40 1MHz channels, up to 1200

signals per channel multiple channels

Link symmetryForward error

correctionMAC unslotted ALOHA unslotted ALOHA CDMA-like ?

Topology star star of stars star, tree starAdaptive Data

Rate

Payload length 12B(UL), 8B(DL) up to 250B (depends on SF &region) 10KB ?

Handover end devices do not join a singlebase station

end devices do not join a singlebase station ?

Authentication &encryption encryption not supported AES 128b 16B hash, AES 256b ?

Over the airupdates

SLA supportLocalization

asymmetric, allowing transmission of maximum of only 4 8-bytes per day over the downlink from the base stations tothe end devices. It means that acknowledging every uplinkmessage is not supported.

Without adequate support for acknowledgments, reliabilityof the uplink communication is improved by using time andfrequency diversity as well as redundant transmissions. Asingle message from an end device can be transmitted multipletimes over different frequency channels. For this purpose, inEurope, the band between 868.180-868.220MHz is dividedinto 400 100Hz channels [20], out of which 40 channelsare reserved and not used. As the base stations can scan allthe channels to decode the messages, the end devices canautonomously choose a random frequency channel to transmittheir messages. This simplifies the design for the end devices.Further, a single message is transmitted multiple times (3 bydefault) to increase the probability of successful reception bythe base stations.

B. LORa

LORa is a physical layer technology that modulates thesignals in SUB-GHZ ISM band using a proprietary spreadspectrum technique [21] developed and commercialized bySemtech Corporation [22]. A bidirectional communication isprovided by a special chirp spread spectrum (CSS) technique,which spreads a narrow band input signal over a wider channelbandwidth. The resulting signal has noise like properties,making it harder to detect or jam. The processing gain enablesresilience to interference and noise.

The transmitter makes the chirp signals vary their frequencyover time without changing their phase between adjacentsymbols. As long as this frequency change is slow enoughso to put higher energy per chirp symbol, distant receiverscan decode a severely attenuated signal several dBs belowthe noise floor. LORa supports multiple spreading factors(between 7-12) to decide the tradeoff between range and

data rate. Higher spreading factors delivers long range atan expense of lower data rates and vice versa. LORa alsocombines Forward Error Correction (FEC) with the spreadspectrum technique to further increase the receiver sensitivity.The data rate ranges from 300 bps to 37.5 kbps dependingon spreading factor and channel bandwidth. Further, multipletransmissions using different spreading factors can be receivedsimultaneously by a LORa base station. In essence, multiplespreading factors provide a third degree of diversity after timeand frequency.

The messages transmitted by the end devices are received bynot a single but all the base stations in the range, giving rise to“star-of-stars” topology. By exploiting reception diversity thisway, LORa improves ratio of successfully received messages.However, achieving this requires multiple base stations inthe neighborhood that may increase CAPEX and OPEX. Theresulting duplicate receptions are filtered out in the backendsystem. Further, LORa exploits these multiple receptions ofsame message at different base stations for localization of thetransmitting end device. For this purpose, a time difference ofarrival (TDOA) based localization technique supported by veryaccurate time synchronization between multiple base station isused.

A special interest group constituted by several commercialand industrial partners dubbed as LORa™ Alliance proposedLORAWAN, an open standard defining architecture and layersabove the LORa physical layer. We briefly describe LO-RAWAN under standards in Section IV.

C. INGENU RPMA

INGENU (formerly known as On-Ramp Wireless) proposeda proprietary LPWA technology, which unlike most othertechnologies does not rely on better propagation propertiesof SUB-GHZ band. Instead it operates in 2.4 GHz ISM bandand leverages more relaxed regulations on spectrum use acrossdifferent regions [15], [17]. To offer an example, the regula-

7

tions in USA and Europe do not impose a maximum limit onduty cycle for 2.4 GHz band, enabling higher throughput andmore capacity than other technologies operating in SUB-GHZband.

Most importantly, INGENU uses a patented physical ac-cess scheme named as Random Phase Multiple Access(RPMA) [23] Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, which itemploys for uplink communication only. As a variation ofCode Division Multiple Access (CDMA) itself, RPMA en-ables multiple transmitters to share a single time slot. However,RPMA first increases time slot duration of CDMA and thenscatters the channel access within this slot by adding a randomdelay for each transmitter. By not granting channel accessto the transmitters exactly at once (i.e., at the beginningof a slot), RPMA reduces overlapping between transmittedsignals and thus increases signal to interference ratio for eachindividual link [15]. On the receiving side, the base stationsemploy multiple demodulators to decode signals arriving atdifferent times within a slot. INGENU provides bidirectionalcommunication, although with a slight link asymmetry. Fordownlink communication, base stations spreads the signals forindividual end devices and then broadcast them using CDMA.

RPMA is reported to achieve up to -142 dBm receiversensitivity and 168 dB link budget [15]. Further, the enddevices can adjust their transmit power for reaching closestbase station and limiting interference to nearby devices.

INGENU leads efforts to standardize the physical layer spec-ifications under IEEE 802.15.4k standard. RPMA technologyis compliant to the IEEE 802.15.4k specifications.

D. TELENSA

TELENSA [24] provides end-to-end solutions for LPWA ap-plications incorporating fully designed vertical network stackswith a support for integration with third party software.

For a wireless connectivity between their end devices andthe base stations, TELENSA designed a proprietary UNB mod-ulation technique [16], which operates in license-free SUB-GHZ ISM band at low data rates. While less is known aboutthe implementation of their wireless technology, TELENSAaims to standardize its technology using ETSI Low Through-put Networks (LTN) specifications for an easy integrationwithin applications.

TELENSA currently focuses on a few smart city applicationssuch as intelligent lighting, smart parking, etc. To strengthentheir LPWA offerings in intelligent lighting business, TE-LENSA is involved with TALQ consortium [25] in definingstandards for monitoring and controlling outdoor lightingsystems.

E. QOWISIO

QOWISIO deploys dual-mode LPWA networks combiningtheir own proprietary UNB technology with LORa. It providesLPWA connectivity as a service to the end users: It offersend devices, deploys network infrastructure, develops customapplications, and hosts them at a backend cloud. Less ishowever known about the technical specifications of theirunderlying UNB technology and other system components.

LPWA

Standards

IEEE

802.15.4k

802.15.4g

802.11: Long Range Low Power (LRLP)

ETSI Low Throughput Networks (LTN)

3GPP

enhanced MTC (eMTC)

Extended Coverage GSM (EC-GSM)

NarrowBand IoT (NB-IoT)

IETF 6LPWA/LP-WAN

Weightless SIG Weightless-W/N/P

LoRa Alliance LoRaWAN

DASH7 Alliance DASH7

Fig. 4. LPWA standards and their developing organizations

IV. STANDARDS

A plethora of standardization efforts are undertaken bydifferent established standardization bodies including Instituteof Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), EuropeanTelecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI), and The ThirdGeneration Partnership Project (3GPP) along with industrialconsortia such as WEIGHTLESS-SIG, LORa™ Alliance, andDASH7 Alliance. Figure 4 organizes the proposed standardsaccording to their developing organizations, while Table IIsummarizes technical specifications of different standards.Most of these efforts also involve several proprietary LPWAconnectivity providers discussed in the previous section. Theobjectives of these SDOs and SIGs are quite diverse. In thelong run, it is hoped that adoption of these standards willlikely reduce the fragmentation of LPWA market and enableco-existence of multiple competing technologies.

A. IEEE

IEEE is extending range and reducing power consumptionof their 802.15.4 [26] and 802.11 [27] standards with the setof new specifications for the physical and the MAC layers.Two LPWA standards are proposed as amendments to IEEE802.15.4 base standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal AreaNetworks (LR-WPANs), which we will cover in this section.Along with this, the efforts on amending IEEE 802.11 standard

8

TABLE IITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF VARIOUS LPWA STANDARDS

Standard IEEE WEIGHTLESS-SIG DASH7 Alliance802.15.4k 802.15.4g WEIGHTLESS-W WEIGHTLESS-N WEIGHTLESS-P DASH7

Modulation DSSS, FSK MR-(FSK, OFDMA,OQPSK)

16-QAM, BPSK,QPSK, DBPSK UNB DBPSK GMSK, offset-QPSK GFSK

Band ISM SUB-GHZ &2.4GHz

ISM SUB-GHZ &2.4GHz

TV white spaces470-790MHz

ISM SUB-GHZ EU(868MHz), US

(915MHz)

SUB-GHZ ISM orlicensed

SUB-GHZ 433MHz,868MHz, 915MHz

Data rate 1.5 bps-128 kbps 4.8 kbps-800 kbps 1 kbps-10 Mbps 30 kbps-100 kbps 200 bps-100kbps 9.6,55.6,166.7 kbpsNum. of

channels /orthogonal

signals

multiple channels.Number depends on channel & modulation

16 or 24channels(UL)

multiple 200 Hzchannels

multiple 12.5 kHzchannels

3 different channeltypes (number

depends on type &region)

Forward errorcorrection

MACCSMA/CA,

CSMA/CA orALOHA with PCA

CSMA/CA TDMA/FDMA slotted ALOHA TDMA/FDMA CSMA/CA

Topology starstar, mesh,

peer-to-peer (dependson upper layers)

star star star tree, star

Payload length 2047B 2047B >10B 20B >10B 256BAuthentication& encryption AES 128b AES 128b AES 128b AES 128b AES 128/256b AES 128b

for wireless local area networks (WLANs) for longer range arealso briefly described.

1) IEEE 802.15.4k: Low Energy, Critical InfrastructureMonitoring Networks.: IEEE 802.15.4k Task Group (TG4k)proposes a standard for low-energy critical infrastructure mon-itoring (LECIM) applications to operate in the ISM bands(SUB-GHZ and 2.4GHz). This was a response to the fact thatthe earlier standard falls short on range and the node densitiesrequired for LPWA applications. IEEE 802.15.4k amendmentbridges this gap by adopting DSSS and FSK as two new PHYlayers. Multiple discrete channel bandwidths ranging from100kHz to 1MHz can be used. The MAC layer specificationsare also amended to address the new physical layers. Thestandard supports conventional CSMA/CA without prioritychannel access (PCA), CSMA, and ALOHA with PCA. WithPCA, the devices and base stations can prioritize their traffic inaccessing the medium, providing a notion of quality of service.Like most LPWA standards, end-devices are connected to thebase stations in a star topology and are capable of exchangingasynchronous and scheduled messages.

As mentioned earlier, INGENU, the provider of the RPMALPWA technology [15], is a proponent of this standard. ThePHY and MAC layers of INGENU’s LPWA technology arethus compliant with this standard.

2) IEEE 802.15.4g: Low-Data-Rate, Wireless, Smart Me-tering Utility Networks: IEEE 802.15 WPAN task group 4g(TG4g) proposes first set of PHY amendments to extendthe short range portfolio of IEEE 802.15.4 base standard.The release of standard in April 2012 [28] addresses theprocess-control applications such as smart metering networks,which are inherently comprised of massive number of fixedend devices deployed across cities or countries. The standarddefines three PHY layers namely FSK, Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA), and offset QuadraturePhase Shift Keying (OQPSK), which support multiple datarates ranging from 40 kbps to 1 Mbps across different regions.With an exception of a single licensed band in USA, the PHYpredominantly operates in ISM (SUB-GHZ and 2.4 GHz)bands and thus co-exists with other interfering technologies

in the same band. The PHY is designed to deliver frames ofsize up to 1500 bytes so to avoid fragmenting Internet Protocol(IP) packets.

The changes in the MAC layer to support the new PHYsare defined by IEEE 802.15.4e and not by IEEE 802.15.4gstandard itself.

3) IEEE 802.11: Wireless Local Area Networks: The effortsfor extending range of the IEEE 802.11 standard for WLANsare currently made by Task Group AH (TGah) and TopicInterest Group (TIG) in Long Range Low Power (LRLP).

TGah [29] proposed the IEEE 802.11ah specifications forPHY and MAC layers to operate long range Wi-Fi operationin SUB-GHZ ISM band. While IEEE 802.11ah competes withLPWA technologies in IoT landscape [30], it is not to beclassified as such [30] due to its relatively shorter range andlack of support for mobility.

A new Topic Interest Group (TIG) has been setup recentlyto explore feasibility of a new standard for Long RangeLow Power (LRLP) [31] operation in IEEE 802.11 compliantnetworks. The work on the LRLP is however at a very earlystage. The TIG has defined some use cases and functionalrequirements for this technology in [32] but yet to clearlyjustify need for this activity within the IEEE LAN/MANStandards Committee (LMSC). The tradeoffs between range,low power operation, and data rates are not yet known.Therefore, it is premature to compare it with existing LPWAtechnologies

B. ETSI

ETSI leads efforts to standardize a bidirectional low datarate LPWA standard. The resulting standard dubbed as LowThroughput Network (LTN) was released in 2014 in the formof three group specifications. These specifications define i) theuse cases [33] ii) the functional architecture [34], and iii) theprotocols and interfaces [35]. One of its primary objectivesis to reduce the electromagnetic radiation by exploiting shortpayload sizes and low data rates of M2M/IoT communication.

Apart from the recommendation on the air interfaces, LTNdefines various interfaces and protocols for the cooperation

9

between end-devices, base stations, network server, and oper-ational and business management systems.

Motivated by the fact that the emerging LPWA networksuse both ultra narrow band (e.g.,SIGFOX, TELENSA) andorthogonal sequence spread spectrum (OSSS) (e.g., LORa)modulation techniques, LTN standard does not restrict itselfto a single category. It provides flexibility to LPWA operatorsto design and deploy their own proprietary UNB or OSSSmodulation schemes in SUB-GHZ ISM band as long as theend-devices, base stations and the network servers implementthe interfaces described by the LTN specifications [33]–[35].These specifications recommend using BPSK in uplink andGFSK in downlink for a UNB implementation. Alternatively,any OSSS modulation scheme can be used to support bidi-rectional communication. Data encryption as well as userauthentication procedures are defined as a part of the LTNspecifications.

Several providers of LPWA technologies such as SIGFOX,TELENSA, and Semtech are actively involved with ETSI forstandardization of their technologies.

C. 3GPP

To address M2M and IoT market, 3GPP is evolving its exist-ing cellular standards to strip complexity and cost, improve therange and signal penetration, and prolong the battery lifetime.Its multiple licensed solutions such as Long Term Evolu-tion (LTE) enhancements for Machine Type Communications(eMTC), Extended Coverage GSM (EC-GSM), and Narrow-Band IoT (NB-IoT) offer different trade-offs between cost,coverage, data rate, and power consumption to address diverseneeds of IoT and M2M applications. However, a common goalof all these standards is to maximize the re-use of the existingcellular infrastructure and owned radio spectrum.

1) LTE enhancements for Machine Type Communications(eMTC): Conventional LTE end devices offer high data rateservices at a cost and power consumption not acceptablefor several MTC use cases. To reduce the cost while beingcompliant to LTE system requirements, 3GPP reduces thepeak data rate from LTE Category 1 to LTE Category 0and then to LTE Category M, the different stages in theLTE evolution process. Further cost reduction is achieved bysupporting optional half duplex operation in Category 0. Thischoice reduces the complexity of modem and antenna design.From Category 0 to Category M1 (also known as eMTC), amore pronounced drop in the receive bandwidth from 20 MHzto 1.4 MHz in combination with a reduced transmission powerwill result in more cost-efficient and low-power design.

To extend the battery lifetime for eMTC, 3GPP adoptstwo features namely Power Saving Mode (PSM) and extendedDiscontinuous Reception (eDRx). They enable end devices toenter in a deep sleep mode for hours or even days withoutlosing their network registration. The end devices avoid moni-toring downlink control channel for prolonged periods of timeto save energy. The same power saving features are exploitedin EC-GSM described next.

2) EC-GSM: While Global System for Mobile Communi-cations (GSM) is announced to be decommissioned in certain

regions, Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) may like toprolong their operation in few markets. With this assumption,3GPP is in process of proposing the extended coverage GSM(EC-GSM) standard that aims to extend the GSM coverageby +20dB using SUB-GHZ band for better signal penetrationin indoor environments. A link budget in the range of 154dB-164 dB is aimed depending on the transmission power.With only a software upgrade of GSM networks, the legacyGPRS spectrum can pack the new logical channels defined toaccommodate EC-GSM devices. EC-GSM exploits repetitivetransmissions and signal processing techniques to improvecoverage and capacity of legacy GPRS. Two modulationtechniques namely Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK)and Eight Phase Shift Keying (8PSK) provide variable datarates with the peak rate of 240 kbps with the latter technique.The standard, which is to be released by mid 2016, targetsto support 50k devices per base station and enhanced securityand privacy features compared to conventional GSM basedsolutions.

3) NB-IoT: NB-IoT is a narrow-band technology thatwas initially proposed in September 2015 and is currentlyundergoing an active standardization process. NB-IoT can besupported with only a software upgrade on top of existingLTE infrastructure. Compared to eMTC, NB-IoT cuts the costand energy consumption further by reducing the data rate andbandwidth requirements and simplifying the protocol designand mobility support. It requires a bandwidth of 180 KHzthat can either come from in-band deployment with LTE orthe unused guard bands. Further, a standalone deployment ina dedicated licensed spectrum is supported.

NB-IoT aims for a 164 dB coverage, serving up to 50kend devices per cell. NB-IoT uses single-carrier FrequencyDivision Multiple Access (FDMA) in uplink and OrthogonalFDMA (OFDMA) in downlink [36]. The data rate is limited to250kbps for the multi-tone downlink communication and to 20kbps for the single-tone uplink communication. The completePHY and MAC specifications of NB-IoT are expected to bereleased in June 2016 as a part of Release 13.

D. IETF

IETF aims to support LPWA ecosystem of dominantlyproprietary technologies by standardizing end-to-end IP-basedconnectivity for ultra-low power devices and applications.IETF has already designed the IPv6 stack for Low power Wire-less Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN). However, thesestandardization efforts focus on legacy IEEE 802.15.4 basedwireless networks, which support relatively higher data rates,longer payload sizes and shorter ranges than most LPWAtechnologies today. However, distinct features of LPWA tech-nologies pose real technical challenges for the IP connectivity.Firstly, LPWA technologies are heterogeneous: every tech-nology manipulates data in different formats using differentphysical and MAC layers. Secondly, most technologies use theISM bands, which are subject to strict regional regulations,limiting maximum data rate, time-on-air, and frequency ofdata transmissions. Third, many technologies are characterizedby a strong link asymmetry between uplink and downlink,

10

usually limiting downlink capabilities. Thus, the proposedIP stacks should be lightweight enough to confine withinthese very strict limitations of the underlying technologies.Unfortunately, these challenges are not yet addressed in earlierIETF standardization efforts.

A working group on Low-Power Wide Area Networks(LPWAN) [37] under IETF umbrella was formed in April2016. This group identified challenges and the design spacefor IPv6 connectivity for LPWA technologies in [38]. Futureefforts may likely culminate into multiple standards defininga full IPv6 stack for LPWA (6LPWA) that can connectLPWA devices with each other and their external ecosystemin a secure and a scalable manner. More specific technicalproblems to be addressed by this IETF group are described asfollows:

• Header compression. The maximum payload size forLPWA technologies is limited. The header compressiontechniques should be tailored to these small payload sizesas well as sparse and infrequent traffic of LPWA devices.

• Fragmentation and reassembly. Most LPWA technolo-gies do not natively support fragmentation and reassem-bly at Layer 2 (L2). Because IPv6 packets are oftentoo big to fit in a single L2 packet, the mechanisms forfragmentation and reassembly of IPv6 packets are to bedefined.

• Management. To manage end devices, applications, basestations, and servers, there is a need for ultra-lightweightsignaling protocols, which can operate efficiently over theconstrained L2 technology. To this effect, IETF may lookinto efficient application-level signaling protocols [39].

• Security, integrity, and privacy. The IP connectivityshould preserve security, integrity, and privacy of dataexchanged over LPWA radio access networks and be-yond. Most LPWA technologies use symmetric key cryp-tography, in which end devices and the networks sharethe same secret key. More robust and resilient techniquesmay be investigated.

E. LORa™ AllianceAs described in Section III, LORa is a proprietary physical

layer for LPWA connectivity. However, the upper layers andthe system architecture are defined by LORa™ Alliance underLORaWAN™ Specification [7] that were released to public inJuly 2015.

A simple ALOHA scheme is used at the MAC layer thatin combination with LORa physical layer enables multipledevices to communicate at the same time but using differentchannels and/or orthogonal codes (i.e., spreading factors). Enddevices can hop on to any base station without extra signalingoverhead. The base stations connect end devices via a backhaulto network server, the brain of the LORAWAN system thatsuppresses duplicate receptions, adapts radio access links,and forwards data to suitable application servers. Applicationservers then process the received data and perform user definedtasks.

LORAWAN anticipates that the devices will have differ-ent capabilities as per application requirements. Therefore,

LORAWAN defines three different classes of end-devices,all of which support bidirectional communication but withdifferent downlink latency and power requirements. ClassA device achieves the longest lifetime but with the highestlatency.It listens for a downlink communication only shortlyafter its uplink transmission. Class B device, in addition, canschedule downlink receptions from base station at certain timeintervals. Thus, only at these agreed-on epochs, applicationscan send control messages to the end devices (for possiblyperforming an actuation function). Lastly, Class C device istypically mains-powered, having capability to continuouslylisten and receive downlink transmissions with the shortestpossible latency at any time.

LORAWAN standard uses symmetric-key cryptography toauthenticate end devices with the network and preserve theprivacy of application data.

F. WEIGHTLESS-SIG

WEIGHTLESS Special Interest Group [13] proposed threeopen LPWA standards, each providing different features, rangeand power consumption. These standards can operate inlicense-free as well as in licensed spectrum.

WEIGHTLESS-W leverages excellent signal propagationproperties of TV white-spaces. It supports several modulationschemes including 16-Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (16-QAM) and Differential-BPSK (DBPSK) and a wide range ofspreading factors. Depending on the link budget, the packetshaving sizes in upwards of 10 bytes can be transmitted at arate between 1kbps and 10Mbps. The end devices transmitto base stations in a narrow band but at a lower power levelthan the base stations to save energy. WEIGHTLESS-W hasa one drawback. The shared access of the TV white spacesis permitted only in few regions, therefore WEIGHTLESS-SIGdefines the other two standards in ISM band, which is globallyavailable for shared access.

WEIGHTLESS-N is a UNB standard for only one-way com-munication from end devices to a base station, achievingsignificant energy efficiency and lower cost than the otherWEIGHTLESS standards. It uses DBPSK modulation schemein SUB-GHZ bands. One-way communication, however, limitsthe number of use cases for WEIGHTLESS-N.

WEIGHTLESS-P blends two-way connectivity with two non-proprietary physical layers. It modulates the signals usingGMSK and Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK), two wellknown schemes adopted in different commercial products.Therefore, the end devices do not require a proprietary chipset.Each single 12.5 KHz narrow channel in SUB-GHZ ISMband offers a data rate in the range between 0.2 kbps to 100kbps. A full support for acknowledgments and bidirectionalcommunication capabilities enable over-the-air upgrades offirmware.

Like LORAWAN, all WEIGHTLESS standards employ sym-metric key cryptography for authentication of end devices andintegrity of application data.

11

G. DASH7 Alliance

The DASH7 Alliance is an industry consortium that definesa full vertical network stack for LPWA connectivity knownas DASH7 Alliance Protocol (D7AP) [40]. With its origin inthe ISO/IEC 18000-7 standard [41] for the air interface foractive radio frequency identification (RFID) devices, D7APhas evolved into a stack that provides mid-range connectivityto low-power sensors and actuators [40].

DASH7 employs narrow band modulation scheme usingtwo-level GFSK in SUB-GHZ bands. Compared to most otherLPWA technologies, DASH7 has a few notable differences.First it uses a tree topology by default with an option to choosestar layout as well. In the former case, the end devices are firstconnected to duty-cycling sub-controllers, which then connectto the always ON base stations. This duty cycling mechanismbrings more complexity to the design of the upper layers.Second, DASH7 MAC protocol forces the end devices to checkthe channel periodically for possible downlink transmissions,adding significant idle listening cost. By doing so, DASH7gets much lower latency for downlink communication thanother LPWA technologies but at an expense of higher energyconsumption. Third, unlike other LPWA technologies, DASH7defines a complete network stack, enabling applications andend devices to communicate with each other without havingto deal with intricacies of the underlying physical or MAClayers.

DASH7 implements support for forward error correction andsymmetric key cryptography.

V. CHALLENGES AND OPEN RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

LPWA players are striving hard to innovate solutions thatcan deliver the so-called emphcarrier grade performance. Tothis effect, device manufacturers, network operators, and sys-tem integration experts have focused their efforts on cheaphardware design, reliable connectivity, and full end-to-endapplication integration. On the business side, the proprietarysolution providers are in a rush to bring their services to themarket and capture their share across multiple verticals. In thisrace, it is easy but counter-productive to overlook importantchallenges faced by LPWA technologies. In this section, wehighlight these challenges and some research directions toovercome them and improve performance in long-term.

A. Scaling networks to massive number of devices

LPWA technologies will connect tens of millions of devicestransmitting data at an unprecedented scale over limited andoften shared radio resources. This complex resource allocationproblem is further complicated by several other factors. First,the device density may vary significantly across differentgeographical areas, creating the so called hot-spot problem.These hot-spots will put the LPWA base stations to a stresstest. Second, cross-technology interference can severely de-grade the performance of LPWA technologies. This problemis definitely more severe for LPWA technologies operatingin the license-exempt and shared ISM bands. Even licensedcellular LPWA technologies operating in-band with broadbandservices (like voice and video) are equally at this risk. It is not

difficult to imagine a scenario when multiple UNB channelsof a LPWA technology are simultaneously interfered by asingle broadband signal. Further, most LPWA technologies usesimple ALOHA or CSMA based MAC protocols, which do notscale well with number of connected devices [42].

Several research directions can be pursued to address thecapacity issue of LPWA technologies. These include use ofchannel diversity, opportunistic spectrum access, and adaptivetransmission strategies. Use of channel hopping and multi-modem base stations can exploit channel and hardware di-versity and is considered already for a few existing LPWAtechnologies. Cross-layer solutions can adapt the transmissionstrategies to the peculiar traffic patterns of IoT devices andmitigate the effect of cross-technology interference. Further,improvements in existing MAC protocols are required forLPWA technologies to scale them well for a large numberof devices transmitting only short messages [42].

In the context of cellular LPWA networks, if excessiveIoT/M2M traffic starves the legacy cellular traffic, MNOs mayconsider deploying LPWA support in unlicensed spectrum.Such an opportunistic use of radio spectrum can benefit fromuse of cognitive software-defined radios (SDR). SDRs couldcome in handy when multiple technologies need to competefor shared spectrum.

To cater to areas with a higher device density, LPWA accessnetworks can borrow densification techniques from cellulardomain.

B. Interference Control and Mitigation

In future, the number of connected devices are projected toexponentially increase, causing higher levels of interferenceto each other. The devices operating in the shared ISM bandswill undergo unprecedented levels of both cross-technologyinterference as well as self-interference. Further, many LPWAtechnologies like LORa and SIGFOX resort to simple ALOHAscheme to grant channel access to the low-power end-devices.This choice of randomly talking and that also without listeningothers cannot only deteriorate performance, but also generateshigher interference. Further, densification of the base stationdeployments to accommodate more devices is a major sourceof interference across LPWA cells.

In an anarchy of tens of wireless technologies and massivenumber of devices, all sharing the same channels, interfer-ence resilient communication is a key research problem. Asinterference varies across frequency, time, and space, devicesshould adapt their transmission schedules to experience theleast interference and the best reliability. PHY and MAC layerdesigns exploiting this diversity at such a large scale needfurther investigation.

C. High data-rate modulation techniques

The LPWA technologies compromise on data rates to reachlong distances. Some technologies especially those using UNBmodulation in the shared ISM bands offer very low data ratesand short payload sizes, limiting their potential business usecases. To support bandwidth hungry use cases, it is meaningfulto implement multiple modulation schemes for devices. As

12

per application needs, devices can switch between differentmodulation schemes so to enable high energy efficiency, longrange and high data rate simultaneously.

To achieve this, there is a need for flexible and inexpensivehardware design that can support multiple physical layers,each of which can offer complementary trade-offs to matchthe range and data rate requirements of applications.

D. Interoperability between different LPWA technologies

Given that market is heading towards an intense competitionbetween different LPWA technologies, it is safe to assumethat several may coexist in future. Interoperability betweenthese heterogeneous technologies is thus crucial to their long-term profitability. With little to no support for interoperabilitybetween different technologies, a need for standards that gluethem together is strong. Some of the standardization effortsacross ETSI, IEEE, 3GPP, and IETF discussed in Section IVwill look into these interoperability issues.

However, for a complete interoperability, several directionsshould be explored. Firstly, IP can already connect short-rangewireless devices using mesh networking. The peculiarities ofLPWA technologies limit a direct implementation of the sameIP stack on LPWA devices. Alternative solutions based ongateways or backend based solutions are viable candidates.However, all such solutions should scale well with numberof devices without degrading performance. Secondly, use ofIoT middleware and virtualization techniques can play a majorrole in connecting LPWA devices. IoT middleware can supportmultiple radio access technologies and thus make integra-tion of LPWA technologies with rest of IoT technologiesstraightforward. These middleware can also consolidate datafrom multiple sources to offer knowledge based value-addedservices to end-users.

Interoperability is a still an open challenge. Testbeds andopen-source tool chains for LPWA technologies are not yetwidely available to evaluate interoperability mechanisms.

E. Localization

LPWA networks expect to generate significant revenue fromlogistics, supply chain management, and personal IoT applica-tions, where location of mobile objects, vehicles, humans, andanimals may be of utmost interest. An accurate localizationsupport is thus an important feature for keeping track ofvaluables, kids, elderly, pets, shipments, vehicle fleets, etc.In fact, it is regarded as an important feature to enable newapplications.

Localization of mobile devices is typically achieved byproperties of received signals [43] and time of flight basedmeasurement. All such techniques require very accurate timesynchronization and sufficient deployment density of basestations. This is rather easily achieved with a careful networkdeployment and planning. However, a very limited channelbandwidth of LPWA technologies and an often absence of adirect path between end devices and base stations introducevery large localization error [44]. Thus, doing accurate local-ization using LPWA transceivers alone is a real challenge.

LPWA networks require new techniques that not only ex-ploit physical layer properties [43] but also combine otherestablished localization techniques to ascertain that accuracyis good enough for real tracking applications.

F. Link optimizations and adaptability

If a LPWA technology permits, each individual link shouldbe optimized for high link quality and low energy consumptionto maximize overall network capacity. Every LPWA technol-ogy allows multiple link level configurations that introducetradeoffs between different performance metrics such as datarate, time-on-air, area coverage, etc. This motivates a needfor adaptive techniques that can monitor link quality and thenreadjust its parameters for better performance.

However for such techniques to work, a feedback fromgateway to end devices is usually required over downlink. Linkasymmetry that causes downlink of many LPWA technologies(e.g., SIGFOX) to have a lower capacity than uplink is a majorhurdle in this case and thus, needs to be addressed in someway.

G. LPWA testbeds

LPWA technologies enable several smart city applications.A few smart city testbeds e.g. SmartSantander [45] haveemerged in recent years. Such testbeds incorporate sensorsequipped with different wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi,IEEE 802.15.4 based networks and cellular networks. How-ever, there are so far no open testbeds for LPWA networks.Therefore, it is not cost-effective to widely design LPWAsystems and test their performance at a metropolitan scale.In our opinion, it is a significant barrier to entry for poten-tial customers. Providing LPWA technologies as a scientificinstrumentation for general public through city governmentscan act as a confidence building measure.

H. Authentication, Security, and Privacy

Authentication, security, and privacy are some of the mostimportant features of any communication system. Cellularnetworks provide proven authentication, security, and privacymechanisms. Use of Subscriber Identity Modules (SIM) sim-plifies identification and authentication of the cellular devices.LPWA technologies, due to their cost and energy considera-tions, not only settle for simpler communication protocols butalso depart from SIM based authentication. Techniques andprotocols are thus required to provide equivalent or better au-thentication support for LPWA technologies. Further to assurethat end devices are not exposed to any security risks overprolonged duration, a support for over-the-air (OTA) updates isa crucial feature. A lack of adequate support for OTA updatesposes a great security risk to most LPWA technologies.

Margelis et al. [46] highlight a few security vulnerabilitiesof the three prominent LPWA technologies namely SIGFOX,LORAWAN, and INGENU. To offer an example, end devicesin SIGFOX and LORAWAN networks do not encrypt appli-cation payload and the network join request respectively [46],potentially leading to eavesdropping. Further most LPWA

13

technologies use symmetric key cryptography in which theend devices and the networks share a same secret key. Robustand low-power mechanisms for authentication, security, andprivacy need further investigation.

I. Mobility and RoamingRoaming of devices between different network operators

is a vital feature responsible for the commercial success ofcellular networks. Whilst some LPWA technologies do nothave the notion of roaming (work on a global scale suchas SIGFOX), there are others that do not have support forroaming as of the time of this writing. The major challengeis to provide roaming without compromising the lifetime ofthe devices. To this effect, the roaming support should putminimal burden on the battery powered end-devices. Becausethe end-devices duty cycle aggressively, it is reasonable toassume that the low power devices cannot receive downlinktraffic at all times. Data exchanges over the uplink shouldbe exploited more aggressively. Network assignment is to beresolved in backend systems as opposed to the access network.All the issues related to agility of roaming process and efficientresource management have to be addressed.

Further billing and revenue sharing models for roamingacross different networks have to be agreed upon.

International roaming across regions controlled by differentspectrum regulations (e.g., USA, Europe or China) is evenmore challenging. In order to comply to varying spectrumregulations, end devices should be equipped with capabilitiesto detect the region first and then adhere to the appropriateregional requirements when transmitting data. This adds com-plexity to end devices and therefore the cost. Simple low costdesign to support international roaming is thus required.

J. Support for Service Level AgreementsThe ability to offer certain QoS guarantees can be a compet-

itive differentiator between different LPWA operators. Whileit is relatively easy to offer QoS guarantees in the licensedspectrum, most proprietary technologies opt for the license-exempt spectrum for a faster time to market. As a result, theyhave to adhere to regional regulations on the use of sharedspectrum, which may limit the radio duty cycle and transmittedRF power. Cross-technology interference also influences theperformance of LPWA technologies.

Providing carrier grade performance on a spectrum sharedacross multiple uncoordinated technologies and tens of thou-sands of devices per base station is a significant challenge.Service Level Agreements (SLAs) are likely to be violateddue to the factors outside the control of network operators.Therefore, the support for SLAs is expected to be limited inlicense-exempt bands. Studying such extremely noisy environ-ments to know if some relaxed statistical service guaranteescan be provided is a good potential research direction.

K. Co-existence of LPWA technologies with other wirelessnetworks

Each application has a unique set of requirements, whichmay vary over different time scales and contexts. If con-nectivity of the end-devices is supplemented with LPWA

technologies in addition to the cellular or wireless LANs,operation of applications can be optimized. Conflicting goalslike energy efficiency, high throughput, ultra-low latency andwide area coverage can be achieved by leveraging the benefitsof each technology. System-level research is needed to explorebenefits of such opportunistic and contextual network access.

There can be different use cases where multiple technologiescan cooperate with each other. The ETSI LTN specifica-tion [33] lists a few of these use cases for cellular/LPWAcooperation. To offer an example, when cellular connectivityis not available, LPWA technologies can still be used as afall-back option for sending only low data rate critical traffic.Further, the periodic keep-alive messages of cellular networkscan be delegated to energy-efficient LPWA networks [33].There can be other novel ways for cooperation between LPWAand cellular networks. For instance, LPWA technologies canassist route formation for the device-to-device communicationin cellular networks. When some devices outside the cellularcoverage need to build a multi-hop route to reach cellularinfrastructure, LPWA connectivity can assist in detecting prox-imity to other serviced devices. These use-cases may have astrong appeal for public safety applications. Further, as weknow, LPWA technologies are designed specifically for ultralow data rates. A need of occasionally sending large trafficvolumes can be met with a complementary cellular connection,which can be activated only on demand.

A joint ownership of LPWA and cellular networks combinedwith a drop in prices of LPWA devices and connectivity makea strong business case for the above-mentioned use cases.However, there is a need to overcome many systems relatedchallenges.

L. Support for Data Analytics

Compared to a human subscriber, the average revenuegenerated by a single connected M2M/IoT device is rathersmall. Therefore, network operators see a clear incentive inextending their business beyond the pure connectivity for sakeof a higher profitability. One way to do so is by augmentingLPWA networks with sophisticated data analytics support thatcan convert the raw collected data into contextually relevantinformation for the end-users. Such knowledge can supportend users in making intelligent decisions, earning higherprofits, or bringing their operational costs down. Networkoperators thus can monetize this by selling knowledge to endusers.

There are however enormous challenges associated withproviding a LPWA network as a service to the end-users.It requires a unified management of business platform and ascalable integration with the cloud. One of the main challengesis also to offer custom-tailored services to many differentvertical industries, effectively covering different use casesideally by a single LPWA technology.

VI. BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS

With the dawn of the M2M communications paradigm, 2Gseemed to be a reasonable fit for catering to the requirementsof these applications. Given the spectrum scarcity worldwide

14

TABLE IIIBUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR VARIOUS LPWA TECHNOLOGIES (?=NOT KNOWN)

SIGFOX [6] LORAWAN [12] WEIGHTLESS-N [13] INGENU [47] 3GPP Cellular IoT

Deployment model Nationwide (multiplecountries)

Private or nationwidenetworks Private networks Private or nationwide

networks Nationwide networks

Ease of roaming

Seamless roaming acrossSIGFOX networks in

different countries at noextra charges

Roaming agreementsrequired Not applicable ? Operator alliances for

cross-border roaming

SLA support

Device availability Focus is on gateway(Still in standardization

phase, devices will emergelater)

Over-the-airupdates for

devicespossible possible likely be made available

Supplierecosystem

Transceivers and modulesfrom many vendors

Limited choice of vendorsfor transceivers, several

module vendorsLimited choice of vendors Transceivers and modules

from many vendors

Availability likely from allthe usual vendors once

standard is ratified

Licensing

Technology freelyavailable for chip/device

vendors. Networkoperators pay royalty to

SIGFOX (revenue sharingbasis)

Technology licensed bydevice vendors. No

royalty to be paid bynetwork operators

Technology freelyavailable for chip/device

vendors. No royaltythereafter.

Upfront fee + perapplication & per devicefee / year (No revenue

sharing)

Standardized technology.Usual cellular model

likely to prevail

Deployment status

Network deployed &running in severalcountries. Several

operators have invested inSIGFOX

Early trials &deployments by some

operators. Severaloperators are members of

LORa™ Alliance

Some trials but no majordeployments

Several privatedeployments in over 5

continents

Early days with somein-house trials with

pre-standardizedtechnology by handful of

operators

Longevity offeredby the solution

Deployments in severalcountries. Not much

insight into transition planshould SNOs find itinfeasible to run the

network. Transitioningwill entail replacement ofendpoint/communicationsmodule in the endpoints.

Some deployments bycellular operators in a fewcountries. No insight into

transition plan shouldLoRa network bedecommissioned.

Transitioning will entailreplacement of

endpoint/communicationsmodule in the endpoints.

No deployments so far solongevity is questionable

Deployments in severalcountries. Not much

insight into transition planshould MNOs find itinfeasible to run the

network. Transitioningwill entail replacement ofendpoint/communicationsmodule in the endpoints.

Promising as this being asolution designed

exclusively for IoT, is lesslikely to be

de-commissioned.

and the high capital expenditure incurred in acquiring newspectrum, operators appear to be in a dilemma whether tocontinue using 2G systems for serving M2M customers orre-farm the spectrum making way for new technologies suchas LTE and its variants. Announcements from a handful ofoperators to transition to the latter created a hole in the market.Since then, several new LPWA technologies such as thosementioned in Table III have been aggressively trying to fill thisgap with the hope of staking their claim to the pole position.Only those technologies have been included in the tablefor which substantial information is available in the publicdomain, those that have a wide variety of products alreadyavailable in the market and those that have had large scaledeployments. The much anticipated NB-IoT standard from thecellular world has been included to provide a perspective as tohow the different forerunners in the market stack up against apotential cellular offering in the making.

It is worth emphasizing that there is no one size fits allsolution with each of these approaches having their prosand cons as highlighted in the table. The market is stillup for grabs and players have several strategic options toconsider depending on their circumstances, e.g., those needingto deploy an IoT solution immediately will have to hedgetheir bets on LORa, SIGFOX, INGENU, WEIGHTLESS-N etc.whereas others can afford to wait until the 3GPP finalizesstandards such as NB-IoT which is still work-in-progress. Inthe meanwhile, the cellular operators themselves seem to havehedged their bets on LORa and SIGFOX with several operatorsmaking big investments in one or the other. In any case, it

looks like a win-win situation for the operators irrespectiveof how the situation plays out since these technologies couldplay a complementary role to the potential NB-IoT standardthat is currently being baked. Also, the fact that operators haveinvested in these technologies reduces the uncertainty from alongevity perspective1 for the adopters of these solutions.

It is envisaged that LORa, SIGFOX, and INGENU willcontinue to challenge the hegemony of the cellular playersand all four are likely to share the pie in the long run. It isexpected that there would be a varying degree of adoptionacross multiple market segments and pricing models [48] arelikely to have a significant impact on the success of differenttechnologies.

VII. CONCLUSION

Wide area coverage, low power consumption, and inex-pensive wireless connectivity blends together in LPWA tech-nologies to enable a strong business case for low throughputIoT/M2M applications that do not require ultra-low latency.However, this combination of often conflicting goals is a resultof carefully designed physical and MAC layer techniques,precisely surveyed in this paper. To tap into the huge IoT/M2Mmarket, several commercial providers exploit different in-novative techniques in their LPWA connectivity solutions.The variety of these solutions have resulted in a fragmentedmarket, highlighting a dire need for standards. We provided acomprehensive overview of many such standardization efforts

1Recall the nightmares that the announcements regarding sunset of the 2Gsystems might have given to the M2M customers

15

led by several SDOs and SIGs. We observe that most standardsfocus on physical and MAC layers. A gap at the upper layers(application, transport, network etc.) is to be bridged. Further,we point out important challenges that LPWA technologiesface today and possible directions to overcome them. Weencourage further developments in LPWA technologies to pushthe envelop of connecting massive number of devices in future.

REFERENCES

[1] “Cellular networks for massive iot: Enabling low power wide areaapplications,” Ericsson, Tech. Rep., January 2016. [Online]. Available:https://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepapers/wp iot.pdf

[2] E. Berthelsen and J. Morrish, “Forecasting the internet of thingsrevenue opportunity,” Machina Research, Tech. Rep., April 2015.[Online]. Available: https://machinaresearch.com/report pdf/313

[3] X. Xiong, K. Zheng, R. Xu, W. Xiang, and P. Chatzimisios, “Low powerwide area machine-to-machine networks: key techniques and prototype,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 64–71, September2015.

[4] S. Wilson. The future of 3g: the case for decommissioning. [Online].Available: http://www.analysysmason.com/3G-decommission-Oct2015

[5] J. Petajajarvi, K. Mikhaylov, A. Roivainen, T. Hanninen, and M. Pet-tissalo, “On the coverage of lpwans: range evaluation and channelattenuation model for lora technology,” in ITS Telecommunications(ITST), 2015 14th International Conference on, Dec 2015, pp. 55–59.

[6] Sigfox. [Online]. Available: http://www.sigfox.com/[7] N. Sornin, M. Luis, T. Eirich, and T. Kramp, “Lorawan

specification,” LoRa Alliance, Tech. Rep., 2015. [Online].Available: https://www.lora-alliance.org/portals/0/specs/LoRaWAN%20Specification%201R0.pdf

[8] European telecommunications standards institute. [Online]. Available:http://www.etsi.org/

[9] The 3rd generation partnership project. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/

[10] Institute of electrical and electronics engineers. [Online]. Available:https://www.ieee.org/

[11] Internet engineering task force (ietf). [Online]. Available: https://www.ietf.org/

[12] Lora alliance. [Online]. Available: https://www.lora-alliance.org/[13] Weightless. [Online]. Available: http://www.weightless.org/[14] Dash7 alliance. [Online]. Available: http://www.dash7-alliance.org/[15] “Rpma technology for the internet of things,” Ingenu, Tech.

Rep., 2016. [Online]. Available: http://theinternetofthings.report/Resources/Whitepapers/4cbc5e5e-6ef8-4455-b8cd-f6e3888624cbRPMA%20Technology.pdf

[16] P. Massam, P. Bowden, and T. Howe, “Narrow band transceiver,”Jan. 9 2013, eP Patent 2,092,682. [Online]. Available: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2092682B1?cl=pt-PT

[17] P. M. John Burns, Selcuk Kirtay, “Future use of licenceexempt radio spectrum,” Plum Consulting, Tech. Rep., 2015.[Online]. Available: http://www.plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/Plum July2015 Future use of Licence Exempt Radio Spectrum.pdf

[18] Z. Xie, R. Xu, and L. Lei, “A study of clear channel assessment perfor-mance for low power wide area networks,” in Wireless Communications,Networking and Mobile Computing (WiCOM 2014), 10th InternationalConference on, Sept 2014, pp. 311–315.

[19] Comparison of low-power wan alternatives. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cnx-software.com/2015/09/21/comparison-table-of-low-power-wan-standards-for-industrial-applications/

[20] “Waspmote sigfox networking guide,” Libelium ComunicacionesDistribuidas S.L., Tech. Rep., November 2015, documentVersion: v4.1. [Online]. Available: http://www.libelium.com/downloads/documentation/sigfox networking guide.pdf

[21] F. Sforza, “Communications system,” March 2013, uS Patent 8,406,275.[Online]. Available: https://www.google.com/patents/US8406275

[22] Semtech. [Online]. Available: http://www.semtech.com/[23] T. Myers, D. Werner, K. Sinsuan, J. Wilson, S. Reuland, P. Singler, and

M. Huovila, “Light monitoring system using a random phase multipleaccess system,” Jul. 2 2013, uS Patent 8,477,830. [Online]. Available:https://www.google.com/patents/US8477830

[24] Telensa. [Online]. Available: http://www.telensa.com/[25] Talq consortium. [Online]. Available: http://www.talq-consortium.org[26] “Ieee standard for local and metropolitan area networks–part 15.4: Low-

rate wireless personal area networks (lr-wpans),” IEEE Std 802.15.4-2011 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006), pp. 1–314, Sept 2011.

[27] “Ieee standard for information technology–telecommunications andinformation exchange between systems local and metropolitan areanetworks–specific requirements part 11: Wireless lan medium accesscontrol (mac) and physical layer (phy) specifications,” IEEE Std 802.11-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.11-2007), pp. 1–2793, March 2012.

[28] K.-H. Chang and B. Mason, “The ieee 802.15.4g standard for smartmetering utility networks,” in Smart Grid Communications (SmartGrid-Comm), 2012 IEEE Third International Conference on, Nov 2012, pp.476–480.

[29] Ieee p802.11- task group ah. [Online]. Available: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgah update.htm

[30] M. R. Palattella, M. Dohler, A. Grieco, G. Rizzo, J. Torsner, T. Engel,and L. Ladid, “Internet of things in the 5g era: Enablers, architecture, andbusiness models,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 510–527, March 2016.

[31] Ieee p802.11 - lrlp topic interest group. [Online]. Available:http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/lrlp update.htm

[32] T. G. et al., “Long range low power (lrlp) operation in 802.11: Usecases and functional requirements: Guidelines for par development,”IEEE P802.11 Wireless LANs, February 2016.

[33] “Low throughput networks (ltn); use cases for low throughputnetworks,” ETSI GS LTN 001 V1.1.1, September 2014. [Online].Available: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi gs/LTN/001 099/001/01.01.01 60/gs LTN001v010101p.pdf

[34] “Low throughput networks (ltn); functional architecture,” ETSIGS LTN 002 V1.1.1, September 2014. [Online]. Avail-able: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi gs/LTN/001 099/002/01.01.01 60/gs LTN002v010101p.pdf

[35] “Low throughput networks (ltn);protocols and interfaces,”ETSI GS LTN 003 V1.1.1, September 2014. [Online].Available: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi gs/LTN/001 099/003/01.01.01 60/gs LTN003v010101p.pdf

[36] D. Flore, “3gpp standards for the internet-of-things,” February 2016,gSMA MIoT. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1766-iot progress

[37] Low-power wide area networks (lpwan). [Online]. Available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/charter/

[38] C. Gomez, J. Paradells, and J. Crowcroft, “Analysis of IPv6over LPWAN: design space and challenges ,” Internet EngineeringTask Force, Internet-Draft draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00, Mar.2016, work in Progress. [Online]. Available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gomez-lpwan-ipv6-analysis-00

[39] A. Pelov, L. Toutain, and Y. Delibie, “Constrained Signaling OverLP-WAN,” Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet-Draft draft-pelov-core-cosol-01, Feb. 2016, work in Progress. [Online]. Available:https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pelov-core-cosol-01

[40] M. Weyn, G. Ergeerts, R. Berkvens, B. Wojciechowski, and Y. Tabakov,“Dash7 alliance protocol 1.0: Low-power, mid-range sensor and actuatorcommunication,” in Standards for Communications and Networking(CSCN), 2015 IEEE Conference on, Oct 2015, pp. 54–59.

[41] “Information technology – radio frequency identification for item man-agement – part 7: Parameters for active air interface communications at433 mhz,” ISO/IEC 18000-7:2009, August 2009.

[42] A. Laya, C. Kalalas, F. Vazquez-Gallego, L. Alonso, and J. Alonso-Zarate, “Goodbye, aloha!” IEEE Access, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2016.

[43] A. Zanella, “Best practice in rss measurements and ranging,” IEEECommunications Surveys Tutorials, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2016.

[44] K. J. Krizman, T. E. Biedka, and S. Rappaport, “Wireless positionlocation: fundamentals, implementation strategies, and sources of error,”in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 47. INSTITUTE OFELECTRICAL ENGINEERS INC (IEEE), 1997, pp. 919–923.

[45] L. Sanchez, L. Muoz, J. A. Galache, P. Sotres, J. R. Santana,V. Gutierrez, R. Ramdhany, A. Gluhak, S. Krco, E. Theodoridis,and D. Pfisterer, “Smartsantander: Iot experimentation over a smartcity testbed,” Computer Networks, vol. 61, pp. 217 – 238, 2014,special issue on Future Internet Testbeds Part I. [Online]. Available:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128613004337

[46] G. Margelis, R. Piechocki, D. Kaleshi, and P. Thomas, “Low throughputnetworks for the iot: Lessons learned from industrial implementations,”in Internet of Things (WF-IoT), 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on, Dec2015, pp. 181–186.

[47] I. Morris, “Ingenu revs up iot rhetoric,” May 2016. [Online]. Available:http://goo.gl/S2ySYg

[48] A. Davies, “On lpwans: Why sigfox and lora are rather different,and the importance of the business model,” March 2015. [Online].Available: http://goo.gl/Hkvm0Z