Current and future trends in wireless

connectivity for the iot

Intel Labs – Ireland

Wael Guibene, Ph.D

Intel’s Strategy
If it computes, it does it best with Intel
Data Center Client Ultra-Mobile Wearables/IoT
 Intel® Processors

QUARK
QUARK
Research Strategy & Partners

LEIXLIP Munich
Network & V2I/V2X Platforms
Platforms
Research
Intel
Intel Labs Europe
Business
Units

London
ICRI
Urban IoT Networks

ACADEMIC PARTNERS INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS Open Research PROGRAMS

4
Disclaimer - Slides Sources
Chang Seung-Taek - Connectivity Technologies and Interference Signal
Analysis for IoT Service
Thierry Lestable - Location-Enabled LoRa™ IoT Network: “Geo-LoRa-
ting” your assets
Wael Guibene - An evaluation of low power wide area network
technologies for the Internet of Things
Wael Guibene - Techniques for resilient real-world IoT
Wael Guibene - Evaluation of LPWAN Technologies for Smart Cities:
River Monitoring Use-case

5
What is the Internet of Things (IoT)?

6
 Strategic IoT Usecases/Services

Smart Industry Connected

Wearables Smart City Smart Energy
Home Automation Car

-Security&alarm -Healthmonitor -Traffic -Smartmachine -Generation & •V2V/ V2X/V2I

-Lightcontrol -Fitness trackers management -Surveillance trading communications
-HVACcontrol -Smartwatch -Waterdistribution camera -Transmission • eCall
-Remotecontrol -Smartglasses -Waste -Factory -Distribution & • Infotainment
-Doorcontrol -Smartbands management automation metering •Trafficcontrol
-Energyefficiency -E-textiles -Security -Assettracking -Storage • Navigation
-Entertainment -Hearing-aid -Lighting -Logisticsand -Services • Autonomous
-Appliances -Environmental optimizationof vehicles
monitoring supplychain •Maintenance
-Parkingsensor

7
Connecting Things to the Cloud
 IoT Radios
NFC 3GPP LTE-MTC, eMTC/Cat M, LTE-V 3GPP NB-IoT
EMV 3GPP GSM, WCDMA, EC-GPRS
3GPP2 Cdma2000, WiMAX

Cellular (licensed)
<10cm WPAN <5km <100km
Terms not precise
Proximity WHAN WNAN WWAN LPWAN (licensed)

WFAN WLAN LPWAN (un-licensed)

Bluetooth/LE ISA100.11a (6LoWPAN) Wi-SUN (6LoWPAN)

ANT+ WirelessHART ZigBee NAN (6LoWPAN)
MiWi Many others Wireless M-bus
802.11a/b/g/n/ac (WiFi) Many others
ZigBee SIGFOX
Z-Wave 802.11ah (WiFi HaLow 1km) LoRa
Thread (6LoWPAN) 802.11p (V2X) Telensa
EnOcean 802.11af (white space) OnRamp/INGENU
Many others Weightless P
WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network WHAN: Many others
Wireless Home Area Blue: > billion units/year now
WFAN: Wireless Field (or Factory)Area WLAN: Red: emerging
Wireless Local Area
WNAN: Wireless Neighbourhood Area
WWAN: Wireless WideArea
LPWAN: Low Power Wide Area Network
 Popular Frequency Use
54-698
Usually called 13.56 169 220 315 426 433 470 779 868 915 920 24005800 5900 MHz
Aliases
NFC/EMV ISO14443

Wireless M-Bus EN13757

China WMRNET WMRNET I, II, III, IV

LoRa
SIGFOX
Telensa
OnRamp 802.15.4k

Wi-SUN 802.15.4g/e/6loWPAN

ZigBee 802.15.4-2003, c, d

Thread 802.15.4-2003/6loWPAN

WirelessHART 802.15.4e

ISA100.11a 802.15.4e/6loWPAN

Z-Wave ITU G.9959

EnOcean ISO14543-3-10

ANT+
Bluetooth 802.15.1

802.11a/b/g/n/ac WiFi

802.11ah
802.11p V2X

802.11af WhiteSpace
802.15.4p
Positive Train Ctrl
 Frequently Cited IoT Bands
Non-cellular license exempt and lightly licensed (MHz)

220 169
915 868 433
779
315 426
Worldwide
5900 433 470 Japan
13.56 920
24005800

433 433
433
915

Cellular licenced (MHz)

Regional GSM, WCDMA, C2K, LTE and WiMAX bands ~450 to 3900
White space (MHz)
Regional bands ~54 to 698
Agenda
– IoT/M2M Introduction and Market Situation

– IoT/M2M Key Enabling Wireless Technologies

• IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Working Group
• Wide area networks (LPWAN) and NB-IoT
– Summary
IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Working Group

Major IEEE 802

IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee LAN/PAN standards
used for IoT

802.11 Wireless
802.1 Higher Layer Local Area 802.15 Wireless
Personal Area 802.16 Broadband
LAN Protocols Network (WLA N) wireless access
Working Group Working Group Network (WPAN)
Working Group
…..

TG1 TG3 WPAN High TG4 WPAN Low

WPAN/Blueto oth TG2 Coexistence
Task Group Rate Task Group Rate Task Group
Task Group

IEEE 802.15.1 IEEE 802.15.4

(BT standard is no longer maintained by
IEEE, it is controlled by Bluetooth SIG )
 Bluetooth® Standard Evolution

1999 2003 2004 2007 2009 2010 2013 2014

V4.1 V4.2
V2.0 + EDR V3.0 + HS
V1.0 •For IoT (Support
•Introduction of EDR •Alternate MAC/PHY •Coexist with 4G
•Smart connectivity IPv6/6LoWPAN)
•Many problems •EDR Up to 2.1 Mbps •Unicast connectionless data •High privacy
•Enhanced power control •Data transfer
•Difficult making •Data throughput
improvement
products V1.2 •HS up to 24 Mbps increase (10x packet
interoperable V4.0 capacity increase)
•Faster connection/ discovery
•Use AFH V2.1 + EDR •Adoption of
•Up to 721 kbps Bluetooth LE
•SSP, EIR •LE up to 260 kbps
•power consumption •Including classic, LE and HS
optimization

For dual-mode:
LE + Legacy BT
Two New Trademarks
for Certified BT Devices
For single-mode:
LE only
IoT Key Enabling Technologies
Bluetooth Smart – Powering IoT
Bluetooth Core 4.0/4.1/4.2 enables a world of sensors
– Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) enables low cost sensors to send their data over
the internet
• Version 4.2 enables IPv6 to a BT device
– Very low duty cycle = low power consumption
– Ability to run for years (up to 5 years) on standard coin-cell batteries
– Target applications:
• Health monitors such as heart rate monitor
• Fitness devices, smart watches
• Environmental sensing
• Proximity applications and many others
Wireless Standards
Application

Bluetooth/Bluetooth Low Energy

WirelessHART
La yer

ZigBee

ISA100.11a
Network

Thread

WLAN
Transport

IEEE 802.15.4
MAC

IEEE 802.15.4

IEEE 802.15.4

IEEE 802.15.4
IEEE 802.15.4

IEEE 802.11

IEEE 802.11
PHY

IEEE 802 defines standards, does not define a certification process or

test plans, that is done by the individual standards/working groups
 802.15.4…. Something for Everyone
2400 ?? IPv6
2400 915 2400 920
920
868

2400 2400 Non-IP

2400 915
868 Proprietary upper stack

780

Positive
IP?? Train
Control
2400
220

802.15.4…… 2003 2006 a c d e f g j k m n p q

MHz = A popular non-interoperableformat

802.15.4 includes >60 non-interoperable PHY combinations
IEEE 802.15.4
Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Network (LoWPAN)
– Important standard for home networking,
industrial control and building automation
– Deals with low data rate, long battery life
(months or even years) and very low
complexity Upper Layer Stack
• Data rates of 250 kbps, 40 kbps, and 20 kbps
– Specifies PHY and MAC layers for IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
LoWPAN networks
• Ex. ZigBee, THREAD, WirelessHART,
IEEE 802.15.4 IEEE 802.15.4
8 68/915 MHz 2.4 GHz PHY
ISA100.11a PHY
– Upper layers for WPAN are not developed
by IEEE 802.15 working group
• Standards or working groups, such as ZigBee
Alliance, implement upper layers to enable
multi-vendor interoperable solutions
IoT Key Enabling Technologies
ZigBee
Low power, low data rate, mesh network
– Conceived in 1998, first standardized in
2003 and revised multiple times, latest Upper Layer Stack
in 2012 (ZigBee PRO)
– Based on IEEE 802.15.4 physical and IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
MAC layers operating in sub-GHz and
2.4GHz frequency bands IEEE 802.15.4 868 IEEE 802.15.4
/915 MHz PHY 2.4 GHz PHY
– Transmission distances range from 10
to 100 meters - depending on power
output and environmental
characteristics

Target Applications:
 IoT Key Enabling Technologies
THREAD
– Thread Group launched in July 2014

– Main competitor to ZigBee for home automation

• Appliances, access control, climate control, lighting,
energy management etc..

– Collection of existing IEEE and IETF standards:

• IEEE 802.15.4-2006 PHY/MAC operating in 2.4 GHz
• 6LoWPAN (IPv6) based protocol

– Requires only software update to run on existing

IEEE 802.15.4 based silicon such as 2.4 GHz
version of ZigBee

Thread Protocol Stack

Ref:www.threadgroup.org
IoT for Home Automation
Technology Tradeoffs for Home Automation Application

Pros: Pros: Pros: Pros:

• Low energy • Well established • Low energy • Low energy
• Available on standards • Well established • Mesh network
mobile devices • Available on standards • Good range
(Already supported on mobile devices • Mesh network
IOS and Android) • IPv6 based
• Good range • Good range
• IPv6 based • IPv6 based

Cons: Cons: Cons: Cons:

• Star network • Star network • Not IP based for • Not well
• Short range • Not low energy – home automation established
• New technology – new standard (ZigBee IP for Smart compared to
Energy 2.0 is IP based) ZigBee
not well established coming in 2016
(802.11ah) • Not available on • Not available on
compared to ZigBee
mobile phones/ mobile phones/
tablets tablets
IoT Key Enabling Technologies
Wi-SUN
– IPv6 based Wireless Smart Utility Network (Wi-SUN) based on IEEE 802.15.4g
• IEEE 802.15.4g, also known as the Smart Utility Networks (SUN), was approved by IEEE in March, 2012
– Initially Japan focused, now expanding globally (US, South East Asia, India, Europe)
– Target smart utility use cases:
• Gas metering; demand/response; distribution automation
– PHY layer based on IEEE 802.15.4g but the specification will be categorized based
on use cases
– Frequency: 868 MHz (EU), 915 MHz (USA), 2.4 GHz ISM bands (worldwide)
– MAC may be based on or not based on 802.15.4. Application dependent.

3 PHY formats supported:

• MR-FSK: 2FSK and 4FSK
• MR-OFDM: available but not
popular
• MR-O-QPSK: DSSS and
multiplexed DSSS
 IEEE 802.11 Standards Evolution
WLAN
IEEE 802.11

802.11-
802.11a 802.11n 802.11p 802.11ah 802.11af
802.11b
1997 11 Mbps, 54 Mbps, 600 Mbps 27 Mbps, 10 Up to 4 MHz TVWS
2 Mbps, OFDM, 5 with 4x4 MHz BW, 5.9 (16 MHz optional)
CCK, DSSS
DSSS, GHz MIMO, 20/40 GHz BW TV White
FHSS MHz BW, 2.4 Wireless Access Below 1 GHz Spaces
or 5 GHz for Vehicular Low power, low
802.11g Environment rate, long range
54 Mbps, (WAVE/DSRC) applications
OFDM, 2.4
GHz 802.11ac Very High Throughput, <6 GHz

Wireless 802.11ad Very High Throughput, 60 GHz

Gigabit
(WiGig)

DSRC = Dedicated Short-Range Communications

IoT Enabling Technologies
IEEE 802.11ah – Middle 2016
– Optimized for IoT applications
– PHY/MAC – trade-off of power, range, rate
• PHY based on 802.11ac with data rates > 100 kbps
• Optimizations for highly robust links and low power consumption required for batteryoperated
devices
• Sub-1 GHz unlicensed bands
• Range up to 1 km – beyond 2.4 and 5 GHz range due to improved propagation characteristics
of sub-GHz radio waves

– Target use cases 11a/g/n/ac AP

• Large scale low power sensor networks and smart meter

• Video surveillance, wearable consumer electronics 11ah
AP

• Backhaul for aggregated sensor and meterdata Indoor

• Outdoor Wi-Fi for cellular traffic offloading

IoT Enabling Technologies
IEEE 802.11ah Bandwidth and Data Rates
11ah Bandwidth Modes Extended range
Mandatory &
Globally
1 150kbps – 4Mbps
MHz
Interoperable
modes optimized
for sensor 2 MHz 650kbps – 7.8Mbps
networking

4 MHz 1.35Mbps – 18Mbps

Optional higher 8 MHz 2.9Mbps – 39Mbps

data rate modes for
extended range
WLAN
16 MHz 5.8Mbps – 78Mbps

High data rates

Minimum 11n/ac bandwidth

20 MHz 6.5Mbps – 78Mbps

IoT Key Enabling Technologies
IEEE 802.11p
– Adds a vehicular communication system to IEEE 802.11 WLAN standard ->
Wireless Access in Vehicular Environment (WAVE)
– Supports low latency, Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
(V2X) communication
• Vehicle broadcasts its position and velocity and receives broadcasts of
neighboring road users
• Uses channels of 10MHz bandwidth in the 5.9GHz band (5.850-5.925 GHz)
• Developed based on 802.11a but targets for reliable connection
– Main uses:
• Vehicle safety services
• Commerce transactions via cars
• Toll collection
• Traffic management
– USA, Europe, China, Japan, Korean and Singapore are working towards hard
/soft mandate or MOU for dedicated short range communication (DSRC)
installation.
Smart City Environmental Sensing - Dublin
 IoT Traffic Characterisation
System Status
e.g. 10-600bytes

Observation/Actuation
Message e.g. 10-
Periodic 600bytes

Event-Based

Mixed-Mode
Challenges

1: Power
2A: Inconsistent reporting intervals
2B: Lossy networks
3: Interference & congestion
Challenge 1: Solar Power (in Ireland)

25%

15%

5%

48 hour period
Approach

Adaptive messaging rates based on battery performance

Transceiver On Receiving Transmitting

Xbee 868 60.82mA 73mA 160mA
Example Outcome – 2 sensors Sensor #1 with >
90% battery charge is
operating on a
3 min reporting
interval
100%

Sensor #2 switches
between 13min and
55%
8min reporting
intervals

5%

operating lifetime extended

Challenge 2A: Inconsistent Reporting Intervals
Challenge 2B: Managing Data in Lossy Networks

Require network
edge cache storage
for potentially
hours
Approach

Caching at the network edge – extending disruption tolerance to several hours

Example outcome

In this example, 100% of

data lost during
a 3 hour disruption were
recovered & backfilled
Challenge 3:
congestion
(ISM bands)

Spectrum Usage
(2.4GHz)

Scenario – mesh
coverage in Hyde
Park, UK
Spectrum Usage
(868MHz)

Significantly reduced
congestion & suitable for
NLOS

Subject to duty cycle

limitations however
ISM 868MHz Bandplan

Duty cycle: < 1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 1% < 10% < 10% Up to 100%
Effective Radiated Power
(mW)

250kHz
500mW

600kHz
500kHz 600kHz
25mW
25mW 25mW
100kHz 100kHz 100kHz
5mW 10mW 10mW
300kHz, 5mW

868 868.6 868.7 869.2 869.4 869.65 869.7 870

Frequency (MHz)
Non-specific short range device

Application-specific e.g. alarms

 IoT Radios
NFC 3GPP LTE-MTC, eMTC/Cat M, LTE-V 3GPP NB-IoT
EMV 3GPP GSM, WCDMA, EC-GPRS
3GPP2 Cdma2000, WiMAX

Cellular (licensed)
<10cm WPAN <5km <100km
Terms not precise
Proximity WHAN WNAN WWAN LPWAN (licensed)

WFAN WLAN LPWAN (un-licensed)

Bluetooth/LE ISA100.11a (6LoWPAN) Wi-SUN (6LoWPAN)

ANT+ WirelessHART ZigBee NAN (6LoWPAN)
MiWi Many others Wireless M-bus
802.11a/b/g/n/ac (WiFi) Many others
ZigBee SIGFOX
Z-Wave 802.11ah (WiFi HaLow 1km) LoRa
Thread (6LoWPAN) 802.11p (V2X) Telensa
EnOcean 802.11af (white space) OnRamp/INGENU
Many others Weightless P
WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network WHAN:
Many others
Wireless Home Area Blue: > billion units/year now
WFAN: Wireless Field (or Factory)Area WLAN: Red: emerging
Wireless Local Area
WNAN: Wireless Neighbourhood Area
WWAN: Wireless WideArea
LPWAN: Low Power Wide Area Network
Introduction to Low Power-Wide Area

LPWA Requirements and Characteristics (1/2)

Introduction to Low Power-Wide Area

LPWA Requirements and Characteristics (2/2)

Introduction to Low Power-Wide Area

LPWA Expected Revenues

• Average revenue per LPWA
connection: USD$2-3 / Year
• The turning point for the market
growth will take place in 2018
• Analysys Mason forecasts the
total cumulative revenue for
2015-2017 to reach $450mn.
• In 2018, the annual revenue
forecasted at $970mn,
• By 2022, annual connectivity
revenue will reach US$7.5
billion.
• The top three application
categories: agriculture and
environment markets (25% of
the forecast for 2022), consumer
applications, which include pet,
bicylcle tracking and wearables
(21%), and smart buildings
(18%).
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

• Proprietary PHY Layer
• Constant envelop - spread spectrum based
modulation with 7 spreading factors
• Demodulate below noise level (up to 20dB
under noise)
• Robustness to interference, noise, and
jamming
• Support various BW from 7.8 KHz to 500
KHz and PHY bitrate from 18 bps to 37.5
kbps
• Supports ISM bands frequency bands WW
(137 - 1020 MHz)
• DToA based localization.
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

• Up to 30 dB enhancement Vs

best in class FSK

• 3-4 dB from Shannon theoretic

limit
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

Over 30miles from San Jose to

San Bruno

10 LoRa gateways create LPWAN IoT network

over Munich
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

There are many different needs to LoRa
endpoints. Accordingly the LoRaWAN supports
three classes of endpoints:
•Class A - bi-directional end-devices: LoRaWAN
class A endpoint devices provide bidirectional
communications. To achieve this, each endpoint
transmission is followed by two short downlink receive
windows.
•Class B - bi-directional end-devices with
scheduled receive slots: LoRa Class B devices
provide the Class A functionality and in addition
to this they open extra receive windows at
scheduled times. To achieve the required
synchronisation from the network, the endpoint
receives a time synchronized Beacon from the
gateway.
•Class C - bi-directional end-devices with
maximal receive slots: LoRa Class C devices
provide nearly continuously open receive
windows. They only closed when the endpoint is
transmitting. This type of endpoint is suitable
where large amounts of data are needed to be
received rather than transmitted.
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

Relative localization/ Ranging is a “MUST HAVE” for many industrial applications, and
thus KEY Differentiator amongst IoT Systems.
• RSSI- based localization: non reliable, vulnerable to interference and noise levels.
• DToA: more reliable technique:
• Need for more sophisticated transceivers to append a fine timestamp on the
TX and use it as reference on the RX.
• Network-wide precise clock synchronization.
• LoRa E2E system offers DToA based ranging and localization.
LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

LPWA Technologies

LoRa: Long Range by Semtech

LPWA Technologies

ILE-DCC Demonstrator
Introduction and Context

Solving a real-world problem

53
Introduction and Context

• Intel, Nimbus and Dublin City Council launched a Smart City

program
• Multi-phase PoC:
• Deployment of sensors: rain gauges, ULS river monitoring devices and floating buoy
• 8-9 months data collection and storage
• Create predictive models on Liffey flooding through sensor fusion and AI

54
Intel/Nimbus Buoy Overview

55
Intel/Nimbus Buoy Overview

56
End-to-End System Architecture

57
End-to-End System Architecture: Deployment Map

58
59
 End-to-End System Architecture: Frame Structure
A fixed-size packet of 64 bytes is sent by the buoy
LoRa transmitter:

00 00 00 00 32 81 5C 56 24 00 00 00 33 33 33 3F
00 00 00 00 CD CC A0 41 00 00 02 42 9C 09 A1
45 CB 09 50 C4 00 0C C7 47 33 33 B5 41 AC 1C
24 42 AE 47 45 51 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00

60
Experimental Results

61
Experimental Results

62
Experimental Results

63
Experimental Results

An over all error of 102 data-point over a total 5745

data-point or a ratio of 1.78% for the 8 month experiment

64
LPWA Technologies

SigFox UNB Communications

LPWA Technologies

SigFox UNB Communications

• SigFox Model: Network operator.

• The network have different offers based on volume of device and number of messages transmitted per days:
• Platinum : 101 to 140 messages + 4 downlink
• Gold : 51 to 100 messages + 2 downlink
• Silver : 3 to 50 messages + 1 downlink
• One : 1 to 2 messages + no downlink
• Using UNB communications for uplink and downlink
• Maximum of 12 bytes/ message with fixed 3 times repetition of the same message (decreasing channel capacity)
• Uplink BPSK at 100bps on 100Hz channel
• Downlink GFSK at 500bps on a 600Hz channel: no data on ACKs

66
LPWA Technologies

SigFox UNB Communications

67
68
Wide area networks
Technology Trade-offs

Pros: Pros: Pros:

• Long range • Long range • Well established
• Long battery life (up to • Long battery life (>10 standards
20 years) years) • Long rage
• Low cost • Low cost • High data rate
• Uses cellular network • Very wide coverage
as backhaul • Licensed band (except
Cons: LTE-U)
• New standard
• Unlicensed band - Cons:
interference • New standard Cons:
• Can’t run on existing • Unlicensed band - • Not optimized for IoT
cellular network – interference • Battery life
needs a dedicated • Very low data rate – • Cost
SIGFOX network can only be used for
• Very low data rate - IoT
can only be used for
IoT
Key 3GPP Release 13 updates
Clean slate:
• NB-IoT 180kHz BW
• LTE and GSM base station software upgrade
• Trial service 2016, commercial service 2017

LTE derivative
• LTE Cat M 1.4MHz BW
• LTE base station software upgrade
• Commercial service 2017

GSM derivative
• EC-GSM (EC-GPRS) 200kHz BW
• GSM base station software upgrade
• Commercial service TBC
3GPP Release 13 Cellular IoT timelines
GERAN Objectives eMTC Cat M:
• 164dB link budget (GPRS +20dB) • Machine Type Communication
• 40 devices per home (~50k/cell) • 1.4MHz Bandwidth LTE derivative
• >160bps at range limit • Software update to LTE infrastructure
• 10 second latency • 1Mbps, full mobility, 156dB link, 10 year batt
• 10 year life with 5Wh ~AA battery
NB-IoT:
NB-LTE • Narrowband IoT
LTE Cat 0 LTE Cat 00
eMTC Cat M 3GPP • 200 (180kHz) Clean sheet format
• Software update to LTE or GSM infrastructure
RAN

NB-IoT
Rel • <~250kbps, nomadic, 164dB, 10 year batt
EC-GPRS
13
EC-GPRS
March-June 2016 • Extended coverage GPRS
NB-M2M
• 200kHz GSM/EDGE
GERAN

NB-CIoT
NB-OFDMA • Repetitions to get to 164dB link budget
C-UNB • EC-PDTCH and EC-PACCH, ~52 min DRX
NB-CSS • Software update to GSM infrastructure
NB-GSM
EC-GSM

2015
Standardization 2016 2017

GSMA Mobile IoT initiative 3GPP spec dev

backed by 21 MNOs:
AT&T, Bell Mobility, Bermuda Digital 3GPP test case development
Comm, China Telecom, China
Unicom, China Mobile, Deutsche Conformance testing
Telekom, Etisalat, KDDI, KT, Mobistar,
NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Singtel,
Softbank, Taiwan Mobile, Telecom Field trials
Italia, Telefonica, Telenor, Telstra,
Verizon, Vodafone Commercial service
 3GPP Cellular IoT summary
3GPP Rel 12 3GPP Rel 13

MTC Cat 0 eMTC Cat M* EC-GPRS NB-IoT*

Heritage LTE LTE GSM Clean-slate

Bandwidth (downlink) 20 MHz 1.4 MHz 200 kHz 180kHz (12 by 15kHz)
Bandwidth (uplink) 20 MHz 1.4 MHz 200 kHz Single-tone (180kHz by 3.75kHz or
15kHz) or multi-tone (180kHz by
15kHz)
Multiple access (downlink) OFDMA OFDMA TDMA OFDMA

Multiple access (uplink) SC-FDMA SC-FDMA TDMA Single-tone FDMA or multi-tone

SC-FDMA

Modulation(downlink) QPSK, 16QAM, 6 QPSK, 16QAM, 64 GMSK, optional 8PSK BPSK, QPSK, optional 16QAM
4QAM QAM
Modulation(uplink) QPSK, 16QAM QPSK, 16QAM GMSK, optional 8PSK TBC π/4-QPSK, rotated π/2-
BPSK, 8PSK optional 16QAM

Peak data rate 1 Mbps 1 Mbps 10 kbps to 240kbps TBC DL up to 250kbps TBC, UL single
tone up to 20 to 64kbps TBC, UL
multi-tone up to 250kbps TBC
Coverage (link budget) ~141dB ~156dB ~164dB ~164dB
Mobility Full Full Full Nomadic

Note * Cat M also currently referred to as Cat M1, NB-IoT also referred to as Cat M2. Details for NB-IoT are subject to
change as 3GPP drafting continues
NB-IoT 5G context
NB-IoT is a pre-5G technology
likely to be developed into 5G Low power
massive MTC Massive machine type communications

Deep coverage

Density

Low latency Data rate

Ultra reliable low latency Enhanced mobile broadband

Mobility
Drones Vehicles
 Local Interworking
Device discovery, publish, subscribe Competing consortia

AllSeen Alliance Open Interconnect Apple HomeKit Google Weave

(Qualcomm) Consortium (Intel)

Open source Open source

Qualcomm, Sharp, Sony, Intel, Samsung. GE, Cisco,
Cisco, Microsoft, LG……. Broadcom, IBM….

Coffee’s ready
Time for coffee

Someone’s at the door

 Global Interworking
“If Company A runs a fleet of trucks and Company B runs a fleet of
container ships then their mutual customer, Company C, can use one
application to track the cargo, regardless of the handler”

OneM2M
• Formed July 24th 2012, Founding partners: ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TIA, TTA, TTC
• Reference architecture and conformance test regime for a common service layer for
global interworking
• Focus is edge to cloud so good synergy with Allseen & OIC. Also looking at HomeKit
interworking
• CoAP, MQTT, DTLS, OMA LWM2M
 Conclusion
– IoT is not a particular technology nor a particular device – it is about embedding connectivity - via sensors and actuators -
into devices and sharing data across them
– Energy efficiency and wireless connectivity are key in making IoT work
– Heterogeneous mix of wireless technologies are used, some are competing, and others to cover a wide variety of use cases serving
diverse requirements in various environments
– Low power, low rate personal area network technologies - such as those based on IEEE 802.15.4 - have proven instrumental
in driving sensor implementations
– Cellular, WiFi and low power wide area communication technologies serve as a backbone for transferring the collected data to the
cloud
– LPWA technologies and networks are changing already the rules of competition by proposing new disruptive business models,
thanks to tailored technology, well dimensioned from the beginning with the true fundamental and simple primary needs from
major industrial IoT:
– (Very) Low Power
– (Very) Long Range
– (Very) Low Cost (TCO)
– This allows new actors to join the Connected Economy, by adopting available & affordable wireless technology, with simple and
fast roll-out.
76