current and future trends in wireless connectivity for the...
TRANSCRIPT
Current and future trends in wireless connectivity for the iotIntel Labs – Ireland
Wael Guibene, Ph.D
Intel’s StrategyIf it computes, it does it best with Intel
Data Center Client Ultra-Mobile Wearables/IoT
QUARKQUARK
Intel® Processors
Intel Labs Europe
4
Research Strategy & Partners
ACADEMIC PARTNERS Open Research PROGRAMSINDUSTRIAL PARTNERS
LEIXLIPNetwork & PlatformsResearch
LondonICRI
Urban IoT Networks
MunichV2I/V2X Platforms
Intel Business Units
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
Disclaimer - Slides Sources
6
What is the Internet of Things (IoT)?
7
Smart Energy
-Generation & trading
-Transmission-Distribution & metering
-Storage-Services
Wearables
-Healthmonitor-Fitness trackers-Smartwatch-Smart glasses-Smartbands-E-textiles-Hearing-aid
SmartHome
-Security &alarm-Lightcontrol-HVACcontrol-Remotecontrol-Door control-Energyefficiency-Entertainment-Appliances
Industry Automation
-Smartmachine-Surveillance camera
-Factoryautomation
-Assettracking-Logistics and optimizationof supplychain
ConnectedCar
•V2V / V2X /V2I communications• eCall• Infotainment•Trafficcontrol• Navigation• Autonomous
vehicles•Maintenance
Smart City
-Traffic management
-Waterdistribution-Waste
management-Security-Lighting-Environmental monitoring
-Parkingsensor
Strategic IoT Usecases/Services
Connecting Things to the Cloud
<10cm <5km
Proximity
WLAN
WWANWPAN
WHAN
NFC EMV
Bluetooth/LEANT+MiWi
ZigBee Z-WaveThread (6LoWPAN)EnOceanMany others
802.11a/b/g/n/ac (WiFi)802.11ah (WiFi HaLow 1km) 802.11p (V2X)802.11af (white space)
Wi-SUN (6LoWPAN) ZigBee NAN (6LoWPAN)Wireless M-busMany others SIGFOX
LoRa TelensaOnRamp/INGENU Weightless P Many others
Cellular (licensed)
LPWAN (un-licensed)
<100km
WFAN
Terms not preciseWNAN
ISA100.11a (6LoWPAN)WirelessHARTMany others
IoT Radios
Blue: > billion units/year nowRed: emerging
WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network WHAN: Wireless Home AreaWFAN: Wireless Field (or Factory)Area WLAN: Wireless Local AreaWNAN: Wireless Neighbourhood AreaWWAN: Wireless WideAreaLPWAN: Low Power Wide Area Network
LPWAN (licensed)
3GPP NB-IoT3GPP LTE-MTC, eMTC/Cat M, LTE-V3GPP GSM, WCDMA, EC-GPRS3GPP2 Cdma2000, WiMAX
Popular Frequency Use470 779 86813.56 169 220 315 426 433 915 920 24005800 5900 MHz
54-698
802.15.4-2003, c, d
802.15.4-2003/6loWPAN
802.15.4e/6loWPAN
802.15.4e
ISO14543-3-10
ITU G.9959
802.15.1
802.15.4k
802.15.4g/e/6loWPAN
ISO14443
EN13757
WMRNET I, II, III, IV
V2X
WiFi
WhiteSpace
802.15.4p
Usually calledNFC/EMV
Wireless M-Bus China WMRNET
LoRa SIGFOXTelensa
OnRampWi-SUNZigBee Thread
WirelessHART ISA100.11a
Z-Wave EnOcean
ANT+Bluetooth
802.11a/b/g/n/ac802.11ah
802.11p802.11af
Positive Train Ctrl
Aliases
Frequently Cited IoT BandsNon-cellular license exempt and lightly licensed (MHz)
Cellular licenced (MHz)Regional GSM, WCDMA, C2K, LTE and WiMAX bands ~450 to 3900
White space (MHz)Regional bands ~54 to 698
779433 470
868 433
169
426Japan
920
433915
433 433
5900
915315
220
Worldwide13.56
24005800
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
IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
802.1 Higher Layer LAN Protocols Working Group
802.11 Wireless
Network (WLALocal Area
N)Working Group
802.15 Wireless Personal Area
Network (WPAN)Working Group
TG1othWPAN/Blueto
Task GroupTG2 Coexistence
Task GroupTG3 WPANHighRate Task Group
TG4 WPAN LowRate Task Group
802.16 Broadband wireless access
Major IEEE 802 LAN/PAN standards used for IoT
IEEE 802.15.4IEEE 802.15.1(BT standard is no longer maintained byIEEE, it is controlled by Bluetooth SIG )
…..
Bluetooth® Standard Evolution
1999 2003 2004 2007 2009
•Many problems•Difficult making products interoperable
•Faster connection/ discovery•Use AFH•Up to 721 kbps
•Introduction of EDR•EDR Up to 2.1 Mbps
•SSP, EIR•power consumption optimization
•Alternate MAC/PHY•Unicast connectionless data•Enhanced power control•HS up to 24 Mbps
•Adoption of Bluetooth LE•LE up to 260 kbps•Including classic, LE and HS
V1.0
V1.2
V2.0 + EDR
V2.1 + EDR
V3.0 + HS
V4.0
•Coexist with 4G•Smart connectivity•Data transfer improvement
20142010 2013
V4.1 V4.2
•For IoT (Support IPv6/6LoWPAN)•High privacy•Data throughput increase (10x packet capacity increase)
For dual-mode: LE + LegacyBT
Two New Trademarks for Certified BT Devices
For single-mode: LE only
IoT Key Enabling TechnologiesBluetooth Smart – Powering IoTBluetooth 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
Blue
toot
h/Bl
ueto
oth
Low
Ener
gy
ApplicationLa yer
Network
Transport
MAC
PHY
IEEE
802.
15.4
IEEE
802.
15.4
ZigB
ee
IEEE
802.
11W
LAN
IEEE
802.
15.4
Thre
ad
IEEE
802.
15.4
Wire
less
HAR
T
IEEE
802.
15.4
IEEE
802.
11
ISA1
00.11
a
IEEE 802 defines standards, does not define a certification process ortest plans, that is done by the individual standards/working groups
802.15.4…. Something for Everyone
= A popular non-interoperableformatMHz
802.15.4…… 2003 2006 c da e jf g k m n p q
2400
780868
2400915
868
??
920 2400
2400
920
24002400 915
2400IP??
Positive Train
Control
220
IPv6
Non-IPProprietary upper stack
802.15.4 includes >60 non-interoperable PHY combinations
IEEE 802.15.4
– 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
• Data rates of 250 kbps, 40 kbps, and 20kbps
– Specifies PHY and MAC layers for LoWPAN networks
• Ex. ZigBee, THREAD, WirelessHART, ISA100.11a
– Upper layers for WPAN are not developed by IEEE 802.15 working group
• Standards or working groups, such asZigBee Alliance, implement upper layers to enable multi-vendor interoperable solutions
Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Network (LoWPAN)
Upper Layer Stack
IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
IEEE 802.15.48 68/915 MHzPHY
IEEE 802.15.42.4 GHz PHY
IoT Key Enabling TechnologiesZigBeeLow power, low data rate, mesh network
– Conceived in 1998, first standardized in 2003 and revised multiple times, latest in 2012 (ZigBee PRO)
– Based on IEEE 802.15.4 physical andMAC layers operating in sub-GHz and2.4GHz frequency bands
– Transmission distances range from 10 to 100 meters - depending on power output and environmental characteristics
TargetApplications:
Upper Layer Stack
IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
IEEE 802.15.4 868/915 MHz PHY
IEEE 802.15.42.4 GHz PHY
IoT Key Enabling TechnologiesTHREAD
– Thread Group launched in July 2014
– Main competitor to ZigBee for home automation
• Appliances, access control, climate control, lighting, energy managementetc..
– 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 ProtocolStack
Ref:www.threadgroup.org
IoT for Home AutomationTechnology Tradeoffs for Home Automation Application
Pros:• Low energy• Available on
mobile devices (Already supported on IOS and Android)
• IPv6 based
Cons:• Star network• Short range• New technology –
not well establishedcompared to ZigBee
Pros:• Well established
standards• Available on
mobile devices• Good range• IPv6 based
Cons:• Star network• Not low energy –
new standard coming in 2016 (802.11ah)
Pros:• Low energy• Well established
standards• Mesh network• Good range
Cons:• Not IP based for
home automation(ZigBee IP for Smart Energy 2.0 is IP based)
• Not available on mobile phones/ tablets
Pros:• Low energy• Mesh network• Good range• IPv6 based
Cons:• Not well
established compared to ZigBee
• Not available on mobile phones/ tablets
IoT Key Enabling TechnologiesWi-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 formatssupported:• MR-FSK: 2FSK and 4FSK• MR-OFDM: available but not
popular• MR-O-QPSK: DSSS and
multiplexed DSSS
IEEE 802.11 Standards EvolutionWLAN
IEEE 802.11
802.11-1997
2 Mbps, DSSS,FHSS
802.11b11 Mbps, CCK, DSSS
802.11a54 Mbps,OFDM, 5
GHz
802.11g54 Mbps,
OFDM, 2.4GHz
802.11n600 Mbps with 4x4
MIMO, 20/40 MHz BW, 2.4
or 5 GHz
802.11ac
802.11ad
802.11ahUp to 4 MHz
(16 MHz optional) BW
Below 1 GHz
802.11af
TVWS
WirelessGigabit(WiGig)
Very High Throughput, 60 GHz
Very High Throughput, <6 GHz
TV WhiteSpaces
802.11p27 Mbps, 10MHz BW, 5.9
GHz
Wireless Access for Vehicular Environment (WAVE/DSRC)
DSRC = Dedicated Short-Range Communications
Low power, low rate, long range
applications
– Target use cases• Large scale low power sensor networks and smartmeter
• Video surveillance, wearable consumer electronics
• Backhaul for aggregated sensor and meterdata
• Outdoor Wi-Fi for cellular trafficoffloading
IoT Enabling TechnologiesIEEE 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 propagationcharacteristics
of sub-GHz radio waves
11a/g/n/acAP
11ah AP
Indoor
IoT Enabling Technologies
16 MHz
8 MHz
4 MHz
2 MHz
1MHz
20 MHz
150kbps – 4Mbps
650kbps – 7.8Mbps
1.35Mbps – 18Mbps
2.9Mbps – 39Mbps
5.8Mbps – 78Mbps
Mandatory & Globally Interoperable modes optimized for sensor networking
Optional higher data rate modes for extended range WLAN
6.5Mbps – 78Mbps
High data ratesMinimum 11n/acbandwidth
Extended range
IEEE 802.11ah Bandwidth and Data Rates11ah Bandwidth Modes
IoT Key Enabling TechnologiesIEEE 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 broadcastsof
neighboring road users• Uses channels of 10MHz bandwidth in the 5.9GHz band (5.850-5.925GHz)• Developed based on 802.11a but targets for reliableconnection
– 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
Event-Based
Periodic
System Statuse.g. 10-600bytes
Observation/Actuation Message e.g. 10-600bytes
Mixed-Mode
Challenges
1: Power 2A: Inconsistent reporting intervals2B: Lossy networks3: Interference & congestion
48 hour period
25%
15%
5%
Challenge 1: Solar Power (in Ireland)
Approach
Adaptive messaging rates based on battery performance
Transceiver On Receiving TransmittingXbee 868 60.82mA 73mA 160mA
Example Outcome – 2 sensors
100%
55%
5%
Sensor #1 with > 90% battery charge is operating on a 3 min reporting interval
Sensor #2 switches between 13min and 8min reporting intervals
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
600kHz25mW
100kHz5mW
500kHz25mW
100kHz10mW
250kHz500mW
600kHz25mW
300kHz, 5mW
868 868.6 868.7 869.2 869.4 869.65 869.7 870
Effe
ctiv
e Ra
diat
ed P
ower
(m
W)
Frequency (MHz)
Duty cycle: < 1% < 0.1% < 0.1% < 10% < 10% Up to 100%< 0.1%
100kHz10mW
< 1%
Non-specific short range device
Application-specific e.g. alarms
<10cm <5km
Proximity
WLAN
WWANWPAN
WHAN
NFC EMV
Bluetooth/LEANT+MiWi
ZigBee Z-WaveThread (6LoWPAN)EnOceanMany others
802.11a/b/g/n/ac (WiFi)802.11ah (WiFi HaLow 1km) 802.11p (V2X)802.11af (white space)
Wi-SUN (6LoWPAN) ZigBee NAN (6LoWPAN)Wireless M-busMany others SIGFOX
LoRa TelensaOnRamp/INGENU Weightless P Many others
Cellular (licensed)
LPWAN (un-licensed)
<100km
WFAN
Terms not preciseWNAN
ISA100.11a (6LoWPAN)WirelessHARTMany others
IoT Radios
Blue: > billion units/year nowRed: emerging
WPAN: Wireless Personal Area Network WHAN: Wireless Home AreaWFAN: Wireless Field (or Factory)Area WLAN: Wireless Local AreaWNAN: Wireless Neighbourhood AreaWWAN: Wireless WideAreaLPWAN: Low Power Wide Area Network
LPWAN (licensed)
3GPP NB-IoT3GPP LTE-MTC, eMTC/Cat M, LTE-V3GPP GSM, WCDMA, EC-GPRS3GPP2 Cdma2000, WiMAX
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 revenueforecasted 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 SemtechThere are many different needs to LoRaendpoints. Accordingly the LoRaWAN supportsthree classes of endpoints:•Class A - bi-directional end-devices: LoRaWANclass A endpoint devices provide bidirectionalcommunications. To achieve this, each endpointtransmission is followed by two short downlink receivewindows.•Class B - bi-directional end-devices withscheduled receive slots: LoRa Class B devicesprovide the Class A functionality and in additionto this they open extra receive windows atscheduled times. To achieve the requiredsynchronisation from the network, the endpointreceives a time synchronized Beacon from thegateway.•Class C - bi-directional end-devices withmaximal receive slots: LoRa Class C devicesprovide nearly continuously open receivewindows. They only closed when the endpoint istransmitting. This type of endpoint is suitablewhere large amounts of data are needed to bereceived 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
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
Introduction and Context
55
Intel/Nimbus Buoy Overview
56
Intel/Nimbus Buoy Overview
57
End-to-End System Architecture
58
End-to-End System Architecture: Deployment Map
59
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
End-to-End System Architecture: Frame Structure
61
Experimental Results
62
Experimental Results
63
Experimental Results
64
Experimental Results
An over all error of 102 data-point over a total 5745data-point or a ratio of 1.78% for the 8 month experiment
LPWA Technologies
SigFox UNB Communications
66
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
67
LPWA Technologies
SigFox UNB Communications
68
Wide area networksTechnology Trade-offs
Pros:• Long range• Long battery life (>10
years)• Low cost• Uses cellular network
as backhaul
Cons:• New standard• Unlicensed band -
interference• Very low data rate –
can only be used forIoT
Pros:• Well established
standards• Long rage• High data rate• Very wide coverage• Licensed band (except
LTE-U)
Cons:• Not optimized for IoT
• Battery life• Cost
Pros:• Long range• Long battery life (up to
20 years)• Low cost
Cons:• New standard• Unlicensed band -
interference• Can’t run on existing
cellular network –needs a dedicated SIGFOX network
• Very low data rate -can only be used for IoT
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 softwareupgrade• Commercial service TBC
Key 3GPP Release 13 updates
3GPP Release 13 Cellular IoT timelines
Standardization2015 2016 2017
GER
ANNB-LTE
3GPPRel13R
AN NB-IoT
EC-GPRS
eMTC Cat M
eMTC Cat M:• Machine Type Communication• 1.4MHz Bandwidth LTE derivative• Software update to LTEinfrastructure• 1Mbps, full mobility, 156dB link, 10 year batt
NB-IoT:• Narrowband IoT• 200 (180kHz) Clean sheet format• Software update to LTE or GSMinfrastructure• <~250kbps, nomadic, 164dB, 10 year batt
EC-GPRS• Extended coverage GPRS• 200kHz GSM/EDGE• Repetitions to get to 164dB link budget• EC-PDTCH and EC-PACCH, ~52 min DRX• Software update to GSM infrastructure
GERAN Objectives• 164dB link budget (GPRS +20dB)• 40 devices per home (~50k/cell)• >160bps at range limit• 10 second latency• 10 year life with 5Wh ~AA battery
3GPP spec dev
3GPP test case development
Conformance testing
Field trials
Commercial service
GSMA Mobile IoT initiative backed by 21 MNOs:AT&T, Bell Mobility, Bermuda Digital Comm, China Telecom, China Unicom, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, Etisalat, KDDI, KT, Mobistar, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Singtel, Softbank, Taiwan Mobile, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, Telenor, Telstra, Verizon, Vodafone
March-June 2016
LTE Cat 0 LTE Cat 00
NB-M2M NB-CIoT
NB-OFDMAC-UNB
NB-CSSNB-GSMEC-GSM
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, 64QAM
QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM
GMSK, optional 8PSK BPSK, QPSK, optional 16QAM
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, ULsingle 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
3GPP Cellular IoT summary
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
Enhanced mobile broadband
Massive machine type communications
Data rateLow latency
Low power
NB-IoT 5G context
Density
Deep coverage
Mobility
Drones Vehicles
Ultra reliable low latency
NB-IoT is a pre-5G technologylikely to be developed into 5G massive MTC
Local InterworkingDevice discovery, publish, subscribe Competing consortia
AllSeen Alliance (Qualcomm)
Open source Qualcomm, Sharp,Sony,Cisco, Microsoft, LG…….
Apple HomeKit Google WeaveOpen Interconnect Consortium (Intel)
Open sourceIntel, Samsung. GE, Cisco, Broadcom, IBM….
Coffee’s readyTime 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
76
– 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.
Conclusion