lpwan technologies for iot deployment...whereas nb-iot is useful in applications that require...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJEET/index.asp 285 [email protected]

International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology (IJEET)

Volume 11, Issue 3, May-June 2020, pp. 285-296, Article ID: IJEET_11_03_032

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJEET/issues.asp?JType=IJEET&VType=11&IType=3

ISSN Print: 0976-6545 and ISSN Online: 0976-6553

Journal Impact Factor (2020): 10.1935 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

© IAEME Publication

LPWAN TECHNOLOGIES FOR IOT

DEPLOYMENT

Kalyan, Varshith Reddy, Kota Jitesh and Shaikh Ashif

B.Tech, Electronics and Communication Engineering IoT,

VIT University, Vellore, India

Ravikumar CV and Kalapraveen B

Sr. Assistant Professor, SENSE, VIT University, Vellore, India

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, with the increase in the number of factories and production units being

automized with IoT. The need for LPWAN networks is required as the deployment of

IoT based LPWA networks allow for remote access of different end nodes. This paper

shows that Sigfox is useful in applications that require long-range communication,

whereas NB-IoT is useful in applications that require massive data to be transferred.

It is shown that each technology is equally crucial for LPWAN deployment, as each

protocol comes with its advantages and disadvantages.

Key words: IoT, LPWAN, LoRa , Sigfox, NB-IoT.

Cite this Article: Kalyan, Varshith Reddy, Kota Jitesh, Shaikh Ashif, Ravikumar CV

and Kalapraveen B, LPWAN Technologies for IoT Deployment, International Journal

of Electrical Engineering and Technology, 11(3), 2020, pp. 285-296.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJEET/issues.asp?JType=IJEET&VType=11&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the industrial revolution to humanity has put forward many drastic

changes to our evolution. The fourth industrial revolution is the era where a new generation of

wireless communication enables pervasive connectivity between machines and objects [1].

IoT can achieve this connectivity between machines and objects to humanity. The Internet of

Things (IoT) refers to the interconnection and exchange of data among devices/sensors[2].

Monitoring and maintaining highly dense WSN sensor networks have become a challenge,

and a lot of research is concentrated around this area. IoT based WSN sensor networks often

consist of many sensors that are dispersed around a wide area, thus for the exchange of

information, a long-range data transmission protocol is required. The sensors are usually

located in areas where batteries can only power them; this demands a low power consuming

communication protocol. The widely employed traditional short-range communication

technologies cannot be deployed for WSN networks. Further, solutions based on mobile

cellular communications (e.g., 2G, 3G, and 4G) could ensure a more extensive transmission

LPWAN Technologies for IoT Deployment


range. However, it depletes the device’s energy. Therefore, IoT applications requirement

leads to the emergence of Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)[3].

LPWAN is extensively gaining popularity from industrial and research communities

because of its low-power, long-range, and low-cost communication characteristics. It provides

a long-distance communication of up to 10-15 km in rural areas and 2-5 km in urban areas

[4]. It is power-efficient, and a single battery can run for more than ten years, it also comes [5]

with a radio chipset cost of less than $2 and the operating cost of $1 per device per year [6].

All these characteristics make LPWAN suitable for IoT based WSN networks that transmit

small data at low data rates over a long distance. The placement of LPWAN concerning the

data rate and range is illustrated in Figure 1[3].

Many LPWAN technologies have emerged among them, LoRaWAN, Sigfox, and NB-IoT

are leading and are much preferred than other technologies. This paper evaluates the technical

differences between these three technologies and their usages in different sectors.

Figure 1 Positioning of LPWAN concerning data rate being transferred and range capacity.

2. TYPES OF LPWAN’S AND PROTOCOLS

LPWAN does not count under a single standard or technology. Still, it includes a group of

low powered networks that take many shapes and forms[7]. LPWA networks have been

standardized and are classified into two types of technologies and protocols[8]. The first type

of LPWA network uses the unlicensed band for communication; they are non-cellular. There

are many providers with different network models and parameters; among them, LoRa and

Sigfox technologies are widespread. The second type of LPWA network relies on cellular

technologies for communication. These are standardized by 3GPP and use the licensed

spectrum of mobile operators for communication. Cellular based LPWAN’s are standardized

into three categories: LTE-M, NB-IoT, and EC-GSM-IoT[7-8].

Figure 2 illustrates the positioning of different LPWAN technologies concerning

licensing[10]. Each one is positioned based on the area of coverage and licensing scheme.

Sigfox, LoRa, and Weightless are categorized as wide area networks without a license,

whereas LTE comes under a licensed wide area network.

Kalyan, Varshith Reddy, Kota Jitesh, Shaikh Ashif, Ravikumar CV and Kalapraveen B


Figure 2 Positioning of various LPWAN technologies based on license and area of coverage.

In this paper, LoRa, Sigfox, and NB-IoT are compared over their technical differences.

3. NETWORK TOPOLOGY OF LPWAN: LORA, SIGFOX, AND NB-IOT

Unlike other radio communication technologies like Zigbee that use mesh networks, LPWA

networks employ star network topology. The deployment of mesh networks to connect a huge

number of sensors that are physically dispersed in a wide area is very expensive. Moreover, as

data is transmitted through multi hops towards a gateway, some devices get more congested

than others due to an increase in network traffic, which reduces their batteries lifetime (i.e.,

excessive energy consumption) and thus limit the entire network lifetime [11-12]. LoRa,

Sigfox, and NB-IoT can easily overcome the cost of deployment as these employ star

topology.

Figure 3, available at [9], illustrates the network topology of LoRa.The star topology

based LoRaWA networks have base stations that transmit data back and forth between sensor

nodes and the network server. The physical layer of LoRa is used for the wireless

communication between sensor nodes and base stations, while an IP-based network backbone

connects the gateway and the central server.

Figure 4, available at [11], illustrates the star topology-based network architecture of

Sigfox; the network is similar to LoRa with a base station connecting between sensor nodes

and cloud. The cloud then connects to a network server using an IPv6 based network

backbone.

Figure 3 Network architecture of LoRa



Figure 4 Network architecture of Sigfox

4. TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES

4.1. LoRaWAN

LoRa (Long Range) is a patented design of digital wireless data communication IoT

technology developed by Cycleo of Grenoble, France. In 2012 LoRa was acquired by

Semtech; currently, it holds the IP for LoRa transmission methodology [9]. Semtech patented

a CSS modulation technique that gave rise to LoRaWAN [14]. Effective bidirectional

communication is ensured by the chirp spread spectrums (CSS) technology of LoRa. The

signal that is being transferred is challenging to detect and jam as it has high interference

resilience [13].

LoRa enables transmissions over a wide area for more than 10 km in rural areas and

consumes very little power. The transmission takes place over an unlicensed sub gigahertz

radio frequency bands. LoRa uses different radio frequency bands in various countries such

as 868 MHz in Europe, 915 MHz in North America, and 433MHz in Asia[19].

In LoRa, there is always a trade-off between data rate and range while operating in a

fixed-bandwidth for uplink channels of 125kHz or 500KHz and bandwidth of 500KHz for

downlink channels[16].

LoRa uses six spreading factors(SF7-SF12)[3]. The higher the spreading factor, the lower

is the data rate. The typical data rates of LoRa lie in the range of 300BPS to 50KBPS, the

exact data rate at which the message is being transferred depends on the distance and

bandwidth of the spreading factor that is being employed[17]. According to the OSI-7 layer

model that is depicted in Figure 6 (available at [16]), LoRa is a pure implementation of the

physical layer; the air is used as a medium for the transport LoRa radio waves from an RF

transmitter in an IoT device to an RF receiver in a gateway[16].



Figure 6 OSI-seven layer Network model[16]

A typical LoRa based network consists of end devices, gateway, network server, and an

application server, as illustrated in Figure 3. The end node is a sensor or an actuator that uses

LoRa RF modulation to connect to a LoRaWAN network wirelessly. These sensors are often

battery-operated devices that convert environmental changes into digital data autonomously.

This data is then relayed to the network using RF modulation. The gateway receives the

modulated RF messages sent by the end devices and forwards these to the network server.

The network server and the gateway are connected through an IP backbone[16].

The entire network is managed by the network server, which response to the changing

conditions in the network by controlling the network parameters dynamically. It establishes a

secure 128-bit AES connection for the transport of data in both directions, i.e., from end

nodes to user applications in the cloud and from cloud to end nodes. The application server

takes care of the management and handling of the interpreted sensor data[16].

The end devices are further classified into three categories based on the MAC layer

operation, namely Class A, Class B, and Class C; multiple classes help in the addressing of

various levels of latency in LoRa based IoT applications. End devices of all classes are bi-

directional in nature.

4.1.1. Class A (All)

Class A type end devise are bi-directional in nature and spend most of their time in ideal sleep

mode[18]. Whenever there is a change in the environmental conditions that it is allotted to

monitor an uplink is initialized to the network. Then it waits for downlink to be received

within a time out timer; if downlink is not received, it goes back to sleep again and waits for

the network to resend the downlink[16]. Figure 7 (available at [18]) illustrates the frame

format for data transmission of Class A end devices. Class A type of device is most suitable

for applications that only rely on downlink with an initial uplink; these are not suitable for

actuator based applications[16,18].

Figure 7 Data transmission of Class A type end device[18].



4.1.2. Class B (Beacon)

Class B end devices are the successors of Class A with an enhancement of regularly

scheduled downlink windows. These end devices provide an extra downlink slot at regular

intervals, whenever it receives a time-synchronized beacon from the gateway[16,18]. The

beacon offers a way for the server to know when the end devices are listening. In order to

configure an end device as Class B, it must be programmed as accordingly in the field. These

types of devices are suitable for both sensor and actuator based applications[16]. Class B type

end devices require more power to operate than Class A. Figure 8 (available at [18]) depicts

the data transmission in Class B type end devices.

Figure 8 Class B type data transmission.

4.1.3. Class C (Continuous)

Class C devices are always on resulting in higher power consumption than Class A and B.

These devices are always listening to the downlink unless they are transmitting via uplink,

resulting in the lowest latency in communication between server and end device. These

devices employ the usage of two windows for downlink, like in Class A; instead, the second

downlink window is not closed[16]. Figure 9 [18] illustrates the Class C type of data

communication.

Figure 9 Class C type data transmission [18].

Table 1 Depicts the application of the end devices of each class[18].

Table 1 Applications of end devices of each class.

Class Applications[18]

Class A Detection of fire

Detection of earthquakes

Class B Smart metering

Temperature reporting

Class C Fleet management

Real-time traffic management

4.2. Sigfox

Sigfox is developed by a French company named Sigfox in the year 2009. Sigfox was a

pioneer in networking, explicitly built for Internet-of-Object (IoT) applications. This

technology is intended expressly for applications that rarely send small amounts of data and



where cost is a constrain[24]. Sigfox uses only single way communication, i.e., from the

sensors to the base station. Sigfox cannot implement any network requiring two-way

communication. Sigfox only accepts 12 bytes of payloads for the uplink that is sufficient for

some applications but far too short for others. Only 140 uplink messages can be sent per

day[19]. The end devices connect to the base station using BPSK modulation, which is, in

turn, connected to the server using IP-backbone. Initially, Sigfox supported only uplink, but

later downlink was also supported, but the number of downlink messages is limited to four

per day. The maximum payload for the downlink is limited to 8 bytes[19].

4.3. NB-IoT

NB-IoT (Narrowband IoT) is a technology for M2M and IoT based devices that require long-

range transmission at a relatively low cost. NB-IoT relies on narrowband radio waves for the

transfer of data[20]. NB-IoT is a cellular-based LPWA network that operates in the unused

200KHz bands that were previously used by GSM. It can likewise run on LTE base stations

distributing resource block to NB-IoT tasks or in the guard bands[21].

Table 2 Comparision of LoRa, Sigfox, and NB-IoT based on physical features.

Parameter LoRa Sigfox NB-IoT

Spectrum Unlicensed

ISM bands

Unlicensed

ISM bands

Licensed LTE

cellular spectrum

Modulation CSS BPSK QPSK

Bandwidth 250 kHz and 125

kHz

100 Hz 200 kHz

Data rate 50 kbps 100 bps 200 kbps

Duplex operation Half-duplex Half-duplex Half-duplex

Bidirectional Yes Limited Yes

Maximum messages

sent per day

Unlimited 140(UL), 4(DL) Unlimited

Payload size 243 bytes 12 bytes (UL), 8 bytes

(DL)

1600 bytes

Range of operation 5km(urban), 20km

(rural)

10km(urban)’ 40

km(rural)

1km(urban),

10km(rural)

Power efficiency High Very High Moderately High

Energy consumption

per byte[26]

15.47mWs 33mWs 5.64mWs

Private network Yes No No

Standardization Lora-alliance Collaboration with

ETSI for

standardization of

Sigfox network

3GPP

As Broadcasting back end framework gets access, and devour battery power from each

end gadget. This way, NB-IoT innovation can be viewed as another air interface from the

convention stack perspective, while being based on the settled LTE foundation. As in LTE,

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) with 15 kHz sub-bearer separating is

utilized in the downlink. Then again, in the uplink, both single-tone and multi-tone tasks are

upheld. For single-tone activity, 3.75 kHz and 15 kHz sub-carrier dividing are sustained.

Multi-tone uplink transmission is as indicated by Single-Carrier Frequency Division Multiple

Access (SC-FDMA) with 15 kHz sub-bearer dividing. NB-IoT permit network of up to 100 K

end gadgets for every cell with the potential for scaling up the limit by including more NB-

IoT transporters. NB-IoT utilizes the single-carrier frequency division multiple access



(FDMA) in the uplink and symmetrical FDMA (OFDMA) in the downlink and uses the

quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK)[22]. The information rate is constrained to 200 kbps

for the downlink and 20 kbps for the uplink. The highest payload size for each message is

1600 bytes[23].

Table 2 compares LoRa, Sigfox, and NB-IoT based on their physical features. The

technical aspects of these technologies discussed in Section 4 are summarized

here[3,19,25,26].

5. COMPARISON BASED ON IOT FACTORS

Many factors are to be considered when deploying an LPWA network for IoT based

applications. These factors often include QoS(Quality of service), Battery life and latency,

payload length, Range of coverage, and Cost. In this section, we evaluate and compare LoRa,

Sigfox, and NB-IoT in terms of IoT factors. It is shown that in terms of QoS, NB-IoT is

better, and in terms of latency, class C of LoRa and NB-IoT are better[19].

5.1. QoS

While LoRa and Sigfox make use of the unlicensed band for asynchronous communication

that relies on ALOHA protocol, NB-IoT makes use of licensed LTE bands[19]. This makes

NB-IoT suitable for application requiring good QoS, whereas LoRa is useful in applications

that do not care as much on Qos to an extent[25].

5.2. Latency and Battery Life

End devices based on LoRa and Sigfox stay in sleep mode for most of the time. This makes

them more power-efficient than NB-IoT. When compared, NB-IoT consumes much power

than the other two as it needs to take care of QoS. The applications that require low latency

can make use of Class C of LoRa or NB-IoT. In contrast, applications that require high

latency must use Class A of LoRa or Sigfox for their implementation[25].

5.3. Size of PayLoad

NB-IoT offers the advantage of maximum payload capacity of 1600 bytes per message,

whereas LoRa limits their message payload to a length of 243 bytes[19]. Sigfox offers the

least payload with a size of 12 bytes per message; this makes the usage of Sigfox networks

hard, and there are only a handful of applications that require a minimal amount of data

transfer. NB-IoT is most preferred in applications that require the transmission of massive

data.

5.4. Range of Coverage

As the name Low power, Wide Area network suggests range of coverage is very important for

applications based on LPWA networks using IoT. Table 2 illustrates the range of operation of

each network in both rural and urban areas. NB-IoT has the lowest coverage area(1km), and it

must be deployed only in areas with proper LTE connectivity, making them tough to use in

rural areas. Sigfox has the broadest range of coverage(10 km in urban and 40 km in rural)

which makes them ideal for monitoring sensors and activating actuators from over a long

distance. LoRa can connect up to a range of 5km in urban and 20 km in rural areas making

them more useful than NB-IoT.

5.5. Cost of Deployment

Cost is always a constrain when building up extensive networks that connect the entire city or

sometimes nations. The price of the network includes the cost of the frequency band, cost of



the base station, and the cost of end nodes. NB-IoT costs are much higher than Sigfox and

LoRa, as it also includes the cost of a licensed frequency band for operation

The end devices in NB-IoT are also priced higher than LoRa and Sigfox making NB-IoT

the costlier option among the three LPWAN protocols.

Each LPWAN technology has its own advantages and disadvantages when compared

with other, the advantages of each technology compared in terms of IoT factors is highlighted

in Figure 10[19].

Figure 10 Relative comparision of LPWAN technologies based on IoT factors

6. APPLICATION SCENARIOS

6.1. Smart Buildings and Properties

IoT based LPWA networks in homes can help in monitoring and tracking the condition inside

out of the house using necessary sensors that can monitor temperature, humidity, air quality,

etc. These networks do not require quality of service and the transmission of broad data

making these networks to be easily implemented using LoRa and Sigfox[19,27].

6.2. Industrial Automation

Continuous apparatus observing forestalls modern production line down and permits remote

control for proficiency improving. In industrial facility robotization, there are different kinds

of sensors and correspondence necessities. A few applications require visit correspondence

and high caliber of administration; accordingly, NB-IoT is a superior arrangement than Sigfox

and LoRaWAN. Different applications require minimal effort sensors and long battery life for

resource following and status checking; for this situation, Sigfox and LoRaWAN are a

superior arrangement. Because of this prerequisites assortment, hybrid arrangements could

likewise be utilized[19].

6.3. Electric Metering

In [28], LPWAN technology for electric metering was tried and tested out. In this application

field, organizations ordinarily require visit correspondence, low latency, and high information

rate. Generally, they don't require low vitality utilization either long battery lifetime as

electric meters have a constant power source. In addition, organizations need constant lattice

observing to take prompt choices such as the rectification of some interferences. Therefore,

Sigfox is improper for this application since it doesn't deal with low inactivity. In actuality,

electric meters can be set up utilizing LoRaWAN Class-C to guarantee low latency.

Nonetheless, NB-IoT is a superior fit for this application because of the necessary high data

rate and regular correspondence. In addition, electric meters are commonly in fixed areas in



thickly populated regions. It is then simple to guarantee NB-IoT inclusion by cellular

operators (LTE)[19].

Table 3 present a list of application for each of the three technologies[25,29]

Table 3 Application scenarios.

Technology Applications

LoRa Logistic tracking

Smart building

Airport management

Facility management

Healthcare

Sigfox Connected

dumpsters

Street lighting

Smart parking

Gas tank remote

monitoring

Risk management

NB-IoT Pet tracking

Smart metering

Alarm and event

detectors

Child monitoring

7. CONCLUSION

This paper provides a complete overview of the popular LPWAN technologies, namely LoRa,

Sigfox, and NB-IoT. Each technology is explained and compared to others based on their

differences. This paper also provides different application scenarios where these technologies

can be useful.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The contribution of the authors are as follows: ―conceptualization, Kalyan and Varshith

reddy; methodology, Kota Jitesh; validation, Kalyan, Kota Jitesh, Varshith reddy and Shaikh

Ashif; formal analysis, Kalyan; investigation, Kalyan; resources, Shaikh Ashif; data curation,

Varshith reddy; writing—original draft preparation, Kalyan; writing—review and editing,

Kalyan.

REFERENCES

[1] Dohler, Mischa, and Takehiro Nakamura. ―5G Mobile and Wireless Communications

Technology,‖ Edited by Afif Osseiran, Jose F. Monserrat, Olaf Queseth, and Patrick

Marsch. Cambridge University Press, ch. 1-2, pp. 148. 2016.

[2] R. Ratasuk, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Ghosh, Overview of LTE enhancements for cellular IoT,

in: Proc. of PIMRC, Hong Kong, China, pp. 2293-2297. 2015.

[3] K. Mekki, E. Bajic, F. Chaxel, F. Meyer, A comparative study of LPWAN technologies

for large-scale IoT deployment, ICT Express (2018),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2017.12.005



[4] M. Centenaro, L. Vangelista, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, ―Long-range communications in

unlicensed bands: The rising stars in the IoT and smart city scenarios,‖ arXiv preprint

arXiv:1510.00620, 2015.

[5] D. Patel, M. Won, Experimental Study on Low Power Wide Area Networks for Mobile

Internet of Things, in: Proc. of VTC, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1-5, 2017.

[6] U. Raza, P. Kulkarni, M. Sooriyabandara, Low Power Wide Area Networks: An

Overview, IEEE J. Commun. Surv. Tuto. 19 (2), 855-873. 2017.

[7] ―LPWAN low powered wide area networks‖ available at

―https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/definition/LPWAN-low-power-wide-area-

network.‖

[8] ―What is LPWAN‖ available at ―https://nicolaswindpassinger.com/what-is-series-what-is-

lpwan.‖

[9] ―LoRa and IoT‖ available at ―https://medium.com/coinmonks/lpwan-lora-lorawan-and-

the-internet-of-things-aed7d5975d5d.‖

[10] ―LPWANS will co exist no war between cellular and non-cellular‖ available at

―https://www.counterpointresearch.com/lpwans-will-co-exist-no-war-brewing-between-

cellular-non-cellular/.‖

[11] Ravikumar CV, Kalapraveen bagadi.―Robust Neural Network based multiuser detector

in MC-CDMA for multiple access mitigation‖, Indian Journal of Science & Technology.

Vol 9, issue 30, 2016.

[12] G. Strazdins, A. Elsts, K. Nesenbergs, and L. Selavo, ―Wireless sensor network operating

system design rules based on real-world deployment survey,‖ Sensor and Actuator

Networks, Vol. 2, No. 3, , pp. 509-556. 2013

[13] Ravikumar CV, Kalapraveen B, Performance analysis of HSRP in provisioning layer-3

Gateway redundancy for corporate networks, Indian Journal of Science & Technology.

Vol 9, issue 20, 2016

[14] O.Khutsoane, B. Isong and A.M.abu-Mahfouz, ―IoT devices and applications based on

LoRa/LoRaWAN,‖ IECON 2017-43rd

Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial

Electronics Society, Beijing, pp.6107-6112, 2017

[15] ―What are LoRa and LoRaWAN‖ available at ―https://lora-

developers.semtech.com/library/tech-papers-and-guides/lora-and-lorawan/.‖

[16] K. Mikhaylov, T. Haenninen, "Analysis of Capacity and Scalability of the LoRa Low

Power Wide Area Network Technology", 22th IEEE European Wireless Conference, 18-

20 May Oulu, Finland. 2016.

[17] ―LoRa (Long Range) end device classification‖ available at

―http://www.techplayon.com/lora-long-range-end-device-classifications-class-class-b-

class-c/.‖

[18] K. Mekki, E. Bajic, F. Chaxel, and F. Meyer, ―Overview of Cellular LPWAN

Technologies for IoT Deployment: Sigfox, LoRaWAN, and NBIoT,‖ in 2018 IEEE

International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops

(PerCom Workshops). IEEE, pp. 197–202, 2018.

[19] ―NB-IoT explained: a complete guide for narrowband-IoT‖ available at ―https://www.i-

scoop.eu/internet-of-things-guide/lpwan/nb-iot-narrowband-iot/.‖

[20] ―What is NB-IoT‖ available at ―https://www.iotforall.com/what-is-narrowband-iot/.‖

[21] Y.E. Wang, X. Lin, A. Grovlen, Y. Sui, J. Bergman, ―A Primer on 3GPP Narrowband

Internet of Things‖, IEEE Commun. Mag. 55 (3), 117-123. 2016



[22] A. Adhikary, X. Lin, Y.-P.E. Wang, ―Performance Evaluation of NB-IoT Coverage‖, in:

Proc. of VTC-Fall, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp. 65-69, 2016.

[23] ―Sigfox technology review‖ available at

―https://www.betasolutions.co.nz/Blog/17/Sigfox-Technology-Review.‖

[24] R.S. Sinha, Y. Wei, S.-H. Hwang, A survey on LPWA technology: LoRa and NB-IoT,

ICT Express (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2017.03.004

[25] ―NB-IoT versus Sigfox, LoRaWAN‖ available at―https://www.gsm-modem.de/M2M/iot-

university/nb-iot-power-consumption/.‖

[26] S. Nanni, E. Benetti, G. Mazzini, "Indoor monitoring in Public Buildings: workplace

wellbeing and energy consumptions. An example of IoT for smart cities application",

Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 884-890.

2017.

[27] N. Andreadou, M.O. Guardiola, G. Fulli, "Telecommunication Technologies for Smart

Grid Projects with Focus on Smart Metering Applications", Energies Journal, Vol. 9, No.

5, May pp. 1-35. 2016.

[28] Iot application that make our planet great again‖ available

at―https://www.sigfox.com/en/news/5-iot-applications-make-our-planet-great-again‖

[29] Kalapraveen bagadi, Ravikumar CV, Performance analysis of ipv4 to ipv6 transition

methods ‖, Indian Journal of Science & Technology. Vol 9, issue 20, 2016.

[30] Trideep Singha Roy, Soumalya Ghosh, Rimpi Datta, Arpita Santra, IoT Based Home

Automation Using Raspberry PI, International Journal of Computer Engineering and

Technology, 10(3), pp. 70-74. 2019.

[31] Snehal R. Shinde, A. H. Karode and Dr. S. R. Suralkar, Review on-IOT Based

Environment Monitoring System, International Journal of Electronics and Communication

Engineering and Technology, 8(2), pp. 103–108. 2017.

[32] Viswanath Naik.S, S.Pushpa Bai, Rajesh.P, Mallikarjuna Naik.B, IOT Based Green House

Monitoring System, International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering

and Technology, 6(6), pp. 45–47. 2015.

lpwan technologies for iot deployment...whereas nb-iot is useful in applications that require...

Documents