INDUSTRY 4.0 & IIoT
A BLENDED NETWORK STRATEGY IS BEST
Nick Sacke, head of IoT and products at Comms365, outlines the key questions that must be asked ahead of an IoT production rollout
I
oT production deployments are underpinned by a carefully orchestrated
connectivity layer, but there is an ongoing debate about which network types and protocols are better suited for supporting mass sensor deployments. The decision regarding which network is to be used is an early consideration for IoT deployments, but how do you determine availability and which network will give you the best solution and project outcomes? Why are there different IoT networks and
protocols? The short answer can be captured in two
words, evolution and innovation. Over time, IoT sensor technology has evolved in capability, potential for scale and reduction in cost per module. This has created a demand for new wireless network protocols and methods to support the new sensor types, many of which rely on battery power and infrequent messaging at long range, and over a wide area. Doubt, uncertainty and fragmentation in the IoT market, combined with increasing sensor hardware and software innovation, have led to the creation and fielding of several network connectivity options, each with their own attributes. We are still in the early adopter stage as multiple standards coexist and compete until certain standards take hold. In recent years we’ve witnessed the growing
expansion of one dominant IoT Network type, the Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN). The early entrants to this market, LoRaWAN and Sigfox, use free-to-air radio spectrum, and have had time to establish themselves across the world. LoRaWAN in particular has been a runaway success as an IoT Network connectivity option, dominating the market with over 40% market share of new connections, which is projected to continue adding market share through 2025. Both LoRaWAN and Sigfox are now acknowledged as global network and protocol standards for IoT through establishing trust with users who are confident in the usability, scale and
8 MAY 2021 | PROCESS & CONTROL Sacke says there is a necessity to use a blended
strategy for network connectivity, rather than look for a ‘one size fits all’ connectivity approach
reliability of such networks. On the cellular side, for new IoT network
protocols NB-IoT and LTE-M (evolutions of the 4G spectrum that have now been adopted under the 5G standard), there is still an element of catch-up in progress. The GSMA was late in ratifying the standards for these IoT protocols and ultimately their deployment by Tier 1 carriers came sometime after the initial rollouts of the first LPWAN network connectivity protocols. Despite initial predictions claiming that the cellular IoT Network variants would dominate the IoT connectivity market and squeeze LoRaWAN and Sigfox to the margins, there has been a lack of intensity in UK rollout of the cellular IoT network programmes (at the time of writing, LTE-M has been enabled in the Eastern half of the UK, and NB-IoT has ‘holes’ in its’ coverage, particularly in the East of the UK). This means that IoT cellular LPWAN work has been largely limited to testing in the UK, while production rollouts are dominated by Private Council LoRaWAN installations and innovation programmes on public network variants of both LoRaWAN and Sigfox. Globally, analysts project that there will be a
50:50 split in LPWAN network deployments between the free-to-air (unlicensed spectrum) and cellular variants (licensed spectrum) – the competition between these network standards will continue for some time to come. In particular, once 5G is fully rolled out and there are radio modules at a workable cost point for IoT, 5G protocols will also have an IoT element for the cellular side that will bring increased scale and efficiency in terms of its capability to connect millions of sensors per square kilometer. Which network type or protocol to use?
As with most projects, cost of delivery for
data is a primary concern that must be addressed. LoRaWAN and Sigfox are now at a level of maturity where the devices are cost- effective. Initially, cellular was a much higher cost, but is now starting to achieve cost- effectiveness. But in terms of usage costs, for NB-IoT and LTE-M, users are still paying for data usage on the network (paying by the byte), whereas LoRaWAN leverages the free-to-air spectrum facility and charges are based on device licensing, and in the case of Sigfox, per message. Even though there appears to be a clear
differential in terms of cost models, the choice of network and protocol isn’t straightforward. As IoT rollouts become more commonplace, there are elements within a LoRaWAN environment that create cause for concern. With multiple devices sharing the LoRaWAN spectrum, this can cause potential collisions on the network and lost messages. In order to ensure each message arrives at its destination, the LoRaWAN protocol and software controlling the network has been adapted further to mitigate against this happening by spreading messages across multiple channels, monitoring message counters, and other techniques. Identifying the parameters of the use case
and the nature of the deployment is very important. If a message with telemetry data such as bin fill levels or parking events only needs to be sent when there is a status change, this won’t necessarily create network congestion on a LoRaWAN Network, as the messages aren’t sent at the same time. Regular 15 minute monitoring of environmental conditions from multiple sensors in an area
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66
