In a world where IoT is transforming building management, choosing the right network is crucial. LoRaWAN is establishing itself as a flexible and cost-effective solution, ideal for smart infrastructures. But is it really the best option compared to NB-IoT or LTE-M?
As early as 2015, new wireless communication networks are emerging in Belgium and Europe under the name LPWAN (Low Power, Wide Area Network). These networks, specifically designed for the Internet of Things (IoT), are distinguished by their low energy consumption, long range and ability to transmit small volumes of data. Unlike traditional mobile networks (2G, 4G/LTE, 5G), their objective is not speed, but the optimization of sensor consumption, allowing them to operate for several years on battery at a lower cost.
At the time, the mobile industry was focused on performance, increasing throughput at the expense of power efficiency and equipment cost.
As a vehicle tracking professional, I have seen these limitations first-hand. Our trackers equipped with GPRS modems used so much power that they could drain a vehicle’s battery in winter, causing it to become immobilized. Transmission speed was not an issue, but power consumption was.
The emergence of public networks with national coverage
In 2016, the first LPWAN networks, Sigfox and LoRaWAN®, were created thanks to French initiatives. Using the free 868 MHz frequency band, these networks do not require an operator license. In Belgium, Sigfox was launched by Engie in 2015, followed by Proximus with LoRaWAN®. But ten years later, Sigfox went bankrupt and was taken over by Unabiz, while Citymesh recovered its Belgian network. For its part, Proximus is ending its LoRaWAN® network in October 2023.
Should we see this as the end of LPWAN networks? Not really.
Public vs Private LoRaWAN Networks
LoRaWAN® continues to thrive, but it is not universally suitable for all IoT uses. In smart buildings in particular, where local coverage is sufficient, the installation of private LoRaWAN networks is often preferred. Mobile operators have attempted to build public LoRaWAN networks on a large scale, but these initiatives have run into economic realities.
At the same time, 3GPP, the organization responsible for standardizing mobile networks, has introduced a new technology: NB-IoT (Narrow Band IoT). Intended to compete with LoRaWAN® and Sigfox, it stands out for its low energy consumption and its direct integration into existing mobile infrastructures. However, being licensed and requiring a SIM card, it remains under the exclusive control of mobile operators, thus limiting competition.
LoRaWAN® retains a major advantage: the ability to create private networks, ideal for buildings, industrial sites and agricultural sectors. These networks offer several benefits, including reduced costs (no subscription per sensor), optimized coverage and a wide variety of sensors at affordable prices.
In reality, the choice of network depends on the use case. There is no single, universal solution.
A business model based on volume and low cost
IoT relies on the massive deployment of low-cost sensors for various applications. However, the profitability of traditional mobile operators is being challenged by this dynamic. Only companies capable of integrating sensors, connectivity and data processing can generate a viable business model.
To deliver effective public connectivity, wide and dense coverage is required, which is a financial challenge. In addition, the spread of private LoRaWAN® networks creates internal competition to the public operator model.
In 2018, during a meeting at Orange, I questioned their absence on the LoRaWAN® market. Their answer was unequivocal: there is no room for two public networks in Belgium. They have SO opted for NB-IoT…
Two LPWAN technologies among mobile operators
With the standardization of NB-IoT in 2016, some operators find themselves managing two LPWAN technologies. This is the case of Proximus in Belgium and Bouygues (Objenious) in France. Faced with the rise of private LoRaWAN® networks and the low margins of IoT connectivity, these operators have chosen to abandon LoRaWAN® to focus on NB-IoT.
The main reasons ?
- Competition of private LoRaWAN® networks on the most relevant use cases
- Insufficient margins to maintain two competing technologies
- Rationalization of infrastructure and costs
Adapt the network according to the use case
The choice of LPWAN network depends on the specific constraints and needs of each project:
- Mobility requirements : For mobile sensors (vehicles, trackers), Cat-M1 or LTE-M are more suitable due to their cellular coverage and low latency.
- High sensor density in a small area : LoRaWAN® is ideal for buildings and industrial sites where thousands of sensors must coexist.
- Few isolated sensors : NB-IoT or LTE-M may be more relevant for remote sensors requiring low maintenance.
- Power supply available? If a site has a permanent power source, the use of an LPWAN network can be avoided.
LoRaWAN®, the Smart Building standard
In the field of Smart Building, LoRaWAN® is establishing itself as the preferred standard thanks to its flexibility and diversity of sensors. Its rapidly expanding ecosystem can meet almost all needs: air quality, space management, door opening detection, parking monitoring, monitoring of energy, water and gas consumption.
However, if the objective is only to measure isolated consumption (water, gas) over a large area, NB-IoT may prove to be more economically advantageous. It all depends on the density of the sensors necessary .
Conclusion
No wireless network can meet all needs. In Smart Building, LoRaWAN® stands out for its low installation cost and its ability to offer optimized local coverage. It is this flexibility that makes it today an essential choice for IoT connectivity in smart buildings.
