1060  LPWAN Technology Selection Guide

1060.1 Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

  • Use decision flowcharts to select the appropriate LPWAN technology
  • Apply selection rules based on coverage, payload, mobility, and cost requirements
  • Match IoT use cases to optimal LPWAN technologies
  • Design hybrid LPWAN deployments for complex requirements

1060.2 Introduction

Time: ~10 min | Difficulty: Intermediate | Unit: P09.C01.U04

Selecting the right LPWAN technology requires careful analysis of your application’s requirements. This chapter provides decision frameworks, flowcharts, and use case mappings to guide your technology selection process.

1060.3 LPWAN Technology Selection Flowchart

Use this decision tree to select the most appropriate LPWAN technology for your application:

Flowchart for selecting LPWAN technology. Starts with coverage model decision (nationwide vs regional). Branches through private network preference, payload size (>12 bytes), message frequency (>140/day), mobility, data rate, and battery priority to recommend LoRaWAN (private/flexible), Sigfox (simple/long battery), NB-IoT (fixed assets/reliable), or LTE-M (mobile/higher speed).

Flowchart for selecting LPWAN technology. Starts with coverage model decision (nationwide vs regional). Branches through private network preference, payload size (>12 bytes), message frequency (>140/day), mobility, data rate, and battery priority to recommend LoRaWAN (private/flexible), Sigfox (simple/long battery), NB-IoT (fixed assets/reliable), or LTE-M (mobile/higher speed).
Figure 1060.1: Decision flowchart for LPWAN technology selection based on coverage model, payload size, message frequency, mobility, and battery requirements
TipUsing the Decision Flowchart

How to use this flowchart:

  1. Start with your primary requirement (coverage area)
  2. Follow the decision path based on your application’s constraints
  3. Review the recommended technology and its key benefits
  4. Validate the choice against all your requirements

Common Decision Paths:

  • Smart Agriculture -> Private Coverage -> Large Payload -> High Frequency -> LoRaWAN
  • Simple Sensors -> Private Coverage -> Small Payload -> Low Frequency -> Long Battery -> Sigfox (if available)
  • Asset Tracking -> Global Coverage -> Mobile -> Medium Data Rate -> LTE-M
  • Smart Meters -> Global Coverage -> Fixed -> Low Power -> NB-IoT

Multiple Technologies:

Some applications may benefit from using multiple LPWAN technologies: - Hybrid deployments: LoRaWAN for dense urban areas + NB-IoT for remote locations - Failover: Primary technology with cellular backup for critical messages - Cost optimization: Sigfox for bulk of devices + LoRaWAN for high-frequency nodes

1060.4 LPWAN Use Case Decision Matrix

This matrix maps specific IoT use cases to optimal LPWAN technologies based on message requirements and cost constraints:

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph Header["Use Case to Technology Mapping"]
        direction LR
        H1["Application"]
        H2["Payload"]
        H3["Frequency"]
        H4["Best Tech"]
    end

    subgraph SmartMeter["Smart Utility Meters"]
        SM1["Water/Gas/Electric meters<br/>Payload: 20-50 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-4x daily<br/>Battery: 15 years critical"]
        SM2["NB-IoT: Deep indoor, reliable<br/>Sigfox: If 12 bytes ok<br/>LoRaWAN: Private if 10k+ meters"]
    end

    subgraph AssetTrack["Asset Tracking"]
        AT1["Fleet/Container tracking<br/>Payload: 30-60 bytes GPS<br/>Frequency: 1-60x daily<br/>Mobility: Required"]
        AT2["LTE-M: Mobile handover<br/>NB-IoT: Stationary assets<br/>LoRaWAN: No mobility<br/>Sigfox: Payload too small"]
    end

    subgraph AgriSensor["Smart Agriculture"]
        AG1["Soil moisture, weather<br/>Payload: 50-100 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-24x daily<br/>Area: 100+ hectares"]
        AG2["LoRaWAN: Private network<br/>NB-IoT: If cellular coverage<br/>Sigfox: Payload limit<br/>Wi-Fi: Range insufficient"]
    end

    subgraph Parking["Smart Parking"]
        PK1["Occupancy detection<br/>Payload: 5-10 bytes<br/>Frequency: 10-50x daily<br/>Location: Urban streets"]
        PK2["NB-IoT: Urban coverage<br/>Sigfox: Simple detection<br/>LoRaWAN: City network"]
    end

    subgraph Industrial["Industrial IoT"]
        IN1["Condition monitoring<br/>Payload: 100-500 bytes<br/>Frequency: 1-60x hourly<br/>Reliability: Mission critical"]
        IN2["LTE-M: High bandwidth<br/>Private 5G: Ultra-reliable<br/>LoRaWAN: Non-critical<br/>Sigfox: Data too large"]
    end

    Header --> SmartMeter
    Header --> AssetTrack
    Header --> AgriSensor
    Header --> Parking
    Header --> Industrial

    style Header fill:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style SmartMeter fill:#16A085,color:#fff
    style AssetTrack fill:#E67E22,color:#fff
    style AgriSensor fill:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style Parking fill:#16A085,color:#fff
    style Industrial fill:#7F8C8D,color:#fff

Figure 1060.2: LPWAN use case decision matrix mapping common IoT applications to optimal technology choices. Each use case shows key requirements (payload, frequency, constraints) and rates technologies as optimal, acceptable, or unsuitable.

1060.5 Quick Selection Guide

For rapid technology selection, use these rules of thumb:

NoteTechnology Selection Rules

Choose LoRaWAN when:

  • You need private network control
  • Payload > 12 bytes OR messages > 140/day
  • Regional/local deployment is sufficient
  • Want flexibility and no vendor lock-in
  • Have technical team to manage infrastructure

Choose Sigfox when:

  • Ultra-simple, low-cost deployment needed
  • Payload <= 12 bytes AND messages <= 140/day
  • Maximum battery life (10-20 years) required
  • Sigfox coverage exists in deployment region
  • Minimal bidirectional communication needed

Choose NB-IoT when:

  • Need global carrier-grade reliability
  • Fixed or slow-moving devices
  • Require guaranteed message delivery (QoS)
  • Battery life 5-10 years is acceptable
  • Can afford carrier subscription costs

Choose LTE-M when:

  • Devices are mobile (vehicles, wearables)
  • Need voice capability or high data rates (>100 kbps)
  • Low latency required (<100 ms)
  • Can tolerate higher power consumption
  • Cellular coverage is reliable in operating region

1060.6 Detailed Use Case Analysis

1060.6.1 Smart Agriculture

Requirement Value Best Technology
Payload 50-100 bytes (soil, weather, GPS) LoRaWAN, NB-IoT
Frequency 1-24x daily Any LPWAN
Coverage Large farms (100+ hectares) LoRaWAN (15km range)
Power Solar/battery, years of operation LoRaWAN, Sigfox
Cost Low per-device, thousands of sensors LoRaWAN (private)

Recommendation: Private LoRaWAN - Large coverage area, control over infrastructure, low recurring costs at scale.

1060.6.2 Fleet/Asset Tracking

Requirement Value Best Technology
Payload 30-60 bytes (GPS, temperature, status) LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, LTE-M
Frequency 1-60x daily (depending on asset value) Any LPWAN
Mobility Cross-region, international LTE-M, NB-IoT
Coverage Global Cellular only
Reliability High (valuable cargo) NB-IoT, LTE-M

Recommendation: LTE-M for mobile assets crossing regions; NB-IoT for stationary/slow-moving assets.

1060.6.3 Smart Parking

Requirement Value Best Technology
Payload 5-10 bytes (occupied/vacant + battery) Any LPWAN
Frequency 10-50x daily (event-driven) Any LPWAN
Location Urban streets, underground NB-IoT (penetration)
Battery 5+ years buried sensors Sigfox, LoRaWAN
Scale City-wide deployment LoRaWAN (if city network), NB-IoT

Recommendation: NB-IoT for existing cellular coverage; LoRaWAN if city operates own network.

1060.6.4 Industrial Condition Monitoring

Requirement Value Best Technology
Payload 100-500 bytes (vibration, FFT data) NB-IoT, LTE-M, LoRaWAN
Frequency 1-60x hourly (real-time trending) LTE-M, Private 5G
Reliability Mission-critical (prevent downtime) LTE-M, Private 5G
Location Factory floor, indoor All (with proper planning)
Integration OT/IT systems, SCADA LTE-M (QoS), Private 5G

Recommendation: LTE-M or Private 5G for critical equipment; LoRaWAN for non-critical monitoring.

1060.7 Knowledge Check: Technology Selection

Question: A company evaluates LPWAN options for 10,000 remote agricultural sensors across 200 km2. Each sensor reports soil data (50 bytes) twice daily for 10 years. Cellular coverage exists but is spotty. They can install infrastructure on water towers and grain silos. What is the MOST cost-effective strategy?

Explanation: Private LoRaWAN (C) is most cost-effective at this scale:

Cost Analysis:

LoRaWAN (Private): - Sensors: 10,000 x $15 = $150,000 - Gateways: 200 km2 / 4 km2 per gateway = 50 gateways x $1,500 = $75,000 - Network server: $5,000/year x 10 years = $50,000 - Total: $275,000 over 10 years

Sigfox (Operator): - Sensors: 10,000 x $10 = $100,000 - Subscription: 10,000 x $6/year x 10 years = $600,000 - Total: $700,000 (2.5x more than LoRaWAN)

NB-IoT (Cellular): - Sensors: 10,000 x $20 = $200,000 - Subscription: 10,000 x $24/year x 10 years = $2,400,000 - Total: $2,600,000 (9.5x more than LoRaWAN!)

Why LoRaWAN wins: 1. Infrastructure control - Company owns water towers and grain silos (perfect gateway locations) 2. Zero recurring costs - No subscriptions after initial deployment 3. Scale economics - At 10,000 devices, gateway cost ($75k) amortizes to $7.50/device 4. Coverage - 200 km2 rural area well-suited for LoRa’s 15km range 5. 10-year lifespan - Private network costs are upfront; cellular costs compound annually

Hybrid approach (D) would cost more than pure LoRaWAN while adding complexity. Since they can install gateways on existing structures, achieving 100% LoRaWAN coverage is feasible.

Question: A university deploys 500 environmental sensors across campus (2 km2) using LoRaWAN. After 2 years, they want to add building energy monitoring (1,500 sensors) requiring 10-second update intervals. What challenge will they face?

Explanation: Option D is correct - Duty cycle is the critical constraint:

EU868 Duty Cycle Calculation:

Regulation: 1% duty cycle in 868 MHz ISM band = 36 seconds of transmission per hour per device.

Current deployment (environmental sensors): - Assume hourly updates: 24 messages/day - Airtime per message (SF7, 50 bytes): ~100 ms - Hourly airtime: 0.1 seconds - Duty cycle: 0.1 / 3600 = 0.0028% (well under 1%)

Proposed energy monitoring (10-second updates): - Messages per hour: 360 messages - Airtime per message: 100 ms (SF7) - Hourly airtime: 360 x 0.1 = 36 seconds - Duty cycle: 36 / 3600 = 1.0% (exactly at limit!)

Problem: With varying SF (SF8-SF10 for indoor sensors), airtime increases to 200-400 ms, causing 2% duty cycle violation.

Solutions: 1. Reduce update rate: 60-second updates instead of 10-second 2. Use NB-IoT: Licensed spectrum has no duty cycle restrictions 3. Deploy Wi-Fi/Ethernet: Higher bandwidth, no duty cycle limits 4. Aggregate data: Send batched readings every 60 seconds

Why other options are wrong: - A: LoRaWAN gateways support 10,000-100,000 devices - B: Building energy monitors are typically mains-powered - C: LoRaWAN excels at indoor penetration

Question: A logistics company tracks 50,000 shipping containers globally using Sigfox. After 3 years, Sigfox operator coverage disappears in a key region due to bankruptcy. What is their BEST mitigation strategy going forward?

Explanation: Option C (NB-IoT/LTE-M) is the most pragmatic solution for global shipping logistics:

Analysis of each option:

Option A - LoRaWAN private network: - Infeasible global coverage: Cannot deploy gateways at every port worldwide - Mobility challenge: LoRaWAN designed for stationary sensors - Verdict: Impractical for global mobile asset tracking

Option B - Alternative Sigfox operators: - Same risk: Dependence on Sigfox ecosystem - Coverage gaps: Sigfox unavailable in many countries - Verdict: Short-term fix but doesn’t address fundamental risk

Option C - NB-IoT/LTE-M cellular: - Global coverage: Cellular networks in 190+ countries - Carrier redundancy: Multi-IMSI SIMs prevent single-carrier dependency - Mobility support: LTE-M designed for mobile assets - Future-proof: Carriers won’t disappear like LPWAN startups - Verdict: Most reliable solution for global logistics

Option D - Hybrid LoRaWAN + Satellite: - Complexity: Managing 3 technologies - Satellite cost: $10-50/device/month = $500k-$2.5M/month! - Verdict: Very expensive and complex

Real-world parallel: Maersk, CMA CGM use cellular IoT for global container tracking because reliable global coverage is non-negotiable.

1060.8 Summary

This chapter provided decision frameworks for LPWAN technology selection:

  • Decision Flowchart: Start with coverage requirements, follow branches for payload, frequency, mobility, and cost
  • Use Case Matrix: Map specific applications to optimal technologies based on requirements
  • Selection Rules: Quick guidelines for LoRaWAN (private/flexible), Sigfox (simple/long battery), NB-IoT (reliable/fixed), LTE-M (mobile/high data)
  • Hybrid Deployments: Consider multi-technology approaches for complex requirements
  • Key Constraints: Sigfox payload (12 bytes) and message limits (140/day); LoRaWAN duty cycle (1%); cellular recurring costs

1060.9 What’s Next

Now that you understand how to select LPWAN technologies: