855  Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah) for IoT

855.1 Wi-Fi HaLow: Long-Range, Low-Power Wi-Fi for IoT

⏱️ ~15 min | ⭐⭐ Intermediate | 📋 P08.C44.U01

NoteLearning Objectives

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

  • Understand Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah) technology and its IoT advantages
  • Compare Wi-Fi HaLow with LoRaWAN, Sigfox, and traditional Wi-Fi
  • Design Wi-Fi HaLow networks for long-range IoT deployments
  • Evaluate Wi-Fi HaLow for different IoT use cases
  • Understand power-saving mechanisms specific to Wi-Fi HaLow
  • Navigate spectrum regulations for sub-1 GHz Wi-Fi

855.2 Prerequisites

Before diving into this chapter, you should be familiar with:

Wi-Fi: - Wi-Fi Fundamentals and Standards - Wi-Fi basics - Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 for IoT - High-bandwidth Wi-Fi

Comparisons: - LoRaWAN Overview - LPWAN alternative - Sigfox - Ultra-narrowband alternative - NB-IoT Fundamentals - Cellular LPWAN

855.3 For Beginners: Understanding Wi-Fi HaLow

The Problem with Traditional Wi-Fi for IoT: - Shorter range indoors (often tens of meters; environment dependent) - High power consumption (not battery-friendly) - Crowded spectrum (2.4/5 GHz congestion) - Designed for high-bandwidth, not sensors

The Problem with LPWAN (LoRaWAN, Sigfox): - Often low data rates (bps to tens of kbps, PHY and region dependent) - Specialized LPWAN stacks (often requires gateways + a network server); some are proprietary (e.g., Sigfox) - Not native IP/Wi-Fi ecosystem

Wi-Fi HaLow’s Solution: Wi-Fi HaLow (pronounced “HAY-low”) is like Wi-Fi’s country cousin: - Uses sub-1 GHz spectrum (e.g., 902–928 MHz in the US; varies by region) - Range often hundreds of meters to ~1 km+ (environment/regulatory dependent) - Native IP (works with existing Wi-Fi tools) - Low power (multi-year battery life is possible with aggressive duty-cycling)

Analogy: - Traditional Wi-Fi = Sports car (fast but short range, high fuel consumption) - LoRaWAN = Marathon runner (long distance but slow) - Wi-Fi HaLow = Efficient truck (reasonable speed, long range, good fuel economy)

Wi-Fi HaLow is like a super-efficient delivery truck that can travel really far without using much gas!

855.3.1 The Sensor Squad Adventure: The Big Farm Challenge

The Sensor Squad had a new mission! Farmer Jenny needed help watching over her HUGE farm - it was so big that you could walk for an entire hour and still not reach the other side! She needed sensors to check on her apple trees, her vegetable garden, and her greenhouse, but there was one big problem.

“Regular Wi-Fi can’t reach that far!” said Bella the Button, looking worried. “It only works inside houses and a little bit outside.”

Max the Motion Detector scratched his head. “We could use LoRa - it can send messages really far. But it’s SO slow! It would take forever to send anything more than a tiny message.”

Then Lila the Light Sensor had a brilliant idea! “What about Wi-Fi HaLow? It’s like Wi-Fi’s super-powered cousin! It uses special low radio waves that can travel WAY farther than regular Wi-Fi.”

Sammy the Temperature Sensor got excited. “So it’s like having a delivery truck instead of a bicycle? The truck can carry more stuff AND go farther!”

“Exactly!” said Lila. “And the best part? Wi-Fi HaLow is so energy-efficient that we can run on batteries for YEARS without needing new ones. We just take little naps between sending messages!”

The Sensor Squad set up Wi-Fi HaLow sensors all across Farmer Jenny’s farm. Now she can check on her entire farm from her phone - the apple trees, the vegetables, even the greenhouse temperature - all connected by invisible waves that travel through walls, over hills, and across the whole farm!

855.3.2 Key Words for Kids

Word What It Means
Wi-Fi HaLow A special type of Wi-Fi that uses slower waves to travel much farther (like shouting low instead of high)
Sub-1 GHz Radio waves that wiggle less than 1 billion times per second - slow but powerful travelers!
Target Wake Time A schedule that lets sensors sleep most of the time and only wake up when needed (like setting an alarm)

855.3.3 Try This at Home! 🏠

The Wi-Fi Distance Detective Game

  1. Find out where your home Wi-Fi router is located
  2. Walk around your house with a parent’s phone, watching the Wi-Fi signal strength bars
  3. Count how many bars you have in each room - write them down!
  4. Go outside (in your yard) - how far can you go before you lose the signal?
  5. Now imagine a Wi-Fi that could reach 10 TIMES farther - that’s Wi-Fi HaLow!

Bonus: Notice that the signal gets weaker when you go through walls or go upstairs? Wi-Fi HaLow’s special low waves can go through obstacles much better, which is why farmers use it to cover huge fields!

855.4 Wi-Fi HaLow Overview

855.4.1 Technical Specifications

Parameter Wi-Fi HaLow (802.11ah) Traditional Wi-Fi (802.11n)
Frequency Sub-1 GHz (e.g., 902-928 MHz in the US; varies by region) 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz
Range Hundreds of meters to ~1 km+ (outdoor LOS, environment-dependent) Tens of meters to ~100 m (environment-dependent)
Data Rate Hundreds of kbps to tens of Mbps (peak PHY; depends on channel width/MCS) 150 - 600 Mbps (theoretical PHY)
Channel Width 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 MHz 20, 40 MHz
Devices per AP Up to 8,191 (spec max) Practical limits vary widely (often dozens to hundreds; AP/security dependent)
Power Lower average (TWT/RAW; duty-cycle dependent) Higher average (chip and duty-cycle dependent)
Modulation OFDM (like Wi-Fi) OFDM

Note: Ranges and data rates are approximate; real deployments depend on antennas, bandwidth/MCS, channel conditions, and regional regulations.

855.4.2 How Wi-Fi HaLow Differs

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph Traditional["Traditional Wi-Fi"]
        T1[2.4/5 GHz]
        T2[20-40 MHz channels]
        T3[Short range (tens of meters)]
        T4[Practical device limits]
    end

    subgraph HaLow["Wi-Fi HaLow"]
        H1[Sub-1 GHz<br/>(region-dependent)]
        H2[1-16 MHz channels]
        H3[Longer range (100s of meters)]
        H4[8,191 devices/AP]
    end

    T1 -->|Lower frequency<br/>better propagation| H3
    T2 -->|Narrower<br/>channels| H2
    T4 -->|Hierarchical<br/>AID| H4

    style Traditional fill:#7F8C8D,stroke:#2C3E50
    style HaLow fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50

Figure 855.1: Traditional Wi-Fi vs Wi-Fi HaLow Feature Comparison

This variant shows the same Wi-Fi HaLow vs Traditional Wi-Fi comparison as a trade-off analysis, emphasizing what you gain and what you give up.

%% fig-alt: "Wi-Fi HaLow trade-off diagram showing what you gain versus what you give up: Gain longer range, lower power, more devices per AP, and native IP; Give up high data rates and 2.4/5 GHz compatibility. Shows balanced trade-off making HaLow ideal for IoT sensors but not video streaming."
%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D', 'fontSize': '11px'}}}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph GAIN["WHAT YOU GAIN"]
        direction TB
        G1["Range<br/>100s of meters"]
        G2["Power<br/>Multi-year battery"]
        G3["Devices<br/>8,191 per AP"]
        G4["Native IP<br/>Standard Wi-Fi stack"]
    end

    subgraph TRADEOFF["Wi-Fi HaLow<br/>Trade-offs"]
        direction TB
        T["Optimized for<br/>IoT Sensors"]
    end

    subgraph LOSE["WHAT YOU GIVE UP"]
        direction TB
        L1["Speed<br/>Max ~tens Mbps"]
        L2["2.4/5 GHz<br/>Needs new hardware"]
        L3["Ecosystem<br/>Fewer devices today"]
    end

    GAIN --> T
    T --> LOSE

    style G1 fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style G2 fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style G3 fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style G4 fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style T fill:#E67E22,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style L1 fill:#7F8C8D,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style L2 fill:#7F8C8D,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style L3 fill:#7F8C8D,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff

Figure 855.2: Wi-Fi HaLow trade-off analysis: excellent for IoT sensors, not for bandwidth-intensive applications

Key Insight: Wi-Fi HaLow is purpose-built for IoT - it trades speed for range, power efficiency, and massive device support. Choose HaLow when you need to cover large areas with battery-powered sensors, but stick with traditional Wi-Fi for video streaming or high-bandwidth applications.

855.4.3 Spectrum Allocation

Wi-Fi HaLow uses license-exempt sub‑1 GHz spectrum. Exact frequency ranges, power limits, and required mechanisms (duty cycle, LBT/AFA, etc.) vary by region and change over time.

Region Example band (illustrative) Notes
USA 902–928 MHz (ISM) Wide unlicensed band; specific limits depend on rules and device behavior
Europe parts of 863–870 MHz (SRD) Narrower allocations; duty-cycle or LBT/AFA constraints may apply
Other regions varies Always verify current local rules before deploying

855.5 Wi-Fi HaLow vs LPWAN Comparison

855.5.1 Technology Comparison

Feature Wi-Fi HaLow LoRaWAN Sigfox NB-IoT
Data Rate Hundreds of kbps to tens of Mbps (peak PHY; depends on bandwidth/MCS) kbps‑class (PHY and region dependent) very low kbps‑class (coverage and network dependent)
Range Hundreds of meters to ~1 km+ in favorable conditions km‑scale possible long range in some deployments km‑scale (coverage dependent)
Latency Often lower on a local LAN (coverage/retry dependent) Downlink/latency depends on device class and uplink interval network dependent network dependent
Battery Multi‑year possible (duty cycle + sleep current dependent) Multi‑year common for low duty cycle Multi‑year possible Multi‑year possible (coverage + PSM/eDRX dependent)
IP Native ✅ Yes ❌ No (uses gateways/server) ❌ No ✅ Yes
Spectrum Unlicensed Unlicensed Unlicensed Licensed
Downlink ✅ Full (Wi-Fi-style) Limited in Class A; better in Class B/C with power trade-offs Very limited ✅ Full

Note: Wi-Fi HaLow supports up to 8,191 associated stations per AP (spec max). LPWAN scalability depends heavily on airtime, payload size, device class, and operator/network configuration.

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
quadrantChart
    title Range vs Data Rate Comparison
    x-axis Low Data Rate --> High Data Rate
    y-axis Short Range --> Long Range
    quadrant-1 HaLow
    quadrant-2 LoRa/Sigfox
    quadrant-3 BLE/Zigbee
    quadrant-4 Wi-Fi 6
    Wi-Fi HaLow: [0.65, 0.6]
    LoRaWAN: [0.15, 0.85]
    Sigfox: [0.05, 0.95]
    NB-IoT: [0.25, 0.7]
    Wi-Fi 6: [0.9, 0.3]
    BLE: [0.3, 0.2]
    Zigbee: [0.2, 0.25]

Figure 855.3: IoT Protocol Comparison Quadrant: Range vs Data Rate Positioning

855.6 Wi-Fi HaLow Architecture

855.6.1 Network Topology

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
graph TB
    subgraph Network["Wi-Fi HaLow Network"]
        AP[HaLow Access Point<br/>802.11ah]

        subgraph Sensors["IoT Devices (up to 8,191)"]
            S1[Sensor 1]
            S2[Sensor 2]
            S3[Sensor N]
        end

        subgraph Relay["Relay Stations (optional)"]
            R1[Relay 1]
            R2[Relay 2]
        end
    end

    S1 & S2 --> AP
    S3 --> R1
    R1 --> AP
    R2 --> AP

    AP --> Router[IP Router]
    Router --> Cloud[Cloud/Internet]

    style AP fill:#16A085,stroke:#2C3E50,color:#fff
    style Sensors fill:#E67E22,stroke:#2C3E50
    style Relay fill:#7F8C8D,stroke:#2C3E50

Figure 855.4: Wi-Fi HaLow Network Topology with Sensors, Relays, and Internet Connectivity

855.6.2 Hierarchical AID (Association ID)

Wi-Fi HaLow supports up to 8,191 associated stations per AP because 802.11ah expands the Association ID (AID) space to 13 bits (AID values 1–8191; 0 is reserved). To keep signaling efficient when most stations sleep, the AID is structured hierarchically so the AP can reference groups of stations compactly (used by the hierarchical TIM and related scheduling mechanisms).

AID field Bits Values What it groups
Page 2 0–3 A large group of stations (up to 2048 per page)
Block 5 0–31 64 stations within a page
Sub‑block 3 0–7 8 stations within a block
Station index 3 0–7 1 station within a sub‑block

855.7 Power Saving Mechanisms

855.7.1 Target Wake Time (TWT)

Introduced in 802.11ah and later adopted across newer Wi-Fi generations (including Wi-Fi 6):

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
sequenceDiagram
    participant S as HaLow Sensor
    participant AP as HaLow AP

    S->>AP: TWT Request<br/>(wake every 1 hour)
    AP->>S: TWT Response<br/>(SP: 50ms, Interval: 1hr)

    Note over S: Sleep (1 hour)

    S->>AP: Wake, send data (50ms)
    AP->>S: ACK

    Note over S: Sleep (1 hour)

    loop Every Hour
        S->>AP: Wake, send data
        AP->>S: ACK
    end

Figure 855.5: Wi-Fi HaLow Target Wake Time (TWT) Power Saving Sequence

855.7.2 Restricted Access Window (RAW)

Groups devices into scheduled access windows:

RAW Type Description Benefit
Generic RAW Time-divided access Reduce contention
Triggered RAW AP-initiated access Power save
Periodic RAW Recurring schedule More predictable access timing

855.7.3 Power Consumption Comparison

Peak TX/RX power can be in the same broad order of magnitude across Wi-Fi-class radios; HaLow’s practical advantage is often average power via scheduling (TWT/RAW), narrower channels, and reduced idle listening—when the module and deployment are configured for low duty cycle.

Battery-life planning (recommended approach): - Start from the module datasheet (TX/RX peaks, idle listening, deep sleep) - Model duty cycle (how often you wake, associate/maintain link, and transmit) - Validate with a bench measurement (sleep current and retry rate often dominate)

855.8 Use Cases

855.8.1 Wi-Fi HaLow Ideal Applications

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#2C3E50', 'primaryTextColor': '#fff', 'primaryBorderColor': '#16A085', 'lineColor': '#E67E22', 'secondaryColor': '#16A085', 'tertiaryColor': '#7F8C8D'}}}%%
mindmap
    root((Wi-Fi HaLow<br/>Use Cases))
        Smart Agriculture
            Soil sensors
            Weather stations
            Irrigation control
            Livestock tracking
        Smart Cities
            Street lighting
            Parking sensors
            Environmental monitoring
            Asset tracking
        Industrial
            Factory sensors
            Tank monitoring
            Leak detection
            Equipment health
        Buildings
            HVAC sensors
            Occupancy
            Energy metering
            Security cameras

Figure 855.6: Wi-Fi HaLow Use Cases: Agriculture, Smart Cities, Industrial, and Buildings

855.8.2 Use Case Comparison

Scenario Wi-Fi HaLow LoRaWAN Best Choice
Farm sensors (~1 km) ✅ Low latency + IP ✅ Long range + battery Depends on downlink/latency needs
Smart meters (city-wide) ⚠️ More APs ✅ Coverage LoRaWAN/NB-IoT
Warehouse cameras ⚠️ Limited throughput ❌ Data rate Wi-Fi 6 / Ethernet
Asset tracking (mobile) ⚠️ AP coverage required ✅ Wide-area coverage NB-IoT/LoRaWAN
Industrial sensors ✅ Lower latency ⚠️ Telemetry OK Depends on control/latency needs

855.9 Implementation Considerations

855.9.1 Hardware Availability

802.11ah silicon and modules are available from multiple vendors; availability changes quickly. Check current options and regional certifications (frequency band support, antenna options, and regulatory approvals) before committing to a platform.

855.9.2 Development Platforms

# Example: Wi-Fi HaLow sensor configuration (pseudocode)
# Vendor SDK APIs and Linux support vary by module.

device.configure_radio(channel=1, bandwidth_mhz=1)  # 1/2/4/8/16 MHz depending on region/module
device.configure_twt(interval_s=3600, service_period_ms=50)  # optional, if supported
device.connect(ssid="HaLow_Network", password="...")  # provision securely in production

while True:
    payload = read_sensor()
    device.send(payload)
    device.sleep_until_next_wake()

855.9.3 Network Design Guidelines

Factor Recommendation
Channel width Start with 1-2 MHz, increase if needed
TX power Minimum needed for reliability
TWT interval Based on data freshness requirements
Relay stations Use for obstacles, extend range
AP density Site survey and link budget; coverage depends heavily on antenna height, terrain, and interference

855.10 Regulatory Considerations

855.10.1 Spectrum Regulations by Region

Region Example band Notes
USA (FCC) 902–928 MHz Rules depend on device class/modulation; confirm applicable Part 15 sections and antenna constraints
Europe (ETSI) parts of 863–870 MHz Power and duty-cycle/LBT/AFA rules vary by sub-band; confirm the SRD requirements for your product
Other regions varies Always verify current rules and product certification requirements

Regulations evolve and depend on channel bandwidth and device behavior; verify current rules with your local regulator before deploying sub-1 GHz products.

855.10.2 Coexistence

Wi-Fi HaLow shares sub-1 GHz spectrum with: - LoRa/LoRaWAN - Z-Wave - Wireless M-Bus - Industrial equipment

Mitigation: - CSMA/CA provides listen-before-talk behavior; in some regions devices must satisfy specific LBT/AFA requirements—verify compliance for your product - Channel and bandwidth planning - RAW/TWT scheduling to reduce airtime and collisions

855.11 Knowledge Check: MCQ Questions

Test your understanding of Wi-Fi HaLow concepts:

Question 1: Wi-Fi HaLow can support up to 8,191 devices per access point. What architectural feature enables this massive scalability?

Explanation: 802.11ah expands the AID space to 13 bits (AID values 1–8191). The AID is encoded hierarchically (page/block/sub‑block/station index), which lets the AP reference groups of stations compactly (e.g., in the hierarchical TIM) and schedule subsets of devices efficiently. This reduces management overhead when most sensors are sleeping.

Question 2: You’re choosing between Wi-Fi HaLow and LoRaWAN for agricultural sensors. Which statement correctly describes Wi-Fi HaLow’s advantage?

Explanation: Wi-Fi HaLow’s key advantage over LoRaWAN is native IP connectivity (works with standard Wi-Fi/IP tooling) and typically lower latency on a local network. LoRaWAN often has longer range and excellent battery life, but downlink/actuation latency depends on the device class (e.g., Class A downlinks are constrained to RX windows after uplinks). If you need interactive control or frequent downlink, HaLow can be simpler.

Question 3: Wi-Fi HaLow operates in the sub-1 GHz band (e.g., 902-928 MHz in USA). What is the primary benefit of this frequency choice?

Explanation: Sub-1 GHz frequencies have lower path loss than 2.4/5 GHz, enabling much longer range (often hundreds of meters to ~1 km+ in favorable conditions) at similar transmit power. Lower frequencies also penetrate obstacles better. However, the sub-1 GHz band is shared with LoRa, Z-Wave, and other devices (not exclusive). Wi-Fi HaLow devices are NOT compatible with traditional 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi clients. Data rates are typically lower than modern 2.4/5 GHz Wi-Fi, though they can still reach the Mbps range.

Question 4: In a low-duty-cycle Wi-Fi HaLow sensor deployment, what most directly enables multi-year battery life?

Explanation: Wi-Fi HaLow can achieve multi-year battery life when devices sleep most of the time and only wake on a schedule. TWT coordinates wake/sleep timing, and RAW can group devices into access windows to reduce contention. Multi-year life still depends on device sleep current, TX power, and how often/how much data is sent.

855.12 Understanding Check: Design Scenario

WarningDesign Challenge

Scenario: A vineyard wants to deploy 500 soil moisture sensors across 50 hectares: - Report soil moisture every 15 minutes - Battery-powered (target: 3+ year life) - Need real-time alerts for irrigation triggers - Budget-conscious solution

Questions:

  1. Would Wi-Fi HaLow or LoRaWAN be better for this deployment?
  2. How many HaLow access points would be needed?
  3. What channel width and TWT settings would you use?
  4. What’s the advantage of Wi-Fi HaLow for real-time alerts?

1. Wi-Fi HaLow vs LoRaWAN:

Both can work; the right choice depends on how interactive the system needs to be:

  • Choose Wi-Fi HaLow if you want IP-native connectivity and frequent/interactive downlink (e.g., near-real-time valve control or configuration updates).
  • Choose LoRaWAN if your workload is primarily uplink telemetry and you want wide-area coverage with very low energy per message.

LoRaWAN downlink latency depends on the device class. In Class A, downlinks are constrained to receive windows after an uplink. If sensors only uplink every 15 minutes, actuation commands can be delayed unless you switch to Class B/C or increase uplink frequency (power trade-off).

2. Access Point Count:

Area: 50 hectares = 500,000 m²
Outdoor coverage is environment-dependent. Start with a site survey (or a small pilot) to validate:
- Link margin at the farthest sensor locations (terrain + foliage + antenna height)
- Retry rate under real interference conditions
- Whether you need relays/repeaters for valleys, buildings, or other blockers

For reliability, plan overlap (multiple APs or relays) so a single point failure or local fade doesn’t isolate a large area.

3. Configuration:

Channel: 1–2 MHz (often sufficient for low-rate sensors; validate with load testing)
  - Data rate: varies by MCS and channel conditions
  - Offered load here is small (hundreds of bytes per device per hour), so coverage and reliability usually dominate over raw throughput

TWT Settings:
  - Wake interval: 15 minutes (900 seconds)
  - Service period: tune based on association strategy, retries, and payload size
  - Consider RAW grouping if many devices share the same wake time

Power planning:
- Measure sleep current on the actual board (it often dominates multi-year designs)
- Measure retries in the field (poor link margin can dominate energy)
- Use TWT/RAW only when supported end-to-end (AP + station)

4. Real-Time Alert Advantage: Wi-Fi HaLow advantages for alerts: - Lower latency on a local network for both uplink and downlink when devices are associated - Bidirectional IP connectivity: simpler interactive control loops than many LPWAN setups - MAC scheduling features (TWT/RAW): can reduce contention when many sensors report

Example alert flow:

HaLow (local):
1. Sensor detects threshold and transmits immediately
2. AP forwards to local controller/cloud
3. Controller can send a command back without waiting for a scheduled receive window

LoRaWAN Class A:
1. Uplink can be immediate, but downlink is typically available only after an uplink
2. With 15-minute reporting, command latency can approach the reporting interval unless you change class or uplink rate (power trade-off)

855.14 Key Takeaways

TipSummary

  1. Wi-Fi HaLow operates in sub-1 GHz (region-dependent), often enabling hundreds of meters to ~1 km+ range in favorable conditions

  2. Native IP/Wi-Fi means existing tools, security, and infrastructure work

  3. Up to 8,191 devices per AP (spec limit) with hierarchical AID addressing

  4. Power-saving features (TWT, RAW) can enable multi-year battery operation for low-duty-cycle devices

  5. Higher data rates than LPWAN (hundreds of kbps to tens of Mbps, theoretical PHY)

  6. Best for: Long-range IoT needing real-time response and moderate bandwidth

  7. Regional spectrum varies: the USA has a wide 902–928 MHz band, while many European SRD allocations are much narrower—always verify local rules

855.15 What’s Next

Explore related technologies: