Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?

How to build a multi-
technology scalable IoT
Connectivity Platform?
© 2018 ACTILITY SA. All rights reserved.

Actility S.A. au capital de 744 810 € - 4 rue Ampère, 22300 Lannion, France
1
NOTICE
The material provided in this document is believed to be accurate and reliable. However, no
responsibility is assumed by Actility SA for the use of this material. Actility SA reserves the
right to make changes to the material at any time and without notice. This document is
intended for information and operational purposes only. No part of this document shall
constitute any contractual commitment by Actility SA.
© 2018 ACTILITY SA. All rights reserved.
Portions of this documentation and of the software herein described are used by permission
of their copyright owners.
Actility, ThingPark, are registered trademarks of Actility SA or its subsidiaries may also be
registered in other countries.
Other denoted product names of Actility SA or other companies may be trademarks or
registered trademarks of Actility SA or its subsidiaries, or their respective owners.
Headquarters
Actility S.A 4 rue Ampère BP 30225
22300 Lannion France
www.actility.com

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE .......................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................2
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................4
2 AUDIENCE............................................................................................................5
3 IOT DEPLOYMENT: THE CHALLENGES FACING MOBILE NETWORK OPERATORS......6
4 BUSINESS CASE FOR MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM..........................................9
4.1 LoRaWAN for capturing LPWAN Market in unlicensed band, and complementing it with
Cellular IoT ......................................................................................................................11
4.2 Market Breakdown for LPWAN Connections........................................................13
5 HOW TO MAP USE CASE TO RIGHT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTION?...........................14
5.1 Key Decision Criteria .............................................................................................14
5.2 Example Mapping of IoT Use cases to Connectivity .............................................21
6 OPERATOR CHALLENGES TOWARDS DEPLOYING CELLULAR IOT ..........................23
7 CASE STUDY: SK TELECOM IOT DEPLOYMENT .....................................................26
7.1 SK Telecom's transition to small things.................................................................26
7.2 SK Telecom’s target IoT market: IoST ...................................................................26
7.3 SK Telecom Multi-track IoT network.....................................................................27
8 CASE STUDY: ORANGE IOT DEPLOYMENT ...........................................................29
8.1 LoRa + LTE-M: The winning combination..............................................................30
9 WHAT IS THE RIGHT STRATEGY FOR AN OPERATOR? ..........................................31
10 THINGPARK WIRELESS: A MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR SERVICE & DATA
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR LPWAN CONNECTIVITY........................................33
11 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................35
12 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................36
13 ABOUT AUTHORS…………………………………………………………………………………………….37

3

4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The IoT market today is wide and there is no single technology able to address the diversity of
use cases, devices and applications entering the market. As the vast majority of future IoT
devices will be wireless and battery powered (or using energy harvesting), significant
technological developments have been made to provide low power connectivity options
optimized for typical IoT communication patterns. However, there is no such thing as a ‘one
size fits all’ technology: each one has been designed with a specific market segment in mind
and tuned for the corresponding use cases. These market segments are distinct but do have
some overlap. As a result, service providers must consider a range of connectivity options,
sometimes competing and often responding to different requirements. Choosing the right mix
of connectivity solutions for a given use case requires careful consideration.
As IoT wireless networks are constantly evolving, and yet devices often must remain in the
field for 10 years or more, the demand from the market is that all connected ’things’ will work
together seamlessly. This applies not only to the various technologies that may be used for a
given customer at a given time, but also to the technology generations that will be deployed
over time.
To manage this growing variety of connected devices — from smart meters, sensors,
wearables, cars, homes, street lights, parking meters, agricultural and industrial automation
devices — Operators must be agnostic to radio connectivity.
In this paper, we also investigate the challenges facing service providers and enterprises for
deploying and monetizing LPWAN solution. Successfully deploying and monetizing LPWAN
connectivity solution requires a rethinking of business model.
We show in this paper that the traditional M2M approach might not be cost-effective for the
needs of LPWAN IoT deployments due to dramatically lower ARPU requirements of IoT
compared to traditional M2M. We also examine both cellular IoT (NB-IoT or Cat-NB1, Cat-M1,
Cat-1) and LoRaWAN, with the objective to demonstrate the complementary aspects of the
two technologies. We show how operators extend existing M2M use cases and swap 2G using
cellular IoT, and in addition tap into the new unlicensed IoT market space using LoRaWAN.
Interestingly, LoRaWAN is a natural over-the-top play for cellular IoT operators, as cellular IoT
is an ideal backhaul technology for unlicensed LPWAN concentrators.
Properly matching a connectivity solution to a use case is a complex multidimensional problem
requiring analysis of several factors including battery lifetime, coverage, throughput, latency,
total cost of ownership (TCO), amongst other factors. We discuss these factors and attempt
to build a technology selection chart, and then build a business case for multi-technology IoT
platform that leverages both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT to serve the needs of all IoT use cases.
We also provide insights on the service provider strategy for LPWAN deployment with
examples from Tier-1 MNOs such as SK Telecom and Orange.
Finally, we conclude the paper with overview of ThingPark Wireless as a multi-technology
platform that addresses the challenges for both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT deployments.

5
2 AUDIENCE
The audience for this whitepaper is LPWAN service providers, enterprises and end-device
manufacturers intending to develop applications leveraging LoRaWAN or Cellular IoT
capabilities. This paper builds the business case for multi-technology LPWAN IoT connectivity
platform and aims to answer the following key questions around LPWAN:
1. What are the key challenges facing service providers for LPWAN deployment?
a. What are the key differences between LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT?
b. How do they complement each other?
2. How do service providers and enterprises leverage both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT in
their portfolio?
3. What are the key requirements for mapping use cases to connectivity?
4. Why is LoRaWAN geared to become the WiFi of LPWAN IoT in unlicensed spectrum
5. What is the business case to combine LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT in a single multi-
technology LPWAN IoT platform?
6. What is the right strategy for an operator for LPWAN deployment?

6
3 IOT DEPLOYMENT: THE CHALLENGES FACING MOBILE NETWORK
OPERATORS
Mobile network operators are challenged by a market with multiple requirements that must
be satisfied simultaneously. Operators must develop infrastructure platforms carefully to
provide the right technology with the lowest TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for each use case.
The solution must resolve the customers pain points and deliver the right information to the
right person in the most effective and cost-efficient manner.
In the IoT world, Operators cannot charge much lower rate for devices as they do for human
communications. Therefore, the ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) from IoT devices is much
lower compared to human centric devices. In the long run, the massive traffic generated from
billions of devices will compensate for the lower ARPU, but in the early years of IoT, traffic is
still ramping up and investing in IoT solutions is under severe CAPEX and OPEX constraints.
Unlicensed Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs), such as LoRaWAN, have a head start
in the IoT market, because they serve mainly the evolution of the traditional ISM band market.
This includes many utility applications (gas and water metering, sub-metering), monitoring
and security applications (intrusion detection, smoke detectors). The lower OPEX and CAPEX
of LPWANs are also giving life to many new use cases, delivering information optimizing
processes, and impacting top and bottom lines. LoRaWAN is a proven network, with numerous
deployments around the globe, and the LoRa Alliance has a mature and growing ecosystem of
500+ members.
In parallel of unlicensed LPWANs, cellular operators are under pressure to evolve their existing
networks towards 3GPP R13 (NB-IoT, Cat-M1), as a replacement for 2G/3G M2M and to serve
more use cases. While there is some overlap between the use cases served by cellular IoT and
LPWANs, most are distinct:
▪ LoRaWAN excels in all local use cases (large number of devices in a small area) such as
smart building or smart city applications, and very low traffic IoT applications on low
cost battery powered devices. These are the typical characteristics of traditional ISM
band use cases, and in a way LoRaWAN is an evolution of this extremely fragmented
market towards standards based managed networks. The convergence of many use
cases on the same standard lowers costs and creates critical mass, which in turn opens
new revenue opportunities for service providers to provide managed connectivity for
both public and private IoT networks. However, these use cases do not encompass the
whole market: LoRaWAN cannot handle multimedia, and its firmware upgrade
capabilities are limited to slow background group upgrades leveraging multicast.
▪ Cellular IoT is ideal in use cases where energy and cost are less constrained such as
electric metering or connected cars. It provides much better throughput allowing an
easy firmware upgrade for individual devices, as well as supporting some multimedia
capability. These improved capabilities do not come without a cost however. Licensed
band auctions of the sub-GHz spectrum are typically greater than 500 million dollars
per MHz, and power consumption is higher. It is interesting to note that Cellular IoT is

7
ideal for backhaul connectivity of LPWAN radio base stations and concentrators. In the
same way as WiFi 4G hubs represented a major use case for 4G M2M, we believe that
CatM/NB-IoT LoRaWAN gateways will represent a major use case for cellular IoT. This
will lead cellular operators to structure their IoT offering into two layers: a primary
cellular IoT layer, and a secondary LPWAN layer -operating over-the-top and using
cellular IoT for backhaul-. This two-layer architecture allows cellular operators to reach
the entire IoT market.
Here is the list of key challenges facing the Operators addressing IoT:
▪ Fragmentation of different radio technologies: The value add of operators is to
provide all technologies, seamlessly to their customers, as no single radio technology
will address all the IoT use cases [10]. Customers cannot choose a single technology.
They will require a mix of LPWAN connectivity technologies to address the variety of
their use cases. In addition, all technologies will evolve over time, and will need to
coexist due to the long lifetime of IoT applications.
▪ Low-cost business model for IoT: Operators traditionally create business
opportunities selling connectivity as data plans to consuming users, and into
traditional project-based M2M markets. IoT requires a totally different business model
because the lower traffic pattern requires dramatic repricing of connectivity, and the
long tail nature of IoT means there is almost no room for project fees and consultative
selling, unlike traditional M2M markets. IoT markets require operators to be able to
profitably sell IoT connectivity at very low ARPU with no upfront fees: this requires
360° optimization, from the infrastructure which needs to be tailored to the IoT traffic
patterns, to the OSS/BSS which needs to be strictly zero-touch.
▪ Beyond connectivity, capturing the value: The business opportunity for IoT is only
marginally in the connectivity, and shifts to the value-added services leveraging the IoT
data. This requires a dramatic change of mindset from selling connectivity to building
a platform targeting “high value” apps. Because connectivity is a natural control point,
operators are in an ideal position to distribute innovative IoT solutions generated by
numerous new suppliers, in an open-garden model. Such an intermediation business
model requires an open “IoT marketplace” capable of seamlessly integrating
thousands of apps and devices from an open ecosystem.
▪ Evolution of traditional BSS: The BSS systems today are designed for human centric
networks. To meet the needs of IoT business models, they will need to be redesigned.
The billing systems need to cater to a very different traffic and cost model. The easiest
way to provide an optimal BSS for IoT devices is to create a dedicated BSS. This will
avoid long integration costs and long-term dependency between human centric and
device centric models and have acceptable CAPEX and OPEX levels.

8
▪ Evolution of Core Network: The extreme cost constraints of IoT are difficult to
reconcile with existing multi-purpose Home Subscriber Servers (HSS), Packet Gateway
(PGW) and Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) licensing models, and drive
operators to explore innovative core network licensing models dedicated to the needs
of IoT. The cost for IoT devices’ subscription fees and the data consumption per device
is significantly lower than human centric devices (phones, tablets, etc). To meet the
scale of IoT, it is imperative operators adopt eUICC/eSIM technologies to automate
provisioning (zero-touch) and subscription of IoT devices.
▪ Spectrum: Radio spectrum is a scarce resource. There have been significant
improvements in the spectrum efficiency of radio technologies, as the demands of
applications in terms of throughput is rising at an exponential pace. It has been
estimated that there will be up to 29 billion connected devices by 2020 [3]. It is
inevitable for mobile operators to adopt unlicensed spectrum-based technologies in
their portfolios to address the most cost constrained use cases of IoT.
▪ Converged IoT Platform: To bootstrap their IoT business, Operators will need to adopt
a clean slate and cost-effective approach. This requires the adoption of a converged
platform able to harmonize licensed and unlicensed radio technologies and is geared
towards addressing the business needs of IoT applications.
Figure 1: How can operators capture IoT Market?

9
4 BUSINESS CASE FOR MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM
Ericsson mobility report, 2017 [3] as shown in Fig. 2 predicts 29 billion connected devices by
2022, out of which more than 18 billion will be related to IoT. IoT use cases include connected
cars, machines, meters, sensors, point-of-sales terminals, consumer electronics and wearables
(only to name a few) and impose wide variety of requirements in terms of cost, and traffic
characteristics.
Figure 2: IoT Forecast
Key Facts:
▪ Short-range and Wide-Area IoT are the key to addressing the entire
spectrum of use cases
▪ Unlicensed and licensed technologies must be leveraged to address all
the IoT use cases
In Figure 2, the IoT market is divided into two segments:
1. Wide Area IoT: This market segment is currently addressed by technologies like
LoRaWAN, SigFox in the unlicensed spectrum and by Cellular Cat-M1 and NB-IoT in
licensed spectrum deployments. The report also predicts two distinct sub-segments
with different requirements: massive and critical applications. Massive IoT connections
are high connection volume, low traffic, low-cost, low energy consumption and will
exhibit lower ARPU than critical IoT. Many of these massive IoT connections will be
connected via capillary networks (for example LoRaWAN) as shown in Figure 3. Critical
IoT connections require ultra-reliability, low latency, high throughput and will also
exhibit higher ARPU. They are expected to be served by cellular IoT technologies.
2. Short Range IoT: The short-range segment largely consists of devices connected by
unlicensed radio technologies, with a typical range of up to 100 meters, such as Wi-Fi,
Bluetooth and ZigBee. These networks respond to use cases of smart homes or smart

10
buildings. However, these short-range technologies are dependent on being regularly
charged, and do not exhibit long battery life (> 10 years), making them incapable to
address numerous use cases, and ruling out any smart city initiative. A significant part
of this unlicensed IoT market will be captured by LPWAN technologies, like LoRaWAN.
LPWAN picocells will be connected to a back-end IoT platform via LTE-M/Cat-M1,
Ethernet or DSL line backhaul, which maps perfectly to the capabilities of LTE-M as
shown in Fig. 3.
LoRaWAN addresses the market segment for long range, long battery life and lowest total cost
of ownership (TCO). NB-IoT and Cat-M1 are expected to capture critical and premium IoT
applications such as connected cars that can only be served by cellular connectivity. These
applications have higher ARPU and are smaller in volume compared to unlicensed LPWAN IoT
market.
LoRaWAN gateways are very inexpensive to deploy and need a backhaul link which as
mentioned above fit the capabilities of LTE Cat-M1 and can serve capillary networks or to
provide cell-edge coverage. This is a straightforward way for cellular operators to provide
LPWAN managed network services on an on-demand basis, anywhere in the coverage area of
their 4G network.
Figure 3: Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN deployment scenarios
LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT are complementary technologies
and address 100% of IoT use-cases from business and
technical standpoint

11
4.1 LoRaWAN for capturing LPWAN Market in unlicensed band, and
complementing it with Cellular IoT
Currently, operators have little or no access to the IoT market in unlicensed spectrum, which
is a real problem for operators because this segment represents the core of the IoT market
today. This market is currently served by technologies such as wireless mMbus, ZigBee,
802.15.4e, etc. The transition to LPWAN technologies is happening quickly, fueled by the
weaknesses of existing ISM band technologies, and the desire to reduce fragmentation:
▪ Technologies such as wMBUS are use case specific (metering), and do not fit the
requirements of horizontal IoT networks serving multiple use cases. Multi-use case
LPWANs exhibit much lower OPEX per device as a result of economies of scale on
network costs.
▪ Mesh technologies such as ZigBee and 802.15.4e face three problems:
o The need for a dense initial deployment (“big-bang” deployment), which often
means all use cases depend on the automated electric metering case as a
starting point
o All use cases depend on the density of the initial use case providing density and
energy to the mesh: electricity. Most utilities do not like to have such 3rd party
dependency for their core business.
o Finally, there are predictable problems of mesh technology as the noise level
in ISM band increases, as multi-hop causes packet error rates to degrade
exponentially. Most mesh networks will show sharp degradation of
performance with relatively minor increase of noise floor.
This transition from a fragmented market of ISM technologies to managed LPWAN networks
is very similar to the transition that happened in business telephony between the fragmented
PBX market, with multiple incompatible brands, to VoIP managed systems all based on global
standards. This transition represents a compelling entry point for operators into the IoT
markets. Many operators are creating specific initiatives to capture this market:
▪ Cable operators (like MachineQ in the US) can easily add LoRaWAN picocell
functionality to their cable modem footprint [5] to address the smart home market
and create a seamless ultra-low-power smart-city radio infrastructure.
▪ Cellular operators provide managed LPWAN connectivity from picocells using LTE Cat-
M1 backhaul to serve capillary networks or to fill coverage holes at the cell-edge for
deep indoor devices like smart meters
▪ WiFi operators (like Enforta in Russia) add LPWAN capability to their WiFi city coverage
[9]

12
Figure 4: ARPU Vs Device Volume trend for Cellular IoT Vs LoRaWAN
While LoRaWAN is intended to capture the ISM band migration and low-cost appliance
markets, there are lots of critical and premium applications that will demand better reliability,
low-latency and higher throughput at the cost of higher power consumption, higher device
and connectivity costs. These applications represent a segment of the IoT market with higher
ARPU but lower volume compared to ISM band migration. Hence, operators need to support
Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN in their portfolio to build horizontal platform. Figure 4 shows the
ARPU and device volume trade-off for Cellular (Cat-M1, NB-IoT) and LoRaWAN.
LoRaWAN opens an entirely new market opportunity for
operators in unlicensed spectrum with unique value
proposition in combination with Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, LTE-M)
to serve premium applications
Value is in:
(1) Intermediation of IoT solutions
(2) Managed networks
(3) Unified connectivity

13
Figure 5: LPWAN Connections forecast by market segment
4.2 Market Breakdown for LPWAN Connections
Fig. 5 shows the LPWAN market breakdown for different market verticals based on a study
conducted by Machina Research [4]. The top 4 vertical industry segments that are poised to
grow by volume are smart buildings, utilities, smart cities and consumer. Several of the
verticals are “dense” use cases requiring static connectivity in a limited area: Smart Building,
Smart-City, Agriculture, Industrial.
Each of these verticals have very wide-ranging technical and business requirements which
cannot be satisfied by a single IoT connectivity solution and will rely on both licensed and
unlicensed technologies. It should also be noted here that there will be a convergence of
existing ISM band unlicensed spectrum technologies, which are very fragmented today,
towards LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN, due to the technology constraints of legacy
technologies (see section above). This transition allows an operator to enter the unlicensed
spectrum market with LoRaWAN, as a managed network using cellular backhaul ad-hoc
gateways or using a public network. This LPWAN offering needs to be complemented by NB-
IoT or Cat-M1 for premium applications and use cases requiring mobility at nationwide scale
with constant reach, to cover the needs of all the IoT use cases.

14
5 HOW TO MAP USE CASE TO RIGHT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTION?
Building a successful IoT solution is all about matching connectivity needs to the right
technology or mix of technologies. Whether you choose one network technology or take a
multi-network approach, you want the path forward with the best blend of coverage,
performance, and value. In this section, we only summarize the different components of the
different criteria. However, a more detailed technical analysis is provided in [10].
5.1 Key Decision Criteria
Depending on the IoT application, key decision criteria are more important than others. For
example, one factor may be more important than the other based on the deployment
environment of your IoT device. However, during the discovery phases of the network
selection, all are important considerations to reach a successful final decision. Fig. 6 shows
the different criteria that an operator needs to work out when mapping applications to
different connectivity options.
Figure 6: IoT Use Case Mapping considerations

15
Coverage
The three IoT wide area network categories discussed in this paper (NB-IoT, LTE Cat-M1 and
LoRaWAN) can have very different coverage for IoT devices based on their environment.
Coverage depends very strongly on the type of environment, spectrum used for
communication, etc. For many IoT use cases, the devices are often shielded by basements or
walls when installed in subterranean environments.
Mobility
It is important to know if the application requires the device to be moving for technology
selection. Both Cellular and LoRaWAN networks can technically offer roaming and global
coverage, however in practice there are still important limitations.
LoRaWAN nationwide coverage is still being deployed, and fully achieved only in a limited
number of countries, like Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland and so on. These
operators are finalizing roaming agreements so that devices will be able to move across
borders and, perhaps more importantly, be activated across borders. The public networks of
most LoRaWAN operators covers main urban centers and then ad-hoc locations. Recently,
large customers with significant real-estate, such as postal organizations, hotel and retail
chains, are also deploying private networks that will be able to roam with public networks.
While cellular in general is available country-wide, there are also some limitations:
▪ 4G is available only in urban areas, and therefore also LTE-M/NB-IoT. In many
countries, availability of 4G and LoRaWAN will be in the same areas
▪ Roaming is not yet enabled for NB-IoT, and likely to be several years away. Roaming
for LTE-M is not yet enabled but should be available soon, piggybacking on existing 4G
roaming agreements.
In the absence of seamless country-wide coverage, many use cases can be fulfilled by
combining public networks with ad-hoc local networks, e.g. on-premise managed networks
around main logistic centers, railroads, etc.
QoS, Data Rate, Latency and Multicast
Throughput represents the data rate exchanged over a network. There are numerous
applications such as smart city parking meters, tolls, utility meters, which only exchange a few
10s of bytes every few hours and the data rate is not a significant factor in decision making.
However, there are other applications which require streaming of videos, streaming media
and telemedicine and need higher throughput which are best served by Cellular IoT (NB-IoT,
Cat-M1). Typically, LoRaWAN data rates are below 5 kbps (achievable on managed networks),
and often much lower in public networks, and is also subject to duty cycle limitations
dependent on the regional ISM band regulation. By contrast NB-IoT has a maximum data rate
of 250 kbps followed by LTE-M which has a data rate up to 1Mbps.

16
Network latency refers to the time it takes the device and application to interact with each
other. Several IoT applications are insensitive to latency as devices are sleeping most of the
time. However, latency is very critical for applications such as health care and disaster alarms.
Both cellular IoT and LoRaWAN have very low uplink latency (i.e. the time it takes for a
message initiated by a device to reach the network). “Low-bitrate” is often confused with “low
speed”, but despite being modulated at a lower speed, all radio technologies still travel at the
speed of light!
LoRaWAN may have higher downlink latency, depending on the device ‘class’:
▪ Class C has a very low downlink latency as these devices are always listening (but also
have higher power consumption)
▪ Class B has low downlink latency as it opens periodic listen windows, tunable by the
device from tens of seconds to tens of milliseconds
▪ Class A uses a receiver initiated transmit pattern, i.e. downlinks can only follow an
uplink.
Multicast is also a very critical feature for LPWAN connectivity as it enables several important
use cases such as:
▪ Group firmware upgrade. Since it is envisioned to have billions of IoT devices in future,
it is impractical to manually replace the software on the devices: instead firmware
update servers will identify the categories of devices that need patching, and then will
send the update ‘delta’ firmware to the group, using reliable multicast (using forward
error correction)
▪ Group device reconfiguration
▪ Synchronized device activation (including demand-response for electric grid balancing)
▪ Emergency actions (shutting-off gas meters in the event of earthquake, alarms signals,
etc.)
Multicast is available on LoRaWAN networks that support class B and class C. It is not yet
available for IoT traffic on current cellular IoT networks (deployed on 3GPP Rel 13) but is part
of the 3GPP release 14 and is expected to be deployed in coming years as networks upgrade
towards future releases.
Battery Lifetime
Battery lifetime plays a significant role in most IoT applications. Some of the IoT applications
such as asset tracking use rechargeable devices and have a battery lifetime anywhere from 7
to 30 days, but there are applications in which devices are deployed in hard to reach areas
and need battery lifetime of 10+ years.
In general, LoRaWAN uses minimal power consumption due to the simplicity of the radio and
the fact that device is only active when transmitting and sleeps most of the time. The peak
current is also relatively low (30 to 40mA), which allows to use the full capacity of primary
batteries.

17
In cellular technologies, the device has to periodically wake up to synchronize to the network
even if it has no data to transmit, and the peak current (about 300 to 400mA) degrades the
usable capacity of primary batteries.
Despite the significant difference in energy consumption during radio activity, the average
difference is smaller, due to the low duty cycle of IoT devices. In general, LoRaWAN is 3-5X
more energy efficient compared to NB-IoT [10]. Due to its direct impact on TCO, battery
lifetime is indeed one of the most sensitive factors when choosing the right technology for an
IoT application.
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
There is always the cost to building an IoT network infrastructure.
For the case of LTE, it is around upgrading base stations, core network, paying spectrum
licenses. The cost of upgrading LTE network from Rel-8 to Rel-13 has several factors depending
on the generation of the base-station hardware:
▪ Upgrading of memory card (to support enormous number of sleeping IoT
devices)
▪ Upgrading of Baseband card
▪ Manual labor for replacing memory + baseband card
▪ R13 vEPC Upgrade
The cost of sub-GHz spectrum which is best suited for Cellular IoT applications can reach 500
million USD/MHz. Obviously, since LoRaWAN runs in unlicensed spectrum, the spectrum is
free and has much lower network infrastructure TCO compared to Cellular IoT deployment.
Another important aspect of network infrastructure TCO is the possibility to offset some of
the public network investment by ad-hoc managed network infrastructure deployed on the
customer premises. This is detailed in the next section.
The device TCO must also be factored in. The device cost is composed of:
▪ Hardware and firmware costs: Firmware cost is identical in all technologies. Hardware
cost is lowest for LoRaWAN followed by NB-IoT and Cat-M1.
▪ Battery cost: Battery cost is as important as hardware cost in the total TCO and may
even be more important for devices designed to operate 10+ years. Battery cost and
replacements costs are directly proportional to the energy efficiency of the technology
used.
▪ Maintenance cost: Maintenance costs concentrate around battery replacement,
unless manual firmware upgrades are needed. All cellular IoT technologies are capable
of doing unicast firmware upgrades, and multicast firmware upgrade is a recent
addition to LoRaWAN. In general maintenance costs will be lower for LoraWAN, unless
unicast firmware updates are required frequently.

18
In general, LoRaWAN offers much smaller TCO compared to Cellular IoT, which allows to
operate a profitable service with lower ARPU, but again not for all IoT market segments. Again,
the optimum IoT infrastructure should offer two layers: Cellular IoT for higher ARPU
applications requiring unicast firmware updates, low downlink latency, more traffic per device
(inclusive of LPWAN infrastructure base stations backhaul which is a perfect use case for
cellular IoT), and a LoRaWAN layer for the most energy constrained, lower ARPU devices, as
well as managed IoT networks on customer premises.
Deployment Model
The traditional deployment model for cellular networks has always been led by the operator
to provide nation-wide coverage. However, this approach becomes expensive from an ROI
perspective to cover the last percentile of the population (which is usually in rural or deep
indoor coverage).
Most IoT devices are static and will not move, so it is possible to develop lower cost network
deployment strategies, by providing ad-hoc coverage in hard to reach areas. In parallel of an
initial public network deployment covering large urban and industrial centers (but maybe only
50 to 70% of the population), LoRaWAN being an open standard in the unlicensed spectrum
can be used to supplement operator coverage on an on-demand basis, using low cost picocells
deployed by private enterprises as part of a managed network offering.
Such tuck-in managed networks can be deployed to complement coverage, or to improve QoS
in a certain area. Around network picocells, LoRaWAN devices benefit from an increased data
rate, resulting in lower airtime, reducing collision rate and power consumption compared to
the public network. Such tuck-in networks can either be direct extensions of the public LPWAN
network, or roam with the public networks. The LoRa Alliance rules for allocating network IDs
require roaming with public networks. Over time the public network capacity and coverage
grows because of the synergies with all managed networks running on private premises.
LoRaWAN allows a disruptive business model to roll out IoT networks initially with light
outdoor coverage in low population density areas and then rely on private
enterprises/individuals for densification and building coverage closer to where the devices are
generating most of the traffic. This significantly reduces the cost of entry and TCO when
leveraging LoRaWAN networks in conjunction with cellular IoT deployments.
Ecosystem Maturity
Interestingly, the 3GPP and LoRaWAN communities are very distinct ecosystems.
The 3GPP M2M community is the natural initial audience and channel for cellular IoT. It
consists almost exclusively of module makers, which are integrated in high-volume devices
(such as GPS navigation systems, credit card payment systems), or lower volume but high
value systems assembled by integrators (maintenance links, backhaul for data concentrators,
etc.).

19
The ISM band device maker community is the natural initial audience and channel for the
LoRaWAN community. It consists of module makers, but also a vast and well-structured
distribution network of electronic components, which can reach all device makers and help
them assemble low cost solutions directly from the RF components and low power MCUs.
Large distributors like Arrow electronics, AVNet, Future electronics, WPG reach into millions
of hardware engineers.
LoRaWAN is an open standard backed by LoRa Alliance [7], which has 500+ members with 65
announced public networks and 54 Alliance member operators (at the time of writing this
paper in Jan’ 2018). The LoRa Alliance has been active since March 2015, has had significant
growth in its ecosystem since that time in the ISM band community.
In comparison, Cellular IoT technologies have just been launched and it will take several
iterations and a little time for NB-IoT, Cat-M1 deployments to become mature and efficient.
Despite the 3-year head start of LoRaWAN, it is expected that the module makers will catch-
up very fast with cellular IoT. However, the low-cost device community, which builds directly
from RF chips and is a complex, long tail market, will be a much tougher nut to crack for cellular
IoT which does not have structured distribution to these segments, and needs to switch this
audience from doing their own to buying modules. Another important obstacle to reach into
the ISM band community is the 3rd party dependency: ISM band solutions typically rely on
their own local network, and may prefer to rely on LoRaWAN managed networks rather than
switch to a public 4G network.
Again a two layer connectivity offering, combining cellular IoT and LoRaWAN, appears to be
an optimum strategy to reach into the entire ecosystem, taking into account the specificities
of both the M2M and the ISM band communities.
Security
Security is one of the most important considerations when it comes to IoT. IoT devices are
typically very small and it can be quite easy to compromise the hardware. Hence, it is a must
that there is security built into the framework both at the radio level and also end-to-end at
the application layer.
Both the 3GPP and the LoRaWAN ecosystems offer strong security options based on hardware
secure elements.
Private Enterprise Networks
One of the most important verticals to serve for IoT is that for enabling Industry 4.0. In this
segment, there is strong need for private enterprise managed deployment. For example, oil
and gas companies would want to have their own privately managed service to be able to
guarantee high SLA requirements in such markets. Since LoRaWAN is in the unlicensed
spectrum, there are already several private enterprise deployments in place. However, 3GPP

20
is also working towards MulteFire/CBRS [12][13] which would enable LTE usage in unlicensed
spectrum, but it is not mature enough to meet the requirements of IoT applications (esp. when
it comes to 10 years battery lifetime). There will be significant developments and maturity of
MulteFire/CBRS technology from 3GPP in years to come and the ecosystem will become more
mature and developed.
Summary
Fig. 7 summarizes the positioning of LoRaWAN and cellular IoT technologies such as NB-IoT
and Cat-M1 and may be used to assist in designing a market segmentation for connectivity.
It is clear from the figure that the market segmentation is based on use case requirements:
▪ LoRaWAN is the lowest TCO technology for all use cases which have no requirement
for more than a couple hundred messages per day (or few thousands in managed
networks), and do not need 100% nationwide coverage in mobility. The main drivers
for selection are low energy consumption, availability of managed networks on private
premises, and multicast.
▪ Cellular IoT is the only option when communication requirements exceed the
capabilities of LoRaWAN (in terms of volume, or downlink latency). In many countries,
it is also the preferred option when large territory coverage is required upfront
(however, reduced to 4G coverage), and when energy consumption is not the primary
selection factor.
Figure 7: LoRaWAN Vs Cellular IoT Comparison

21
Use Case mapping to IoT technology is a complex multi-
dimensional problem and needs to be carried out wisely to
monetize IoT Applications
5.2 Example Mapping of IoT Use cases to Connectivity
Fig. 8 shows example mapping of different use cases to connectivity technologies. The real-
world problem can be much more complex than this example due to wide variation of use
cases within each IoT vertical. At the bottom of the pyramid is the LPWAN segment
represented by LoRaWAN & NB-IoT and addresses applications which are very sensitive to
cost, lower power and long range. These applications are also the ones that exhibit largest
volume of devices, however per device throughput is very small (typically few messages/day).
Figure 8: Example mapping of use cases to IoT Connectivity
Operators need a Multi-technology IoT Platform leveraging
both LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) to
monetize all the IoT Use cases
The middle section of the pyramid consists of applications that exhibit higher throughput, for
example telematics and connected cars which is best served by Cat-M1.

22
The top of the pyramid includes premium IoT applications that demand low latency and high
throughput. Note that ARPU in general goes up as you move up the pyramid and number of
devices goes up as you go down the pyramid. An operator needs to have a converged platform:
▪ that combines LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT to address the diversity of use cases and
channels to market,
▪ which allows easy mapping of connectivity technologies to applications
▪ and which can monetize distribution of value added solutions regardless of technology

23
6 OPERATOR CHALLENGES TOWARDS DEPLOYING CELLULAR IOT
Figure 9 shows a brief overview of Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) and different cost
elements within an operator’s network. The ARPU values presented represent orders of
magnitude, not exact values. There is 5-10X difference in ARPU when moving from a
traditional M2M business model towards cellular IoT. The dramatically lower ARPU for cellular
IoT deserves careful planning and deployment for cellular IoT especially to monetize IoT traffic
in early years of deployment when volumes are still relatively low.
Figure 9: Business model overview of operators
Cellular IoT business case is much different than traditional
M2M and requires re-thinking of Operator’s IoT business
model
Traditional M2M cost optimizations were mostly centered around SIM lifecycle management,
SIM monitoring and device provisioning. However, for the case of cellular IoT, here are the
different elements that deserve special consideration:
1. OSS/BSS: Traditional OSS/BSS systems are designed for human-centric networks and
are usually very costly and complex to upgrade. Moreover, the upgrading of traditional
systems can take time and can significantly delay operators’ go to market. Cellular IoT
market is only beginning to pick up, however there are applications that need to be
addressed soon for the operator to not miss the early opportunities.

24
2. Rethinking Core Network License: One of the key drivers that significantly adds to the
cost of connectivity is the user subscription in HSS, and traffic management using PGW
and PCRF charging features. All these components have traditionally been designed for
human-centric networks and need closer integration with OSS/BSS along with new and
innovative billing features tailored for IoT. This adds cost/complexity on top of
traditional core network equipment.
3. Integration with eSIM/eUICC: One of the key technologies that will significantly bring
down the TCO of the device management is the eSIM/eUICC integration with OSS/BSS
and IoT platform to manage SIM cards in IoT devices without any human intervention
which adds significant cost for IoT deployments for low cost devices
4. Integration with value-added services: Cellular IoT has some very significant
ramifications on mobile operator’s business model which has traditionally been B2C or
wholesale B2B connectivity. As shown in Figure 10, once the IoT connectivity is
successfully built, operators need to move up the value chain and be able to provide
value added services. Another interesting point to note from this figure is that margins
from IoT connectivity revenues are only 10%, whereas the real margins are in value
added services that are built on the top of the connectivity. Mobile operators need
OSS/BSS APIs that can be monetize an open ecosystem of 3rd party platforms and cloud
platforms such as Amazon AWS, IBM Bluemix and Microsoft Azure. Operators will also
need to build data analytics platform that can be used to extract valuable information
from IoT data that flows through the operator network.
5. Ecosystem and Operator’s go to market: To foster adoption, operators need to
develop an ecosystem of devices, gateways and applications that all need to come
together to serve different IoT verticals. The management of this rapidly expanding
open ecosystem requires an industrialized open innovation platform that can serve
large number of use cases and applications, as required by the long tail nature of IoT
markets. ThingPark Market [15] or Click & Go [16] provides such an open-innovation
and monetization platform.

25
Figure 10: IoT Value Chain (source: Analysis Mason [11])
6. Integration with LPWAN: This a key component for an operator platform, allowing
early entry, capture of the massive ISM band migration market, as well as inclusive IoT
service considering the Internet of Small Things (See SK strategy in section 7). Without
this offering, operators will not be able to address the IoT market that belongs to the
ISM band ecosystem and will face difficulties when competing with LoRaWAN enabled
service providers. Furthermore, only technology agnostic service providers can build a
credible horizontal offering and intermediation for value added IoT services.

26
7 CASE STUDY: SK TELECOM IOT DEPLOYMENT
7.1 SK Telecom's transition to small things
SK Telecom has designated IoT as a new growth engine to address the declining sales in
traditional LTE. Towards this end, it started launching new IoT solutions in 2017. SK Telecom
has done extensive research on finding which specific IoT markets to focus on, what are the
underlying technologies and strategies for expanding IoT ecosystem.
SK Telecom has identified opportunity in terms of serving the needs of tremendous number
of “small things” (e.g. low power-consuming computing devices for measuring/metering small
and simple data like temperature, humidity, usage) dominating the market in the near future.
This will allow the operator in creating new business opportunities through small/tiny-volume
data they constantly generate. The Internet of Small Things (IoST) is predicted to have high
marketability and fast market formation. For these reasons, the operator has decided to
dedicate its resources to IoST.
SKT has subsequently completed the deployment of a nationwide LoRa-based, IoST-dedicated
network in 2016. In an effort to promote the formation of an SK Telecom-centered IoST
ecosystem, it has also shared an IoST roadmap and some partnership models of the IoST
module, device and platform for potential partners.
7.2 SK Telecom’s target IoT market: IoST
SK Telecom has categorized IoT into the following three areas based on connectivity
requirements:
▪ Area 1: Requires high-volume data, real-time connectivity and mobility (e.g. connected
car, self-driving car, connected CCTV, etc.)
▪ Area 2: Requires real-time connectivity and mobility, but not high-volume data (e.g.
monitoring and tracking service like vehicle tracking, electronic anklet)
▪ Area 3: Does not require frequent data transmission. Low volumes of data will be
transferred but this area will have the most IoST devices (e.g. metering, tracking and
monitoring & control service with no or low mobility requirement, like
gas/water/electricity metering, street light monitoring, location-based safety
management).
Areas 1 and 2, which require large and medium volume data, real-time connectivity, mobility
and 'always on' connectivity, can still be served using the legacy network upgraded using LTE
Cat-M1. However, Area 3 requires a network with very different connectivity features.
Besides, to make the area marketable, a sufficient number of devices must be in use in the
market and service fees have to be low. To this end, devices must be low-priced (i.e. modules
priced lower than $5) and low power consuming (i.e. no re-charging required for 5-10 years),
and the network should also be able to support long distance coverage (i.e. up to 10 km or
around 6 miles) to keep the base station investment cost low.

27
Figure 11: Three IoT areas categorized by connectivity requirements within SK Telecom
deployment (source [17])
7.3 SK Telecom Multi-track IoT network
SK Telecom’s strategy for IoT network is to provide IoT networks that are customized for
different types of IoT services to ensure connectivity is optimized for each service. As seen in
Table 1, Area 1 IoT service, requiring large-volume data transmission, real-time connectivity
and mobility, will be offered through the legacy cellular network.
Area 2, requiring real-time connectivity, mobility and transmission of data larger than LPWA,
will be served through the LTE-M (Cat. 1) network which was launched in March 2016.
Finally, Area 3 (small things), requiring small but regular data transmission, and no or low
mobility, will be served through a LoRa-based LPWA network which was launched in the end
of June 2016. Unlike the legacy cellular network that is fast but expensive, this low capacity,
low power-consuming LPWA network will be able to accommodate a wide selection of small
things in a very cost-effective manner.
This way, the operator should be able to satisfy different levels of connectivity requirements
of IoT services in a cost-effective manner, building an appropriate environment for various IoT
services.

28
Figure 12 : Multi-track IoT network of SK Telecom (source [17])
Table 1 : SK Telecom’s multi-track IoT networks (source [17])

29
8 CASE STUDY: ORANGE IOT DEPLOYMENT
For many years, Orange has provided IoT and M2M services building on 3GPP mobile networks
(based on legacy 2G/3G/4G networks). However, there is emergence of new IoT segment due
to the LPWAN connectivity requirements. LPWAN technology provides a way of connecting
sensors, trackers and geolocation beacons used in smart cities, industry 4.0 and logistics. As a
result, its spread will play a crucial role in the development of the Internet of Things.
According to Orange, there is no single universal LPWAN solution; instead, there are two
different technical approaches, each with their own set of benefits.
▪ License-free LPWAN: radio networks dedicated to LPWAN that operate on a license-
free or shared spectrum, such as LoRaWAN.
▪ LPWAN via licensed frequency bands on Mobile IoT: This is the next step in mobile
networks operating on licensed spectrum, optimized for IoT/LPWAN use cases: LTE-M,
NB-IoT, EC-GSM-IoT.
Figure 13: Multi-track IoT network of Orange (source [14][18][19])

30
8.1 LoRaWAN + LTE-M: The winning combination
Based on Orange’s technical analysis of LTE-M and on market support, they have chosen this
technology as a complementary solution (see Figure 14) to LoRaWAN technology for LPWAN
use cases that require additional features, such as speed, real-time connectivity, voice,
support, mobility, and worldwide roaming.
Figure 14: LoRa +LTE-M - The winning combination (source [14][18][19])

31
9 WHAT IS THE RIGHT STRATEGY FOR AN OPERATOR?
Operators need to adopt one or both of Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) technologies to address
the premium IoT applications. Cellular IoT applications will exhibit higher ARPU, but lesser
device volume compared to LPWAN market segment. Cellular IoT however can enable
applications within the IoT market segment that cannot be addressed by LPWAN technologies
like LoRaWAN. The reader should note however that even if there is a successful rollout of a
Cellular IoT network, it will take some time for the device ecosystem to be mature and chipset
vendors to optimize the firmware to deliver on the promise of ultra-low power consumption.
The scaling of ecosystem is also the key to both availability and lowering the cost of Cellular
IoT modules.
Figure 15: Operator LPWAN Strategy
LoRaWAN has had a significant head start with successfully deployed networks and business
cases from leading operators such as Orange, KPN, Softbank, Proximus, Comcast and many
more. LoRaWAN has also enabled cable operators such as Comcast to provide IoT connectivity
in the unlicensed spectrum.
The IoT market is fast moving and if it is not addressed at the right time, operators have the
risk to miss out on the market potential. Therefore, operators should adopt LoRaWAN to fast
track their market presence on critical IoT markets (ISM band migration), and then to serve
specific segments (especially the ones with very low data rates and are very sensitive to cost
and power consumption).
Cellular operators should of course also deploy Cellular IoT to address premium IoT
applications. Cellular operators may find this approach counter intuitive since it implies

32
investment in two networks, however cost efficiency is possible by sharing lower cost network
elements found in LPWAN such as the OSS/BSS equivalents used in cellular networks to
provide a cost base that matches the price point expectations of IOT users. Both technologies
should be ideally integrated within the same platform, providing a seamless interface to
customers, as many IoT verticals demand a combination of LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
technologies.
Operators such as Orange [6][14] and SK Telecom [17] have already committed themselves to
LoRaWAN and are in the phase of deploying only LTE Cat-M1 right now. There is market
potential for both cellular IoT and unlicensed LPWAN technologies like LoRaWAN, both
technologies address different market segments, will continue to exist, evolve and
complement each other in years to come.
Operators must have a Multi-technology platform that is
agnostic to connectivity type (LoRaWAN, NB-IoT and LTE
Cat-M1) and addresses all IoT use cases seamlessly, at a
cost which will be in line with generated revenues

33
10 THINGPARK WIRELESS: A MULTI-TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FOR
SERVICE & DATA MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR LPWAN
CONNECTIVITY
Actility is the world leader in OSS/BSS solutions for the IoT and is the co-founder of LoRa
Alliance (along with IBM and Semtech). Actility is leader in country-wide carrier grade LPWAN
IoT deployments and holds more than 70% market share in LoRaWAN deployments, with tier-
1 customers such as Comcast, KPN, NTT, Orange, SoftBank, Swisscom, and many other cellular
and fixed service providers. Actility has also developed optimized connectivity and OSS/BSS
solutions for cellular IoT to help operators maintain profitability despite lower ARPU.
As an early pioneer in LPWAN innovation and one of the only technology agnostic players,
Actility can help you map your use cases to connectivity. We provide the multi-technology
ThingPark Wireless platform for seamlessly integrating LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT
technologies.
Figure 16: ThingPark Wireless Platform
ThingPark Wireless presents a unified user interface and APIs to applications, and a single layer
of device and connectivity management for both LoRaWAN and cellular IoT technologies. It
exhibits the following high-level features:
▪ Cost-effective Multi-technology radio agnostic Platform to seamlessly manage both
LoRaWAN and Cellular IoT technologies
▪ OSS/BSS Solution with focus on IoT
▪ Data Mediation layer for building data analytics and interfacing with 3rd party cloud
servers (for ex. Amazon AWS)

34
▪ Pre-integrated interface with Click and Go (https://iot.thingpark.com/clickandgo/) or
ThingPark Market (http://market.thingpark.com) enabling acceleration of operator go
to market through dynamic open ecosystem management, and facilitating the shift of
service provider business by tapping into the whole service value, not just connectivity
▪ Billing solution tailored for the needs of IoT use cases
▪ Open and modular with OSS/BSS APIs allowing easy integration with operator’s
internal or 3rd party platforms/applications
▪ Strong security options with Secure Element and HSM options, and integration with
eSIM/eUICC technologies via OSS/BSS APIs
For more information or to arrange a demo in ThingPark Lab@Paris or to contact our sales
team, feel free to contact us below:
https://www.actility.com/contact/
https://www.actility.com/thingparklab/
ThingPark Wireless allows Operators to build horizontal IoT
connectivity platform enabling value chain beyond
connectivity

35
11 SUMMARY
IoT is a complex landscape and has a very different model of selling connectivity that
operators/service providers are used to. IoT deployment presents new set of challenges and
opportunities for operators, but they need a horizontal platform to deploy multitude of
applications and use cases and must work with a trusted partner enabling them to build E2E
solutions and build a rich ecosystem with large number of players. In this paper, we also
presented LPWAN deployment challenges for operators and gave insights on how they could
be potentially solved. We showed that LoRaWAN is most suited for mass-market IoT use cases
demanding low-throughput, low cost and lowest power. However, for premium applications,
Cellular IoT gives progressively better performance and IoT strategy for operators need to
build a multi-technology platform that unifies both the technologies in most suitable manner
to meet the application needs for the end-customer. In summary, LoRaWAN and 3GPP
complement each other very well and serve the needs of all the IoT use cases when combined
in multi-technology IoT platform that is extremely cost-effective and can address very low IoT
ARPUs.

36
12 REFERENCES
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/UnlicensedSpectrum.pdf.
[2] gartner.com/doc/2880717/forecast-internet-things-endpoints-associated
[3] Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2017, https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report
[4] Machina Research, Global IoT Forecast and Analysis 2015-2025,
https://machinaresearch.com/report/iot-global-forecast-analysis-2015-25/
[5] http://www.lightreading.com/iot/iot-strategies/comcast-aims-to-layer-lora-into-xb6-
gateway/d/d-id/736347
[6] http://www.telecomtv.com/articles/iot/orange-s-two-track-iot-lora-for-low-power-
applications-lte-m-for-high-throughput-15741/
[7] https://www.lora-alliance.org/
[8] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405959517300061
[9] Enforta LoRaWAN Deployment,
https://www.actility.com/news/enforta-and-actility-iot-russia/
[10] Cellular IoT (NB-IoT, Cat-M1) and LoRaWAN: How do they complement each other?
Actility.
[11] http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/Newsletter/operator-strategies-for-
iot-Jan2016/
[12] MulteFire Alliance, https://www.multefire.org/
[13] CBRS Alliance, https://www.cbrsalliance.org/
[14] “IoT & LPWA: low-power networks for high-powered transformations”, Orange;
Source:https://partner.orange.com/iot-lpwa-connectivity-white-paper/
[15] ThingPark Market; Source: https://market.thingpark.com/
[16] Click and Go; Source: https://iot.thingpark.com/clickandgo/
[17] https://www.netmanias.com/en/post/blog/10974/iot-lte-sk-telecom/sk-telecom-s-
multi-track-iot-network-lte-lte-m-and-lora
[18] https://www.actility.com/event/webinar-3gpp-lorawan/
[19] https://www.slideshare.net/erikagelinard/lorawan-and-3gpp-technologies-cover-all-
industrial-iot-use-cases

37
13 ABOUT AUTHORS
Dr. Rohit received B.Tech at the IIT, Roorkee in 2002 and the M.Sc. in 2003
from Nanyang Technological University in Electronics and Communications.
He received his Ph.D in 2009 from the University of Washington, Seattle in
Electrical Engineering in cross layer design of wireless networks(cellular +
WiFi). He has worked in National Instruments, EURECOM,
STMicroelectronics, Ericsson, CEA-LETI in several roles related to RnD project
management on various topics in wireless communication related to LTE/5G.
He currently works in Actility as Senior wireless product manager and
manages both LTE and Geolocation related products in Actility.
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/rohit-gupta-2b51503a
Olivier is a recognized telecom and technology expert. He founded
NetCentrex, a leading provider of VoIP infrastructure for service providers,
then became CTO of Comverse after the acquisition of NetCentrex in 2006.
Olivier is a recognized thought leader in Telecoms and Energy markets. He is
the author of several books on networking technology, VoIP, M2M, Internet
of Things(IoT) and the Smart Grid. Olivier graduated from Ecole
Polytechnique. Olivier founded Actility, IoT solution provider, in 2010. Via its
ThingPark Wireless platform, Actility uses the Lora technology to enable
LPWA IoT networks for applications such as Smart Cities.
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/ohersent
Pierre Dufour received an Engineer's degree (Electrical Engineering) from
INSA, Lyon in 2007. He has more than 10 years of experience in the telecom
industry as RF Engineer. He worked for Bouygues Telecom during 7 years,
holding different positions (RAN technical engineer in the NOC, PM) and has
managed the roll-out of indoor cellular networks for high-value venues
(stadium, airports, conference center, high-rise office buildings and events).
From 2013 to 2017, he worked for Paris Airports as RF Engineer where he
designed various wireless networks (WiFi, TETRA, GSM, VHF, DAS) in complex
and highly secure environments. He currently works for Actility since June
2017 where he's in charge of RF related questions (RFP and pre-sales, radio
planning, good practices definition, code review and validation for RF
features, on-site troubleshooting).
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/pierre-dufour-a547774

38
Ramez Soss received an Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering
degree from Cairo University in 2005 (distinction with honors). He has 10
years of experience working at Alcatel-Lucent (2005-2015), working on 3GPP
technologies GSM/GPRS/EGPRS, UMTS/HSPA, LTE/LTE-A as well as IEEE
802.11 WiFi. He occupied the post of Radio Engineer from 2005 to 2007, then
Network Planning and Optimization SME from 2007 to 2011 where he was in
charge of Technology Introduction and Support of new BSS products to major
Tier-1 Network Operators (Orange, SFR, Deutsche Telekom, CMCC…). From
2011 to 2015, Ramez occupied the post of LTE/LTE-A Senior RF Design
Engineer, developing Network Planning Tools for air-interface coverage and
capacity dimensioning.
He moved to Actility in 2015 as a Senior RF Engineer, focusing on LoRaWAN
technology. From 2017, in addition to his role as Director of the Radio & Tools
Competence Center, he is also ThingPark Wireless Product Manager.
LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/ramez-soss-a9692718

39

Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?

Similar a Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform? (20)

Último

Último (20)

Whitepaper - How to build a mutil-technology scalable IoT Connectivity Platform?