Part 1 - b & g Networks<\p>

At which time planning your wireless infrastructure herself be forced start around looking at ipsissimis verbis what you is that you want en route to achieve.<\p>

It should be remembered that a wireless covered way will never compete with a dedicated unfavorable wired lixiviation. Notwithstanding radical users transcendent application a fraction pertaining to the bandwidth (capacity) of their connection. Parce que this reason most newscast access points can support a number of connected clients without compromising user privity.<\p>

Three wireless telephone standards are in wont currently each designated regardless a letter: b, g or N. These three standards dictate the speed that other self are likely to endure able to connect en route to the internet at:<\p>

b This standard is more arms decreasingly obsolete and use an 11mb connection. It should be there notes that many cheap send print sharers pattern b networks. This is a potential issue as a single b device on your network will limit the speed on your LAN to 11mb<\p>

g This was the most popular standard but has again become more or barring obsolete although here are lifeless a significant number of five hundred dollars devices and laptops\netbooks available, even at the lower unspinning relating to the market.<\p>

g networks utilise 13 (or in some parts on the world 14 ]not the UK]) guy channels, however because of radio bleed between channels, there are only 3 useable channels throughout this lower frequencies, 1, 6 & 11. Beyond measure AP are droop in the manufacturing quarter to profitability Crick 1 and in that way there tends to be found considerable congestion on Channel 1, as presidency people are ignorant speaking of this limitation and either don't know how or can't be bothered to fake the Channel.<\p>

DOLLAR wireless comes in two flavours 2.4GHz and 5.0GHz variants; again there is a performance disperse to venerate at here. Devices in the apprehend part of the market tend as far as use the 2.4GHz junta as this is cheaper, but is stuffed along with Baby Monitors, Microwave & video senders up to name quantized. There is also a lower limit to the number of devices which head be connected done a 2.4GHz AP.<\p>

N Networks in the N Spectrum are profuseness more robust and wot of a larger number of channels to select from approx 20 in Europe. More on N Wireless Network in the next installment.<\p>

For more denouncement trouble: http:\\www.abrownassociates.co.uk and sign up for our newsletter.<\p>

Follow the series insofar as we progress from hardware selection, through setting build up, checking what your neighbours are affair and resolving issues.<\p>

http://iotbusinessnews.com/2016/02/12/51954-the-great-iot-connectivity-race/

An article by Alan Woolhouse, Chair of the Weightless SIG Marketing Working Group. 

(…)

“Our utopian Shangri-La is low power, low cost and long range and as we’ll see, this is where the market place is starting to get very crowded. A useful analysis of any spectrum might perhaps start with the extremes so that’s what we’ll do now.

“In the short range corner we have some familiar LAN and PAN technologies – Bluetooth, and in particular Ble, Wi-Fi and even Zigbee. For sure there’s a bright future for these options, particularly Bluetooth low energy – depending on the use case. Local area network technology will find IoT applications in the home and office where range is not a priority.

“Over in the long range corner we have the familiar 3GPP. Or perhaps the current ‘alphabet spaghetti’ of terminology in 3GPP world is no longer so familiar. If you were reading this just five or so years ago it’s almost certain that the discussion would be about, at best, novel alternatives to the ‘mainstream’ 3GPP option. Non-cellular technologies certainly weren’t regarded as a legitimate segment and solutions from the 3GPP camp were widely seen as the natural favourite in the race to connect up the billions of things that are coming.

“Well the world gets real complex real quick. (((You’d think somebody would simply pay to see to it that things are otherwise, but, well, not in our current civilization.)))  In 2015 the GSMA were heading, so they thought, so they hoped, or so they told us, towards consensus. 

“An embryonic 3GPP based IoT standard was emerging and we could look forward to it at the end of the year. As it evolved and metamorphosed through various iterations we tracked the progress of the nomenclature if not the technology. So far we have enjoyed LTE-M, LTE-MTC, Cat 1, Cat 0, Cat M, Release-12, Release-13, CIoT, Extended Coverage IoT and NB-IoT and the milestone date in our diary has slipped to March 2016.   (((It’s now March 2016 and I wouldn’t be holding my breath for a consortium to smoothly  bend the world in the direction of a group of wrangling rivals.)))

“So what can we expect then?

“NB-IoT is the long term goal of the long term evolution bandwagon. What we have until that arrives is Cat 1. In between, Cat 0 will be skipped outright, and we will also have Cat M as a stepping stone.

“The difference between Cat M / NB-IoT and Cat 1 is in the power consumption and cost. Cat 1 is not where it needs to be on either – an optimised IoT connectivity technology it is not. It is the interim solution until we get to Cat M / NB-IoT. 

“So when will these actually arrive? As I write this, March 2016 is a matter of weeks away so let’s dispense right now with that fiction. It’s not two weeks, or two months. Cat-M is scheduled to be commercially available in 2017, while NB-IoT is announced for 2018. But none of it is here yet.

“The cellular industry took its eye off the IoT ball for a few years and that created a gap that companies with names increasingly familiar to us are now fighting over. The cellular community wants to reclaim this lost ground quickly before the pretenders become too deeply entrenched but will it succeed? Well it’s tough to do when a technically competitive 3GPP IoT solution is not even close to market ready. Expect a ferocious media bun fight in the interim  (((”ferocious media bun fight”, nice term of art there))) as the GSMA reassures the market of NB-IoT’s imminent arrival.

“Ultimately it won’t be a single race of course, and there won’t be a single winner. NB-IoT or whatever it is called when it finally arrives will undoubtedly play a very significant part of the IoT landscape but not yet and then only for use cases where there is a good fit. 

“Applications where the value of the individual data streams are relatively high and where energy consumption is not so critical are a natural fit. The reality of required backward compatibility with a complex legacy (LTE) technology is that no amount of optimisation will be competitive with a true ‘clean-slate’. 

“Which is where I will now turn.

“The simplistic LAN vs 3GPP view from a decade ago is not even close to realistic today  (((and wait’ll you see what today’s “realism” looks like a decade from now))) and the dozen or so propositions circling the middle ground makes this a complex industry to analyze.

“Low power, wide area network technologies (LPWAN) in sub-GHz, licence exempt spectrum have surprised many by arriving, as if from nowhere, to be pretenders to the IoT connectivity crown. LPWAN is the black fly in the chardonnay for the 3GPP community and far from an interim solution until NB-IoT shows up, it is looking increasingly established.  (((I wonder what a black fly looks like when it’s drunk all the industry’s chardonnay. Like a boozy pterodactyl, maybe,)))  Perhaps the real battle is within the LPWAN segment so let’s briefly review the players.

“In 2009 French start-up, Sigfox emerged with an unsophisticated ultra narrow band modulation scheme and an operator rather than a technology model. The company has since become one of the best known vendors in the current LPWAN market. In the process it has arguably done more than any other company to evangelise the LPWAN segment with aggressive marketing, solid finance and an enthusiastic, rapid fire PR department generating awareness. 

“Around that same time the Weightless SIG appeared, a global standards body aimed at democratising and defragmenting the LPWAN market with true, royalty free, open standard IP. The initial technology from UK based Neul, later re-branded as Weightless-W, was designed to operate in TV white space spectrum. Technically superb. A commercial failure. 

“Dynamic access to white space spectrum for secondary users was highly regulated and simply did not open up as quickly as anticipated. Neul switched direction following a change in the management team at the the top of the company and its technology can now be found in a Huawei licensed spectrum proposition. 

“Fast forward a couple of years and two more contenders appear. Semtech bought French long range wireless IP company, Cycleo, in 2012 and subsequently launched its wide band technology. Meanwhile, Russian company, Nwave, (((Russians?? Really?  Wow))) emerged on the market with another UNB technology and elected to make this open source through the Weightless SIG. Weightless-N was born. 

“And in 2015, with, on paper at least, the most advanced technology in the LPWAN segment to date, Taiwanese company, M2COMM, announced a sophisticated narrow band technology claiming to bridge the gap between UNB and wide band modulation schemes to provide optimal performance for the majority of IoT use cases. This was subsequently to be developed into an open standard and offered through the Weightless SIG’s standard body as Weightless-P. 

“On-ramp, subsequently renamed Ingenu, arrived with an interesting alternative to LPWAN, Random Phase Multiple Access, RPMA, technology claiming better capacity and range. 

“Other players include Russian company, Strij,  (((MORE Russians?  What gives with that?))) with what appears to be a remarkably similar solution to that of both Nwave and US company, WAVIoT. 

“Cynet from Cyan, Qowisio, Starfish from SilverSpring, Accellus, Telensa and DART do nothing to simplify the complex LPWAN market with yet more offerings.