The basic concept of the Internet of Things, or IoT, is that “thing X” takes measurements about its performance and/or surroundings, and transmits this data to Internet gateway Y. This concept works well for condition-based monitoring, predictive maintenance technologies, and environmental monitoring . But how does this data get from point X to point Y?
WiFi can be appropriate for limited transmission ranges, but for longer distances, you’ll want to consider using either a 5G cellular connection or LoRa technology and the LoRaWAN –Long Range Wide Area Network–protocol.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both, and what to use depends on a number of factors. In this article we’ll discuss several aspects to consider when choosing between LoRa vs. a 5G cellular connection.
Data Rate (Massive 5G Advantage)
If you need a high data rate out of your IoT “thing” there is really no contest. 5G wins hands down. Transmission speeds are typically many tens of megabits per second and can reach into the gigabit range under the right conditions. LoRa transmission rates can theoretically be up to the 20 kilobit per second range, but are typically much slower, and data is sent in short bursts. LoRaWan transmits in one direction at a time, and gives priority to uplink transmissions– from the end point to the IoT gateway. Therefore, if you need audio or video communication, or even a constant stream of data, 5G is typically a much better option than LoRa.
Latency (5G Advantage)
As with data rate, 5G typically has the advantage on responsiveness. Depending on the carrier and conditions, 5G latency can be in the 10s of milliseconds range. While higher than wired Ethernet connections or WiFi, this is still quite good, and this delay would largely go unnoticed in most applications.
LoRaWAN, however, is typically implemented in such a way that the end device goes to sleep the majority of the time, waking intermittently to send and receive messages. This means that you may only get updates from, or be able to send messages to, a LoRaWAN node once every few minutes, or even less. LoRaWAN can be implemented as Class C, where end nodes continuously listen for messages. However, this is detrimental to battery life and would normally be used on a temporary basis.
LoRaWAN is therefore not the best choice when you need instant data transmission. It does work quite well when you need to know slowly changing stats like the temperature, water level, or even if a device has checked in with a “heartbeat” signal or for non-time sensitive condition-based monitoring stats.
Capital Expense and Ongoing Costs (LoRaWAN Advantage)
LoRa operates on license free wavelengths (In the US, 902 to 928MHz) and therefore can be used by anyone, without any ongoing charges. Cellular modems, by their very nature, require carrier infrastructure, and thus subscription fees. Companies like Hologram and Adafruit offer reasonably priced options to help get your project on the cell network, but at the end of the day, service is an ongoing expense.
Where a cellular connection might win out is in ease of implementation. You can potentially get help setting up a LoRaWAN network via organizations like The Things Network, but at the end of the day there are a number of concepts you’ll need to digest and implement to get your LoRaWAN network off the ground. Cellular providers have existing infrastructure available for you to use, for a fee. While nominally more expensive in terms of services charges, if using a cellular provider saves initial setup and ongoing maintenance hassles, these expenses should be considered.
Battery Life and Power Usage (LoRaWAN Advantage)
Both 5G cell devices and LoRaWAN transmitters can be put to sleep as needed, waking only to transmit data. LoRaWAN, however, is able to signal very efficiently to maximize its transmission range with respect to the actual power output. LoRaWAN signals are designed to be short, and may not even use an acknowledge signal from the gateway, preserving RF space and battery life. The disadvantage here is that critical signals may be lost and not repeated—tradeoffs that should be considered when choosing between 5G or LoRaWAN infrastructure.
Range (5G Advantage – Typically)
Given the widespread implementation of cellular technology, the range of 5G equipment is practically limitless in many situations. However, LoRaWAN is theoretically able to transmit data 850km in free space, and has been tested to over 200km terrestrially under ideal conditions. LoRaWAN range, especially indoors, is much shorter.
On the other hand, you can strategically position gateways–which themselves may use 5G technology–in order to optimize LoRaWAN coverage. It’s also possible to use mesh networking–bouncing a signal from node to node–with LoRaWAN to extend a signal’s range, and there are certainly areas where cell coverage is spotty or nonexistent. 5G is nominally the winner here, but there will be exceptions.
When to Use 5G vs. LoRa
To sum things up, when you need significant data throughput, and battery life isn’t an issue, 5G is most likely the best choice for your application. For devices that will need to stay in the field for many days, months, or even years at a time to check in with a few bits of information, LoRaWAN may be the better solution.
