Cellular vs. LoRaWAN Networks for Smart Street Lighting

A Comparative Overview

As municipalities and city planners embark on new smart street lighting projects, a crucial decision is choosing the right communication network. Two prominent technologies stand out: Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN. This article compares both in terms of technical specifications, commercial implications, and overall suitability for smart street lighting, aiming to guide decision-makers in selecting the most appropriate option.

How Do Cellular-Based Smart Street Lights Work?

Smart street lights using Cellular IoT connect to the internet via local telecom networks, utilizing 2G, 3G, 4G, or 5G signals. These can be technical standards like LTE CAT 1, LTE CAT M1, NB-IoT, GSM, or EGPRS, which are the same types of connections used by mobile phones or smart meters. One advantage of this setup is that no local gateway is required, simplifying installation.

How Do LoRaWAN-Based Smart Street Lights Work?

LoRaWAN, short for Long-Range Wide Area Network, relies on LoRa technology, a proprietary radio communication method. LoRa-based street light controllers use unlicensed radio frequencies to communicate with a central LoRaWAN gateway in a star network topology. These gateways then connect the controllers to the internet, but require careful network planning, as they are a single point of failure—if the gateway goes down, the entire network is affected.

Cellular IoT vs. LoRaWAN: A Detailed Comparison

Network Type

• LoRaWAN: Supports small data packets over a long range (5-10 km) but requires a clear line of sight between devices and the gateway. Each gateway can connect over 1,000 devices, but it poses a risk of network failure if the gateway fails.
• Cellular IoT: Can handle medium to high volumes of real-time data between devices and local cell towers. Devices automatically select the best available network from telecom operators, ensuring more reliable connectivity.

Market Applications

• LoRaWAN: Best suited for low-bandwidth, high-latency applications such as waste management, environmental monitoring, and remote meter reading. LoRaWAN has seen wide adoption in consumer and professional markets but is less popular for critical public infrastructure.
• Cellular IoT: Provides low-latency, real-time communication suitable for applications that require high reliability, such as ATMs, traffic lights, public parking systems, and smart street lighting. Cellular IoT supports billions of devices globally.

Spectrum Type

• LoRaWAN: Operates on unlicensed spectrum (ISM bands like 433 MHz, 868 MHz, or 2.4 GHz), making it vulnerable to interference and jamming. The unlicensed spectrum may also not be available after 2028, creating long-term uncertainty.
• Cellular IoT: Uses licensed spectrum managed by telecom operators, offering high reliability and security. These networks are actively monitored 24/7, with service level agreements (SLAs) in place to ensure continuous uptime.

Quality of Service (QoS) & SLAs

• LoRaWAN: QoS management for LoRaWAN networks is often inconsistent, as the network can be run by private companies, municipalities, or even local citizens. This decentralization makes it harder to ensure uptime and rapid troubleshooting.
• Cellular IoT: Telecom operators provide high QoS with SLAs guaranteeing uptime up to 99.99%. Municipalities don’t need to manage the network, as it is already maintained by telecom providers.

Standardization

• LoRaWAN: Despite its adoption by various private companies and system integrators, LoRaWAN has not been embraced by large telecom operators, limiting its growth in public infrastructure projects.
• Cellular IoT: Global telecom operators have widely adopted LTE Cat M1 and NB-IoT standards, with rollout complete in many countries. LTE Cat 1 and GSM are also well-established and globally available.

Security

• LoRaWAN: Security for LoRaWAN networks is considered less robust compared to cellular IoT, making it unsuitable for critical infrastructure applications.
• Cellular IoT: Backed by 3GPP global standards, cellular IoT offers strong, continuously updated security protocols, making it ideal for public safety applications like traffic lights and CCTV.

Remote Updates

• LoRaWAN: Over-the-air (OTA) updates are slow and sometimes impractical due to the low bandwidth. This poses a significant risk, especially if a security breach occurs.
• Cellular IoT: Offers quick, automatic OTA updates due to higher bandwidth, ensuring all street light controllers are up-to-date within minutes.

Installation Complexity

• LoRaWAN: Installing a LoRaWAN network requires careful planning and placement of multiple gateways. Failures in the network can be complex to diagnose and repair.
• Cellular IoT: Installation is much simpler, as no physical gateways are required. Streetlight controllers can be easily connected to the central management system through the cellular network.

Connectivity Costs

• LoRaWAN: While marketed as a "free" network, municipalities that install LoRaWAN are responsible for ongoing management, which can add hidden costs. Some telecom operators or system integrators may also charge for connectivity.
• Cellular IoT: Historically more expensive, cellular IoT costs have dropped significantly over the last few years. M2M (machine-to-machine) SIM cards now available, helping reduce per-device costs. Which is making it increasingly attractive for smart street lighting projects.

Conclusion

Both Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN have advantages depending on the specific needs of a smart street lighting project.

• LoRaWAN is suitable for long-range communication in applications where real-time data isn’t required and security risks are lower. However, its lower reliability and security make it less suitable for public critical infrastructure like streetlights.
• Cellular IoT offers better security, real-time communication, and simpler installation. With decreasing costs, it is becoming the preferred choice for smart street lighting and other smart city applications worldwide. The use of M2M SIMs has further driven down the costs, making Cellular IoT an increasingly attractive option for smart street lighting projects globally.

Increasing numbers of cities are opting for Cellular IoT due to its reliability, global standardization, and low maintenance, positioning it as the future of smart street lighting.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this comparison between Cellular IoT and LoRaWAN for smart street lighting. What challenges or considerations are most important for you when choosing a communication technology for your infrastructure?

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, feel free to reach out. I’m always eager to connect with fellow IoT enthusiasts and explore new projects and possibilities for integrating IoT into various products. Let’s brainstorm and shape the future of smart technology together!