# Best-Suited Communication Technology for Maritime Signaling Facilities: A Literature Review
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Electrical Power Consumption  
With the rapid advancement of information and communication technologies, the consumption of electrical energy is increasing at an incredible pace, as described by [PERSON], 2009 [76], and [PERSON] et al., 2013 [77]. During the design of communication networks, performance factors like range and data transfer are important considerations. These factors ensure efficient communication. However, as electrical energy consumption has become an essential technical parameter to consider, there is growing interest in developing strategies for energy-efficient networks. Minimizing energy consumption helps reduce environmental impact and contributes to cost savings. The scientific literature contains papers that address the optimization of power consumption and compromises related to energy efficiency [77; 78; 79; 80]. All of these considerations apply to power consumption during the establishment of communication with maritime signaling facilities, where an additional challenge is the limited availability of electrical energy. Furthermore, power consumption analysis was performed for each of the 10 communication technologies. The results were categorized as either \"low power consumption\" \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AIS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**LoRa WAN**} \\ \hline n/a & [37] & 15 & [41] \\ \hline
**Range (km)** & **Ref.** & **Range (km)** & **Ref.** \\ \hline n/a & [38] & n/a & [42] \\ \hline
80 & [39] & 15 & [41] \\ \hline n/a & [23] & 8.3 & [44] \\ \hline - & - & 15 & [45] \\ \hline - & - & 8.3 & [46] \\ \hline - & - & 110 & [47] \\ \hline - & - & 16 & [39] \\ \hline - & - & 2 & [30] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{LTE} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3G} \\ \hline Range (km) & Ref. & Range (km) & Ref. \\ \hline
100 & [49] & n/a & [57] \\ \hline
100 & [39] & - & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{GPS} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{NB-IoT} \\ \hline Range (km) & Ref. & Range (km) & Ref. \\ \hline n/a & [57] & 35 & [56] \\ \hline n/a & [51] & n/a & [51] \\ \hline n/a & [52] & 100 & [39] \\ \hline n/a & [53] & - & - \\ \hline
35 & [54] & - & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{VHF} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{MaxStream} \\ \hline Range (km) & Ref. & Range (km) & Ref. \\ \hline n/a & [57] & 1 & [24] \\ \hline
120 & [39] & - & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{CSM} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ZigBee} \\ \hline Range (km) & Ref. & Range (km) & Ref. \\ \hline n/a & [58] & 0.43 & [62] \\ \hline n/a & [59] & - & - \\ \hline n/a & [60] & - & - \\ \hline n/a & [61] & - & - \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._(L) or \"high power consumption\" (H) based on the respective communication technology. The papers where data on power consumption level were not recorded (n/a) were also considered during the analysis. Table 4 represents the power consumption analysis results and the corresponding paper references. From Table 5, it can be inferred that the highest power consumption was recorded when transmitting data using GSM and LTE communication technologies. The lowest power consumption was observed when using LoRa WAN communication technology. The analyzed papers did not explicitly state the power consumption for AIS communication technology. Additionally, the lack of power consumption data in a significant percentage of analyzed papers (30.30%) does pose a limitation in the research. Access to this data would enhance the accuracy and completeness of the final analysis results.