# Low Power Wide Area Network, Cognitive Radio and the Internet of Things: Potentials for Integration
## 3 Low Power Wide Area Network
### LPWAN Standards  
Based on the growing list of LPWAN technologies, it is evident that there is considerable diversity among LPWAN technologies, which breeds a number of issues that may stifile their growth and interoperability. For example, while some developers are contending the introduction of IPv6 in  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Rank**} & **LPWAN** & **Licensed** & **Unlicensed** & **Currently** & **Supports** & **Considering** \\  & **Technology** & **Band** & **Band** & **Supports** & **Multiple** & **Future CR** \\  & **Operation** & **Operation** & **CR** & **Channels** & **Deployment** \\ \hline
1 & Nwave & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\
2 & Sigfox & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & ✓ \\
3 & Weightless & x & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\
4 & LoRa & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & ✓ \\
5 & Symphony Link & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & ✓ \\
6 & Amber Wireless & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & x \\
7 & IQRF & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & x \\
8 & LTE-M & ✓ & x & x & ✓ & x \\
9 & NB-IoT & ✓ & x & x & ✓ & x \\
10 & Starfish & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & x \\
11 & Telemsa & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & x \\
12 & Wi-SUN & x & ✓ & x & ✓ & x \\
13 & Qowisio & x & ✓ & x & x & x \\
14 & Ingenu & x & ✓ & x & x & x \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Ranking of the different LPWAN brands based on their potential integration of cognitive radio (CR) technologies.  
their LPWAN technologies, Wi-SUN on the other hand has commenced support of IPv6 using the 6 LoWPAN technology [25]. These uncoordinated diversities may affect the end users negatively such that migration between different technologies will become greatly hampered. This may ultimately restrict the widespread acceptance of LPWAN technologies. Consequently, some standards have been developed to articulate the different concerns pertaining to the interoperation of LPWAN technologies. However, these standards are incoherent because of a lack of a unified front amongst LPWAN developers. Thus, a number of international bodies are presently involved in the standardization process of LPWAN technologies, for example, the IETF has established a new LPWAN working group (WG) to address IPv6 issues over LPWANs, and to establish how LPWANs will adapt into a mutually beneficial ecosystem [25].  
In this regard, there are two different assemblages working to standardize the LPWAN ecosystem. These are the standard development organizations (SDOs) and the Special Interest Groups (SIGs) [4]. Notwithstanding, there are other consortiums working and advocating for the interoperability and standardization of different IoT components. For example, the Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC) aims to set up an architectural framework for industrial IoT by coordinating connected objects that use common architectures, interoperability, and open standards. Most prominently, the SDOs and SIGs are widely known as proponents for the interoperability of different IoT standards. The SDOs comprise known organizations such as the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI), the Third Generation Partnership Project (3 GPP), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [4]. An overview of these SDOs based on their area of focus, membership, and membership count is provided in Table 3. The SIGs on the other hand comprise individual industrial alliances such as the LoRa Alliance, Weightless-SIG, and the DASH7 Alliance [4]. We provide an overview of the developments made thus far with regards to the standardization of LPWAN technologies.