# Survey on Wireless Technology Trade-Offs for the Industrial Internet of Things
## 5 Discussions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **LoRa** & **IEEE 802.11 ah** & **NB-IoT** & **802.15.4g TSCH** \\ \hline
**Band** & unlicensed sub-GHz & unlicensed sub-GHz & licensed (LTE band) & unlicensed sub-GHz \\
**Bandwidth** & 125 kHz/250 kHz & 1/2/4/8/16 MHz & 180 kHz & 200 kHz–125 MHz \\
**Topology** & star-of-stars & star/tree & cellular & star, p2p mesh \\
**Deployment** & private/operator-based & private & operator-based & private \\
**MAC** & LoRaWAN & hybrid & LTE based & TSCH \\  & & EDCA/DCF & OFDMA (DL) 8 SC-FDMA (UL) & \\
**Retransmissions** & yes & yes & yes & yes \\
**Reliability mechanisms** & orthogonal SFs & FEC, WPAI (MLG, WPA2 (CCM)) & FEC, ARQ & FSK/O-QPSK/OFDM \\  & 32-bit MIC & WPA3 (BIP-GMAC-256) & & \\ \hline
**Range** & 15 km & 1 km & 20 km & 1 km \\
**Nodes per network** & unlimited & 8192 & 52,247 per cell & 6000 \\
**Data rate** & 250 bps-5.5 kbps/11 kbps/50 kbps & 150 kbps & -250 kbps & 6.25 kbps-800 kbps \\ Min. cycle time & \(>\)1s & \(>\)20 ms & \(>\)1.6 s & \(>\)20 ms \\ \hline Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDMA); Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA); Single Carrier FDMA (SC-FDMA); Uplink (UL); Downlink DL; Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ); Offest OPSK (QPSK); Counter Mode Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code (CCM); Broadcast/Multicast Integrity Protocol (BIP); Galois Message Authentication Code (GMAC); Message Integrity Code (MIC). & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Technical properties (top) and key performance indicators (bottom) of sub-GHz wireless technologies for the IIoT domain. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **WirelessHART** & **ISA100.11a** & **BLE** & **802.15.4e TSCH** \\ \hline
**Band** & 2.4 GHz ISM & 2.4 GHz ISM & 2.4 GHz ISM \\
**Bandwidth** & 200 kHz–1.2 MHz & 2 MHz & 2 MHz/5 MHz \\
**Topology** & mesh & star/mesh/star-mesh & p2p/star/mesh & star, tree, mesh \\
**Deployment** & private & private & private & private \\
**MAC** & time sync., freq. hopping & TDMA / CSMA/CA (10–2 ms) & TDMA & TSCH \\  & TSMP (TDMA, 10 ms) & yes & yes & yes \\
**Retransmissions** & ARQ, FHSS & ARQ, FHSS, DSSS & FHSS, 24-bit CRC, & DSSS, 32-bit MIC, FEC & DSSS/QPSK \\  & DSSS, 32-bit MIC & 32-bit MIC, FEC & & \\ \hline
**Range** & \(<\)1.5 km (225 m) & \(<\)1.5 km (100 m) & \(<\)100 m/\(<\)1000 m & \(<\)200 m \\
**Nodes per network** & 30,000/hundreds per AP & unlimited/thousands per GW & unlimited & unlimited \\
**Data rate** & \(<\)250 kbps & \(<\)250 kbps & 125 kbps/1 Mbps/2 Mbps & 250 kbps \\
**Min. cycle time** & 500 ms & 500 ms & 50 ms & 20 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Technical properties (top) and key performance indicators (bottom) of IIoT wireless technologies based on 802.15.4 2.4 GHz PHY layer and BLE. time of this study, no off-the-shelf radio was available for Wi-Fi HaLow and the same radio was assumed as for 802.15.4g (Atmel AT86 RF215), as it supports the required modulation and coding schemes. The simulation experiments were performed using the ns-3 network simulator for LoRa [58], NB-IoT [59] and Wi-Fi HaLow [60]. Using the 6 TiSCH simulator, 802.15.4g was evaluated [61]. A single device and a single gateway/AP is considered in the simulations. Hence, the results do not take into account scalability or contention. To maintain simplicity, predictability and comparability of the results, the experiments did not take into account any packet loss due to propagation errors, interference or collisions. As such, the PHY and channel contribution to the energy consumption is limited to the time-on-air of the radio for the reported packet sizes (including preamble and PHY/MAC header). The main contribution of the results pertains to the energy consumption of the MAC layer protocols of the considered technologies. For this reason, we used a simplified linear battery discharging model. Wi-Fi HaLow is significantly more energy efficient than 802.15.4g with TSCH. This improvement is due to the higher supported data rate that leads to shorter transmission times.