## 5 Result and Analysis  
Figure 6 shows the performance of communication signal transmission with respect to BER and SNR over the Rayleigh fading channel of the LHM-N model compared with the conventional QAM protocol (uncoded scheme). From Figure 6, it can be deduced that the bit error rate (BER) at a given SNR in the LHM-N model is lower than the bit error rate in the conventional QAM protocol. For example, the LHM-N model exhibits a lower BER below 1, approximately 0.5 at an SNR of 5 dB, whereas the conventional QAM protocol exhibits a higher BER above 1, approximately 6 at the same SNR of 5 dB. Further, at an SNR of 50 dB, the BER in the LHM-N model is \(10^{-4}\), whereas the BER in the conventional QAM protocol is above \(10^{-4}\). Therefore, it is apparent that it will take lower errors for communication signal transmission in the LHM-N model than in the conventional QAM protocol, which has more errors in transmission, as depicted in Figure 6. Hence, the LHM-N model coding gain GT of 5.3 dB validates the performance improvement without the expense of bandwidth energy. For example, at a given SNR (a function of symbol energy per bit), the communication signal improves with less error compared to the conventional QAM protocol at the same symbol energy per bit. Figure 7 shows the performance of the communication signal transmission with respect to throughput and SNR over the Rayleigh fading channel of the LHM-N model compared with the conventional QAM protocol. From the result, it confirms that the LHM-N model can effectively maintain a higher throughput or data rate in communication signal transmission. This is depicted in Figure 7, which shows a higher throughput than the existing or conventional QAM protocols (uncoded signal). For instance, for the LHM-N model, at an SNR of 25 dB, a throughput of approximately 800 Mbps is obtained whereas for the existing QAM protocol, approximately 100 Mbps throughput is obtained at the same 25 dB. Similarly, at an SNR of 50 dB, throughputs of approximately 850 and 150 Mbps are obtained for the LHM-N model and existing QAM protocol, respectively. Hence, it is evident that the throughput of the LHM-N model is five times the throughput of the existing QAM protocol. This validates an appreciable and improved throughput in the LHM-N model than in the existing QAM protocol. This throughput improvement makes this model (an optimization of a 5G RedCap IoT device) suitable for medium to high data rate IoT applications without the expense of energy increase (low power). Thus, this model has a comparable LPWAN potential capability. The 5G RedCap IoT device with the existing protocol cannot attain appreciable throughput without the expense of energy increase (high power consumption), which makes it unsuitable for LPWAN-IoT potential \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Simulation runs & 100,000 \\ Channel fading & Rayleigh \\ Modulation size & 16-QAM \\ SNR & 0.5:50 (dB) \\ Channel bandwidth (CB) & 20 MHz \\ Tx & 1 \\ Rx & 2 \\ Encoder & TCM \\ Frequency & 1.9 GHz \\ Trellis state & 8 \\ Trellis structure & Poly2 trellis \\ Polynomial generator (gi) & g0, g1 \\ Device type & 5G RedCap \\ Combiner type & MRC \\ Simulation runtime for overhead computation & 100 s \\ Total packet length & 1642 Byte \\ Minimum payload & 64 Byte \\ Maximum payload & 1500 Byte \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation parameters. capability. Hence, the existing RedCap does not support low power capability comparable with the LPWAN. Figure 8 shows the performance of the communication signal transmission with respect to BER and latency over the Rayleigh fading channel of the LHM-N model compared with the conventional QAM protocol. From the result, it can be seen that at any instance of the transmission, the LHM-N model exhibits low BER as well as a lower latency compared to the conventional QAM protocol For example, the transmission latency is 30 ms with a BER slightly below \(10^{-3}\) in the LHM-N model.