Gateway LoRaWan number of channels in Europe

how many channels (maximum) can be used in Europe ? most GWs seem to manage a maximum of 8 channels, in Europe can they manage more? If yes how ?
Thanks in advance

For LoRaWAN 8 is a minimum not max! :slight_smile:

Technically a GW can support more cards with same channels or more cards with additional channels if required, however key is that the network operator and its associated LNS also supports and manages this. In some parts of the world and some networks, using large scale ‘telecoms’ focussed GW’s some support 16-64 channels. Note for TTN its 8 channels as defined. Obviously if a network, its GW’s and its LNS support more channels then the devices need to be configured to use these. This is usually done in subsets - sub bands - of 8 channels. e.g. for TTN US915 FSB2 recommended etc.

yes, as far as i know 8 channles is minimum BUT which is the maximum number of channels that is allowed from EU band regulatory ?
I mean, it make sense to have a > 8 channel gateway in EU (e.g. Italy) according to the EU spectrum limitations ?
As far as i know LoRa Basic Station of TTN (TTS) can handle up to two channel plan BUT according to Semtech LoRa Basic Station 2.0.6 documentation (LoRa Basics™ Station | DEVELOPER PORTAL) only for HW reference design 1.5 is possible to handle two board. corecell HW reference design is currently release in single board only.

The maximum number is whatever you and your LNS provider can fit in the available spectrum. While keeping in mind end devices are only required to store 16 channels (more is optional). So 17 and up might break the end device software. Keep in mind as well that there are other users that might cause interference on some frequencies (yes even Lora suffers from interference) and you don’t want overlap, so choices are limited.

I know of least one commercial operator in EU is using 16 channels.

yes as per LoRaWan specs device are required to store and use up to 16 channels , my dubt is if, according to EU spectrum, 16 channels are available and , as we know, device can (must) support up to 16 channels a optimized LoRa GW need to support these channels number also. This mean that LNS must be able to configure a first 8 channel plan for first LoRa bard and a second 8 channel plan for the second LoRa board.
it is possible to know who is the commercial EU operator that use 16 channels ?

That is an opinion. 8 channel gateways work perfectly alright and provide sufficient capacity in all situations I’ve encountered over the past 8 years. Uplink capacity is seldomly a bottleneck and if it is adding gateways and allowing devices to optimize SF and power works better than adding channels which will be used randomly anyway.

I am wondering what you are trying to achieve with your questions. Is your company looking to sell 16 channel gateways and looking for software and networks that support them?

The party I was referring to is a Dutch telco.

Ability to support (to be fully compliant) =/= must use! e.g. TTN we use 8. Of these 3 are mandatory and OTAA sets rest if needed, or with ABP you tell the LNS at time of device (node) registration that you have set the other 5… if the device is capable of holding additional 16 these can be left empty if you dont intend to use. Have seen private networks using 11 or 12 channels - effectively 1.5 subbands!

Well, in some tender 16 to 64 channels gateway is a requirement for EU. We are LoRa Gateway manufacturer so we are trying to understand if this requirement make sense in EU. In some EU tender for example also a full duplex is sometimes required… Onestly i don’t know who write specification…
But summarizing:
device can handle up to 16 channels pseudo random used, although are pseudo random (and according to the esxperience uplink is seldomly a bottleneck) if i have a 16 channels gateaway i think is better that 8 channels but only if EU spectrum can provide at least 16 channels. The question is exactly this: are at least 16 channel available in EU ?
Do you know how Semtech LoRa Basic Station use two board (the cocept) with same channel plan and two board with different channel plan ? (currently we use only one board one antenna). In my opinion in the second case you can extend number of channels and in the first case you can do antenna diversity but starting to the assumpion that the downlink response i transmitted from the same board (and so antenna) that receive the previuous uplink
Who Dutch telco do you refer ?

I would have hoped that a GW manufacturer in Italy would have comprehended all the key requirements, capabilities and limits per L-A before/during embarking on a GW product development :thinking: !

As noted 64 channel ‘capability’ is a requirement for GW’s in e.g. US, is the tender asking for ability to handle 16 or 64 channels as a capability (as in select 8 or 16 from that range) or is it asking for this to be handled simultaneously? i.e all 16 or 64 fully operational at all times?

Remember if implementing a typical EU GW then channel bandwidth is 125khz, crudely then 8 channels per Mhz, and if 863-870Mhz or potentially (depending on geography/juradiction) 872Mhz or 873Mhz, or specullativey some selective bands higher in 915 band (under consultation), then maths suggests…

Recommendation is rather than asking TTN Forumites of mixed experience and knowledge to speculate for you (TTN Focussed remember - so we know the key 8 TTN channels well!) perhaps engage with the L-A team for advice and guidance, right? (Must be members if LW GW manufacturers surely?!), would appreciate if you report back what they tell you here though then the ‘knowledge’ is available on the Forum for those who follow on :slight_smile:

Google will tell you.

Doesn’t make sense for a protocol that has 8/16/64 uplink channels in parallel and just one transmitter.

Sounds like the people writing those specifications don’t know a lot about the technology. Not uncommon to see impossible requirements, sometimes deliberate to check the knowledge of offering parties.

Like @Jeff-UK I can only advise to work closely with the Lora Alliance and also with Semtech. They know all there is to know about the technology and Semtech provides the hardware and software as well as the reference designs. They are the authority on what can be done with the hardware/software combination and what doesn’t make sense.
Forum members can only talk from (extensive) personal experience but don’t know (or are not allowed to talk about) what is being discussed in the Alliance.

Please do report back on what you learn.

Oh, BTW, should you be looking for (beta) testers for gateways, I know @Jeff-UK and I are always interested…

1 Like

thanks for reply.
I’m intersted in our GW integration on TTN.

I will contact LA.


:+1: :slight_smile:

can never have to many GW’s! :wink: 7 more conc cards and subsystems delivered in last week for more experimental self builds :man_shrugging: no plans for anything other than 8 channel builds though :rofl:

:thinking: hummm, maybe I could just ermmmm …

Then you need to contact The Things Industries. They know the ins and outs of the stack and future developments but don’t visit the forum frequently. The community has no working crystal ball to consult with regards to what TTI is working towards.
However given that > 99.9% of the current gateways have only 8 channels adding a 16 channel one to the network doesn’t make much sense. End devices won’t be able to use the additional channels because that would mean they become dependent on that particular gateway. 16 channel gateways might be useful in private cloud instances and private deployments.

i’ve subscribe a TTS discovery plan (free) but seem there is not much support and no dedicated community. I’ve expored a bit but seams that double frequency plan can be provided but the only difference between freq.plan is RX2 @SF9 and in general is based on sx1301 HW reference design not the last sx1302 corecell. Anyway i will investigate further
However we reach the 16 channels requirement exactly for a private network tender , for example water metering national utility

You may want to think a bit harder about all your assertions & assumptions. You subscribe to a free product and expect there to be support and then say there is no dedicated community?

The discovery plan is to discover with. If you want one on one support, you’ll need to pay for that as that costs far more actual hard cash than a few extra compute cycles & some space in a database.

As for the dedicated community, commercial users tend not to hang out in a community as they have objectives that aren’t compatible with water cooler moments & sharing hints & tips with their competitors.

That said, there is a very dedicated community for all of TTN/TTI users but I wonder if you even know who’s been advising you so far and what their backgrounds might be in terms of gateways …

PS: My expertise is more toward firmware which has required the configuration of a 16 channel setup for a project a while back and the docs helped me implement the LNS side just fine.

maybe a little calm would help… it wasn’t an accusation but a fact. I know that you have to pay to get support

1 Like

That is not what I meant. Reach out to TTI directly, their contact form is on the website. That should get you in touch with the appropriate people. I know they’ve been working with other gateway manufacturers in the past to optimize things.