Out of curiosity, if I wanted to set up a private LoRaWAN network (possibly using the TTN or another open source backend), not affiliated with TTN, would I require a NetID from the LoRa Alliance?
In the following document by the LoRa Alliance, it states that in order to request a NetID, the network operator âmust be a Founding, Sponsor, or Contributor member of the Lora Allianceâ:
In another document, by Link-Labs.com, the following is written:
âA recent policy announced by the LoRa Alliance is that anyone operating a LoRaWAN network needs to be granted a NetID by the Alliance. Since these are only available to Contributor members and above, be sure to budget $20,000 / year for the privilege of using LoRaWAN.â
Is this really true, or are they just scaring people into using their competing Symphony Link product? Or is requesting this LoRaWAN NetID only required to set up some kind of âcertifiedâ network? (or perhaps it relates to using their software, rather than open source options?) If itâs not required, can you simply use a random ID of your own choosing (after checking nobody else is already using it in your area).
Probably using the TTN is a better idea anyway, but Iâm just curious about the options of a private network.
Hmm, after some more searching, I found several sources (although I still havenât found an official source) stating that for public LoRaWAN networks, the sync word or preamble (register 0x39 in the SX1276) is set to 0x34, while for private networks this is set to 0x12. In addition, only public networks need a NetID (NwkId) which youâd have to obtain from the LoRa Alliance.
See for example the following:
âA LoRaWAN network has a short network identifier (âNwkIDâ) which is a seven bit value. A private network (common for LoRaWAN) can use the value zero. If a network wishes to support âforeignâ end-devices then the NwkID needs to be registered with the LoRA Alliance, in which case the NwkID is the seven least significant bits of a registered 24-bit NetID. (Note however, that the methods for âroamingâ are currently being enhanced within the LoRA Alliance, so the situation here is somewhat fluid.)â
And this: âThere are two kind of LoRa networks: private (with preamble 0x12) and public (with preamble 0x34). The norm is to use public.â (http://openlora.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=649)
This Microchip datasheet also mentions the public/private sync word difference: 40001847A.pdf
I didnât really find any unambiguous âofficialâ information about this, e.g. straight from the Lora Alliance, but I guess itâs safe to assume that a private network wouldnât require a NetID, nor a $20000 membership fee
Hi @niek , I had the same questions and got some clarifications by reading this discussion on LinkedIn:
Search for $20,000 in the long but very interesting discussion! After the discussion, Link Labs seems to have edited the article you refer to: âOperating a network does not require a network ID from the LoRa Alliance. A recent policy announced by the LoRa Alliance is that anyone operating a public LoRaWAN network needs to be granted a NetID by the Allianceâ
My understanding is you donât need a NetID for private networks, and a registered NetID is needed for public networks to support roaming.
Not clear to me if a public network that does not need to support roaming needs to have a registred NetID , or if that would be considered a private network!
Would like to hear expertsâ opinion on this!
Maybe @johan can clarify please?
A NetID allows you to issue DevAddrs your âownâ range, allowing for early exit in routing. If you donât have a NetID, youâre supposed to use 0 or 1 for testing, but everybody is doing that. This means that your network needs to check your database to see if it knows the device, and if so, doing a MIC check to see if you have the network session key.
Thereâs not really a functional difference between private and public networks. For roaming, youâll need a NetID. A NetID allocation requires Contributor membership with the LoRa Alliance.
Do you see any mention of private or public networks? Just strictly follow Semtechâs recommendation - do use 0x34 for sync word And let Lora Alliance to sue Semtech
Well they own LoRa trademark too so âLoRaWANâ is just being extra careful.
Plus they own the patent rights:
âThe information within this document is the property of the LoRa Alliance (âThe Alliance) and its use and disclosure are subject to LoRa Alliance Corporate Bylaws, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy and Membership Agreements.â
Just reading he spec commits you to these terms. It wouldnât surprise me if they make Alliance membership a legal requirement for companies making LoRaWAN devices.
Semtechâs code for both end-node stack and gateway is BSD-licensed. Just use it and do not read the specs
It wouldnât surprise me if they make Alliance membership a legal requirement for companies making LoRaWAN devices.
It would really surprise Semtechâs sales people. LoRa generates just 20 to 30 millions/year in revenue (not profit) for Semtech, which is almost nothing for a technology pretending to be a ruler of the World, and sales persons are trying hard to sell yet one more fistful of SX127X.
And, well, you may experience any fear you prefer. But right now it seems that in most jurisdictions nothing prevents you from using any sync word and any network id.