I think the statement above applies to TTN only, not to LoRa in general. Because the LoRaWAN spec 1.0 defines a lot more channels - even dedicated uplink and downlink channels - for the US region. Am I right?
Is there a reason TTN uses only 8 channels combined for uplinks and downlinks?
The hardware used in most (all?) gateways supports just 8 channels.
Hi,
Although the amount of spectrum is limited there are regulators contemplating adding additional sub 1 GHz spectrum for low power devices / IoT / M2M.
This means that in the future there might be more spectrum available for LoRa; This does not necessarily mean that the duty cycle restrictions will be much better, but it does mean congestion can partly be solved by using this additional spectrum if/when it becomes available.
( of course for this to be useful the spectrum does have to be assigned under the right conditions).
I guess there are no more inputs on the SWOT analysis on TTN. Iāve consolidated inputs as much as I could. There are a couple of inputs I could not consolidate.
Attached is the latest PDF version of the SWOT analysis as of Aug. 23, 2016. And you can also see it here without bullets for the bullet items.
Sorry I just saw thisā¦
Though you have āno ISM bands for Asiaā
the same is true (I think) for South Americaā¦
We have significant business in Guatemala and there is no standard thereā¦
You might want to add to the Weakness Blockā¦ thank you
Hi @skramer, Iāve added āno ISM band for Guatemalaā to the āTHREATā.
Attached is the updated SWOT Analysis.
The Things Network SWOT Analysis-2016.08.23-2.pdf (1.7 MB)
You can also see it online here.
Very Kind ā¦ Thank you!
@hoonppark: The advantage of Class C is reduced downlink latency. An application wishing to operate an actuator attached to a Class A device must wait until the next transmission (several minutes or hours), while the application can immediately schedule a downlink to a Class C device, subject only to downlink queues, duty cycle, and perhaps a criterion of not interrupting an uplink packet in-progress.
In real life, you want to control your Class C devices any time during a day as many times as you want. If you were limited to send a downlink message to your Class C device only 10 times a day at most, it couldnāt be a real life solution. Thatās what I meant by saying the statement below:
Regarding the āFair Usage Policyā being listed as a weakness, I am not so sure. Swisscom just recently published their data plans for the usage of their lorawan network, and I think itās actually more limiting than TTNās policy:
(Source)
Only the biggest data plan has more than 10 downlink/day and only by a small difference (14 downlink/day). On the other hand, the uplink is way more limiting on Swisscom than on TTN, because it is based on number of messages instead of air time efficiency. With Swisscom, the biggest data plan allows for 144 uplink/day, while on TTN, and still respecting the fair usage policy, you max out at around 600 uplink/day (assuming heartbeat / single-sensor payload on SF7). Of course, if you are very sloppy and send large payloads with inefficient spreading factors, the number goes down a lot.
As long as one does not specify an objective for a Swot analysis, anything can be everywhere in the matrix. I am missing that objective in these discussions.
See Wikipedia re SWOT
@hoonppark: Do you have a specific application in mind?
Sadly, downlink-intensive applications will need another solution. Unless we eventually support multicast :).
No, I do not have a specific application in mind. Iām talking about the limitation on the number downlinks per day, so people are aware of the limitation.
Letās say the objective of the SWOT analysis on TTN at the current time is as follows:
TTN as an open and free global IoT infrastructure fully supporting the LoRaWAN specification 1.0
With this objective in mind, hope you can see more clearly why the items on the SWOT analysis belong to its current categories.
According to the SWOT analysis description by Wikipedia, āweaknessesā are the internal factors or characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative to others.
I see the āFair Usage Policyā as a TTN internal factor that places TTN at a disadvantage relative to others such as NB-IoT or other LTE-based radio technologies.
Ok, it depends on the definition of others. I was referring to other LoRaWAN providers, in which case the Fair Usage Policy is not an issue, is more forgiving than some of the commercial data plans. But if others mean other radio technologies, then yes, in that case it could be a weakness.