3 Differences between LoRa and WiFi

Heard of LoRa? Haven’t heard of it but want to be ahead of the game? LoRa is at the basis of IoT connectivity.

LoRa is more and more often mentioned in tech debates, because of its importance for the future of Internet connectivity. After reading this brief explainer, you will understand why.

Introduction to LoRa

LoRa is a wireless communication standard (like Bluetooth and WiFi). That is, it structures wireless communications. More specifically, it is a Low Power, Wider Area Network (short LPWAN) standard.

Many devices from the IoT world, are scattered across large areas and have limited battery life / transmission capacity. Humidity sensors in a field are a good example of this. The LPWAN standard, as its name suggests, is particularly fit for these devices.

We need agreed upon standards, because each IoT device will not be built by a same company. LoRa is one such standard. It was developed in France until Semtech, an American company, took it over in 2012. As per Wikipedia:

The LoRa physical layer protocol is closed and proprietary; therefore, there is no freely available official documentation.

Nevertheless, several researchers have investigated (some might say, reverse engineered) it, and documented their findings. It is fair to say that today, LoRa has well tested, robust implementations.

The Things Network regularly organizes great, free, hands-on introductions to LoRa

Is LoRa a replacement for WiFi?

We all know that WiFi is limited in range (you need to be within less than 15 meters of your access point) and can consume a lot of battery. This might be ok for our day to day use, but it is a problem for many IoT use cases. For instance, if you scatter sensors across a field, 1. you will need long range communication, 2. each will have very little battery. Therefore WiFi is not adapted.

Why don’t we all use LoRa then? Couldn’t we improve WiFi’s range and lower its power consumption? No, because for any wireless communication, there is a trade of between long range, low power consumption, and bandwidth. You can have two of these things, but it is always at the expense of the third.

A technological trade-off

WiFi’s bandwidth is huge (enabling us to e.g., watch ultra HD videos), it NEEDS, by the laws of physics a lot of energy (and a low range). At the other extreme, LoRa’s bandwidth is so low we could not even send a text file over the network.

Conclusion: LoRa is not a substitute to WiFi. However, LoRa’s low power requirement and long range capability enable IoT applications that would not be possible with WiFi.

Is LoRa adapted to all IoT applications?

Low bandwidth is enough for some IoT applications (such as our field sensors). Some IoT application require high bandwidth however. For instance, a drone that scouts fields and transmits large amounts of data to e.g., a harvesting robot, won’t be able to perform its task with the limited communication capacity that LoRaWAN affords.

The rise of IoT connectivity.

For this type of application, WiFi might be much better suited. The reader is warned: LoRaWan is crucial to some IoT application, but it is not adapted to all of them.

LoRa for IoT Transactions?

IoT connectivity clearly is a trend we cannot ignore. CISCO sees IoT connections becoming more numerous than “regular” connections by the end of 2018, and forecasts that IoT traffic will multiply by 2 by 2020. Given the exponential number of M2M connections this creates, a central administration appears impossible. Enters the Blockchain, a way of settling and structuring transaction in a distributed fashion.

Looking ahead, IoT clients will ideally be able to trade with end-user applications. For instance, you can very well have your car (a “Thing”) communicate with someone else’s phone.