The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Coverage Comparison of GPRS, NB-IoT, LoRa, and SigFox in a 7800 km² Area
Open accessAbstract
In this simulation work the coverage of GPRS, Narrowband-IoT, LoRa, and SigFox is compared in a realistic scenario, covering 7800 km2 and using Telenor's commercial 2G, 3G, and 4G deployment. The target is to evaluate which of the four technologies provides the best coverage for Internet of Things devices, which may be located deep indoor. The results show that Narrowband-IoT, having the best Maximum Coupling Loss performance of 164 dB, also provides the best coverage. This is despite the fact that LoRa and SigFox deployments with omnidirectional antennas are found to provide 3 dB lower link loss on average. In the deployment 11 % of the geographical area contains devices, located both in rural and urban areas. The NB-IoT has an outage below 1 % for locations experiencing 20 dB indoor penetration loss in addition to the outdoor path loss. SigFox performs similarly, while LoRa cannot provide coverage for 2 % of those locations. For the challenging deep indoor case, where 30 dB additional penetration loss is expected, NB-IoT has 8 % outage while SigFox and LoRa is unable to cover 13 % and 20 % of the locations. The four technologies may not be deployed at all existing site locations and therefore the work also includes a study of the coverage as a function of the minimum Inter-Site Distance, where sites closer than 2, 4, and 6 km are filtered out. The results show that SigFox and NB-IoT have outage probabilities below 5 % even though sites closer than 4 km are removed from the simulations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sensor Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems
Guerrero-Ibáñez, J., Zeadally, S., & Contreras-Castillo, J. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18041212 · Cited by 637
Cellular, Wide-Area, and Non-Terrestrial IoT: A Survey on 5G Advances and the Road Toward 6G
Vaezi, M., Azari, A., Khosravirad, S. R., Shirvanimoghaddam, M., Azari, M. M., Chasaki, D., & Popovski, P. (2022) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2022.3151028 · Cited by 631
Overview of Cellular LPWAN Technologies for IoT Deployment: Sigfox, LoRaWAN, and NB-IoT
Mekki, K., Bajic, E., Chaxel, F., & Meyer, F. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops) · doi:10.1109/percomw.2018.8480255 · Cited by 351
Smart Parking in IoT-Enabled Cities: A Survey
Al-Turjman, F., & Malekloo, A. (2019) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101608 · Cited by 340
Low-Power Wide Area Network Technologies for Internet-of-Things: A Comparative Review
Ikpehai, A., Adebisi, B., Rabie, K. M., Anoh, K., Ande, R. E., Hammoudeh, M., Gacanin, H., & Mbanaso, U. M. (2019) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2018.2883728 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Lauridsen, M., Nguyen, H., Vejlgaard, B., Kovacs, I. Z., Mogensen, P., & Sorensen, M.
- Venue
- 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-06
- Pages
- 1-5
- ISSN
- 1090-3038 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2592123986
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coverage Comparison of GPRS, NB-IoT, LoRa, and SigFox in a 7800 km² Area. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/vtcspring.2017.8108182
- The paper
- Lauridsen, M., Nguyen, H., Vejlgaard, B., Kovacs, I. Z., Mogensen, P., & Sorensen, M. (2017). Coverage Comparison of GPRS, NB-IoT, LoRa, and SigFox in a 7800 km² Area. 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring). https://doi.org/10.1109/vtcspring.2017.8108182
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.