3 ms·

This can be a game-changer for certain low bandwidth unlicensed applications where the ongoing cost of cellular or satellite service makes the application econo

This can be a game-changer for certain low bandwidth unlicensed applications where the ongoing cost of cellular or satellite service makes the application economically infeasible. I could envision a whole layer of startup opportunities based on this technology from commercial applications like pets, construction, fleet management, security, and agriculture to a gazillion defense and intel applications. If I were younger, I would definitely dig into this further and compare it to LoRA and other existing radio technologies. Cheers!

thijson 3y ago
This seems to be an order of magnitude better than LoRa (https://lora-alliance.org/ https://lora-alliance.org/ not https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685). LoRa doesn't have all the features this one does like OFDM, TDM, FDM, and HARQ. I didn't know there's spectrum dedicated for DECT use.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  DECT-NR competition is 802.11ah and BLE Long Range. They all provide moderate bandwidth and moderate range, up to 1-2km. I bet they aren't low enough for battery-powered sensors, but probably good for battery-powered devices like Wifi or LTE. My guess is that winner will be whoever get cheap devices out, and leverages their ecosystem.
  - ksec 3y ago
    Unless I am mistaken. Is that really the case? Both 802.11ah and BLE Long Range operate at lower frequency and also lower bandwidth, higher latency etc. DECT-NR could do everything the two could but not the other way around.
    - RF_Savage 3y ago
      While 802.11ah does operate at sub-1GHz, BLE Long Range seems to be 2.4GHz, just with much more robust coding. DECT-NR on 1.9GHz wil be lower in frequency than that and on less shared spectrum. The comparison is not the same everywhere, as the European 868MHz bamd allows much less power (25mW vs. 1000mW) and much less bandwidth (5MHz vs. 25MHz) than USA 915MHz. Similarly the USA 1.9GHz DECT band allows less power (100mW vs. 250mW) and less bandwidth (5channels vs. 10channels) than the European band. So even before meshing DECT-NR has some major advantages over 802.11ah, in Europe.
- mycall 3y ago
  LoRa works great because of the chirping it generates. Does DECT NR+ as well?

thijson 3y ago

This seems to be an order of magnitude better than LoRa (https://lora-alliance.org/ https://lora-alliance.org/ not https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685). LoRa doesn't have all the features this one does like OFDM, TDM, FDM, and HARQ. I didn't know there's spectrum dedicated for DECT use.

ianburrell 3y ago
DECT-NR competition is 802.11ah and BLE Long Range. They all provide moderate bandwidth and moderate range, up to 1-2km. I bet they aren't low enough for battery-powered sensors, but probably good for battery-powered devices like Wifi or LTE. My guess is that winner will be whoever get cheap devices out, and leverages their ecosystem.
- ksec 3y ago
  Unless I am mistaken. Is that really the case? Both 802.11ah and BLE Long Range operate at lower frequency and also lower bandwidth, higher latency etc. DECT-NR could do everything the two could but not the other way around.
  - RF_Savage 3y ago
    While 802.11ah does operate at sub-1GHz, BLE Long Range seems to be 2.4GHz, just with much more robust coding. DECT-NR on 1.9GHz wil be lower in frequency than that and on less shared spectrum. The comparison is not the same everywhere, as the European 868MHz bamd allows much less power (25mW vs. 1000mW) and much less bandwidth (5MHz vs. 25MHz) than USA 915MHz. Similarly the USA 1.9GHz DECT band allows less power (100mW vs. 250mW) and less bandwidth (5channels vs. 10channels) than the European band. So even before meshing DECT-NR has some major advantages over 802.11ah, in Europe.
mycall 3y ago
LoRa works great because of the chirping it generates. Does DECT NR+ as well?