Transforma logo

IoT Connectivity


One of the defining characteristics of the Internet of Things is the requirement for connectivity. IoT applications are inherently about remote monitoring and management of devices or processes. The remote aspect necessitates some form of connectivity for delivering data from point A to point B. There are many different technology options for providing that connectivity, as illustrated in the chart below.


Technology selection is all about trade-offs. Ideally every IoT device would be connected using a single ubiquitous, ultra-secure, high bandwidth, low power, low latency, low-cost network. Unfortunately, no such network exists. So, any selection needs to balance the requirements of the application. Every deployment has to work within some constraints. Fortunately, IoT has evolved dramatically in the last few years to provide an increasingly rich array of connectivity technologies (as well as operating systems, networking protocols, middleware platforms, and more) to better address the needs of IoT. We term these the ‘Thin IoT’ stack. Despite this progress, any decision over which technology to select to connect an IoT device needs to weigh up a range of criteria, including location, mobility, data speeds, bandwidth, power, latency, security, and cost, all explored below. These must be balanced against the requirements of the application.


The location of a device will be perhaps the most important determining factor of what types of network technologies might be useable. Those that are located within the walls of a home or a factory can be connected using private networks, typically in the form of WiFi (and with a growing interest in the enterprise space in Mobile Private Networks using cellular technologies). Those that are located outdoors will typically need to rely on cellular networks (e.g. 4G or 5G), satellite, or may have no suitable network coverage at all.

We can break down the technologies into four main categories. Personal Area Networks (PANs) such as Bluetooth or NFC, have a range of a metre or two and are used for connecting personal devices such as headphones. Local Area Networks typically have a range of a few tens of metres. The most widely deployed of these short-range technologies is Wi-Fi, almost universally deployed in both residential and enterprise settings for supporting general data communications needs. Other examples, much more relevant to IoT include Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Thread and Zigbee. In most cases these networks are deployed by the users themselves, and operated as private networks.

The reverse is true of Wide Area Networks (WANs), which provide national and international coverage, albeit limited generally to areas of higher population density. Communications service providers (CSP) run these networks for multiple customers, who pay them an access fee for doing so, these are referred to as ‘public’ networks. For our purposes, there is one category of technologies that is particularly relevant here: cellular networks, be they 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G. There is also a growing trend for public networks using unlicensed spectrum, including LoRaWAN and Sigfox (discussed in our Low Power Wide Area page).

The final group is Global Area Networks, which relates to satellite connectivity for the globe, including those areas not otherwise connected by WANs. This is a rather niche area today, but there are dozens of companies looking to launch Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations to provide internet connectivity and to connect IoT devices, often using adapted terrestrial technologies such as LoRa and NB-IoT.

Data speeds

These different network technologies have varying capabilities in terms of data speeds. Meanwhile certain applications, particularly those involving the transmission of video, require higher data rates, possibly continuously, whereas for simple sensors it is enough that a few small messages of a few bytes are delivered irregularly.

There are technologies available to suit whatever the deployment requires. 5G, for instance, can deliver speeds of around 100Mbit/s. 4G LTE has varying capability depending on the category, with Cat-1 delivering 10Mbit/s, Cat-4 150Mbit/s and Cat-M offering just 1Mbit/s as the Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) variant. Other LPWA technologies are event more limited. LoRaWAN provides only around 50Kbit/s, and Sigfox has a daily limit of just 140 messages of 12 bytes each, giving not much more than 1KB per day.

Within buildings, applications that demand high bandwidth will tend to rely on Wi-Fi, whereas there are more options for low bandwidth, such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Thread and Zigbee.


The concept of latency is increasingly discussed in the context of IoT. It refers to the delays in getting data packets from point A to point B. This is typically a function of the data speed, i.e. higher bandwidth networks have lower latency, with most technologies providing an appropriate level of latency for their applications. But for some use cases, having a reliable real-time connection is increasingly important, for instance in gaming, augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR), or some other sophisticated use cases, such as remote surgery or managing autonomous vehicles. Some technologies have latency levels in the tens of milliseconds (below about 30 milliseconds is considered ‘real-time’), while for LPWA technology Sigfox it’s in the tens of seconds (which is fine for the kind of non-real-time use cases that it’s designed for).


Some IoT devices have access to mains electricity or another constant source of power. Most devices within homes, factories or workplaces, for instance, have ready access to a plug socket, while any connected car application tends to have access to direct power from the vehicle battery.

There are many potential IoT use cases, however, which do not have such access. Environmental monitoring or track & trace use cases, for instance, will need to rely on battery power. This has the obvious draw-back that these devices will, from time-to-time require their batteries to be replaced. This can severely increase the cost of supporting such an application. For this reason, the arrival of technologies specifically aimed at keeping power consumption low opens up a lot of additional opportunities in IoT. The most prominent example is in the arrival of the Low Power Wide Area (LPWA) technologies, but also in more efficient short-range technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and Thread. The LPWA technologies promise to be able to support devices for up to 10 years between charges, whereas for 5G (for instance) the equivalent would be only a matter of days or weeks.

Energy harvesting is an interesting emerging trend, whereby the device can gather enough energy from ambient sources or through kinetic energy (i.e. the movement of the device) to send and receive (a very small amount of) data.


Security is typically quoted as the number one consideration and concern for any organisation deploying IoT. Different technologies will provide different levels of security. A private network for instance is the most secure. Communication over public networks can be enhanced through the addition of the likes of private APNs, IP VPNs, Transport Layer Security (TLS), hardware security modules, and IoT SAFE SIMs.

The choice of connectivity technology will have implications for security. The more constrained a technology is in terms of data speed, generally the lower its grade of security. Higher bandwidth devices can run more sophisticated security protocols, along with more sophisticated device management to ensure it is up to date.

It should be noted that any security breaches are far less likely to be the result of any inherent limitation in the connectivity technology, and far more likely to be due to human error or some kind of oversight in developing the application or the hardware. Networks are generally very secure, but there are still grades of security.

Cloud integration also poses issues as it requires certain levels of security that some connectivity technologies simply cannot provide. Hence the need for what are termed ‘cloud connectors’.

The ‘right’ level of security will depend on a lot of factors, most critically the sensitivity of the data.


The choice of which technology to select will also have to include considerations of cost, both of hardware and of connectivity.

All of the above-mentioned features have variable costs associated with them. Higher data speeds, lower latency and enhanced security all result in higher costs. A 5G cellular module, for instance, will have a price tag of hundreds of dollars, and even for LTE the price varies between around $10 and $40 depending on the capabilities. In comparison, and in the LPWA technology group, cellular devices can cost around $5, a LoRaWAN module costs perhaps $2 and for WiFi it is under $1.

There is also the question of the cost of the connectivity, i.e. the payment made to a network operator. In the case of private networks this is zero (although there may be a third-party company managing the network), whereas for public networks it could be anything from $1 per year to $50 per month per connection depending upon the location, bandwidth and volume.

The price of both elements has been coming down significantly in recent years, opening up the opportunity for new use cases.

How do I decide which IoT connectivity technology to use?

As we wrote at the top of this page, the need for connectivity is one of the defining characteristics of the IoT and, as with almost everything to do with the IoT, there is no simple answer as to which technology is best to use. Rather, some technologies are better suited to certain applications than others. Generally, there will always be compromises including potentially in software application and device functionality, both of which can be optimised to work better with different connectivity technologies even for specific applications. As such, the discussion of connectivity technologies contained in this introductory page can only ever scratch the surface of what is an extremely wide-ranging and complex topic.

Related Content

REPORT | JUN 11, 2024 | Matt Hatton
This report, sponsored by Eseye, examines the new SGP.32 ("IoT") standard for Remote SIM Provisioning (RSP) and the ways in which enterprises should be considering its use. SGP.32 is not a magic wand. It does not solve all of the challenges of deploying multi-country IoT connectivity. For most enterprise deployments it is optimally done as part of a managed service which handles all aspects of managing the connectivity besides just the eSIM profile switching. Furthermore, as it is not yet available, any company considering deploying SGP.32 today will need to ensure that a connectivity provider offers a well-considered roadmap for evolving to using that particular standard. The SGP.32 ("IoT") standard for Remote SIM Provisioning was unveiled in May 2023, promising a more streamlined and user-friendly mechanism for enterprises to manage the connectivity on their cellular devices. As an evolution on the previous SGP.02 ("M2M") and SGP.22 ("Consumer") standards, it certainly represents several steps forward, resolving many of the technical limitations on supporting constrained devices and offering a simplified mechanism for handling switch-over of connections between operators. But that is just one element of the story. This report starts with a brief background on eSIM and remote SIM provisioning, with a particular focus on how SGP.32 is an improvement on previous standards. The main focus of the report is on addressing some of the myths and misunderstandings associated with the technology. It is not, on its own, a magic wand that can be used to seamlessly provide unlimited access to every network. The truth is more complicated. Commercial contracts need to be negotiated with network operators, and back-end processes and settings need to be updated to reflect a change of connectivity provider. It's not just as simple as flipping a switch and changing from operator A to operator B. And, equally importantly, SGP.32 is not actually available today and likely won't be until 2025. Therefore anyone looking to deploy IoT imminently will need to use a different option and seek support to migrate to the new standard when it's available. We expect that most SGP.32 deployments will be handled not by the enterprise itself but by a managed service provider (most obviously the existing connectivity providers) handling the orchestration of connectivity changes and providing a managed transition to SGP.32 when the time comes. In the final section we consider what the profile should be of such an SGP.32 managed service provider. There is a very significant risk with SGP.32 that the real (and perceived) benefits will blind enterprises to the realities of the intricacies of managing the overall IoT solution deployment and the requirements for a migration path to get there.
REPORT | MAR 28, 2024 | Matt Hatton
For decades, satellites have been used to support a relatively limited set of use cases in IoT, specifically the monitoring of high value and highly remote assets. That satellite IoT market is set for a shot-in-the-arm in the coming decade as a result of two recent developments: the proliferation of LEO satellites and the arrival of cellular connectivity using ‘Non-Terrestrial Networks’. Companies are lining up to launch fleets of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. The most eye-catching – and biggest – of these is SpaceX’s Starlink which has plans for over 40,000 satellites by 2027. But it is not alone. There are also smaller fleets focused on IoT, typically involving a few dozen satellites deployed by other newcomers. With a little over 3,000 active satellites currently in orbit, these massive deployments promise a vast increase in satellite capacity. In some cases, these LEO deployments are making use of standards-based cellular technology developed as part of the recent 3GPP Release 17. So too are some geostationary (GEO) satellites. The arrival of this Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) capability allows devices using some cellular technologies to connect directly to satellites without incorporating any other technology. They are also increasingly being integrated into combined offering of terrestrial and non-terrestrial cellular offerings. This creates an opportunity for Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and IoT MVNOs to further stitch satellite into their proposition. Many already do, through multi-mode cellular/satellite devices. The new technology developments, with a common set of hardware and comparatively simple switch-over between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, allow for a simpler and cheaper proposition. This comes at a time when MNOs are looking for differentiators for their IoT offerings, and additional value-added services to layer onto cellular connectivity. Satellite offers an opportunity to do that. Specifically in the form of hybrid cellular/satellite propositions. In this report we examine the opportunities associated with specifically hybrid cellular/satellite offerings using 3GPP NTN.
REPORT | MAR 15, 2024 | Matt Hatton
Over the years there have been quite a few attempts at building ‘IoT marketplaces’, often using the (largely inappropriate) analogy of an app store. The aim has been to create an environment where potential buyers can pick from a portfolio – ranging from highly curated to very broad – of vendor offerings from individual components all the way to end-to-end managed services. These attempts have been mostly not particularly successful. The IoT marketplace has certainly not come to be recognised as the main mechanism through which enterprise customers procure IoT. However, IoT marketplaces persist and new versions are being deployed. In this scenario we think it is worth revisiting this part of IoT to see if there is really an opportunity for IoT vendors to reach new customers. In this report we explore examples of IoT marketplaces that are available today from hyperscalers, ERP/CRM vendors, systems integrators, resellers, distributors, MNOs/MVNOs and others. Based on this analysis, and examining other analogous elements of IoT, the report provides some conclusions about the dynamics of this part of the IoT space and what seems to be working (and not working). It goes on to consider what characteristics might be required of an IoT marketplace to make it a success. For IoT hardware the ‘marketplace’ in the form of distributors is a key part of the landscape. For solutions (and even other IoT elements such as connectivity and platforms) much less so. Partly this is because of the transactional nature of the hardware domain, partly because of the completeness of the offering, and partly because of the personas involved in making the different purchases. Connectivity could be ripe for presentation in a marketplace, but providers seem reticent to do so. Solutions are best presented in the context of a wider IT marketplace sitting alongside other tools equally applicable to the requirements of the vertical to which they’re targeted.
REPORT | JUL 07, 2023 | Matt Hatton
In May 2023, the technical specifications of the SGP.32 (“IoT”) standard for Remote SIM Provisioning were finalised by the GSM Association (GSMA) Working Group 7. This followed the availability of two other standards developed by the GSMA: SGP.02 (“M2M”) and SGP.22 (“Consumer”) introduced in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The availability of SGP.32 has focused the attention of many stakeholders in IoT connectivity on what their approach will be to supporting each, and what the implications are for delivering IoT connectivity. In this report we quantify the cellular IoT market in terms of which approach is taken to Remote SIM Provisioning (RSP), as well as non-RSP-based approaches. The report focuses not just on the use of the GSMA standards, but on all options for connecting cellular-based IoT devices. This also includes non-standard approaches to Remote SIM Provisioning, as well as the well-established non-RSP-based mechanisms such as roaming, multi-IMSI and single IMSI. Transforma Insights has extensive and highly granular forecasts of the total opportunity for IoT, including cellular-based connections across hundreds of different applications. Considering the sensitivities and deployment circumstances of each application we modelled how cellular-based IoT connections would split between each of the various options for managing SIM profiles. The report includes our view on how annual shipments and installed base split between RSP and non-RSP and which of nine approaches, including the three standards and other options, would account for what proportion of sales and connections between 2022 and 2032.