See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330245871

Wireless Communication Technologies in Internet of Things: A Critical

Evaluation

Conference Paper · December 2018

DOI: 10.1109/ICONIC.2018.8601226

CITATIONS READS

26 9,406

3 authors, including:

Mohamed Firdhous
University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
71 PUBLICATIONS 711 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Firdhous on 05 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wireless Communication Technologies in Internet
of Things: A Critical Evaluation
G. G. K. W. M. S. I. R Karunarathne K.A.D.T Kulawansa M.F.M Firdhous
Faculty of Information Technology Dept. of Computational Mathematics Dept. of Information Technology
University of Moratuwa University of Moratuwa University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Sri Lanka
sajanikarunarathne@gmail.com dilinik@uom.lk firdhous@uom.lk

Abstract—Internet of Things has gained the attention of almost strengths and weaknesses. Finally Section V concludes the
everybody due to its capability of monitoring and controlling the paper by summarizing the findings along with suggestions for
environment. IoT helps making decisions supported by real data future work.
collected using large number of ordinary day-to-day devices that
have been augmented with intelligence through the installation II. I NTERNET OF T HINGS
of sensing, processing and communication capabilities. One of
the main and important aspects of any IoT device is its com- The initial idea for Internet of Things was put forward way
munication capability for transferring and sharing data between back in 1999 by researchers attached to the Auto-ID Center at
other devices. IoT devices mainly use wireless communication for the the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [5]. The initial
communicating with other devices. The industry and the research
community have proposed many communication technologies for idea envisaged to put intelligence into everyday objects that
IoT systems. In this paper, the authors present the results of an they can be connected to the Internet for achieving pervasive
in depth study carried out on the benefits and limitations of these communication between any real world object to any other
communication technologies. object can be realized. The concept of IoT was officially
Index Terms—Internet of Things, communication technologies, accepted and formalized by the International Telecommuni-
benefits, limitations, smart devices, layered architecture.
cation Union (ITU) at its 2005 World Summit on Information
Society in Tunisia by releasing two reports. These reports
I. I NTRODUCTION
presented information on key enabling technologies, market
Internet of Things (IoT) is a recent computing paradigm opportunities, emerging challenges and implications for the
that envisages to convert everyday ordinary objects into smart developing world and described IoT as this emerging paradigm
objects [1]. IoT has been identified as one of disruptive will multiply connections creating an entirely new dynamic
technologies of the present time that will change the way network of networks [6].
perceive and understand the world around us and react to Since the establishment of the ARPANET, the precursor to
its changes. Advances made in ubiquitous and pervasive the present day Internet, in the 1960s, the number of devices
computing, embedded devices, communication technologies, connected to it has increased initially slowly then rapidly after
sensor networks, Internet protocols and web based applica- the liberalization of the Internet in the late 1980s [7]. Many
tions are the common underlying technologies that help make factors including the possibility of ubiquitous connectivity
ordinary devices smart ones and hence made IoT possible and the availability of undecillions of IP addresses with IPv6
[2]–[4]. Hence, these technologies are commonly known as have aided the evolution of the Internet of Things [8]. It was
the enabling technologies of IoT. In this paper, the authors forecasted that the number of devices connected to the Internet
take a critical look at the different wireless communication would reach 25 billion in 2020 from 10 billion in 2014 and
technologies that are commonly employed in IoT devices with surpass 100 billion by 2050 [9]. Figure 1 shows the growth of
special emphasis on their features, capabilities, strengths and connected devices on the Internet starting from 1950s to 2050
weaknesses. by forecaseted IBM in 2015.
This paper consists of five main sections. They are namely, Research into IoT has been carried out by many researchers
Introduction, IoT and communication Technologies, Related looking at issues from different angles. This has resulted in
Work, Critical Evaluation of Communication Technologies different architectures proposed by different researchers to suit
and Conclusions. Section I sets the context of paper by their requirements. Thus, there is no single architecture that
providing an overview to the subject matter discussed in the has been accepted by every researcher/user or suitable for
paper. Section II discusses the IoT in detail along with its every situation [10]. At the early stages of the development
application areas and Section III reviews similar work carried of IoT, a three layer architecture consisting of Application,
out by other researchers and reported in literature. Section IV Network and Perception Layers from top to bottom was
carries out a critical evaluation of different communication proposed by Wu et al in [11]. This was a very basic model
technologies used with IoT with special emphasis on their and many different functions that are today considered under
 Fig. 1. Growth of Connected Devices from 1950 to 2050 [8]

different domains have been combined within a single layer.

This five layer architecture was later expanded into a five layer
architecture by Tan and Wan in [12]. The five layer architecture
splits the Application Layer of the three layer architecture into
three different layers as middleware, application and business Fig. 3. IoT Layered Architecture Proposed by Tan and Wang [13]
layer while maintaining the perception and network layer as
they are. Figure 2 shows both the three layered and five layered
effective and efficient. That is the main reason for the authors
models as proposed in the literature.
of this paper o choose to evaluate the different communication
technologies employed in IoT systems.
III. R ELATED W ORK
This section takes a brief look at other surveys, evaluations
and analyses carried out on IoT communication techniques by
other researchers. The main objective of this section is to show
how this work is different from all the other work reported in
the literature.
Longoria et al., in [15] have proposed a novel wireless
power transmission system for green smart cities. IoT plays a
pivotal role in their proposal as IoT devices are used to manage
scheduling, information processing and control of energy
supply and demand to households. Though, the main objective
of this paper was not to evaluate the communication systems
used in IoT, they have carried out an evaluation of them as they
will play an important role in the final implementation. The
Fig. 2. IoT Layered Architectures Proposed in Literature [11], [12] evaluation carried out in this work is very shallow and focused
on wireless power transmission rather than communication.
Tan and Wang have also in [13] have proposed another Also, all the technologies available are not taken into account
5-layered architecture consisting of Edge Technology Layer, for the evaluation as it mainly concentrates on a Cognitive
Access Gateway Layer, Internet Layer, Middleware Layer Radio based Software Defined Network (SDN) architecture
and Application Layer from bottom up. Figure 3 shows the for managing heterogeneous IoT devices.
architecture proposed in [13]. In this model, both access Chiariotti et al., have carried out an evaluation of the
gateway and Internet layers are responsible for communication feasibility of using different communication technologies with
and data transmission between devices in the system whereas IoT for smart cities [16]. The evaluation has taken a critical
the same function is included wihin a single network layer in look at systems like cellular systems, short-range multi-hop
the models proposed in [12] and [11]. A detailed discussion on technologies and low power wide area (LPWA) technologies
the available IoT reference architectures with special emphasis with the focus of using them in smart city implementations.
on their current status is given in [14]. The main shortcoming of these communication technologies
From the above discussion, it can be seen that communi- identified in this study is the lack of possibility for large scale
cation has been given special attention by allocating separate deployments in constrained areas. They further propose that
layer(s) within all the reference models put forward so far. these shortcomings could be overcome by employing different
This is again common sense as the communication must be network optimization techniques including cell zooming, im-
given adequate importance to make any distributed system plementing HetNets, context-aware content distribution, Cloud
Radio Access Network (Cloud-RAN) and network slicing. IoT. Thus, the evaluation has limited applicability in the real
Though a comprehensive evaluation of communication sys- world applications of IoT such as environment monitoring for
tems was carried out, the focus was very narrow and confined disaster mitigation.
only to smart city implementations, other domain such as Mukherjee and Biswas have taken a look at two differ-
healthcare, disaster mitigation and management, agriculture ent wireless technologies, namely Mobile Adhoc Network
etc., have not been given any attention. (MANET), Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) along with Radio
A proposal for energy efficient data collection in smart Frequency Identifiers for implementing Smart City applica-
cities with the emphasis on how to exploit device to device tions [20]. Authors of this paper have proposed a multi-
communication has been presented in [17]. As a part of level architecture for the communication network with dif-
this proposal, the authors have evaluated device-to-device ferent communication technology for each layer. Though,
communication in detail. But the evaluation stops short of this proposal is comprehensive, there is no justification for
evaluating individual communication technique by presenting selecting a particular technology is provided or advantages
of a summary of different device-to-device communication and disadvantages of similar technologies for employing at a
technologies. specific level is evaluated.
Low power wide area communication techniques for IoT Garcia et al., and Yaqoob et al., have taken a look at different
has been evaluated by Kartakis et al., in [18]. The recent wireless technologies for implementing smart city solutions in
developments in low power technologies have increased their [21] and [22] respectively. Even in tese paper, the evaluation
reach to kilometers making them viable solutions for smart city has a very narrow focus targetted only towards smart city
IoT applications. The researchers have identified the limited applications.
data carrying capacity of these technologies as the main
IV. C OMMUNICATION T ECHNOLOGIES USED IN I OT
shortcoming. They have carried a comparison between spread-
spectrum technology, ultra-narrow-band technology and con- Many different communication technologies are available
ventional narrow-band technology for the implementation of today for using with IoT. Evey technology has its own advan-
low power wide area networks. This study is very narrow and tages along with their inherent limitations. This combination
focuses only on three technologies with the emphasis on power of benefits and limitations of the technologies results in no
consumption. other parameters and requirements of wireless single technology suitable for every situation, requirement and
technologies are not given any attention in this study. application. Hence, it is necessary to weigh each and every
A comparative study on the merging wireless technologies technology available in the market against the requirements
in the field of IoT has been presented in [19]. In this work, of the application to select the most appropriate technology
the capabilities of IEEE 802.15.4 technologies, bluetooth low suitable for meeting the conditions.
energy, Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11ah and LoRa technologies have Table I given below provides the summary of the compara-
been evaluated. This evaluation concentrates only on low tive study carried out on a set of communication technologies
power technologies assuming only they can fulfill the needs of available and reported in the literature.

Table I: Summary of the Comparison of Different Wireless Technologies used in IoT

Wireless Technology Work Cited Benefits Drawbacks
Bluetooth [21]–[29] - Able to handle large amounts of - Relatively low data rate
data - High power consumption
- Able to create ad-hoc connections - Always up
- Universally standardized - Relatively short range
- Free band - Vulnerable to outside attacks
ZigBee [21]–[35] - Easy to setup - No security
- No central control - Short range
- Supports load distribution across - Low data rates
multple nodes/links - Suffers from compatibility issues
- Low power consumption with devices from different manu-
- Low cost facturers
- Low latency
- Multiple band support
- Supports different data rates
- High scalability (can add/remove
devices easily)
-Supports low duty-cycle operation
 Table I: Summary of the Comparison of Different Wireless Technologies used in IoT (Contd.,)
Wireless Technology Work Cited Benefits Drawbacks
WiMax [21], [22], - Able to support very high speed - Line of Sight (LoS) connection is
[28] voice and data transfers over longer needed
distances - Serving large number of clients
- Single base station can support may result in lower available band-
large number of users widths
- Low operational cost - Vulnerable to disruption by en-
- Symmetrical bandwidth over long vironmental factors such as rain,
ranges noise etc.,
- Hundreds of clients can be served - High power consumption
from a single WiMAX station - High initial cost
- High latency
Bluetooth Low Energy [19], [20], - Low power consumption - Limited data handling capacity
(BLE) [25], [30], - High data rate - Takes longer to setup
[34] - No single point of failure - Limited (short) range of operation
- Better scalability - Limited connection handling ca-
- Better reliability pacity (only seven devices per mas-
- Faster (automatic) reconfiguration ter/slave connection)
- Susceptible to attacks
- Only star (no mesh) topology
- No security implemented
Wi-Fi [19], [22]– - High data rates supported - Becomes slower with increasing
[27], [29], - Easier and cheaper to setup user connections
[32], [33], - Universally standardized - High power consumption
[36] - Supports advanced encryption - Topology has a single paint of
standards for enhancing security failure
- Vulnerable to attacks
- Requires large memory capacity
and processing power
- Signals blocked by obstacles
- Limited to indoor operations
LoRa & LoRaWAN [19], [22], - Very large ranges possible - Only point to point (no mesh)
[25], [28], - Supports star-of-stars topology connection
[34], [37], - Large number of clients per gate- - Using of gateways may cause bot-
[38] way module tlenecks and become single points
- Supports variable data rates of failure
- Has the ability to trade-off be- - Operates in un-licensed band
tween range and data rate - Support for variable frame length
- Offers three types (classes) of de- reduces predictability
vices supporting different purposes - Low bandwidth support
- Larger areas can be covered with - Suffers from near/far problem
few gateway nodes - Relatively high packet loss rates
- Supports interoperability with during congestion times
other standards - All gateway nodes are tuned to
the same frequencies reducing the
ability to control them individually
Wi-Fi HaLow [19], [25], - Enhanced propagation and pen- - Using variable data rates may
(IEEE 802.11ah) [28], [34] etration radio waves increases the reduce battery life
coverage range even across obsta- - Lack of standard for frequency
cles use
- A single device can support large
number of clients
- Very low power consumption
- Supports mesh networking
 Table I: Summary of the Comparison of Different Wireless Technologies used in IoT (Contd.,)
Wireless Technology Work Cited Benefits Drawbacks
MiWi & MiWi P2P [25], [28], - Low power consumption - Propriety standard
[32] - Medium range and bandwidth - No interoperability with other
support standards
- Zero license cost - Susceptible to interference from
- Large number of clients per gate- these devices
way supported
ISA100.11a [25], [34], - Supports reliable and secure com- - Low data rates
[35], [39] munication - Complex implementation
- Supports very limited power con- - Maximum number of hops sup-
sumption ported is limited
- Supports bandwidth management - Lacks interoperability with other
along with mesh networking technologies (devices)
- Supports low cost/low complexity - Suffers from high latency
deployments - Devices are more expensive
- Can exist with other wireless de- - Requires high bandwidth for op-
vices (technologies) erations
- Security is implemented across
the entire stack
WirelessHART [25], [28], - Supports self organizing and self - Using of TDMA technology may
[32], [34], healing mesh architecture result in heavy delays
[35], [39] - Low latency - High latency
- Better mitigation against fading - Unable to share free available
and interference bandwidth
- Supports device authentication - Devices cannot communicate si-
and encryption of data multaneously in multi-drop mode
- Low power consumption
- Reduced collision of data frames
- Secure and robust as all the mes-
sages are encrypted and authenti-
cated at each hop
Z-Wave [22], [25], - Can support large number of con- - Low data rates
[28], [29], nections - Requires line of sight for opera-
[33], [34] - Supports mesh networking tion
- No single points of failure - Short range
- Relatively cheap - Procedure to add and remove
- Low power consumption devices is cumbersome
- Suitable for home and light com- - Current technology is reported to
mercial environments be unstable with lots of errors and
unusual behaviors
LTE, LTE-M & LTE-A [22], [25]– - operating on licensed band in- - Cellular data-plans may increase
[28] creases throughput and reduces in- usage charges
terference from other devices
- Narrow band operation reuces
power consumption
- Low cost on end device and base
station
- Reuses existing cellular spectrum
increasing the density of devices in
a given area
 Table I: Summary of the Comparison of Different Wireless Technologies used in IoT (Contd.,)
Wireless Technology Work Cited Benefits Drawbacks
Ultra-wideband (UWB) [23]–[25], - License-free spectrum - Short range
[30] - Very low power consumption - Antennas are hard to design and
- Very high data rates supported implement
- Immune to multipath propagation
effects
- Non-interfering signals to others
in the same band
- Natural multiple access technol-
ogy
- Simple circuitry and low cost
- Efficient use of the spectrum and
spectrum sharing
Wavenis [29], [30], - Supports ultra low power opera- - Low data rates supported
[33] tions - High link budget is required
- Supports very large ranges to achieve long-range communica-
- Supports reliable communication tions
- Supports multiple network - Requires Line of Sight (LoS) for
topologies communication
- Capable of resisting interference
from other devices
- Supports ongoing quality-of-
service enhancements
- Better reliability of operations
- Configurable profiles to meet spe-
cific application requirements
Insteon [25], [29], - Can integrate powerline with - Low data rates supported
[30], [33] wireless - High power consumption
- Supports long operational ranges - Non standard (propriety technol-
- Supports dual-mesh (wireless & ogy)
powerline)network
- Supports multi-hop transmission
- Decentralized architectures avoid
single points of failure
- Reliable communication
Thread [25], [28], - Supports large number of clients - Short range
[29] - Supports mesh networking - Complex protocol
- Has native IPv6 support - Less user friendly
- Better security implementation
- Operates at extremely low power
levels
- Can provide reliable communica-
tions to many devices
- Scalable to about 250-300 devices
- No single points of failure
- High throughput
- Supports easy migration from
ZigBee, WirelessHART, 6loWPAN
etc.,
 Table I: Summary of the Comparison of Different Wireless Technologies used in IoT (Contd.,)
Wireless Technology Work Cited Benefits Drawbacks
EnOcean [25], [28]– - Supports energy harvesting from - Limited range
[30], [34] multiple sources such as light, mo- - Non standard (propriety technol-
tion and pressure ogy)
- Supports batteryless operation - Limited throughput
- Supports high data rates - Supports only point-to-point con-
- Supports both indoor and outdoor figurations
operations
Li-Fi [24], [36], - Faster communication - Relatively high cost
[40], [41] - High data transfer rates - Susceptible to interference from
- Low power consumption other sources
- Better security - Limited range
- Lower health risks - Blocked by walls
- Easier to install - Only indoor operation is possible
- Requires new infrastructure

V. C ONCLUSIONS [8] I. I. for Business Value”, “Device democracy: Saving the future of
the Internet of Things,” IBM Corporation, Route 100, Somers, NY
In this paper, the authors presented the results of the 10589, USA, Executive Report-Electronics Industry GBE03620-USEN-
critical evaluation carried out on the benefits and limitations 04, 2015.
of different wireless communication technologies used in IoT. [9] A. Haroon, W. Naeem, M. A. Shah, M. Kamran, Y. Asim, and Q. Javaid,
“Constraints in the IoT: The world in 2020 and beyond,” International
Presently there are any wireless communication technologies Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 7, no. 11,
available in the market and more are continued to be developed pp. 252–271, 2016.
by the industry and researchers alike. Every technology has [10] P. Sethi and S. R. Sarangi, “Internet of Things: Architectures, protocols,
and applications,” Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol.
its own advantages and disadvantages. Some technologies are 2017, no. 9324035, pp. 1–25, 2017.
suitable for indoor applications while others can be effectively [11] M. Wu, T. L. Lu, F. Y. Ling, L. Sun, and H. Y. Du, “Research on the
deployed outdoors. Some technologies perform better when architecture of Internet of Things,” in 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering, Chengdu, China, vol. V5,
there are only a few peers while others maintain their quality of 2010, pp. 484–487.
operations even when large number of peers join in. Hence, it [12] R. Khan, S. U. Khan, R. Zaheer, and S. Khan, “Future internet: The
is impossible to identify one single technology that is suitable Internet of Things architecture, possible applications and key chal-
lenges,” in 10th International Conference on Frontiers of Information
for all the requirements of every application. As future work, Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, 2012.
the authors propose to carry out a more in depth analysis with [13] L. Tan and N. Wang, “Future Internet: The Internet of Things,” in 3rd
the objective coming out with a comprehensive taxonomy of International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineer-
wireless technologies in IoT that will become the basis of all ing, Chengdu, China, vol. V5, 2010, pp. 376–380.
[14] M. Weyrich and C. Ebert, “Reference architectures for the Internet of
future studies in this field. Things,” IEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 112–116, 2016.
[15] G. Longoria, F. Akhtar, and L. Shi, “Wireless power transmission
R EFERENCES in smart cities: The wIshood wireless smart neighborhood,” in 6th
International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, Porto,
[1] J. E. Ibarra-Esquer, F. F. Gonzalez-Navarro, B. L. Flores-Rios, L. Burt-
Portugal, 2017, pp. 317–322.
seva, and M. A. Astorga-Vargas, “Tracking the evolution of the Inter-
net of Things concept across different application domains,” Sensors, [16] F. Chiariotti, M. Condoluci, T. Mahmoodi, and A. Zanella, “Symbiocity:
vol. 17, no. 1379, pp. 1–24, 2017. Smart cities for smarter networks,” Transactions on Emerging Telecom-
munications Technologies, vol. 29, no. 1, p. e3206, 2017.
[2] A. Colakovic and M. Hadzialic, “Internet of Things (IoT): A review of
enabling technologies, challenges, and open research issues,” Computer [17] A. Orsino, G. Araniti, L. Militano, J. Alonso-Zarate, A. Molinaro, and
Networks, vol. 144, pp. 17–39, 2018. A. Iera, “Energy efficient iot data collection in smart cities exploiting
[3] B. N. Silva, M. Khan, and K. Han, “Internet of Things: A comprehensive D2D communications,” Sensors, vol. 16, no. 836, pp. 1–19, 2016.
review of enabling technologies, architecture, and challenges,” IETE [18] S. Kartakis, B. D. Choudhary, A. D. Gluhak, L. Lambrinos, and J. A.
Technical Review, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 205–220, 2018. McCann, “Demystifying low-power wide-area communications for city
[4] M. F. M. Firdhous, B. H. Sudantha, and P. M. Karunaratne, “IoT enabled IoT applications,” in Tenth ACM International Workshop on Wireless
proactive indoor air quality monitoring system for sustainable health Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation, and Characterization, New
management,” in Second IEEE International Conference on Computing York City, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 2–8.
and Communication Technologies, Chennai, India, 2017. [19] M. Elkhodr, S. Shahrestani, and H. Cheung, “Emerging wireless tech-
[5] F. Wang, L. Hu, J. Zhou, and K. Zhao, “A survey from the perspective nologies in the Internet of Things: A comparative study,” International
of evolutionary process in the Internet of Things,” International Journal Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 67–82, 2016.
of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2015, pp. 1–9, 2015. [20] S. Mukherjee and G. P. Biswas, “Networking for IoT and applications
[6] C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, P. Christen, and D. Georgakopoulos, “Context using existing communication technology,” Egyptian Informatics Jour-
aware computing for the Internet of Things: A survey,” IEEE Commu- nal, vol. 9, pp. 107–127, 2018.
nications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 414–454, 2014. [21] L. Garc J. M. Jimenez, M. Taha, and J. Lloret, “Wireless technologies
[7] A. R. Sfar, E. Natalizio, Y. Challal, and Z. Chtourou, “A roadmap for for IoT in smart cities,” Network Protocols and Algorithms, vol. 10,
security challenges in the Internet of Things,” Digital Communications no. 1, pp. 23–66, 2018.
and Networks, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 118–137, 2018. [22] I. Yaqoob, I. A. T. Hashem, Y. Mehmood, A. Gani, S. Mokhtar, and
 S. Guizani, “Enabling communication technologies for smart cities,”
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2017.
[23] J. S. Lee, Y. W. Su, and C. C. Shen, “A comparative study of wireless
protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi,” in 33rd Annual Con-
ference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Taipei, Taiwan, 2007,
pp. 46–51.
[24] M. R. Mallick, “A comparative study of wireless protocols with Li-Fi
technology: A survey,” in 43rd IRF International Conference, Chennai,
India, 2016, pp. 8–12.
[25] M. Pareek and S. Buriya, “A study of link layer protocols in IoT,”
International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science &
Communication Engineering, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 355–359, 2018.
[26] J. K. Parmar and A. Desai, “IoT: Networking technologies and research
challenges,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 154,
no. 7, pp. 1–6, 2016.
[27] W. Mengdi, “Wireless communication technologies in Internet of Things
(IoT),” MSc Thesis, Faculty of Technology, Communication and Sys-
tems Engineering, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland, 2017.
[28] O. Elijah, T. A. Rahman, I. Orikumhi, C. Y. Leow, and M. N. Hindia, “An
overview of Internet of Things (IoT) and data analytics in agriculture:
Benefits and challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pp. 1–17,
2018.
[29] N. M. Turab, “IoT wireless home automation technologies and their
relation to specific absorption rate,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, vol. 96, no. 14, pp. 4597–4609, 2018.
[30] H. Kaur and S. Sharma, “A comparative study of wireless technolo-
gies: Zigbee, Bluetooth LE, Enocean, Wavenis, Insteon and UWB,” in
International Conference on Recent Trends In Computing and Commu-
nication Engineering, Hamirpur,India, 2013, pp. 273–276.
[31] S. Haseeb, A. H. A. Hashim, O. O. Khalifa, and A. F. Ismail, “Connectiv-
ity, interoperability and manageability challenges in Internet of Things,”
in International Conference on Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Johor, Malaysia, 2017, pp. 1–7.
[32] A. S. Abdul-Qawy, P. P. J, E. Magesh, and T. Srinivasulu, “The Internet
of Things (IoT): An overview,” International Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 71–82, 2015.
[33] L. Metongnon and R. Sadre, “Fast and efficient probing of heterogeneous
IoT networks,” International Journal of Network Management, vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2017.
[34] T. Salman and R. Jain, “A survey of protocols and standards for Internet
of Things,” Advanced Computing and Communications, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 1–20, 2017.
[35] D. Christin, P. S. Mogre, and M. Hollick, “Survey on wireless sensor
network technologies for industrial automation: The security and quality
of service perspectives,” Future Internet, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 96–125, 2010.
[36] P. K. Sharma, Y. S. Jeong, and J. H. Park, “EH-HL: Effective commu-
nication model by integrated EH-WSN and hybrid LiFi/WiFi for IoT,”
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1719–1726, 2018.
[37] O. Khutsoane, B. Isong, and A. M. Abu-Mahfouz, “IoT devices and
applications based on LoRa/LoRaWAN,” in 43rd Annual Conference of
the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Beijing, China, 2017, pp. 6107–
6112.
[38] H. C. Lee and K. H. Ke, “Monitoring of large-area IoT sensors using
a lora wireless mesh network system: Design and evaluation,” IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 67, no. 9, pp.
2177–2187, 2018.
[39] Z. Li, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, J. Zhu, and N. Xiong, “The evolution of IoT
wireless networks for low-rate and real-time applications,” Journal of
Internet Technology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 175–188, 2017.
[40] S. Akter, R. F. Olanrewaju, T. Islam, and Salma, “LiFi based automated
shopping assistance application in IoT,” in 1st International Conference
on Big Data and Cloud Computing, Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia, 2017, pp.
1–6.
[41] M. Cedrick, M. Anandraj, and B. J. de Dieu, “How LI-FI will improve
the reliability of internet of things: A review,” International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 2686–2689,
2017.

View publication stats