OUR OFFICE
Rukan Great Wall, Jl. Green Lake City Boulevard No.63 Blok B, RT.002/RW.008, Petir, Kec. Cipondoh, Kota Tangerang, Banten 15146 Indonesia
Want to learn more?
Contact UsOUR OFFICE
Rukan Great Wall, Jl. Green Lake City Boulevard No.63 Blok B, RT.002/RW.008, Petir, Kec. Cipondoh, Kota Tangerang, Banten 15146 Indonesia
Want to learn more?
Contact UsA smart water meter installed in a residential basement faces a different communication challenge from one mounted outside a house. Both may transmit only a few bytes of consumption data, but the distance to the network, surrounding structures, and available infrastructure can determine whether those readings arrive reliably.
This is why connectivity selection is one of the most consequential decisions in an Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) project.
Two technologies frequently considered for low-power water metering are LoRaWAN and Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT). Both are designed for applications that transmit relatively small amounts of data, but their network architectures, deployment responsibilities, and commercial models differ.
For water utilities in Indonesia, the better choice depends less on technology marketing claims and more on where meters are located, how frequently readings are required, and who will operate the communication infrastructure.
LoRaWAN and NB-IoT belong to the broader category of Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN) technologies.
They are designed to connect devices that do not require the bandwidth of conventional consumer internet applications.
Their similarities, however, should not obscure some fundamental differences.
LoRaWAN uses a network architecture in which end devices communicate wirelessly with one or more gateways.
These gateways forward received messages through an IP network to a central network server. Application systems then process the device data.
The LoRa Alliance describes this arrangement as a star-of-stars topology and defines the protocol for low-power, wide-area communication.
A LoRaWAN network may be privately deployed, shared, or offered by a network operator.
For water utilities, a private deployment can provide greater control over gateway locations and network planning.
That flexibility also creates operational responsibilities. Gateways require suitable installation sites, power, backhaul connectivity, monitoring, and maintenance.
LoRaWAN should therefore not be understood as infrastructure-free connectivity.
NB-IoT is a cellular LPWAN technology standardized through the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).
Rather than deploying conventional LoRaWAN gateways, NB-IoT devices communicate through a compatible cellular operator network.
The GSMA's Mobile IoT Deployment Guide identifies NB-IoT and LTE-M as cellular technologies designed for low-power, wide-area connectivity.
Where an operator provides suitable NB-IoT service, a water utility may avoid building its own radio access network.
However, the availability of general LTE or 4G coverage does not automatically mean NB-IoT service is available at the same location.
The specific operator, supported radio bands, device compatibility, and service arrangements must be verified.
A technology comparison becomes useful when it considers the complete deployment rather than individual radio specifications.
| Consideration | LoRaWAN | NB-IoT |
|---|---|---|
| Network architecture | End devices communicate through LoRaWAN gateways and a network server. | Devices communicate through compatible cellular operator infrastructure. |
| Spectrum model | Commonly operates in applicable licence-exempt spectrum under local regulations. | Operates through licensed cellular spectrum. |
| Infrastructure | May require dedicated gateway deployment and backhaul. | Depends on compatible cellular network availability. |
| Network control | Private deployments can provide direct control over gateway placement and operation. | Radio access infrastructure is generally managed by the mobile operator. |
| Battery operation | Designed for low-power communication. | Supports power-saving features such as PSM and eDRX. |
| Commercial model | May involve gateway investment, hosting, and network maintenance. | Commonly involves operator connectivity and device subscription arrangements. |
| Coverage limitations | Influenced by gateway placement, terrain, buildings, and interference. | Influenced by operator deployment, radio coverage, building penetration, and service configuration. |
Neither technology guarantees a particular communication range or battery lifetime under every installation condition.
These outcomes must be evaluated against the device specifications and deployment environment.
A typical water distribution service area contains different types of meter locations.
Some meters are installed near roads or in accessible outdoor boxes. Others are located inside buildings, below ground level, or behind metal enclosures.
Although the application may be identical, radio propagation conditions can be substantially different.
Meters installed below ground present additional challenges for wireless communication.
Metal covers, concrete structures, soil, moisture, and installation depth may attenuate radio signals.
The practical question is not whether a technology advertises good penetration performance, but whether the actual device can communicate reliably from its intended mounting position.
A field survey should include representative difficult locations rather than testing only meters with favorable signal conditions.
For LoRaWAN, network improvements might involve changing gateway placement, adjusting antenna configurations, or reviewing the installation method.
For NB-IoT, the options depend more heavily on the available operator network, device radio capabilities, and installation conditions.
Neither approach guarantees that every underground meter can be connected without additional engineering.
Urban environments create different design trade-offs.
A dense group of meters may make a dedicated LoRaWAN gateway economically attractive because multiple devices can share the same network infrastructure.
However, concentration alone does not guarantee sufficient capacity.
Transmission intervals, message sizes, spreading factors, channel availability, and network traffic affect LoRaWAN performance.
For widely scattered meters, existing cellular infrastructure may reduce the need to deploy separate gateways, provided compatible NB-IoT coverage and commercially suitable service are available.
These observations describe possible deployment advantages, not universal outcomes.
Smart water meters are often installed where a permanent electrical supply is unavailable.
Battery lifetime therefore affects maintenance planning and the total cost of the system.
Both LoRaWAN and NB-IoT support low-power operation, but battery performance depends on more than the selected technology.
Relevant factors include communication intervals, signal conditions, retransmissions, device firmware behavior, operating temperature, and the battery's usable capacity.
NB-IoT includes power management mechanisms such as Power Saving Mode (PSM) and extended Discontinuous Reception (eDRX). Their practical benefits depend on device and network support, as well as application configuration.
LoRaWAN power consumption is influenced by parameters such as spreading factor, transmission frequency, receive windows, and communication class.
A device transmitting once per day may have a substantially different energy profile from one transmitting every fifteen minutes.
For procurement, battery-life estimates should be requested under clearly stated operating assumptions.
A product specification claiming several years of battery life is not sufficient evidence of performance at every site.
Hardware purchase price is only one component of smart water metering costs.
A meaningful comparison should consider the complete system lifecycle.
With LoRaWAN, costs may include gateways, installation structures, power supply, internet backhaul, network servers, monitoring, and maintenance.
With NB-IoT, costs may include compatible communication modules, connectivity subscriptions, operator services, and device management.
Both approaches also require meter-reading hardware, applications, data integration, installation, and operational support.
The lowest initial device price does not necessarily produce the lowest long-term cost.
For example, a private LoRaWAN network serving a concentrated meter population might distribute infrastructure costs across many devices. But poor gateway locations or demanding maintenance conditions could change that calculation.
Similarly, NB-IoT may reduce gateway installation requirements while introducing recurring connectivity charges.
The appropriate comparison should use the same device population, reporting interval, expected operating period, and service assumptions.
Before selecting either technology, a water utility should identify the operational outcome it wants from AMR.
Is the primary objective to reduce manual reading visits? Improve the timeliness of consumption records? Detect unusual usage patterns? Support billing integration?
These objectives affect the technical requirements.
A practical assessment should establish the number and geographic distribution of meters, installation environments, expected reading intervals, battery-life targets, available infrastructure, and requirements for data delivery.
A representative proof of concept can then measure:
A successful pilot is evidence of performance under tested conditions, not proof that all future locations will behave identically.
PT IoT Kreasi Indonesia (IKI) has published information about its work in LoRaWAN-based water monitoring.
In July 2025, the company announced an agreement with Perumdam Gapura Tirta Rahayu in Purwakarta for automatic water meter monitoring using LoRaWAN.
The announcement describes the intended application of connected water meter readings within utility operations.
It provides a public example of LoRaWAN being selected for a water-sector project in Indonesia, although the announcement alone does not establish measured network performance or final deployment outcomes.
IKI's Smart Water Monitoring solutions combine compatible devices, connectivity infrastructure, and monitoring applications.
As an IoT solution provider and system integrator, the company's published portfolio covers several components involved in an end-to-end implementation.
The technical suitability of any proposed architecture must still be assessed against the customer's location, existing meters, required data frequency, and operational expectations.
Neither is universally better. LoRaWAN may be attractive where a utility can deploy and operate shared gateway infrastructure. NB-IoT may be suitable where compatible cellular coverage and operator services are available. Field conditions and lifecycle costs determine the stronger option.
Not necessarily. NB-IoT requires specific operator deployment and device compatibility. Conventional 4G coverage alone does not confirm NB-IoT availability.
It can work in some underground installations, but performance depends on signal attenuation, gateway placement, antenna configuration, and the physical installation. Representative field testing is necessary.
There is no universal winner. Battery lifetime depends on device hardware, reporting intervals, network conditions, radio configuration, and power-management behavior. Comparisons should use equivalent operating assumptions.
Yes. Both LoRaWAN and NB-IoT can support AMR when the meter-reading hardware, communication network, and application systems are compatible.
The answer depends on device distribution, network availability, gateway requirements, subscription costs, and ongoing maintenance. Total cost of ownership is more informative than comparing hardware prices alone.
Connectivity decisions should begin with the meter installation environment and the information a utility actually needs.
LoRaWAN offers flexibility for organizations willing to design and operate dedicated network infrastructure. NB-IoT provides an alternative through compatible cellular services.
Both technologies introduce limitations that should be understood before procurement.
For smart water metering projects in Indonesia, a site-based evaluation of communication reliability, maintenance requirements, battery consumption, and long-term costs provides a stronger foundation than selecting a technology solely from its advertised specifications.
Organizations evaluating smart water connectivity can explore the PT IoT Kreasi Indonesia website to learn more about connected utility monitoring and IoT system integration.