Symphony Link and LoPy



  • Hi all.

    I was reading about Symphony Link (that solves LoRa limitations) and I would like to know if is possible to use Symphony Link over LoPy, or is needed just another chip - not LoRa chip used on LoPy.

    I would like to be possible some features missing on LoRa, like as OTA, 100% Acknowledgements and Repeaters.

    From https://www.link-labs.com/symphony

    Symphony Link is a wireless solution for enterprise and industrial customers who need to securely connect their IoT devices to the cloud. It’s the only LPWA system with:

    Repeaters

    • Symphony Link™ grows with you. Expand network range using power-efficient repeaters without impacting latency.

    100% Acknowledgements

    • Symphony Link™ acknowledges all uplink and downlink messages to ensure successful transmission from devices.

    Quality Of Service

    • Symphony Link™ manages frequencies, time slots, node privilege and throughput to insure QoS.

    Firmware Over-the-air

    • Symphony Link™ economizes on resources by enabling patch security issue patches or new feature or bug fix management without physical, human attention.

    Thank you.



  • @dangerdan02
    It's clear, someone invested a lot of money to develop Symphony Link. But if they license it to "large customers" without a fee, why not license it to e.g. Pycom for one dollar or two per LoPy? Think about the possibilities. And they could still sell their gateways.



  • May I remind that Link-Labs has a forum as well :-)

    http://forum.link-labs.com

    Many Symphony Link questions have already been answered there



  • @dangerdan02

    All right. I would like to do tests and check all that amazing features that are LoRa limitations.

    1. How large I need to be to Symphony Link are interested to me? Give me numbers please.
    2. Did you the hardware ready for the Symphony Link? I mean, Gateway, client/device (like as LoPy) and chips/IC? Or is all hardware the same used in the LoRa?


  • @jmarcelino The Symphony EU development is complete, but the launch keeps being delayed by competing for resources. We're doing so well with our asset location business (AirFinder), that it's been tough to finish all the work to launch a new product half the world away, especially in a market that has more mature LPWAN networks.

    You are right about the regulatory issues, but we've worked hard to thread the many needles to offer enough synchronization to have features, without giving up all the link budget.



  • @dangerdan02
    Thanks for the Semtech ≠ LoRa Alliance correction, here I was thinking they were almost the same. ;-)

    Is Symphony Link coming to Europe anytime soon? I have real concerns how you'll be able to meet your claims in this regulatory environment.

    Also LPRS seems to have forgotten they are meant to be your European distributors.



  • @beyonlo
    The LoPy uses that same open source stack I linked to supporting Class A and C. It doesn't support Class B yet.

    To change you need to init the LoRa class with either LoRa.CLASS_A or LoRa.CLASS_C option.



  • @jmarcelino

    1. Actually the LoPy are using just Class B?
    2. Is possible a LoRa gateway and their devices nodes to change in real time between Class B to Class C and so on? Or what is the best ways to do that? Or that is not possible to do?


  • @jmarcelino This is from Semtech, not the LoRa Alliance



  • Actually the LoRa Alliance provides a fully open source software as a reference implementation supporting Class A and C:

    https://github.com/Lora-net/LoRaMac-node



  • @beyonlo Keep in mind the LoRa Alliance is a tiny group with a very small technical committee. They don't have the resources of IEEE or 3GPP to conduct serious research ahead of time. It is mostly a few Semtech engineers writing the specification. The "open" intellectual property model of the LoRa Alliance means that no company will invest in R&D to make the specification better, because they will be unable to license any of it.



  • @dangerdan02

    Well, so is clear that the LoRa Alliance specification is not good enough. And, if now LoRa Alliance can see that thier specification can be better, maybe a broken compatibility is necessary. BTW, I always think, how is possible to write a good (without bugs) specification without to implement that idea (specification)? Is a simulator used? Or what? Because, many times when you think a new specification, like as a new protocol or just a small app, when you will write/implement it (your idea) you see that the result was not the same.

    Thank you.



  • @beyonlo The LoRa Alliance doesn't write software, only specifications. The LoRa Alliance's goal of maintaining backwards compatibility will cause issues. Also, the "Stateless" gateway model (where all gateways just listen on all channels) prevent adding features that require synchronization. They have specified a synchronous model (class B) for a long time, but no one has implemented it.



  • @Thosch42

    If is just software, why the LoRa Alliance do not start a roadmap to do that new features, like as Link Labs does? I think LoRa Alliance can get money from many operators for that work, not?

    Thanks.



  • @jmarcelino Link Labs does license (royalty free) their stack, but they only support large customers in doing so, since there is so much support required during porting. Symphony Link is used by dozens of large US industrial companies for IIOT applications. It is proprietary as millions of dollars of R&D went into making it. What marketing claim do you not believe?



  • @Thosch42
    Link labs has at least 4 patents on their proprietary method so you - or anyone using your open source code - would most likely get sued by them.

    I'm still not convinced their protocol is that great actually. There's a lot they don't talk about such as scalability, immunity to interference...



  • @beyonlo A few weeks ago, I asked Symphony Link, if they want to license their protocol stack, but they reject. Their modules use the SX1276 LoRa Modem, which is not significantly different than the one used in the LoPy (SX1272). So, in general, it would be possible. I've been thinking a lot about whether it's worth it to reverse engineer the protocol, and making an open source project out of it. It's a question of time.
    On the other hand, one could make something similar from scratch. The principles are clear. But this is a question of money, because one have to show it's ETSI / FCC etc. compliance.
    I still think about it...



  • @beyonlo
    Symphony Link is a completely proprietary protocol from Link labs only they make hardware and software for it.

    Also don't believe all their marketing claims. They do it to stir up confusion.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Pycom Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.