LoRaWAN vs cellular (NB-IoT/LTE-M): what councils need to know in 2026

If you’re choosing between LoRaWAN and cellular IoT for your council’s sensor network, this article is for you. At Thingitude we love LoRaWAN and the opportunities it opens up for local authorities. Even so, some councils decide to rely on the well-known cellular providers to meet their IoT needs. This is fine too, but the cellular IoT technology landscape is shifting, and not all networks have a guaranteed future.

This guide covers what you need to know about the cellular IoT options in the LPWAN category (broadly the same group as LoRaWAN), and how to choose a cellular IoT technology you won’t regret in five years.

If you are in a rush, the one line summary is: if you have to choose a cellular IoT technology instead of LoRaWAN we would suggest LTE-M, rather than NB-IoT.

The cellular IoT options explained

There are several cellular IoT technologies covering high and low-data needs. We are just looking at the two you might select as a preference to LoRaWAN, namely:

NB-IoT (Narrowband IoT): Very low power, good building penetration, designed for static sensors that send small amounts of data infrequently. Think smart meters, environmental sensors.

LTE-M (Cat-M1): Slightly higher power than NB-IoT but still low. Supports mobility (devices can move between cell towers), voice capability, and firmware updates. Think wearables, asset tracking, medical alerts.

Both NB-IoT and LTE-M offer long battery life (2-10 years depending on usage), wide coverage where mobile networks exist, and no infrastructure for you to manage. And of course both technologies use licensed spectrum, so in theory your operator should give you a more reliable service for your monthly fee than the unlicensed spectrum used by LoRaWAN.

So which to choose?

NB-IoT had significant hype a few years ago as the big fightback from cellular IoT against the likes of Sigfox and LoRaWAN. But outside of China, NB-IoT is struggling globally, and several major operators have either shut down or de-prioritized their NB-IoT networks:

  • AT&T in the US shut down its NB-IoT network in early 2025, migrating all customers to LTE-M
  • Japan’s NTT Docomo shut down NB-IoT in 2020
  • France’s Orange has publicly stated they prefer alternatives

In the UK only Vodafone offers nationwide NB-IoT coverage. In 2024 they added LTE-M alongside their NB-IoT service. O2 was first to deploy LTE-M (2020), and EE has limited LTE-M availability.

NB-IoT uses dedicated spectrum that can’t be shared efficiently with other network traffic. This makes it expensive for operators to maintain compared to LTE-M, which works on existing 4G infrastructure.

In our opinion LTE-M is the safer bet for a council choosing a cellular IoT technology.

Industry estimates suggest 4G will likely stay operational until at least the late 2030s or early 2040s, which means for a council IoT deployment starting in 2026-2027, that’s a safe horizon.

LTE-M has some significant advantages over NB-IoT for council use cases:

  • Unlike NB-IoT, LTE-M supports handoffs between cell towers, which makes it suitable for mobility use cases such as asset tracking.
  • LTE-M can handle firmware and software updates better than NB-IoT (and LoRaWAN), the extra bandwidth giving it a distinct advantage, especially for sensors that will be deployed long term.
  • LTE-M can handle more data, including voice – which means it can support a wider range of use cases (although there will be a trade-off between data usage and battery life).

LoRaWAN vs cellular: when to choose what

Choose council-managed LoRaWAN when:

  • You’re deploying sensors for multiple use cases (parking, air quality, energy, noise) – share the gateway infrastructure
  • You can afford the up front capital and want to minimize ongoing costs
  • You want full control over your network and data
  • You have (or can get) internal IT skills or a support partner
  • Cellular coverage gaps exist in your area where you need connectivity

Choose cellular (LTE-M) when:

  • You want a fully managed service with no internal resource needed
  • You need instant broad coverage and don’t want to build infrastructure
  • Your budget allows for ongoing per-device monthly costs
  • You’re tracking mobile assets that move across regions
  • It’s a pilot project or short-term deployment (under 2 years) and you wouldn’t get payback from investing in network infrastructure

Choose managed LoRaWAN when:

  • You want the benefits of LoRaWAN but don’t have the capacity to manage infrastructure
  • You’re in an area with existing managed LoRaWAN coverage (check with providers like Netmore, North) or your use case is big enough for them to add coverage.
  • Your budget allows for ongoing per-device monthly costs
  • It’s a pilot project or short-term deployment (under 2 years) and you wouldn’t get payback from investing in your own network infrastructure

Want help deciding?

We’ve helped councils work through these decisions for projects from £10k pilots to £100k+ rollouts. We’re honest about when cellular makes more sense than LoRaWAN – because we’d rather you get it right than sell you the wrong solution.

Book a call: hello@thingitude.com

Related guides: