{"id":12535,"date":"2026-01-09T13:40:32","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:40:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/publicaciones\/a-universal-testbed-for-iot-wireless-technologies-abstracting-latency-error-rate-and-stability-from-the-iot-protocol-and-hardware-platform\/"},"modified":"2026-03-24T13:58:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T12:58:56","slug":"a-universal-testbed-for-iot-wireless-technologies-abstracting-latency-error-rate-and-stability-from-the-iot-protocol-and-hardware-platform","status":"publish","type":"publicacion","link":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/publicaciones\/a-universal-testbed-for-iot-wireless-technologies-abstracting-latency-error-rate-and-stability-from-the-iot-protocol-and-hardware-platform\/","title":{"rendered":"A Universal Testbed for IoT Wireless Technologies: Abstracting Latency, Error Rate and Stability from the IoT Protocol and Hardware Platform"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>IoT applications rely strongly on the performance of wireless communication networks.<br\/>There is a wide variety of wireless IoT technologies and choosing one over another depends on the<br\/>specific use case requirements\u2014be they technical, implementation\u2010related or functional factors.<br\/>Among the technical factors, latency, error rate and stability are the main parameters that affect communication reliability. In this work, we present the design, development and validation of a Universal Testbed to experimentally measure these parameters, abstracting them from the wireless IoT technology protocols and hardware platforms. The Testbed setup, which is based on a Raspberry Pi 4, only requires the IoT device under test to have digital inputs. We evaluate the Testbed\u2019s accuracy with a temporal characterisation\u2014accumulated response delay\u2014showing an error less than 290 \u03bcs, leading to a relative error around 3% for the latencies of most IoT wireless technologies, the latencies of which are usually on the order of tens of milliseconds. Finally, we validate the Testbed\u2019s performance by comparing the latency, error and stability measurements with those expected for the most common IoT wireless technologies: 6LoWPAN, LoRaWAN, Sigfox, Zigbee, Wi\u2010Fi, BLE and NB\u2010IoT.    <\/p>\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","tipo":[100],"linea_investigacion":[99],"class_list":["post-12535","publicacion","type-publicacion","status-publish","hentry","tipo-jrc-sci-magazine","linea_investigacion-iot-ee"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacion\/12535","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacion"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publicacion"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"tipo","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tipo?post=12535"},{"taxonomy":"linea_investigacion","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cedint.upm.es\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/linea_investigacion?post=12535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}