SRSM Local Communications Development v1

SRSM and Beyond
Local Communications Development
Author(s) Simon Harrison

Document Final
Status
Document Ref. SRSM LCD
No.
Document 1
Version
Date Issued 9 December 2008
SRSM and Beyond – Local Communications Development Version 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................. 2
Figures ............................................................................................................. 3
Tables .............................................................................................................. 4
Document Control ............................................................................................ 6
1.1 Version History .................................................................................. 6
1.2 Review Group & Website ................................................................... 7
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright ......................................... 8
1.4 Disclaimer .......................................................................................... 8
2 Executive Summary and Introduction ....................................................... 9
2.1 Executive Summary ........................................................................... 9
2.2 Purpose ............................................................................................. 9
2.3 Scope .............................................................................................. 10
2.4 Objective.......................................................................................... 10
2.5 Structure of this Document .............................................................. 10
3 Glossary & Conventions ......................................................................... 12
3.1 Document Conventions ................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Market Segments ..................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Meter Functionality ................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Meter Location .......................................................................... 13
3.1.4 Meter and Metering System...................................................... 13
3.2 Glossary .......................................................................................... 15
4 Local Communications Context .............................................................. 23
4.1 General Context .............................................................................. 23
4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local Communications .............................. 24
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local Communications ................... 25
4.4 Smart Home Context ....................................................................... 27
5 Associated Topics ................................................................................... 30
5.1 A National Standard......................................................................... 30
5.1.1 Where a Wired Solution Could Apply ....................................... 35
5.2 Security............................................................................................ 41
5.3 Delivering the Last Mile ................................................................... 42
5.4 Local Device Classification .............................................................. 42
5.5 Processes/Activities Required ......................................................... 43
5.6 Types of Data .................................................................................. 44
5.7 Independent & Private Local Networks ............................................ 45
5.8 Distinguishing Local Communications from the HAN....................... 49
5.9 Wireless to Wired Options ............................................................... 51
5.9.1 Potential Hybrid Options ........................................................... 52
5.10 British Housing Types ...................................................................... 53
5.10.1 Houses By Type ....................................................................... 53
5.11 Support for Third Party Applications ................................................ 54
6 Principles & Assumptions ....................................................................... 56
6.1 Local Communications Principles .................................................... 56
6.2 Local Communications Assumptions ............................................... 56
7 Requirements ......................................................................................... 58
7.1 Requirements .................................................................................. 58
7.2 Requirements Notes ........................................................................ 60
7.3 Potential Additional Requirements ................................................... 62
8 Solution Options ..................................................................................... 63
Page 2 of 155 9-Dec-08
8.1 Solution Options Descriptions.......................................................... 64

8.2 Other Solution Options .................................................................... 75
9 Additional Considerations ....................................................................... 80
9.1 Network & Addressing Protocols ..................................................... 80
9.2 Frequency Considerations ............................................................... 82
9.2.1 Frequency Information .............................................................. 82
9.2.2 Licensed or Unlicensed ............................................................ 84
9.3 Data Exchange Format Options....................................................... 84
10 Evaluation of Solution Options ............................................................ 87
10.1 Evaluation Process .......................................................................... 87
10.2 Evaluation Methodologies................................................................ 87
10.2.1 Evaluation Weighting ................................................................ 87
10.2.2 Evaluation Assessment ............................................................ 88
10.3 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 88
10.4 Evaluation Scorecard....................................................................... 91
10.4.1 Evaluation Notes ...................................................................... 94
10.5 Evaluation Scenarios ..................................................................... 130
11 Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................... 132
11.1 Conclusions ................................................................................... 132
11.2 Recommendations ......................................................................... 132
11.3 Testing & Evaluating Criteria ......................................................... 134
11.4 Solution Summary Statements ...................................................... 138
11.4.1 Bluetooth low energy .............................................................. 138
11.4.2 Wavenis .................................................................................. 138
11.4.3 Wireless MBus........................................................................ 138
11.4.4 ZigBee @ 868MHz ................................................................. 139
11.4.5 ZigBee @ 2.4GHz .................................................................. 139
11.4.6 Z Wave ................................................................................... 140
12 Issues ................................................................................................ 141
13 References ........................................................................................ 142
Appendix A: Referential Integrity Check....................................................... 144
Appendix B: Last Mile Evaluation ................................................................. 146
Last Mile Criteria ................................................................................... 146
Appendix C: Initial Field Test ...................................................................... 147
Test Report............................................................................................... 147
Responses to the Report .......................................................................... 149
Online Reference ..................................................................................... 150
Appendix D: ZigBee@2.4GHz Evaluation Introduction ................................ 151
Preamble – On using ZigBee for UK Smart Metering Local
Communications ................................................................................... 151
Appendix E: Bluetooth Information on Profiles, Certification and
Interoperability ............................................................................................. 153
Appendix F: ATEX & Wires in Gas Meters ................................................... 155
Figures
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations .................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches ......... 14
Figure 3: SRSM Smart Metering Operational Framework Scope ................... 23
Figure 4: Smart Utility Context ....................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Smart Display Context .................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Smart Home Context ...................................................................... 27
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters ..................................................... 28

Figure 8 Different Uses of Local Communications ......................................... 29
Figure 9 Pre-existing networks....................................................................... 31
Figure 10 Evolving WiFi Standards ................................................................ 32
Figure 11 Non-interoperable hardware .......................................................... 32
Figure 12 ZigBee/Homeplug Network ............................................................ 33
Figure 13 Interoperable houses? ................................................................... 35
Figure 14 Digital TV Marking.......................................................................... 35
Figure 15 All Electric Meter Room ................................................................. 36
Figure 16 Meter room to top floor ................................................................... 36
Figure 17 RF Devices in Living Space ........................................................... 37
Figure 18 Mesh using Display Devices .......................................................... 37
Figure 19 Missing Display Devices ................................................................ 38
Figure 20 Illustration of a plug-in repeater...................................................... 38
Figure 21 Mesh Using Plug In Repeaters ...................................................... 39
Figure 22 RF/PLC Electricity Meter ................................................................ 39
Figure 23 Two Physical Solutions in Living Space ......................................... 40
Figure 24 Gas to Electricity using RF ............................................................. 40
Figure 25: Local Communications for the Last Mile ....................................... 42
Figure 26 Technical WAN Interoperability ...................................................... 45
Figure 27: Simple Collection of Smart Meters and Local Devices .................. 45
Figure 28: Independent Networks .................................................................. 46
Figure 29: Local Communication Signal Range ............................................. 47
Figure 30: Overlapping Wireless Ranges....................................................... 47
Figure 31: Required Local Communications Range Example ........................ 48
Figure 32: Mesh Network to Concentrator ..................................................... 49
Figure 33 Possible Logical Networks ............................................................. 50
Figure 34 OpenHAN Interfaces ...................................................................... 51
Figure 35 ZigBee & DLMS Illustration .......................................................... 152
Tables
Table 1 Local Communications Group Members ............................................. 8
Table 2 Glossary ............................................................................................ 22
Table 3 Stock Profile - English House Condition Survey 2005 ....................... 54
Table 4 Type of Dwelling - Scottish House Condition Survey 2004/5 ............ 54
Table 5 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey ................................................ 54
Table 6 'Overall' British Housing Type Volumes ............................................ 54
Table 7 Local Communications Principles ..................................................... 56
Table 8 Local Communications Assumptions ................................................ 57
Table 9 Local Communications Requirements............................................... 60
Table 10 Local Communications Requirements Notes .................................. 62
Table 11 Solution Options Guide ................................................................... 64
Table 12 Bluetooth low energy ....................................................................... 65
Table 13 M-Bus .............................................................................................. 66
Table 14 Wavenis .......................................................................................... 67
Table 15 ZigBee @ 868MHz .......................................................................... 69
Table 16 ZigBee @ 2.4GHz ........................................................................... 72
Table 17 Z-Wave ........................................................................................... 75
Table 18 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 91
Table 19 Evaluation Scorecard ...................................................................... 94
Table 20 Evaluation Notes ........................................................................... 130
Table 21 Evaluation Scenario Suggestions.................................................. 131

Table 22 Evaluation Testing Recommendations .......................................... 137
Table 23 Issues ............................................................................................ 141
Table 24 References .................................................................................... 143
Table 25 Referential Integrity ....................................................................... 146
Table 26 Last Mile Evaluation Criteria ......................................................... 146
Table 27 Field Test Results ......................................................................... 148

Document Control
1.1 Version History
Version Date Author Description Online Version
0_1 7 February Simon Initial draft snipurl.com/lcdgv1
2008 Harrison
0_2 10 March Simon Updated following snipurl.com/lcdgv2
2008 Harrison initial meeting of
development group:
Includes changes
made to the online
version of the
document by John
Cowburn of PRI, and
materials provided
off line by Dave
Baker of Microsoft
and Brian Back of
LPRA
0_2_1 15 April Simon Updated to include snipurl.com/lcdgv21
2008 Harrison information and a
number of
comments provided
prior to 2nd meeting
of Local
Communications
Development Group
0_3 September Simon Significant update snipurl.com/lcdgv3
2008 Harrison following two
meetings of the
Local
Communications
Development Group
0_4 27 October Simon Interim draft snipurl.com/lcdgv4
2008 Harrison prepared for meeting
#6 of the group
Updated following
review & evaluation
meeting of Local
Communications
Development Group
0_5 5 Simon Updated following snipurl.com/lcdgv5
November Harrison final meeting of
2008 Local
Communications
Development Group
0_6 3 Simon Internal project draft Not available online
December Harrison produced following
2008 consultation on

v0_5, includes
significant update to
section 5.1 -
submitted for
Steering Group
approval
1 9 Simon Final Version, snipurl.com/lcdgfinal
December Harrison approved by SRSM
2008 Steering Group 8
December 2008
This document is a development of Schedule H of the Smart Metering

Operational Framework Proposals and Options v1 document, published by the
Energy Retail Association in August 2007 – the document history of which is
shown below.
Version Date Author Description
0.1 17th July 2007 Simon Harrison Initial draft based upon original consolidated
SRSM Communications Solution Options
document.
0.2 25th July 2007 Alastair Minor update following review
Manson
0.3 6th August 2007 Simon Harrison Update for Smart Metering Operational
Framework publication
0.4 December 2007 Simon Harrison Updated following consultation exercise.
Updated following project workshop
Updated following receipt of related papers from
stakeholders
Document passed to Local Communications Development Group for ongoing development
1.2 Review Group & Website

This document has been developed with the assistance of a group of
interested parties, including energy suppliers, meter manufacturers,
communications experts, interoperability experts and other stakeholders.
Table 1 below lists the organisations and companies who are members of the
group.
Alcatel-Lucent Alertme.com
All Island Power Association of Meter Operators
Arm Arqiva
Atmel British Electrotechnical & Allied
Manufacturers Association
BERR BGlobal Metering
British Gas EDF Energy
Cambridge Consultants Cambridge Silicon Radio
Cason Engineering Coronis
Daintree Networks Data Direct
DEFRA Echelon
E.ON UK Npower
Electralink Elster
Ember Ewgeco
Energy Retail Association Engage Consulting

Federation of Communication Freescale
Services
Freescale First Utility
Fujitsu Green Energy Options
Himsley Meter Revenue Services Horstmann
I+P Services Imserv
Ingenium Itron
Laird Technologies Acute Technology
Landis+Gyr Low Power Radio Association
Microsoft More Associates
National Grid Ofcom
Ofgem Onzo
Orsis PRI UK Ltd
Q’Vedis Radiocrafts
Remote Energy Monitoring Renesas Technology
ScottishPower Scottish & Southern Energy
Sensus Metering Services Sentec
Siemens Energy Services Sustainability First
Society of British Gas Industries Secure Electrans
theowl.com Tridium
Trilliant Networks Utilihub
Zensys ZigBee
ZigBee Alliance Acute Technology
Table 1 Local Communications Group Members
Full details of the membership of the group, its’ meetings and papers can be
viewed at the public website: srsmlocalcomms.wetpaint.com
1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright

All rights including copyright in this document or the information contained in it
are owned by the Energy Retail Association and its members. All copyright
and other notices contained in the original material must be retained on any
copy that you make. All other use is prohibited. All other rights of the Energy
Retail Association and its members are reserved.
1.4 Disclaimer
This document presents proposals and options for the operation of smart
metering in Great Britain. We have used reasonable endeavours to ensure the
accuracy of the contents of the document but offer no warranties (express or
implied) in respect of its accuracy or that the proposals or options will work. To
the extent permitted by law, the Energy Retail Association and its members do
not accept liability for any loss which may arise from reliance upon information
contained in this document. This document is presented for information
purposes only and none of the information, proposals and options presented
herein constitutes an offer.

2 Executive Summary and Introduction

2.1 Executive Summary
The Local Communications Development Group has considered and agreed
the principles, requirements, a number of solution options and
recommendations for the communications between gas and electricity smart
Metering Systems and other devices within a home.
This document presents in detail;

• the specific smart metering context for Great Britain
• a number of related topics as considered by the group
• a set of agreed principles and requirements
• detailed overviews of six potential solution technologies
• a desktop evaluation of those technologies
The report concludes;

• that a low power wireless solution is appropriate for most metering
installations
• that there are a number of existing and available technologies that could
meet and exceed the smart metering requirements
• that the exercise has benefitted from being conducted in the public arena,
attracting input and support from a range of experts and stakeholders
• that participants in the exercise are much more informed about the
requirements, opportunities and options for smart metering Local
Communications
It recommends;
• that further work be undertaken to address areas of ambiguity and
complexity in requirements
• that work be undertaken, in conjunction with other areas of smart meter
development and planning work, to address the key issues of network
ownership in a home, data ownership and privacy and the impact of any
market model decisions by government
• that there are gaps in the approaches of all of the solution options that will
need to be understood and addressed in order to fully deliver the smart
metering requirements
• that the evaluation process be completed using a combination of field and
laboratory testing and a panel review process
• that work continue in a timely fashion, as this is an area where global
activity in smart metering and other activities is developing the
technologies very quickly
2.2 Purpose
This document presents the context, requirements, issues and solution
options for two-way Local Communication for smart Metering Systems.
It also includes an evaluation of solution options and recommendations for

further consideration.
Any statement of preference for particular communications solution options

does not constitute a firm or binding decision by the Suppliers participating in
the Supplier Requirements for Smart Metering (SRSM) project.
Further information on the SRSM project is available from:

http://www.energy-retail.org.uk/smartmeters.
2.3 Scope
The scope of this document is limited to the requirement for two way
communications between smart gas and electricity meters and local devices.
For ease of understanding and application to a familiar domestic context, this

document refers mainly to the ‘Home’ and uses illustrations of houses to
represent locations for meter points. However, the communications solution
options listed here could apply equally to non-domestic premises – i.e. Local
Communications within an office or factory.
This document references, but does not define, the opportunity to use the
Local Communications capability of a smart meter to provide a ‘Last Mile’
option to deliver WAN Communications.
This document does not address the commercial issues arising from
communications requirements.
2.4 Objective
The objective of the Local Communications Development exercise is to fully
document and evaluate the options relating to Local Communications for
smart metering, and if possible to produce a solution recommendation (or
recommendations) to the ERA SRSM Steering Group.
2.5 Structure of this Document

The sections of this document are:
- Document Definition
o Section 1 – Document Control
o Section 2 – Introduction
o Section 3 – Glossary and Document Conventions
- Local Communications Context
o Section 4 – Local Communications Context – a plain English
explanation of the context for smart metering and Local
Communications
o Section 5 –Associated Topics – information on related topics
considered by the SRSM project or the Local Communications
Development Group
- Requirements
o Section 6 – Principles and Assumptions – established by the Local
Communications Development Group
o Section 7 – Local Communications Requirements
- Solution Options
Page 10 of 155 9-Dec-08

o Section 8 – Definition of the solution options considered by the

Group using a standard proforma
o Section 9 – Additional Considerations – providing detail on key
solution related topics – frequency, protocols etc.
- Evaluation & Recommendation
o Section 10 – Evaluation Criteria and process completed by the Local
Communications Development Group
o Section 11 – Recommendations – by the Local Communications
Development Group to the SRSM Project Steering Group
- Additional
o Section 12 – Issues – ongoing and unresolved general issues
relating to Local Communications Solutions
o Section 13 – References – links to papers referred to by this report
o Appendices – Referential Integrity table, Field test undertaken by
group members, Last Mile evaluation, ZigBee @ 2.4GHz additional
information
Page 11 of 155 9-Dec-08

3 Glossary & Conventions

3.1 Document Conventions
The ERA SRSM project has been running since September 2006, and has
established a number of practical conventions and assumptions with regard to
smart metering.
The project published ‘Proposals and Options for a Smart Metering

Operational Framework’ in August 2007 – this document is over 300 pages in
length and presents comprehensive proposals to meet the practicalities of
operating smart metering in a competitive retail environment.
The following subsections give a brief overview of a number of these topics.

For a more complete summary of the Smart Metering Operational Framework,
please visit http://www.energy-retail.org.uk/smartmeters
3.1.1 Market Segments

The Smart Metering Operational Framework has been written to address the
requirements of energy Suppliers in the domestic retail markets. However, it
recognises that meters used in homes can actually be exactly the same as
meters used in businesses, and therefore the Smart Metering Operational
Framework proposals could apply.
Therefore, within this document, the solution options discussed could be

suitable for use in both domestic and equivalent non-domestic markets.
3.1.2 Meter Functionality

The degree of ‘smartness’ of a smart meter is something that distinguishes
most of the metering products available today, or that are being installed as
part of smart metering projects overseas.
The SRSM project has agreed, and discussed with meter manufacturers and
the wider energy stakeholders, a set of functional requirements for gas and
electricity smart meters. These requirements do not represent final proposals
and are presented here to give context to the Local Communications
discussions.
• 2 Way Communications – WAN and Local (see below)

• Interval measurement and storage of consumption data
• Support for flexible and configurable energy tariffs
• Interoperable data exchange and protocols
• Remote connection/disconnection1
• Support for prepayment/pay as you go operation (subject to the
footnote above)
• Support for microgeneration
• Provision of consumption information
1
For electricity, the inclusion of a switch/breaker/contactor has been agreed for all meters.
The inclusion of similar, valve-based functionality for all gas meters remains subject to cost.
Page 12 of 155 9-Dec-08
• Remote configuration of tariffs, meter operations, upgradeable

firmware etc.
Please note that ‘clip on’ or similar devices where information is captured via a
pulse counter, optical port, or by use of a sensor around an electricity cable
are not considered smart under the definitions of the Smart Metering
Operational Framework and are not included in this context. However, through
the development of a standard for smart metering Local Communications, any
future ‘standalone’ devices could utilize the frequencies and protocols defined
by the Smart Metering Operational Framework.
3.1.3 Meter Location

Throughout, this document refers mainly to the ‘Home’ and uses illustrations
of houses to represent locations for meter points. However, smart meters and
the communications solution options listed here could apply equally to other
domestic and non-domestic premises types.
Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations
The ERA Smart Metering Operational Framework documentation specifies

‘domestic-sized’ metering, and such meters could be installed in any type of
property where energy consumption is within the load/capacity capability of
such meters.
The Smart Metering Operational Framework includes a number of Meter

Variants, usually to accommodate specific energy supply requirements of a
metering point – e.g. polyphase electricity supply or a semi concealed gas
meter location (see definition of Meter Variant below).
Local Communications, unless specifically excluded by the Meter Variant

definition in the Smart Metering Operational Framework, is required in all
Meter Variants.
It is also the case that the placement and location of meters as shown in
diagrams is illustrative.
3.1.4 Meter and Metering System

Throughout this document, references to a smart meter, particularly within
diagrams, should not be interpreted as referring only to smart meters where all
of the functionality is contained within one ‘box’. There is regular use of a
picture of an electricity smart meter to represent smart Metering Systems.
Page 13 of 155 9-Dec-08

Smart Metering Systems – Illustration of Flexible Approaches
Software
Smart Metering Metering System Illustration of how fuels could share

Metering System
Systems, with all using a separate (with suitable commercial
using a separate
the functionality, ‘black box’ and arrangements) a single set of black
‘black box’ (or
including external antenna box(es) to deliver functionality
boxes) to deliver
communications to deliver
functionality
“under the glass” functionality
In all cases, the metrology functions must be delivered by a regulated measuring instrument.
The required functionality could be delivered by components:

- within the meter casing;
- through the use of one or more new hardware components (in conjunction with new meters
or retrofitted to existing); or
- external hardware components shared between fuels.
Generally, no component of the smart Metering System will be reliant upon equipment
owned by the customer (e.g. broadband router), or services under the control of the
customer (e.g. telephony provider). There may be individual circumstances where use of the
customers equipment is unavoidable (customer chooses to own the meter, or particularly
within a non-domestic context where additional energy supply contractual terms can be
applied).
Figure 2: Smart Metering Systems, Illustration of Flexible Approaches
As defined by the SRSM project, a smart metering system could comprise a

number of physical devices (external modems, antennas etc.) to deliver the
smart functionality requirements.
The potential variety of physical locations and conditions of metering points

could result in smart metering systems where components are not located
together in the same metering cupboard, or on the same metering board. It
would not be practical to illustrate or explain these potential variations within
this document.
Further, how the overall smart metering infrastructure is defined and delivered
within a particular market model could influence who would own, operate and
maintain the equipment in a customer’s home. For example, a
communications service provider could be the owner and operator of a
‘communications box’ to provide a WAN link for gas and electricity meters
which could also act as a hub for Local Communications. At the time of
Page 14 of 155 9-Dec-08

completing this report, the potential market model options for GB smart
metering remained an area being considered by the government.
Therefore all general references to smart meters and uses of icons to

represent smart meters in this document should be inferred as meaning the
defined Metering System.
3.2 Glossary
A number of these definitions are necessarily drawn directly from the Smart
Metering Operational Framework, as they apply across the scope of that
document and not just to Local Communications.
Term Meaning
3-DES An enhanced form of Data Encryption Standard, where the
cipher is used three times to increase the protection
provided by the encryption
6LoWPAN IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks.
A developing set of protocols aiming to enable IPv6 packets
of data to be transmitted over IEEE 802.15 networks (e.g.
Bluetooth and ZigBee).
Access Control The method by which the Smart Metering Operational
Framework controls access to smart Metering Systems,
smart metering data and associated devices.
Active Line Access Also known as Ethernet Active Line Access
A communications model based upon high speed
broadband to gateway equipment in the home.
More detail is available at :
www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/discussnga/eala/
AEC Advanced Energy Control – an application profile of the Z
Wave standard
AES Advanced Encryption Standard
AES-128 Where the Advance Encryption Standard uses 128 bit key
AFH Adaptive Frequency Hopping - a method of transmitting
radio signals by rapidly switching between frequency
channels, used by Bluetooth
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure, an approach to smart
metering, generally describing the whole system to include
meters, communications and systems
AMR Automated Meter Reading, the collection and
communication of metering information from meters to
systems. Can be done using handheld (walk by) or drive by
equipment, or be based on a fixed network
AMS Advanced Microsensors – a semiconductor fabricator
API Application programming interface – a piece of software
enabling other applications to make use of existing
operating systems or services
APS Application Support layer – part of the ZigBee protocol stack
ASE Advanced Silicon Etch – a semiconductor fabricator
ASIC Application Specific Integrated Circuit – a chip designed
Page 15 of 155 9-Dec-08
Term Meaning
solely for a particular use
AtEx ATmosphères EXplosibles
The AtEx Directive is two EU directives describing what
equipment and work environment is allowed in an
environment with an explosive atmosphere.
The equipment directive (94/9/EC) is relevant to gas
metering
Authorised Party Means the Supplier or another person authorised by
configuration of the Access Control security policies in the
Metering System to interrogate or configure the Metering
System.
Authorised Parties could include a communications service
provider, a meter operator, a network operator etc.
BACnet A data communications protocol for building automation and
control networks
Balun A component in radio systems linking antennas to other
components
BCH Stands for Bose, Chaudhuri and Hocquenghem.
A BCH code is a multilevel, cyclic, error-correcting, variable
length digital code and can be used in low power
communications as error-correcting codes
Bluetooth A wireless communication standard using low power radio
See detail in section 8.
Body Area Network Describes a network where network devices are worn on (or
implanted in) the body.
BoM Bill of Materials – term used by manufacturers to cover a list
of materials and components used to make an assembled
item.
BPSK Binary Phase Shift Keying
A form of Phase Shift Keying
CBA Commercial Building Automation
CCM A form of cryptographic operations
CECED European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers
– representing white goods and appliance manufacturers.
Have developed AIS (Application Interface Standard),
currently in the process of obtaining CENELEC standards
approval.
CE Product marking to signify conformance with European
Union regulations
CEN European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen
de Normalisation)
CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation
(Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique)
CEPT European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (Conférence européenne des
administrations des postes et des télécommunications)
CMOS Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor – a type of
microchip
Page 16 of 155 9-Dec-08

Term Meaning
COSEM COmpanion Standard for Energy Metering
The interface model for DLMS
CPU Central processing unit
CRC Cyclic redundancy check - a system of error control for data
transmission
CSMA-CA Carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance – part
of a class of protocols to control how nodes in a network
communicate
Data Exchange Electronic interactions including the transmission of data
between Metering Systems and Authorised Parties or
Metering Systems and Local Devices
DECT Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications
DES Data Encryption Standard, using 56 bit keys
DEST Danish Energy Savings Trust
DLMS Device Language Message Specification – European data
protocol for meter communications
DSSS Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum - a method of
transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching between
frequency channels
ECC Elliptic curve cryptography – an approach to public key
cryptography
ERA Energy Retail Association – trade association representing
the major domestic energy suppliers in Great Britain
ESMIG European Smart Metering Industry Group – an association of
companies with an interest in European smart metering
ETS 300-220 ESTI standard covering electromagnetic compatibility and
radio spectrum matters
ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute
EU European Union
EVA Kit Evaluation Kit – a software/hardware development tool
FCC Federal Communications Commission, US regulator of the
radio spectrum and other communications
FEC Forward Error Correction – a system of error control for data
transmission
FHSS Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum – a method of
transmitting radio signals by rapidly switching between
frequency channels
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
US Federal Standards for non-military applications.
Includes the P192 curve which is used in elliptical
cryptography
FIT Failures in time – a metric associated with reliability and
testing
FSK Frequency Shift Keying – a frequency modulation scheme
2FSK and 4FSK are different forms of Frequency Shift
Keying
Page 17 of 155 9-Dec-08

Term Meaning
Gateway Generally means a node on a WAN/HAN network that
facilitates connection between the two networks. A smart
meter may be a Gateway between enterprise applications
connected to the WAN and Local Devices connected to a
HAN. There are other Gateways that may be in a home that
will provide the same type of activity – e.g. BT HomeHub,
Sky Digital Box etc.
GFSK Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying – a form of modulation
used for radio communications – is used by Bluetooth and Z-
Wave
GMSK Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying – a form of modulation used
for radio communications – is used by GSM
GPIO General Purpose Input/Output
GPRS General Packet Radio System – a mobile telephony data
transmission system
GPS Global Positioning System
GSM Global System for Mobile communications – a mobile
telephony standard
HAN Home Area Network, typically a network of connected
devices within the confines of residential premises
Hand Held Unit A mobile device, usually used by a Meter Worker, capable
of interaction with a Metering System using Local (or WAN)
Communications.
Could also include devices that interact with a Metering
System using a dedicated optical port.
HomePlug A brand name for a technology providing communication
using powerline technology within a home
HTOL High temperature operating life – a form of estimating the
operating life of a product
HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IC Integrated Circuit
IEEE 802.15.4 International standard specifying the physical layer and
medium access control for low rate wireless networks
IP Internet Protocol
IP-TLS IP Transport Layer Security
IPv4 The version of the Internet Protocol most widely used
IPv6 The most recent version of the Internet Protocols, which
accommodates a greatly increased network address space
Interoperability To allow a smart Metering System to be used within market
rules by the registered Supplier, its nominated agents and
parties selected by the customer without necessitating a
change of Metering System.
Security of the smart Metering System infrastructure, with
structured Access Control, is a key interoperability
requirement.
ISM Industrial, Scientific, Medical – term describing unlicensed
international radio frequency bands
Page 18 of 155 9-Dec-08

Term Meaning
‘Last Mile’ Means, in a smart metering context, the communications
connection to the Metering System itself. This could be via
cellular telephony from a mobile mast, or via electricity
cables for power line carrier.
Generally, the Last Mile has a meter at one end and a
connection to the backhaul/data transport at the other, which
could be in the form of a concentrator or other equipment.
Local Communications between a Metering System and Local
Communications Devices within the premises in which the Metering System is
installed.
Local Device A Local Device can be any piece of equipment within
premises that communicates directly with the Metering
System using Local Communications.
LOS Line of Sight
MAC Media Address Control layer of OSI model (also known as
the data link layer)
MBus Or Wireless MBus;
A wireless communication standard using low power radio
MCU Or µC;
Micro Controller Unit
Mesh network Is a networking topology where nodes are configured to act
together to provide a greater coverage and increased
redundancy
Meter Asset Provider A role within the energy industry, the exact meaning of
which may differ slightly by fuel and governance context,
generally meaning the organisation which owns and is
responsible for the ongoing provision of the meter and holds
a contract with the energy Supplier for that service
Metering System A single device or meter, or a combination of devices used
to deliver the Lowest Common Denominator as defined in
the Smart Metering Operational Framework Schedule L
‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Variant Classification of meter type under the Smart Metering
Operational Framework. A ‘Standard’ variant is suitable for
installation at the majority of meter points in Great Britain.
Other variants exist to cover specific supply, circuit or
customer issues at a site.
Examples include Polyphase, Semi-Concealed or 5
Terminal variants.
The full table of Meter Variants can be found in the SRSM
document ‘Smart Meter Functional Specification’.
Meter Worker A generic Smart Metering Operational Framework term
referring to any person attending a metering point for the
purposes of installation, maintenance, investigation,
replacement or removal of the Metering System.
Includes existing energy industry defined roles of Meter
Operator, Meter Asset Maintainer, Meter Reader, Data
Retriever etc.
Page 19 of 155 9-Dec-08

Term Meaning
MTBF Mean Time Between Failures
MUC Multi Utility Controller – part of the German Open Metering
System for smart metering
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
US measurement standards laboratory
NWK Network Layer of the OSI Model
OBIS Also OBIS-Code
An interface class within the DLSM/COSEM object model
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OMS Open Metering System
The German smart metering initiative that includes the
definition of the MUC
OQPSK Offset Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
A form of phase shift keying
Open Standard The European Union definition of an open standard (taken
from “European Interoperability Framework for pan-
European eGovernment Services”) is:
• The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a
not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development
occurs on the basis of an open decision-making
procedure available to all interested parties (consensus
or majority decision etc.).
• The standard has been published and the standard
specification document is available either freely or at a
nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy,
distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
• The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present -
of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available
on a royalty-free basis.
There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
OSI Model Open Systems Interconnection – refers to the OSI Reference
Model, an abstract description for layered communications
and computer network protocol design.
OTP One Time Programmable
PCB Printed circuit board
PDA Personal digital assistant – a handheld computer
PHY Physical Layer of the OSI model
POR Power-On Reset, a technique used to ensure that devices
are in a known state when power is applied
PRI A meter manufacturer based in the UK
PSDU Physical Service Data Unit, a term used in TCP/IP
networking
PSK Phase Shift Keying
A digital modulation scheme with a number of different types
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
RAND Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
Page 20 of 155 9-Dec-08

Term Meaning
RF Radio Frequency
RSA An algorithm for public key cryptography
RSSI Received signal strength indication – a measurement of the
power present in received radio signal
RX In radio terms means receiving
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, generally an
industrial control system managed by a computer.
SoC System on Chip
SPI Serial Peripheral Interface Bus – a component in computing
systems that provides data links
SRD Short Range Device
SRSM Project Supplier Requirements of Smart Metering project.
Exercise in 2006-08 undertaken by ERA to develop the
Smart Metering Operational Framework.
Ongoing at the time of developing this document

Smart Metering Smart Metering Operational Framework Proposals and
Operational Options
Framework
Supplier Means an energy retail business
TAHI The Application Home Initiative
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
The Internet Protocol Suite – the communications protocols
typically, but not exclusively, used for the internet
TETRA Terrestrial Trunked Radio
TSMC Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company – a
semiconductor fabricator
TX In radio terms means transmitting
µC Microcontroller unit – see MCU
UART Universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter – a piece of
computer hardware that translates data between parallel
and serial forms
UHF RFID Ultra High Frequency Radio Frequency Identification
RFID systems which operate between 300MHz-3GHz
USB Universal Serial Bus – a standard serial interface used in
computing
WAN (Wide Area Communications between a Metering System and a remote
Network) Authorised Party
Communications
Wavenis A wireless communication standard using low power radio
Wi-Fi Trade name for wireless networking technology based on a
range of IEEE 802.11 standards
WSDL Web Services Description Language – a language used
within interoperable machine to machine interactions over
networks.
Page 21 of 155 9-Dec-08
Term Meaning
ZigBee A wireless communication standard using low power radio
Z/IP Part of the Z Wave protocols, offering TCP/IP connectivity to
Z Wave devices
ZSE ZigBee Smart Energy – an application profile of the ZigBee
standard
Z Wave A wireless communication standard using low power radio
Table 2 Glossary
Page 22 of 155 9-Dec-08

4 Local Communications Context

This section of the document presents an overview of the Local
Communications Development work and a number of topics and issues for
consideration.
4.1 General Context

It is a clear requirement of the Smart Metering Operational Framework to
implement Local Communications capability for smart Metering Systems.
Interoperable Local Communications capability will enable customers and

Suppliers to make choices in relation to how energy consumption information
is displayed. It also supports flexibility in the options for delivering smart
Metering Systems solutions and potential ‘smart home’ applications.
Throughout this document applications involving water meters, TV displays

and other ‘non-energy’ applications are used to illustrate the potential of smart
metering to support a range of known and as yet unknown applications.
However the Local Communications solution must, first and foremost, meet
the energy requirements. Smart meters are not intended to be a fully
functional alternative to other residential gateway or ‘home hub’ products –
these products tend to be capable of handling voice and multimedia
applications that would add significantly to the cost of utility meters.
Figure 3 below shows the SRSM project representation of the operational

architecture for smart metering and therefore the scope of the Smart Metering
Operational Framework – this document specifically relates to the ‘Local
Comms’ section on the left hand side of the diagram.
Industry Interfaces
Data Transport
(internet)
Figure 3: SRSM Smart Metering Operational Framework Scope
Page 23 of 155 9-Dec-08

4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local

Communications
The general perception of Local Communications for smart metering is
between a smart electricity meter and a display device.
This has been the typical approach in other smart metering initiatives, usually
on a proprietary basis, where the meter manufacturer provides the display
device alongside the meter for electricity only. The manufacturer decides upon
the communications medium, the protocols and data formats used.
This ‘one size fits all’ solution means that all customers get the same solution
that works straight out of the box, usually an LCD device that is portable or
fixed in a more accessible location than the meter itself.
However, having such a ‘closed loop’ offering for the display of consumption
information raises a number of issues:
• Restricting the opportunities for Suppliers to differentiate display
products in a competitive retail market.
• Variances in the quality and functionality of offerings from meter
manufacturers.
• Customers cannot choose how energy consumption information is
displayed to them.
• Innovation in display device technology would be controlled by meter
manufacturers or Meter Asset Providers.
• There could be limited support for future demand management and
demand response requirements. Access to the information from the
smart meter is under the control of the proprietary solution from the
meter manufacturer.
• In order to provide a ‘total utility’ solution, the display device must
communicate successfully with the gas and water meters – further
compounding the potential single source/proprietary solution issue.
These issues could be addressed through specification, i.e. requiring that

protocols are open, or available, introducing flexibility and innovation for
display devices.
Shown in Figure 4 below is a representation of the basic utility requirements

for Local Communications for smart metering. The solid red lines indicate the
core energy metering requirement of a display of information from gas and
electricity information. The dotted blue lines illustrate potential other uses of
the Local Communications solution.
Page 24 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 4: Smart Utility Context
In this example, a water meter is included to illustrate the potential for an

extended network, however water metering does not form part of the Smart
Metering Operational Framework at present and is included purely to illustrate
how a utility context could operate.
As shown, the gas, electricity and water meters can communicate with a
display device. Further, the gas and water meters may use the same
communications medium to interact with the electricity meter, which could act
as a ‘hub’ for WAN communications for all utilities.
4.3 Smarter Display Options Using Local

Communications
Building upon Figure 4, it is a requirement of the Smart Metering Operational
Framework to support customer and supplier choice in the display of energy
(and potentially water) consumption information from smart meters.
Smart meters should allow customers to access information using a number of

different display devices, as shown in Figure 5 below. The original ‘LCD
device in Kitchen’ solution remains, but is supplemented or replaced by a
customer being able to choose options using personal computers, white
goods, cellular telephones etc.
Page 25 of 155 9-Dec-08

The success of smart metering in raising awareness of energy consumption,

and actually changing customer behaviour, will depend upon making the
information available in a way that is most relevant to individual customers.
Figure 5: Smart Display Context
The step from the illustration of a smart utility context to a smarter display
context is one of interoperability. As long as the energy smart meters all
communicate using the same technology, protocols and a standard data
format, it will be possible for display functionality to be added to a number of
differing delivery devices.
An example could be the use of a USB dongle (and software) for a PC

allowing a customer to access sophisticated energy management information
from their utility meters. Currently this type of solution is being offered to
commercial customers through a wide range of proprietary offerings.
A number of display applications may rely upon a service provider external to

the home – e.g. an energy management website that a customer logs on to, or
a specific TV channel. In these types of application, data from smart meters is
processed and formatted by an external party before being presented back to
the customer. Equally, there will be options for devices to present this
information based purely upon local information. Where these types of display
services include a remote service provider, they are not within the scope of the
Local Communications work.
If smart meters operated on an interoperable open standard for Local

Communications then this level of flexibility could be available to a much wider
Page 26 of 155 9-Dec-08
range of applications. In this environment, Local Devices can interoperate

independent of the Metering System. For example, the water meter could
prompt the customer to call the water utility using a display device.
4.4 Smart Home Context

Establishing an interoperable solution for Local Communications, as required
to support customer choice for the display of consumption information, opens
up a range of opportunities for energy related Local Communications.
As shown in Figure 6, a number of ‘green’ and other applications could be

supported by ‘or interact with’ smart meters. These types of automated home
technologies are now being installed, and could become more prevalent if
they were capable of responding to utility price triggers from smart meters, or
could utilise the WAN communications functionality that smart meters will
introduce to every home.
Figure 6: Smart Home Context
Figure 7 below presents the smart home context for the smart metering Local
Communications solution(s).
Page 27 of 155 9-Dec-08

Microgeneration ‘Cluster’
Sensor ‘Cluster’
Display Device ‘Cluster’ Utility Meters
White Goods/Demand Response ‘Cluster’
Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters

It is not a requirement of the SRSM Project for smart meters to act as a (or
‘the’) gateway for all of the devices shown in the clusters.
Further information on the issues of interoperability and the potential use of a

smart metering Local Communications ‘platform’ are considered in section 5.1
below. It remains paramount that the Local Communications solution must
meet the smart metering requirements, whilst acknowledging that establishing
the open approach required would enable customers and other parties to
choose to include and develop their own devices, applications and services
utilising this platform.
A further suggested use context for Local Communications would be where a

meter (or collection of meters) forms part of a SCADA network of devices
managed by a remote system.
The opportunity to offer services that utilise the WAN communications link
within a smart meter is a product of establishing an interoperable platform for
Local Communications for smart metering.
Figure 8 shows how the Local Communications Solution could be utilised to

deliver a platform to serve both the smart metering activities of energy
Suppliers and the requirements of 3rd parties to access the HAN and Local
Devices.
Page 28 of 155 9-Dec-08

Alongside price and consumption

information, the utility context
would include detail of smart
Suppliers can also communicate meter events and control of
with Customer HAN devices smart metering functionality
Customer Utility
HAN Devices
HAN Radio
HAN interactions with non-
WAN Comms
utility devices uses same
HAN radio, but is less All remote
critical – restricted to price/ communications with
tariff and consumption smart meters are over the
information from the meter secure WAN connection
3rd Parties Suppliers
All communications, WAN and

HAN are 2-way and encrypted
Figure 8 Different Uses of Local Communications
Page 29 of 155 9-Dec-08

5 Associated Topics
This section of the document includes further information to assist with setting
the requirements, solutions and evaluation into a specific GB smart metering
context.
5.1 A National Standard

Due to the fundamental differences between the technologies and systems
that may be used for Local and WAN Communications activities, fully end to
end interoperability across the scope of smart metering might not be
appropriate due to the onerous processing and protocol requirements this
could place on simple local devices.
However, in order to ensure that smart metering creates an effective platform

for the types of applications presented in section 4 above, it is believed that a
national standard for Local Communications is required. The mechanisms for
implementation (approval and branding) of such a standard remain to be
considered.
A national standard would mean that all smart Metering Systems would
include hardware and software capable of meeting the Local Communications
standard. This does not necessarily mean the same chip/hardware in every
meter, but would mean conformity in their capability.
In existing homes there will be a range of wired and wireless communications

media, devices and protocols, as shown in figure 9 below.
Page 30 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 9 Pre-existing networks
These devices and standards are, in and of themselves, not interoperable

across the standards. Where devices, such as PCs and mobile phones, work
on different standards, it is because they include the necessary hardware and
protocol stacks. Therefore laptop computers generally include WiFi and
Bluetooth radios, and inbuilt cellular modems are appearing. For the majority
of laptops, connection to cellular networks will require an additional modem
peripheral – i.e. more hardware. In order for a connection to exist, there has to
be compatible hardware at either end of the connection.
In the illustration below, a real world example is shown of where compatible

hardware is required. The WiFi router supports the newest standard ‘N’, but
the laptop does not include the new hardware to meet that standard – which
prevents it from making use of the improved data transmission speeds
supported by the router.
Page 31 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 10 Evolving WiFi Standards
All of the communications standards shown in the first illustration – WiFi, DVB,
DECT etc. – are global interoperability standards. This allows manufacturers
and software developers to produce devices and applications that will be
guaranteed, as a result of stringent certification processes, to interoperate
effectively with all other devices using that standard.
The developing WiFi standard, as shown above, includes backwards

compatibility as new versions are released, which is also a key interoperability
feature and requirement for the Local Communications solution.
On a more basic level, devices which might individually be capable of running

the same protocols or applications cannot communicate using those protocols
and applications unless hardware is present to establish a physical link
between the devices. As shown below – both the PC and the games console
can run an internet browser application making use of the internet protocol,
but use different communications hardware to connect to the internet, and
therefore cannot connect to each other without extra hardware.
Figure 11 Non-interoperable hardware
A further consideration to note, particularly for wireless communications, is

that radios operating at the same frequency are not necessarily interoperable.
There are a range of devices that work in the unlicensed bands (868MHz and
2.4GHz), indeed a range of metering solutions, but these are not
interoperable. Z Wave, Wavenis and MBus all operate at 868MHz, but cannot
connect to each other. At 2.4GHz, both ZigBee and Trilliant use similar silicon
and are based on the 802.15.4 standard, but the protocol layers are not
interoperable.
Page 32 of 155 9-Dec-08

In the Trilliant/ZigBee example, interoperability is technically possible, but

there has been no market demand to drive product development.
Each of the computing and networking standards can (and do) take a different
approach in terms of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) reference
model – which is generally used to describe and define layers of functions and
is central to interoperability concerns. Some may adhere to the 7 layers in the
OSI model, some may combine layers. Generally there is a base physical
medium layer – the actual radio or transceiver – and an application layer which
provides the interaction with software applications.
This variety of approaches to layers also applies to the technologies being

considered for smart metering, for instance, ZigBee uses five layers (see
appendix D for more detail).
Work is starting on a metering standard to allow the same packets of metering

data to be transferred across, initially, two different physical media – ZigBee
and Homeplug. The hardware ‘connection’ constraint still applies – but the
initiative to develop a common information model, being led by several large
US utilities, should enable more devices to make use of the smart metering
information (with suitable application capability).
An illustration of how the initiative could expand the smart metering network is
shown below. The key device is the thermostat, which has both types of
communication hardware and provides the ‘bridge’ to allow the fridge and
washing machine to connect to the energy metering network. Any device that
plugs into the mains could act as a bridge to the ZigBee network.
Figure 12 ZigBee/Homeplug Network
A consideration could be for all electricity meters to include a Homeplug

transceiver chip alongside a low power radio – removing the need for a
bridging device, but this could add considerable cost to the overall cost of the
smart metering deployment.
Page 33 of 155 9-Dec-08

This initiative is, at the end of 2008, still at the early stage of development, but
the SRSM project has established an ongoing relationship with the head of
liaison. Products are anticipated to come to market in 2010. It is not yet clear
how compatible the new products will be with existing devices, although
backwards compatibility is a key requirement. Although initially based on
ZigBee and Homeplug, the development is planning to consider other physical
media/standards to make use of the common information model.
More detail on this subject is included in 5.1.1 below.
In summary, in order for all smart meters to be interoperable and provide for
interoperability with a range of Local Devices, the solution for Local
Communications for smart metering needs to be based on compatible
hardware with compatible protocols and data exchange formats.
The established communications standards shown in the first illustration –

WiFi, Bluetooth, DECT etc. – have not been designed to meet the particular
signal propagation, power consumption and network requirements of smart
metering and have been discounted.
Discussions prior to and during the Local Communications Development

exercise considered existing standards that are being deployed, or being
considered for deployment, in the advanced metering markets in Europe and
across the world.
It is evident, when considering approximately 50 million energy meters that

including more than one type of Local Communications hardware option in all
meters, even at sub $1 prices, would not be cost efficient.
It is therefore a clear principle of the Local Communications Development

workstream that there should be interoperable solutions associated with smart
metering – a customer with a range of ‘Smart Energy’ compliant products
should be able to transfer these products reasonably seamlessly when they
move home, where the smart metering may be different, thus requiring the
same standards within smart metering regardless of which premises they
move to.
As shown below, on a house by house basis solutions could be interoperable

within the house – the blue house works on a Z Wave network and the green
house on a ZigBee network.
Page 34 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 13 Interoperable houses?
The issue of interoperability arises when a customer moves, taking a Z Wave

display to a ZigBee house, or when a customer wants to add a new Local
Device to interact with smart metering and new tariffs – they would have to be
aware of the network protocol used by their metering. As with digital television
and other consumer goods, products could be clearly marked to highlight their
compatibility with smart metering2.
Figure 14 Digital TV Marking
There may be a requirement for a new GB Smart Metering certification

process, technologies such as ZigBee and Z Wave offer existing certification
systems although it is possible that further certification would be required.
More information on a number of these topics is considered in more detail in

the sections below.
5.1.1 Where a Wired Solution Could Apply

Following the group development of the content of this report, and in light of
the ongoing activities in North America relating to wired/wireless, it was felt
appropriate by the ERA Suppliers to include, in relation to the national
standard topic, more detail on where a wired connection for Local
Communications could be a requirement.
Some of the areas below cover aspects of this subject in more detail, but in
simple terms, it is accepted that there will be environments in a number of
premises where a wireless connection between a smart meter and Local
Devices will not be practical or possible.
The illustrations below show what is expected to be the major challenge to

wireless Local Communications solutions – multiple occupancy premises
where the metering is located away from living and working spaces. In this
example it is a very simplistic depiction of a small block of flats where the
meters are located in a meter room.
2
The Digital UK website: http://www.digitallogo.co.uk/ is an example of the level of
administration and support a national interoperability initiative requires
Page 35 of 155 9-Dec-08
For these examples, the depictions of meters, displays and other Local
Devices are all intended to be generic. Finally, the building construction is
shown in a pseudo wireframe format to help with presenting the concepts
discussed – in the real world, there is often a lot of reinforced concrete and
brickwork, which is the main reason for wireless signals to struggle to make
connections.
Figure 15 All Electric Meter Room
Each of these meters supplies electricity to distinct remote living areas, which
means that the RF signal from each has to reach those living areas. The
clearest example of the wireless challenge is the top floor of the building.
Figure 16 Meter room to top floor
Page 36 of 155 9-Dec-08

Even in this simple illustration, the RF signal has to negotiate two walls and 4
floors to reach the display unit (and other Local Devices) on the top floor.
Figure 17 RF Devices in Living Space
One approach taken by low power radio technologies to overcome these ‘long
throws’ is to configure the network to operate as a mesh. Assuming the
presence of an RF enabled display device in each flat could allow the
connection to be made as shown below.
Figure 18 Mesh using Display Devices
Generally, in order for a mesh node to act as a repeater within a network it

needs to be powered as it is always listening for packets to receive and
forward. It is important to underline that solutions such as ZigBee incorporate
Page 37 of 155 9-Dec-08
functionality to ensure that data travelling through repeating nodes is kept

private from those nodes – so that the data for the display on the top floor is
not accessible by the displays on the lower floors.
The issue with this configuration is the assumption that repeating nodes are
available – what if some of the displays in the mesh are switched off or are not
present?
Figure 19 Missing Display Devices
An alternative approach that has been suggested to support a wireless mesh

would be the use of additional equipment to support the signal, such as the
use of plug in repeaters illustrated below.
Figure 20 Illustration of a plug-in repeater
These could be installed in the staircase/common areas, and could

provide/strengthen the mesh network in the building.
Page 38 of 155 9-Dec-08

However, there are questions associated with such a solution – do these

repeaters form part of the smart Metering System? If so – for which meters as
they will often act on behalf of a number of meters. Also, who would pay for
them to be installed/maintained and who would pay for the power they
consume?
Figure 21 Mesh Using Plug In Repeaters
The alternative consideration is to use ‘Homeplug’ type technologies to make

use of the mains wiring within the building to transfer data from the electricity
meter to the living areas. This would require additional hardware within the
meters.
Figure 22 RF/PLC Electricity Meter
A key requirement would be to ensure that however the information is sent, by

radio or wire, the file format is consistent. The individual protocols would
resolve network addressing, security and other lower level activities, but a file
Page 39 of 155 9-Dec-08

with ‘meter read’ or ‘tariff info’ should be consistent, allowing all devices which
are party to the network to be able to interpret them.
Once the mains wire reaches the living space, all PLC enabled devices would
be able to connect to the smart meter (e.g. the washing machine shown
below). Adding ‘bridging’ technology – i.e. a powered device with both radio
and PLC hardware, would ensure that any devices that are solely RF are also
able to connect to the meter via the PLC connection. The bridge is shown as a
separate device in the illustration below, but could equally be a feature of a
number of devices, such as the boiler or even the display unit.
Figure 23 Two Physical Solutions in Living Space
Finally, gas meter data would also be able to be sent over this combination of
wired and wireless technology within this building, providing that both gas and
electricity meters have compatible hardware – which is expected to be an RF
solution. This final link enables gas metering information to reach the display
in the living space.
Figure 24 Gas to Electricity using RF
Page 40 of 155 9-Dec-08

An interesting challenge that is separate from the subject under consideration,

but is illustrated well here, is the configuration and pairing of gas and
electricity meters in such situations.
Summarising this section, it is evident that for some meter installations there
may need to be an electricity smart meter variant that includes a PLC chip
alongside an RF radio for use within a premises (the technology is different
from the PLC used for WAN Communications), or an electricity smart Metering
System that includes PLC Local Communications hardware.
As shown above, the primary illustration of this would be in buildings where

the meter is located remotely from the living/working space where Local
Devices are used. However, a wired connection for Local Communications
could also be applied in all-electric premises, or included as a design feature
in new builds. As with all meter variants shown in the SRSM Smart Meter
Specification, the choice of which variant to install will be determined by the
physical site requirements (wiring, meter location) and the Supplier requesting
the smart meter installation.
It may be necessary for any new industry standards/specifications to pre-
define circumstances where particular metering is required, in order to ensure
that there is common practice and therefore interoperability.
The key requirement is that however the physical media is configured, it is

transparent to the customer and the Authorised Party when it is being used –
i.e. that the same data exchange format is being used in a secure manner.
5.2 Security
Due to the nature of data and functionality that will be accessible via Local
Communications, security is a paramount concern.
Consumption and other data from a smart meter may not initially be
considered as confidential – energy tariffs are publicly available, meter
readings on their own are not personal data or at risk of increasing identity
theft. 3
However, debit balances sent from a meter to a display device could be

considered by many customers to be personal and private. Further,
consumption patterns based on interval data could allow third parties to
establish patterns of occupancy, which would very much be viewed as
personal data.
Added to this the ability to operate metering functionality using Local

Communications, e.g. a meter worker configuring a meter at installation,
increases the risk of misuse or fraud by customers or third parties.
It is accepted that no solution can be completely secure and resist all attempts
to intercept or interfere, but the Local Communications Solution should be
3
The SRSM project is considering the issues surrounding ownership of smart metering data
within a separate workstream; therefore they will not be covered within this document.
Page 41 of 155 9-Dec-08
capable of addressing known security attacks – replay, man-in-the-middle,

delay, spoofing, sequence change and deletion.
The Local Communications Solution should also be future flexible, allowing for
firmware/software upgrades to improve security.
5.3 Delivering the Last Mile

For certain topographies it may be possible for the Local Communications
hardware within smart meters to provide the ‘Last Mile’ physical media for
WAN Communications.
This would typically be for high density and metropolitan areas where the
signal propagation and power consumption restrictions of low power radio
solutions are less of an issue.
The SRSM project has considered the potential to use low power radio to
deliver the last mile, as shown in the diagram below. This also demonstrates a
number of options for backhaul for WAN Communications, which is out of
scope for the Local Communications Development work.
Metering System Options
Substation
Low Power
Radio
PLC High Speed Link
Infrastructure (Copper/Fibre)
Low Power Data Trans-
RF to Elec Low Concentrator former
Power
RF
Type Supplier
Cellular A
Infrastructure
A number of RF
Data Transport
solutions include
the capability to
(internet)
create ‘Mesh’
networks, where a Data
large number of
Concentrator
nodes can be
crossed to reach
the concentrator. Low Power
RF Type
Existing telephony Supplier

network
X
Data
Concentrator
Data concentrators could be installed and managed by a
service provider making use of the existing telephony
network.
The equipment could be housed in telephony street furniture,
or any appropriate location, including potentially within
customer premises in the form of ‘Concentrator Meters’.
Data concentrators could be provided as part of the
infrastructure service, or as a separate contracted function.
Figure 25: Local Communications for the Last Mile
There is no assumption that there is necessarily the same hardware within a

meter for Local Communications and WAN Communications – theoretically two
low power radio chips could be used, possibly at different frequencies. An
example would be a meter that uses a ZigBee chip at 868MHz for Local
Communications and a WiFi chip at 2.4GHz for WAN Communications.
5.4 Local Device Classification

A topic for potential consideration is the classification of Local Devices. As
smart meters are required to be capable of 2 way communication, and energy
suppliers expect display devices to be similarly capable of 2 way
Page 42 of 155 9-Dec-08

communication, the Local Communications solution(s) need(s) to

accommodate fully functional ‘nodes’ on a network.
There will be, however, local devices that will only send or receive data.
Examples could include:
- a fridge magnet to display consumption cost information would only
receive data
- a temperature sensor would only send data
These types of devices could be classified, for the purposes of smart metering
Local Communications, as distinct groups. The Local Communications
solution could recognise the classification of local devices in order to
determine the data exchange types, access control details and network
addressing/protocols.
Finally, there may be devices capable of sending and receiving data, but that
would not act as network repeaters in a number of topologies.
In v1 of the Smart Metering Operational Framework, the following categories

of local device are proposed:
- Data Device: a device which requires access to smart meter data only
- Communicating Device: a device which requires access to remote party
only
- Fully Functional Device: a device requiring access to the smart meter
data, and remote parties, and that could also operate smart meter
functionality – an example of this could be a diagnostic or
commissioning device to be used by a meter worker
Additionally, it has been suggested that Hand Held Units, as may be used by
Meter Workers, could form a category of their own.
Investigation is needed to understand whether there is a requirement for

classification of local devices, and if so, what are the recommended
classifications and how they can be documented.
It should be noted that a number of the solution options provide for device
classification within their profile regimes.
5.5 Processes/Activities Required

In order to document and evaluate the potential Local Communication
solutions, understanding how those solutions will be used is important. This
will also assist with understanding the controls and commands that will be
required within the metering system to authorize/manage which local devices
can undertake which activities.
Within the Smart Metering Operational Framework, the SRSM project listed a
number of processes/activities that could be expected from a local device
(bearing in mind that all smart meters are themselves local devices):
- establish pairing/join network
- remove pairing/leave network
- receive data from smart meter (passive local device)
Page 43 of 155 9-Dec-08

- access data from smart meter (active local device)

- update data on smart meter
- operate smart meter functionality
- send data to remote party via smart meter
- receive data from remote party via smart meter
- send data to local device via smart meter
- receive data from local device via smart meter
- send data to local device directly
- receive data from local device directly
Again, a number of the solutions under consideration address the

processing/activities on the network using their own profiles and protocols.
5.6 Types of Data

From the information presented above, it is possible to infer some general
guidelines on the type of data that will be transferred using the Local
Communications Solution:
- energy consumption data
- energy tariff data
- energy local device
- microgeneration data and commands
- meter functionality commands
- load control commands
- local device data (sensor information, appliance diagnostics etc.)
- local device commands – similar to load control – remote ‘soft’ boots,
resetting clocks etc.
- metering system or local device firmware/software
This information is presented for guidance only – the potential applications of
Local Communications and HAN activities are almost limitless. It remains the
case that the primary requirement is to deliver the data and control facilities for
energy smart metering, and that data exchanges will be comparatively small
and non-critical.
Another issue associated with data will be the end to end format – it is not
anticipated that enterprise applications will use the Local Communications
data format – therefore some system within the network is expected to act as a
gateway, translating Local Communications data exchanges into format that
can eventually be read by Authorised Party applications.
The illustration below is taken from a consideration of technical interoperability

prepared by the SRSM project, it shows how gateways and protocols could be
used in a WAN context to deliver standardised interoperability.
Page 44 of 155 9-Dec-08

Meter with
WAN Hardware
Enterprise
Sta
n
Standard Applications
Pro dard Head End Gateway
t o co
l
Supplier IT Architecture
Figure 26 Technical WAN Interoperability
5.7 Independent & Private Local Networks

A large proportion of British domestic premises are in areas of dense
population, with many homes being very close, if not connected, to each other.
Where low power radio technologies are powerful enough to reach all parts of
a home, they must essentially be powerful enough to reach neighbouring
premises. This section of the document explores this subject in more detail.
Shown below is a simple illustration of typical utility applications for Local

Communications in two neighbouring properties.
Figure 27: Simple Collection of Smart Meters and Local Devices
The house on the left has a gas meter in an external meter cupboard, a water
meter fitted at the boundary point, and has a TV capable of displaying smart
metering information.
Page 45 of 155 9-Dec-08

The house on the right differs in that there is no water meter, the gas meter is
located at the rear of the house and the preferred display solution is a portable
LCD display, usually kept in the kitchen.
The illustration below shows the required links between devices.
Figure 28: Independent Networks
The topology of the network within premises does not need to be specified, as
these could vary significantly by property type.
However, in order to deliver the necessary signal propagation to link the

electricity meter to the gas meter in the blue house, the range of Local
Communications of the electricity meter could be as shown in Figure 29
below.
Page 46 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 29: Local Communication Signal Range
This simple illustration, without allowing for signal drop off as it passes through
walls, shows how all of the devices in the left hand house are within reach of
the electricity meter in the right hand house. It is a requirement for the
information from one customer’s metering not to be visible on their
neighbour’s display.
The illustration below shows how much overlap there will be between signals
for this simple configuration of smart meters and devices. The TV display in
the left hand house is in range of all four energy smart meters.
In reality, the range of the wireless signals is likely to be much greater than
shown.
Figure 30: Overlapping Wireless Ranges

Page 47 of 155 9-Dec-08
The requirement is for the Local Communications solution to deliver a network

of Local Devices for each property. It is not practical (or possible) to restrict a
wireless signal from each meter to the boundaries of each premises.
Figure 31: Required Local Communications Range Example
Finally, there are circumstances where the wireless signal could be required to
transfer data between properties.
Figure 32 below shows where communication between meters in different

properties would be a desirable feature for Local Communications. It is a very
simple illustration of meters forming a mesh network to reach a data
concentrator in a substation (which could equally be located in any number of
locations or street furniture). Whilst this is effectively the WAN
Communications network, it utilises the Local Communications hardware in
smart meters.
Page 48 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 32: Mesh Network to Concentrator
5.8 Distinguishing Local Communications from the

HAN
An issue discussed by the group, and reflected in the principles P.3 and issue
I.3, relates to the ‘ownership’ and control of the network created or joined by
smart Metering Systems.
From a network architecture perspective, there are a number of options as to

how to ensure that energy utility operations (e.g. between meters, or to
microgeneration devices) are under the control of the relevant Authorised
Party, whilst maintaining the flexibility to allow customers to add their own
Local Devices.
For example, there may be the following ‘Logical’ networks in a home:

• Electricity smart meter to display and other devices included in electricity
supply contract from energy retailer A
• Gas smart meter to same (or different) display and other devices included
in gas supply contract from energy retailer A or B
• Customers’ own HAN, potentially including the display(s) and the meters
• Any other services that make use of the electricity smart meter as a
gateway – for example a water meter
The electricity smart meter could be expected to be a part of all of these

networks in one role or other, as shown in the figure below.
Page 49 of 155 9-Dec-08

Gas Supplier Electricity Supplier Water Utility
Meter
Worker
WA TER
‘ Ne t w o r k ’
W
AN
Pr
o
xy
ELECTRI CI TY ‘ NETWO RK’
Cu s t o m e r HA N
Customer
Figure 33 Possible Logical Networks
All of these distinct ‘Logical’ networks may have different conditions for
security, key management and for joining. Subject to appropriate controls,
tariff and consumption information from smart meters should be available to all
‘paired’ Local Devices.
This is not an uncommon situation in networking, and there are a range of

approaches to managing it, however, until the specific requirements are
clearer (electricity meters may not end up being gateways under particular
market model approaches), understanding which approach to managing it
remains unclear.
An example of an approach used in a smart electricity metering context can be

seen in the OpenHAN requirements from the United States. In this instance,
the ‘Utility’ operations are on a secured interface and any HAN activity is
restricted to price and ‘event’ information on a public broadcast channel, as
illustrated below.
Page 50 of 155 9-Dec-08

Figure 34 OpenHAN Interfaces

This approach would not comply with the GB requirements for 2 way Local
Communications, in that the public broadcast channel is one way only.
A further consideration would be the use of the Local Communications

solution for the Last Mile, which could add another network to the
requirements. A paper on this subject has been written by a group member
and is included in the references section below.
5.9 Wireless to Wired Options

A standard/solution that includes a wired option for Local Communications as
well as a wireless option could be beneficial to link to existing and new wired
devices and networks, as shown in section 5.1.1 above.
A number of appliances and networks will already exist in premises where

smart meters are installed. Each of these systems will be operating using their
own protocols and data formats, and not necessarily interoperating. There
may also be network capable appliances that are not yet part of any network.
Examples could include white goods capable of communicating using CECED
standards, but no wireless hardware.
It is not an ambition for smart meters to directly interact with all of these
systems, as this would introduce complexity and cost into the meters
themselves.
Other ‘smart metering’ implementations do include wired Local

Communications, typically in Northern Europe. Typically these use the M Bus
protocol over a low voltage (less than 30v) wire within meter rooms for multi-
unit buildings where the location of the gas, electricity, water and heat meters
makes wired solutions far simpler to implement. As detailed in F.1 in section
7.2 below, there are localised regulations within the UK that currently appear
to rule out this option for gas metering (also see section 6.2 and Issue I.4).
However, it would be beneficial for a number of ‘non-utility’ systems to interact

with smart meters:
• to receive pricing and tariff information
Page 51 of 155 9-Dec-08

• to respond to load control/demand management instructions

• to display energy related information
• to utilise the WAN connection of the meters to send or receive
information to and from remote parties
Some customers may already own and use equipment theoretically capable of
providing a bridge between wireless and wired communications media, and
which could include the necessary software to make data and services
interoperable between distinct networks and systems. The obvious example is
a home PC, but broadband routers, set top boxes and games consoles
already include most of the technology to provide a link between smart meters
and existing wired and wireless networks.
As previously stated, it is an absolute requirement for smart metering that it

will not be subject to customer equipment and decisions in order to deliver the
utility requirements of intra meter and energy information display processes.
It would not be reasonable to assume that every home would be equipped

with a BT Home Hub, Sky box, Xbox 360 or similar ‘bridge’ capable
equipment, but for those that do then smart meters could form part of the
overall connected home.
Energy suppliers could choose to provide ‘bridge’ equipment to customers as

part of an overall energy services package. Customers could choose to
introduce energy information into their existing networks by bridging to one
device and not necessarily making everything work on the same network.
An alternative approach would be to implement a Local Communications

Solution using a protocol along the lines of 6LowPan, which extends IP
addressing to every node in the network, dispensing with the need for HAN
controllers and specific protocols for the Local Communications. However,
6LowPan remains an immature protocol and is not currently supported by the
solution options considered below.
5.9.1 Potential Hybrid Options

During the activity of the Local Communications Development workstream
work has commenced on delivering a specification combining ZigBee and
HomePlug.
It is intended to deliver a technical solution to practical issues raised by the

Victorian AMI initiative in Australia, where electricity meters in meter rooms
are too remote from dwelling units in high rise blocks for low power radio to
operate effectively.
The proposed solution would allow either a wired (electricity mains cable) or
wireless (IEEE 802.15.4 radio) physical layer for the ZigBee smart energy
profile. This would allow Local Communications data packets to travel via wire
from the meter room to the penthouse, or for suitably equipped home
appliances to communicate with a suitably specified electricity smart meter
without the need for RF activity. See 5.1.1. above.
Page 52 of 155 9-Dec-08

The group driving this development is made up of a mix of utilities and

ZigBee/HomePlug providers, and is seeking to develop a ‘Common
Information Model’ that could meet energy(and other) data requirements,
agnostic of the physical layer.
The work is anticipated to deliver specifications in the second half of 2009 with
products coming to the market in 2010.
5.10 British Housing Types

One of the key challenges facing any wireless solution will be type of premises
it will be used in. There is a comprehensive range of construction materials
that will all have a direct bearing on the signal propagation properties of a
Local Communications Solution.
The issue is compounded by a variety of physical energy supply conditions

that can be site or customer specific. There has been little standardisation of
the exact positioning of where the meter is located. Meter location, which is
usually an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ consideration, and could be anywhere
within or outside premises (or another premises for multi-occupancy premises
with meter rooms), will introduce a range of challenges for communications
solutions.
Metal meter cabinets could also adversely impact wireless signals – creating
Faraday Cages - a situation that is apparent from ongoing technology trials by
the energy Suppliers. Signal interference characteristics could also vary
significantly by region and geography – there may be many more WiFi signals
to contend with in a dense urban area than in suburban and rural locations.
Although not a core requirement of the SRSM project, it must also be noted
that the installed base of water meters in Britain can also be in a tricky location
for low power radio signals. A significant proportion of water meters are
installed in boundary boxes at the edge of a customer’s land. Similarly the use
of pits for water meters will have an effect on signal propagation.
The figures presented below show that the particular challenges associated
with flats, where the energy consumption could be significantly ‘remote’ from
the energy meter, do not represent a minority concern.
5.10.1 Houses By Type

The ‘types’ of houses are defined differently by the Government housing
condition statistics in England, Scotland and Wales.
English Data:
Dwelling Type 000’s %
Small Terraced House 2,665 12
Medium/Large Terraced 3,634 17
House
Semi-Detached House 5,897 27
Detached House 3,753 17
Bungalow 2,028 9
Converted Flat 716 3
Page 53 of 155 9-Dec-08
Purpose Built Low Rise 2,783 13

Flat4
Purpose Built High Rise 305 1
Flat
Total 21,781 100
Table 3 Stock Profile - English House Condition Survey 2005
Scottish Data:
Detached 472 20
Semi-Detached 501 22
Terrace 522 23
Tenement 449 20
4-in-a-block 251 11
Tower/Slab 71 3
Flat in conversion 36 2
Total 2,301 100
Table 4 Type of Dwelling - Scottish House Condition Survey 2004/5
Welsh Data:
Detached 264 23
Semi-Detached 387 33
Terrace 405 35
Flats 101 9
Total 1,157 100
Table 5 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey
Assuming that flats are the dwelling types that could present signal
propagation issues for wireless solutions, these are highlighted in blue in the
tables above and collated to provide the overall ‘British’ position shown below.

Detached 4,489 17.8
Semi-Detached 6,785 26.9
Terrace 7,226 28.6
Bungalow 2,028 8
Flats 4,712 18.7
Total 25,240 100
Table 6 'Overall' British Housing Type Volumes
5.11 Support for Third Party Applications

As discussed in a number of sections of this document, there is potential for
the smart metering infrastructure to be utilised for a range of applications with
similar communications requirements.
4
Defined as: ‘a flat in a purpose built block less than 6 storeys high. Includes cases where
there is only one flat with independent access in a building which is also used for non-
domestic purposes’. High Rise therefore being blocks over 6 storeys high.
Page 54 of 155 9-Dec-08
Suggested examples of services that require similar low bandwidth, secure

communications include boiler and appliance diagnostics, water metering and
telecare/healthcare.
Devices for these services could be designed to form part of the network
supported by smart meters, using the same communications technologies and
protocols. Water metering is an obvious consideration, potentially offering a
fixed network using the ubiquity of electricity metering as a gateway – it is seen
by some as cheaper and greener than building a new fixed network for water
metering, or continuing to invest in ‘walk-by’ and ‘drive-by’ AMR solutions.
However, it would be difficult to select and develop a technical solution that

addressed the requirements of a range of as yet unknown third party services
– water meters in particular present signal range and propagation challenges.
It has been the view of the ERA members that developing a platform that
works well for smart metering would allow third parties to consider it as an
option for their services once it has been established.
Equally, principle P.1 applies – the focus for energy smart metering remains
the successful implementation of gas and electricity smart metering. It is
obvious that the smart metering communications infrastructure could be
attractive to other parties, and the technologies discussed in this report would
support their requirements. Commercial arrangements relating to fair usage
and payment for bandwidth could be negotiated on a bilateral or multilateral
basis, or form part of a defined additional service required by an energy
Supplier’s licence – this could be considered by any detailed work on smart
metering by the Government.
At the same time, other communications gateway options for homes are being
considered – e.g. Active Line Access – that may be more suitable or attractive
to third party solutions. The WAN bandwidth available for smart metering also
may not be sufficient for a number of Local Device applications.
This area, whilst offering tremendous opportunities, is also possibly extremely

complicated.
Page 55 of 155 9-Dec-08

6 Principles & Assumptions

6.1 Local Communications Principles
From the detail presented above, and from associated smart metering work, it
is possible to infer a number of key principles that apply to Local
Communications for smart metering:
No Principle
P.1 Utility focus – the key requirement remains the communication between
smart meters and energy information display/control devices. Support
for other services and applications will be as a result of developing a
practical solution to the utility requirement.
P.2 The utility focus should necessarily result in a low bandwidth platform –
energy consumption and tariff data and control commands do not
require high data throughput rates.
P.3 The smart Metering Systems themselves will be responsibility of the
energy Supplier. The Home Area Network may be owned by the
customer. This allows customers to add or remove Local Devices.
P.4 The Local Communications solution will be interoperable – supporting a
range of metering products and local device applications.
P.5 The Local Communications solution will make use, wherever practical,
of open standards and architecture.
P.6 The intention is to adopt (and potentially develop) an existing solution
for Local Communications rather than develop a new one. This includes
the protocol and data definition.
P.7 The Local Communications baseline solution will be the same in all
energy smart meters – establishing a national specification.
P.8 The Local Communications solution will be energy efficient.
P.9 The Local Communications solution will be secure, as described in the
requirements below. Additional security measures may be implemented
by the Metering System and the application software. The Local
Communications solution will be secure in the context of providing
networked communications using low power radio (or similar) and
ongoing technological developments in security.
P.10 The Local Communications solution shall, as far as possible, be future
flexible – supporting innovation at the same time as supporting legacy
systems.
Table 7 Local Communications Principles
6.2 Local Communications Assumptions

Based on the context discussions above, and on discussions within the group,
the following assumptions apply to the requirements, solutions and evaluation
presented below:
No Assumption
A.1 The Local Communications Solution will be compliant with relevant
legislation and regulations
Page 56 of 155 9-Dec-08

No Assumption
A.2 Smart meter functionality is broadly equivalent to the SRSM Smart
Meter Specification.5
A.3 SRSM Smart Meters are expected to have an asset life of 10-15 years
or better.
A.4 Smart metering will be ‘utility robust’. This means that for the purposes
of delivering utility services to a customer it will not be reliant upon, or
affected by, devices owned by a customer or other 3rd party.
Table 8 Local Communications Assumptions
5
This should be consistent with the latest agreed version of the SRSM specification, at the
time of concluding this report this is v1.1 of the Smart Meter Specification.
Page 57 of 155 9-Dec-08
7 Requirements
The requirements shown below are the result of iterative development by the
Local Communications Development Group. The starting requirements for the
group were taken from the Supplier requirements published in the ERA Smart
Metering Operational Framework Proposals and Options v1, dated August
2007.
The requirements have been developed with the participation of parties other
than energy retailers – meter manufacturers, network operators, meter
operators and display and device manufacturers are all parties to the Local
Communications Development Group. There are no specific requirements for
any single group, as the Local Communications Solution should meet the
overall requirements of those parties with an interest in the development of
smart metering. Therefore there is no specific requirement to address a
network operators specific use case of load and device control – this should be
addressed by the general requirements below.
7.1 Requirements
The requirements below are grouped by topic
Ref Requirement Notes
General
GEN.1 The Local Communications Solution The maximum requirement is
must provide for data exchange for intermittent communication
between smart meters and local devices between a Metering System
and a Local Device at a
configurable time granularity
that can be measured in
seconds.
GEN.2 The Local Communications Solution
must be interoperable, allowing smart
meters and local devices from a range
of manufacturers to exchange data
using a defined data standard.
shall not critically affect the power
consumption/battery life of a smart
Metering System
shall operate throughout the life of the
installed smart Metering System – it will
be capable of remote upgrade and
those upgrades shall be backwards
compatible
Communication
COM.1 The Local Communications Solution Note that domestic sized smart
must be able to operate effectively in the meters could be used in non-
majority of British domestic premises domestic premises.
without the need for additional
equipment Note that there may be
Page 58 of 155 9-Dec-08


additional equipment for
specific property types
COM.2 The Local Communications Solution
shall have the ability to automatically
adapt to communications interference
through detection and analysis of
environmental conditions (e.g. channel
hopping, channel avoidance, signal to
noise ratio)
COM.3 The Local Communications Solution
shall provide an option to deliver WAN
communication information during a site
visit from a Meter Worker with a suitably
secure Hand Held Unit.
In this instance, if the WAN
communications is not available, it will
be possible to exchange information
(meter readings, tariff settings etc.)
through the use of a Hand Held Unit.
This failsafe/fallback facility could
include the exchange of information with
Metering Systems using Local
Communications during a site visit or
also for a ‘drive by’ or ‘walk by’ activity.
Security
SEC.1 The Local Communications Solution Includes situations where
must support data security measures to nodes pass data but cannot
prevent unauthorised access to/use of access the content. An
smart metering data or functionality, and example would be where an
to prevent unauthorised access to/use electricity meter passes data
of Local Device data or functionality. to a display device from a gas
meter – the electricity meter
should not be able to access
the content of the gas data
SEC.2 The Local Communications Solution
shall support security measures that
employ cryptographic operations and
cryptographic keys
Data
DAT.1 The Local Communications Solution
shall support a defined data definition
standard or profile
Network
NET.1 The Local Communications Solution ‘Joining’ the network should
shall ensure that all Local Devices are involve some process whereby
required to join the network to access permission is granted – either
meter data and functionality by the customer, the energy
Supplier or automatically
through the use of
configurable security settings
NET.2 The Local Communications Solution
Page 59 of 155 9-Dec-08


shall be able to support multiple Local
Devices within a Home Area Network
NET.3 The Local Communications Solution Or, Network Time
shall use the clock and timing Synchronisation
information provided by smart Metering
Systems to set the time on the network it
administers
Installation & Maintenance
MOP.1 The Local Communication Solution must
not add significant time to the
installation of smart meters or local
devices for network configuration or
pairing activities
Customer Requirements
CUS.1 The Local Communications Solution
shall not affect or cause interference to
existing customer networks
CUS.2 The Local Communications Solution, For example, where a
where it requires customer activity, shall customer wants to pair a new
be simple to operate. Local Device
CUS.3 The Local Communications solution(s) For example, beyond
will place minimal requirements on confirming connection or
customers for day to day operation. removal of Local Devices, the
customer will not be expected
to take action to re-establish
communications following any
failure.
Table 9 Local Communications Requirements
7.2 Requirements Notes

A number of factors relating to Local Communications Solution requirements
are not explicit within the requirements shown above. These factors are
presented below.
These factors are relevant for the evaluation of solution options.

Ref Factor
F.1 Power within Gas Meters
There have been a number of questions about the possibility of
avoiding battery issues within smart gas meters by using wired power.
This would allow for consideration of a wider range of solutions for
Local (and WAN) communications.
A number of gas appliances already include gas and electricity

components.
Some European smart meter installations use low power (30v) wired
connections to link gas, water, heat and electricity meters for
communications purposes.
There are key regulations and standards relating to gas meters and
Page 60 of 155 9-Dec-08
Ref Factor
potential explosive atmospheres (ATEX).
Products are available to introduce two way communications for gas

meters that do not compromise the safety of the meters, or introduce
battery life issues.
The fundamental design of a gas meter as mechanical or electronic will

also be a factor in how much power it consumes.
Whilst possible (see standard below), gas meters that meet the safety
requirements to support electrical connections are viewed as too
expensive for consideration for mass market deployment.
A particular issue for GB gas metering is the extensive use of meter

boxes, which would require modification to meet ATEX requirements.6
The Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers, at the time of

preparing this document, is consulting upon the 3rd Edition of its’
standard entitled ‘Electrical connections and hazardous area
classification for gas metering equipment’.
F.2 Visiting Smart Meters

A key benefit of smart meters will be a reduction in the number and
therefore cost of field visits to read and maintain the meter.
However, there is no requirement that smart meters should result in an
end to all visits.
It is assumed that the Local Communications solution will support ‘Over
the Air’ upgrades that may be required for Local Devices, which could
include the firmware within a gas meter, and not just for the solution
itself.
e.g. Customers who use debit functionality extensively (daily or more
than daily) could require replacement batteries within the expected
smart meter asset life. This would apply to above average usage of any
functionality that would reduce battery life.
F.3 Battery Life Considerations
The Local Communications Development Group has discussed at
length the options for ensuring a reasonable balance is struck between
battery life/cost/customer feedback.
It is accepted that a gas meter cannot provide continuous
communications without a large and expensive battery in order to meet
the requirement for 10 years plus of operation.
At the same time, the immediacy of feedback to a customer display
device will be critical in assisting customers with managing their energy
consumption.
It is suggested that application software could manage the duty cycle in
gas meters to optimise battery life:
- waking up to transmit/receive information for Xms every 5
minutes or 30 minutes (with suitable information about delays
made available to customers)
- customer override option, allowing them to refresh the
6
More information on this subject is included in appendix F
Page 61 of 155 9-Dec-08
Ref Factor
information display by pushing a button on the meter to ‘wake’ it
up (similar to the debit ‘refresh’ discussed below)
- waking up more frequently when credit levels (in debit mode) are
below a configurable threshold, to ensure that credit purchase
messages are picked up quickly (or the customer could be
prompted to press a button to receive a ‘refresh’ of balances)
- where the gas supply has been disabled, remain dormant until
the customer pushes a button on the meter to reinstate gas
supply (as required by the SRSM meter specification)
Table 10 Local Communications Requirements Notes
7.3 Potential Additional Requirements

Requirements could also be derived to support the use of Local
Communications hardware to deliver the ‘Last Mile’ link for WAN
Communications.
Specific requirements for the smart metering system may also arise from the
Local Communications solution where a meter may be required to store data
for onward periodic transmission. Examples could include services configured
to transmit gas meter data on a daily basis via the electricity meter, or an
annual boiler diagnostic report.
Requirements may also arise from completing more detailed work on areas of
ambiguity – as a result of decisions or guidance on market model or
data/network ownership.
Page 62 of 155 9-Dec-08

8 Solution Options
This section of the document presents a number of solution options for the
hardware to be included as part of a smart metering system.
It uses a standard template to capture detail relating to each of the options.

This template is presented below with a description of the type of information
to be captured.
A number of solution options support more than one network protocol, or are
offered by vendors at different frequencies. Therefore there is not always a
one to one relationship between the silicon, the frequency, the protocol and
the data set supported.
In order to ensure that all potential considerations and aspects of a solution

are included in this document, details are recorded for all candidate solutions
in the market that it was possible to document.
Solution Name Website

Description: A description of the solution
Hardware: A description of the physical hardware used by the solution –
microcontroller, antenna etc.
Cost: Where available, a general view of the cost of the solution on a per
meter basis
Data: Speed of data transfer, any limits on packet sizes
Power: Points relevant to the power usage of the solution when it is
operating or dormant, and how this may effect the power
consumption of the meter or local devices.
Frequencies: Which of the frequencies (if applicable) does the solution support
Protocols: Does the solution support a variety of protocols? Does it use a
proprietary protocol, or place requirements/restrictions on the
protocol?
Data Does the solution support a variety of data formats? Does it use a
Exchange proprietary format, or place requirements/restrictions on the data
Format: format?
Use in other Is the solution used for other purposes, i.e. not for smart metering,
applications: but for building controls, telecare, entertainment etc.
Use in other Has the solution been used in a smart metering context in other
markets: markets? Can include where the solution is being considered by
other smart metering initiatives.
Maturity: Is the solution available today? If not, when will it be available?
Support for Capability of the solution to provide ‘last mile’ coverage for WAN
‘Last Mile’: Communications
For: Points supporting the solution in a smart metering context
Against: Issues associated with the solution in a smart metering context
Notes: Any other notes, web links to relevant materials etc.
Reference Date, Version and Provider of information used to populate the
table
Page 63 of 155 9-Dec-08
Table 11 Solution Options Guide
8.1 Solution Options Descriptions

Solutions are presented in alphabetical order.
Solution Bluetooth low energy www.bluetooth.org
Description: Formerly known as Wibree and Bluetooth Ultra Low Power, this
new solution option is primarily aimed at enabling small devices
and sensors to communicate with a hub. The initial applications
being considered include fitness and health, using a watch or
mobile phone to act as a hub of a Body Area Network.
The standard is expected to be finalised and formally adopted by

the Bluetooth SIG by Q2 2009.
Hardware: There will be standalone and dual mode Bluetooth low energy
chipsets, operating the low energy protocol stack or low energy
and classic stacks.
Standalone will be type installed in small end nodes, such as
watches and sensors.
Cost: <$1 for single mode chips, $1.50 for dual mode chips
Data: Approximately 200 kb/s
Power: Listens and transmits for 0.01% of time (compared to 1% listen
cycle for Bluetooth classic)
Advertises – 2ms
Connect request – 1ms
Send application data – 3ms
Frequencies: Operates at 2.4GHz using 40 channels (3 advertising, 37 data).
2 MHz channel spacing
0.5 modulation index GMSK (GFSK)
Protocols: Link Layer protocol manages connections and device discovery.
L2CAP is a standard protocol for Bluetooth used as a multiplexor.
Attribute Protocol used to transmit “attribute” values between
devices.
Data Has a single protocol that features 2 profiles for use – a remote
Exchange display profile and a sensor profile
Format:
Use in other ‘Classic’ Bluetooth is ubiquitous in mobile telephony and portable
applications: computing – over 2.5 billion enabled devices sold. 1 billion devices
a year and growing.
Use in other As an immature product, there are no uses of Bluetooth low energy
markets: in a smart metering context. Industrial automation using Bluetooth
is a 15 million chip a year market today and growing fast.
Maturity: Understood to be still under development. Reuses existing
protocol layers that have been proven interoperable and robust for
over 8 years for non-metering applications.
Support for Due to the relatively short range, it is not anticipated that Bluetooth
‘Last Mile’: low energy be suitable for WAN Last Mile
For: Enables cellular phones to talk with meters, allowing direct billing
and viewing of usage information from portable devices.
Against: No products available today
Page 64 of 155 9-Dec-08

Notes: ‘Classic’ Bluetooth radios, depending on the silicon provider, may

already be in a position to support ‘Dual Mode’ operations.
However, this will not be the case for all existing Bluetooth chips.
Specifically designed to do point-to-point connections well – does

not support mesh networking.
Reference: V0.6 by Robin Heydon from Cambridge Silicon Radio
Table 12 Bluetooth low energy
Solution M Bus www.m-bus.com

Description: Solution developed in Germany to support domestic utility
metering. Supports twisted pair and wireless.
Used widely throughout mainland Europe and supported by all
major meter manufacturers.
Standard available as EN 13757
Hardware: Radio chipset, with embedded protocol stack
Cost: Same as other 868Mhz radios i.e., approx €3.5 (for bidirectional
solution). Single radio chip costs less than €1.5
Data: Wireless M-Bus speed at 868MHz (66kBps/16kBps)
Wired M-Bus data transmission speed is very low (2400/300 Bps)
Power: Transmission Power 5..25mW. Ultra Low Power solution. Life Time
of meter device for 10 to 15 Years with typically 1..2 Ah Lithium
Battery.
Frequencies: 868MHz
Protocols: M-Bus protocol defines all 7 OSI layers
Data Object Identification System OBIS (For electricity meter covered by
Exchange IEC62056-61/ for Heat and Water meter covered by EN13757-1)
Format:
Use in other Designed specifically for metering applications
applications:
Use in other M-Bus forms part of the Dutch Smart Meter Specification7.
markets: Wireless M-Bus is designed to be used heat, water and gas
metering as well as heat cost allocators.
Proposed usage of wireless M-Bus in Germany and Austria.

Maturity: Over 80 companies have implemented M-Bus in their products.
CEN standard since 2001
Support for No, design suitable for “in home” communications
‘Last Mile’:
For: Well proven, widely deployed, 868Mhz good transmission
frequency, efficient data coding
Against: Issues relating to the interoperability of the standard and elements
from the overall architecture are not yet resolved.
Notes: Pending EN 13757-5 supports the use of repeaters/relays.
M-Bus also offers a wired option
7
Dutch Smart Meter Requirements v2.1 Final – February 2008 – page 6 of the P2 Companion
Standard describes the use of Wired and Wireless M-Bus communications.
Page 65 of 155 9-Dec-08
Reference: V2 Provided November 2008 by Uwe Pahl of Qvedis

Table 13 M-Bus
Solution Wavenis www.wavenis-osa.org

& www.coronis.com
Description: Wavenis is a wireless connectivity platform that features Ultra Low
Power and Long Range coverage capabilities. Wavenis has been
developed by Coronis (creation in 2000) to address the most
critical applications where devices are located in hard-to-reach
places with strong energy constraints for multi-years operation.
Offers today one of the most attractive price-performances ratio.
Dedicated to remote operation for both fixed and mobile Wireless
Sensor Networks.
Hardware: 1 - OEM cards, OEM platforms and ready-for-branding modules
(battery powered end points, autonomous range extenders, IP or
GPRS gateways, remote monitoring software). Technology core is
based on the Wavenis RF transceiver (second source CC1020
from TI) and separated MCU (MSP340 from TI)
2 - Next generation platform of Wavenis (Q1 2009) will be based
on a very innovative Wavenis System On Chip (enhanced ultra low
power Wavenis RF transceiver + ultra low power 32-bit MCU +
memory + drivers)
Cost: Down to 5 EUR for fully mounted & tested OEM cards
Data: 19,6kb/sec typical (up to 100kb/sec max)
Power: - Ultra Low Power: 10µA average operating current with 1 sec
Rx/Sby period (Rx duration of 500µs). Very sophisticated
mechanisms have been implemented to save power in this
scanning mode to avoid over-hearing phenomenon, filter false
detections, etc …
- Receiver peak current in “full run mode” is 18mA.
- Transmitter peak current in “full run mode” in 45mA at 25mW.
Frequencies: - 868MHz (EU), 915MHz (US), 433MHz (Asia)
- 50kHz bandwidth channels (fast FHSS over 16 to 50 channels)
Protocols: Because Wavenis is a wireless connectivity platform only, Wavenis
API can handle most of proprietary or standard application
protocols (KNX, io-homecontrol, Z-Wave, …).
Wavenis OEM cards can also support M-Bus specifications.
Data Wavenis is capable to embed any kind of payload data (from 1
Exchange byte to hundreds of bytes per radio frame)
Format:
Use in other Home Automation (lighting control), Industrial Automation (valve
applications: monitoring, tank level control, vibration sensor, temperature
sensor, digital sensors, …), Alarm & Security (home access control,
home alarm systems), Medical (panic button, automatic fall
detection) UHF RFID (container and people identification &
tracking, temperature tracking)
Use in other 1 - Water AMR/AMI (SAUR, Elster AMCO, VEOLIA, Sensus, …)
markets: 2 - Gas AMR/AMI (ChinaGas, GasNatural @ Spain, …)
3 – Electricity AMR/AMI (EDMI, …)
4 – Home Automation (Schneider @ Denmark, …)
Maturity: Milestone of 3,000,000 Wavenis enabled devices deployed
worldwide to be reached by end of 2008
Page 66 of 155 9-Dec-08

Support for 1 – Up to 25mW output power class Wavenis modules offer 1km
‘Last Mile’: Line of Sight (LOS) thanks to -113dBm sensitivity (50kHz
bandwidth receiver) with -3dBi helicoidal antenna.
2 – 500mW power class Wavenis modules offer 4km range. These
modules are usually intended to range extenders for large scale
networks.
3 – Wavenis supports Star, Tree and Mesh network topologies.
For: 1- Field proven technology with large scale deployment worldwide
2 - Hi-reliable technology thanks to implementation of fast
Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) techniques
combined with data interleaving and Forward Error Correction
(BCH) mechanisms. Encryption is implemented in option upon
customer request.
3 – With 17 other companies, Coronis launched (June 2008) the
Wavenis Open Standard Alliance (www.wavenis-osa.org) which
paves the way of the Wavenis standardization to play a major role
worldwide in the “Short Range Wireless” markets.
Against:
Notes:
Reference: V1 provided March 2008 by Bev Adams of Elster
V2 provided Sep 2008 by Christophe Dugas of Coronis, an Elster
Group company & Wavenis-OSA
Table 14 Wavenis
Note – ZigBee, at the request of group members, is presented in two iterations

to acknowledge the different functionality and performance of differing
frequencies
Solution ZigBee @ www.zigbee.org

868MHz
Description: ZigBee is based on IEEE 802.15.4 PHY/MAC incorporating
different frequency bands. Further standard enhancements
incorporating sub-1 GHz specifications for China and Japan.
Networks can contain up to 65536 nodes.
Supports two types of devices:

- Full Function Device (FFD), which can co-ordinate or
participate in a network
- Reduced Function Device (RFD), which can only participate
in a network
Supports 128-bit encryption
Hardware: Hardware implementations are either based on single-chip
solutions, SoC or MCM, or dual chip solutions with MCU adaptable
to various requirements of ZigBee nodes.
RF IC / MCU’s for IEEE802.15.4 sub-1GHz are available from
ATMEL.
RF IC / SoC’s / MCU’s for IEEE 802.15.4 2.4 GHz are available
from ATMEL and other IC supplier
The required MCU hardware resources, e.g. EEPROM, SRAM,
GPIO’s, ADC’s, PWM, etc. are selectable according to the current
needs
Page 67 of 155 9-Dec-08
Cost: ZigBee at sub-1 GHz (e.g. 868 MHz) are cost competitive to
ZigBee at 2.4 GHz solutions for current pricing as well as over time
Data: IEEE 802.15.4, sub-1 GHz data rates are
868MHz: BPSK: 20 kb/s
O-QPSK: 100 kb/s (optional)
915 MHz: BPSK: 40 kb/s
O-QPSK: 250 kb/s (optional)
2.4 GHz: O-QPSK: 250 kb/s
The PSDU length of one frame is max. 127 bytes incl. MAC
overhead.
Power: Varies by individual chip – typical average is μ1A.
ZigBee devices come in two flavours for power consumption –

routers and end devices.
Routers are expected to operate continuously to support and drive
the mesh network and therefore require a constant source of
power.
End Devices are battery powered radios that only come to life
when required to transmit or receive information. Usage profiles –
frequency of transmission and the size of those transmissions - will
determine the eventual battery requirements.
Frequencies: IEEE 802.15.4 specifies various frequency bands,
- sub-1 GHz bands are specified for regions:
Europe: 868 MHz (1 channel)
BPSK (20 kb/s), OQPSK (100kb/s)
America: 915 MHz (10 channel)
BPSK (40 kb/s), OQPSK (250kb/s)
- 2.4 GHz (16 channels)
OQPSK (250kb/s)
Protocols: No difference to ZigBee @ 2.4 GHz
Protocol is transparent and does not distinguish between
frequency bands. Handling of different frequency bands and data
rates is done by MAC and NWK layers.
Data No difference to ZigBee @ 2.4 GHz
Exchange ZigBee specifies a mandatory data format, however proprietary
Format: formats are supported, too.
Use in other Total ZigBee node and chipset units – 5 million in 2006, 120 million
applications: in 20118
ZigBee is already used in different markets like home automation,
industrial and commercial building automation, security
applications and has a high potential to enter other markets like
health care, medical, remote control, toys, etc.
Use in other
markets:
Maturity: ZigBee Alliance has a history since 2002. The IEEE802.15.4 and
ZigBee specifications are permanent under development, e.g.
Smart Energy Profile available 2008, ZigBee Pro Stack available
January 2008.
8
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 68 of 155 9-Dec-08
A wide range of ZigBee applications in the smart metering area as

well as other applications are already deployed. Sub-1 GHz
implementations are starting to enter the market because of their
improved robustness and coverage compared to ZigBee 2.4 GHz.
Support for ZigBee at 868 MHz is well suited to support last mile requirements,
‘Last Mile’: refer to section 10.5.1. This is ensured by the number of supported
nodes within a network together with the better propagation
condition at 868 MHz. The cost of a sub-1 GHz ZigBee network is
not different to a 2.4 GHz ZigBee network, it is likely that the cost
may be less because of reduced number of nodes (i.e. no or a
limited number of repeater nodes required to overcome critical
propagation conditions).
However, current GB regulations (refer to section 9.2.1 Frequency

Information and ECC report 37) prevent use of a large mesh
network deployment outside premises. This restriction is true for all
systems in the 868 MHz frequency band forming a network.
For: Combination of a powerful open and global ZigBee standard with
all the advantages provided operated at superior performing sub-1
GHz avoiding the interference limited 2.4 GHz band.
Against: ZigBee certification for sub-1 GHz modules still pending.
Notes: ZigBee sub-1 GHz solution:
Refer to: http://meshnetics.com/zigbee-modules/zigbit900/
Reference: v1 provided October 2008 by Sascha Beyer of Atmel Germany
Table 15 ZigBee @ 868MHz
Solution ZigBee @ www.zigbee.org

2.4GHz
Description: Open global standard developed by the ZigBee Alliance for low
cost low power wireless mesh networking for monitoring and
control. Supported by 300 member companies and with 22
certified vendors of stack/silicon combinations. Meter
manufacturers Itron and Landis+GYr are Promoter members.
Based on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard MAC and PHY

Hardware: Typical ZigBee solutions are one of three types;
- System on chip (SoC) single chip solutions with radio and
microcontroller running ZigBee stack and application
- Network coprocessor solution with SoC running the networking
stack and the application running on a host microcontroller
- Dual-chip solutions (older) with an RF transceiver and a separate
microcontroller running the stack and application.
Radio chips available from Ember, ST, TI, Freescale, Renesas,

Jennic and others
Cost: ~$3-$4 for SoC devices in millions of units typical
- ~$5 for SoC devices in low volume (1000-off)
- Typical BOM cost ~$6-$10 depending on volume, antenna etc.
- Modules available <$20 in low volume, <$10 in high volume.
- Prices likely to drop over next 2-3 years due to market maturity,
new technologies and growth.
Page 69 of 155 9-Dec-08

Data: - Radios transmit at 250kbps, 128-byte (max) packets

- With networking overhead, this typically results in real application
data throughput point to point of up to ~50kbps, which then varies
depending on topology and configuration, e.g. how many hops,
level of security, using retries etc. Worst case usually >10kbps
effective throughput over many hops, with security,
acknowledgements etc.
- Not suitable for high volume data streaming applications such as
voice or video, but reasonably high bandwidth allows for large
networks for e.g. sensing and control.
Power: ZigBee includes mains powered ‘always on’ devices for routing
messages and battery powered ‘end devices’ typically for sensor
and switch type devices.
- Typical SoC devices operate at 20-35mA when in receive or
transmit, with the radio typically accounting for 2/3 of the power
consumption in RX/TX.
- e.g. in TX mode, EM250 operates at 35.5mA at +3dBm, 41mA at
+5dBm
- Typical SoC devices when in deep sleep, operate at <1uA.
Frequencies: 2400MHz – 2483.5MHz (2.4GHz)
Protocols: The ZigBee standard describes in detail the over the air protocol
used, however there are a number of layers to consider when
looking at ZigBee protocols;
1. MAC layer – uses standard IEEE 802.15.4 messaging for point
to point communications in the mesh network
2. Network Layer (NWK) – ZigBee adds headers for networking in a
multi-hop network (end to end device addressing etc.) and security
3. Application Support Sublayer (APS) – Provides mechanisms for
managing end to end messaging across multiple hops in a mesh
network e.g. addressing endpoints in a device, triggering route
discovery, managing end to end retries
4. ZigBee Cluster Library (ZCL) - ZigBee defines a library of
interoperable message types called ‘clusters’ that cover a variety
of device types. This library can be added to when creating support
for new applications.
5. Application Profile – As ZigBee is targeted at a number of
different markets and application types, it is appropriate to have an
application profile definition which defines how each device and
application will behave, which clusters (messages) are in use and
how. Any given device may have multiple endpoints defined, each
of which can support a different application profile, defined device
and set of clusters. At present there are 4 Application Profiles
completed in the standard; Home Automation, Commercial
Building Automation, Smart Energy and Telecommunications
Applications. Products may be certified to an application profile
through independent test houses NTS and TUV. Non-interoperable
products may also be certified as “Manufacturer Specific”, which
means that they coexist with other ZigBee networks but do not
interoperate.
New application profiles are being defined continuously. For

example there is currently considerable effort ongoing in task
groups and member companies to standardise the use of IP in a
ZigBee network.
Data Format is defined by the ZigBee specification, in the ZigBee
Page 70 of 155 9-Dec-08
Exchange Cluster Library and Application Profiles.

Format:
Custom protocols / data formats are allowed, but would not be
guaranteed interoperable.
Use in other Total ZigBee node and chipset units – 5 million in 2006, 120 million
applications: in 20119
Home automation, telecoms (local)
Use in other ZigBee has a wide appeal across multiple markets, and is currently
markets: in use in products in;
- Smart Energy, for Local Communications e.g. Southern California
Edison in the USA, Victoria in Australia, and last mile
communications, e.g. City of Gothenburg
- Home Automation, including lighting control (e.g. Control4),
heating control (e.g. Kalirel), security (e.g. Alertme.com), roller
blinds etc.
- Commercial Building Automation, including lighting and heating
control (e.g. TAC/Schneider, Siemens) and fire and safety.
- Industrial control such as ball valve monitoring/control (Eltav)
- Health monitoring products are in early stages of development.
- Niche markets such as marine electronics (e.g. Ray marine)
Geographically, ZigBee has products all around the world.
Maturity: The ZigBee Alliance was formed in 2002. ZigBee was first
released as a standard in December 2004. Since then there have
been 2 major releases of the standard, one in 2006 and the most
recent, adding ZigBee PRO features in 2007. With a number of
products now certifying for Home Automation, Manufacturer
Specific and Smart Energy, ZigBee 2007 is regarded now as
mature.
A number of vendors of ZigBee silicon have had customers with

products in the market for a number of years with earlier variants of
ZigBee stacks. It is generally accepted that about 7 million
ZigBee/IEEE 802.15.4 chips were sold worldwide for inclusion in
products in 2007.
Support for ZigBee is well suited to last mile communications because of many
‘Last Mile’: features;
- Scalability of the mesh network allows for many hundreds or
thousands of devices in a single network, communicating across
multiple hops from source to destination.
- Robust communications is provided through retry mechanisms.
- Security can be added, even to the point of having individual
application link keys between electricity meters and the
concentrator.
- A network that makes use of powered devices to provide a mesh
while facilitating battery powered end devices is entirely suitable to
metering systems for electricity, gas and water.
- Excellent bandwidth available at 2.4GHz to provide not only for
AMR and configuration data, but also perhaps other data in the
future, such as alarms or health monitoring of elderly.
- 16 channels at 2.4GHz provide scope for further increased
availability of bandwidth as different networks in the same area
can occupy different channels.
- Excellent range can be achieved within regulations, up to 1Km
9
In-Stat Market Research “ZigBee 2007: What it Iz and What it Iz not”
Page 71 of 155 9-Dec-08
line of sight has been shown.
There are a number of examples of the use of ZigBee in last mile

communications for AMR already, the most notable in Europe
being the City of Gothenburg project currently being installed for
gas and electricity meters in Sweden. A number of meter
manufacturers have already implemented AMR systems using
ZigBee.
For: - Open Global Standard, supported by 300 companies and 22
stack/silicon solutions
- A new technology that is mature and accepted by the smart
energy community, yet future proof
- Cost-effective technology that will become even more cost
effective in the next 2-3 years
- Suitable for Local Communications AND last mile
communications, opening up the possibility of a single
communications chip in smart meters covering both!
- Robust, secure, scalable mesh networking
- Good bandwidth availability for a monitoring and control network,
some scope for future use
- A number of working ZigBee Smart Energy products in the
market and arriving into the market in 2008
Against: - Perception of issues with propagation in buildings, however
building construction affects all wireless technologies and can be
shown not to be an issue with ZigBee at 2.4GHz in most situations.
When there are propagation issues these can usually be mitigated
by use of the ZigBee mesh network.
- Perception of interference issues with other 2.4GHz wireless
technologies, in particular 802.11b/g/n. While there is some basis
for concerns they have been satisfactorily addressed by the
standard, and tested in independent studies (ref: “ZigBee / WiFi
Coexistence Report” by Gilles Thonet and Patrick Allard-Jacquin,
Schneider Electric, 29/01/2008)
Notes:
Reference Updated April 2008 – v2 – David Egan & John Cowburn
Updated (minor) August 2008 – David Egan
Table 16 ZigBee @ 2.4GHz
Solution Z Wave www.z-wave.com

Description: • Wireless control mesh networking technology
• Used by over 200 large companies with real products in the
market
• Driven by the Z-Wave Alliance – i.e. by the largest industry
alliance in the area of home control open for any company to
join under RAND terms
• Implemented in over 300 interoperable home control products
that are on the market
• Best-in-Class level of interoperability
Between multiple vendor’s products of the same
application
Between multiple applications (e.g. lighting and HVAC)
Between multiple generations of Z-Wave
• These products include the 2 key energy consuming
applications, lighting and HVAC
Page 72 of 155 9-Dec-08

• Key home control companies (lighting and HVAC) in the UK

have adopted and launched Z-Wave products in the market
• Proven ability to rapidly drive specifications in Z-Wave Alliance -
e.g. typical process for new application class under 4 months (!)
• Fully backward product compatibility
• Strong, reliable certification program in place
• Lowest cost for certification in industry - $750 with test lab cost
• Highly mature, proven technology
• Achieved status as well-accepted de-facto industry standard
Hardware: • Available as low cost, low power system on chip (SoC) solution
• 3rd generation of single chips in high volume production
• 4th generation single chips out in Q4 of 2008
• SoC: RF transceiver, 8051 MCU, memory and rich set of
peripherals
64 kbyte OTP or 32 kbyte Flash – Plus up to 16 kbyte RAM
Up to 30 GPIOs – ADC – Triac controller – PWM output
On chip Full Speed USB 2.0 controller + transceiver (!)
• Enables true single chip product solutions as lowest cost
Cost: • Lowest possible cost, thanks to
FSK technology with low complexity
Compact protocol stack sizes
• From sub $2.00 to $3.00 in high volumes
• New 4th generation SoC to be released Q4 2008 with even more
competitive pricing
• From $3.00 to $4.00 for complete module (full Z-Wave function –
add this module to any product to make it a full Z-Wave product)
in high volumes
• Modern single chip implementation in either 180nm or 130 nm
CMOS
• Sustainable cost benefit due to much higher complexity of
competitors
Data: • 40 kbit/s data communication rate is ideal compromise of
throughput for control applications, range, and robustness
• Small packet size leads to much higher efficiency and lower
errors than competing technologies
• 100 kbit/s available in 4th generation single chip
Power: • Leader in low power consumption – System on chip with:
20 mA in receive mode (with MCU running)
20 mA in transmit mode (with MCU running; up to +
5dBm)
30-80 μA average power consumption in battery-to-
battery networks
1 μA in sleep mode (with POR, interrupts, and wakeup
timer running)
• Only standard with support of battery-to-battery networks (!)
• No risk of early power source depletion due to WiFi interference
etc.
Frequencies: • Solution is designed from ground up for reliability against
interference
• 868MHz (Europe) – 915 MHz (US) – Other sub-1-GHz (Asia)
• Addition of 2.4 GHz support for regions without permitted sub-
1GHz bands in 4th generation chip. Sub-1GHz remains core
business
• Countries such as Japan and China that today don’t permit the
Page 73 of 155 9-Dec-08

use of the 1GHz band are starting to open the 1GHz band
because they recognise the value of 1GHz communication as
well as the large issues on wireless low power control in the
2.4GHz space
• Only single chip with support of sub-1-GHz and 2.4 GHz in the
market to address geographies that really don’t allow anything
other than 2.4GHz
• Multi-channel operation with concurrent listening on all
channels
• Viable strategy for use of license exempt bands in control
applications
Suitable for long term product deployment and long-term
battery use
Superior robustness against interference
Mitigates the risk of increased support calls and product
returns
Protocols: • Z-Wave protocol is highly mature mesh networking protocol
specifically designed for home control applications
• Z-Wave protocol consists of PHY, MAC, NWK, and Device
class layers
• Z-Wave device class layer defines command classes and
device classes creating interoperable products. The classes are
a result of Z-Wave Alliance working groups.
Data • Very dense packet size leads to much higher efficiency and
Exchange lower errors than competing technologies
Format: • Commands can be extended without braking compatibility (!)
• Z-Wave security is AES-128 based, either as the symmetric key
based Z-WaveSec Plug & Play or as the asymmetric key based
Z-WaveIPTLS
Designed for interoperability also in setup / installation
process
On-chip security support
Use in other • Used in practically all home control applications (lighting
applications: control, HVAC, drapery and shade control, garage door
openers, door locks, security systems, sensors (movement,
door/window, humidity, temperature, smoke, CO, etc.),
gateways
• Used control of AV / CE devices (e.g. in universal remote
control)
Use in other • Focus on home control / Unified Home Control is the major
markets: strength
• Used in smart metering application by Modstroem in Denmark
• Used in sub-metering and Energy Conservation applications by
DEST in Denmark along with many OEM partners
Maturity: • Very high – Clear strength and factor of competitive
differentiation
Used in over 300 products – available for more than six
years
Proven for interoperability and backward compatibility
4th generation system-on-chip solutions and 5th
generation software
Support for • Z-Wave is not recommended by Zensys for last-mile usage
‘Last Mile’: (Zensys strongly believes that other short range radio
technologies are not suited for last mile solutions). However Z-
Wave integrates directly with TCP/IP based WAN technologies
Page 74 of 155 9-Dec-08

through the Z/IP architecture – converging Z-Wave and IP. Z/IP

allows IP traffic to be transported on Z-Wave and to carry Z-
Wave Commands in UDP packets. This architecture is a great
option for the last mile. Further Zensys has a very strong
bridging capability to other networks. This bridging capability is
currently used by Horstmann and Trilliant to bridge the last mile
technologies.
For: • 2.4GHz interference risk is non-existent
• Lowest cost
• Lowest power consumption
• Full eco-system/cross-segment product portfolio available to
communicate to technically but also to build business
propositions with from a business perspective
• Advanced Energy Control framework builds on top of current
portfolio instead of starting from scratch
• Mesh networking and long range ensures minimum installation
costs and ease of installation
• Well accepted industry standard enables integration with
today’s and future in-home solutions
• Lowest risk for long-term, 10-20 year deployment
Against: • Is portrayed as “proprietary standard”
But program for second source / licensing is in place and
being executed upon – second source to be available in
the first half of 2009
Notes:
Reference V1 provided April 2008 by Bernd Grohmann of Zensys
V2 provided Aug 2008 by Niels Thybo Johansen of Zensys
Table 17 Z-Wave
8.2 Other Solution Options

This section of the document lists a number of other candidate solutions for
Local Communications. It gives a short description of the solution, website
details where available, and an explanation of why it is not included in the
main evaluation process.
Solution ANT
Description Very low power – 10 year operation on a watch battery. Operates at
2.4GHz. Has 1 million nodes in operation. 43 member alliance.
Website www.thisisant.com
Reason for not Is a proprietary solution, also quite new.
including in
evaluation
Solution BACnet
Description American developed protocol used mainly for HVAC applications in
building automation.
Website www.bacnet.org
Reason for not Specifically aimed at building control – no apparent smart metering
including in utilisation
evaluation
Page 75 of 155 9-Dec-08

Solution Bluetooth
Description Low power radio for personal area networks with up to seven
nodes.
Single chip radios are available from a wide variety of suppliers, at
approx $5 per end, with hundreds of millions of units sold per
annum. Very well established standard, particularly in the mobile
telephony and PC markets.
Operates at 2.4GHz, with average power consumption of 5000μA
Website www.bluetooth.com
Reason for not Although there are a number of standards for Bluetooth, some of
including in which may include greater signal propagation and more efficient
evaluation power management, Bluetooth is viewed as too power-hungry and
not capable of sufficient range to meet the SRSM requirements.
Solution EkaNET
Description Proprietary wireless solution, partnered with a number of meter
manufacturers,
Uses IPv6 standards.
Website www.ekasystems.com
Reason for not Appears to be aimed specifically at SCADA deployments, or
including in network based smart grid initiatives – also features WAN gateways
evaluation and other head-end systems
Solution HomePlug
Description: An open standard for powerline communications developed by a
consortium of companies.
Command and Control is available from Renesas, or Ytran chipset
plus line coupling devices. Cost of approx $8 per end.
Three standards exist depending upon the application:
- AV High speed
- Home Plug V1 for ethernet over mains applications
- Command and Control running at speeds of 1-10 kBit/sec
depending on conditions.
The Command and Control standard is probably most suited to
metering due to its low cost.
Used in homes to network Ethernet devices.
HomePlug standard is reasonably mature. Command and Control
is a recent development
In 2008 work started on an initiative to operate ZigBee over
HomePlug networks.
Website www.homeplug.org
Reason for Is a wired solution only – hence not suitable for gas metering.
not including Remains a potential option for electricity metering, or for inclusion
in evaluation in other RF capable components to provide links to Ethernet
devices.
Solution Insteon
Page 76 of 155 9-Dec-08

Description Established North American home control protocol. Typically used

over wire, but also supports RF.
Website www.insteon.net
Reason for not Emphasis on wired solutions does not match gas requirements,
including in also does not currently support secure communications
evaluation
Solution ISA100.11a
Description Provides a wireless industrial process automation network to
address control, alerting, and monitoring applications plant wide. It
focuses on battery-powered field devices with the ability to scale to
large installations and addresses wireless infrastructure, interfaces
to legacy host applications plus security, and network management
requirements in a functionally scalable manner.
Website http://snipurl.com/isa100
Reason for not Still under development
including in
evaluation
Solution KNX
Description Originally developed by Siemens and Merten, primarily aimed at
home and building automation. Well established and promoted
standard based out of Brussels.
Documented by world and European standards – ISO/IEC 14543,
EN50090, EN13321-1
Uses the same upper-layer protocol for different physical layers –
twisted pair, power line, Ethernet and RF at 868MHz.
Communicates data at 16384 bits/sec.
Used the same modulation scheme as Wireless M-Bus in S2 mode.
Website www.knx.org
Reason for not Has not been proposed for use in energy metering.
including in Attempts to contact KNX alliance have not resulted in any interest
evaluation in participating.
Solution OneNet
Description Open Source low power wireless standard - partners include
Renesas, Freescale and Texas Instruments.
Features include:
• Low power wireless with 1000 foot range and 25 channels
• Claims to be very low cost - $2 in high volume
• Targeted at battery powered devices
• Supports secure encrypted Communications
• Star and peer to peer topology
• 38 to 230 kbit/s
• 868 MHz
• Supports 2000 devices in a network
• 3 to 5 year battery life with AAA cell
Website www.one-net.info
Page 77 of 155 9-Dec-08
Reason for not New standard, main focus appears to be battery operated devices.
including in
evaluation
Solution OpenTherm
Description Communications protocol used to control heating applications.
Appears to be wired/wireless and has been developed in Holland.
Website www.opentherm.eu
Reason for not Specific application for heating
including in
evaluation
Solution PhyNet
Description IEEE 802.15.4 solution that uses IP. Looks to be a competitor to
ZigBee, although it also looks more expensive and more suited to
industrial application for sensor management, rather than in a
metering/home context.
Website No website
Reason for not Very New
including in
evaluation
Solution Sensinode
Description The IEEE 802.15.4 compliant radio modules from Radiocrafts
combined with the 6LoWPAN compliant NanoStack from
Sensinode offers integrators super compressed IPv6 over low
power radios in a compact module solution. The use of end-to-end
open source IP technology over a proven radio platform provides
an excellent and scalable solution for IP-based monitoring and
control systems like advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and
wireless sensor networks (WSN). The Sensinode NanoStack meets
the 6LoWPAN (IPv6 over Low power WPAN) specifications
released in 2007 and offers a scalable and robust architecture for a
wireless mesh network where all nodes cooperate to transport
information almost like the Internet. By using many small radio
modems, a low-power wireless network can cover large
geographical areas using the licence-free frequency band at 2,45
GHz. The self-configuring and self-healing properties of the
6LoWPAN network offer redundancy and low maintenance cost.
Website www.sensinode.com
Reason for not Very new, believed to be proprietary offering
including in
evaluation
Solution SimpliciTI
Description Proprietary network protocol supporting up to 100 nodes in a simple
network – supports only 5 commands, uses very small amounts of
memory and power.
Offered in sub 1Ghz and 2.4GHz silicon
Website TI Website
Page 78 of 155 9-Dec-08
Reason for not Proprietary solution – targets smaller devices – no specific smart
including in metering implementations
evaluation
Solution WiFi
Description Established high power standard, prevalent in many homes.
Typically used for broadband internet connections and multimedia
delivery.
Works at 2.4GHz.
Website www.wi-fi.org
Reason for not Power consumption is very high, with propagation issues for a
including in significant proportion of GB home types. Also concerns over
evaluation conflicts and interference with customers’ existing wireless
networks.
Low Power WiFi options are emerging, mainly driven by Intel –
GainSpan have a prototype module that will run for 10 years on an
AA cell. The Intel ‘Cliffside’ initiative is also working in this area.
Solution Wireless HART

Description 2.4GHz, Open Standard, MAC addressing, Mesh networking
Website www.hartcomm2.org
Reason for not Aimed specifically at manufacturing processing applications, mainly
including in in North America.
evaluation
There are many other emerging technologies in this area that have not been
included in this section. Examples include EnOcean, Ozmo, Cliffside from Intel
etc.
Page 79 of 155 9-Dec-08

9 Additional Considerations
The Local Communications Development Group, and the wider SRSM project,
has considered a number of topics related to Local Communications.
These include addressing protocols, radio frequencies and data exchange

formats. The information gathered and considered on these topics is
presented for completeness below.
It is acknowledged that a number of the solutions technologies evaluated by

the group are strictly limited in terms of the protocols and frequencies, whilst
others may be flexible in supporting a range of options.
It is not the preference of the group to recommend a requirement for a truly

flexible solution if it is not available on the market currently, or would add
unnecessary cost to the deployment of smart metering. Therefore, if any
solution cannot support IPv6, or operate at 433MHz, this has not counted
against it in the evaluation process.
Placeholder to document the potential protocols that could be used for Local
Communications networks. A number of these may be specifically linked to
the physical media solution.
9.1 Network & Addressing Protocols

Protocol IPv6
Description: An internet layer protocol for packet-switched networks. It offers a
greatly extended address space over the previous IPv4, allowing
for more IP addresses.
IPv6 also features enhanced security provisions
Used by/for: The majority of internet activity now uses IPv4 or IPv6.
For: IPv6 is likely to be the preferred protocol for WAN
Communications.
Potential to use a simple version of IP – STM.

Against: Headers and Footers for IP add significantly to the data packet
size. It would take in excess of 50 ZigBee packets to transmit one
IP packet (and this would result in 50 acks)
Notes:
Protocol 6LowPan
Description: Stands for IPv6 over Low Power Wireless Personal Area
Networks, a protocol designed to send and receive IPv6 packets
over IEEE 802.15 networks.
A number of practical issues relating to packet sizes and
addressing schemes remain to be addressed.
Used by/for: Still being developed
Page 80 of 155 9-Dec-08

For: Could deliver end to end protocol solution for Suppliers and
Authorised Parties
Against: Protocol is still under development
Notes:
Page 81 of 155 9-Dec-08

9.2 Frequency Considerations

The Local Communications Development Group considered the potential
frequencies to be used for low power radio solutions. The details of these
discussions are presented below for completeness.
It is acknowledged that the solutions considered by the group are specifically

tied to a single frequency – it would not be possible, today, to consider the
opportunities to use Wavenis or M-Bus at 2.4GHz.
Therefore the solution recommendation will determine the frequency, rather

than the frequency determining the solution recommendation.
9.2.1 Frequency Information

General principles with regard to frequency bands:
• Higher frequency means shorter wavelength
• Antenna length is proportional to wavelength – higher frequencies use
shorter antenna
• At a given power output, transmission distance is normally further for
large wavelengths (lower frequencies) than for shorter wavelengths
(higher frequencies)
• Higher frequencies are normally allocated a larger bandwidth, enabling
the transmission of data at higher rates.
Frequency 169MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for: Paging band, delegated to AMR
Signal
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: No chipsets currently available for 2-way communications – it is
used for 1-way communication only
Frequency 184MHz
Description: Licensed band
Used by/for:
Signal
Propagation:
Power Efficient power per distance
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Can purchase bandwidth from Ofcom.
Page 82 of 155 9-Dec-08

Currently only using this band for 1-way push communications

(e.g. water AMR), therefore would not meet 2-way communications
requirements with existing products (new chip sets would need to
be developed)
Frequency 433-434MHz
Description: Unlicensed ISM band
Used by/for: Well used frequency, typically used for car key fobs.
Has been used for heat metering in Europe
Signal Good
Propagation:
Power More battery efficient than higher frequency options
requirements:
Longevity of
frequency
allocation:
Notes: Support (by existing chips) for open standards is not evident
Security may be an issue (e.g. for financial transactions)
Frequency 868-870MHz
Description: Unlicensed European ISM band (915MHz in North America)
Used by/for: Z-Wave, Wireless M Bus, ZigBee, Wavenis.
Minimal usage in other applications.
Signal Good
Propagation:
Power Has well defined maximum duty cycles and transmission powers
requirements: (5mW to 25mW).
Longevity of Unlicensed European band, unlikely to be revoked, but risk
frequency remains
allocation:
Notes: Supports 3 channels.
Current GB regulations prevent use of frequency for
communications outside of a property – i.e. could not form a mesh
of smart meters in a street to connect to a data concentrator.
Transmit duty cycle limited to 1%, or works on ‘listen before
transmit’ basis.
Less attractive to higher bandwidth applications.
Frequency 2.45GHz
Description: Unlicensed worldwide ISM band
Used by/for: ZigBee, WiFi, Bluetooth, Microwave Ovens, Home Video repeaters
Signal
Propagation:
Power Signal can be amplified to improve propagation
Requirements: Has a maximum transmission power of 10mW
Longevity of Unlicensed global band, unlikely to be revoked, but risk remains
frequency
Page 83 of 155 9-Dec-08

allocation:
Notes: No limits on transmit duty cycle.
Issues have been reported when attempting to use 2.4GHz for
water metering applications as this frequency has particular
problems with the resonating frequency of water.
9.2.2 Licensed or Unlicensed

An ideal solution for smart metering would be to use a licensed band. This
would guarantee the availability of interference-free bandwidth for many years.
However, the current licensed band for metering in the UK, 184MHz, only
supports one-way communications, operates at a frequency unique to this
country, and has therefore not attracted solution providers in any significant
numbers.
Use of a licensed band for Local Communications could also restrict the
number of devices within a home that would be capable of communicating
with a meter.
The unlicensed ISM bands do support two way communications, do have

active and growing markets for radio transceivers, and these are the bands
being selected for smart metering and AMI implementations in other markets.
The volumes of silicon chips being sold for these bands make the unit cost
much lower than those for licensed bands ($3 vs. £70)10.
The use of unlicensed bands does come with the risk of interference from
other devices as they establish themselves at particular frequencies. The
2.4GHz band already includes microwave ovens, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, TV signal
repeaters and more. However, there are a number of techniques in use to
allow devices to co-exist effectively within frequency bands.
9.3 Data Exchange Format Options

A number of these may linked to the specific solution, whilst other solutions
may support the use of a range of data exchange formats.
A more detailed review of the convergence between GB smart metering data

requirements and the existing format options would be recommended.
Data ANSI
Exchange
Format
Description: ANSI C12 is the collective prefix for a number of North American
electricity metering standards:
C12.18 – Protocol for 2 way communications using an optical port
C12.19 – Data tables for use with C12.18
C12.21 – Update of C12.18 for use with a modem
C12.22 – Interface to data communication networks
10
Technical Architecture for UK Domestic Smart Meter Systems, Alistair Morfey, Cambridge
Consultants 2007
Page 84 of 155 9-Dec-08
Work has been done to map C12.19 to an XML Schema

Used by/for: Most major meter manufacturers supply ANSI C12 compliant
meters to the American market
For: Mature, metering specific standards. Have an existing XML
Schema
Against: Levels of support for gas metering?
Notes:
Data Obis
Exchange DLMS/COSEM
Format
Description: Definition of standardised metering objects (Electricity, Water,
Heat, and Gas Metering covered)
Used by/for: Commonly used in Electricity metering in Europe, gaining adoption
elsewhere in metering
For: Standardised, EN13757-1 (Communication Systems for meters
and remote reading of meters -Part 1:Data Exchange)
Against: Seen as over-specified and too complex for use within the Local
Communications context
Notes: Parts of the standard are used in MBUS implementations.
Data XML
Exchange
Format
Description: Extensible Markup Language, a general purpose specification for
creating custom markup languages – allowing GB smart metering
to develop a bespoke and flexible data exchange format.
Used by/for: Global standard for data exchanges, used in an increasing number
of applications.
For: Would allow for an exact fit with GB smart metering requirements
and applications, would also remain future flexible to
accommodate market innovation.
XML can be compressed substantially, particularly if a known
schema is available.
Against: Use of XML for Local Communications could place an
unacceptably high overhead on the microcontroller itself. XML
support could easily require more space than is typically available
on low power radio microcontrollers. Implementation is feasible,
but at the cost of adding memory and co-processors and
decreasing battery life.
A bespoke GB smart metering XML schema would require

development and ongoing governance.
Notes:
Data ZigBee Smart

Exchange Energy
Format
Description: Specific ZigBee profile defining device descriptions, standard
Page 85 of 155 9-Dec-08

interfaces and practices for smart energy applications.
Developed and maintained by the ZigBee Alliance.

Used by/for: Smart metering and AMI activities in other markets
For: Specific solution for smart metering using low power wireless
technology based on an open standard approach
Against: Has been developed specifically to address Southern California
Edison’s AMI requirements (and is currently being adapted to
include requirements from Victoria in Australia).
Notes:
Page 86 of 155 9-Dec-08

10 Evaluation of Solution Options

This section of the document details the evaluation process undertaken by the
Local Communications Development Group.
This evaluation exercise has necessarily been conducted as a desktop

exercise. Wherever empirical evidence has been available, from similar
evaluations or actual deployments, this has been considered.
Throughout the process, it has been noted that the technology receiving the
highest rating will not necessarily be recommended by the group.
Note: In previous versions of this report, there was content covering data
traffic modelling to assist with understanding the type and scale of data
exchanges expected.
Following discussions within the Development Group, it was concluded that
any data modelling undertaken would be based almost entirely on
assumptions about the types of activities and the file formats, and was
therefore not practical to undertake at this time.
10.1 Evaluation Process

Shown below is the process undertaken to evaluate the solution options:
July 18 2008 Meeting

• Group refined requirements
• Group discussed and agreed high level plan for evaluation criteria and
process
• Updated evaluation criteria issued for review
September 2 2008 Meeting
• Presentations and Q&A sessions for each of the solution options
• Discuss and update evaluation criteria
October 2 2008 Meeting
• Review evaluation criteria, assess statements regarding each solution
option, agree a ‘traffic light rating’ recording any key gaps, issues or risks
noted against a solution option
October 29 2008 Meeting
• Finalise and agree recommendations
Between meetings there was correspondence between the SRSM project

team and solutions providers to resolve queries and update the information
presented below.
10.2 Evaluation Methodologies

Each of the criteria shown below are weighted.
10.2.1 Evaluation Weighting

Recognising that some criteria are closely linked to core requirements and
principles, whilst others are peripheral, each of the criteria is weighted.
Page 87 of 155 9-Dec-08

The weighting, which assists the group with prioritising any gap analysis, is
shown in Table 18 below.
‘Must Have’ criteria carry a weighting of 4.
10.2.2 Evaluation Assessment

All criteria are assessed in terms of red, yellow, green or blue on a gap
analysis/risk assessment basis.
Green No apparent gaps or issues

Some quantifiable gaps or levels of
Yellow
risk
Red Significant gap or risk
Blue No information available
10.3 Evaluation Criteria

Ref Criteria Relevance/Importance (Must Weighting
11
Have/Desirable) (Desirable
only:
3 = Very
2 = Fairly
1 = Less)
Fit with Requirements
(not specifically addressed by categories below)
1.1 Low level of energy customer Desirable 3
intervention/support required
to maintain communications
1.2 Ease of installation – i.e. Must Have NA
discovery at meter
installation
1.3 Minimise number of site visits Desirable 3
to address Local
Communications issues – i.e.
recovery or remote correction
on failure/upgrade failure –
will include MTBF and power
consumption on meter
battery as considerations
1.4 Development tools to support Desirable 1
smart metering and smart
energy market
1.5 Ease of integration into Desirable 2
metering/home products –
e.g. system on chip, antenna
size12
1.6 Scope/receptiveness to Must Have NA
accommodate specific GB
11 Must Have criteria carry a weighting of 4

12
It was acknowledged during group discussions that an excellent design would represent a
poor substitute for commercial momentum
Page 88 of 155 9-Dec-08

11
only:
3 = Very
2 = Fairly
1 = Less)
smart metering requirements
Interoperability
2.1 Status as an Open Standard Must Have NA
– accessibility, defined
standards, range of
participants, proven
certification process
2.2 Support for choice of data Desirable 2
exchange format
2.3 Genuine choice and Desirable 3
competition between silicon
vendors
2.4 Interoperable chipsets Must Have NA
2.5 Effort required to update Desirable 2
standards to meet specific
GB requirements (less effort
= higher score)
2.6 No. of nodes supported for Desirable 2
each HAN, assuming
minimum capability of 3.
Power
3.1 Consumption/Peak Desirable 3
Current/Power Failure
Management
3.2 Support for battery powered Must Have NA
nodes, but also for energy
smart metering application
(e.g. data refreshes in
minutes rather than
hours/days for end nodes)
Data Performance
4.1 Transmission speed – Desirable 2
effective data throughput in
kbps per channel
4.2 Robustness (retry Desirable 2
mechanisms,
acknowledgements,
minimised/nil message loss –
i.e. latency and dropped
packets)
Radio Performance
5.1 Typical range (amplified or Desirable 3
non-amplified)
5.2 Suitability for GB meter Desirable 3
locations (consider
internal/external,
stone/concrete, metal meter
cabinets, meter rooms etc.)
5.3 Low vulnerability to signal Desirable 2
Page 89 of 155 9-Dec-08

11
only:
3 = Very
2 = Fairly
1 = Less)
interference
5.4 Ability to cope with signal Desirable 3
interference
5.5 Blocking Immunity in Desirable 2
transceiver
Security
6.1 Strength/resilience of Desirable 3
methods used
6.2 Ability to use Desirable 2
rolling/successive keys
6.3 Support for distinguishing Must Have NA
public/private data, and for
keeping gas/water/electricity
data independently secure –
i.e. supports 3 different
suppliers for 3 utilities (and
any other authorised party
data secure)
Future Resistance
7.1 Support for “over the air” Must Have NA
upgrades of ‘smart meter’
nodes – i.e. gas + electricity
meters & in home display
7.2 Support for security upgrades Desirable 2
7.3 Support for backwards Must Have NA
compatibility
7.4 Longevity of frequency Desirable 3
7.5 Longevity of solution Must Have NA
technology (minimum
expected smart meter asset
life of 10-15 years)
Cost Considerations
8.1 Total cost per home – 1 x Desirable 2
electricity meter, 1 x gas
meter with battery, 1 x home
display unit = 3 chipsets +
additional battery cost
8.2 Low Mean Time Between Desirable 3
Failures/Reliability
Maturity
9.1 Use in equivalent smart Desirable 3
metering deployments
9.2 Use in analogous Desirable 2
applications
9.3 Expectation of ongoing Desirable 1
required upgrades – i.e.
v2009, v2011 (fewer = higher
score?)
9.4 Capacity in vendors to meet Must Have NA
Page 90 of 155 9-Dec-08

11
only:
3 = Very
2 = Fairly
1 = Less)
smart metering demands
(meters plus displays and
other devices) – assume 5
year deployment to 25 million
homes
9.5 Availability of non-metering Desirable 2
products that could be
relevant to smart metering –
e.g. thermostats, display
devices
Table 18 Evaluation Criteria
As a result of the evaluation process undertaken by the Local

Communications Development Group, each of the criteria above necessarily
fall into one or more of the following categories:
- those requiring a field test to assess performance
- those that can be tested under laboratory conditions
- those where a panel review process could determine the level of
compliance/risk
- those that are not possible to test/evaluate to a certain conclusion
The assessment of the solutions against the criteria and within these
categories is reflected in the recommendations of this report in section 11
below.
It should also be noted that a number of categories appear to show no

differentiation between solution options, this is to be expected as they have all
been selected for evaluation on the premise that they offer a viable low power
wireless option for smart metering.
10.4 Evaluation Scorecard

Ref Criteria Bluetooth M-Bus Wavenis ZigBee ZigBee Z-
Low @ @ Wave
Energy 868MHz 2.4GHz
1.1 Low level of energy
customer
intervention/support
required to maintain
communications
1.2 Ease of installation –
i.e. discovery at meter
installation
1.3 Minimise number of site
visits to
address Local
Communications issues
– i.e. recovery or
remote correction on
Page 91 of 155 9-Dec-08


Low @ @ Wave
failure/upgrade failure –
will include MTBF and
power consumption on
meter battery as
considerations
1.4 Development tools to
support smart metering
and smart energy
market
1.5 Ease of integration into
metering/home
products – e.g. system
on chip, antenna size
1.6 Scope/receptiveness to
accommodate specific
GB smart metering
requirements
2.1 Status as an Open
Standard –
accessibility, defined
standards, range of
participants, proven
2.2 Support for choice of
data exchange format
2.3 Genuine choice and
competition
between silicon vendors
2.4 Interoperable chipsets
2.5 Effort required to

update standards to
meet specific GB
requirements (less
effort = higher score)
2.6 No. of nodes supported
for each
HAN, assuming
minimum capability of
3.
3.1 Consumption/Peak
Management
3.2 Support for battery
powered nodes, but
also for energy smart
metering application
(e.g. data refreshes in
minutes rather than
hours/days for end
nodes)
Page 92 of 155 9-Dec-08


Low @ @ Wave
4.1 Transmission speed –
effective data
throughput in kbps per
channel
4.2 Robustness (retry
mechanisms,
acknowledgements,
minimised/nil message
loss – i.e. latency and
dropped packets)
5.1 Typical range (amplified
or non-amplified)
5.2 Suitability for GB meter
locations (consider
internal/external,
stone/concrete, metal
meter cabinets, meter
rooms etc.)
5.3 Low vulnerability to
signal interference
5.4 Ability to cope with
signal interference
5.5 Blocking Immunity in
transceiver
6.1 Strength/resilience of
13
methods used
6.2 Ability to use
rolling/successive keys
6.3 Support for
distinguishing
public/private data, and
for keeping
gas/water/electricity
data independently
secure – i.e. supports 3
different suppliers for 3
utilities (and any other
authorised party data
secure)
7.1 Support for “over the
air” upgrades of ‘smart
meter’ nodes – i.e. gas
+ electricity meters & in
home display – to
include chipsets and
applications
7.2 Support for security
upgrades
13
AES encryption is optional in Wavenis, but it is assumed that it would be enabled by default
for all GB smart metering use
Page 93 of 155 9-Dec-08

Low @ @ Wave
7.3 Support for backwards
compatibility
7.4 Longevity of frequency
7.5 Longevity of solution

technology
(minimum smart meter
asset life 10-15 years or
better)
8.1 Total cost per home – 1
x electricity meter, 1 x
gas meter with battery,
1 x home display unit =
3 chipsets + additional
battery cost
8.2 Low Mean Time
Between
9.1 Use in equivalent smart
metering deployments
9.2 Use in analogous
applications
9.3 Expectation of ongoing
required upgrades – i.e.
v2009, v2011 (fewer =
higher score?)
9.4 Capacity in vendors to
meet smart metering
demands (meters plus
displays and other
devices) – assume 5
year deployment to 25
million homes14
9.5 Availability of non-
metering products that
could be relevant to
smart metering – e.g.
thermostats, display
devices
Table 19 Evaluation Scorecard
10.4.1 Evaluation Notes

In order to provide a complete record of the evaluation process, any notes and
explanatory text are shown in Table 20 below. The majority of this information
has been provided by the representatives of the solutions options.
Bluetooth low energy: throughout the assessment of the Bluetooth low energy
solution option, it should be noted that at the time of preparing the
assessment, this technology was not available for review. Therefore all ratings
14
It was noted by the group that any technologies operating as fabless providers may present
a higher risk than Bluetooth or ZigBee @2.4
Page 94 of 155 9-Dec-08
for Bluetooth low energy have been recorded as ‘Unknown’. The evaluation
notes assume the exclusive use of Bluetooth Low Energy for the solution.
Standard Bluetooth may be used to provide additional functionality for some of
the applications that move beyond the immediate requirements, but is not
included in these notes.
Wavenis ultra-low-power wireless technology: Information was provided by

Coronis based on profiles and application optimisation for existing metering
solutions that use Wavenis.
Wireless M-Bus: the comments and views relating to Wireless M-Bus were not
available for the group evaluation discussion on the 2nd October and were
provided subsequently for inclusion in this report. Concerns have been
expressed by members of the group about the interoperability of M-Bus,
where some metering implementations are utilising the S2 or T2 as required
by the individual markets. There are also concerns relating to the capability of
M-Bus to provide coverage for all GB homes, given that there is no current
provision in the standard for repeaters.
ZigBee@868MHz: the information has been provided by Atmel, a

semiconductor manufacturer, and accordingly does not address in any detail
those criteria that relate to matters beyond the provision of the chip itself. In a
number of areas the ZigBee at 2.4GHz and 868MHz are not rated at the same
level, even though the underlying technology is common. It was felt by the
group that whilst there should theoretically be no difference, without certified
products it would not be appropriate to rate ZigBee at 868MHz as highly as
technologies that do have certified products available.
ZigBee@2.4GHz: A comprehensive paper was presented on behalf of ZigBee,

as can be seen from the notes in Table 20. The preamble for this document,
which provides information on implementation options for GB smart metering,
is included as an appendix to this report.
Ref Solution Rating Notes/Explanation

e.g. Solution X Green 800 million devices sold in 2007
1.1 Bluetooth Once installed, Bluetooth requires no customer
low energy intervention to maintain the communications link. This
is controlled by the baseband behaviour and is
automatically restored after power cycles or link failure.
1.1 Wavenis Wavenis offers specific installation methods for
metering networks, with end-points using self-organizing
services for their initial installation and configuration
within the network, self-healing features to repair broken
links subsequently. End-user customers should never
have to deal with any aspects of wireless meter
configuration.
1.1 Wireless - RF-Transmission interval is selectable for every
M-Bus meter, thus lifetime and battery size of meter is
selectable
- For that reason a single coin adapter solution
integrating e.g. existing Gas meters is possible
- High dynamic range allows connection of gateway
with typically one hop. No additional Installation
Page 95 of 155 9-Dec-08

point in flat is necessary!
1.1 ZigBee @ similar to 2.4GHz ZigBee solutions
868MHz
1.1 ZigBee @ Connectivity:
2.4GHz • Once installed and commissioned in the network,
ZigBee devices do not lose connectivity with the
network, even after reset due to battery change or
loss of power.
• Information about which devices talk to which other
devices is held in non-volatile memory on each
device, so this is not dependent on a central
controller.
• ZigBee is a self-healing mesh network, where routes
are repaired automatically, surrounding ‘neighbour’
devices are discovered automatically and
• Battery powered (end) devices can find new parents
if they lose contact.
Robust messaging
• ZigBee messaging is highly robust, with clear
channel assessment before sending a packet;
• Retries at a MAC level and
• Further retries if necessary at an APS (Application
Support) level, resulting in 12 attempts to send a
message in a ~5 second period before a message
actually fails.
Customer Intervention:
• No customer intervention is required typically to
maintain communications.
• Of course, if a device (e.g. In-Home-Display) is
broken and has to be replaced, then some re-
commissioning is required, and this might be done
by the energy customer (depending on procedures)
• As with any other radio technology, if the user
changes the environment to directly block the radio
signal between two devices and there is no other
path, then some user intervention would be required
to clear the blockage, move one of the devices (e.g.
in-home-display) or introduce a routing device to
allow the message to route around the blockage.
The best direct evidence of this is from current

installations in UK homes, including companies like PRI,
Alertme, and some of the EDRP trials currently
underway.
1.1 Z Wave After installation the Self-Healing, Self organizing, mesh
protocol mechanisms and the optional Wireless
firmware upgrade will perform the network support for
the customer.
1.2 Bluetooth Bluetooth has over ten years of experience of mass
low energy market consumer installed products, having shipped
over 2.5 billion devices. The most recent version of the
standard targeted additional improvements with the
Page 96 of 155 9-Dec-08

Secure Simple Pairing specification. This is used as the
basis for Bluetooth Low Energy.
1.2 Wavenis End-points are added to the network at the touch of a
button on a handheld device (which launches a Service
Discovery Protocol process in the end-point). At the
same time, the end-point identifies the most power-
efficient and reliable path to the nearest gateway. When
battery-powered range extenders are used in a fixed
network topology, their GPS coordinates are added to
the network map for administration purposes.
1.2 Wireless Two types of Installation
M-Bus
- Installation using “press button” method (Gateway
listens to all “new” meters)
- Installation by scanning RF-Channel and comparing

with device list provided by AMR-Back office
1.2 ZigBee @ similar to 2.4GHz ZigBee solutions,
868MHz however final system / meter not under control of Chip
providers
1.2 ZigBee @ If using the ZigBee Smart Energy application profile, this
2.4GHz describes in detail the commissioning process for HAN /
Local communications.
All ZigBee devices have a unique IEEE address called

EUI64, sometimes referred to as a MAC address
(though in the IT World, MAC addresses are usually 48
bits, not 64 bits like ZigBee). This globally unique MAC
address can be used during installation to uniquely
identify every device.
There are several types of discovery, including device

discovery, route discovery and service discovery, all of
which are encapsulated in the ZigBee standard and
which make installation processes much easier.
1.2 Z Wave Standard Z-Wave auto discovery and configuration
functionalities allow easy installation. The Advanced
Energy Control (AEC) framework using standard IP
(Z/IP) remote management allows full control from utility
supplier or installer.
1.3 Bluetooth Bluetooth Low Energy self manages the local
low energy communications. It is optimised for low power
consumption, minimising the frequency of battery
replacement in unpowered meters or displays.
1.3 Wavenis Self-healing mechanisms are used by end-points in
case of network path problems. A battery energy
consumption counter is used to raise a spontaneous
alert in case of low battery. Over-the-air programming
and remote access (by the network administrator)
obviate the need for any end-customer intervention.
1.3 Wireless Self healing? One Electricity meter and one Gas meter
M-Bus have a link to one Gateway.
A Meter may be remotely assigned to another gateway,

if needed. But reassignment is not made automatically
for security reasons!
Page 97 of 155 9-Dec-08

1.3 ZigBee @ similar to 2.4GHz ZigBee solutions,
868MHz however final system / meter not under control of Chip
providers
1.3 ZigBee @ Site visits post installation should be unnecessary with
2.4GHz ZigBee deployments, except for normal circumstances
like device failure or if the user does something
exceptional to create a problem (see above).
It should be possible to design battery powered devices

like gas meters to last many years on a single battery.
This will be largely dependent on the product design
and requirements, e.g. type of battery, frequency of
communications.
Device failures in the field should be minimal. ZigBee

chips are designed on proven technologies and
processes. MTBF and other statistics may differ from
one chip to another, so difficult to provide specific
statistics given the number of vendors. Silicon vendors
will meet expectations of ERA / UK local
Communications in this regard, and individual vendors
can supply their individual statistics as part of a
competitive tendering process.
1.3 Z Wave The 868MHz operation efficiently removes the
problematic WiFi interference and the associated
support calls.
Z-Wave Self-healing automatically repair minor network
issues and the optional, wireless firmware upgrade can
repair major issues without site visits.
1.4 Bluetooth Bluetooth development systems are available from
low energy multiple manufacturers with over 8 years of shipping
products. Testing tools, including production RF test
gear are available from multiple vendors.
Multiple vendors supply pre-approved and certified

Bluetooth modules and have announced their intention
to extend this to Bluetooth Low energy modules.
1.4 Wavenis The Wavenis Open Standard Alliance promotes multi-
sourcing of Wavenis platforms. Product Development
Kits, testing tools and a complete developer API are
readily available. Several market leading metering
companies have used these tools to deploy hi-volumes
of Wavenis water and gas metering solutions around the
world. Electric metering with embedded Wavenis-based
solutions are under development, including for the UK.
1.4 Wireless Ready to use RF-Solution from Amber-Wireless and
M-Bus Radio craft. Transmitter modules + EVA-Kits from
Unitronics, Panasonic, Radiometrix etc. Development
tools from Chipcon, Analog Devices and another SRD-
Chip Manufacturer.
1.4 ZigBee @ A range of examples are available - refer to:
868MHz http://meshnetics.com/zigbee-modules/zigbit900
http://www.dresden-elektronik.de/shop/prod78.html
http://www.dresden-elektronik.de/shop/prod79.html
Page 98 of 155 9-Dec-08


1.4 ZigBee @ Competition among silicon vendors drives innovation,
2.4GHz leading to strong development tools to support ZigBee
Smart Energy. For example, Ember’s AppBuilder tool
will build ZSE compliant applications that can be
immediately certified and are ready for integration with
the customer application.
A number of companies have been developing products

to support smart energy, including for example,
Wavecom, who have a ZigBee virtual-IP implementation
in their GSM gateway.
A number of independent commercial module

manufacturers provide cost effective ZigBee modules
using chips from a variety of silicon manufacturers; e.g.
Telegesis (Ember), Digi (Ember, Freescale), Radiocrafts
(TI), Panasonic (Freescale, Ember), Meshnetics
(Atmel), Holley (Ember).
1.4 Z Wave Z-Wave Alliance provides comprehensive development
kits, sample implementation, test and certification tools
1.5 Bluetooth All Bluetooth systems are single chip these days, and
low energy integration sizes are shown by Bluetooth headsets such
as the Apple headset.
A typical module size is 12mm x 22mm x 2mm, which

includes an application processor, protocol stacks and
drivers, radio and antenna. These are available with
development tools which allow rapid integration.
Modules are available with power outputs ranging from

0dBm to +20dBm, giving open field ranges up to 1km.
A number of module manufacturers provide pre-certified

modules, removing the need for RF certification and
production RF testing.
1.5 Wavenis Wavenis RF boards (2-chip solutions) are small enough
to be used by customers for door locks, call
medallions/wristwatches, light switches, alarms,
temperature control units and in-home displays for
metering and HAN applications. Even smaller 12-chip
solution is due in 2009, with enhanced power-saving
features. Current platform is available in different forms,
depending on integrator’s desired time-to-market (from
ready-to-use modules to development platforms).
1.5 Wireless Chipcon solution CC1101 4x4mm
M-Bus Semtech SX1211 6x6mm
Most applied metering µC MSP430 come next year for
the first time with an integrated RF module. The first
available integrated solution to support SRD-Radio
(very suitable for wireless M-Bus, but not restricted to it)!
Ready to use RF-Solution from Amber-Wireless and
Radio craft.
Antenna size is the same for all solutions and depends
on Frequency only! Chip antennas available (but not
always recommended).
Page 99 of 155 9-Dec-08


1.5 ZigBee @ 868 MHz requires larger antennas,
868MHz PHY/MAC/NWK/APS layer similar to 2.4GHz
implementations
1.5 ZigBee @ There are three main models for ZigBee chips;
2.4GHz a) System-on-chip (SoC) solutions (e.g. Ember EM250,
TI CC2430) which have an integrated IEEE 802.15.4
radio and microcontroller, allowing the entire ZigBee
stack and application to reside on a single chip.
These are particularly important for small battery
powered devices such as thermostats. Most silicon
vendors are developing their solutions further down
this path, providing more powerful microcontrollers
and in some cases more flash and RAM space for
application code to run. This is the solution likely to
drive ZigBee costs down in the next few years.
b) Network Coprocessor solutions (e.g. Ember EM260,
TI CC2480) are not very common at the moment
among vendors, but nonetheless are proving
popular in the smart energy space because of the
ability to connect your favourite ZigBee chips and
software stack to your preferred microcontroller. For
instance, Ember EM260 has been used in designs
with Atmel AVR, TI MSP430, Renesas H8,
Microchip PIC, STR7 etc. etc. Using this model, the
designer can continue to use the same micro as
before in the application design, just add a little code
to connect the ZigBee Coprocessor. This is not as
cost effective as SoC, but if you already have a
micro in your design (e.g. in a meter), it is a cheaper
and more efficient way to add ZigBee.
c) Dual chip solutions (e.g. Ember EM2420 + Atmel
AVR, Meshnetics Atmel AVR + Atmel radio, TI
CC2520 + MSP430). This is the older model of
operation, which is not quite as efficient as SoC, but
nonetheless preferred by some developers.
A range of antennae is available for ZigBee as for other

2.4GHz radios, some are customised specifically for
IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee. The most cost effective can be
ceramic antennae, or even printed antennae.
A range of options for the balun is also available,

including designs with discreet components (most cost
effective), ceramic balun and some vendors are
integrating the balun in the chip.
Power Amplification (PA) designs are also available to

boost power up to +10dBm (Europe) or +20dBm (US),
including modular PA designs from e.g. TI and
Skyworks.
A range of competitive ZigBee modules for the same

chipsets and different ZigBee chipsets are available.
These allow the designer to avoid the hardware design
headache, rather to take a proven, tested and certified
Page 100 of 155 9-Dec-08


design to integrate into the product.
1.5 Z Wave Industry smallest communication module (8mm x 8mm).
Industries smallest single die 2.5mm x 2.5mm.
Large set of chip communication options (USB, UART,
SPI) provides glue less integration into products
1.6 Bluetooth Work could start very quickly to fully accommodate your
low energy requirements. Bluetooth Low Energy has a profile
structure that allows custom profiles to be developed
rapidly, either as public profiles, which are certified by
the Bluetooth SIG, or as private profiles, which would be
certified by a manufacturer or national body.
The bulk of companies involved in Bluetooth Low

Energy profile development are based in the UK and
Scandinavia and are already involved in automation and
measurement industries. This concentration of
expertise and interest means that any new Low Energy
profile work is likely to be done very quickly. A private
profile could be developed and tested in a matter of
weeks.
Profiles for any wireless standard are only effective if

combined with a certification program, which must be
taken into account. This is explained more fully in
appendix E.
1.6 Wavenis Wavenis wireless technology respects European
communication standards and thus is fully compliant for
use in the UK. Metering application parameters (i.e.
embedded in end-points), such as scheduling,
automatic transmission, alert types, data content, etc.
are completely adjustable to meet current and future
utility needs. Such changes and optimisations, typically
based on the existing core smart metering solution are
made using the Wavenis development tools.
1.6 Wireless Is a released European Standard. But it will be worked
M-Bus on to fit Requirements of Smart metering as discussed
in EU! This process has happened in Germany and in
the Netherlands and could be applied in GB as well.
Cooperation between countries is welcome and
ongoing, and will lead to a revision of standard!
1.6 ZigBee @ no issues expected for HAN usage
868MHz
1.6 ZigBee @ The ZigBee Alliance has a Smart Energy Working
2.4GHz Group, which is open to members of the ZigBee Alliance
(membership is open). It is a relatively easy process to
discuss and propose changes to the Smart Energy
profile, OR propose a new profile. It probably can be
done in 6 months or less, given that the standard is
most likely already 80-90% suitable for GB.
This process is happening right now for the Australian

requirements, which are being incorporated into the
current ZSE spec, which was designed primarily by and
for US utilities and metering manufacturers.
Page 101 of 155 9-Dec-08


The ZigBee Alliance is actively engaging with European
expert groups like the DLMS user association and
ESMIG, to assist with the integration of European-
specific protocols into the ZigBee standard. In the US,
this process is also happening to bring HomePlug
devices into the ZigBee Smart Energy family.
1.6 Z Wave The Z-Wave Advanced Energy Control (AEC)
framework is targeted to provide remote metering, sub-
metering, end-user information displays, advanced load
control though other Z-wave devices and extensive
support for prepayment meters.
The AEC framework supports any mix of meters (gas,
electricity, water etc)
2.1 Bluetooth Bluetooth is the definition of an open standard, with an
low energy open IPR policy, and a wide range or participants from
computers / phones / industrial / automation / consumer
electronic and other industries.
Bluetooth’s specification and certification process has

been adopted as the example of best practice by many
other standards.
Unlike other standards, such as ZigBee and 6loPAN,

which rely on external specifications (IEEE 802.15.4)
which do not have a certification process, the Bluetooth
standard takes a holistic approach, owning all parts of
the specification. This has been one of the prime
reasons that Bluetooth has achieved interoperability
within the difficult consumer space.
Bluetooth has the longest established certification

process for any of the relevant short range wireless
technologies. It has now certified over 11,500 different
products, compared with a few hundred for the other
proposed standards. Bluetooth Low Energy will use the
same certification process.
Multiple test houses have been certified to test and

qualify Bluetooth products. The Bluetooth SIG also
develops and provides testing tools of certification of
public profiles
Spec is available for $0 and can be delivered in an end

product for $0 royalty to anybody.
2.1 Wavenis The Wavenis Open Standard Alliance (OSA) has been
launched, and is now open for membership. Key
partners to include design houses, silicon vendors,
meter manufacturers, utilities, software providers,
wireless solution providers, and one or more
independent certification bodies.
2.1 Wireless EN13757 is an open CEN -standard covering M-Bus
M-Bus and DLMS and related communications. The British
Standardisation Institute is involved in the European
standardisation process (and voted in favour of last
adoptions of this standard). Several Companies in GB
are members of Working Group 5 (Radio
Page 102 of 155 9-Dec-08

communication) to take care of the requirement of the
British market.
2.1 ZigBee @ IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee are open standards. However,
868MHz the lack of certified products, or indeed a certification
process, do not support a high rating – this should
change as certified products emerge.
2.1 ZigBee @ The ZigBee Alliance is responsible for the development
2.4GHz and marketing of the ZigBee standards. The Alliance is
an open group of approximately 300 companies which is
open to new members, and currently includes silicon
vendors, meter manufacturers, electronics companies of
various sorts and customers such as utilities.
- The ZigBee Alliance is guided by a board of
directors which consists of Promoter members of the
Alliance, and includes some of the largest silicon
manufacturers, meter manufacturers and OEMs.
- The ZigBee Alliance has a small full-time staff,
which includes the Chairman, Dr. Bob Heile, who
has been involved with a number of IEEE 802
standards in the past.
- Most of the work of the ZigBee Alliance is performed
by staff from the member companies, in areas where
these companies have particular interest. The
working groups are always happy to accept new
members and new member companies into the
discussions.
The ZigBee Specification and ZigBee Application

Profiles are all available for download by non-members
from the ZigBee Alliance website.
Non members who wish to use the ZigBee standard for

commercial gain must become members of the ZigBee
Alliance before that product is launched, however if they
wish to produce products or stacks not for commercial
gain (e.g. Universities) then they are free to use the
Intellectual Property of the ZigBee Alliance without
becoming members. There is no royalty or license fee
for use of the ZigBee specifications or chipsets using
the ZigBee specification.
The ZigBee Alliance is a global organisation, currently

supported by 22 ZigBee Compliant platforms, which
customers can choose from, a number of which are
provided by global silicon vendors such as Ember, ST,
Renesas, Freescale, TI and Microchip. This variety of
implementations across many regions of the World
allows for genuine competition between vendors both
globally and regionally on the basis of price,
performance and architecture.
2.1 Z Wave The Z-Wave Alliance was established in spring 2005
and is open for any participant. Today it has more than
170 members with more than 300 shipping products
around the world. The Z-Wave Alliance governs the
strict and yet low cost Z-wave certification programme to
Page 103 of 155 9-Dec-08

ensure full interoperability.
The convergence between Z-Wave and IP (Z/IP) is a
solid result of this effort.
Z-Wave royalties are included in the chip price. There is
no separate protocol license royalty. Everyone can join
the Z-Wave alliance, which drives the application layer
protocol specification. The protocol underneath has
been solely owned by Zensys but will be opened up
through Z/IP in the near future.
2.2 Bluetooth Bluetooth Low Energy provides the ability for secure,
low energy reliable transmission of data between devices using
protocols that are optimised for minimal power
consumption.
The use of an attribute protocol gives immense flexibility

in the way in which data can be represented and
exchanged. It also provides the basis for simple profile
development to enable a specific data format if an
existing profile does not cover the requirements.
2.2 Wavenis Payload data can be either defined for specific GB
market needs or leverage existing Wavenis-based smart
metering profiling (with millions of units deployed).
2.2 Wireless EN13757 is separated in parts describing
M-Bus Communication (wired and wireless communication)
and Application protocols like M-Bus or DLMS. Other
Protocols may also transport via communication
modules. To be really interoperable, it is recommended
to restrict number of supported protocols.
2.2 ZigBee @ Products are emerging to support ZigBee Pro at
868MHz 868MHz, but not yet for ZigBee Smart Energy
2.2 ZigBee @ Like all standards, at a low level there is at least some
2.4GHz fixed formatting of packets to ensure interoperability
between different ZigBee radios. IEEE 802.15.4
specifies certain packet header information that must
exist to enable packets to be received by the correct
target node etc. Likewise, the Networking (NWK) and
Application Support (APS) layers of the ZigBee stack
adds header information to this protocol to support for
example security, mesh routing and end to end
acknowledgements. Above the APS layer, the
application is free to implement whatever data exchange
formatting it requires.
The ZigBee standard defines application profiles, which

include (but are not exclusively) definitions of the data
exchange format for any given device in a given
application or network. By defining the data exchange
format in this way, interoperability between devices
manufactured by different companies is enabled, and
through certification by an independent third party, is
guaranteed. The ZigBee Smart Energy (ZSE) profile is
one such application profile which defines the data
exchange format for a number of devices including
meters, gateways, in-home-displays and thermostats.
Other profiles include Home Automation (HA),
Page 104 of 155 9-Dec-08

Commercial Building Automation (CBA), Telecoms
Applications (TA) and Personal Home Health Care
(PHHC).
The use of these application profiles is not compulsory!
In fact, many of the 250 or so ZigBee products on the

market today do not use any of the public application
profiles, mainly because there is no requirement for
interoperability with other vendors because they are
sold as part of a “whole system”. These products can
be certified as “Manufacturer Specific Profiles” however
they cannot carry the ZigBee logo on the product to
indicate interoperability.
So, any private application profile (or data exchange

format) can be implemented at an application level on
top of the ZigBee APS layer. In this way, any private (or
new public) data exchange format can be
accommodated in a ZigBee application. Indeed, if those
who create this data exchange format wish to do so, this
can be published as a public application profile after it
has been through the normal process for discussing,
approving and testing public profiles.
Also, some of the current public application profiles in

ZigBee allow for ‘tunnelling’ of other data exchange
formats. In this way, most of the application
communications might use CBA messaging for
instance, but some of it could use BACNET messaging.
In the case of ZSE it is likely that there will be a
tunnelling mechanism for DLMS.
2.2 Z Wave The AEC framework allows a flexible and yet well
defined command structure between devices.
It provides two truly different command formats at this
point in time – Standard Z-Wave Command classes and
IP protocol(s) tunneling (Through our Z/IP
strategy/functionality). The IP tunneling would in my
opinion enable DLMS/COSEM using their TCP-UDP/IP
based profile. To allow tunneling of other protocol data
format (KONNEX etc) would in my opinion be a fairly
small and uncomplicated upgrade
2.3 Bluetooth There are many silicon vendors shipping Bluetooth
low energy chips in the hundred’s of millions territory.
Because low energy is being mandated by the mobile

phone and PC industry, most of these vendors have
already announced Bluetooth low energy chipsets. In
addition, traditional low power, proprietary radio silicon
vendors have also announced that provide Bluetooth
low energy silicon.
The predicted market for Bluetooth low energy

compliant chipsets is in excess of 2 billion in 2011,
which will ensure a healthy range of silicon suppliers.
Page 105 of 155 9-Dec-08


2.3 Wavenis Wavenis uses the readily available TI CC1020, which is
produced by several foundries (TSMS and AMS). A
second source for the Wavenis transceiver is in
progress (chip now undergoing testing) with System-on-
Chip partner. Other clearly identified sourcing to come
via Wavenis-OSA members.
2.3 Wireless Chip-Manufacturers are Atmel, Analog Devices, Chip
M-Bus con/TI, Infinion, Melexis, Nordic, Semtech and others;
Technology is used in Home automation, Automotive
industry, Metering and much more.
2.3 ZigBee @ It is believed that silicon can be provided by Atmel and
868MHz Renesas, and that there are a number of software
companies offering products using these chips.
Other silicon companies are expected to enter this
space.
2.3 ZigBee @ As stated already, there are currently 22 separate
2.4GHz ZigBee Compliant Platforms. Some of these are
different software stacks using the same silicon, and
some are more academic or regional in nature, and so
are not as competitive globally as some of the others.
There are a number of silicon vendors who have their
own software stacks and tools (e.g. Ember, Freescale,
Renesas, TI, Jennic, Microchip etc.), and others who
partner with software or module companies to deliver a
ZigBee solution (e.g. ST Micro, Atmel). There are
certainly at least 5-7 highly competitive, global, ZigBee
solutions on the market today based on different silicon.
2.3 Z Wave True Pin compatible 2nd source in 2009
2.4 Bluetooth Bluetooth is expected to work out of the box and

low energy interoperability is the first requirement in developing the
specification and certification process.
Bluetooth does not allow the shipment of chipsets

unless they have been proven to be interoperable with
at least two other chips – this is true for standard and low
energy Bluetooth. This means that the requirement of
interoperable chipsets is met.
Bluetooth is the only organisation that has an

enforcement policy that will take legal action to remove
non-compliant products from the market.
2.4 Wavenis Interoperability guaranteed through Wavenis-OSA
compliance certification
2.4 Wireless Regulation of this open standard and neighbouring
M-Bus standards ensure interoperability of different chip
solutions.
2.4 ZigBee @ At present, without certified ZigBee Alliance products, it
868MHz may not be possible to guarantee that all chips and
chipsets are interoperable. Proprietary products are
available, but it is not clear if these have been tested for
interoperability.
2.4 ZigBee @ As already stated above, there are 22 ZigBee Compliant
2.4GHz Platforms and at least 5-7 of these are genuinely highly
competitive on a global scale. ALL compliant platforms
Page 106 of 155 9-Dec-08

go through interoperability testing to ensure that the
ZigBee stacks and radios can interoperate at that level.
All ZigBee radios must first pass IEEE 802.15.4 testing
before they do ZigBee Platform Compliance.
At an application level, each product manufacturer must

take the final application through interoperability testing
with an independent test house before being certified
and allowed to use the ZigBee logo on products. This is
nothing to do with the chipsets per se, but it is essential
for interoperable products.
2.4 Z Wave Strong and proven history of backwards interoperable
chips through the last 6 years: ZW0102, ZW0201,
ZW0301 and ZW0401 can all be used in the same Z-
Wave network
2.5 Bluetooth Effort required is to update specifications, guided by
low energy experienced members. You must provide feature
requirements documents, and help review the
specifications.
As mentioned in 1.6 above, the companies most actively

involved in the low energy profiles are located in the UK
and Scandinavia and are keen to support this market
requirement.
2.5 Wavenis Current solution is 100% compatible with GB
regulations, with customers integrating Wavenis into
upcoming products for the UK. Changes to adapt to new
requirements would typically be made at the application
level, rather than the Wavenis wireless level itself.
2.5 Wireless EN13757 is a special Standard to handle meter
M-Bus communications only. Regarding new requirements, an
extension of the standard is in discussion now. The
general conditions for Meter management differ from
country to country. Future requirements will be adopted
either in user associations (like e.g. DLMS-UA) or by a
standardisation working group. Application protocol
changes like new OBIS-Code for a special data point
may be introduced in 6 to 12 months.
2.5 ZigBee @ Work may be required, as for 2.4GHz to update the
868MHz ZigBee Smart Energy profile to bring it in line with GB
requirements. No products are currently available, and
new products would require certification by the ZigBee
Alliance.
2.5 ZigBee @ It is hard to say for certain, as the GB requirements are
2.4GHz not yet so clear, however it seems that the requirements
for GB ought not be so different from those for HAN
communications in the US and Australia. I suggest that
GB smart metering could decide to adopt 100% the
ZigBee Smart Energy profile with a minimum of minor
adjustments.
There are some requirements that may cause

modifications to the ZSE profile, such as the use of
DLMS for some parts of the network, or introduction of
some new messaging protocol. In any case, all the
Page 107 of 155 9-Dec-08


mechanisms exist to allow for discussion, drafting,
completion and testing of such changes within the
structure of the ZigBee Alliance.
2.5 Z Wave Very little - The AEC is developed with the GB
requirements as part of the foundation. The flexible
framework allows for fast changes if late GB
requirement changes should occur.
2.6 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy does not keep active connections
low energy for very long. Its addressing scheme, therefore has a
maximum theoretical capacity in excess of 2 billion
maximum supported nodes is approximately 2 billion.
Practical active connections would be closer to a couple
of thousand.
2.6 Wavenis The number of Wavenis nodes in a complete network is
unlimited. (6-byte MAC address). Generally speaking,
gateways (i.e. GPRS) connect from 2,000 - 4,000 meter
end-points in actual deployment situations, which
provides optimal battery life as well as network
robustness.
2.6 Wireless There is no limitation (Address range is 8 Byte)
M-Bus
2.6 ZigBee @ no of maximum supportable (addressable)
868MHz IEEE802.15.4 / ZigBee nodes much higher than
minimum requirement
2.6 ZigBee @ ZigBee supports up to 65,000 nodes in a network,
2.4GHz however the practical limits of such networks are usually
dictated by traffic and application model. Certainly
many ZigBee networks exist today with several hundred
nodes per network and thousands of nodes should be
easily achievable.
Most home automation vendors consider the possibility

of about 200 nodes in a home, and when you consider
every power outlet, every light and light switch, every
shutter/blind, every closure in a security application, you
can see how it could be possible to have that number of
nodes in a single network. ZigBee can easily handle
that number, in fact the more nodes in a network the
more robust the ZigBee mesh network becomes.
2.6 Z Wave Z-Wave supports 232 nodes within one Z-wave
segment (HomeID). More nodes can easily be
supported by using segments through the Z/IP
Gateway.
3.1 Bluetooth Power consumption of radio chips correlates strongly
low energy with the maturity of the silicon. As volumes drive new
chip designs, smaller process geometries and design
experience result in progressively more efficient
transmitters and receivers. This is true for any wireless
standard.
Bluetooth chips are now in their 5th or 6th generation and

achieving peak instantaneous current draw when
transmitting of approximately 20mA. , however duty
cycle improvements, which are being copied in the low
energy standard can lower this down to 12 mA as
Page 108 of 155 9-Dec-08

required by button cell batteries.
Power failure is not an issue as connections are as

required not permanent. The Bluetooth low energy
standard is targeted at battery powered consumer
applications. Hence it includes a battery check
capability, where the chipset can report the battery
status, allowing this to be notified and replaced prior to
failure.
Overall consumption depends on the duty cycle.

Bluetooth low energy is designed for ultra low power. A
typical low energy implementation of a battery powered
unit with a 0dBm transmit power, that talks to the
infrastructure connection once every 30 minutes and
updates a remote display every 2 minutes would work
for years before a new battery would need to be
installed. An average current draw of 4 uA is expected
in this scenario.
3.1 Wavenis - 10µA average operating current with 1s period time
- 18mA full run Rx and 5mW class Tx
- 45mA full run for 25mW class Tx
- 500mA full run for 500mW class Tx
- Low-battery detection and permanent energy counter
tracking
Every 1s (typical value for metering), Wavenis devices

wake-up from sleep mode (1µA) to Rx RSSI detection
mode. If no energy is detected on the channel, the
Wavenis device goes back to sleep mode. This only
takes about 500µs. If energy is detected, Wavenis Rx
full run is activated to detect signal coherence. If the
signal is incoherent, the Wavenis device goes back to
sleep mode. This only takes 1. 6ms.
But when talking about power consumption, we also

have to consider the behaviour of the entire network.
This is why several FHSS algorithms have been
implemented to avoid the over-hearing phenomenon
and provide efficient mesh network services.
- A relaxed synchronization beacon is transmitted

every 90ms throughout the network to align clocks
and wake-up timings for all devices. A hopping table
is calculated based on a pseudo-random sequence.
- Periodic receive-standby mode is set to ~1s for

metering. This gives a 1s latency time at worst for a
direct link or 4s at worst in case of 3 relays. Each
device calculates its own pseudo-random hopping
table based on its own MAC address.
- Lastly, transmission implements a fast FHSS with

pseudo-random frequency hops every 2 bytes
Page 109 of 155 9-Dec-08


3.1 Wireless Ultra low power (e.g. 10 years 1Ah). There is no
M-Bus requirement other than the application itself sending
data. Therefore the power consumption will be
controlled by the meter itself. For a battery powered
meter, the battery size is normally restricted by price.
However a long lifetime may be ensured by the
selection of transmission power and data rate. Example:
A meter sends 2 Telegrams per hour with a higher
power e.g. 12 dBm (using 60 mA) and slow data rate (S-
mode). It needs 0.1Ah for Transmission power over 10
Years. Another meter using a faster data rate (T-mode)
with 5 dBm (using 30 mA) may transmit 10 times faster
using same energy. Because there is no
synchronisation required, a Power fail of a mains
supplied unit will not affect the system (excluded time of
power fail).
3.1 ZigBee @
868MHz
3.1 ZigBee @ Power consumption will differ from different silicon
2.4GHz vendors, and this is one area where competition is
strong. Typically, power consumption is a trade off
against RF performance, so a chip that uses 25mA
transmitting at 0dBm might not be as desirable as one
which uses 35mA transmitting at +3dBm. It is also
necessary to consider whether an external PA will be
used, and in many Smart Energy situations it would
probably be advisable to use a PA to +10dBm. It is also
fair to say that much innovation in the area of power
consumption is under way as part of this competition
between vendors and there is an expectation that it will
improve in the next couple of years.
There are two main models to look at: routing devices

(which have a constant source of power) and sleepy
end devices (which are battery powered).
Routing devices must have the radio on in receive mode

at all times, in order to be able to receive a message
from another device, either for itself or to be routed on in
the network. Typical power consumption in receive
mode is between 25mA and 35mA today, and I would
expect that to go down to between 15mA and 25mA in
the next 3-4 years. In transmit mode, which occurs
rarely compared to receive mode, devices differ greatly
in both power consumed and transmit power achieved,
typically between about 25mA to transmit at 0dBm to
about 40mA to transmit at +5dBm. Power amplifiers to
bring transmit power up to +10dBm could bring total
power consumption during TX to as much as 100mA,
but again this is improving all the time.
Sleepy End Devices spend most of the time in a sleep

mode, either on a timer or waiting for some external
interrupt (a line brought high/low, button push etc.).
While asleep, the best ZigBee devices can draw as little
Page 110 of 155 9-Dec-08

as 600-700nA, and most will consume a small number
of uA (microAmp). When awake and transmitting, the
figures for transmit power above will apply, though
usually only for a very small percentage of the total time.
Most Sleepy End Devices have a duty cycle less than
1%, and many are less than 0.1%.
Most devices have some sort of internal or external

brownout detection and the range of voltages supported
differs from chip to chip, but many can survive down to
about 2.1V.
Reset management will depend on the implementation

of the stack, but the best implementations allow a node
to simply reload network parameters from non-volatile
memory and re-associate with the network after a power
reset.
3.1 Z Wave Z-Wave is one of the leaders in low power consumption
– System on chip with:
• 20 mA in receive mode (with MCU running)
• 20 mA in transmit mode (with MCU running; up to +
5dBm)
• Low battery alerts
3.2 Bluetooth Supports battery powered nodes and powered nodes,
low energy as the standard is optimised for low duty cycle
regardless of power source.
The standard supports gateway functionality, where a

node (normally powered) can transparently transmit
data from another node to a remote server or
application.
The optimised low power allows for frequent refresh of

data to and from battery powered nodes. See the
example in section 3.1.
3.2 Wavenis Since 2000, Wavenis development has focused on
achieving the optimal compromise of ultra-low power
consumption and long wireless range. Application level
metering solutions for (and by) customers also play an
important role in efficient end-point and power
management. Programmable data logging and periodic
transmission, plus smart sleep cycles, network
synchronization and protection against “overhearing” in
the wireless network contribute to optimising
performance with respect to loads, distance and
reliability. All Wavenis nodes in the network can act as
repeaters for more remote nodes.
3.2 Wireless The Meter data are transmitted periodically. Data may
M-Bus used from every reception unit (e.g. Flat display), which
own an encryption key. The transmission interval is
scalable from minutes to one hour. In the case of radio
link extension proprietary network solutions or
standardised repeater can be applied.
3.2 ZigBee @
868MHz
Page 111 of 155 9-Dec-08

3.2 ZigBee @ I believe we discussed this in the forum and decided
2.4GHz that the requirement was NOT for battery powered
devices to be able to relay messages in a mesh
network, rather to allow for some battery powered
devices to be part of the network and participate
occasionally, with long battery life (e.g. Gas Meters).
To that end, Sleepy End Devices in ZigBee are a fully

supported part of the specification and are routinely
used in applications for light switches, thermostats, gas
meters, etc. Such devices routinely achieve 10+ years
of battery life, though of course this depends on the
application requirements, how often the device
communicates etc.
For what it is worth, the ZigBee Alliance currently has a

working group investigating low power routing (the
ability to run an entire mesh network entirely on battery
powered devices). We expect this to be added into the
spec in the 2010 time frame at the earliest. However, it
should be noted that it is not possible to achieve the
same battery life with a low power router as it is with a
sleepy end device because of the mechanism required
to maintain a mesh network while also sleeping all
devices. I can expand on this if necessary.
3.2 Z Wave • 1 μA in sleep mode (with POR, interrupts, and
wakeup timer running)
• Only standard with support of battery-to-battery
networks
• 30-80 μA average power consumption in battery-to-
battery networks
• No risk of early power source depletion due to WiFi
interference
4.1 Bluetooth Raw symbol data rate is 1Mbps. Short data packets can
low energy be transmitted robustly in a few milliseconds.
Maximum sustained data rate is 200kbps, but sustained

data transmission for any wireless product is not
commensurate with battery powered nodes.
4.1 Wavenis In smart metering, data throughput itself is not a real
issue. It may be when you start adding other home
devices, but high data traffic requirements are at the
opposite end of the spectrum from metering solutions,
which only transmit packets occasionally (especially for
water and gas). With mains power (electric metering)
transmission speed can be bumped up. Assuming the
requirements include long battery life and long range (or
robustness over short range), then high-throughput is
not necessary. Typically, Wavenis is used from 4.8 –
38.4 kbps, with 1/3 data redundancy.
Based on 1s periodic time (Rx-Sby), Wavenis offers 1s

latency at worst. In case of 3 hops, latency is 4s max
4.1 Wireless 66kbs (T) or 16 kbps (S)
M-Bus
Page 112 of 155 9-Dec-08

4.1 ZigBee @ PSDU data rate
868MHz BPSK 20 kb/s OQPSK 100 kb/s
4.1 ZigBee @ Raw data rate between ZigBee 2.4GHz radios is
2.4GHz 250kbps.
Point to point with ZigBee messaging this works out at

about 50kbps real data throughput.
In a ZigBee network with messages travelling multiple

hops, using security and end to end acknowledgements
I would expect 15-20kbps real data throughput.
For local communications in the UK, most of the

networks will be relatively small, and most
communications will be 1-2 hops. In this scenario I
would expect real data throughput in excess of 25-
30kbps.
4.1 Z Wave Z-Wave supports a mix of 9.6kbps, 40kbps and 100kbps
communication in the same network. This allows
manufacturers to trade longer range for less throughput
as the range decreases significantly as data rate
increases. The effective data rate is up to 60% of the
raw data rate due to very low frame overhead.
4.2 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy uses a number of mechanisms to
low energy ensure reliable data transfer, low latency and
robustness to interference. It should be noted that
these are separate issues that require separate
answers.
Reliable data transmission is provided by a 24bit CRC

on every packet and 32 bit message integrity check on
encrypted packets.
Low latency is guaranteed by power optimised

immediate retransmission and configurable retry and
reconnection schemes.
Robustness to interference is provided by the

mandatory use of active frequency hopping.
4.2 Wavenis Wavenis includes mechanisms to successfully establish
data connection on the first attempt, thus protecting
battery life while reducing the need for retries. An alert is
raised to the application layer after 3 unsuccessful
automatic retries. Packets are acknowledged, and fast
FHSS, data interleaving, data scrambling, Forward Error
Correction with BCH (21, 31) coding and CSMA-CA
make it possible to maximize data reliability and
drastically reduce channel interference.
4.2 Wireless Latency between 1 to 60 minutes for RF
M-Bus
4.2 ZigBee @ retry mechanisms are well defined by IEEE802.15.4
868MHz
4.2 ZigBee @ At an IEEE 802.15.4 MAC level, there is a clear channel
2.4GHz assessment before sending a message, and there is a
Page 113 of 155 9-Dec-08

MAC acknowledgement and retry mechanism that
allows for 4 attempts if the message does not get
through. At an Application Support Sublayer (APS)
level, a ZigBee application may use end-to-end
acknowledgements and 3 attempts. In total this means
that for any message sent that fails to get through, the
ZigBee stack has tried 12 times to get this through over
a period of up to about 4.5 seconds typically. Even with
high levels of interference, this usually means there is
no message loss, with a possible impact on latency (by
design).
In most implementations the application will get a

callback to indicate success or failure of the message,
whether using MAC acknowledgements only, or APS
acknowledgements. Typical latency of a message one
hop in a clear ZigBee network is <10ms (typical is more
like 4ms). Timeout mechanisms allow for up to 50ms
per hop before it is assumed a message has failed.
4.2 Z Wave The Z-Wave protocol implements standard collision
avoidance and random back-off algorithms.
Every message is governed both by a node-2-node
acknowledgement and an end-2-end acknowledgement.
Additionally the routing protocol automatically tries
alternative routes should parts of the network be ‘off-
line’
5.1 Bluetooth 0dBm transmitter modules typically attain 300m open
low energy field range for good RF design.
Adding a PA to increase power to around +18dBm and

adding a LNA increases range to around 1km, but adds
cost.
Both values are essentially omnidirectional range.

Better range can be obtained with directional antennae,
but this adds complexity to the installation process.
5.1 Wavenis -113dBm sensitivity
+14dBm output
Î 127dB link budget
Helicoidal antennas of -3dBi in metering devices. For

small footprint casing in HAN devices (such as a
CR2032 battery-powered light switch), a piece of wire is
generally used.
In addition, 868MHz band features 9dB less LOS

attenuation vs. 2.4GHz. Also, 868MHz offers better
propagation through walls and flooring materials.
- 1mW: 80m indoor (industrial lighting control products)
- 25mW: 30-300m in real world metering scenarios
(underground, home, flat, building, commercial,
industrial)
- 500mW: few kms for large area coverage with cost
effective battery powered range extenders
Page 114 of 155 9-Dec-08


5.1 Wireless Range typically 25 m in Building
M-Bus
-106 dBm sensitivity
+14 dBm output power (non amplified)
=> 120 dBm link budget
To use a small battery a meter typically applies +8..10

dBm chip output power. This will reduce current
consumption from more than 70mA to less than 20 mA.
Higher pulse current will significantly increase the price
of the battery. Small antennas and bad installation
conditions may reduce power on air by 3 to 10 dB.
However this will cover typically two or three floor levels
(depending on building), assumed that data rate is slow
enough to support a sensitive receiver.
868 MHz reduces link lost by reflection, has less Free

space attenuation than 2,4GHz (9dB) and less wall loss
In very critical buildings it may better (cheaper) to use a
wired or hybrid (wired/wireless) solution.
PS: We are talking about indoor communication so I

don’t attach a LOS-calculation!
5.1 ZigBee @ typ. range is factor 2.8 higher than 2.4 GHz, about 4.4
868MHz km for OQPSK and further increased for BPSK
modulation, refer to ZigBee 868 MHz presentation
5.1 ZigBee @ This will differ between ZigBee vendors, as it depends
2.4GHz on the receive sensitivity of the receiving radio and the
transmit power of the sending radio. The best ZigBee
chips have a receive sensitivity of -99dBm to -100dBm
and a transmit power of +3dBm to +5dBm, which leads
to a best-case unamplified dynamic link budget of about
104dBm. Theoretically this should deliver about 1Km
line of sight in free space, however in reality this usually
translates to between 400m-700m.
Amplifying output to +10dBm, which equates to 10mW,

the limit in Europe, this should increase the dynamic
range to perhaps as much as 110dBm, and in reality
delivers LOS range between 600m to 1Km.
5.1 Z Wave When not amplified Z-Wave chips support up to 100+
dB RF system budget at sub-1GHz (depending on data
rate). This translates in to typical 60m-100m outdoor /
30m-40m indoor. Additional range can be obtained
through the mesh network or through external
amplifiers.
5.2 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy at 2.4GHz is no different to any
low energy other 2.4GHz radio. Actual range must be determined
by field trials.
The shorter wavelength of 2.4GHz compared with

868MHz gives it a small advantage where the antenna
is housed within a meter enclosure, as the radio signal
will propagate through smaller gaps or non-metallic
areas of the housing.
Page 115 of 155 9-Dec-08


Ultimately range of a radio embedded within a meter is
determined by the mounting and position relative to the
meter casing.
5.2 Wavenis With a point-to-point range of hundreds of meters (line
of sight), Wavenis has proven itself in harsh
environments in large-scale metering networks
deployed and operated by utilities around the world.
This includes both devices with an external RF module,
and those with Wavenis integrated “under glass”, used
in dense urban areas (lots of apartments) and sprawling
rural areas. FHSS techniques feature more robustness
in case of multipath or signal fading, and FH spread
spectrum ensures recovery of desired signals. Also, the
868MHz band is more efficient in term of propagation
when compared to 2.4GHz. In case of short range
requirements only, this lead to reduced output power,
thus the ability to use smaller batteries, which leads to
even more competitive pricing.
5.2 Wireless Internal/external installation is a question of the meter
M-Bus housing and of the link budget. Building structure and
installation environment generate an uncertainty of Link
attenuation. This can only be solved by suitable Link
budget. Ranking is comparable with Ref. 5.1.
5.2 ZigBee @ 868 MHz operation has better building penetration
868MHz compared to 2.4 GHz operation
5.2 ZigBee @ Typical range within UK homes is about 15-20m point to
2.4GHz point.
When powered nodes are available (like with smartplug-

type devices which always have power) this allows any
communication to be routed over multiple hops.
Anecdotally, Alertme noted that 80% of homes did not

require a repeater/router of any sort (all
Communications point to point), with their coordinator
node operating unamplified at +5dBm and their sensor
nodes operating unamplified at +3dBm, both types of
nodes using a suboptimal antenna.
5.2 Z Wave High RF system budget along with long range due to
sub-1GHz communication. Strong Mesh extends the
range through multiple hops.
Successful 2500 trial electricity and gas installations in

UK without ‘location issues’.
5.3 Bluetooth Extremely good. Bluetooth low energy is a narrow band
low energy hopper which is efficient at pushing through wide band
interferers. A narrow band interferer would be frequency
hopped around.
Adaptive Frequency Hopping allows for characterisation

and mapping out of bad frequencies, so that the radio
can dynamically adapt to a changing wireless
environment. This helps to maintain performance as
new wireless interferers are brought into the home
Page 116 of 155 9-Dec-08


during the life of the meter.
The Bluetooth low energy radio is the most recent radio

design in the field of short range wireless. It has been
designed by RF experts from the mobile phone industry
who have taken especial care to ensure that it works
within the mobile phone environment, where it is
collocated with other powerful sources of RF.
5.3 Wavenis Very strong robustness against signal interference due
to fast FHSS (every 2 bytes), FEC, data scrambling,
data interleaving and automatic retries. Use of 868MHz
means using the very low duty cycle imposed by
ETS300-220. No risk of 2.4GHz jammers.
5.3 Wireless Radio traffic is regulated in the 868 MHz-Band by
M-Bus CEPT. Due to the small Bandwidth and small duty cycle,
the collision rate is low. If a collision happens telegram
can be requested again (Retry).
5.3 ZigBee @ handled by modulation scheme DSSS and supported by
868MHz retry mechanisms
5.3 ZigBee @ While 2.4GHz is very popular for WiFi (IEEE
2.4GHz 802.11.b/g/n), Bluetooth and other communications
technologies, ZigBee coexists very well even when
sharing the same channel with those other technologies.
The best treatment of this subject available is the report
already known to the ERA from Schneider Electric, and
it concludes that ZigBee survives well even in very
adverse (and very untypical) conditions.
Some characteristics will differ from chipset to chipset,

so can be assessed between competitors.
5.3 Z Wave Z-Wave uses the well regulated 868MHz 1% duty cycle
band in Europe.
No interference from WiFi and other high power 2.4Ghz
‘jammers’
5.4 Bluetooth AFH is the best solution for providing blocking immunity.
low energy Signal interference in the 2.4 GHz band comes from
other devices like microwave ovens, street lighting,
alarm systems and wireless communication systems.
Bluetooth low energy can deal with all of these.
Bluetooth low energy allows power control, providing

robustness against a rising noise floor.
5.4 Wavenis Transparent recovery of lost packets. Increased
probability of TX success on first attempt. This is also a
significant contributor to power savings contributor.
5.4 Wireless Consumption data are transmitted periodically. This
M-Bus protects temporary interference in channel. High
transmission power, Modulation index and limited
receiver bandwidth reduces effect of interference. In
case of strong interference data has to be retransmitted
at later time.
Standards for unlicensed bands should prevent
permanent blockers
5.4 ZigBee @ Referring to the appropriate standards (e.g. EN, etc.),
868MHz constant interferers are not allowed, each system
Page 117 of 155 9-Dec-08

operating in this band must operated using a certain
duty cycle or using LBT. The authorities must take care
to avoid such theoretical scenarios. This scenario was
already discussed during the meeting beginning of
September and was rejected by various parties, e.g. the
operators of such a network! For the 2.4 GHz band a
similar scenario (not theoretical) is possible with WLAN
802.11(n) operating on parallel channels or also using
the whole band (2x40 MHz). This scenario is not
permitted by authorities.
5.4 ZigBee @ Subject to 5.3, IF a ZigBee network suffers from
2.4GHz interference, there is a standard mechanism for moving
the network to one of the other 15 IEEE 802.15.4
channels available at 2.4GHz.
5.4 Z Wave Advanced Frequency agility on a frame per frame basis
without frame loss. Every Z-Wave node concurrently
listens on two channels. The transmitter always selects
the optimal channel for each message based on RSSI
and adaptive mechanisms. This allows parts of the
network to operate simultaneously at different channels
thereby maximizing the communication success in even
highly congested scenarios.
5.5 Bluetooth We work in a small device next to a 1W transmitter a
low energy few kHz away. Mobile phones with GSM transmitters.
Not a problem.
5.5 Wavenis Operation in 868MHz band with channel bandwidth of
50kHz @ 9,6kbps:
- Blocking: 75dBc @ 10MHz
- ACP (Adjacent Power Rejection): -37dBm @ 50kHz (in

compliance with ETS300-220)
- ACR (Adjacent Channel Rejection) : 16dB @ 50kHz &

30dB@ 100kHz (in compliance with ETS300-220)
5.5 Wireless Different Receiver classes are defined in EN13757-4.

M-Bus Class HR requires a blocking rejection of at least 40 dB
to the adjacent channel.
5.5 ZigBee @ covered by IEEE802.15.4 specification and further MAC
868MHz retry mechanisms
5.5 ZigBee @ This will differ from chipset to chipset, but all IEEE
2.4GHz 802.15.4 radios have basic blocking immunity built in.
For example, Ember EM250 has adjacent channel
rejection at -82dB of 35dB and 2nd channel rejection of
43dB, with channel rejection for all other channels at
40dB, along with 802.11g rejection centred at +12MHz
or -13MHz of 40dB. I do not have figures for other
ZigBee chipsets.
5.5 Z Wave All Z-Wave nodes are equipped with a SAW filter –
efficiently shielding for signals outside the band (such
as GSM phones). Additionally the Z-Wave receivers
have a high blocking performance due to narrow band
2FSK/4FSK modulation
Page 118 of 155 9-Dec-08


6.1 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy uses AES 128 with a 32 bit
low energy Message Authentication Code, using the counter mode
technique as approved by NIST.
It also incorporates the concept of private addresses,

hence supporting more of the elements necessary for
full FIPS compliance than any short range wireless
standard.
6.1 Wavenis Data sent over the air via Wavenis is secured in multiple
ways, making it totally impossible for an unwanted
device to simulate a reader or capture data in an
unwanted manner.
Data encryption can be implemented as an option, using

AES-128, DES, 3-DES
More importantly, when requested by the application, all

data exchange between devices in any given network is
highly secured natively using a key exchange
mechanism based on public, private, network and
random keys. The result is exactly like a rolling key
solution. Data is ONLY readable by products that are
designed to be compatible, and products from
competitors or nearby networks could NEVER
interoperate unless by design. Even if data were
“sniffed”, it would be totally useless (scrambled AND
encrypted!). A random key is generated for every
exchange, thus establishing the key to be used in the
next exchange. These random keys can only be
decrypted by devices using the right network-wide key.
A product must have a compatible key to be installed
into the network, or to read data from devices in that
network. This, plus DES and/or AES security yields a
highly secure solution.
6.1 Wireless AES128 is defined by OMS for transfer of Data via RF-
M-Bus Link as mandatory.
6.1 ZigBee @ AES-128 (e.g. CCM*) as specified by IEEE 802.15.4 for
868MHz 15 the MAC and ZigBee for the network layer
6.1 ZigBee @ There are a number of layers of security in ZigBee.
2.4GHz
a) First, ZigBee encrypts all packets sent at a network
level using AES-128 bit encryption and a 128-bit
Network Key. This is a very robust encryption
mechanism for this type of networking. This network
key is established by the trust centre when the
network is being formed, and is rolled over
periodically.
b) ZigBee also specifies a Trust Centre Link Key,
which is used to encrypt communications with the
trust centre. This is different from the network key.
c) Any two nodes in a ZigBee network may request
15
ZigBee @ 868MHz should, in theory, have the same security foundations as 2.4GHz.
However, it was felt by the group that these were as yet untested, hence the lower rating for
6.1 & 6.2
Page 119 of 155 9-Dec-08

from the trust centre an APS Link Key, which they
can then use to encrypt packets at an application
level. Using this mechanism, two nodes can send
encrypted data through the mesh network without
intermediate nodes being able to read the payload.
d) ZigBee Smart Energy application profile specifies
the use of ECC (Elliptical Curve Cryptography) to
establish link keys between devices. This is a best
in class mechanism for establishing keys and
includes the use of digital certificates assigned to
the unique IEEE (MAC) address of each device in
the network.
Items (a) and (b) above would be used in any ZigBee

application. (c) and (d) above could be used by GB
smart metering and would be highly recommended.
ZigBee supports using an alternative key establishment
mechanism as (d) instead of ECC.
I think it is clear that ZigBee provides the most secure

mechanisms available for wireless mesh networks.
6.1 Z Wave Z-Wave provides a two tier security solution both based
on AES128.
The Z-WaveSec provides a plug & play functionality with

in-band key exchange. This solution can be used for
secure non-personal data exchange.
The Z-WaveIPTLS is based on the well known IP TLS

technology (used in all internet payment systems today).
This solution should be used for secure personal data
exchange
6.2 Bluetooth Every connection generates a new session key. Session
low energy Key is derived using inputs from both devices.
Authentication is done against an encryption root that is
128 bits long.
6.2 Wavenis Wavenis implements a rolling key mechanism based on
network, private and random keys. “Checked” random
keys (to eliminate obvious and “easy keys”) are issued
at each data exchange, and modified to determine the
key for the next exchange. Please see answer for 6.1.
6.2 Wireless Yes, on request
M-Bus
6.2 ZigBee @ (symmetric) key establishment, maintenance, and
868MHz transport are specified by ZigBee network layer,
Key generation may be further controlled by APS layer
6.2 ZigBee @ As stated in 6.1 above, rolling network keys are
2.4GHz supported and used by ZigBee.
6.2 Z Wave Key renewal is a part of the Z-WaveIPTLS solution
6.3 Bluetooth As recommended, this should be done at the application

low energy layer, not at the physical layer.
The gateway functionality of Bluetooth allows multiple
Page 120 of 155 9-Dec-08


remote meter nodes to connect and send data to a
remote application via the primary node without that
primary node having access to the data. This feature
may be of particular interest where different meters are
reporting to different utilities, as the data can be
securely partitioned. This feature can be controlled by
the remote application, allowing utility transfers to be
remotely controlled.
6.3 Wavenis With protection for each network installation (via specific
installation keys), as well as every exchange between
devices, data is utterly indistinguishable without the right
keys. Unwanted data is ignored.
6.3 Wireless Every transmission of data via RF is encrypted.
M-Bus
Consumption data is transmitted periodically to the
Gateway (MUC). Access to MUC-Data points needs
special access rights. Other data requested direct to
meter needs Authorisation for the command. For
exchange of Commands, asymmetric ECC should be
applied to sign a command. It is intended also to sign
transmitted consumption values by ECC to support
offline tariffs.
6.3 ZigBee @ security architecture supports use of link keys to secure
868MHz individual links, already specified by ZigBee
6.3 ZigBee @ Using 6.1 (c) above in conjunction perhaps with (d),
2.4GHz every node in the ZigBee network could be assigned a
different link key to talk to the devices it needs to talk to.
This link key is not known to other devices in the
network and so cannot be used to decrypt data except
by the destination node for messages. In addition, if full
ECC is used, each device would have its own unique
digital certificate which can be used to further secure the
communication and identify the device uniquely to its
target network. So, separating 3 different suppliers in
one home is easy.
6.3 Z Wave The Z-Wave AEC allows for any mix of secure and non-
secure communication. This allows for very cost
effective implementations. The AEC framework
furthermore uses separate security material (keys and
certificates) for individual utility suppliers (also in the
event that a product is hosting/displays two different
utility supplier data)
7.1 Bluetooth Yes. This is commonly used in existing Bluetooth
low energy applications. It is an implementation feature and not a
part of the core standard – this is true of all of the
standards being considered.
For robust OTA operation, all wireless standards require

sufficient flash memory for the full download to be
stored so that it can be verified before the previous
image is overwritten. This will increase the cost for
most wireless standards. It also requires that the silicon
chosen supports the protocol stack in flash and not in
ROM.
Page 121 of 155 9-Dec-08


It is important that security is considered within the
context of OTA to ensure that the download is validated
Bluetooth chips typically use 1024 bit RSA hashes to
ensure the authenticity of the new code before running.
7.1 Wavenis Over-the-air upgrades can depend on the finished radio
board. The upcoming SoC supports high-volume
(automated) field upgrades.
Maintenance upgrades can be conducted on-site by a

person using a PDA (which switches the end-point to
low-range mode, and increases it to fast transmission
mode (up to 100 kbps) in order to keep battery
consumption to the minimum.
In the SoC, a hardware area is reserved for the boot

loader. The stack handles reception of new firmware,
verifies it, and informs boot loader to replace old
firmware with new.
7.1 Wireless Software update is critical regarding the approval of
M-Bus meter software. If the communication module runs on
another µC it may be easily possible. But typically the
metering application and communication runs on the
same stack. It has to be certified that a software update
will not affect metrological software. However it is
intended to support the change of part of the software in
the meter together with authority in the next step.
7.1 ZigBee @ An example from the Meshnetics 868MHz ZigBee Pro
868MHz datasheet16:
“Over-the-air upgrade is supported over a multi-hop
network without interrupting network operation or
significantly affecting network performance.
Downloaded images are stored off-module,
checksummed, and flashed into the module ensuring
failure-free operation throughout the upgrade process
and beyond. Morevover, the default factory image can
be restored at any point during the device's lifetime
effectively unrolling the upgrade.”
7.1 ZigBee @ Not all ZigBee vendors support over the air upgrades for
2.4GHz firmware on the ZigBee node, but the leading vendors
all do. In most cases there are options for upgrading the
stack and the application and in many cases these
bootloads can be done remotely and via multiple hops.
Note that this usually requires a second program to run

on the ZigBee node, to act as a bootloader. Some other
technologies that run on very small microcontrollers do
not have enough code space to have a separate
bootloader program included.
7.1 Z Wave Standardized Z-Wave firmware upload is available
7.2 Bluetooth This depends on the security level.

low energy
16
Datasheet available at: http://www.meshnetics.com/wsn-software/bitcloud/
Page 122 of 155 9-Dec-08

Core security is defined by the Bluetooth standard. As
long as upgrades do not require additional hardware
they can be upgraded.
Application specific the security algorithms should be

specified at the application level, and therefore this
would be possible as part of a normal upgrade process.
7.2 Wavenis Security algorithms usually depend on application
requirements. Security is generally addressed on 3
levels: PHY + MAC layer (Wavenis combines FHSS,
FEC, data interleaving and scrambling) + authentication
mechanisms + data encryption algorithms.
Most sensitive applications require authentication with

sophisticated random rolling codes (combination of
rolling public & private keys) with encryption coding
such as DES, 3-DES or AES, or other.
Both enhanced authentication mechanisms and

encryption algorithms can be upgraded via over the air
programming services as described in 7.1.
7.2 Wireless See Ref. 7.1
M-Bus
7.2 ZigBee @ security architecture is specified by ZigBee spec., any
868MHz upgrade is subject to ZigBee specification
7.2 ZigBee @ Some ZigBee devices (such as Ember EM250, TI

2.4GHz CC2430) include a hardware encryption engine, which
may or may not be used by the firmware, however in
any case, all encryption is done at the network layer or
above, so is done in software, so if you wanted to
change the encryption mechanism you could do so by
replacing the application firmware.
All other modifications to security in the ZigBee stack or

application could of course be made via an over-the-air
upgrade.
7.2 Z Wave Same as item 7.1
7.3 Bluetooth Bluetooth devices shipped today still work with devices
low shipped 8 years ago. Backwards compatibility is a key
energy17 requirement that is tested before any specification can
be released. The same philosophy is being applied to
low energy.
7.3 Wavenis The most recent Wavenis devices with enhanced
features (synchronized network) are backward
compatible with the 1st generation Wavenis with non-
synchronized network shipped in 2000.
7.3 Wireless M-Bus is carried since 1997. There are active Working
M-Bus18 groups continuing work on this standard. RF-Solution
17
Whilst the proven principles of the Bluetooth SIG support backwards compatibility, the
introduction of low energy will break this – i.e. existing devices will not interoperate with ‘low
energy only’ devices
Page 123 of 155 9-Dec-08

was released in 2005. The Open Metering Working
Group selected S-Mode and T-Mode only (S1m are
excluded). The long preamble sequence of S-Mode
allows alternating scanning of both channels in time. For
a reception unit, both Modes should be supported.
7.3 ZigBee @ yes, ensured if required, refer to
868MHz IEEE802.15.4 and ZigBee by defining appropriate
control bits, e.g. “ZigBee Protocol Version”
7.3 ZigBee @ Subject to a significant change to something like
2.4GHz security (per 7.2), and any application level changes
which are totally under the control of the developer,
ZigBee ensures backward compatibility in its networking
stack and application profiles.
Sometimes criticism is levelled at ZigBee for not being

backward compatible, and certainly between ZigBee
2004 and ZigBee 2006 there were some one-off
changes made that broke backward compatibility.
However, this decision was not taken lightly, and at that
time there were no commercial products that had been
certified to ZigBee 2004, so it was OK to make such
changes without impacting any products in the field.
In general, at the point at which some product is

certified to a particular ZigBee standard or application
profile, all future work on that type of device or that
profile, must be backwards compatible.
7.3 Z Wave All Z-Wave products to date are backward compliant.
This has been proved through 4 software and ASIC
generations.
7.4 Bluetooth There is sufficient deployment of 2.4 GHz products, that
low energy it is unlikely that there will be any short or medium terms
changes to its availability.
Once the SRSM specification is complete,

representation should be made to OFCOM to ensure
that it is preserved for the lifetime of smart energy
meters.
Bluetooth is robust against all the interferers within this

band, including non-standards based solutions like X10
video transmitters
7.4 Wavenis Wavenis uses 868 MHz in Europe. Will adapt to
extension of this band (as being suggested by European
standardisation bodies) as required (extension is 863-
873MHz)
7.4 Wireless 868MHz band is carried by many industries, which take
M-Bus care about this Band. Frequency Management Working
group continues maintenance of this band.
7.4 ZigBee @ 868 MHz band dedicated to ISM usage, potential to be
868MHz expanded
18
The group expressed concerns that there are compatibility issues within the M-Bus
standard – ‘S’ and ‘T’ types do not interoperate
Page 124 of 155 9-Dec-08

7.4 ZigBee @ It is difficult to comment on this, as it is always an
2.4GHz unknown. However, 2.4GHz has established itself with
a number of technologies and so should be available as
an unlicensed band into the future. Given the support
for ZigBee 2.4GHz by silicon vendors, major electronics
manufacturers etc., it would appear that the frequency is
here to stay. If anything, as WiFi moves up to 5GHz,
the frequency may prove more popular for wireless
sensor networks over time.
7.4 Z Wave The 868MHz band has been adopted by all CEPT
countries
7.5 Bluetooth Bluetooth has shipped 2.5 billion devices, and is still
low energy growing its volume. A market that requires this many
chips will not disappear overnight. No other technology
will take its place in phones, as the number of radios in
a phone is constrained, and Bluetooth is already in
there.
The first generation of Bluetooth silicon chips have not

shown field failure in 8 years of operation. They have
been qualified for and are in use in automotive and
medical applications which require a minimum of 7
years operation and MTBF in excess of 30 years.
7.5 Wavenis Latest generation of Wavenis-based battery-operated
metering solutions features 20 years autonomy with
legal commitment.
The Wavenis-OSA creates all the conditions to ensure
longevity of the technology itself.
7.5 Wireless Single Transceiver applied (no special chipset required).
M-Bus Technology is available as long as Frequency band will
be available.
7.5 ZigBee @ Yes
868MHz
7.5 ZigBee @ Again, given the support for ZigBee by silicon vendors,
2.4GHz meter manufacturers and others, it is clear that ZigBee
is around for the long haul. The ability to upgrade over
the air means that it would be possible to add new
features to applications and maybe even to the stack if
necessary, and so keep the devices in the field up to
date with the latest innovations (if that was desirable,
depends on upgrade strategy).
ZigBee offers very strong security, and more bandwidth

than is needed for smart metering, so it can survive
future requirements.
Even if ZigBee were to disappear (and that is most

unlikely), or if another more suitable IEEE 802.15.4-
based technology were to emerge in future years (also
unlikely), all of the ZigBee chipsets are IEEE 802.15.4
compliant, and most can be upgraded over-the-air, so it
would be possible to upgrade from ZigBee to some
other wireless networking stack at that point.
Page 125 of 155 9-Dec-08


7.5 Z Wave
8.1 Bluetooth Bluetooth low energy is designed for mass market, cost
low energy sensitive applications. Silicon costs for 100k volumes
are expected to be at the following levels for 2010,
falling in future years
Electricity meter: <$2

Gas / Water: <$2
Display unit: $0 (it comes for free with mobile phone !!!)
Display Unit: <$2.
Additional costs are an antenna, a few passive

components and a battery.
Pre-approved modules containing all of the required

components and functionality should be available for
less than $10 at 1 million pieces.
8.1 Wavenis It is important to consider the finished solution, not just
the chipset price. For example, per unit sales price for a
Wavenis metering end-point: PCB + CPU/RF/memory,
mounted and tested + battery + antenna + sensor
connection : <€10 for 100k units
Home display Unit : around €30
8.1 Wireless RF-Chip 1,40 $ (@10k today)
M-Bus RF-Module 2,00 $ (w/o battery + µC)
Battery (RF-only) 0,5Ah
Battery (Gas meter incl. valve) 2,5 Ah= ca. 3,00 €
(@10k today)
8.1 ZigBee @ price competitive to ZigBee 2.4GHz and also other 868
868MHz MHz implementations
8.1 ZigBee @ This is difficult for a vendor to answer, as the cost to the
2.4GHz utility includes much more than just some ZigBee chips,
there is a lot of value add by module manufacturers,
meter manufacturers etc.
However if we look only at chip costs, then across the

multiple vendors;
a) For 1 million of units, ZigBee chipsets today cost

typically between about $2.50 and $3.00.
b) ZigBee modules including PA to +10dBm, with FCC
and CE approval, in million unit quantities can be
obtained for between $7-$10.
We expect the chip prices to come down to about $1.50-
$2.00 by 2012, and module prices by then to be <$5.
8.1 Z Wave • $2.00-3.00 for SoC in high volumes
• $3.00-4.00 for complete module in high volumes
• Lowest cost in the market, thanks to
Compact FSK technology
Compact protocol stack sizes
• Modern single chip implementation in either 180nm
or 130 nm CMOS
• Sustainable cost benefit due to much higher
Page 126 of 155 9-Dec-08


complexity of competitors
8.2 Bluetooth No known failures of Bluetooth devices in the field due
low energy to Bluetooth chip recorded in last 8 years.
8.2 Wavenis Of the 2.5 million units deployed at this time, only 0.02%
of finished products have been returned for post-sales
service. No separate figure on chipset failure is
available.
8.2 Wireless Depending on chip solution. Our experience of Chip
M-Bus error rate is <0,005% per year.
8.2 ZigBee @ depends on final system solution which is not under
868MHz control of Chip providers, Radio/MCU IC’s are proven
for MTBF >>10 years
8.2 ZigBee @ This is another metric that needs to be assessed on a
2.4GHz vendor by vendor basis, however most ZigBee chipsets
should be up to the requirements. Most chips are on
well proven processes and manufactured in reputable
fabrication plants such as TSMC in Taiwan, probably
use mostly the same flash and RAM components, so for
the most part they will deliver similar levels of reliability.
MTBF and other calculations of this nature are done

using HTOL testing on samples of devices over 1000’s
of hours at higher temperatures (usually 125 degrees C)
than the devices are normally used, to simulate longer
term usage. Using this technique, even recently
released chipsets can have a very high calculated
MTBF from relatively short test periods, and the
confidence level for that value increases as more testing
is done over time. For example based on this type of
testing, EM2420/CC2420 has a minimum expected life
of 10 years at 58 degrees C.
8.2 Z Wave Chip < 90FIT – equivalent to 90 failures in one billion
hours of operation
9.1 Bluetooth None currently with low energy. Commercial Products
low energy expected in 2009.
9.1 Wavenis Wavenis was first deployed as a wireless solution for

walk-by metering, and has been used in smart metering
systems (with remote 2-way access, programmable
bubble-up, alerts, etc.) for the past several years in
places such as China (China Gas) France (Les Sables
d’Olonnes, Paris) Spain, Slovenia, and North America
(CA). Some of these networks also include wireless in-
home displays for consumers.
9.1 Wireless Applied since 2004 for several million meters.
M-Bus
9.1 ZigBee @ There are some small scale trials using
868MHz ZigBee@868MHz in metering – an example would be its’
use in a smart gas meter trial in Spain.
9.1 ZigBee @ ZigBee has been selected for use in smart metering
2.4GHz deployments in Texas, California, Virginia and Detroit in
the US, Victoria in Australia, and Gothenburg, Sweden.
It has also been used in successful trials in Spain, as
well as being included in the recent EDRP trials in the
Page 127 of 155 9-Dec-08

UK by some of the ERA members.
Gothenburg has now got about 60,000 meters live,

expecting to complete roll-out to 270,000 meters by the
end of 2008. Other large trials and deployments in the
US have already been documented in this forum (see
my presentation of 2nd Sept).
In the UK, PRI already uses ZigBee in its prepayment

meters.
9.1 Z Wave • 2500 home trial in UK.
• Installed in 1000+ smart metering application by
Modstroem in Denmark.
• Used in sub-metering and Energy Conservation
applications by DEST in Denmark along with many
OEM partners
9.2 Bluetooth None currently with low energy. Commercial Products
low energy expected in 2009.
9.2 Wavenis Over 2 million Wavenis smart metering solutions are up
and running today. Other applications include home
Automation (door lock, alarm, lighting, temp control),
Industrial Automation, environment, medical, Track &
trace (active long range UHF RFID) and in-home
displays.
9.2 Wireless Same RF-Interface applied in Home automation
M-Bus (Konnex)
9.2 ZigBee @ yes, IEEE802.15.4 / ZigBee are developed to be used
868MHz e.g. in metering applications, application profiles are
especially designed for meter applications
9.2 ZigBee @ ZigBee is used in a wide variety of applications including
2.4GHz some that are very similar to the sort of networking
needed for smart metering; some examples of the
variety of applications include; marine safety (see
http://www.raymarine.co.uk/products/lifetag/), industrial
ball valve control (see www.eltav.com), home security
(see www.alertme.com), energy monitoring /
management (see www.plugwise.com), home
automation (see www.control4.com), commercial
building automation (see www.tac.com) and fire and
safety (see www.byterg.ru).
Some of these applications are similar to GB smart

metering requirements, but even where they are not, the
sort of networking involved is fairly typical of networks in
UK homes or in AMR/AMM solutions.
9.2 Z Wave Focus on home control / Unified Home Control is a
major strength
9.3 Bluetooth Bluetooth has only released three version of the
low energy standard in the last seven years, all of which are
backwardly compatible.
The Bluetooth low energy release will be the first

version of this new standard, but care is being taken to
Page 128 of 155 9-Dec-08


ensure that it will be compatible with all future releases.
New features to the core standard are only made after

substantive review of their necessity, the commitment of
the market and a guarantee of backwards compatibility.
9.3 Wavenis New revisions offer a superset of previous versions,
thus providing backward compatibility over time. Latest
major revision (2008) now being deployed in Europe.
9.3 Wireless Revision next 2 years! Thereafter stable for next 5 years
M-Bus
9.3 ZigBee @ IEEE802.15.4 / ZigBee specification are permanent
868MHz under control and development, e.g. specific application
profiles to optimize to customers needs,
refer to ZigBee Alliance
9.3 ZigBee @ There are no planned upgrades to the ZigBee
2.4GHz networking standard in the next 2 years, and beyond
that, none that GB smart metering would require out of
necessity.
The ZigBee Smart Energy Application Profile will be

updated later this year to include feedback from field
deployments in the US and new requirements from
Australia. It is anticipated that GB smart metering would
also have some amendments and would make sure that
the ZigBee Smart Energy spec is sufficient for needs
before deploying, so therefore no requirement for
upgrades for ZigBee specification reasons after that,
unless the UK specifies them.
9.3 Z Wave Very high maturity of chip and protocol
Used in over 300 products – Available for more
than six years
Proven for interoperability and backward
compatibility
4th generation system-on-chip solutions and
5th generation software
9.4 Bluetooth Bluetooth silicon vendors currently ship in excess of 1
low energy billion chips per year. There is no issue in supporting
the requirements of the meter market.
Module vendors manufacture several hundred million

modules per year, so extensive production capacity and
production line RF test equipment is already available
and scalable.
Bluetooth cannot comment on the capacity of meter

vendors to meet this demand.
9.4 Wavenis Multiple chip vendors, multiple providers
(manufacturers/integrators) of metering solutions.
9.4 Wireless Many manufacturers have basic solution now. They
M-Bus have to adapt new features (e.g. Replace DES by AES)
9.4 ZigBee @ final system / meter not under control of Chip providers
868MHz
9.4 ZigBee @ Most of the ZigBee vendors are seasoned silicon
2.4GHz manufacturers, and already producing chip volumes
Page 129 of 155 9-Dec-08


well in excess of those required for the UK smart
metering rollout. Others are fab-less and use very large
and reputable fabs like TSMC and IBM, where capacity
is certainly not an issue.
It is anticipated that each individual ZigBee vendor

would have to satisfy this requirement as part of any
tendering process.
9.4 Z Wave Zensys is direct partner with TSMC and ASE allowing
for very high volumes
2nd source silicon in 2009
9.5 Bluetooth Phones are the most interesting opportunity to interact
low energy with smart meters by acting as remote controls –
pushing information from meters to phones. They could
become a powerful tool in providing a compelling
application to get people to see their usage on a daily,
hourly or instantaneous basis.
Television sets, set top boxes and remote controls are

participating in driving the development of the low
energy standard, so these provide additional options for
user interaction.
Low energy Bluetooth will also be incorporated in

computers and similar consumer electronic devices, all
of which can play a part in controlling and displaying the
status of the smart energy home.
9.5 Wavenis Home display devices, thermostats, lighting control
systems already on the market.
9.5 Wireless Wireless M-Bus is part of Konnex (Home automation).
M-Bus Home display, thermostats etc. available in Konnex.
9.5 ZigBee @ A number of meter and smart home products are
868MHz available, however these have not been certified by the
ZigBee Alliance.
9.5 ZigBee @ Many ZigBee Smart Energy products and ZigBee (non-
2.4GHz SE) products on the market today to satisfy the
requirements of ZigBee deployments in the UK;
Meters: e.g. Itron/Actaris, Elster, Landis+Gyr, PRI,

GE/Nuri etc.
In-home displays: e.g. PRI, Tendril, Control4, many
others coming
Thermostats: e.g. Comverge, Computime, Golden
Power (RiteTemp).
Smartplugs: e.g. Plugwise, Alertme, Tendril, others
coming…
9.5 Z Wave Very strong - Z-Wave Alliance with more than170
members and 300 products
Table 20 Evaluation Notes
10.5 Evaluation Scenarios

As part of the Local Communications Development activity, it has been
suggested that further evaluation of the solution technologies should be
undertaken using ‘Use Case Scenarios’ for initial field testing.
Page 130 of 155 9-Dec-08
Each of the solutions could be tested against a small number of ‘real world’
scenarios for performance when delivering typical smart metering activities:
- smart meter to smart meter data exchange
- smart meter to in home display data exchange
- smart meter to Local Device (e.g. smart thermostat, microgeneration
unit) data exchange
When considering interference, this would be the existing level of wireless

activity – average could constitute any device that operates, or produces a first
order harmonic, in the same part of the frequency spectrum as the solution,
and likely to be near the solution devices. Harsh, could include proximity to a
TETRA radio pad or radar sweeps.
An example of this approach is shown below

Premise Size: 3 Bedroom, 3 Reception, Domestic Semi-Detached House, 100sqm
Level Wall Type Meter Locations Interference
One Brick External, adjacent Average
Two Foil Insulated External, remote Average
Three Internal, adjacent Average
Four High
Five Harsh
Table 21 Evaluation Scenario Suggestions
Page 131 of 155 9-Dec-08

11 Conclusions & Recommendations

11.1 Conclusions
Primarily, it should be noted that all participants in the group and the
preparation of this report have been positive about the contribution the
process has made to their understanding of the subject, the requirements and
the options. The ERA and the SRSM project team are grateful to all
participants for their contributions and the spirit of co-operation throughout the
process.
The solution ‘providers’ within the group certainly understand more about the
particular requirements of potential customers in energy metering and related
devices, and those customers are equally more aware of the options and
opportunities these solutions present.
The process has moved all participants forward to a point where the
requirements and solutions are converging. It is clear from the work of the
group that it is possible for the requirements for Local Communications for
smart metering to be met by technologies available today.
Although necessarily a ‘desktop’ exercise, progress has been made in

identifying and agreeing principles and requirements, potential solutions and
related considerations. This should provide a solid foundation for any
subsequent work in this area, and it is particularly evident that every one of the
solution options, as an interoperable low power radio, could be capable of
delivering a Local Communications standard for smart metering in Britain.
11.2 Recommendations
The group recommends that its’ work be continued in a timely manner, under
whatever framework is determined to deliver smart metering, in order to make
use of the wealth of information contained within this report.
Given suitable authority and resources, a solution for Local Communications

should be chosen as soon as can be done with the correct level of confidence.
Participants in the potential smart metering and smart energy markets are
waiting for a definitive answer to support the development of new products
that would incorporate the appropriate silicon in meters and other devices.
A great deal of the supporting information required to support the selection of

a solution is contained in this report.
Chief amongst the recommendations would be to continue the evaluation

process by undertaking the test and review process detailed in section 11.3
below. The desktop evaluation exercise has gathered a great deal of valuable
information that should form a solid foundation to refine the evaluation criteria
to allow the key differences between solutions to be identified and assessed.
Page 132 of 155 9-Dec-08

The process has been successful in creating a network of interested

stakeholders, and has, by being a public exercise, attracted a wider audience,
including international participants. The group would recommend that any
further work be similarly ‘open’ in conducting proceedings, with suitable
arrangements for ‘blind’ testing and recognising the sensitivities associated
with the suggested panel review process.
It has been evident that more work is required to understand and document
detailed user requirements for Local Communications for smart metering. This
will be a challenging activity, as this is a new area for energy retailers and
meter manufacturers, particularly within an ‘interoperable’ environment as
required for smart metering. This does not need to be a very detailed piece of
work, but clarifying some of the potentially ambiguous areas would be
beneficial:
• Detailed assessment of how energy retailers anticipate utilising the Local
Communications solutions to support new energy services propositions,
and how these might differ from the accepted and understood paradigms
of consumption information display and tariff signals
• Detailed assessment of requirements from other parties – e.g. electricity
distributors
• It may be necessary for energy retailers to agree the minimum amount of
energy information to display to customers
• Local Communications operating as a proxy/link for WAN Communications
activities – for the Last Mile or for a Meter Operator HHU
• Distinguishing between utility or energy usage of Local Communications
and the HAN, particularly how this would relate to control and security
within these networks
• Duty cycles for gas meters for display information. Understanding how
often a battery based device is required to transmit data will assist with
understanding the potential battery costs
A number of key issues remain unresolved – see section 12 below – these are
central to establishing the correct requirements and solution for Local
Communications – work in these areas should be progressed.
When commencing this exercise in January 2008, it was envisaged that some
guidance on the market model for smart metering in GB would have been
forthcoming, which could have clarified the possibility of low power radios
being utilised as part of the WAN Communications infrastructure for smart
metering. Throughout, this ‘Last Mile’ potential has therefore been kept slightly
separated from the Local Communications Group activity looking at supporting
interactions within a home, as it could have been rendered redundant under
particular market models.
At the time of preparing these recommendations, the market model

discussions continue. Therefore, the materials that have been prepared for
Last Mile consideration have been moved to an appendix of this document,
with a recommendation that they be considered in the event of a market model
decision that could accommodate the use of a single radio in smart meters to
talk to the home, and to remote parties.
Page 133 of 155 9-Dec-08

Finally, any subsequent evaluation exercise on this subject needs to

recognise the publication date of this report and the fast pace of development
in this area. Technologies are emerging and developing that could be
considered as potential solutions, a prime example given at the group is
6LoPan.
The longer this report sits on the shelf, the greater risk that things could have
moved forwards significantly. The solutions themselves, or the evaluation
criteria could change materially, for example the potential to use Local
Communications solutions for Last Mile.
11.3 Testing & Evaluating Criteria

Table 22 shows how the Local Communications Development Group
recommends evaluation and testing of the individual criteria. It is
recommended that the evaluation criteria be re-visited to ensure their
coverage is appropriate for the different assessment approaches (from the
desktop exercise conducted within this report).19
Three ‘broad’ types of evaluation are considered:

• Field test; use of the Local Communications solutions in a metering context
in typical metering environments, preferably using actual metering
products. The tests should be designed by experts familiar with both radio
communications issues and metering, and should take the form of ‘real
world’ tests.
• Laboratory test; formal scientific testing under laboratory conditions to be
undertaken by an independent body, including methods such as analysis
and simulation.
• Panel review; a number of criteria are linked to strategic developments,
commercial arrangements and other parameters that cannot be effectively
measured using field or laboratory testing. In these instances it is
recommended that a representative panel be formed from interested
stakeholders who are not necessarily radio communications experts, who
would conduct a series of one-to-one reviews with representatives of the
Local Communications solutions.
In all cases these activities should be undertaken by participants independent

from the solutions being evaluated. The group has discussed the potential to
engage with academic institutions to support the field and laboratory testing.
Following the evaluation discussion within the group it was felt that additional
evaluation criteria should be added to the set for any subsequent activity.
These are highlighted in the table below.
19
Criteria recommendations from group members include:
Add new :
3.3 - Battery powered devices should not be able to be configured as bridges
or routers.- Desirable - 2 (reason - impact on battery life)
4.3 - Communications between devices to exhibit low latency.”- Desirable - 3
Page 134 of 155 9-Dec-08
As can be seen from the issues with the small test conducted by members of
the group (appendix C), any field test needs to be meticulously planned and is
an exercise not to be underestimated.
It was noted by the group that several smart metering initiatives have
conducted similar evaluative and comparative testing of low power radio
technologies, and where possible their findings should be included and/or
referenced in any GB specific report.
These tests are not, as shown, intended to be necessarily exclusive – criteria

could be the subject of field testing and a panel review.
Wherever relevant, additional information from the group has been added as
footnotes to this table.
Ref Criteria Field Lab Test Panel Not
Test Review tested
1.1 Low level of energy customer Y
intervention/support required to
maintain communications
1.2 Ease of installation – i.e. Y
discovery at meter installation
1.3 Minimise number of site visits to Y Y
address local communications
issues – i.e. recovery or remote
correction on failure/upgrade
failure – will include MTBF and
power consumption on meter
1.4 Development tools to support Y
smart metering and smart energy
market
1.5 Ease of integration into Y
metering/home products – e.g.
system on chip, antenna size
1.6 Scope/receptiveness to Y
accommodate specific GB smart
metering requirements
2.1 Status as an Open Standard – Y
accessibility, defined standards,
range of participants, proven
2.2 Support for choice of data Y
exchange format
2.3 Genuine choice and competition
2.4 Interoperable chipsets Y Y
2.5 Effort required to update Y
standards to meet specific GB
requirements (less effort = higher
score)
2.6 No. of nodes supported for each Y Y
HAN, assuming minimum
capability of 3.
3.1 Consumption/Peak Y Y
Page 135 of 155 9-Dec-08


Test Review tested
Management20
3.2 Support for battery powered Y Y
nodes, but also for energy smart
metering application (e.g. data
refreshes in minutes rather than
hours/days for end nodes)
4.1 Transmission speed – effective Y Y
data throughput in kbps per
channel21
4.2 Robustness (retry mechanisms, Y Y
acknowledgements, minimised/nil
message loss – i.e. latency22 and
dropped packets)
5.1 Typical range (amplified or non- Y Y
amplified)23
5.2 Suitability for GB meter locations Y Y
(consider internal/external,
stone/concrete, metal meter
cabinets, meter rooms etc.)
5.3 Vulnerability to signal Y Y
interference24
5.4 Ability to cope with signal Y Y
interference
5.5 Blocking Immunity in Y
transceiver25
5.6 *NEW* ‘Good Neighbour’ test – Y Y
the solution should not materially
affect other networks
6.1 Strength/resilience of methods Y Y
used
20
Will need to understand the power consumption in sleep mode for lab
testing, or, alternatively - milliwatt for range achieved
21
Notes on testing 4.1:
- faster isn’t necessarily better, throughput/”speed” depends on
usage/range
- throughput will vary by network configuration, testing should be
comparative (point to point) using a standard 1kbit package over a fixed
range (30, 50, 100m)
22
Recommended to remove latency from 4.2 and add new 4.3 as per footnote
17
23
Range will depend on power used/specific chipsets, antenna design etc.
Could test for penetration rather than, or as well as, range?
Standard tests could include Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI),
Packet Error Rate (PER), Bit Error Ration (BER)
24
the ‘interfering’ devices should be defined
25
Will be very much silicon vendor specific, lab test/field test should include
increasingly common problem causing equipment, such as RFID readers
Page 136 of 155 9-Dec-08


Test Review tested
6.2 Ability to use rolling/successive Y Y
keys
6.3 Support for distinguishing Y Y Y
public/private data, and for
keeping gas/water/electricity data
independently secure – i.e.
supports 3 different suppliers for
3 utilities (and any other
authorised party data secure)
7.1 Support for “over the air” Y Y
upgrades of ‘smart meter’ nodes
– i.e. gas + electricity meters & in
home display – to include
chipsets and applications
7.2 Support for security upgrades Y Y
7.3 Support for backwards Y Y
compatibility
7.4 Longevity of frequency Y
7.5 Longevity of solution technology Y
(minimum expected smart meter
asset life of 10-15 years)
8.1 Total cost per home – 1 x Y
electricity meter, 1 x gas meter
with battery, 1 x home display
unit = 3 chipsets + additional
battery cost
8.2 Mean Time Between Y Y
9.1 Use in equivalent smart metering Y
deployments
9.2 Use in analogous applications Y
9.3 Expectation of ongoing required Y
upgrades – i.e. v2009, v2011
(fewer = higher score?)
9.4 Capacity in vendors to meet Y
smart metering demands (meters
plus displays and other devices)
– assume 5 year deployment to
25 million homes
9.5 Availability of non-metering Y
products that could be relevant to
smart metering – e.g.
thermostats, display devices
Table 22 Evaluation Testing Recommendations
A criterion which has been suggested for inclusion, but which may be
contingent upon the definition of the user requirements, relates to separating
different applications.
“6.4 – Architecture to separate applications and data”
A reference is available in section 13 below which covers this particular area,

and whilst the reference is ZigBee specific, it was acknowledged by the group
as being applicable to all of the solutions being considered.
Page 137 of 155 9-Dec-08
11.4 Solution Summary Statements

As part of the development of this report and these recommendations, it was
felt that it would be beneficial to provide an independent view from the SRSM
project team on each of the Local Communications solutions under
consideration.
These statements are intended to reflect a general view of each of the

solutions, with particular regard for the current suitability for consideration for
use in the potential GB smart metering market and where improvements are
required to meet key technical requirements.
In no way do these statements constitute recommendations or statements of

intent by the group or ERA members, they are intended to provide an
independent snap-shot of the current position.
11.4.1 Bluetooth low energy

Bluetooth low energy has been a different consideration for the group from the
other solutions. Bluetooth is obviously a global success and the opportunity to
include smart metering in such an extensive and established eco-system of
interoperable devices is very intriguing.
However, it has appeared that Bluetooth low energy is still some way from
being available to test – Q1 2009 has yet to be confirmed. Further doubts have
been raised by a number of participants in the group as to the actual
performance characteristics and power consumption, and therefore suitability
for consideration for smart metering. These doubts can only be addressed by
testing actual products. Given this status the current assessment of Bluetooth
low energy has been generically classified as “No Information Available”.
11.4.2 Wavenis
Wavenis is a successful solution for metering already, particularly for the Last
Mile, with a strong evidence base of installed European utility meters. From
the desktop exercise and the group meetings, it looks to be a very technically
accomplished radio solution, offering range and security at low power.
The newly established Wavenis OSA is also a positive move towards open
standards and interoperability, but this is quite a recent development. It is also
the case that Wavenis does not currently have a smart meter specific ‘profile’
similar to ZigBee Smart Energy, preferring to let customers develop specific
applications using the Wavenis radio. This is not a ‘good fit’ with the principles
for GB smart metering, where adoption of an end-to-end solution is preferred
to development.
Further, it has not been apparent that there is an established market of

peripheral Local Devices, such as a range of home display units or
thermostats, as you can find with some of the other technologies.
11.4.3 Wireless MBus

The MBus solution offers a number of key positives;
- it is the preferred solution in a number of large European markets
Page 138 of 155 9-Dec-08

- it is also closely tied to key European solutions, such as DLMS, KNX

etc.
- it is an international standard, and there are metering and related
products available now from EU meter manufacturers
However, there are a number of points to consider;
- it is not well understood by the majority of GB energy participants with
an interest in smart metering
- the interoperability with KNX devices is not clear, as this may prove to
be a significant positive if an existing European market of potential
Local Devices would be available for use in Great Britain
- there are a number of different and incompatible standards at varying
stages of development which complicates the assessment of its
applicability for an interoperable 2 way Local Communications interface
- it is going through a key development cycle, and the objective/potential
outcome of this activity is also unclear
Each of these points can, and should be addressed in order to ensure that
MBus is considered equitably with the other solutions.
11.4.4 ZigBee @ 868MHz

ZigBee @868MHz appears to offer the potential for the ‘best of both worlds’ –
operating at what has generally been perceived to be the quieter and more
‘meter-appropriate’ ISM frequency, whilst also benefitting from the extensive
work of the ZigBee Alliance to develop smart metering products.
However, getting representation for this option has been challenging, and
there does not appear to be support across a number of semi conductor
manufacturers. Whilst products are now starting to appear, these are not
generally tied directly to smart metering, and do not currently offer the ZigBee
Smart Energy profile, which is of key interest to the group.
The key shortfall of this option is lack of certified products available.

Certification by the ZigBee Alliance requires 3 products from different
providers to be available – at current we are only aware of one being available
for ZigBee at 868MHz.
11.4.5 ZigBee @ 2.4GHz

ZigBee @2.4GHz has been in a strong position throughout – it offers context
specific products, has an established interoperability regime and existing
metering solutions. The ZigBee Alliance is also developing the product in key
areas of interest to smart metering; the work with the HomePlug Alliance and
DLMS are good examples of strategic activities that can only be viewed as
positive.
Adoption by major utilities in North America and Australia is also very

encouraging.
ZigBee @2.4GHz, however, must be successful in field trials and testing, as

challenges relating to range/power consumption and interference at the
2.4GHz frequency continue to be raised. It is also the case that whilst it has
been successful in other territories, there has been no significant adoption for
utility metering in Europe.
Page 139 of 155 9-Dec-08

11.4.6 Z Wave
The progress by the Z Wave Alliance towards a realistic smart
metering/energy offering, even during the group activities to produce this
report, has been impressive.
Further, the development of the Advanced Energy Control profiles, the work
on Z/IP and the solid foundation in home automation are all very positive.
However, concerns remain over a couple of fundamental requirements:

- Z Wave is currently subject to a single source of silicon (but has
committed to have a second source in place in the first half of 2009)
- It remains unclear how ‘open’ the specification is and what the royalty
and licence implications are, although we acknowledge that there has
been good progress and plans to be as ‘open’ as other options are in
place
- there is no large international implementation of smart metering using Z
Wave.
Page 140 of 155 9-Dec-08

12 Issues
Table 23 provides an ongoing record of issues for consideration and potential
actions to resolve.
No Issue Description Resolution Options
I.1 End to End Services Recommend further work in this
The initial group workshop discussed the area to understand the
ability of a meter to support the replication relationship with Last Mile and the
of ‘WAN’ functionality locally, typically by actual requirements
a meter operator when WAN
communications has failed.
This may be challenging if Local
Communications supports a restricted set
of functionality with regard to data and
commands.
I.2 Data Ownership & Privacy To an extent is contingent upon
Use of mesh networks outside premises Government decisions and
could raise data ownership and data regulatory guidance on data
transfer questions – i.e. Supplier X ownership.
receives data from Meter A via Meter B, The group discussed three
which is supplied by Supplier Z potential ‘domains’ for privacy:
- public domain
- private to supplier domain
- private to customer domain
A number of current solutions use

the term ‘tunneling’ to explain how
data is kept private within a mesh.
I.3 Additional Network Requirement? For consideration by any
Is there a need to define that the smart subsequent development activity.
meter is expected to be the master of the
HAN network? It would be sensible to establish
how many logical radio networks
In most cases the meter could be
(‘utility’, ‘HAN’, ‘Gas’, ‘Water’) a
expected to administer the energy
meter may be part of. This can
aspects of a network, but could also be a
only be done after requirements
node to an existing HAN, acting as a
are clarified.
source of data for other nodes.
There may not need to be a master – if the
networks operate on a peer-to-peer basis.
I.4 Potential Wired Solution for Electricity For consideration by any
Only Premises subsequent development activity
A suggestion arising from ongoing
discussions would be how to introduce an
interoperable solution to cover a wired
‘HAN’ where there is no requirement for
wireless from a gas meter. This could limit
some of the applications for nodes within
a network – e.g. any display designed to
be used as a wireless option, but if the
physical medium made use of electrical
wiring within a home, then it also offers
advantages that a wireless solution does
not.
Table 23 Issues
Page 141 of 155 9-Dec-08
13 References
Shown below are references to relevant materials and resources.
The SRSM project maintains an online reference table of global

interoperability initiatives (OpenHAN, CECED, TAHI etc.) at:
http://snipurl.com/srsmint
Reference Description Link

Itron case studies As requested at first meeting snipurl.com/lcdgitron
on meter data of Local Communications
collection Development Group
EN 62053-61 Standard entitled – IEC Page for standard:
Electricity Metering http://tinyurl.com/5n8389
Equipment – Particular
Requirements – Part 61 –
Power Consumption and
Voltage Requirements
Wireless Network Detailed report on wireless http://tinyurl.com/5jumeu
Report networks, including a
technical comparison of
ZigBee and ANT networks
ZigBee & WiFi Report by Schneider Electric snipurl.com/zigbeewifi
Coexistence investigating the potential
Report interference issues where
ZigBee and WiFi networks co-
exist
OpenHAN 2008 US specification of the Direct link to download MS
Home Area requirements for AMI/Smart Word document:
Network System Grid operations using smart snipurl.com/openhan
Requirements meters as a gateway to
Specification v1 devices within a home
Release
Candidate
Daintree Paper covering a range of snipurl.com/lcdgdaintree
Networks paper topics relevant to the Local
on Building and Communications
Operating Robust Development Group activities,
and Reliable including; design,
ZigBee Networks interference, security etc.
Recommended April 2007 paper by Ken snipurl.com/zigbeehomeland
Practices Guide Masica for the US Department
for Securing of Homeland Security.
ZigBee Wireless
Networks in Relates to the matters
Process Control covered in Prinicple P.3, Issue
System I.3 and section 5.8
Environments
It should be noted that the
issues discussed in the paper
Page 142 of 155 9-Dec-08

would apply to all of the

technology options
considered by this report and
not just ZigBee
Potential UK Paper by group member snipurl.com/lcdgmorfey
Smart Meter Alistair Morfey of Cambridge
Network Consultants, looking at the
possible implications and
architecture for using a Local
Communications radio for
Local and WAN Last Mile
Table 24 References
Page 143 of 155 9-Dec-08

Appendix A: Referential Integrity Check

In order to ensure that the evaluation criteria used by the group provides
sufficient coverage of the Principles, Assumptions and Requirements, Table
25 was created.
It shows which of the Principles, Assumptions and Requirements are

addressed by each of the criteria.
Of the evaluation criteria ‘8.1 – Cost’ and ‘9.4 – Capacity of Silicon Vendors’ do
not have matching references in the Principles, Assumptions and
Requirements, as these are purely commercial considerations.
Of the Principles ‘P.3 – Ownership of the Network’ is not evaluated as this will
not be something the Local Communications Solution can affect. Similarly ‘P.7
– National Standard’ is a product of the process rather than anything an
individual solution can establish.
Of the Assumptions ‘A.1 – Legal’ does not need to be evaluated, ‘A.2 – SRSM
Functionality’ is implied in the requirements and ‘A.4 – Utility Robust’ is
addressed by the requirements and evaluation criteria, but not explicitly.
Of the Requirements ‘NET.3 – Network Time Synchronisation’ is purely

functional, ‘COM.3 – Hand Held as a WAN Proxy’ is an area covered by a
recommendation for further development work to understand the requirement
and ‘CUS.1 – Effect on Customer Networks’ has not been evaluated as part of
this desktop investigation, but is recommended for inclusion in any
subsequent field testing and is recorded as new criteria reference 5.6.
Ref Criteria Principles Assumpt’s Req’s

1.1 Low level of energy customer CUS.1.2.3
intervention/support required to maintain
communications
1.2 Ease of installation – i.e. discovery at MOP.1
meter installation CUS.3
1.3 Minimise number of site visits to address P.1 GEN.3
local communications issues – i.e. COM.1.3
recovery or remote correction on MOP.1
failure/upgrade failure – will include CUS.2
MTBF and power consumption on meter
1.4 Development tools to support smart P.10 GEN.2
metering and smart energy market
1.5 Ease of integration into metering/home P.10 CUS.2
products – e.g. system on chip, antenna
size
1.6 Scope/receptiveness to accommodate P.1 A.1 GEN.1
specific GB smart metering requirements COM.1
DAT.1
2.1 Status as an Open Standard – P.4.5.6.10 GEN.2
accessibility, defined standards, range of DAT.1
participants, proven certification process
Page 144 of 155 9-Dec-08


2.2 Support for choice of data exchange P.4 GEN.1.2
format DAT.1
2.3 Genuine choice and competition P.4 GEN.2
2.4 Interoperable chipsets P.4 GEN.2
2.5 Effort required to update standards to P.1 GEN.1.2
meet specific GB requirements (less P.4.5.6.10 DAT.1
effort = higher score)
2.6 No. of nodes supported for each HAN, NET.2
assuming minimum capability of 3.
3.1 Consumption/Peak Current/Power P.2.8 GEN.3
Failure Management
3.2 Support for battery powered nodes, but P.1.2.8 GEN.3
also for energy smart metering COM.1
application (e.g. data refreshes in
minutes rather than hours/days for end
nodes)
4.1 Transmission speed – effective data P.2
throughput in kbps per channel
4.2 Robustness (retry mechanisms, P.1
acknowledgements, minimised/nil
message loss – i.e. latency and dropped
packets)
5.1 Typical range (amplified or non- P.2.8 COM.1
amplified)
5.2 Suitability for GB meter locations P.1 COM.1
(consider internal/external, MOP.1
stone/concrete, metal meter cabinets,
meter rooms etc.)
5.3 Vulnerability to signal interference A.4 COM.2
CUS.1
5.4 Ability to cope with signal interference A.4 COM.2
5.5 Blocking Immunity in transceiver COM.2
5.6 *NEW* ‘Good Neighbour’ test – the CUS.1
solution should not materially affect other
networks
6.1 Strength/resilience of methods used P.1.9 SEC.1
6.2 Ability to use rolling/successive keys P.9 SEC.1.2
6.3 Support for distinguishing public/private P.9 COM.3
data, and for keeping SEC.1
gas/water/electricity data independently NET.1
secure – i.e. supports 3 different
suppliers for 3 utilities (and any other
authorised party data secure)
7.1 Support for “over the air” upgrades of P.9 GEN.4
‘smart meter’ nodes – i.e. gas +
electricity meters & in home display
7.2 Support for security upgrades P.9.10
7.3 Support for backwards compatibility P.10 GEN.4
7.4 Longevity of frequency A.3
7.5 Longevity of solution technology P.10 A.3
(minimum expected smart meter asset
life of 10-15 years)
8.1 Total cost per home – 1 x electricity
Page 145 of 155 9-Dec-08

meter, 1 x gas meter with battery, 1 x
home display unit = 3 chipsets +
additional battery cost
8.2 Mean Time Between Failures/Reliability MOP.1
9.1 Use in equivalent smart metering P.1.2.4.6 COM.1.3
deployments
9.2 Use in analogous applications P.2.4.6
9.3 Expectation of ongoing required P.6.10
upgrades – i.e. v2009, v2011 (fewer =
higher score?)
9.4 Capacity in vendors to meet smart
metering demands (meters plus displays
and other devices) – assume 5 year
deployment to 25 million homes
9.5 Availability of non-metering products that P.4.6.10 CUS.2
could be relevant to smart metering –
e.g. thermostats, display devices
Table 25 Referential Integrity
Appendix B: Last Mile Evaluation

Whilst not part of the core considerations and requirements for the Local
Communications Development Group, the potential role that low power radio
technology could play in supporting WAN communications could be an
important consideration for the overall smart metering project.
This will be contingent upon the outcome of Government discussions on

market models for smart metering, and the work of the group in developing
criteria for this area is recorded in this appendix to support any subsequent
work.
Last Mile Criteria

Ref Criteria
LM1 Support for Last Mile (Y/N/possibly)
Performance
LM2 Nodes per concentrator
LM3 Typical Signal Propagation – average (urban/suburban/rural)
Cost
LM4 Cost of data concentrator equipment
Maturity
LM5 Use in other smart metering deployments for last mile connectivity
LM6 Range of ‘upstream’ WAN physical media supported by data
concentrators
Architecture
LM7 Ability to allow a smart meter to simultaneously be a member of two
separate isolated networks – i.e. the Local Communications network
within a home, and the WAN network to a home.
One network cannot corrupt the other. Security keys and permissions are
separate for the two networks.
Table 26 Last Mile Evaluation Criteria
It has also been suggested that any Last Mile evaluation be included in any
field and laboratory testing for the Local Communications solution, but only
Page 146 of 155 9-Dec-08
where practical for cost and time concerns. A particular example raised would
be to test the ‘house to house’ performance to give an indication of the
appropriateness of the solution for different types of neighbourhood.
Appendix C: Initial Field Test

In March 2008, OnStream, E.On UK and Renesas, all members of the ERA
SRSM Local Communications Development Group, undertook an exercise to
evaluate the signal propagation properties of ZigBee RF solutions at 868MHz
and 2.4GHz. An extract from the report covering the exercise is presented
below.
Subsequent to the publication of this information, the conclusions were

extensively challenged by members of the group. Chief among the concerns
was the use of a 2.4GHz radio with no power amplification or protocol stack.
These issues were acknowledged and accepted by the participants in the test.
Full detail of the responses from group members to the published test are
presented below the extract from the report.
Test Report
The test used the following equipment:
- Four printed circuit boards (two transmitters and two receivers)
powered by battery. Two boards were prepared with 868MHz radio,
and two with 2.4GHz radio. In order to make the test as objective as
possible the transmitter output power on all four boards was set to the
prescribed 0dBm, and the radio chips were sourced from the same
company, where the chips were manufactured using the same
processes.
- Within the time and cost constraints of the project, the boards were as
closely matched as was possible.
- Each board had an LCD display to indicate a numerical interpretation of
the received signal strength.
The test that was performed:
- One board of each pair was set to transmit an encoded data word to its
counterpart. The receiving board would display a quality/signal strength
number if and only if the signal was detected and the word decoded
correctly.
- A perfect signal would display a quality number 255, and the poorest
decoded signal would display 1. Although automatic gain controls
(AGC’s) were employed in both chips, the number was a linear
representation of the size of signal reaching the receiver board.
The test was carried out at the following locations, representing a cross
section of GB housing stock:
1 Stone cottage built in 1860 which was constructed with stone and had
lathe and plaster walls.
2 Semi-detached 1960’s three bedroom with no modifications.
3 Detached Bungalow circa 1950.
4 Detached modern two story house with no modifications.
Page 147 of 155 9-Dec-08

5 Detached two story house with two story extension added.

6 First floor flat where the meter was in the flat not the basement.
Within each location the electricity meter was identified and the ZigBee
transmitter was switched on and placed beside the meter. The corresponding
receiver was activated and placed at the following locations within the
dwelling:
1 Kitchen window sill.
2 Lounge occasional table.
3 Lounge fireplace mantelpiece.
4 Hallway table.
5 Master bedroom.
The results of the test are set out in Table 27. A figure of 255 denotes full
reception, whilst 0 denotes no reception. There is no reference to the
distances or barriers to hinder the signal, as this test aimed to measure
relative performance for the two frequencies.
Location Kitchen Lounge 1 Lounge 2 Hallway Bedroom

2.4 868 2.4 868 2.4 868 2.4 868 2.4 868
Stone 35 125 85 155 70 150 50 140 50 140
Cottage
Semi- 85 110 16 110 80 110 90 200 25 150
Detached
Detached 0 75 40 170 55 115 115 190 35 160
Bungalow
Detached 2 0 20 0 50 0 50 0 30 15 80
Storey
Detached 2 0 45 0 60 0 50 0 60 0 25
Storey with
Extension
First Floor 25 150 35 155 45 115 35 135 35 135
Flat
Table 27 Field Test Results
The writers of the test report observed that:

1 As anticipated, the signal penetration of the 868MHz was superior to
the 2.4GHz by a factor of 2.5 on average.
2 Operating in the low power constraints of the ZigBee specification, two
of the six sites failed to receive the 2.4GHz signal with the receiver
placed in a preferred and typical position. Both of these sites had either
a long transmission path or multiple barriers between transmitter and
receiver.
3 All sites demonstrated a signal reduction on 2.4GHz when the
transmission path was blocked by a person. No similar signal reduction
was encountered on the 868MHz.
4 2 further sites failed to receive at 2.4GHz when the signal path was
blocked by a person. Both sites demonstrated a relatively weak signal
response prior to this.
5 In locations where both frequencies were working satisfactorily, the
signals appeared to be unaffected by existing I.S.M. appliances such
as Wi-Fi, Microwave ovens, and video senders, although, in 2
locations.
Page 148 of 155 9-Dec-08

6 Operation of the video sender did severely disrupt the Wi-Fi Router, in
two locations.
7 In locations where both frequencies were working satisfactorily, the
signals did not affect other I.S.M. appliances such as Wi-Fi or video
senders.
8 It is possible to add a power amp to the 2.4GHz radio and increase its
output power to 10mW. This would increase the range of 2.4GHz radio
to about the same as the 868MHz radio, but would use more energy,
affect battery life, and may cause interference.
The report conclusions were:

1 Given that smart metering must be available to all consumers, only
868MHz could be considered at this time.
2 ZigBee data rates and available channels are less at 868MHz than at
2.4GHz, so it should be established if the available data transfer
capability of 868MHz is acceptable for ‘UK Smart’
3 An analysis of the ‘ZigBee Smart Protocol’ (pro feature set) should be
made to see if it meets the ERA requirements
4 An analysis of the ‘ZigBee Smart Protocol’ should be made to see if it
meets the ERA Wide Area Network (WAN) requirements as a common
protocol for both WAN and LAN. This would vastly simplify and
accelerate smart metering rollout in the UK.
Responses to the Report

Ember responded to the publication of the report by providing the following
statements:
“I welcome the sort of testing carried out by Eric and Kevin, however I have
serious concerns about the assumptions made for these tests, the actual tests
carried out, some of the observations and the conclusions with regard to the
suitability of 2.4GHz ZigBee.
In particular, it could be argued that the choice of transmit power and possibly
the choice of silicon (or at least the lack of variety of silicon tested) was
flawed.
It could also be argued that the assumptions about the effect of increased
transmit power on battery life for 2.4GHz devices was flawed.
I strongly recommend that when conducting such tests, companies should;

• Select carefully the ZigBee modules or chips to be tested, ensuring that
they are the current state of the art, in particular with respect to transmit
power and receive sensitivity. This can be ascertained by looking at the
data sheet for the various chips available.
• Make use of the available transmit power on the chosen device. A number
of ZigBee/802.15.4 2.4GHz radios today can transmit to +4dBm or +5dBm
without external PA, and have receive sensitivity to -98dBm or lower.
Remember that the most important factor is the link budget; that is the
combination of transmit power and receive sensitivity. For instance, an
extra 3dBm in transmit power combined with an extra 3dBm receive
Page 149 of 155 9-Dec-08
sensitivity is roughly equivalent to double the range in free space when two
devices talk to one another.
• Even when using a good performing ZigBee radio, the implementation of
the PCB design is important, and small flaws can cause huge loss of
range.
• Be sure that you are testing the receipt of messages and not just radio
performance. ZigBee has a number of layers in the stack, each one trying
to get a message through, and a typical ZigBee message is actually retried
12 times at various layers before the application is told that a message has
failed. A better test of performance is to send X messages with Y inter-
packet delay and count how many were received.
• Finally, while it is understood that point to point RF performance is
important because the smart metering system cannot make any
assumptions about available routing or relaying devices in the home, it
should be considered that ultimately ZigBee is designed for robust mesh
networking and any blind spots in a home can be covered by the use of
routers, which could come in the form of plug through energy
meters/controllers or powered in-home displays even in the short term.”
PRI also posted a response to the report:

“…A few points to beware of:
1. The tests don't appear to have made use of the ZigBee stack with its error
correction and re-try features. It is dangerous to simply take RF strength in
isolation since the stack enhances the performance of the data reliability
greatly.
2. The 2.4GHz signal can be boosted to +5dBm without a power amp and up
to +17dBm (in the UK) if necessary. The rules for 868 transmissions make
amplification difficult due to the fact the side lobes must remain below an
absolute limit (rather than a percentage of the fundamental as in the USA
915MHz band).
3. The bandwidth of 2.4GHz ZigBee allows an on-air bit rate of 250kB/sec
compared with 10kB/sec for 868. For battery powered applications it is the
energy usage that's important, so it’s not only the current consumed but also
the time. Both 868 and 2.4GHz radio devices take much the same current
when active, but the 2.4GHz radio will only be active for 1/25th of the time for
a 868 (roughly), therefore the energy taken for a given transmission will be
much less.
4. The bandwidth restrictions imposed by an 868 system will make running the
Smart Energy Profile with its ZigBee Pro stack very slow. All applications to
date are running on 2.4GHz solutions from three of the major silicon vendors.”
Online Reference
The full text of the report and responses from group members can be viewed
online at:
http://snipurl.com/lcdfieldtest
Page 150 of 155 9-Dec-08

Appendix D: ZigBee@2.4GHz Evaluation

Introduction
Taken from a ZigBee paper submitted to support the group evaluation
process.
Preamble – On using ZigBee for UK Smart Metering Local

Communications
Unlike some alternative options available for Local Communications in the UK,
ZigBee 2.4GHz offers a lot of flexibility in the final solution. Some
technologies are defined only at a radio (MAC & PHY) level, which means that
they require someone to do a lot of work to get effective, robust, secure and
interoperable communications working well. Some technologies are more
than that, but do not go as far as to define the application level messages and
protocols, network formation mechanisms, key establishment protocols etc.
The choice of ZigBee at 2.4GHz would in fact offer the whole spectrum of
options for UK Smart metering and ensure that any requirements could be
implemented successfully;
Option A: Adopt ZigBee Smart Energy as currently defined.
ZSE is an application profile that defines the entire application including all
messaging, secure transport of network keys and link keys, network formation
and discovery etc. If the UK, like many US utilities and Victoria in Australia,
was to specify ZSE, in its entirety, as a requirement for their smart metering
Local Communications, this could be easily communicated and understood as
a requirement to manufacturers as there is already a certification process in
place to ensure that products conform to the standard and are interoperable.
Option B: Modify ZigBee Smart Energy for UK purposes
Inevitably, ZSE has not been developed with the UK market specifically in
mind and the majority of manufacturers, utilities etc. involved in defining the
spec were focussed on requirements for California and Texas, so it is likely
that there are some modifications that the UK would want to the standard. For
example, UK smart metering might decide that the Certicom ECC key
exchange mechanisms are not required and may want an alternative
mechanism included in the spec for use in the UK. The mechanism for
proposing and completing modifications to the standard within the ZigBee
Alliance are well defined and tested, and it should be quite easy once
requirements are known, to make modifications, which might be generic or
specific to the UK market.
Option C: Combine ZigBee Smart Energy with other protocols
For instance, some work is beginning to allow DLMS messages to be

transported across ZigBee networks. This has been done in ZigBee before
with BACNET (in building automation market). It is possible to use ZigBee
Smart Energy and some other protocol in different ‘endpoints’ in the same
Page 151 of 155 9-Dec-08
ZigBee device, so it should be possible to include for example a ZSE simple

meter endpoint as well as a DLMS meter endpoint in a ZigBee meter
application.
Figure 35 ZigBee & DLMS Illustration
Option D: Create a totally proprietary profile on top of ZigBee Networking
It would be an unusual and unlikely move, but UK smart metering could decide
to define an entirely new application profile which is unique to the UK and
either totally proprietary or proposed as a new public application profile.
Standard ZigBee networking offers all of the discovery, network formation,
routing, message clusters etc. in any case, and any new profile could take
advantage of that. More likely, some proprietary operation could be
implemented in individual products alongside and as well as the ZSE
application profile (on a different endpoint within the device), to provide
innovation and differentiation as well as standardisation and interoperability in
a single product.
Summary
So, in summary, ZigBee at 2.4GHz is not just a simple take-it-or-leave-it

option for the ERA and UK smart metering. The standard itself has built in
flexibility allowing standardised applications to run alongside proprietary
applications even in the same device, and the ZigBee Alliance is an open
organisation with open access to membership and open access to the
committees that define and shape the standard and the various application
profiles.
Page 152 of 155 9-Dec-08

Appendix E: Bluetooth Information on

Profiles, Certification and Interoperability
The information below was provided by Bluetooth representatives alongside
the evaluation notes detail.
One of the requirements asks about the ease of adapting or reusing existing
profiles or specifications. It’s easy to answer this question from a purely
academic viewpoint of the amount of hours of work needed to make the
change, but that misses the point that profiles are intimately tied in with
certification programs and ultimately with the level of interoperability. It’s
useful to explain this dependence as it is not clear in the majority of responses
and may affect some of the decisions that are made.
Profiles first made a major appearance as part of the DECT standard to try
and solve the problem that although every vendor used the same specification
for their DECT handsets none of them were interoperable. The reason is that
DECT, like most other wireless specifications, defines the physical hardware
of the radio and the protocol stack that sits on top of it, but does not define the
application that determines how devices connect to each other. That is
typically left to the manufacturer, who put pressure on standards bodies to
omit this level of detail, as the manufacturers often believe that the user
interface is where they differentiate themselves from competing products. To
take an analogy, you can think of the specification as defining the human
body. However, without a defined language, which might be vocal or signing,
two different humans are only capable of limited communication.
As DECT vendors discovered, this lack of interoperability inhibited the market

growth. As a result they defined their Generic Access Profile, which gave
detailed instructions as to how a handset would log in to a base station. They
also wrote test specifications and instituted a testing regime that allowed
manufacturers to certify the fact that their product conformed to the profile. As
a result the market prospered.
Bluetooth took the concept further, with multiple application oriented profiles,
each of which dictated how a specific application would operate using the
Bluetooth wireless link. They also encouraged different application
developers to produce a range of profiles, such that Bluetooth vendors can
ship interoperable products as diverse as stereo headsets, blood pressure
meters and GPS receivers, confident that they will work with a device certified
for the matching half of the profile. ZigBee has in turn adopted the same
approach.
There is a Faustian pact to this. The promise of interoperability from a profile

is only valid if there is a watertight certification process in place that ensures
that every product is tested to meet the requirements, along with legal
measures that will be taken to prevent or remove any non-compliant product.
Typically developing the test regime and certification process can be as
demanding as writing the profile, if not more so. Hence standards bodies are
loath to initiate or accept too many different profiles.
Page 153 of 155 9-Dec-08

As a result we have the concept of public or standards led profiles, which are
part of the published standard and enforced by the standards group, as well
as private profiles which are developed by groups of manufacturers for their
own use, where they manage the testing and certification process.
For a major usage case, the public profile is the preferable route. However,
because standards bodies are open, any profile development working group
will be open to all interested parties. This means that the profile may end up
more complex than some members would wish. As its adoption also relies on
all members coming to consensus, the process can become extremely
extended. Public profiles are rarely completed in less than nine months and
can take years. But as they are “owned” by the standard, the full resources
and experience of the standards group will be used in developing the test
regime, certification and enforcement programs, which are likely to be very
robust.
The alternative is the private profile, which can be defined and built on existing
profiles in a relatively short timescale. However, companies developing
private profiles must be aware of the overhead of writing test regimes and
setting up certification processes. These are a major task, the scale of which
is frequently underestimated. Standards groups have specialists who have
years of experience in doing this. Private profile developers rarely do. But
without them in place, the profile only delivers a limited part of its promise.
Bluetooth low energy has tried to learn from its experience. Current Bluetooth
profiles include a lot of complexity about the control of the application, largely
because this is not elegantly handled lower down in the stack. With low
energy, more granularity of control and data transfer has been added to the
underlying protocols, meaning that the higher layer profiles or data dictionaries
that define device interaction are much simpler. As a result it is hoped that
many of these can be written in a few months, with certification processes in
place within six months. Having said which, the differences between public
and private profiles still apply.
Page 154 of 155 9-Dec-08

Appendix F: ATEX & Wires in Gas Meters

As references in requirements note F.1 above, the group noted that a wired
option for GB gas meters was not practical – mainly due to cost and safety
reasons. Following the conclusion of the group discussions, the SRSM project
team raised the issue with expert group members – more detail on the subject
is presented in this appendix for reference.
AtEx is implemented in the UK as the Dangerous Substances & Explosive

Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) – enacted in 2002. There are no legal
AtEx requirements for domestic premises.26
DSEAR is part of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA)
British Standard BS6400-1 provides the specification for installation of
domestic-sized gas meters in low pressure supply, with capacities not
exceeding 6m3/hour. This standard is underpinned by MAMCoP (Meter
Asset Manager’s Code of Practice)27, which is further underpinned by
Supplier Licence Conditions.
IGE/GM/7 parts A+B are published by the Institution of Gas Engineers and
cover ‘Electrical Connections to Gas Meters’. Part A relates to selecting
and installing suitable equipment for hazardous area zones. Part B covers
how to establish hazardous area zones for non-domestic metering
installations.
Gas safety refers to Zones – 0, 1, 2, 3 – based on the amount of ventilation
and the risk of an escape
BS6400 requires that all gas meters be installed at Zone 2 or better – this
includes the commonly available wall mounted and ground mounted meter
boxes.
For non-domestic installations – domestic sized meters in meter boxes are
usually Zone 2, although some may be Zone 1
It is understood that all of the currently available retrofit modules/add-ons
for AMR and smart metering are effectively wireless and therefore remain
within the Zone 2 requirements
The meter installer must ascertain the ‘zone’ of the meter location in order
to determine if it is safe to carry out the work, and must be competent to
work in various zones. It should be noted that Zone 0 work is regarded as
truly exceptional.
What remains unclear is how a wired gas meter solution, such as the M-Bus
options being used in Europe, would be zoned. It has been suggested that if
this type of configuration were classified as zone 1, particularly if raising the
risk of a spark within the confines of a meter box, then it would introduce
significant issues for meter installers and meter locations.
26
It is understood that most meter rooms within multiple occupancy premises are classified as
places of work, and therefore AtEx applies
27
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Techn/Metrolgy/AssetMgmt/mamcop/Pages/MAMCOP.as
px
Page 155 of 155 9-Dec-08

SRSM Local Communications Development v1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRSM Local Communications Development v1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SRSM and Beyond

Local Communications Development

Author(s) Simon Harrison

8.1 Solution Options Descriptions.......................................................... 64

Figure 7: Smart Home Context & Clusters ..................................................... 28

Table 21 Evaluation Scenario Suggestions.................................................. 131

Page 5 of 155 9-Dec-08

Page 6 of 155 9-Dec-08

This document is a development of Schedule H of the Smart Metering

1.2 Review Group & Website

Energy Retail Association Engage Consulting

1.3 Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright

Page 8 of 155 9-Dec-08

2 Executive Summary and Introduction

This document presents in detail;

The report concludes;

It also includes an evaluation of solution options and recommendations for

Any statement of preference for particular communications solution options

Further information on the SRSM project is available from:

For ease of understanding and application to a familiar domestic context, this

2.5 Structure of this Document

Page 10 of 155 9-Dec-08

o Section 8 – Definition of the solution options considered by the

Page 11 of 155 9-Dec-08

3 Glossary & Conventions

The project published ‘Proposals and Options for a Smart Metering

The following subsections give a brief overview of a number of these topics.

3.1.1 Market Segments

Therefore, within this document, the solution options discussed could be

3.1.2 Meter Functionality

• 2 Way Communications – WAN and Local (see below)

• Remote configuration of tariffs, meter operations, upgradeable

3.1.3 Meter Location

Figure 1: Smart Meter Locations

The ERA Smart Metering Operational Framework documentation specifies

The Smart Metering Operational Framework includes a number of Meter

Local Communications, unless specifically excluded by the Meter Variant

3.1.4 Meter and Metering System

Page 13 of 155 9-Dec-08

Smart Metering Systems – Illustration of Flexible Approaches

Smart Metering Metering System Illustration of how fuels could share

The required functionality could be delivered by components:

As defined by the SRSM project, a smart metering system could comprise a

The potential variety of physical locations and conditions of metering points

Page 14 of 155 9-Dec-08

Therefore all general references to smart meters and uses of icons to

Page 16 of 155 9-Dec-08

Page 17 of 155 9-Dec-08

Page 18 of 155 9-Dec-08

Page 19 of 155 9-Dec-08

Page 20 of 155 9-Dec-08

Ongoing at the time of developing this document

Page 22 of 155 9-Dec-08

4 Local Communications Context

4.1 General Context

Interoperable Local Communications capability will enable customers and

Throughout this document applications involving water meters, TV displays

Figure 3 below shows the SRSM project representation of the operational

Figure 3: SRSM Smart Metering Operational Framework Scope

Page 23 of 155 9-Dec-08

4.2 Smart Utility Context for Local

These issues could be addressed through specification, i.e. requiring that

Shown in Figure 4 below is a representation of the basic utility requirements

Page 24 of 155 9-Dec-08