ArticlePDF Available

COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS: BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Bluetooth (IEE 802.15.1), ZigBee (IEEE 802.15.4) and Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) are three emerging wireless technology in the area of short range wireless communication. Bluetooth is intended to support a list of application such as data, audio, graphics and even video. For example, device can include cordless keyboard, mouse, and hands free headset and standard phones. The primary purpose of ZigBee is to monitor and control networks wirelessly. Wi-Fi is amid at computer to computer connection wirelessly instead of traditional cable network. In this paper, it is being to represent a comparative study of these wireless protocols, evaluating their main characteristics and performance in terms of some metric such as coexistence , data rate, power consumption, network size, cost, distance coverage and security. For application engineers this paper will help him to select an appropriate protocol.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Daffodil International University Library
Digital Institutional Repository
DIU Journal of Science and Technology Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2016
2016-05-19
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT
RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS:
BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
Khan, Md. Abbas Ali
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11948/1466
Downloaded from http://dspace.library.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd, Copyright Daffodil International University Library
DAFFODIL INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2016
1
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS:
BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
Md. Abbas Ali Khan, Md. Alamgir Kabir
Department of Information & Communication Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
E-mail: dobila2005@gmail.com
Abstract: Bluetooth (IEE 802.15.1), ZigBee (IEEE
802.15.4) and Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) are three
emerging wireless technology in the area of short
range wireless communication. Bluetooth is intended
to support a list of application such as data, audio,
graphics and even video. For example, device can
include cordless keyboard, mouse, and hands free
headset and standard phones. The primary purpose of
ZigBee is to monitor and control networks wirelessly.
Wi-Fi is amid at computer to computer connection
wirelessly instead of traditional cable network. In this
paper, it is being to represent a comparative study of
these wireless protocols, evaluating their main
characteristics and performance in terms of some
metric such as co-existence, data rate, power
consumption, network size, cost, distance coverage
and security. For application engineers this paper
will help him to select an appropriate protocol.
Keywords: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, ZigBee, 2.4 GHz
Communications, 802.15.1, 802.11, 802.15.4.
1. Introduction
Bluetooth is also known as the IEEE 802.15.4
standard based on wireless radio system that
enables of electronics devices to communicate
each other. It was originally developed by
Ericsson, later on 1998 it is being developed by a
company consortium called Bluetooth Special
Interest Group or simply SIG (Ericsson, Intel,
Toshiba, Nokia and IBM). On 2008, at 10th
anniversary Bluetooth SIG welcomes its 10000th
members [1]. Bluetooth is a wireless protocol
designed for short-range, low power and cheap
devices to replace cables for cell phones, PDA,
Hands-free Audio as well as computer
peripherals such as mice, keyboards, joysticks,
and printers. Since Bluetooth was developed for
mobile phone industry, so it is very common in
mobile phones. ZigBee over IEEE 802.15.4 is
low data rate WPAN (LR-WPAN) design
specially to replace the proliferation of
individual remote controls. ZigBee is anticipated
to be able to eliminate electric cabling in houses
so allowing choice of wireless light switches. It
was designed to satisfy the market need for cost-
efficient standard based wireless network that
support low data rate, low power consumption,
security and reliability. Its mode for simple
sending command such as tuning on a TV or
small bit of data, such as weather a door is
locked. ZigBee tends to use far less power than
other short range networking technologies. The
battery life of ZigBee device can often be
measured in years, rather than hours in the case
of Wi-Fi or days with Bluetooth. Also ZigBee
devices to automatically connect with and
transmit data one another with having to go
through a central gateway like a router. ZigBee
Alliance, an industry working group developed
application software of IEEE 802.15.4 wireless
standard. Wi-Fi, wireless networking technology
that uses radio frequency to allow high-speed
data transfer over short distances. It includes
IEEE 802.11a/b/g standard for WLAN support.
802.11 technologies have its origins in a 1985
ruling by Federal Communications Commission
that released ISM band for unlicensed use. At the
early beginning the movement of this technology
remained fragmented due to lack of
compatibility among the devices from different
manufacturer. In 1997 IEEE approved a common
standard formed by industry leaders. After two
years, a group of major companies formed the
Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance
(WECA), and named the new technology Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi allows local area networks (LANs) to
operate without cables and wiring, making it a
popular choice for home as well as business
networks. Wi-Fi also provides facility of
wireless broadband internet access for most of
the modern devices, such as laptop, mobile
phones, PDAs, and electronic gaming consoles.
Any Wi-Fi enabled devices are able to connect
Date of submission : 06.06.2015 Date of acceptance : 19.01.2016
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS: BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
2
with internet, when they are within the range of
wireless hot spots”. Demanding the popularity
of Wi-Fi, hot spots have become common, with
many public places such as airports, hotels,
bookstores, and coffee shops offering Wi-Fi
access. For Bluetooth and Wi-Fi Ferro and
potorti compared their main features and
behaviors in terms of various metrics included
capacity, network topology, security, quality of
service support, and power consumption[12].
The power management of 802.15.4 is easier
then that 802.11. For Bluetooth and ZigBee,
Baker studied their strengths and weaknesses for
industrial applications and claimed that Zigbee
over 802.15.4 can meet a wider variety of real
industrial needs than Bluetooth due to its long
term battery operation, greater useful range,
flexibility in a number of dimensions and
reliability of the mesh network architecture [13].
2. Bluetooth
Bluetooth operates on 2.4 GHz unlicensed ISM
(Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band at a
data rate of 720 Kbps. Other wireless technology
(e. g. Wi-Fi and ZigBee) and equipment (e.g.
microwave oven) also shares the same frequency
band. In order to avoid interference, the
Bluetooth specification employs Frequency
Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) techniques
which divide the frequency band into a number
of channels. As we can see in Table 1.1 there are
79 physical channels each are 1 MHz, those
Bluetooth may use for its hopping algorithm.
Frequency hopping occurs by jumping from one
physical means each physical channel is
occupied for duration of 62µs. Network range of
a Bluetooth device depends on its output power
level. Not all of the Bluetooth devices have the
equal signal not they can over same distance.
Most of the Bluetooth devices have liberty to
choose their output power. Bluetooth radio
specification classifies the Bluetooth devices into
their classes based on their output power. The
Bluetooth power classes are given below: [2]
Class 1: In this class the maximum output power
is 100mW (+20dBm) and the minimum output
power is 1mW (0dBm). For class 1 power
control is obligatory, ranging from 4dBm to
20dBm. This mode provides maximum distance
coverage of 100m (328 feet.).
Class 2: Maximum output is 2.5mW (4dBm) and
minimum is 0.25mW (-6dBm). In class 2 mode
communication range is 10 meters and power
control is not mandatory.
Class 3: Lowest power class, lmW (0dBm). With
0dBm power, the communication range may be
up to 10 meters (30 feet).
Table 2.1 International Bluetooth Frequency
allocations
Area
Frequency
Range
RF
Channels
U.S., most of
Europe, and
most of other
countries.
2.4000-2.4835
GHz
F=2402+k,
k=0,..,78
MHz
Japan
2.471-2.475
GHz
F=2473+k,
k=0,..,22
MHz
Spain 2.445-2.475
GHz
F=2449+k,
k=0,.., 22
MHz
France 2.465-2.4835
GHz
f=2454+k,
k=0,..,22
MHz
As we know wireless networks do not really
share any physical media, such as a common
cable, it uses other way to join in a network.
When tow Bluetooth devices come within a
range of each other can set up an ad-hoc
network. Two connectivity topologies are
defined in Bluetooth: the Piconet and Scatternet.
A Piconet is a Wireless Personal Area Network
(WPAN) formed by a device called master in the
piconet and one or more Bluetooth devices act as
slaves. A frequency hopping channel based on
the address of the master defines each piconet.
The devices those are participating on the
communication only, with their master in a
point-to-point manner and may only
communicate when granted permission from
master. Master can communicate either in point-
to-point or point-to-multipoint. Also besides in
an active mode, a slave can go sniff, hold or park
mode to reduce power consumption. In a piconet
there could have at most eight devices, one act as
master and rest of them serves as slaves. With
the use of park mode, there could be more than
seven slaves in a piconet [3]. A Scatternet ia a
collection of operational piconets overlapping in
time and space. Two piconet can be connected to
DAFFODIL INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2016
3
form a scatternet. A device in a scatternet could
be a slave of several piconects but master only
one of them. The advantages of scatternet are to
allow many devices to share same physical area
and the maximum utilization of the bandwidth.
Figure 2.1: Bluetooth Piconet
Figure 2.2: Bluetooth Scatternet
2.1 Bluetooth Protocol Versions
Bluetooth version 1.2, on November 5, 2003
Bluetooth SIG released version 1.2 of Bluetooth
specification. This is the first successful version
of Bluetooth. Version 1.2 did not come with any
new functionality; the goal of this version was to
improve performance of version. Enhance
enquiry feature of version 1.2 provides 100%
reliable and faster device discovery than version
1.1. It also introduced adaptive frequency
hopping (AFH) technique which supports better
coexistence with other 2.4 GHz technology such
as Wi-Fi, ZigBee. Bluetooth Version 2.0 + ERD
are most successful version. It has backward
compatibility with version 1.2 and more capable
of recovering error from version 1.2. It also
introduces enhanced data rate which used PSK
modulation and has two variants: (π/4-DQPSK
and 8DPSK. The gross air data rate for EDR is
2Mbps using (π/4-DQPSK and 3Mbps using
8DPSK. Bluetooth Version2.1+EDR,
architecture of Bluetooth 2.1 and 2.0 is almost
same, 2.1 includes Secure Simple Paring. The
primary goal of Secure Simple Paring is to make
the pairing procedure simper and faster.
Secondary goal are to improve security of
Bluetooth wireless technology. Secure Simple
Pairing offers two types of security: protection
form passive eavesdropping and protection
against man-in-the middle (MITH) attacks
(active eavesdropping) [4]. Bluetooth version 2.1
also consumes less power than Bluetooth version
2.0. Bluetooth version 3.0 + HS, in April 2009,
Bluetooth Special Interest Group announced the
release of new Bluetooth high speed
specification, version 3.0+HS (High Speed). It
includes 802.11 protocol adaptation layer (PAL)
so data rate can be increased by 15 times that of
a standard Bluetooth link. Increased bandwidth
enables consumer to synchronize music libraries
between PC and music player or phone,
downloading photos to a printer or PC, sending
video form camcorder to PC or to a Television.
Bluetooth 3.0+HS, it supports data rate
approximately 24Mbps [5]. It has also backward
compatibility with the previous versions. 1.8
Bluetooth version 4.0, on July, 2010, the
Bluetooth SIG announced core specifications of
Bluetooth version 4.0 with hallmark feature,
Bluetooth low energy (BTLE). BTLE operates
on two different modes of chips (single mode
chips and dual mode chips). Single mode chips
support only Bluetooth low energy. Dual mode
chips support Bluetooth low energy as well as
interoperability with classic Bluetooth devices.
Bluetooth low energy wireless technology
consumes only a fraction of power compare to
classic Bluetooth radios. It can run more than a
year by a single coin cell battery without
recharging. It supports very short data packet
minimum is 8 octets and maximum is 27 octets
that are transmitted with 1 Mbps speed.
Bluetooth low energy provides a greater amount
of intelligence in the controller which permits a
host to sleep for longer period of time and be
awoken up the controller only when the host
needs to perform some action [6].
3. ZigBee
The aim of ZigBee techonology is to create a low
duty cycle sensor network (<1%). A device can
connected newly with in 30 ms. A sleeping
slave changing to active and transferring data by
accessing a channel need around 15 ms
respectively. The advantages of ZigBee over
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi is to rapidly attach
information, detach, and goes to sleep mode, that
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS: BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
4
makes ZigBee faster and consume less power
than other wireless networks. State of Operation
of ZigBee are active (transmit/receive) and sleep
mode specially designed to accommodate battery
powered devices. Any ZigBee-compliant radio
can switch automatically to sleep mode when it’s
not transmitting and remain asleep mode until it
needs to communicate again. In ZigBee the
MAC defines two modes operation, beacon and
non-beacon modes to enable the to-and-fro data
traffic. Beacon mode is used when the
coordinator runs on batteries and thus offers
maximum power savings, whereas non beacon
mode looks for favors when the coordinator is
mains-powered. Beacon mode is timing
dependent, where a beacon frame is transmitted
periodically and provides 16 equal width tine
slots for contention free channel assess in each
time slot. Any device wishing to communicate
during the contention access period (CAP)
between two beacons shall complete with other
devices using a slotted CSMA-CD mechanism.
Starting of a super frame is defined by the
beacon which is normally the interval between
the beacons, and is used as a way for the device
on the network to synchronize with each other.
There are two parts, the active part where data
can transfer and the inactive part the device can
sleep. Beacon is transmitted in the first slot of
each superframe. ZigBee network consists of
different traffic types with their own
characteristics such as periodic data is wireless
sensor or control used by beaconing system
whereby the sensor activates, checks for beacon,
exchange data and goes to sleep. An automatic
meter reading application represents the periodic
type traffic. Intermittent data define by either
application or external stimulus such as a
wireless light switch. Data can be handled using
a beaconless system. The device needs to
connect to the network only when
communication is required, saving energy.
Frequency range of ZigBee Protocol uses spread
spectrum technique and use 2.4 GHz band,
which is unlicensed in most countries as the ISM
(Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band. A total
of 27 channels [7], numbered 0 to 26, are
available across the frequency bands. 16
channels are available in the 2450 MHz band, 10
in the 915 MHz band, and 1 in the 868 MHz
band.
Table 2.2 International ZigBee Frequency
allocations
Area Frequency
range RF
Channels Data Rate
Almost
All
Countries
24000-
2438.5
MHz
(Global)
16
250 kbps
Europe
868-868.5
MHz 1
20 kbps
North
America 902-928
MHz 10
40 kbps
The channel width is 2 MHz and 5 MHz channel
spacing. For each PHY supported, a compliant
device shall support all channels allowed by
regulations for the region in which the device
operates. The transmission distance is expected
to range from 10 to 70+ miters, depending on the
power output and environmental characteristics
[9]. And up to 1500m for ZigBee pro (2007 stack
profile 2). The output power of the radios is
normally 0 dbm refereed to 1 mille Watt (mW).
The upper limit on power is defined by the
regularity commission of each country.
Modulation scheme in the 2.4 GHz band, ZigBee
uses DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum)
with offset quadrature phase-shift keying (O-
QPSK) where the symbol rate is 62.5. Both the
868 and 900 MHz band also use DSSS (Direct
Sequence Spread Spectrum) with BPSK (Binary
Phase-shift Keying) modulation and the symbol
rate should be sequentially 20 and 40. ZigBee
provides self-organized, multi-hop, and reliable
mesh networking with low power. In a LR-
WPAN (Low range wireless personal area
network) network two different device can
participate [7] a Full Function Device (FFD) and
a Reduced Function Device (RFD). However, a
network shall include at least one FFD [7],
operating as the PAN coordinator. An IEEE
802.1.4 networks requires at least one full
function device as a network coordinator, but
end point devices may be reduced functionality
devices to reduce system cost. Several
connectivity topologies are supported by ZigBee
DAFFODIL INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2016
5
including star, peer-to-peer, mesh and cluster
tree.
4. Wi-Fi
IEEE 802.11 standard was the first standard
describing the operation of wireless LANs. This
standard contained all of the available
transmission technologies including DSSS,
FHSS and operating 2.4 GHz ISM (unlicensed)
band at data rates of 1 Mbps and 2Mbps. Infrared
at 1 Mbps operating at a wavelength between
850 and 950 nm. IEEE 802.11a standard
operates 5 GHz band, OFDM modulation
technique with 54 Mbps data rate. IEEE 802.11b
standard supports up to 11 Mbps and it uses the
2.4 GHz frequency with DSSS spreading
technique. IEEE 802.11g standard has OFDM
technique in the 2.4 GHz band with 54 Mbps
data rate. There are 14 RF channels (13 in
Europe and 1 in Japan) with 22 MHz bandwidth.
The DS and BSSs allow IEEE 802.11 to make
wireless network arbitrary size and complexity.
ESS appears as a single logical LAN to the
logical link control level (LLC). A portal is used
to integrate IEEE 802.11 architecture with a
traditional wired LAN. The MAC layer is subject
to provide reliable data delivery, medium access
control and security for IEEE 802.11 local area
network (LAN). The IEEE 802.11 MAC layers
uses physical such as 802.11b and 802.11a, the
tasks to perform career sensing, transmitting and
receiving 802.11 MAC frame [8].
5. Comparison
There are a lot of technical differences and
similarities present among Bluetooth, ZigBee
and Wi-Fi. The main difference includes data
rate, power consumption, network size, cost,
distance coverage and security. In Table 1.3 is
summarized the main differences among the
three protocols. RF Channel and Coexistence of
these three wireless networks use universal 2.4
GHz ISM band and spread spectrum technology.
Bluetooth uses frequency hopping spread
spectrum (FHSS) and splits 2.4 GHz band into
79 RF channels and each of them 1 MHz
bandwidth. ZigBee uses direct sequence spread
spectrum (DSSS) and operates in three different
radio frequencies depending upon geographical
areas such as 868 MHz band (in Europe), 915
MHz (in North America) and 2.4 GHz band
(Worldwide). In ZigBee 2.4 GHz ISM band is
divided into 16 RF channel with 2 MHz
bandwidth, centered at 5 MHz each other and
there is 2 MHz gap between two consecutive
channels. Wi-Fi, the IEEE 802.11 family is a set
of standard such as 802.11a, 802.11b, and
802.11g and so on. Both 802.11b and 802.11g
operates in 2.4 GHz band uses direct sequence
spread spectrum (DSSS) and orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
respectively. On the other hand 802.11a uses
OFDM and operates in 5 GHz bandwidth.
802.11b and 14 RF channels (11 in North
America, 13 in Europe and 1 in Japan) each are
spaced 5MHz apart with 22 MHz in bandwidth,
but most of them are over-laps each other. There
are only 3 non-overlapping channels (typically 1,
6 and 11). 802.11a provides up to 23 non
overlapping channels. Since Bluetooth, ZigBee
and Wi-Fi uses 2.4 GHz band so there must have
frequency interference (collide) to minimize
interference among them different technical
strategy and suggestion have been made.
Bluetooth 1.1 introduced adaptive frequency
hopping (AFH) algorithm which dynamically
allows Bluetooth to avoid channels occupied by
DSSS system like zigBee and Wi-fi. AFH has
intelligence to identify channel as bad, good and
unknown. Bluetooth master periodically listen on
bad channel to verify if the interference has
disappeared; if so then the channel marked as
good channel and removed from the look up
table. Collision between two Bluetooth piconet is
also minimal due to hopping nature of Bluetooth.
Probability of interference between two
Bluetooth piconet is 1/79. ZigBee faces serious
interference problem in the presence of Wi-Fi
(IEEE802.11b/g) networks. Musaloiu-E et al
discovered that there is up to 52% of packet loss
in multi hop 802.15.4 sensor network due to
interference of Wi-Fi network. They proposed an
algorithm which is very effective to detect and
avoid interference from 802.11 networks, also
able to successfully reduce packet loss from 52%
to less than 1% [10]. If ZigBee uses a channel
that overlaps with a heavily used Wi-Fi channel
then up to 20% of packets will be retransmitted
due to packet collisions. To avoid interference
between 802.11 and 802.15.4 Schneider
Electric’s Innovation Department proposed two
installation procedures [11]. Distance of Wi-Fi
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS: BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
6
interferers to ZigBee nodes should be at least 2
m. Frequency offset between both networks
should be at least 30 MHz. According to their
test setup daintree Networks says IEEE 802.11g
networks have less impact on ZigBee than IEEE
802.11b networks due to less time spent on air.
Network Size in a Bluetooth piconet, there can
be at most 8 active devices (1 master and 7
slaves) but at park mode there could be more
than 8 devices. In a ZigBee star network there
could be more than 65000 devices and for a
structured Wi-Fi BSS there may have 2007
devices. But all of these three protocols support
complex networking such as scatternet of
Bluetooth, cluster tree or mesh networking
ZigBee and extended service set in Wi-Fi.
Network joining time in a Bluetooth piconet,
new slave joining time is 3 seconds, typically 20
seconds and a sleeping slave changes to active in
3 seconds and channel access time of an active
slave is 2 milliseconds. On the other hand in
ZigBee new device joining time is typically 30
milliseconds, sleeping slave changes to active in
15 milliseconds and active channel access time is
typically 15 milliseconds. For Wi-Fi, a device
takes 3 seconds to join in a network.
Communication Range and Output Power of
Bluetooth, Zigbee and Wi-Fi are harmonizing
technologies. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and ZigBee are
short range wireless communication technology
using the same frequency (ISM) band but
ZigBee and Wi-Fi both are use same modulation
scheme. Bluetooth and ZigBee are intended for
WPAN communication while Wi-Fi is oriented
to WLAN. Bluetooth refers to user’s mobility
and replacement of cable in a small scale
application, ZigBee is more oriented toward
remote control, sensing and automation. The
transmission distance of ZigBee is from 10 to
70+ meters depending upon the output power
and environmental characteristics where as
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi is from 10 to 100 meters
and 100 meters respectively. The distance of
Bluetooth depends upon the power classes. The
output power of the radios of ZigBee is normally
0 dBm refereed to 1 milli Watt (mW) and the
maximum power output maintains the regulatory
commission of each country. For Bluetooth
maximum output power is 100mW (+20dBm)
and the minimum output power is 1mW (0dBm).
In the Wi-Fi the nominal output power is 20
dBm means 100 mW. Data Rate and Power
Consumption of Bluetooth represent 720 Kbps
data rate and the peak data rate is 1Mbps where
as Bluetooth 3.0 + Hs supports data rate
approximately 24Mbps, works with large packet
devices, higher data rate and higher power
consumption than ZigBee. In contrast ZigBee
represents 250 kbps data rate and the symbol rate
is 62.5. It has low data rate, low power
consumption and works with small packet
devices. And for Wi-Fi the data rate is 54 Mbps,
higher data rate, higher power consumption than
Bluetooth and ZigBee, largely used to provide
high speed to the internet access or local area
network.
Figure 2.3: Comparison of the normalized
energy consumption of each protocol.
Wi-Fi provides higher throughput and covers a
great distance and need higher power
consumption on the other hand ZigBee and
Bluetooth provide lower throughput and need
low power consumption. Security of any
wireless standard is included encryption, key
management, and authentication method.
Bluetooth uses the E0 stream cipher and CRC-16
where as ZigBee security based on 128-bit
Advanced Encryption standard (AES) for
encryption with counter mode (CTR) and 32-bit
Message Integrity code (MIC) to assure message
freshness. In Wi-Fi used RC4 stream cipher for
encryption and CRC-32 is used for integrity.
Any Wired Equivalent privacy (WEP) uses a
DAFFODIL INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VOLUME 11, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2016
7
single encryption key for all devices and packets
but WEP is not safe, it can be broken in about
one minute. Wi-Fi protected Access (WAP) was
designed in order to replace WEP because of its
weakness. WAP is used as master key for its
cryptographic and security purposes. The IEE
standard developed Wi-Fi protected Access2
(WAP2), i. e. IEEE 802.11.i beyond WEP and
decided to use Advanced Encryption standard
(AES) for encryption which works in a counter
mode (CTR). Also WAP2 uses a 128-bit key for
all purpose (encryption and integrity), of which
cipher block Chaining message authentication
code (CBC-MAC) is employed.
Table 2.3 Comparison among Bluetooth, ZigBee
& Wi-Fi
Standard Bluetooth
ZigBee Wi-Fi
IEEE
Specification 802.15.1 802.15.4 802.11a/b/g
Frequency
Band 2.4 GHz 868/915
MHz-2.4
GHz
2.4 GHz, 5
GHz
Max Data Rate
3 Mbps 250 kbps 54 Mbps
Packet Length 1024
Bytes, 8-
27 Bytes
(BTLE)
22 Bytes 1024 Bytes
Distance
Coverage 10 m 10-100 m 100 m
Battery life Regular
charging 1+ year Hourly
charging
Nominal TX
Power 0-10 dBm (-25)-0
dBm 15-20 dBm
Number of RF
Channel 79 1, 10, 16 14, 23
Bandwidth 1 MHz 2 MHz 22 MHz
Modulation
Scheme GFSK BPSK
(+ASK,
O-QPSK
BPSK,
QPSK,
COFDM,
CCK, M-
QAM
Coexistence
Mechanism AFH Dynamic
Frequency
Selection
Dynamic
Frequency
Selection,
Transmit
power
control
Basic Cell Piconet Star BSS
Extended Cell
Scatternet
Cluster
Tree and
Mesh
ESS
Max Number
of Nodes 8 >65000 2007
Encryption E0 Stream
Cipher AES
Block
Cipher
(CTR,
RC4 stream
cipher
(WEP),
AES block
counter
mode) cipher
Authentication Shared
Secret CBC-
MAC
(CCMP)
WPA2
(802.11.i)
Data
protection 16-bit
CRC 16 bit
CRC 32-bit CRC
Protocol
Complexity High Low Medium
Cost Medium Low High
6. Conclusion
The goal of this paper is to focus the comparison
among three (Bluetooth, ZigBee and Wi-Fi)
short range wireless networks. A comparative
study concerning data rate, power consumption,
power output, communication range, co-
existence and frequency range. The differences
among these wireless standards depend on the
design of architectural manufacturing. Though
these three wireless technology using the same
radio frequency (ISM) band but they contain
different characteristics from the point of
technological uses and design as well. And the
suitability of network protocol is greatly
influenced by practical applications.
Acronyms
BTLE (Bluetooth low energy), ASK (Amplitude
Shift keying), GFSK (Gaussian frequency shift
keying), BPSK/QPSK (Binary/quardrature phase
shift keying), O-QPSK (Offset-QPSK), OFDM
(Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing),
COFDM (Coded OFDM), M-QAM (M-ary
quadrature amplitude modulation), CCK
(Complementary code keying), AFH (Adaptive
frequency Hopping), FHSS/DSSS (Frequency
hopping/direct sequence spread spectrum ),
BSS/ESS (Basic/extended service set), AES
(Advanced encryption standard), WEP (Wired
Equivalent privacy), WPA (Wi-Fi protected
access), CBC-MAC (Cipher block chaining
message authentication code), CRC (Cyclic
redundancy check).
References
[1] Bluetooth SIG, “History of Bluetooth Technology”
HYPERLINK"http://bluetooth.com/English/SIG/pages/
History_of_the_SIG.aspx"http://bluetooth.com/English/
SIG/pages/History_of_the_SIG.aspx , Accessed October
12, 2010
[2] Stallings, W., Wireless communications and networks,
2nd ed., Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2006, p. 471.
COMPARISON AMONG SHORT RANGE WIRELESS NETWORKS: BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, & WI-FI
8
[3] Stallings, W., Wireless Communications and Networks,
2nd ed., Pretice Hall of India, New Delhi, 2006, p. 487.
[4] “Bluetooth Specification Version 2.1 + EDR [vol 0],”
July 26, 2007 or www.bluetooth.com.
[5] “Bluetooth Specification Version 3.0 + HS [Vol 0],”
April 21, 2009 or www.bluetooth.com..
[6] “Bluetooth Specification Version 4.0 [Vol 0],” June 30,
2010.
[7] Aiello, R. Wireless Medium Access control (MAC)
and physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for low-Rate
wirless personal Area Networks (WPANs),”
September 8, 2006.
[8] Anonymous, “The 802.11 protocol stack and physical
layer” http://www.scribd.com/doc/13628928/8
0211-Protocol-Stack-and-Physical Layer, Accessed
November 12, 2010.
[9] Wireless Center, “Point Coordination Function
(PCF),”http//www.wireless-center.net/WLANs/1436
.html, April 30 2007.
[10] Musaloiu-E., R. and Terzis, A. (2008),“Minimising the
effect of Wi-Fi interference in 802.15.4 wireless sensor
networks,” Int. J. Sendor Networks, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.
4354.
[11] Gilles Thonet, Patrick Allard-Jacquin, and Pierre
Colle. ZigBee - Wi-Fi Coexistence. Schneider Electric
White Paper, April.2008
[12] E. Ferro and F. Potori, “Bluetooth and Wi-Fi
protocols: A survey and comparison,” IEEE wireless
commum., Vol. 12, no. 1, PP 12-26, Feb.2005
[13] Baker, N. “ZigBee and Bluetooth: strengths and
weaknesses for industrial applications,” IEE
Computing & Control Engineering, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp
20-25, April/May 2005.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?
arnumber=1454281&isnumber=31235
... Smart security products often use two radio frequency (RF) based wireless communication vectors, namely radio signals, typically operating at 433 MHz, and Bluetooth operating at 2.4 GHz. Even though the level of embedded security and configuration options differ between them (Ferro and Potorti, 2005;Lackner, 2013), there are commonalities, such as short range and vulnerability to eavesdropping and jamming between the two (Garcia et al., 2016;Khan and Kabir, 2016). Most importantly, each is subject to a Denial of Service (DoS) attack, where a jamming signal is broadcast at the relevant frequency to deny access to the target device, or to redirect users to an "evil twin" device to steal their credentials or monitor their traffic. ...
Article
Full-text available
Nowadays domestic smart security devices, such as smart locks, smart doorbells, and security cameras, are becoming increasingly popular with users, due to their ease of use, convenience, and declining prices. Unlike conventional non-smart security devices, such as alarms and locks, performance standards for smart security devices, such as the British TS 621, are not easily understandable by end users due to the technical language employed. Users also have very few sources of unbiased information regarding product performance in real world conditions and protection against attacks from cyber attacker-burglars and, as a result, tend to take manufacturer claims at face value. This means that, as this work proves, users may be exposed to threats, such as theft, impersonation (should an attacker steal their credentials), and even physical injury, if the device fails and is used to prevent access to hazardous environments. As such, this paper deploys several attacks using popular wireless attack vectors (i.e., 433MHz radio, Bluetooth, and RFID) against domestic smart security devices to assess the protection offered against a cyber attacker-burglar. Our results suggest that users are open to considerable cyber physical attacks, irrespective if they use lesser known (i.e., no name) or branded smart security devices, due to the poor security offered by these devices.
... Another technology employed in radio waves positioning systems is Wi-Fi. The data transmission rates of Wi-Fi between 6 to 54 Mbps, at communication distance up to 100 m with 100 mW [61]. However, a modified version of WiFi technology (IEEE 802.11p), called dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) or wireless access in vehicular environment (WAVE), is standard specifically proposed for V2V and V2I communication [62]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Observing the vehicles movement becomes an urgent necessity due to exponentially increasing numbers of vehicles in the world. However, to this regard, a good deal of research had been presented to estimate the exact physical positionof the vehicle. The major challenges faced vehicle localization systems are large coverage areas required, positioning at diverse environments and positioning during a high-speedmovement. However, in this paper, the challenges of employing the vehicle localization techniques, which rely on the propagation signal properties, are discussed. Moreover, a comparison between these techniques, in terms of accuracy, responsiveness, scalability, cost, and complexity, is conducted. The presented positioning technologies are classified into five categories: satellite based, radio frequency based, radio waves based, optical based, and sound based. The discussion shows that, both of satellite-based technology and cellular-based technology are emergesolutions to overcome the challenges of vehicle positioning. Satellite-based can provide a high accurate positioning in open outdoor environment, whereas the cellular-based can provide accurate and reliable vehicle localization in urban environment, it can support non-line of sight(NLOS) positioning and provide large coverage and high data transmission. The paper also shows that, the standalone localization technology still has limitations. Therefore, we discussed how the presented techniques are integrated to improve the positioning performance
... These three protocols provide adequate data rates while consuming energy at an acceptable level. Table 2 illustrates a comparison among these protocols [41]. Because of the limited Bluetooth and ZigBee communication range, a smart device is usually needed if the ECG data are to communicate with the IoT cloud through the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless protocols [42]. ...
... These three protocols provide adequate data rates while consuming energy at an acceptable level. Table 2 illustrates a comparison among these protocols [41]. Because of the limited Bluetooth and ZigBee communication range, a smart device is usually needed if the ECG data are to communicate with the IoT cloud through the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless protocols [42]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cardiovascular disorders are one of the major causes of sad death among older and middle-aged people. Over the past two decades, health monitoring services have evolved quickly and had the ability to change the way health care is currently provided. However, the most challenging aspect of the mobile and wearable sensor-based human activity recognition pipeline is the extraction of the related features. Feature extraction decreases both computational complexity and time. Deep learning techniques are used for automatic feature learning in a variety of fields, including health, image classification, and, most recently, for the extraction and classification of complex and straightforward human activity recognition in smart health care. This paper reviews the recent state of the art in electrocardiogram (ECG) smart health monitoring systems based on the Internet of things with the machine and deep learning techniques. Moreover, the paper provids possible research and challenges that can help researchers advance state of art in future work.
Article
IoT based smart agriculture systems are important for efficient usage of lands, water, and energy resources. Wireless communication protocols constitute a critical part of smart agriculture systems because the fields, in general, cover a large area requiring system components to be placed at distant locations. There are various communication protocols with different features that can be utilized in smart agriculture applications. When designing a smart agriculture system, it is required to carefully consider the features of possible protocols to make a suitable and optimal selection. Therefore, this review paper aims to underline the specifications of the wireless communication protocols that are widely used in smart agriculture applications. Furthermore, application-specific requirements, which may be useful during the design stage of the smart agriculture systems, are highlighted. To accomplish these aims, this paper compares the technical properties and investigates the practical applications of five different wireless communication protocols that are commonly used in IoT applications: ZigBee, Wi-Fi, Sigfox, NB-IoT, and LoRaWAN. In particular, the inconsistencies in the technical properties of these protocols reported in different resources have been highlighted and the reason for this situation has been discussed. Considering the features offered by the protocols and the requirements of smart agriculture applications, the appropriateness of a particular protocol to a particular smart agriculture application is examined. In addition, issues about cost, communication quality, and hardware of the five protocols have been mentioned. The trending technologies with high potential for the future applications of smart agriculture have been introduced. In this context, the relation of the technologies like aerial systems, cellular communication, and big data analytics with wireless have been specified. Finally, the leading protocol and the smart agriculture application area have been highlighted through observing the year-based distribution of the recent publications. It has been shown that usage of LoRaWAN protocol has become more widespread in recent years.
Book
Learn about Ultra-wideband (UWB) transmission - the most talked about application in wireless communications. UWB wireless communication is a revolutionary technology for transmitting large amounts of digital data over a wide spectrum of frequency bands with very low power for a short distance. This exciting new text covers the fundamental aspects of UWB wireless communications systems for short-range communications. It also focuses on more advanced information about networks and applications. Chapters include: Radio Propagation and Large Scale Variations, Pulse Propagation and Channel Modelling, MIMO (Multiple Input, Multiple Output) RF Subsystems and Ad Hoc Networks. Focuses on UWB wireless communications rather than UWB radar, which has been covered before. Provides long and short-term academic and technological value. Teaches readers the fundamentals, challenges and up-to-date technical processes in this field.
Article
Interference from colocated networks operating over the same frequency range, becomes an increasingly severe problem as the number of networks overlapping geographically increases. Our experiments show that such interference is indeed a major problem, causing up to 58% packet loss to a multihop 802.15.4 sensor network competing for radio spectrum with a WiFi network. We present interference estimators that can be efficiently implemented on resource constrained motes using off-the-shelf radios and outline distributed algorithms that use these estimators to dynamically switch frequencies as interference is detected. Lastly, we evaluate the proposed algorithms in the context of a real-life application that downloads large amounts of data over multihop network paths. Our results show that the proposed approach successfully detects interference from competing WiFi channels and selects non-overlapping 802.15.4 channels. As a result, the proposed solution reduces end-to-end loss rate from 22%-58% to < 1%.
Article
Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) are two communication protocol standards that define a physical layer and a MAC layer for wireless communications within a short range (from a few meters up to 100 m) with low power consumption (from less than 1 mW up to 100 mW). Bluetooth is oriented to connecting close devices, serving as a substitute for cables, while Wi-Fi is oriented toward computer-to-computer connections, as an extension of or substitution for cabled LANs. In this article we offer an overview of these popular wireless communication standards, comparing their main features and behaviors in terms of various metrics, including capacity, network topology, security, quality of service support, and power consumption.
Article
Most industry analysts are forecasting explosive growth in the use of wireless data network technologies in industrial applications. For both ZigBee and Bluetooth separate alliances of companies worked to develop specifications covering the network/link, security and application profile layers so that the commercial potential of the standards could be realized. Real industrial wireless networks are inevitably be hybrids including ZigBee/802.15.4 and Bluetooth in complementary roles that suit the characteristics of each. The key to success is in deploying the right wireless technologies for the requirements of the application and avoiding the temptation of trying to make one technology meet all needs.
History of Bluetooth Technology
  • Sig Bluetooth
Bluetooth SIG, "History of Bluetooth Technology" HYPERLINK"http://bluetooth.com/English/SIG/pages/ History_of_the_SIG.aspx"http://bluetooth.com/English/ SIG/pages/History_of_the_SIG.aspx, Accessed October 12, 2010
Wireless Medium Access control (MAC) and physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for low-Rate wirless personal Area Networks (WPANs)
  • R Aiello
Aiello, R. "Wireless Medium Access control (MAC) and physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for low-Rate wirless personal Area Networks (WPANs)," September 8, 2006.
The 802.11 protocol stack and physical layer
  • Anonymous
Anonymous, "The 802.11 protocol stack and physical layer" http://www.scribd.com/doc/13628928/8 0211-Protocol-Stack-and-Physical Layer, Accessed November 12, 2010.
Point Coordination Function (PCF)
  • Wireless Center
Wireless Center, "Point Coordination Function (PCF),"http//www.wireless-center.net/WLANs/1436 .html, April 30 2007.