Why Aren't All Smart Streetlights 5G-Based? — The System Logic Every Procurement Decision-Maker Should Know
If you have recently been evaluating smart streetlight solutions, you will likely encounter two distinct arguments: one asserts, "We utilize a fully 5G-based architecture, enabling real-time interconnection and robust future scalability"; the other claims, "We employ LoRaWAN for the control layer—it is stable, cost-effective, and easy to maintain."
Which of these two approaches is correct?
The answer is not a simple "either/or." A truly reliable system design will not force you to choose between two protocols; instead, it will clarify precisely which layer of the system is best suited for 5G versus LoRaWAN, and what specific problems each technology is designed to solve.
The objective of this article is to help you clearly grasp this underlying logic, enabling you to ask the truly critical questions when engaging with vendors or engineering consultants.
I. Smart Streetlights Are Not a Singular Function, but a Layered System
Understanding this fundamental point is the starting point for all subsequent evaluations.
A complete smart streetlight system typically performs two entirely distinct categories of tasks simultaneously:
The first category consists of *control tasks*. These include remote switching (on/off), time-scheduled dimming, fault alerts, status reporting, and periodic maintenance synchronization. The characteristics of these tasks are as follows: extremely small data packets (individual commands typically range from a few dozen to a few hundred bytes), low frequency (communication is not continuous or high-frequency), yet a high volume of nodes, extensive coverage requirements, and a demand for high long-term online stability.
The second category consists of *data tasks*. These include video streaming from cameras, image analysis, Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR), aggregation of environmental sensor data, and the uploading of edge computing results. The characteristics of these tasks are the exact opposite of the first category: they involve large data volumes, high bandwidth requirements, and sensitivity to latency.
In its official report on its smart streetlight project, the City of San Diego explicitly stated that one of the system's core capabilities for future expansion is the ability to host high-definition video streaming and automated license plate recognition functions directly on the streetlight nodes. This signifies that the streetlight—as a physical node—is no longer merely a "lighting fixture," but has evolved into a critical access point for urban sensing infrastructure.
However, a crucial distinction must be made: this does *not* imply that the act of "controlling the lights" itself requires high bandwidth. These two functions must not be conflated.
II. The Physical Characteristics of 5G and LoRaWAN Determine Their Respective Areas of Application
What are the advantages of 5G? High bandwidth, high data rates, low latency, and support for dense connectivity.
These characteristics make 5G ideally suited for handling a second category of tasks: video streaming, image backhaul, and real-time data analytics. 5G is well-equipped to meet the bandwidth demands inherent in these tasks.
What, then, are the advantages of LoRaWAN? Low power consumption, long-range coverage, low cost, and suitability for the deployment of large-scale, distributed nodes.
LoRaWAN is a Low-Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN) protocol maintained by the LoRa Alliance. Its design objective is to enable a vast number of distributed endpoints to operate continuously over long periods—spanning wide coverage areas and incurring minimal communication costs—making it particularly well-suited for scenarios characterized by "low data volume but an extremely high number of nodes." Official documentation regarding the City of Los Angeles's smart lighting network outlines the core functions that streetlamp nodes within such a system must perform: remote on/off control, scheduled brightness adjustment, and real-time status reporting. These functions fall squarely within the operational sweet spot of LoRaWAN.
Therefore, if you encounter a smart street lighting project branded as "5G," yet observe that its control layer operates via LoRaWAN, this is neither a contradiction nor a cost-cutting compromise. Rather, it represents a strategic division of labor at the system level: data-intensive operations are routed through high-bandwidth links, while lightweight control operations are handled by a low-cost, wide-coverage LPWAN.
III. Why a Hybrid Architecture Is the Mainstream Solution for Developing Markets in 2025
If your project is being implemented in Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, or Latin America, this issue warrants particularly serious consideration.
The reality of infrastructure in developing markets is that 5G network coverage is far less comprehensive than in mature markets—particularly outside of core urban centers. If a smart street lighting solution relies entirely on 5G for its lighting control layer, the system will be unable to function properly in areas where 5G coverage is weak. LoRaWAN operates on a fundamentally different coverage logic: a single gateway can cover a radius of several kilometers, and its deployment costs are significantly lower than those of cellular networks.
This implies that, in practical engineering deployments, a LoRaWAN-based control layer is far easier to implement given existing infrastructure conditions; meanwhile, the capabilities of 5G can serve as an "extension layer" for the system, to be integrated gradually as conditions become ripe.
This layered architecture offers an additional advantage from an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) perspective: the stability of the control layer does not depend on the bandwidth resources of the cellular carrier's network, resulting in clearer troubleshooting paths and lower maintenance costs. This factor is of critical importance for municipal projects—which typically require long-term operation—that are supported by O&M teams with limited personnel. IV. When Does Pure 5G Control Truly Make Sense?
This question warrants a separate answer, as it serves to avoid the opposite extreme: the assumption that LoRaWAN is *always* the superior choice.
Pure 5G control offers distinct advantages in the following scenarios: when street light nodes simultaneously handle high-frequency video analytics tasks, requiring control commands and video data to interact in a low-latency closed loop over a single link; when a project demands the continuous backhaul of dense sensor data, and the required bandwidth exceeds the limits of LPWAN technologies; or when the project is situated within an area with stable 5G coverage, where carrier fees are manageable, and the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis supports a full-5G solution.
Under these conditions, utilizing a single, unified link to simplify architectural complexity constitutes a sound engineering decision.
However, if your project requires neither real-time video interaction nor full 5G coverage—yet a vendor pushes for a site-wide 5G deployment on the grounds that a "full-5G solution is more advanced"—then it becomes essential to ask a critical question: What tangible functional enhancements are you actually gaining in exchange for the additional costs and the increased reliance on carrier networks?
V. Three Verification Questions for Procurement Decision-Makers
When evaluating a smart street light solution, the following three questions can help you determine whether the system's communication architecture is sound:
First: Are the system's control layer and data layer clearly separated? If the vendor cannot clearly articulate the communication protocols governing these two layers, it is highly probable that the system architecture itself has not undergone a rigorous, layered design process.
Second: Does the coverage strategy for the control layer align with the network infrastructure available in the project's specific region? If the project is located in an area with incomplete 5G coverage, yet the control layer relies exclusively on cellular networks, the associated risks warrant careful assessment.
Third: Does the calculation of the system's long-term operational and maintenance costs (TCO) incorporate communication fees? The long-term operational costs associated with LoRaWAN gateways and data transmission differ significantly from those of a solution where every single node relies on cellular networks.
In Summary:
The optimal communication architecture for smart street lights is not a matter of choosing "5G *versus* LoRaWAN," but rather of assigning specific roles: "5G handles high-traffic data tasks, while LoRaWAN handles lightweight control tasks."
This is not a compromise; it is the fundamental logic of systems engineering.
Post time:Apr - 23 - 2026
