i have 4 questions regarding gateway and node.
1.) i want to use LoRa(R) Technology Evaluation Kit - 900 Evaluation Kit form microchip and tttn (the things industries) server. So can i use commercially?
2) is it supports lorawan?
3) any one tested range from node to gateway for that!! please healp me.
4) is it available for indian 865MHZ frequency?
1 Like
You’ve already asked that.
What does the documentation say?
We don’t do discussions about range as it’s pointless - each situation is relatively unique - what works in one city may not work in another, range is dependent on weather, people standing in the way of antenna, positioning of every part. There are various numbers suggested for city centre, suburban & rural ranges on a variety of authoritative websites you could search for. You have to try it yourself for the situation you have.
You linked to the kit that does 900MHz. If you search on Microchip or Google, do you find any other kits with other frequencies?
yea but that is another device
in that the documentation they shown ABP and OTAA method. so that means its supports lorawan ryt?
The principle remains the same, otherwise the forum would be littered with people asking about each device …
Please go and learn about LoRaWAN properly so that you can answer such questions yourself:
Read all of: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/lorawan/
The devices section of: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/devices/
The gateways section of: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/gateways/
The network section of: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/network/
The applications and API sections of: https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/docs/applications/
In the case of something of non-trivial cost like gateways, asking about individual models is probably appropriate.
For example the fact that ST’s kit’s gateway is missing a power amplifier and so must not be used on TTN might not be immediately apparent in an independent reading of the documentation by someone who doesn’t already have a very detailed idea of what a proper gateway needs to do.
It doesn’t seem like the Microchip gateway in this kit has that problem but it’s a bit odd in how it uses an MCU delegate to run the radio (perhaps architecturally close to the old TTN kickstarter gateway that had substantial engineering by Microchip in it).
Wanting input - ideally user reports - before purchase is not at all innapropriate.
But the 868 question is indeed something answerable by the documentation or practically what suppliers stock. And the range issue is indeed not something that can really be estimated independent of conditions, except for problematic exceptions like that ST kit where the gateway can hear nodes it lacks the power to reach with replies.
My question is what did Microchip (or their Distributors/FAe’s) say when OP asked them his questions above?! 
Let me answer this question.
It is suitable for the frequencies for which Microchip offers firmware. However several users struggled to get it to work with TTN. There seems to be hardly any log output making debugging any issues a pain.
The kit is nice for testing a small private LoRaWAN using their software (available on the site).
My advice would be to avoid it for TTN use and buy a newer and more capable product.
1 Like
The key word there is rely! And as a 1st pass yes I would, just as I would trust such a statement from RAK, or Multitech, or Tektelic or iMST, or Lorix, or… or whoever of the principle GW manufacturers, that might declare it as a full LoRaWAN (vs crippled) GW… if subsequently proven to be wrong or a problem found then that can be corrected, and if you are someone who bought on the basis of a claim, ‘compatible with TTN’ then (at least in most parts of the world), the buyer has legitimate reason to throw it back at them or their sales channel and demand a money refund! And I would remind that Microchip is a principal member of the LoRa-Alliance, with a good history - indeed they were one of the first companies we worked with to start the pre-cursor to the L-A, and to develop what became LoRaWAN, and were a launch participant. Plus as you pointed out they were a key contributor to the design and tech behind the Things GW (Kickstarter edition) (as well as the core component on the TTNode!) so of any of the GW or other LoRaWAN device manufacturers they would/should have a good understanding of TTN and would get the benefit of the doubt…whether this should be your 1st port of call for a GW is another question and likely I would refer/defer to Jac’s @kersing response immediately above.
That connection seems notable in that the kickstarter gateways seems to be mentioned of late mostly in the context of people having trouble with it, particularly the atypical system architecture - MCU delegated in a way conceptually similar to Semtech’s MCU-delegated picoGW reference designs, but ultimately distinct from them and requiring completely different non-standard software.
Indeed - what that seems to contain which no documentation would, is that it’s probably not a good choice for TTN.
If you look at the volume of messages around the TGW over time its classic bathtub - lots or early problems and teething problems, then once wrinkles ironed out the number of questions has largely fallen to small qty largely in the forum noise, it is only now that we are looking at the issues around V3 migration that we are starting to see (a still small) pick-up …and as an owner of one of these I hope V3 migration is seamless and trouble stays in the noise (will likley find out 1st hand sometime in Q2 when I try!). This does not detract from my observation wrt credibility, remember it came to market over 3 years ago and was a design started ~ 2 years earlier, routed in technology development 6-8 years ago (early SMTC ref designs as you say)…long before V3 became a twinkle in Johans eye
Some might say other readily available, and newer GW’s (Insert your choice of troubling gw here!) are not a good choice for use on TTN (depending on personal interests and motivations), and I know you can wax lyrical on many of these potential reasons, but that doesnt mean they cant or shouldn’t be used 
I have moved a number of largely off topic responses to an unlisted topic.
Please keep discussions on the original topic.
Anyone looking for those moved messages go to https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/forum/t/off-topic-discussion-parking-space
There are really two questions in considering a gateway:
-
Does the hardware have the right parts? Typically that means the SX1301, SX1302 or SX1308 (and as ST reminded us, also a transmit PA). Is it built for the right band? If local regulations or bandplan require LBT, does it have the extra hardware needed to support that?
-
Is the software correct and supportive of the desired bandplan, or failing that, maintainable?
Gateways that have “the right parts” hardware wise and are of a standard architecture are relatively maintainable and future-proof in the sense that they can run standard software for the reference designs with at most small adjustments.
Gateways of unique architecture are only maintainable to the degree that the software source is available to someone able to do the necessary work. Even a published repo is of limited value if the platform is obscure or forgotten enough that few with the knowlege of how to do so are working on it.
My impression of this box from the information available is that it has the right parts for a non-LBT regime of the frequency it is manufactured for, and that software source is available, but that unlike something matching one of the older or newer Semtech reference designs, it’s a non-standard architecture with little in the way of community support.
And as pointed out, if there exists a firmware of IN865 would be a very key question.
Hence my question - what did Microchip say?!!! It wasnt an invitation to a long discussion. Something I think should be ended at this point. 
I wont abuse privaledges by closing but will invite my fellow mods to review & consider if thread close appropriate at this point.
The existence of an IN865 firmware is a key question, but by no means the only key question. Kersing’s post almost seems to make the question of one, or really any statement from Microchip, pretty much irrelevant.
The OP asked several questions - some of which s/he has asked before/elsewhere, also we expect users to at least try their own investigations and reading of doc’s as pointed out by Nick and others…that research should also include asking suppliers about their claimed capabilities where appropriate.
Anyhow a small gift for you: https://bit.ly/38HLfMl