That’s not what it says.
Where do you read that the radio spectrum limitations are just for LoRa?
Don’t be nitpicking. LoRa is used in ISM bands of which the frequencies and their legal limitations are documented and well known.
Really the only meaningful way that a non-LoRaWAN implementation might get you more capacity is that if you had some other scheme for a single-setting pair of radios to “meet” on the air at a particular time/frequency/settings combination, then you could use a wider bandwidth channel at a variety of frequencies. In many places, width and frequency variety will buy you permission to do more.
But a typical LoRaWAN concentrator card has only one 500 KHz receiver, and it’s not really frequency agile, at least not without messing up the settings of half of the variable-SF receiver channels sharing its front end radio IC.
Basically LoRaWAN is optimized for low bandwidth and ability of nodes to just put out a packet on the frequency/spreading factor/timing of their choice; but as such is constrained by what the multi-channel receiver chips can do.
In contrast if you know exactly what the other end is going to do, you’re better off meeting it on the air with an sx126x node radio.
Generally though, I don’t think that LoRa is the answer to the asker’s problem, and this thread is probably getting a bit tangential looking at theoretical oddities rather than anything practically useful for their purpose.
It might be if we weren’t being asked to provide legal advice.
I for one transfer hundreds of pictures over LoRa in a normal year.
But that’s not TTN, so not for discussion here.
1 Like