Private vs Public LoRaWAN: The Hidden Tradeoffs

A facilities director at a regional logistics company recently shared a painful lesson: their “cost-effective” private LoRaWAN deployment for tracking trailers across 12 storage lots had become a full-time job for someone who was supposed to be doing other work. Meanwhile, a manufacturing company using a public LoRaWAN network discovered that a critical coverage gap in their newest facility wouldn’t be addressed for “at least 18 months.” The provider’s expansion roadmap didn’t include their industrial park.

Both made defensible decisions based on the information they had. Both are now living with consequences that vendor materials never mentioned.

If you’re evaluating private versus public LoRaWAN, you’ve probably seen plenty of comparison tables. They all look roughly the same: private gives you control, public gives you convenience. What those tables don’t show is what happens 18 months after deployment when your assumptions collide with operational reality.

That’s what this piece is about: the tradeoffs that don’t appear in datasheets.

The Core Tension: Control Requires Investment, Convenience Requires Trust

Private LoRaWAN means you own and operate the infrastructure: gateways, network server, application server, and all the operational overhead that comes with them. You control the network’s behavior, coverage, and evolution. You also own every problem it develops.

Public LoRaWAN means you connect devices to infrastructure someone else operates. You get network access without infrastructure responsibility. You also accept their decisions about coverage, capabilities, and priorities.

Neither approach is inherently superior. They optimize for different organizational profiles, risk tolerances, and operational capacities. The question isn’t which is “better.” It’s which failure modes you’re more equipped to handle.

What Private Deployment Vendors Won’t Emphasize

Private LoRaWAN marketing focuses on control, customization, and long-term cost savings. All true. Here’s what tends to get less attention.

Coverage Is Your Problem Forever

When you own the network, you own every gap. That dead zone in the northeast corner of Building 3? Yours to solve. The interference from the new LED lighting installation? Your spectrum to manage. The customer who wants to add devices in a location 200 meters beyond your current coverage? Your expansion to fund and execute.

Coverage gaps in private deployments don’t generate support tickets to a provider. They generate internal escalations, site surveys, gateway procurement, backhaul provisioning, and integration testing. Each “small” expansion carries project management overhead that rarely appears in TCO projections.

Spectrum Management Becomes Ongoing Work

LoRaWAN operates in ISM bands, which means shared spectrum with no coordination mechanism. In a campus environment, you’ll likely be fine initially. Eighteen months later, when a neighboring facility deploys their own IoT system, or when a new tenant moves equipment that generates RF interference, you’ll discover that spectrum management isn’t a deployment task. It’s an operational discipline.

Duty cycle compliance, interference mitigation, and channel optimization require monitoring and adjustment. Someone needs to own this. In most organizations, that “someone” ends up being whoever set up the network originally, regardless of whether it’s actually their job.

The 2 AM Question

When a critical gateway fails at 2 AM and environmental monitoring goes dark in a cold storage facility, who responds? Private networks require operational depth, not just deployment capability. Network server management, gateway maintenance, firmware updates, security patching: these don’t end at go-live.

Some organizations have this capacity. Many discover they don’t when it matters most.

Scaling Isn’t Linear

Adding coverage to a private network isn’t just purchasing gateways. Each new location requires site assessment, backhaul planning (Ethernet? Cellular? Both?), gateway mounting and weatherproofing, network configuration, and validation testing. The tenth gateway installation is more predictable than the first, but it’s never as simple as the hardware cost suggests.

The honest advantage: If your organization has infrastructure operations competency, private deployment offers genuine value: full control over quality of service, complete data sovereignty, deep customization, and a cost structure that improves at scale. But that “if” is doing a lot of work in this sentence.

What Public Network Providers Won’t Emphasize

Public LoRaWAN marketing emphasizes fast deployment, zero infrastructure burden, and predictable operational overhead. Also true. Here’s the other side.

Your Coverage Gap Is Not Their Emergency

Public network coverage maps look impressive until you need connectivity in a specific location that isn’t covered. When an aerospace manufacturer needed LoRaWAN coverage in a new facility adjacent to their existing operations, they discovered that “adjacent” to their covered location was still a gap in the provider’s network, and filling that gap wasn’t on the roadmap.

Providers make rational economic decisions about coverage expansion. Your urgent business need may not align with their market priorities. Enterprise customers can sometimes negotiate coverage commitments, but these negotiations add time and often cost.

Data Path Opacity Creates Uncomfortable Questions

Where exactly does your data travel? Through which infrastructure? Stored where? For how long? Under which jurisdiction’s legal framework?

Public networks can typically answer these questions, but the answers may not satisfy your security team or compliance requirements. When a data path traverses third-party infrastructure, you’re trusting their security practices, access controls, and incident response procedures. “Trust but verify” becomes difficult when the infrastructure isn’t yours to verify.

For organizations with regulatory requirements around data sovereignty or competitive sensitivity around operational data, this opacity creates real risk, even if that risk hasn’t materialized yet.

Feature Dependency Accumulates

Public network servers offer specific capabilities. If those capabilities match your needs, excellent. If you need a feature they don’t offer (a specific integration, a custom payload processing approach, a non-standard device configuration) you’re either waiting for their roadmap or building workarounds.

Early in deployment, this rarely matters. As applications mature and requirements evolve, feature dependency constrains architectural options in ways that aren’t obvious during initial evaluation.

Pilot Pricing Doesn’t Scale Linearly

Per-device or per-message pricing models look attractive at pilot scale. A hundred devices at $2 per month per device is a rounding error. Ten thousand devices at that same rate is $240,000 annually, potentially more than the amortized cost of private infrastructure.

Some providers offer volume discounts. Some don’t, or not at the thresholds you need. Model your actual projected scale before assuming public network economics remain favorable.

Provider Strategy Risk

What happens if your public network provider pivots strategy? Exits the market? Gets acquired by a competitor with different priorities? These aren’t theoretical concerns. The IoT connectivity market has seen significant consolidation and strategic shifts.

Private infrastructure carries different risks, but at least they’re risks you control.

The honest advantage: If your organization wants to focus on applications rather than infrastructure, and your coverage needs align with available public networks, you gain real velocity. Deployment in weeks rather than months, no infrastructure expertise required, and operational burden that stays predictable. These are genuine benefits for organizations with different priorities.

The Hybrid Reality Check

“Why not both?” sounds like an obvious answer. Use private infrastructure where you have concentrated coverage needs and public networks for distributed assets.

Sometimes this is exactly right. Sometimes it creates more problems than it solves.

Hybrid deployments introduce integration complexity: two provisioning workflows, potentially two network server environments, two billing relationships, and the ongoing cognitive overhead of knowing which devices connect to which network. If devices move between coverage areas, handoff management adds another layer.

Hybrid makes sense for genuine geographic diversity: headquarters on private infrastructure, remote field assets on public networks. It makes sense for phased migrations, validating private infrastructure in one location before committing fully.

Hybrid doesn’t make sense as a way to avoid choosing. It doesn’t eliminate tradeoffs; it requires you to manage both sets simultaneously.

A Framework for Your Specific Constraints

Rather than declaring a winner, consider these questions:

Coverage geography: Is your deployment concentrated (campus, facility, industrial site) or distributed (regional assets, field equipment, mobile applications)? Concentrated coverage favors private; distributed coverage often favors public or hybrid.

Data sensitivity: Do you have regulatory requirements or competitive sensitivity that demands full data path control? Strong data sovereignty requirements favor private deployment.

Operational capacity: Do you have, or want to build, IoT infrastructure expertise internally? If infrastructure operations isn’t a core competency and you don’t want it to become one, public networks reduce organizational burden.

Cost structure preference: Do you prefer capital investment with lower ongoing costs, or operational expense with lower upfront commitment? Private networks typically require higher initial investment with better economics at scale; public networks spread cost over time but scale linearly.

Timeline pressure: Do you have months to deploy and validate, or do you need devices online in weeks? Public networks offer faster initial deployment.

Scale trajectory: Are you deploying hundreds of devices or tens of thousands? At higher scale, private network economics typically improve while public network costs accumulate.

No combination of answers produces a single “correct” choice. But explicitly answering these questions, and documenting your assumptions, creates accountability and clear triggers for revisiting the decision as conditions change.

Making the Decision That Fits Your Constraints

The hidden tradeoffs are where LoRaWAN deployment decisions go wrong. Organizations optimize for initial deployment convenience and discover operational burdens they didn’t anticipate. They optimize for long-term control and discover they don’t have the capacity to exercise it effectively.

The goal isn’t finding the “best” deployment model. It’s finding the best fit for your specific constraints, and being honest about what those constraints actually are.

Document your assumptions explicitly. Define what would trigger a reassessment. Recognize that either choice carries tradeoffs you’ll discover over time.

Whether you choose private infrastructure, public networks, or a hybrid approach, implementation details matter enormously. The choice between private and public is necessary but not sufficient. The next decisions, around security architecture, device management, and application integration, will determine whether your deployment succeeds or becomes another cautionary tale.

Hubble Network connects devices directly to satellites, bypassing terrestrial infrastructure tradeoffs entirely. Learn how it works →