Most smart meters are connected and powered by the electric mains, requiring the service interruption and qualified personnel for their installation. Wireless technologies and energy harvesting techniques have been proved as alternatives for communications and power supply, respectively. In this work, we analyse the energy consumption of the most used IoT wireless technologies nowadays: Sigfox, LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, Wi-Fi, BLE. Smart meters’ energy consumption accounts for metering, standby and communication processes. Experimental measurements show that communication consumption may vary upon the specific characteristics of each wireless communication technology—payload, connection establishment, transmission time. Results show that the selection of a specific technology will depend on the application requirements (message payload, metering period) and location constraints (communication range, infrastructure availability). Besides, we compare the performance of the most suitable energy harvesting (EH) techniques for smart meters: photovoltaic (PV), radiofrequency (RF) and magnetic induction (MIEH). Thus, EH technique selection will depend on the availability of each source at the smart meter’s location. The most appropriate combination of IoT wireless technology and EH technique must be selected accordingly to the very use case requirements and constraints.

IoT applications rely strongly on the performance of wireless communication networks. There is a wide variety of wireless IoT technologies and choosing one over another depends on the specific use case requirements—be they technical, implementation-related or functional factors. Among the technical factors, latency, error rate and stability are the main parameters that affect communication reliability. In this work, we present the design, development and validation of a Universal Testbed to experimentally measure these parameters, abstracting them from the wireless IoT technology protocols and hardware platforms. The Testbed setup, which is based on a Raspberry Pi 4, only requires the IoT device under test to have digital inputs. We evaluate the Testbed’s accuracy with a temporal characterisation—accumulated response delay—showing an error less than 290 µs, leading to a relative error around 3% for the latencies of most IoT wireless technologies, the latencies of which are usually on the order of tens of milliseconds. Finally, we validate the Testbed’s performance by comparing the latency, error and stability measurements with those expected for the most common IoT wireless technologies: 6LoWPAN, LoRaWAN, Sigfox, Zigbee, Wi-Fi, BLE and NB-IoT.