Odidos IoT primer connects three building blocks operators and integrators typically design together: eSIM and eUICC remote provisioning, multi-IMSI steering, and LPWAN selection between LTE-M and NB-IoT. The explainer frames these choices around operational constraints like provider lock-in, the ability to switch connectivity over-the-air, and device mobility requirements.
Below is what the primer says each technology is for, and where it draws the line between static, low-data and truly mobile IoT use cases.
eSIM and eUICC: remote subscription provisioning to avoid manual swaps
Odido describes IoT as connected objects and devices that exchange data either via the internet or via a private network connection. In that context, the primer positions eSIM as a SIM embedded in a device that cannot be removed. It contrasts this with traditional plastic SIMs, which come in physical formats such as mini-, micro- and nano-SIM and therefore require physical SIM replacement when switching providers.
The primer lists two drivers for embedded credentials: environmental protection (it says eSIM can be better protected against dust and dirt) and lifecycle management (it says an eSIM often lasts longer than a traditional SIM, enabling longer device use). It also argues that at large scale, manual intervention is not feasible, stating that some companies use thousands or even hundreds of thousands of devices.
It then identifies vendor lock-in as a key eSIM challenge: if an eSIM is fixed in the device, provider switching has to happen over-the-air by configuring the SIM remotely. The primer says a common approach to make that possible is the eUICC, which stands for Embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Card. It says an eUICC can be configured OTA according to the GSMA standard, enabling switching to another provider without replacing the SIM card. It further says eUICC technology allows SIM card data to be rewritten by replacing subscription data from the network, calling this remote rewriting Remote SIM Provisioning (RSP).
For how RSP is structured, the primer names three components within the eUICC standard: Subscription Management Data Preparation (SM-DP), Subscription Management Secure Routing (SM-SR), and the eUICC itself. It says SM-DP prepares provider profiles, stores them, protects login credentials, and downloads and installs profiles on the eUICC. It says SM-SR updates profiles on the eUICC (including activating, deactivating, or deleting them) and secures communications between SM-DP and the eUICC during profile download and installation. Finally, it describes the eUICC as the SIM containing subscription profiles, which it says can come in forms such as removable, embedded, or integrated SIM.
multi-IMSI: operator steering when roaming configuration is the risk
The primers second thread is multi-IMSI. It defines IMSI as International Mobile Subscriber Identity, a unique number that gives a mobile network operator (MNO) subscribers network access. It says IMSIs are stored on the SIM card, and that with a single IMSI a device can connect only to one network operator and its roaming partners.
For multi-IMSI, it says multiple IMSIs can be placed on one SIM, giving the device access to multiple network operators. It frames the value as operational: it says multi-IMSI connectivity is useful for IoT because devices often need to connect without human help wherever they are. It offers examples such as a utilities company with smart meters spread across a country where no single operator provides full coverage, plus scenarios where a device traveling across regions may need to switch networks multiple times in a single trip.
The primer then contrasts multi-IMSI against the failure modes of single-IMSI. It says a single IMSI creates risks during network outagesif an operators home network fails, connectivity can be lost. It also says the device can lose coverage if roaming with the local operator is not configured or if connection issues occur. In that setup, it says multi-IMSI can let the device switch to another operator to keep the connection, including via a multi-IMSI applet that allows automatic reconnection to other operators networks to avoid outages.
It also draws a line with eUICC implementations: even if an eUICC SIM can contain multiple operator profiles, the primer says it does not allow smooth switching between them. It adds that switching between operators on many eUICC SIM cards requires a platform paired with SM-SR, which it says can add cost and complexity. By contrast, it says a multi-IMSI solution is managed by a single connectivity provider (it gives Odido as an example) with relationships to multiple network operators offering IMSIs stored on one SIM. It says if a device needs extra coverage or detects a network outage, IMSI profiles can be swapped OTA so new IMSIs can be activated in real time.
Odidos own positioning is explicit in the primer: it says it is ahead in multi-IMSI technology for IoT, and that its IoT connectivity solutions let customers connect globally via one SIM. It also claims that its technology allows devices to switch between multiple IMSIs while keeping costs low and service quality high.
LTE-M vs NB-IoT: using handover support to separate mobility needs
The primers third component is LPWAN selection between LTE-M and NB-IoT. It says both technologies are 3GPP-standardized and comply with norms and protocols of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). It says the goal of these standards is to let operators and businesses benefit from Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs) worldwide, including as an alternative to Wi-Fi and to 2G/3G networks.
Odido ties LPWAN suitability to smaller data transfers for IoT applications, and it lists typical deployments that require wide area coverage with built-in devicessuch as logistics sensor and asset tracking, fleet management, smart cities, and agriculture. It also says LPWANs are extremely energy-efficient so device batteries can last for years, then sets the selection decision around data and latency needs.
For NB-IoT, it says the technology is designed with IoT in mind, especially massive IoT where large sensor networks connect to one base station. It says NB-IoTs minimal power consumption makes it suitable for battery-powered equipment. For higher data requirements and/or lower latency, the primer says LTE-M can be a better choice.
The differentiator it emphasizes is handover support. It states that NB-IoT does not support handovers between base stations, while LTE-M does. It then concludes that because of handover support, LTE-M is better for truly mobile IoT applications. Finally, it says both LTE-M and NB-IoT can be used together and complement each other.
Design checklist the primer recommends: plan for error handling and redundancy
Across both the identity/provisioning layer (eSIM/eUICC and multi-IMSI) and the radio layer (LTE-M vs NB-IoT), the primers guidance is consistent: it says the key is to make a smart plan for error handling and redundancy so devices stay connected. It also frames connectivity planning as harder as IoT implementations become more numerous, larger, and more complex.