Re: Current mid-range technology?

[Russ in San Diego <russgoog@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 9, 10:29=A0am, nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote:
> Russ in San Diego <russg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >I was describing some of my X-10 setup (installed many years ago, when
> >X10.com was heavily promoting the stuff, and you could get tons of it
> >REALLY cheap) to a contractor friend. =A0He seemed very interested in
> >knowing about it for other customers. =A0I warned him that he probably
> >ought to stay away from selling X-10 to customers, because it's so
> >dicey and unreliable. =A0I'm ok with it for my usage, but I wouldn't
> >feel comfortable recommending it to a non-hobbyist who can't handle
> >the fussiness and frustration.
>
> >Any recommendations as to what's a reasonably priced and reasonably
> >reliable equivalent technology these days? =A0Is Insteon significantly
> >better than X-10? =A0What else is out there?
>
> Insteon reliability is good but it's pricey compared to X10 (and it seems=
 to
> be a bmoving target with new devices being introduced to 'fix' earlier
> flaws. You should also look at UPB (again, pricey) and ZWave (I'm not
> impressed). You should also be aware of Jeff Volp's XTB devices - I haven=
't
> kept up with revisions - they boost X10 signals to about 25-30Vpp which m=
ost
> who've tried it say makes X10 nearly 100% reliable.

Thanks for the summary!  I hadn't been aware of the XTB stuff, and it
looks pretty handy for my purposes.  I'll pass along the information
on Insteon, UPB, and ZWave.

The reason I'm reserving judgment on XTB is that, while it ought to
ensure devices turn on or off when commanded, I don't see how it would
help with one of the worst X10 problems, that of devices switching on
or off when NOT commanded, i.e., after having recognized a code within
line noise.

Now, if devices required a stronger minimum signal -- that might
mitigate the problem -- but that's not a centralizable solution such
as that provided by the XTB-IIR..