[no subject]

The UPB serial protocol is published. The Insteon serial SDK is about $100
and includes the protocol (although I still cannot recommend it given the
terms of their license).

This might be something that would interest Dan Boone at ADI. It would be a
way for the Ocelot and Leopard to work with Insteon or UPB. Why don't you
send him an email or post a message to the ADI forum.

"BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Thanks for the quick response on this Dave.  I knew you'd be the "go to"
>guy for some good thoughts on this.
>
>Your assumption is correct in that I hate to scrap the $1000+ investment
>in my JDS stuff; however I'd be willing to do so if I could find another
>stand alone device that's as capable. I spoke to SmartHome about how
>Insteon works with X10. My understanding is that if a device is set up
>to receive X10 then the Insteon benefit is lost. IOW, there is no
>ability to repeat an X10 signal as an Insteon signal.  He also told me
>that they did not have a translation bridge on the drawing board but
>thought it was a good idea.
>
>Even if the translation on such a bridge were limited to the standard
>"on-off-dim-bright" (I'd even settle for just "on-off") it would be
>enough to get me to scrap the X10 stuff and switch to Insteon (or
>another).  I see your point about the licensing of competing
>translations in a single box. That would be fine too as only one would
>typically be needed. I suppose different boxes could be produced for
>different protocols.
>
>JDS is working on a UPB interface but, at least in its first iteration,
>it will require removal of the phone board which is unacceptable to me
>as I use that function extensively. It's good to hear that someone is
>working on a UPB/X10 bridge.  I already have some UPB stuff and would
>love to be a beta tester if they're still looking.
>
>I think that whoever comes to market with an X10 bridge to any of the
>new protocols is likely to get a quick leg up in getting guys like me to
>switch everything out and topple X10 as the defacto standard.  The
>availability of a bridge would get some vendor a bunch of $2500+
>module/switch orders in a heartbeat.
>
>From:Dave Houston
>nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Insteon already supports X-10 although not with a TW523 emulation.
>>
>> I think SmartHome would balk at supporting UPB and vice versa and
>> given that both licenses would be involved I doubt a ménage-à-trois
>> would get off the ground.
>>
>> I assume you want TW523 emulation so it would work with your JDS gear,
>> HomeVision, HAI, etc. but I think the TW523 protocol would be far too
>> restrictive to make best use of either Insteon or UPB.
>>
>> I can say that I was approached to be a beta tester for a planned
>> UPB/X10 bridge. I turned it down because of my health and I will not
>> say any more. I don't know whether the project had the blessing of
>> PCS.
>>
>> I was impressed with the reliability of Insteon. My brief tests were
>> not conclusive but others are beginning to post good reports also so
>> I think it's a potential winner. You may soon see HAI and others
>> offering an Insteon interface. I think PCS made a mistake when they
>> priced UPB at a premium level.
>>
>> There may soon be another player. HomePlug is working on a simpler
>> specification (and lower cost chip) for home automation. Yitran
>> already has a similar chip which includes the SCP protocol.
>>
>> "BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how big a deal it would be but I wonder about the
>>> feasibility and marketability of a device that would accept the same
>>> connection & signal input that the TW523 uses to then translate and
>>> issue a command in one of the newer HA formats. The device could be
>>> specific to one translation or could be a more universal device that
>>> could do all three.
>>> I think that such a device would be helpful in propagating the new
>>> technologies while enabling a user to use their "legacy" controller
>>> and support multiple formats rather than having to scrap everything
>>> and start over.
>>> Opinions? Dave H?
>