Re: Insteon compatibility

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

It's not so much the specific problem of address loss (I noted that Insteon
modules are hard coded in my review.) as it is the fact that they've allowed
a firmware problem to fester for several years. (There was a post by Martin
Custer yesterday that implies this is fixed in the latest SwitchLincs.) I
worry that there may be Insteon firmware problems that they will also allow
to fester.

Unlike some other manufacturers and their dealers, Insteon is not claiming
that the hard coded IDs offer security - they say they'll use rolling codes
for that.

Neil Cherry <njc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:55:56 GMT, Dave Houston wrote:
>> Neil,
>
>> You obviously have some serious signal suckers.
>
>Well all the devices mentioned are in one room. At least not all my
>computers are plugged in. :-)
>
>> You obviously have some serious signal suckers. That the Insteon nodules
>> work where X-10 madules do not is evidence that Insteon certainly addresses
>> signal level issues but your rather low Insteon signal level is also
>> evidence that signal suckers will continue to be a problem.
>
>My conclusion is along the same lines. I thinks it's the fact that my
>SignalLincs are boosting the signal the the Insteon is working
>better. A amplifier for X10 across the phases might help but I'm not
>buying any more X10 (I've got enough appliance modules for holiday
>lights).
>
>Here's an odd one for you, the CM15A couldn't turn on or off the AM14
>(A1) but all the other devices (all the controllers listed) could see
>the signal (just < 2.5v) at the AM14. I could turn on & off a RS
>appliance module (C1 and right next to it). To make things more
>interesting the TW523 couldn't control A1 but the Insteon & CM11A were
>able to control A1 (and C1). I have no explaination for this.
>
>> It's looking more and more like Insteon is the real thing - reliable
>> powerline communications at a reasonable price but I would feel better if we
>> weren't still seeing reports of SwitchLincs & LampLincs losing their address
>> when there are power glitches.
>
>I agree seems to work pretty well (at least on paper and my flimsy
>testing).
>
>On the issue of the *Lincs and losing their address I'm guessing that
>won't be so much of a problem as the addressing is hard coded. But I
>am wondering when I send new paramters and/or code the the various
>*Linc V2 modules (those are Insteon) will those be retained. So far
>I'm not that far along but my home should be a good test bed we are
>having lots of power problems lately (excess building and the
>increased load on this section of the local grid). Eventually I will
>have to bring my old UPS back on line. I just need to purchase 2 new
>batteries.
>
>One thing about the Insteon protocol, it's not as simple as X10 to
>use. You need to enroll the modules with the controller(s) otherwise
>the commands are ignored by the devices. This is both good and bad. I
>wouldn't call it security as you can poke the devices address into the
>controller. But the Insteon controller won't tell you the full address
>of the device that's not enrolled.