Re: Dedicated Z-wave sites?

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>(I'm not sure that those who fault Insteon as being proprietary realize that
>Z-Wave is equally so!)

I've mentioned  that on a few occasions.
>"Up to 232 devices can be members of a Z-Wave network, which is a far cry
>from ZigBee?s 65,535-device-per-network limit."

You can have multiple networks. But the need for close spacing and the
limited number of hops pretty much guarantee nobody will exceed 232 devices
- at least not if they need to reach all of them.

>I still strongly believe the winner will be the protocol that appliance and
>AV manufacturers are willing to embed in their products at the factory.  If
>not, all the new protocols are still faced with the same old problems.  How
>do I tell if I turned the TV on or off remotely if the remote's power switch
>is just a toggle button?  Unless the device maker embeds some intelligence
>in their product, you're still back to Rube Goldberg-ish current sensors
>wrapped around the line cord and some method of relaying that information
>back to a centralized controller.

I think HomePlug (powerline) may have the best shot if they can get the cost
of a node down.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx