Re: is x10.com dead?

["Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx>]

"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2ridnaseAcm94mnenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > If I were to switch today, I'd be giving up a ton of tangible benefits
for
> > a marginal increase in reliability.  No way.
>
> That's just it, the reliability difference wasn't marginal.  It was 50%
(at
> best) versus 100%.

I can understand your position if truly half of your commands did not work.
That is clearly unacceptable.

You mentioned a plethora of electronic equipment.  Back when X10 was
developed, the house was a much friendly environment.  Most electronic
equipment we take for granted today was not even thought about.  Many
manufacturers add a capacitor directly across the AC inlet to get THEIR
equipment to pass conducted radiation tests.  It's a cheap fix, and does not
care about what other products they share the environment with.  That is why
the filters are necessary.  They add the components the equipment
manufacturer left out to save costs.

With several hundred X10 command sent daily, and an observable glitch
perhaps every couple of months, I can honestly say our reliability is
99.99%.  That's pretty darn good.  That is what X10 is capable of with some
planning.

Jeff