Re: Insteon now or wait?

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Bill Stock" <me7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I've read a few of the Insteon threads, both supporters (Bruce R) and
>naysayers (Dave H).

[snip]

I think I need to respond directly to the charge that I'm an Insteon
"naysayer".

When Insteon first released a description of their planned technology, I
reported (I think I was the first or second to mention Insteon here.) that
it sounded very good but, given SwitchLinc's track record, one had to wonder
whether they could implement it as planned. The main attraction was that it
was a two-way protocol and that all commands were acknowledged (positively
or negatively) which makes for a robust system. I believe I wrote something
to the effect that if they could pull it off it would become the system of
choice for low to mederately priced home automation.

When they first started shipping Insteon (about a year later) I asked a
dealer to loan me an Insteon Starter Kit so I could review it. By and large,
my X-10 gear has been fine and I think I know how to keep it working that
way so I had no plans to switch to Insteon. After a couple of weeks of hands
on testing, I published a series of reviews/comments here. My reviews were
positive and accurate. But I again questioned whether the same people who
had designed SwitchLinc could implement the Insteon system without problems
similar to those that had made the term "SwitchLinc" anathema in CHA.

I recommended that anyone just starting with automation should take a
serious look at Insteon. I did not recommend that those who already had a
large investment in X-10 (and presumably had learned how to keep it
functioning) should switch to Insteon.

If you search CHA on "SwitchLinc address", you will find reports about them
losing their X-10 address and other major flaws that go back to 1999. I
never bought any of their earlier products but did order their PowerLinc
1132B as soon as it was announced. I found it overly sensitive to low level
out-of-band noise. I had lengthy email correspondence with a manufacturer
who was trying to use it instead of a TW523 (in quantities in the thousands)
who saw exactly the same problems. Later, I ordered their LampLinc 2000STW
as soon as it was announced (incurring a bit of heckling in CHA from Tom
Morgan at Worthington). I found it was also overly sensitive to low level
out-of-band noise and would also lose its X-10 address during power glitches
(i.e. brownouts).

Some of the current problems being reported by Insteon users sound
hauntingly familiar. Many (e.g. losing an X-10 address stored in EEPROM
during brownouts, sensitivity to out-of-band noise) are obviously design
flaws that should have been fixed long, long ago. Given this history and
given the costs (and hassle) associated with replacing Insteon switches, my
current recommendation is to wait until the flicker issue is resolved.

But my view is still that the concept and protocol are solid and I hope that
SmartHome will get it sorted out. If I did not think the concept valid I
would not have spent the past few months trying to develop an embedded DIY
project that will (among other features) translate between the TTL (TW523
protocol) output of controls like an Ocelot, JDS, Stargate, HomeVision, etc.
and Insteon, UPB and other PLC interfaces.