Re: XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Been there, done that, got HomePlug.

Well, actually I don't "got HomePlug" because it still costs too much
compared to 802.11G so I opted for 802.11G to add a new laptop to my LAN,
but BPL and HomePlug do with the powerlines what the modems and DSL do over
phone lines.

I believe HomePlug has approved a newer, lower bit rate version intended for
HA type tasks. Its cost and reliability are still to be determined.

     http://www.homeplug.org/en/docs/alliance_press/CommandControlSpec.pdf

Yitran whose technology was chosen already has chipsets that use Microsoft's
free SCP protocol.

     http://www.yitran.com/it800tool.htm

As I've noted before, it surprises me that X10 hasn't developed something
similar that is backwards compatible to their installed base. HomePlug has
no interest in doing that.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>This discussion makes me wonder if it might be possible for a bright guy
>like Jeff or Dave to take the 60 cycles offered by the powerline and
>multiplex them so that each cycle (baud) carried a greater number of bit/s.
>The old X-10 equipment would see only the old X-10 signals and the new
>protocol could use the extra capacity to significantly increase the
>bandwidth.  That's exactly how they bumped those 2400 "baud" modems up to
>56Kbit/s eventually.
>
>I remember Byte magazine articles that talked about the theoretical limits
>of copper phone lines and how we would all have to use fiber to get even
>cable modem speeds.  And yet year after year modems over POTS got faster and
>faster.  Now you can get 1.5Mb/s with copper and DSL.  I'm betting that X-10
>can be similarly extended and enhanced - maintaining backwards compatibility
>and incorporating fallback capability.  That all happened with PC modems.
>X-10's not that much different in concept.
>
>Jeff's XTB invention convinces me that there's still a lot of life left both
>on the powerline and in the X-10 protocol.  He's cut away at the primary
>weakness of X-10: signal loss.  I'll bet he could bring some interesting
>ideas to bear on an enhanced X-10 spec that was truly backward compatible
>with older gear.  It would answer your legitimate gripe that X-10's too slow
>and would really extend the life of the installations of millions of users.
>
>People would use high speed modules for macro execution and low speed, cheap
>mass produced modules for everything else.  Yet when you sent an "ALL OFF"
>from an old-style controller, it would turn off all modules, old and new.
>Just like company intranets, you put the high priced high speed network gear
>on backbones and on the PCs of those most in need of high speed.  I'll even
>bet Dave's got some of the technical details of such a protocol extension
>worked out as byproduct of his work on Rozetta.