Re: Why cling to old X10?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"RickH" <passport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> My wife and I teach ballroom dance on the side and I DJ at some local
> ballroom dance studios, so the basement evolved into a dance floor
> instead of your more-typical billiards room.  Yes, all the devices are
> to control lights, with Insteon there are no more dedicated wall
> transmitters, even the keypads can control a single load.  With 55
> devices and growing I am sure I'm probably loading down the line for
> good PL transmission already, so most of my communication, I would
> gather, is taking the RF route instead.  But I like the concept of
> having the same mesh network living in both the RF and PLC physical
> domain, and the backwards compatibility with X10 (but that part was
> marketing genious that probably a certain other company wished they
> had followed, namely UPB).

As you no doubt know by now Insteon's not an RF mesh network.  The RF
component of the system provides for a bridge between the two phases
powering your house.  It was a brilliant move on their part because most, if
not all, similar X-10 solutions required installing 220VAC gear into the
house's circuit panel.  That's where a lot of people part company with X-10
because it's no longer plug and play.  Neil, if you're reading, that much
supports your contention of no new inventions from X-10.  They never thought
of building a similar, "no electrician required" phase coupler for X-10.

The compatibility feature with X-10 *was* a good marketing ploy, I agree,
although how well it worked in fact as oppposed to theory is probably still
open to debate.

Nearly all the problems in the X-10 world stem from low signal strength.  It
was adequate in the 80's but here in the year 2007 every family I know of
has power strips, outlet expanders and plug-in devices all over the house.
The playing field changed dramatically.  But not so dramatically that Jeff's
XTB can't take care of most of the issues and filters take care of the rest.

For those, like you, who want intricate scene control, and were moving
anyway, Insteon's probably a better bet than adding filters and XTB's to
X-10 gear.  For those, like me, who use a wide range of X-10 devices and
mostly want to turn lights simply on or off, Insteon, at least at the
moment, is overkill and would involve a huge retrofit effort.  The only
"scene" that interests me is already handled by X-10 and that's ALL LIGHTS
OUT.  (-:

--
Bobby G.