garage remote jamming

Actually isn't this a case of consumer products using a military frequency and the consumer paying the price for it?

I think anything that says "must accept harmful interference" is susceptible to getting "stepped on" in some way. That's getting more and more likely as the spectrum gets auctioned off and re-allocated.

I'll bet a lot more than just garage door openers are taking hits. The WashPost would hardly be interested if three people's RF HA interfaces or some wireless alarms went amuck so it wouldn't make the news. I've had times when none of my X-10 RF or RS wireless thermometers would respond and then, just as mysteriously, the problems vanish. I live near a bunch of military radio towers so that may make my experiences atypical.

-- Bobby G.

>

Exactly, and now look at how 2.4Ghz is allocated. All of our favorite wi-fi toys are in the same position, we can not cause interference and we are required to shut-up and suffer any interference caused us.

>

I wasn't making a value judgement but merely putting this on the CHA record to raise awareness of the situation. The topic has arisen a few times here and elsewhere. The first incident I recall was around Homestead AFB a few years ago.

I believe most of the frequency bands where low-power, unlicensed use is allowed by the FCC are subject to the same thing. Most carry an FCC required disclaimer that they are not allowed to interfere with licensed use and must accept interference from licensed use.

With more and more HA applications using RF in some manner, it will likely be an ongoing issue, especially for all-RF systems like RadioRA, Z-Wave, ZigBee, etc. It's one more reason why I think a reliable PLC system (e.g. HomePlugCC) will eventually be the preferred retrofit solution.

And, those who import X-10 gear from the USA to save money should be aware that the French military uses the same RF frequencies that N. American X-10 gear uses.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Correction: It was around Eglin AFB.

Here's a detailed explanation of this particular system.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Oh please, that's just completely unsubstantiated FUD.

Which have proven themselves to be horrendously unreliable in residential settings. No thanks.

Unless you're worried about being able to turn the lights off as their army retreats it shouldn't be much of a concern...

I wouldn't say that. This is at least the third instance I've heard or read about where significant numbers of people have had to retool to accommodate new RF interference from military ops. If there are three we know about that usually means that there are plenty more that we don't hear about. If you were to experience any problems and called the Post to say your Lutron RA system was hosed, it would very likely *never* be considered newsworthy because so few others would likely be calling in. Same for an X-10 or Z-wave system. Not enough users for anyone to care if the Marines were jamming them. Garage openers and automobile key fobs? Lots of users to complain.

If it's absolutely, positively got to work without any possibility of interference, go hard wired. Neither PLC nor RF is immune to interference.

Hey, if it weren't for General Lafayette, we might not have gained our independence from Merry Olde England. Some Frenchies have spunk. Look at Napoleon. (-:

-- Bobby G.

As military, police, fire, etc. need additional frequencies, the bands used by unlicensed low-power consumer applications are a logical place to look. As we've seen in this case, they can't even be bothered to ask the FCC what technologies they will likely be stepping on and how many people they might inconvenience. I doubt this will be the only instance.

I did say "retrofit". I agree that hard wired is best but it's not always easy to retrofit. I would keep an eye on HPCC (HomePlug Command & Control). Yitran Communications was chosen to supply the chips and they showed a system at the most recent CES show. It is supposed to be reliable and low cost.

One footnote to the KKR-Texas Pacific buyout of TXU is that they are planning a system wide Access BPL system using the same HomePlug based technology from Current that has been operating in the Cincinnati area for a few years now (with no apparent problems despite ARRL propaganda).

Access and in-house BPL prove PLC can be reliable. It remains to be see if HPCC can be both reliable and low cost but the next couple of years should answer that.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

accommodate

Three of the SAME THING. Garage door openers using a set of frequencies the vendors KNEW were usable by the military and likely subject to interference.

If anything the people stuck with these openers should be bitching to the vendor of their garage door opener, not the military. But no, it's just more fashionable to bash the military.

Find a situation where an actual RadioRA setup has suffered from outside interference. Lutron's gone out of their way to make that an extremely unlikely situation.

interference.

Which would be rather impossible for a garage door opener IN your car. Sure, the usual wall-mounted controls are certainly not going to suffer the interference.

Waterloo, 'nuff said.

Hasn't that been said before, like once every ten years? Echelon comes to mind...

PLC just seems to be the kiss of death for nearly every tech product that's attempted to piggyback onto residential AC wiring. It stands to reason new ones will tank too.

It's puzzling to me why there aren't bands for low power RF control purposes that don't allow any high power transmitters.

interference.

Agreed re: retrofit.

-- Bobby G.

interference.

Unfortunately the reports also include remote car door openers and alarms. That would really impact some people quite badly like those with wheelchair vans, like my Dad. I'm waiting for something to jam up the kneeling van's remote controls.

I'd bash the FCC or whoever didn't allocate enough spectrum correctly to serve low powered needs like WiFi, cordless, cameras, etc. The truth is, everyone is warned. All those devices usually say: "Must accept harmful interference."

It would be interesting to know how true that is. We don't have unfettered access to Lutron's tech support department. Nor do we know how many RA installations there are per square mile compared to garage door and car openers so it's hard to say whether Lutron is better or just far less likely to have an RA house near an airbase. I tend to believe it's the smaller user base that's masking any problems. It could be that as RA is indoor it's better shielded and more resistant to interference than outside openers.

My admitted very limited understanding of RF is that no matter what error checking and redundancy you do, a low power system can always be drowned out by a more powerful transmitter. If I am not mistaken, it's called jamming and what we are seeing may easily be military tests to neutralize cellphone and RF-triggered IEDs. They won't work when you jam them. My hunch is that neither will Radio RA if the right frequency interference is close enough and strong enough.

Now if I *cared* enough about Lutron RA, I'd go to their site and look for information about how they've solved this problem. Or I'd email their tech support because it's certainly a valid, straight up sort of question for them:

Could Lutron Radio RA suffer from the same problems being reported across the country for radio operated garage and car door openers?

If not, why not? Did they choose a more isolated frequency? Do they use an encoding method that somehow allows a weaker signal to "pass thru" a stronger one? What makes them immune from the same problem a rolling code garage or car door opener suffers when "jammed?"

It's crate swamping time, so I'll leave that investigation to others. I don't foresee myself switching to Lutron any time in the future, so it's kind of moot 4 me.

(-: Eventually it will be lasers because RF is too easily jammed and listened in on. Your car will have a pan/tilt aiming device and your garage a receiver "target" that needs to see a specially encrypted and authenticated message before it opens. The area of "house" to "car" information technology is in its infancy but it's taking on many fascinating twists like GPSs, IPods, remote video, cellphones and more.

Everybody's entitled to a bad war here and there. Ask GW.

-- Bobby G.

>

The home powerline is far dirtier, electrically, than it has ever been. But the same can be said for the RF spectrum. There are more and more transmissions emanating around the world every day. Both control mechanisms have been, and will be, subject to interference and signal propagation issues. That's just life. There are lots of new protocols bouncing about that may or may not survive. It's too early to tell.

I think our discussions have previously boiled down to a fairly straightforward cost v. reliability graph, with people who value flawless performance over price on one end, and me on the other end. I love the fact that I can put switch points wherever I want them for $1 to $100, depending on how complicated I want them to be. I value the portability, the universality and the patent-free nature of X-10.

More importantly, our usage profiles and the unique demands we make on our systems further separate us, Bill. I like the idea that if I implement a dog feeder for four dogs, that I still have plenty of addresses left I can use. I also have controllers that are a snap to address. I like the speed with which I can set up remote operations. I'm hoping that the powerlines aren't going to get any worse in terms of signal suckers and interference. I truly believe that Jeff Volp may have very well bought another 20 years of use from X-10. If that's true, it works out to about $25 a year to preserve my existing investment. Less if I had built them myself (but even *I* like reliability!).

I think your perspective on PLC has not adjusted for the fact that someone used his noggin and built a demonstrably better mousetrap. The XTBs change the landscape. I agree that PLC was often as bad as you've noted, but that was before the XTB.

I'm not sure where you live, but I think it's close enough to a rat's nest of military transmitters on Nebraska Ave. that you may not be totally immune if there's a city wide attempt to lock down all remote IED's by jamming.

-- Bobby G.

I went to the Lutron site and about all I could find in the FAQ about vulnerability to jamming from higher powered transmitters is this:

***************************************************************** "Q16: Will other equipment in my home or neighboring homes interfere with my RadioRA system?

RadioRA operates at a frequency different from most remote controls, cellular/portable phones, and other wireless devices. The RadioRA communication protocol ensures that any device operating at the same frequency will not affect the lighting on your system. Also, your system will not affect other RadioRA systems. During startup, your system searches for other systems in the area and creates a unique system code to prevent cross-system interaction."

***************************************************************

I think a careful read of that says that while a new military transmitter on the RA frequency won't turn your lights on inadvertently, there's no assurance that the user will still be able to control the lighting either!

"Will not effect your lighting" is legally not quite the same as "will not effect your ability to control your lighting." While a new super USMC transmitter obviously won't turn on your lights when it's "on air" because of the complex ID protocol RadioRA uses, it doesn't mean the RA messages from RA controllers to RA switches themselves won't be blocked entirely by the interference.

I'd say Lutron's tech staff are the only ones who can conclusively rule on the question. I imagine that in the light of news stories describing how other home radio-controlled devices are being affected by new military transmitters it would be important for them to describe exactly *how* they are immune and what steps they would take for the consumer if it turned out they weren't. It would be nice to know what, if anything, is operating at the same frequency, or could be in the future, as well.

In reading through their site, I see nothing that leads me to believe they've developed a radio product that can operate in the presence of a stronger signal operating at the same frequency. If these recent "garage door killing" transmission tests ARE designed to neutralize remotely detonated bombs, it would seem RA is a security risk if it allows remote operation during a jamming transmission. (-: Watch out for the men in the black helos, Bill. They might be coming to confiscate your gear!

Maybe someone else can ask Lutron directly since I've about exhausted my interest in this subject unless someone can prove *ANY* home-based RF solution can operate in the presence of a much stronger transmitter operating on the same frequency. I know of military frequency hopping systems that are resistant to jamming, but they're very pricey. I'm still of the mind that you can shout all you want in the middle of a hurricane, but no matter how loud you shout, no one will hear you. If it absolutely, positively has to work, first time, every time, then go hardwired!

Here's are the numbers I culled from the site.

RadioRA toll-free hotline at 1.877.610.7410

Customer Service 1.888.LUTRON1 8AM-8PM EST

Technical Assistance 1.800.523.9466 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

-- Bobby G.

That's a nice mixture of technobabble and deliberate disinformation.

IIRC, RadioRA uses 418MHz ASK which is the same frequency and modulation used by _most_ RF remotes (X-10's 310MHz being the exception).

Assigning a unique "housecode" may prevent accidental interoperability between neighbors but it will not prevent (any more than Z-Wave using encryption) capture & playback or jamming. Insteon and UPB require enrollment of each device which does prevent casual neighborly interference.

But, methinks you are arguing with a RadioRA dealer who already knows all the above. ;)

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

You assume too much. PLC in a residential setting will continue to be a market failure. Not because of anything inferior in the PLC gear, but because of all the screwy things that can be found in nearly all residential settings likely to be a candidate for automation. At least with the airwaves there's regulations on frequency allocation and use.

No interference whatsoever with our gear out here off Bradley Blvd. But then neither does a friend's place just east of Tenleytown. So much for that FUD.

More like 'in a desperate attempt to find a way to spin FUD...' Give it a rest.

I've no idea why you're attempting to stretch the argument to such a ridiculous extreme.

What next, spin trying to say it'll harm children? Yeesh, that's just pathetic.

Heh, if you can afford this gear, you don't live near an airbase...

Arf Arf! The FCC is too busy regulating Janet Jackson's boobs to care about who runs illegal transmitters. My PLC system is fine now that I have it "turbocharged" with the XTB. I think it's the sign of the good basic design of X-10 that a problem like signal suckers and interference can be solved without wholesale equipment replacement.

Neither places are near any military transmitters that I know of, although Tenleytown is close to the WTOP towers across from Sears. Two sample points does NOT make a compelling argument that ALL RadioRA installations are immune. Perhaps if you lived near Quantico, VA where this last batch of remote door openers were affected, you'd have a different tale to tell.

You didn't respond to this query before, so I'll ask again. How many LutronRA users do you estimate there are there per 1K US residents compared to the number of people per thousand who own car door or garage door remote openers? The problem is appearing with door openers simply because there are so many of them in operation, IMHO, compared to RadioRA sites.

-- Bobby G.