If your RF range is only a few feet, you've probably got some 900MHz interference. I had exactly that problem and changed the "channel" on the interfering equipment and now have no RF issues. It's a design error that Insteon can't change it's frequency or do spread spectrum. OTOH, it seems to me that the whole RF coupling is not a big deal, why not just use a wired bridge?
Ralph,
In my case I think it was just the way I had the antennas (mis)aligned and the generally RF unfriendly walls and ceilings (lots of wire lathe). While I concluded that the RF bridge is the weakest link, I suspect it will be OK for most people (excluding other 904MHz devices).
If you've read the other installments of my running review, you've found that my overall assessment is positive as regards the technical issues. I like the Insteon concept and expect it will prove to be robust. As you know, I have the same qualms as you about the terms of the license for the SDK. If they weren't so bad, I might buy it and develop an RF to Insteon bridge so that palmpads and Prontos could control the Insteon modules.
I didn't see your last sentence the first time around.
I suspect the RF coupling serves two purposes. One is it lets them call it dual band and infers that its better than Z-Wave, Zigbee, or X-10 which are single band. The other is that its probably easier to manage the phase coupling/repeating this way given that individual units all repeat signals, too. Dan Boone (Ocelot, etc.) told me that incidental coupling between phases made powerline CE-Bus unworkable.
The documentation that SmartHome released yesterday is helpful. It verifies several things which I had inferred from my experiments with the starter kit, answers a few questions I still had (e.g. max repeats) and gives a fairly good overview of the system. Despite the marketing hype, it appears that the RF is intended only as a phase bridge/repeater or as RF-only input devices (i.e. remotes). I think the typical castle being built these days will require multiple RF receivers to overcome range limitations.
Ralph,
Anyone considering development for Insteon should also look at the "SDK Support Rates". They are charging for supporting the SDK, including by e-mail. This is probably not a drawback for large companies but may be for smaller ones.
The "Insteon: The Details" PDF released yesterday is worth studying. It presents the overall design philosophy. It looks good (at least on paper). I think it will be robust and especially like the plans for rolling code RF devices.
Yesterday, SmartHome released a PDF entitled "Insteon: The Details" which corroborates the points I had gleened from my limited hands on testing with the starter kit (loaned to me by Martin Custer @
Each code starts with sync bits (10101010 for PLC) from which the receiver can derive the clock and decide which phase represents 1 and which represents 0. The BPSK modulation scheme is highly noise resistant.
The bursts are 1.8mS wide and start 0.8mS before ZC.
To avoid powerline storms, the number of repeats is limited.
Best case (no repeat necessary), it executes faster than X-10. Worst case (max hops) its slower than X-10. It should be far more reliable than X-10 but will have to deal with the same signal suckers that bother X-10. If there are problems, it may be very difficult to troubleshoot.
It has built-in security to block signals from outside the system and includes provisions for encryption (inadequate in and of itself) and/or rolling codes for secure applications. Rolling codes are secure.
It looks good on paper. I think they have addressed most of the issues that denizens of CHA are familiar with. Only time will tell whether it works as well in practice. I was impressed during my brief test period but have been burned before by SmartHome designs.
For developers, the license terms are draconian. They charge for SDK support. They use their SALad language which, those few who tried it 5-6 years back universally condemned as lousy, (Google CHA for SALad.) so I would demand to see the documentation for it before agreeing to anything. FWIW, in a former life I ran a multimillion dollar international company in a technical field. I've been through license negotiations and, having held a few patents, have been through that process, as well. I would not even have asked our attorney to review the Insteon license agreement as I know it would only have cost us several hundred dollars for him to tell me how bad it was.
"For developers, the license terms are draconian. They charge for SDK support. They use their SALad language which, those few who tried it 5-6 years back universally condemned as lousy, (Google CHA for SALad.) so I would demand to see the documentation for it before agreeing to anything."
Use it how?
------------------------------------- Dean Roddey Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
Assuming that you are referring to the SALad language, it is an interpeter embedded in the firmware of _some_ Insteon devices. It lets developers customize the behavior of those devices by writing tokenized event handlers to download to them. I'm really not familiar with the specifics as I don't have the SDK (and would be prohibited from saying anything about it if I did). In the 5-6 year old posts you'll find in a CHA search, it was mostly used to customize TouchLinc controllers. Innovative Pool Controls used it to create custom touchscreens for their devices. The just released Insteon PDF mentions modifying the "CoreApp" in the PowerLinc V2 controller. My guess is that only controller type devices use it but that is just a guess. If you want to know more I'm afraid you'll have to agree to their license terms and buy the SDK.
I don't think it has anything to do with higher level external apps that communicate with the controllers via serial or USB which, I assume, would be your interest.
I think there may be a bit of a disconnect. So far, SmartHome has priced Insteon agressively and touted it as an X-10 replacement. This means that it will be mostly a DIY market that is unlikely to want to pay for premium priced software.
The white paper is now available on the Insteon website.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.