Xref: utzoo comp.misc:1652 sci.electronics:1849
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbcad!pasteur!trinity!max
From: max@trinity.uucp (Max Hauser)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Home Automation Interest?
Summary: Yes but no new newsgroup please
Keywords: home automation, X-10, home-bus, integration
Message-ID: <171@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Date: 14 Jan 88 17:17:38 GMT
References: <676@bucket.UUCP>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu
Reply-To: max@trinity.UUCP (Max Hauser)
Followup-To: sci.electronics
Organization: UC Berkeley
Lines: 68

Please forgive me for cross-posting, which I have done deliberately,
as I think this is germane to both groups.

In article <676@bucket.UUCP> rickb@bucket.UUCP (Rick Bensene) writes:

>I've noted a bit of discussion here and there regarding the
>X-10 system for remote control of lights and appliances, ... as
>well as occasional mention of other home automation subjects.
>I have a keen interest in such topics, and am wondering if
>there are many others out there with an interest in this topic?
>The volume discussed thus far doesn't really seem to justify a newsgroup,
>however, maybe if such a place existed ...

I agree that this is an interesting and expanding topic.
However I not only resist but must actively protest the sensibility,
increasingly widespread on the net, that finds it perfectly
reasonable to propose a new group simply because a new and 
interesting topic arises. Neither is this an established
sufficient justification for a new group, nor is it necessary to
sustain a lively discussion on the topic. In particular,
sci.electronics is a lightly-trafficked group and could certainly
sustain the discussion for the indefinite future, during which
incidentally we would find out whether or not the topic actually,
as well as potentially, thrives. Moreover I imagine that many
peripherally interested readers could be exposed to the topic 
automatically, while it remains in broader-interest groups.

I am convinced that Rick has the best possible intentions here
and I hope he understands that I appreciate them and mean him no 
ill will. Unfortunately the incidence of proposing new groups, 
many incidentally by relatively new readers, is reaching a frenzy,
and most of it is inappropriate. Even were sci.electronics crowded
and people there protesting the postings about remote control
(which is hardly the case!), this would still not be sufficient
justification per se for starting a new group.

>...  I do not know
>the proper procedure to propose a new newsgroup, so maybe
>people could just begin discussing it in comp.misc or
>sci.electronics  ...

Proper procedure includes discussing whether a new group is really
necessary, before "we" enthusiasts of the new topic simply take 
for granted that it would be a good idea.  Amid Rick's enthusiasm 
for a newsgroup or mailing list, by virtue of the topic's 
merit and timeliness, I still can find none of the other necessary
justification: why the existing groups are NOT adequate. 

Now on to the purely technical discussion:

>... There's work underway by some association of home builders to
>come up with a 'home bus', serving as a bus over which audio, video, and
>data can flow throughout a home - using wiring not much more complex
>than wiring in today's houses.  This seems to me to be a pretty exciting
>idea, however progress has been slow because of the many differing opinions
>on how it should be done.  However, even though there are yet no 'standards',
>many hardware/software tinkerers have implemented their own ...

I wonder about the NV Philips "DDB" (Domestic Data Bus), a standard that
has existed for years; and even the Integrated Services Digital Network
(which seems to fill half the professional telecom magazines these 
days). I am not familiar with these big-time domestic communications
standards but it seems to me they could be relevant. Anyone 
knowledgeable care to comment?

Max Hauser / max@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max

UC Berkeley EECS Department