how should I wire for lighting and HA, to keep options open

[ano]

I would argue that, in general, Ethernet/Wifi is appropriate for the large bits and that something else should be used for the devices themselves. All of the major lighting system vendors obviously agree since none of them use Ethernet/Wifi or are likely to probably. And it's gigantic overkill for something like a light bulb anyway. 
 
A proprietary wired or wireless protocol is best, IMO. It's the right size hammer for the nails being nailed. The network is the right sized hammer for automation servers, media servers, touch screen clients, media streaming clients, etc...

Technology evolves so fast today, and this can change your perspective.  For example, is it better to run Ethernet to every room, or is it actually better to run some type of cableway, so that future cables can be added later?  I'd rather have upgradability than a fixed technology.
 
Wireless technology also really has evolved over the last 15 years. Dean says Wi-Fi is overkill for a lightbulb, and that is true from many perspectives, but why?  Newer Wi-Fi radios can consume much less power today, and they have much less overhead then say 15 years ago.  So today a Wi-Fi light bulb is not that crazy.  Wimo, LIFX, Wi-Fi Cree, Flux, and TP-Link, all make Wi-Fi bulbs.  Why? Because this means the Amazon Echo, the Google Home and others and your smartphone can all control them directly.  Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, Z-Wave, ANT and a few others have all evolved over the years. When Wi-Fi was first introduced in 1997, it actually used IR, like your remote control.  I'm waiting for UPB light bulbs. Maybe soon.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Wifi gets used because, unless you are a system vendor, you have no means of your own for your devices to be controlled, so you use the one thing that you know will be there. It's not chosen because it's optimal really, it's chosen because they have no other choice if they want to sell a standalone, controllable light bulb. 
 
If there was broad, non-proprietary Zigbee support out there, then more of them would probably target that, at least as an option. But that doesn't really exist, so they either do WiFi or nothing, or they invest in some standard of their own which those types of companies would have zero success doing probably.
 
Another issue is that vendors of larger, higher margin devices are at least more likely to be serious about security. Every one of these devices is a potential trojan horse on the network, doing who knows what, and downloading who knows what software into themselves and whatnot. Too many of these Wifi based commodity products, being manufactured in China, where maybe even the company that sells them really doesn't know what's in them, it's a significant risk that doesn't exist with something like RA2/Caseta or a Zigbee based system.
 
On the overkill front, I was talking more in terms of speed. A light bulb needs very, very little data to be exchanged. If the light bulb needed network type speeds, then that would be one thing. But, given the downsides to having lots of cheap and questionably secure devices on the network when it's just not needed, to me makes it overkill. A local only, wired or wireless protocol can handle those types of devices easily and it doesn't have the downsides. If someone wants to hack you through those, they have to actually come to your house.

 

[ano]

Its a very interesting balancing act, no doubt.  I remember when Bluetooth came out and initially it was a type of wireless USB and headphone cord replacement. Then Zigbee came out and Bluetooth was forced to compete more and more with Zigbee. So the Bluetooth folks designed Bluetooth low-power and recently they added in Bluetooth mesh networking.  It seems ever technology is trying to broaden its appeal and cover all the bases.  Today many wireless technologies have the same characteristics as the others.  You and me and most people here can really just watch and react to these changes as the big guys play their game of chess.
 
Security, I don't know, that is a BIG BIG problem that I'm not sure will ever get solved. Over the last 20 years we've gone from wanting quality, to wanting it cheap, so now its about throwing it out-the-door fast, and fixing the bugs later, if ever.  The real problem is there is no consequences for throwing garbage out there. 99.95% of the public has no idea what is secure and what isn't, so they buy the cheap garbage.  

 

[TrojanHorse]

Will these rooms have keypads for a security system? Small speakers like the elks that go in a single gang box? If so run several cables to a keypad location.

Wired smokes in the ceiling? Can homerun 4 conductor Fire rated cable to smoke locations and then do a daisy chain at the panel for a 2-wire smoke setup. If you are doing this in stages you maybe can’t run the full loop at once.

Thermostats?

Speaker wires is a good idea. Good practice is to run cat6 and a 4 conductor to a volume control location. Then split to 2 of 2 conductor for each speaker location. Or use a single stereo speaker in small rooms (needs 4 conductors). Some systems need the twisted pair to control volume, others adjust at the speaker wire level.

I’d say Go cat6 over 5e since price difference is negligible.

Conduit is good. Here I used “Liquid-Tuff” flexible conduit. Overkill for interior low voltage but the interior is smooth so pulling wires is pretty easy. Just make sure to clamp it around the curves or you’ll be pulling and bending the conduit rather than the wires.

Is there a homerun location such as a closet picked out?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[capall]

Will these rooms have keypads for a security system? Small speakers like the elks that go in a single gang box? If so run several cables to a keypad location. Wired smokes in the ceiling? Can homerun 4 conductor Fire rated cable to smoke locations and then do a daisy chain at the panel for a 2-wire smoke setup. If you are doing this in stages you maybe can’t run the full loop at once. Thermostats? Speaker wires is a good idea. Good practice is to run cat6 and a 4 conductor to a volume control location. Then split to 2 of 2 conductor for each speaker location. Or use a single stereo speaker in small rooms (needs 4 conductors). Some systems need the twisted pair to control volume, others adjust at the speaker wire level. I’d say Go cat6 over 5e since price difference is negligible. Conduit is good. Here I used “Liquid-Tuff” flexible conduit. Overkill for interior low voltage but the interior is smooth so pulling wires is pretty easy. Just make sure to clamp it around the curves or you’ll be pulling and bending the conduit rather than the wires. Is there a homerun location such as a closet picked out? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks
no keypads for security system needed
I'll home run wire for two ceiling speakers to the basement (same location as ethernet home run). I use sonos so will rely on the app for volume control
wired ceiling smoke, is that necessary?
1 thermostat in the kitchen wall, so I'll run a wire for that, along with one for a computer/monitor

 

[batwater]

Thanks guys,
 
so other than making sure I have Ethernet jacks in each room where i need them, there's nothing else I need to wire before the sheet rock goes up, correct?
 
thanks

 
If you are going to install zwave or UPB switches make sure each gang box has both a hot and a neutral in addition to the wiring to the light. This should be pretty standard for newer wiring but you can never be sure. Both technologies (really most all now) require a small amount of power to function. Gone are the days of vampire power where the switch, let's say X10 or very early zwave, drew a little bit of current through the incandescent light bulb to work. Nearly all of today's LED and yesterday's CFL lights do not get along with the trickle of power current draw through the bulb such that the automation switch will function.

 

[mikefamig]

You seem to be dismissing RG cable altogether. I did that and regret it. I have had ATT Uverse IPTV here for many years and have hardwired CAT5 to all of the TV stations but didn't install RG cable while I was at it.
 
Since that time, ATT has sold my IPTV service to Frontier Cable who is killing the service and I fear may go out of business altogether to look at their stock price over the past 5 years. If I lose Frontier my only other choice is COX cable and they require RG cable. I do believe that they offer a wireless set top box but I'm not certain and I don't know if it performs well and I'll bet it comes at an extra charge.
 
If I had it to do over again I would instal RG  cable along with the CAT cable. What does the group think?
 
Mike.

 

[neillt]

For TVs, the gold standard is 2x coax and 2x Cat6.
 
CEDIA makes a great guide that walks through things to think about.  Most of us here are in the "Bespoke" territory, but it's a good jumping off point.
 
http://www.cedia.org/files/file/smart-home-recommended-wiring-guidelines-eng-press.pdf

 

[pete_c]

Here still utilize RG cable new or old installed plus catXX. 
 
Lately too here have been testing cheap MOCA called DECA (only 100Mb) but cheap at less than $10 for and end to end connection.
 
There has never been enough cabling.
 
Use it also for digital satellite boxes, OTA, et al.
 
For my originally installed FIOS the installer utilized MOCA and ignored my catXX connections.
 
Aside from the catxx / rg runs et al have left chases in place for more cabling if necessary.  Well too have left unterminated wire in place for pulling more cable and have used it.  (built a chase in a wall cavity that went from the basement to the attic - all second floor LV cabling came down from the attic and all first floor LV cabling came from the basement up).

 

[upstatemike]

On the overkill front, I was talking more in terms of speed. A light bulb needs very, very little data to be exchanged. If the light bulb needed network type speeds, then that would be one thing. But, given the downsides to having lots of cheap and questionably secure devices on the network when it's just not needed, to me makes it overkill. A local only, wired or wireless protocol can handle those types of devices easily and it doesn't have the downsides. If someone wants to hack you through those, they have to actually come to your house.

 
While I agree with your general point here I am concerned that most dedicated lighting protocols available today were not designed with sufficient speed. It is not about the time/data it takes to turn on a single bulb but rather the time it takes to turn on a group of bulbs in a scene and update the indicator LEDs on all of the switches that can control that scene and verify that all of those devices received the command and acknowledge that it was executed correctly plus the time it takes to deal with any interference or contention and re-transmissions and have all of that completed before the user presses the next scene button they want to activate (probably well under 1 second).
 
There is also the question of how quickly a central controller can poll all of the devices to ensure it's state table is accurate. If you have actions that are triggered by state changes in switches or loads you can'r afford for the state table in the controller to be out of sync with reality which means validating often enough and quickly enough that there is little chance of a missed transition. When you add up all loads and switches or controller buttons in a typical house these days you quickly get up around 100-200 devices that must be accurately reflected in the controller. Polling all of that with a protocol that was designed based on the time it takes to turn on a single bulb is not likely going to cut it.

 

[ano]

You seem to be dismissing RG cable altogether. I did that and regret it. I have had ATT Uverse IPTV here for many years and have hardwired CAT5 to all of the TV stations but didn't install RG cable while I was at it.
 
Since that time, ATT has sold my IPTV service to Frontier Cable who is killing the service and I fear may go out of business altogether to look at their stock price over the past 5 years. If I lose Frontier my only other choice is COX cable and they require RG cable. I do believe that they offer a wireless set top box but I'm not certain and I don't know if it performs well and I'll bet it comes at an extra charge.
 
If I had it to do over again I would instal RG  cable along with the CAT cable. What does the group think?
 
Mike.

So we just bought a new 4K Black Friday TV, hooked it up to my DirecTV HR44 1080P box, and it skips.  Called DirecTV and they say its a problem with their box, so they are coming out next week to install a new system.  Its called Genie2, and most reports are that this is the future direction companies are going.
 
Genie2 is a headless unit you can put anywhere in your house.  The unit can service up to 7 TV's, 2 of which can be 4K.  The Genie2 has a wireless bridge, and clients can connect over RG cable or wireless, it doesn't really matter.  So even if you don't have a single RG cable in your house, and you live in the middle of nowhere, there is no reason this won't work in your house. 
 
The fact of the matter is, builders, and cable and Internet companies are going away from cables where ever they can. They are expense, and the technology changes faster than the wires in your house does.  For the installers, it is so much easier.  Certainly there are doubters, but I guarantee this will come to be true. 

 

[mikefamig]

So we just bought a new 4K Black Friday TV, hooked it up to my DirecTV HR44 1080P box, and it skips.  Called DirecTV and they say its a problem with their box, so they are coming out next week to install a new system.  Its called Genie2, and most reports are that this is the future direction companies are going.
 
Genie2 is a headless unit you can put anywhere in your house.  The unit can service up to 7 TV's, 2 of which can be 4K.  The Genie2 has a wireless bridge, and clients can connect over RG cable or wireless, it doesn't really matter.  So even if you don't have a single RG cable in your house, and you live in the middle of nowhere, there is no reason this won't work in your house. 
 
The fact of the matter is, builders, and cable and Internet companies are going away from cables where ever they can. They are expense, and the technology changes faster than the wires in your house does.  For the installers, it is so much easier.  Certainly there are doubters, but I guarantee this will come to be true. 

 
I think that you will need an RG cable to the Genie2 and then it is wireless to your TV sets.
 
I currently have IPTV and prefer it to satellite because I've been warned you have to go outside and clean snow from your satellite dish and I don't like the way that the dish looks. The fact is though that Direct TV is my my only alternative without running RG cable all over the house.
 
Mike.

 

[LarrylLix]

Their are systems that bridge Ethernet to RG cable and back and run amazing speeds. RG cable will probably always be faster than CAT. The bridges are starting to appear for home use. Running 7 or 8 UHD channels down a home LAN will eventually cost users a lot more than a few RG cables and frustrate the hell out of home users waiting for slow Ethernet systems / Routers /Switches to push  their electrical bills to the breaking points.
 
Anybody still have a router without massive ventilation holes in it, or a router  that runs off a standard microUSB power supply?.

 

[Dean Roddey]

While I agree with your general point here I am concerned that most dedicated lighting protocols available today were not designed with sufficient speed. It is not about the time/data it takes to turn on a single bulb but rather the time it takes to turn on a group of bulbs in a scene and update the indicator LEDs on all of the switches that can control that scene and verify that all of those devices received the command and acknowledge that it was executed correctly plus the time it takes to deal with any interference or contention and re-transmissions and have all of that completed before the user presses the next scene button they want to activate (probably well under 1 second).
 
There is also the question of how quickly a central controller can poll all of the devices to ensure it's state table is accurate. If you have actions that are triggered by state changes in switches or loads you can'r afford for the state table in the controller to be out of sync with reality which means validating often enough and quickly enough that there is little chance of a missed transition. When you add up all loads and switches or controller buttons in a typical house these days you quickly get up around 100-200 devices that must be accurately reflected in the controller. Polling all of that with a protocol that was designed based on the time it takes to turn on a single bulb is not likely going to cut it.

 
In a well designed system that shouldn't be an issue. Groups are handled by multi-cast in most cases probably. So one message goes to all affected lights or LEDs or whatever. If the unit knows it is in a specific group, it just checks the group number in the message and says, OK, that affects me or it doesn't.
 
A simple deadman type setup can deal with unresponsive units so that the central unit doesn't have to continually bang on every module in the network constantly. So every module has to talk to the central controller, say, once every 5 to 10  minutes. If the central controller doesn't hear anything from a given one in that time it knows something is wrong and can become more proactive about trying get back in touch with it. If the module has to talk to the controller (or vice versa) for any other reason in that time, that counts as a transaction. The odds of you trying to access a module in the 5 to 10 minutes between when it was alive and when it died is so small it's not worth worrying about, but it leaves plenty of time for every module to periodically let the central controller know it's alive without overloading the network. And of course they can send their state in that periodic ping, even if it hasn't changed, just to be safe.
 
Of course if the state of the module changes it would send it right then, with an expected receipt ack from the controller, with a retry if it doesn't get it. 
 
Obviously if you have 500 lights and 250 outlets, that might be an issue. But if you have that many rooms in your home you should be using a wired lighting system anyway, and should be able to afford that given than your house probably cost millions.

 

[ano]

I think that you will need an RG cable to the Genie2 and then it is wireless to your TV sets.

Yes, that is true. The satellite needs power, so there will always be a cable from the Genie2 to the Satellite, but it has Wi-Fi so it doesn't need a wired network connection, but it can use one if you have it.  Only disadvantage is no picture in picture with clients but maybe in the future.