Talk:C-Bus (protocol)

CEBus != C-Bus

Oppose the proposed merge of C-Bus (protocol) and CEBus: My familiarity with CEBus is from many months of work in 1992 and 1993 implementing the first development system: that is, a system for developers to create, debug and test CEBus hardware and software. The devices available at the time communicated by powerline carrier, though the standard mentioned twisted wire and several others (RF, IR, coax, fiber optic). We knew CEBus initially as EIA IS-60.06. The names Consumer Electronic Bus and CEBus arose almost immediately. I think IS meant Intermediate Standard while EIA was finalizing the specification which eventually became EIA-600.

The literature for C-Bus ([1]) appears to avoid technical details which would definitively determine whether they are related protocols. However, some technical items appear as differences:

	CEBus	C-Bus
maximum devices	232	255 networks of 100 devices, using C-Bus Network Bridges, no limitation when TCP/IP used.
powerline carrier	yes	no
twisted pair voltage	<= 12	15-42VDC
power supply	integrated into devices	separate bus units and integrated into certian devices
manufacturers	multiple	Clipsal Australia
version for North America	yes	Yes, SquareD
available	1993	1994

Presumably these differences suggest the protocols are unrelated. Though one has to admire the similarities of implementation, application, timing, function and name! — EncMstr 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also a lot of installers provide information about C-Bus installations to be much more reliable and higer level, than CEBus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.203.192 (talk • contribs)