Talk:HomePlug Powerline Alliance

Operation

This section describes either non-encyclopedic set-up information or data generic to Power line communication - propose remove, and merge relevant information into Power line communcication This refers only to the Operation Section referring to the set-up of passwords, not the whole article. --Upaplc 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Higher speeds

I ordered a device which can handle up to 85 MPbs.. so the speed is upgraded :)

Open standard

Is HomePlug an open standard? Where specifications can be found? --Armando82 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As you might know by now, the aliance is a trade association, not a standards body. The IEEE 1901 standards have now been published, but cost $390 for non members of IEEE! Groups like IEEE 802 provide theirs for free, which might be slightly corelated with how widely they are adopted, but your mileage may vary. W Nowicki (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Secure by default

I don't see how setting the password to the same setting for an entire product line is in any way secure by default. Secure by default would be setting a random password by default forcing the user to change the password when setting up thier network. Plugwash 18:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Operating systems

according to the FAQs i found on devolo.it the configuration of the devices (and drivers for the USB version) are available on linux, too. Pascalbrax 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bandwidth itself missing?

What are the bandwidths supported by 1.0 and AV? How much is the throughput? - xpclient ^Talk 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions have issues, proposing removal or major reworking

In a series of edits on 2000-08-06 and 2008-08-21 User:Dvstowe added a fair bit of content to this article. While there is admittedly some possibly useful information contained in this text, overall I feel it has significant issues of verifiability, tone, and neutrality. I reverted this material and contacted Dvstowe, but it was subsequently restored by an anonymous editor. Rather than revert again I am proposing that this material be removed and perhaps small portions (e.g. AV2 and GP sections, and maybe a few other bits) re-added in a more neutral style with proper sources. Thoughts? --Dfred (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed functionality

This was moved here from main page.802geek (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

AV2

The alliance is developing HomePlug AV2 as the true next-generation high-bandwidth powerline standard to meet the demands of emerging consumer applications such as IPTV, multi-user gaming, multiple HDTV streams, distributed home storage systems, VIOP, and home IT networks. HomePlug AV2 also improves on whole home delivery of high bandwidth signals in homes and multi-dwelling buildings. HomePlug AV2 is fully interoperable with HomePlug AV and HomePlug GP, and will be brought into the IEEE 1901 standard once the spec is complete. HomePlug AV2 offers Gigabit speed at the physical layer and 600Mbs+ at the MAC layer. The AV2 spec. is on schedule for completion in late 2009 or early 2010 with products expected to ship in early 2011.

Updated: See here The new AV2 units are expected in December 2010 which are considered superior to the 1GB units which suffer from line noise.Twobells (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BPL

The alliance is developing a specification called HomePlug BPL for last-mile access networks.

GP (Green Phy)

The Alliance is developing HomePlug GP with input from major utility companies as the smart grid communications protocol for connecting home applicances such as HVAC and smart meters to utility companies for smart grid applications. HomePlug GP is named in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on smart grid interoperability standards roadmap. HomePlug GP has a raw data rate of 3.8Mbs with a 1Mbs MAC layer throughput and is interoperable with HomePlug AV. Work is currently underway to finalize the standard, and it is expected that products will ship in the late 2010 timeframe.

Split this article?

HomePlug Powerline Alliance is an organisation, whereas HomePlug is a technology that is based on standards created by that organisation. This article has the title of the organisation, but the great majority of its content concerns the technology. HomePlug, which is the logical title for the powerline networking technology of the same name, redirects to the article bearing the organisation's name. This seems like a poor way to organise things, and there are two obvious ways to fix the problem:

• Split this article into two: HomePlug Powerline Alliance and HomePlug, which discuss the organisation and technology, respectively.
• Move this article to HomePlug and change HomePlug Powerline Alliance so it redirects to HomePlug (or a section about the organisation within HomePlug).

Comments, anyone? Lambtron (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, makes perfect sense, the technology is becoming a serious alternative to coax and deserves it's own page. Twobells (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! Lambtron (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. Sorry for the delay. Normally we do not have separate articles about the groups themselves and the technology, unless, say, there is enough for more than one technology developed by the same group (e.g. IEEE Standards Association). So I propose going back to one article with better sourcing and wikilinks, at the short name. Note that there is yet another article on IEEE 1901 but I am not yet sure if they are independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before the split, I arrived at the merged article interested only in the technology and was forced to sift through irrelevant corporate info to get at the technical information. The technology is a worthy topic in its own right, it is largely independent of the corporate entity, there is enough info to support separate articles, and the split is an obvious organisational improvement from the perspective of one who has seen the shortcomings of the merged article. I'm sure the policy authors were well-intentioned, but I am left wondering about the value of a blanket policy that requires these two distinct topics to reside in a single article. Lambtron (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What "blanket policy"? I have seen examples either way. For example, HomeGrid as a trademark does not even have an article nor the alliance, but just one for the G.hn standards. Groups like IEEE 802.3 have a long history with many different standards, so have their own. WiFi has all three (although I think those could be condensed to two as I propose here). HomePNA has one for trademark, alliance, and standards. The question is if these are really in fact three "distinct topics" or not. I do not think so. Much of propaganda now seems to have just moved into HomePlug. I would prefer to remove the propaganda and have that cover both the group and its trademarked products in a neutral way. This article seems to be what we call a permastub. All we can say about the alliance is that it was formed to promote HomePlug products. Certainly since the alliance owns the trademark, any information about products bearing the trademark will by definition be related to this group. And so far, anything this group does has to do with HomePlug-branded products. In the future it is not likely at all they might also promote breakfast cereal or farm tractors: the trademark seems totally intertwined with the group. A case can be made that IEEE 1901 gets their own, since the Wavelet PHY was not part of HomePlug, and it seems HomePlug has some other initiatives that are not part of IEEE 1901. But if we remove the overlap from this one, do not see much left. W Nowicki (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. When you said "we do not have separate articles" about technologies and the groups associated with those technologies I thought you were speaking of some ironclad organisational policy. I'm relieved to learn that there is no such policy.

Propaganda is a stand-alone issue. Unfortunately some editors have strong opinions about HomePlug and seem compelled to express those opinions in WP. I agree that the propaganda should be rewritten in a neutral way, or removed if it's found to be invalid. It's illogical though, and potentially disruptive to good organisation, to split or merge articles in order to better manage their propaganda content.

As for being separate topics, I contend that the business entity is, in fact, a distinct topic from the technology. The business entity has an organisational structure, it owns trademarks, it conducts marketing and other business activities, it has funding, it has bylaws and is directed by officers, it has a history, and so on. There is more to say about it and, because there is an article specifically about it, knowledgable editors are free to expand the article. Whether that article has been expanded yet, or ever will be, is irrelevant. It's true that the business entity is related to the technology, but that doesn't make them a single topic. This distinction became immediately obvious to me when I first landed here seeking information about the technology. Lambtron (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge with IEEE 1901?

The Alliance has done its work - it got IEEE 1901 to specify this technology. In future the IEEE standardization process will apply without any separate "Alliance" involved, so this is of historical interest at best. Thus a merger is sensible, as the "business entity" really has no role or function other than has a group within the IEEE 1901 and IEEE P1905 standards committees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.183.245 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the history of this organisation could be of interest to readers, though I'm not so sure that the organisation is unworthy of its own article. If deemed unworthy, it might make sense to merge it into IEEE 1901 and have this page redirect to the appropriate section of that article. Lambtron (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)