Upgrade ISY994i PRO to Z-Wave and Z-wave v. Insteon

[ctviggen1]

I have an ISY994i PRO.  Can I upgrade this to support Z-wave?  This description says it can be:

 

Description at Amazon

 

https://www.amazon.com/ISY994i-PRO-INSTEON-Automation-Controller/dp/B00F3I4U14/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1473078861&sr=8-3&keywords=ISY994i+PRO%3A+INSTEON

 

But I do not see any way to do this (buy something that does this) at the Universal Devices website.

 

Also, I've read a bunch of comparisons between Z-wave and Insteon but I'm still confused.  It seems to me that Z-wave is cheaper (at least the switches seem to be cheaper) and made by multiple companies, whereas the Insteon stuff is made by one company.  I've used Insteon for a long time, since the X10 days, although now all my hardware is dual-band.  I'm about to embark on adding many more switches to a 4,100 square foot house (which includes an in-law apartment, though I won't be adding many switches there).  The "main" house is about 3,000 square feet and built in the 2000s, so all the wiring is romex with ground.  But some switches will be located across the house from the controller.  I'm currently using some wireless extenders to help build the system.

 

What are the realistic differences between Z-wave and Insteon?  For instance, if I want to control a light with four-way switches (three+ different places to turn on the light), am I looking at replacing all three switches (to the tune of about $150) and changing the existing wiring to support this?  Is one system more or less reliable?  Is one system cheaper?   Can I operate temporarily with both Z-wave and Insteon?  Are there any benefits to one system over another.  I also use Amazon's Echo to control some of our Insteon lights, so I'm assuming that's a function of the ISY and not the technology, so I should be able to control both the Insteon and Z-wave.

[larryllix]

Insteon has status reporting in every device. Most of the cheaper  ZWave devices do not. You have to poll them to get status.

 

By the time you get Zwave repeaters, better self-reporting Zwave devices, and the plug in Zwave transmitter/receiver for ISY it will cost  more.

 

Z-wave does offer some different types of devices that Insteon does not offer.

 

Z-wave is RF comms only.

 

You can operate permanently with both styles of comms with ISY.

[Brian H]

You can buy the Z-wave board from the UDI sales page and install it yourself.

The installation instructions link is in the Z-wave modules description.

https://www.universal-devices.com/sales/

[oberkc]

I am a fan of the ISY controller. Given this, I find insteon better than zwave because of the support of scenes and the reporting of status. ISY and insteon just work great together.

 

Still, I find tha supplementing insteon with zwave can work, if you are careful where you use it. But, for general use, I would stay with insteon if your intention is to stay with the ISY (and it should be).

 

Regarding the multiway switches, I dont believe this can be done with ISY and zwave, except by program. Insteon is done via scene. Even then, with the wrong zwave switches, it may not work.

 

Keep in mind, I am still on version4.x and have not moved to 5. Perhaps zwave scenes will be available someday.

[Teken]

My suggestion regarding Z-Wave is to consider the future of your home automation network for the long run. Meaning unless costs is a major factor please do consider purchasing Z-Wave devices which support Generation 5 chip set and the newly 128 bit encryption.

 

It should be noted the ISY Series Controller does not support the Z-Wave generation 5 chip set but is backwards compatible. The benefit of purchasing all Gen 5 Z-Wave hardware is lower battery consumption, longer range, faster data transmission, true security, and tighter mesh.

 

As you will find out quickly the market is saturated with sub par Z-Wave products very much like X-10. As Larry also noted many (99%) of the Z-Wave devices on the open market do not support *Instant Status* with out polling the device(s). Meaning what tens of millions of people around the world enjoy with Insteon where a person taps on a KPL switch its status is instant and accurate which requires no polling at all from a 3rd party controller.

 

I can tell you from personal experience having seen dozens of Z-Wave installs that use older hardware its like walking into a second generation X-10 hardware store.

 

LOL . . .

[stusviews]

Add the Z-Wave module to an ISY is relatively easy. So is activating it. I use Z-Wave only for devices that I need/want where there no Insteon compatible equivalent. Be prepared to add a repeater. The Aeon Gen 5 Siren is currently the best choice.

 

Many posters have reported positive results using the siren as a repeater, none have had anything negative to say.

[PurdueGuy]

.... none have had anything negative to say.

 

Nothing negative, but be prepared when you test it.   That siren is LOUD!      

[junkycosmos]

Has there been any talk of ISY upgrading to Zwave chipset 5+ ?

[Teken]

Has there been any talk of ISY upgrading to Zwave chipset 5+ ?

I haven't read of any threads indicating a time line for doing so.

[gduprey]

I'm running my third house with an ISY now and love the unit.  I have close to 130+ Insteon light controls between them all as well as a good mix of ZWave.  One house is about 3,500sqft, the others are closer to 1,200.  No communication problems.  I love that the ISY lets me mix and match as I feel they each have their strengths when it comes to available products.  My impressions and rough # of installed devices in my places:

 

Insteon

============

* Lighting -- huge!

  + Status reporting (anytime a switch is used, it reports it)

  + Scene support (one command and all lights with that switch instantly switch - really big deal)

  + Generally, like the quality/feel of the insteon switches

  + Modern ones have been very reliable for me

  + Over 130 of the units

* Motion Sensors

  + Affordable, reliable and last a fair amount of time on a battery (compared to several ZWave that ate batteries, even in optimal installs)

  + About 22 units

* Leak Sensors

  + Affordable and reliable.  I have one at every sink, toilet, water heater and HVAC unit. Drop and go.  10 year battery included.

  + About 30 units

* Hidden Door Sensor

  + Mixed on these. Sometimes you need them and they work well, but don't have the longest battery life (in most places, I've switched over to motion sensors)

  + About 6 units

* Garage Door Control (iolinc with magnetic sensors) - works great to report/control all garage doors (4 units installed)

 

ZWave

==========

+ Door Locks -- many options - 7x Kwikset 914 units working great!

+ Thermostats -- many options - 4x Honeywell units (Honeywell report status change, unlike RCS/2gig that require polling)

+ Door Sensors -- work well, use them for basement doors, gates, mail boxes, etc (about 10x ecolink units)

+ Temp/Humidity sensors - work well (about 20x everspring units)

+ Power Meter -- work well when attached to main circuit box (4x aeon units)

+ ZWave repeaters -- often necessary to help complete the mesh, relatively cheap, though not all support security stuff (i.e. locks), so check the details when adding them.  I have about 6 used at a few more sparsely populated areas to help reinforce the ZWave mesh.

 

2 of my ISYs came with the Zwave dongle built in and I added it to the other -- was easy (2 minutes for hardware, about 2 minutes to purchase/install the ZWave support module for the ISY to use it).

 

I did add a Insteon phase coupler to the power panel for each house as well as a high capacity central surge suppressor.  Further, I've had to use a few Insteon FilterLinc units on UPS's and other devices to "tame" the noise they produced on the power line.  I didn't have an obvious communication problem, but for a larger home, felt both the coupler and filterlincs were "cheap insurance".

 

Overall, very happy camper with this stuff.

 

Gerry

[asbril]

I have read all comments with great interest and they all make valid points.  I personally make my bet on Zwave because there are multiple manufacturers and the technology has been widely adopted. Newer technologies (2016 will soon be history....lol) are more likely to be compatible with Zwave than with Insteon.

The Insteon PLM has (for many) a short life cycle, with costly replacements.

Status reporting is a big issue, but you can buy more expensive Zwave switches with Status Reporting.

The good thing is that ISY accommodates both Insteon and Zwave, so you don't really have to make a choice, or you make a choice on a device that corresponds to your specific needs.  But if a specific need can be addressed equally by both Insteon and Zwave, then go for Zwave.

[gduprey]

Status reporting is a big deal (well, for us) and something I've used as part of the automation system since the days of X10 (leviton made a higher end X10 line that did status reporting).  UPB (my next system) had it integral and Insteon too.  ZWave can, but the switches then are usually more expensive than Insteon switches.  I use status reporting to do things like "double tap to turn all lights on in a room (vs the one you tap on) and with other status updates, have become integral to our automation experience.

 

Another big plus is scenes.  Without built in hardware scenes, you can a "popcorn" effect when you want a pre-set of lights -- one light after another pops on in sequence.  When you have 60+ plus involved in a scene, it can take quite a while.  We use scenes for daily lighting (4 scenes), guests and entertaining, as well as speciality like the previously mentioned "all lights in a room" in a scene (with a scene for each room and one for each floor/area).  All respond instantly and the entire house switches over like magic.  

 

I got used to scenes when I went to UPB and having seen the dramatic differences in the user experience, cannot see a way back to the less advanced "one-at-a-time" popcorn effect. 

 

I think ZWave has lots of promise, but I still can't believe they would not have learned from the previous generation lighting/HA tech and started/required status reporting and a least some hardware/on-board scene support from the start.  Seems like a pretty big oversight (not exactly fatal, but puts you "down slope" of more advanced HA/lighting).

 

Insteon isn't perfect (the mentioned PLM issue -- stupid!), but they paid attention to what came before when they decided on their feature set.

 

Using a "best tool for the job", in my experience, Insteon is the leader as of right now for lighting (the rest is pretty evenly matched either way).

 

Gerry

[Teken]

I agree with out instant status and scene inclusion what is the purpose of automating then? Having scene memberships allows different use cases and mood lighting to be created.

 

The biggest knock on Z-Wave is the incredibly stupid idea of routing . . .

 

Again, Insteon wins hands down because its simulcast to all hardwired devices which repeat the entire signal in the mesh. Besides routing I find the whole exclude, include, and multiple healing pretty idiotic. Having said this two installations where the end user spent the extra cash on generation 5 supported hardware did make a difference.

 

It did not negate the need to perform the above but the range and consistency of operations was measurable.  

[giesen]

 

 

The biggest knock on Z-Wave is the incredibly stupid idea of routing . . .

 

Routing is not stupid (I wouldn't be a network architect by day if I believed that was the case!), but their implementation of routing is incredibly stupid.

 

Insteon is not that far off with their repeating, although I suppose it's more like a bridged/switched network.

 

Z-Wave should have made their routing feature-agnostic, not require the the device be placed within inches of the controller to pair (ie. actually use the routing for pairing), and devised an automatic heal mechanism to make it more resilient to device failures/position changes... yes I realize I'm describing an IP network, but I think it could have been accomplished on a smaller scale with Z-Wave...

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

[MWareman]

Very close proximity with secure pairing is deliberate. Otherwise there is a MITM attack possible while the key is negotiated. They mitigate that with extremely low power, causing the distance to have to be a matter of a few inches.

 

Remote pairing can be done via 'Network inclusion' and a suitable remote inclusion device - something the ISY dosnt support. Another feature for the wish list?

[Teken]

Routing is not stupid (I wouldn't be a network architect by day if I believed that was the case!), but their implementation of routing is incredibly stupid.

 

Insteon is not that far off with their repeating, although I suppose it's more like a bridged/switched network.

 

Z-Wave should have made their routing feature-agnostic, not require the the device be placed within inches of the controller to pair (ie. actually use the routing for pairing), and devised an automatic heal mechanism to make it more resilient to device failures/position changes... yes I realize I'm describing an IP network, but I think it could have been accomplished on a smaller scale with Z-Wave...

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

Its funny you're comparing Z-Wave to standard networking as there was a old discussion about how similar the Insteon hardware and protocol matched the OSI model. Having said that, the Z-Wave routing implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

 

What you described about automatic healing, and being more agnostic is something many of us have talked about for years. Sadly this is all the public will get from Z-Wave / ZigBee at this moment.

 

At least Z-Wave got a unified standard unlike ZigBee which is just a hot mess of turd. Even though ZigBee 3.XX is supposed to help combine all of the different standards at some distant point in time. The reality is ZigBee is right up there in terms of losing the HA protocol wars for vendor support in the home.

 

For commercial applications Zigbee has and is the clear winner which is a complete shock to everyone in the industry.

 

Very close proximity with secure pairing is deliberate. Otherwise there is a MITM attack possible while the key is negotiated. They mitigate that with extremely low power, causing the distance to have to be a matter of a few inches.

 

Remote pairing can be done via 'Network inclusion' and a suitable remote inclusion device - something the ISY dosnt support. Another feature for the wish list?

 

The way you describe the need for close pairing for secure devices makes sense on paper. In reality MITM attacks isn't something 99% of the population will ever have to worry about.

 

People need to fully understand all of these wireless protocols are unlicensed and limited to RF output mandated by the FCC. The problem with lots of these protocols is none of them even try to use the full (RF) power rating that is allowed by the FCC. The Gen 5 chip set is the perfect example of upping the RF power to increase distance - no magic here.

[MWareman]

Remember, some people deploy zwave in multi-tenant buildings. Zwave has been designed to be tolerant of this, and remain reasonably secure.

[giesen]

Remember, some people deploy zwave in multi-tenant buildings. Zwave has been designed to be tolerant of this, and remain reasonably secure.

 

Yeah part of the problem of secure pairing could certainly be fixed by implementation.

 

1) If Z-Wave (both the standard and the (quickly improving) ISY's implementation) wasn't so broken, I probably wouldn't have to re-pair devices as often.

 

2) Trying to pair 2 fixed secure devices (like an ISY and a door lock) is a bit of an exercise in ridiculousness, as you either have to disassemble the door lock and bring it to the ISY, or use an extension cord and long network cable to bring the ISY to the door lock. If the ISY used a semi-autonomous dongle (like the Aeon Z-Stick) that could be removed from the ISY, brought to the device to pair, and then plugged back into the ISY, that would eliminate a great deal of frustration on my part. That would be my #1 requested feature for the next hardware iteration of the ISY.

 

I guess that's why so many Z-Wave implementations use something like the Leviton USB stick as the primary controller and then have another device (which is the actual automation system) be a secondary controller.

 

 

I get that secure key exchange is hard without the ability to rely on PKI or even a UI, but something's gotta give, and the odds of someone successfully executing a MITM attack to grab the keys are pretty low.

[Teken]

Once again this is why the current *Routing* in the Z-Wave / ZigBee protocol is a hot mess . . . When a device relies on defined routing what is going to happen when said device fails?

 

That's right you will have comm issues . . .

 

As you noted why people would go through the ordeal to take an entire lock set just to bring it to the controller is asinine. Keeping in mind even with Gen 5 chip set none of this will be avoided which negates the whole point of having 128 bit encryption and longer distances!

 

To those who don't follow my line of thought: Generation 5 chip sets allow further distance, more throughput, 128 bit encryption, yet a person will still be required to include / exclude a secure device like a lock set mere inches to the controller.

 

Not only is this impractical but counters the whole point of having a secure device which has longer range and uses 128 bit encryption which is supposed to protect the end user from MITM attacks. Insteon is far from being perfect but knowing I have simulcasting by default and both RF & Powerline as a means of communications.

 

Gives Insteon the clear winner in terms of back up and long distance communications. 

 

For those who are familiar with the phrase *2 is 1 and 1 is none* should appreciate this basic concept which Smartlabs got right in their protocol.

[stusviews]

Status reporting is not just a big deal, it's imperative. Without it, programs that depend on a device trigger would not exits. But, you really can't blame Z-Wave per se. As it was not a requirement in the original protocol, one company found a solution and patented it. That patent recently expired. Their will probably be revisions--at a cost.

 

As has been mentioned, Insteon is both power line (primarily) and RF. That matters because power line issues nearly always have a cure, not so with RF. Too, Insteon devices repeat most messages three times.

 

The greatest downside to Insteon is that there is only one manufacturer. But, only one company makes Windows and only one company make iPhones and only one company makes Fords and only one company makes Sonys, albeit, all those companies are a bit larger

[Teken]

You didn't mention there was only one company that made the pet rock . . .

[vjk]

Once again this is why the current *Routing* in the Z-Wave / ZigBee protocol is a hot mess . . . When a device relies on defined routing what is going to happen when said device fails?

 

The whole protocol is a mess, at every level and with every feature. It feels as if the thing was designed by smart but clueless high-school dropouts. I could not solve multiple problems until I made my own RF probe to see the actual traffic because there is literally zero diagnostic tools provided by Sigma chaps.  And even so, there are issues that I cannot resolve even though I know what they are. E.g. a slave never takes an alternate route if a communication path to the controller fails when using the current route.

 

Arguably, the only thing they got right was the frequency band.  If they went with 2.4G, it would have been an utter failure.  Which might have been good for the normal consumer, considering.

[Teken]

The whole protocol is a mess, at every level and with every feature. It feels as if the thing was designed by smart but clueless high-school dropouts. I could not solve multiple problems until I made my own RF probe to see the actual traffic because there is literally zero diagnostic tools provided by Sigma chaps.  And even so, there are issues that I cannot resolve even though I know what they are. E.g. a slave never takes an alternate route if a communication path to the controller fails when using the current route.

 

Arguably, the only thing they got right was the frequency band.  If they went with 2.4G, it would have been an utter failure.  Which might have been good for the normal consumer, considering.

 

Agreed on all the points made up above.

 

Having said this I have to concede the Z-Wave camp has worked very hard to make its protocol secure with the introduction of 128 encryption. Even though the general public are completely blinded by that simple marketing hype it does in no way address the current crop of Z-Wave products are still years away from being a true security device.

 

None of the basic security elements are used in the current crop of Z-Wave hardware and this my friends will lead people in to a false sense of security. It also doesn't help the 2nd and 3rd tier security industry is also perpetuating the false claims generation 5 hardware is in the same league as field proven security hardware.

 

They are not and those who bolster that assertion are just like the used car salesmen we have all met before wearing the fish tie.

 

I believe in the next five years we may see more advancements in all protocols. This will benefit all of us from casual to serious users in the HA realm. Regardless of all the pro's and con's of any one protocol I am sure happy not to be living in the X-10 world that so many are still using this very day!

 

The very fact X-10 is still alive and kicking speaks volumes to those hardware engineers which ushered in everything we see today.

 

Well besides the clapper . . .  *Clap On - Clap Off - Clap On*

 

LOL

[MWareman]

 

 

Gives Insteon the clear winner in terms of back up and long distance communications.

And Insteon gets a clear 'F' rating in being secure.... I don't want Insteon (in its current form) anywhere near my locks or garage door.

[Teken]

And Insteon gets a clear 'F' rating in being secure.... I don't want Insteon (in its current form) anywhere near my locks or garage door.

 

Sure, Insteon falls well short of supporting true encryption like its counter parts. Smartlabs insistence on using Morning Industries lock sets which look like something from 1980 is embarrassing never mind the lack luster features. Having said this people should not confuse the issue between Insteons unresolved ALL ON / ALL OFF matter.

 

Even though there have been a small percentage of users impacted by this terrible problem. Not one single person has been a target of a malice attack because it didn't support 128 bit encryption, none.

 

As stated many times before unless a person has some how painted a bulls eye on their back / home. The odds of being targeted and hacked is so remote a person has a higher likelihood of having a heart attack, stroke, struck by a car, diagnosed with cancer, or my favorite struck my a meteorite while sitting in a mini turtle pool in their back yard.

 

Hardware encryption in this day and age is a must . . .

 

But that doesn't address the front end and those who fail to secure their network from outside attacks. A local attack at the hardware level regardless of maker is so remote and difficult it would just be easier to smash a window, door, what ever to gain entry etc.

 

But entry into ones home via networking has long been every persons direct threat. All the encryption in the world on Z-Wave will never stop a person who can access the front end controller, none. Then again criminals really don't have to work that hard these days because every Tom, D^ck, and Harry has decided to use cloud based services along with the moronic idea that its a good idea to connect a voice activated device like Echo to their locks, GDO!

 

What kind of encryption will any product have on protecting the stupid?!?

 

None . . .