Talk:G.hn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early comment[edit]

I extensively edited the page based on the limited publicly available information. Since this project is primarily in stealth mode, I chose to give only limited coverage to material that originated at a press conference of interested parties.

In the small paragraph where you point out the potential detrimental effect on amateur radio and how that was recognised, surely this affects many radio bands, and not just those used by amateurs. Don't you need to explain exactly which radio bands and who will be affected?Dixx (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) References: RSGB debate about powerline interference.[reply]

Story by Louis E. Frenzel on electronicdesign.com[edit]

Please keep the discussion about this reference in the Talk page, not in the main article, until a consensus text is reached. Itusg15q4user (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 12, 2009, Louis Frenzel from Electronic Design aptly asked the question: [1]

Itusg15q4user (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that source admits that he does not know much about the standard being developed, why it was started, why it's done that way, etc. He is not even saying that the decisions taken by G.hn are incorrect, he simply admits that he does not know much about it. So, I don't think that his opinion is really relevant to reader of the G.hn wikipedia page. Also, how is this comparable to the opinions of the other analysts in this section? Those guys (In-Stat, iSuppli, ABI Research, Parks Associates have at least researched the issue and have written an informed opinion on it. Advancedtelcotv (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are opinions even mentioned in this article? Shouldn't we just stick to facts? Lambtron (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Powerline Communication Standards Continue To Struggle, Electronic Design

Integration with demand side management, ECM, AMI, MDU and utility access[edit]

Original text moved from main page to this discussion page:

"G.hn does not cover access networking that is used for MDU and utility access applications," [2] and so does not support demand side management directly. Nor does it specify any particular interface to powered Ethernet which enables DC devices to participate (eliminating so-called "vampire power" draw from inefficient transformers. However, it is easily integrated with home grid and smart grid technologies - the IEEE P1901 standard for BPL/PLC specifies G.hn as the primary target for supporting such capabilities. [1]

Relatively low utilisation of generation and networks (of about 50% in the UK), aging assets, the growth in renewable and other low-carbon generation technologies, security and home control and medical monitoring are all good reasons to deliver G.hn on smart grid platforms. Barriers include a lack of metering, information and communication infrastructure, lack of understanding of the benefits of DSM, problems with the competitiveness of DSM when compared with traditional approaches, an increase in the complexity of system operation and inappropriate market incentives. [2]

Itusg15q4user (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems that I see with this text (and why I think it's not ready to be included in the main page yet):

  • Although it's true that G.hn has not been designed for utility applications, that does not mean that it cannot be used for demand side management. Those are two orthogonal issues. Somebody could use technology X in the access networks and technology Y in the in-home network in order to build an end-to-end demand side management system.
  • It's not true that G.hn does not specify support for DC-powered devices. G.hn can also operate over DC wires.
  • I don't think that the reference to "Smart Grid Today" says what you claim it says
  • The text on "low utilisation" may be correct, but I don't think it's relevant for the G.hn page. A reference to the Smart Grid wikipage would probably be better.

In any case, I think that after editing it a bit, this will fit well in "Applications" section of the main page. Itusg15q4user (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Smart Grid News lists G.hn as an essential technology for implementing DSM, MDU, AMI, etc.
  2. ^ Demand side management: benefits and challenges, G. Strbac


Energy Management[edit]

Because G.hn can operate over any type of wire (including AC and DC power lines), it can provide the communication infrastructure required for Energy Management applications in residential, commercial and industrial environments. A comprehensive Energy Management system requires reaching into every AC outlet in a home or building so that all devices can participate in energy conserving strategies.

The broad concept of Energy Management includes applications with overlapping scopes such as Demand side management (DSM), Energy conservation measures (ECM), Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and Smart grid.[1]

Because Smart Grid based backhauls can subsidize delivery of bits with delivery of watts and more easily exploit power outlets as network plugs with no additional wiring to most rooms, some commentators expect them to displace all other forms of communications networks eventually.[citation needed] In theory, the carbon and cash savings from demand side management could fund the rollout of an entire triple play (telecommunications) offering. [citation needed]

Growth in powerline networking continued unabated despite the 2008-2009 recession.[2]

Because G.hn natively supports popular protocols like Ethernet, IPv4 and IPv6, G.hn-based Energy Management networks can easily be integrated with IP-based Smart Grids. Well-known network management protocols like SNMP can be used to manage large-scale IP networks including G.hn devices.

Some of the standards which are relevant to integrating G.hn with wide-area power grid networks include: IEEE 1547 (Part 1 – 6), EN 50438, IEC 61850 and IEC 61850-7-420.

Itusg15q4user (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Global Powerline Home Networking Update: Growing in Spite of the Economy, In-Stat/MDR, Dec 2008

G.hn final approval[edit]

We should not tell people G.hn (exsp. G.9960 and G.9970) are "ratified" until they are available on www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G or ITU itself pubishs a statement which confirms the final approval. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of curse, you may a more differentiated picture of the thing, as described in you reference([3]). --Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)--Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the source provided (HomeGrid Forum press release: [4] ) is adequate. It includes quotes from at least two ITU officials. Additionally, other releases from companies involved in G.hn (see [5]) confirm that the approval indeed happened in Oct 9th, even if ITU has not yet published Recommendation G.9960 in their website. Advancedtelcotv (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference writes "HomeGrid Forum today announced that International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) has successfully agreed upon the key components of the G.hn specification at its meeting held at the United Nations in Geneva. As a result of this agreement, ITU-T will publish an Approved G.hn Recommendation for the Physical Layer (PHY) and architecture portion of the standard." If the IP had written this and no interpretation of it I had not complained. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Added "Advocates for existing technologies point out they have shipped millions of chips for coax and powerline while as of June, 2010, there are no G.hn chips available." to balance the claims of proponents. Whether H.gn will do in practice what proponents claim is disputed, as is whether it will be as widely adopted as the article suggests. (No one knows yet, so it's appropriate to present both sides.) Removed sections about companies that largely duplicated the names in the Home Grid Forum section and was replete with inaccuracies. (Metanoia doesn't make DSL chips, Infineon spun off the division as Lantiq, etc. Mostly redundant anyway. If I had time, I'd remove more of the hype. I almost flagged the article. DaveBurstein (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, As much as I respect your opinion and diligence in getting facts straight, I see that you're mistaken regarding Metanoia and DSL (see http://www.metanoia.com.tw/product.php), and may have made a few other mistakes in your editing of the G.hn topic as well. I'll review what you have done and see if further corrections are in order. John Egan 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmanegan (talk • contribs)
Why not just state the facts and leave out the opinions of both G.hn proponents and advocates of other technologies? I came here looking for facts about G.hn, and I found what I was looking for, but I had to sift through a truckload of opinions and promotional litter to find it. I can do my own research on silicon vendors and prevailing opinions, thank you very much. Lambtron (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tangotec Ltd[edit]

There is absolutely no reason to add product information about Tangotec here, but advertising. Btw. the encyclopedic notability is not (yet?) proved. Membership in the Homegrid Forum and articles in Businesswire are not sufficient. An article about Tangotec could establish that notability (see WP:NOT for more) and were the right place to talk about the company's products. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Furthermore, the purpose of the Status section is not obvious. It's reasonable to discuss the status of the standard, which may evolve over time, and possibly the release of the first working solution, which is an important milestone. However, it's not reasonable to discuss the release of every chip from every manufacturer. In the best case, reports of "plugfest" participation, product demonstrations, and new product announcements contribute nothing to readers' understanding of G.hn, and in the worst case constitute blatant WP:PROMO violations. I would support the deletion of such content unless someone can explain how it enhances readers' understanding of G.hn. Lambtron (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on G.hn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G.hn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G.hn&oldid=1207335905"