Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An IP Address For Every Light Bulb

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-yeah-that'll-be-fine dept.

Google 457

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday NXP and Green Wave Reality announced to the world that they plan to give every lightbulb an IPV6 address. Hot on the heels of Google's 900 mhz announcement, Green Wave Reality already has iPhone / Android / and Web-based support. Looks like the lighting wars have started."

cancel ×

457 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong place (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155332)

Architecturally, this is the wrong place to put uniquely addressed devices. The addresses should be in the fixtures, to avoid the maintenance headache of readdressing bulbs every time they are replaced. If I want the lights in the room to dim, I don't want to tell the bulbs, I want to tell the room that I'm sitting in. The room contains the fixtures. The fixtures contain the bulbs. How the room talks to the fixtures and the fixtures talk to the bulbs are different questions, but individually addressable bulbs is a maintenance disaster waiting to happen.

Just because they're conveniently end-user replaceable doesn't make it a correct choice, just slightly more practical. X-10, Z-Wave and Insteon are all also equally incorrect in that they generally put the control at the point of the switch, instead of the fixture. Again, the user's ultimate goal is not to control the switch but to control the room's lighting, which is defined by the fixtures and their locations within the room.

Re:Wrong place (4, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155390)

Easy, make the fixtures DHCP servers.

Re:Wrong place (3, Funny)

R0UTE (807673) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155516)

And don't forget to NAT everything while you're at it.

Re:Wrong place (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155630)

No NAT with IPV6; there are so many addresses that it's totally unnecessary. What, people want to do it anyway?

Re:Wrong place (1)

ptrourke (529610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155670)

Ever get the feeling that nobody else got the joke? I'm here to spare you from that feeling.

Re:Wrong place (0)

R0UTE (807673) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155754)

There also isn't DHCP with IPv6, hence the sarcastic comment... Oh well I guess my crap joke was worse than I thought. Or I overestimated the knowledge of the average /.er.

Re:Wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155784)

And that's why ipv6 weenies are wroing. Addressing can be a security or information concern. Nat isnt a complete security solution, but it is part of one. (fuck assholes I know the difference between Nat and firewalling) I still believe NAT mechanisms have a legitimate place.

Re:Wrong place (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155794)

No NAT with IPV6; there are so many addresses that it's totally unnecessary. What, people want to do it anyway?

Well, if I want every lightbulb to have a consistent IP address when my ISP decides to give me a new prefix, I'd rather not want to renumber everything inside it. Or adjust all the settings.

Can you imagine? Your ISP decides to give you a new prefix and you'd have to program it into your switches so they can talk to the right lightbulbs again.

One of the benefits of NAT was the internal network was separated from the external - changes to the external IP addresses didn't influence the internal ones - simplifying management and administration. Some places don't mind going through the rigamarole, but I'm sure most homes have better things to do than manage their networks (if they even know how).

Sure you can assign more IPv6 addresses to ensure that your home server is always FC00::100, but having to know all the IP addresses of each machine when diagnosing things just gets to be a pain. Yes, you can use DHCPv6 to staticly assign addresses, but given how badly most devices handle DHCP IP address changes, it'll be a reboot fest.

Re:Wrong place (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155820)

"there are so many addresses that it's totally unnecessary" where have I heard that before?

Re:Wrong place (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155696)

Pervasive and ubiquitous surveillance, disguised as an assisting technology for energy efficiency.

How many gift Trojan horses must we look in the mouth, on a daily basis?

Re:Wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155438)

Unless you are wiring a light base to be always on with no switch (not sure about electrical code on that one, but definitely dangerous when it comes to changing bulbs unless the end user really knows for certain where the breaker for that circuit is) safety (and availability of power) says the switch makes the most sense.

Re:Wrong place (2, Insightful)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155450)

If you had an LED light bulb it might last long enough to be functionally equivalent to the fixture. I think it is pretty silly either way. This feature will consume additional electricity, and if you want to turn the light bulb on remotely the circuit has to be always on even when the bulb is off. This does not seem to be a good way to save energy.

Re:Wrong place (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155664)

Depends.
Do you want to pay a lot of money for this LED bulb that will save power and last a long time or do you want the cheap bulb.
vs
Do you want this cool bulb that will save you money and allow you to control the lights from anywhere in the house.
I tend to leave a light on in the morning if I will not be back until late so I can see when I get home. Timers are a pain. If I could turn them on remotely when I got home it would be great.
Over all a net savings in power.

Re:Wrong place (2)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155668)

no its a good way to easily slip in cameras, mikes, speakers, everywhere... electricity increase, at least at first, could be tiny... a few milliwatts...

Re:Wrong place (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155720)

Since when has all this automatic stuff ever been done with energy efficiency in mind?

One look at all the craze over "wireless everything" shows you that people aren't serious about energy efficiency.

Then again, there was a time we had to get up off the couch to change the channel, too. Imagine the lazy people of today even thinking of such a thing or knowing where the controls were on the damn TV.

Re:Wrong place (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155834)

That's why you should be talking to the house, not the room, fixtures, or appliances. One always on circuit that can power up downstream only circuits as needed. There are times when distributed systems are the hammer you need, but this isn't one of them.

Re:Wrong place (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155474)

Might a dhcp fixture might assign ip address its own bulbs? I might want to have a fixture turn on only 2 of 4 bulbs or maybe ping all the bulbs i have address for to see if any are broken, or maybe add rows of bulbs for something like a extensible chandelier. just a thought. i suppose the just sending commands / queries to the fixtures would also work.

Re:Wrong place (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155484)

my apologies for grammar. hope you get the idea.

Re:Wrong place (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155478)

They will, and the light will just communicate with that. The advantage of giving one to the lightbulb is that you acn follow it if it's moved.

I mean, from an Architecturally stand point. When the fuck someone will move a light is another story.

Re:Wrong place (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155594)

Imagine how much fun pranksters would have if they found the addresses of your light fixtures. But it could also lead to some awesome light shows.

Re:Wrong place (2)

kcbnac (854015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155632)

"An ultra-low-power standby supply controller with 10mW no-load capability"

So we want to go from having the switch disconnect power to the lights, to adding 10mW for EVERY lightbulb in existence...how the HELL is this part of a 'Green Wave' in helping me manage power consumption in my house?

Presume I have 50 bulbs in my house. At 10mW, we're talking 2.5W of always-on baseload draw. Multiply that times 75 million (rounded down from the 75.11 million Wolfram Alpha gave me): 2.5 * 75,000,000 = 187,000,000W of 'IDLE' power drawn so I can 'make the most of energy savings in the home.'

HA!

Source:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=houses+in+america [wolframalpha.com]
(It gave a 2009 count of owner-occupied housing units)

Re:Wrong place (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155764)

Multiply times 2 since the PF will be .5 or so given the target price point.

But it makes law enforcement easier! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155646)

I *need* the IP address to identify a light bulb, not a fixture, so when I catch that light bulb copying data I can sue it into permanent impoverishment!

Re:Wrong place (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155842)

Architecturally, this is the wrong place to put uniquely addressed devices.

Thats because you're holding it wrong.

Re:Wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155922)

Right, but in terms of managing easily swappable CCD cameras with WiFi links, only the lightbulb really makes sense.

Re:Wrong place (1)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155926)

You can do both.. the room has an ip address, and supposedly however it's hooked up the room will know what is connected to it automatically so it doesn't matter if their ip addresses change.

However then that also gives you the option of talking to a specific device without requiring to go through the room overlay.

Re:Wrong place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155956)

Either one will do as long as the government can monitor how green you are today.

Re:Wrong place (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36156032)

I think an additional DNS layer of sorts would be most fitting. That way, sockets AND lightbulbs can change without extensive reconfiguration. Further, it means I don't need to replace all of my current sockets to upgrade my house.

more 'efficiency' absurdities (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155368)

This has become an OCD of the worst kind, and only makes the entire infrastructure even more brittle than it already is. And each connection to the net is just another attack vector, and probably subject to some secret [nytimes.com] executive order [habledash.com] mandating that microphones and cameras be installed.

Re:more 'efficiency' absurdities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155454)

Why do you have to mandate the installation of cameras and microphones? Laptops, cellphones, tablets, and Kinects already have that covered.

Re:more 'efficiency' absurdities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155582)

Not too many of those things are regularly used in the bathroom.. Gotta remember the regulators are a bunch of pervs and psychos

Re:more 'efficiency' absurdities (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155692)

The voices in the room cause slight variations of the current in the bulb. These slight variations, although in nanoamps, can be converted to digital transmissions and sent via TCP/IP to a listener far, far away.

Re:more 'efficiency' absurdities (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155706)

So don't expose your home lighting network to the outside world. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to control my home's lighting from my phone.

Re:more 'efficiency' absurdities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155964)

This has become an OCD of the worst kind, and only makes the entire infrastructure even more brittle than it already is.

You're just noticing the OCD aspect of environmentalism?

Imagine you're a person who has never heard of the environmental movement. To you, you switch off the lights because electricity is expensive. You reuse stuff because it's perfectly good stuff and ma and pa told you not to waste things.

Now imagine you meet your neighbor who is carefully sorting his trash. You ask him why on earth anyone would sort their trash, and he starts going on about mountains of trash. So maybe you point out that it came out of the ground, all that's happening is it's going back in, but, hey, it's a free country, sort your trash if you like.

Your neighbor isn't satisfied that no one else wants to sort their trash. So he goes to the city council and convinces them to force everyone to sort their trash into neat color coded receptacles. Normal OCD makes someone want to touch all the light poles. This is some kind of mass OCD-inspired lunacy.

Will this finally shut up (1)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155384)

all the people who say that the desire for NAT in a native IPv6 environment is broken, and surely you can't want that, much less will we give it to you?

Re:Will this finally shut up (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155786)

if the earth was a ball made of only sand particles 1x1x1mm (no mantle, crust, oceans or core, just sand), 2^128 is the number of sand grains in 300 earths.

why do we need nat? explain. i'd like to know.

"Don't be evil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155388)

Sure, but they never said anything about "Don't be stupid!"

The world is running out of IPv6 addresses (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155398)

I can already predict the headline in another ~20 years. (see subject). There are trillions of lightbulbs and if you assign all of them a unique address, then you're sure to run out very fast.

Re:The world is running out of IPv6 addresses (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155760)

Dude. No. Trillions are chump change. A trillion times a trillion is chump change compared to the number of IPv6 addresses. 2^128 is a very big number.

Re:The world is running out of IPv6 addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155998)

commodore64 will in the future start the 10BaseT-Party who will campaign for and elect politicians that will reign in this massive and excessive number of bits for each IP. In this 20 years that he mentions they hope to bring it back to a manageable 2^33 or 2^34 and in 30 years down to 2^16. We can't keep expanding bit spaces forever! No more expand-and-allocate addressing!

That old joke (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155422)

Phone Support: I realize your computer won't turn on so I'd like you to look behind your desk to see if it is plugged in properly.
User: I can't see anything back there, it's way to dark!
Phone Support: Can you turn on a lamp?
User: No! Durn power has been out for over an hour due to the weather.

Now, lack of lighting will no longer be a useful sign of a power outage. Either the power is out, or you got hacked.

Privacy policy and EULA? (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155430)

I love tech as much as the next slashdotter but this just seems like tech for tech's sake. This also surely has privacy and usage rights issues that I we haven't even thought of yet.

In ten years. (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155434)

Ten years from now we will have a push to IPv8 addresses as there will be a shortage of IPv6 addresses.

Everyone will want an IPv6 address for the lights on their Christmas trees and house displays.

Re:In ten years. (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155536)

There are over 10^28 IPv6 addresses for every person. So even if you individually address every Christmas tree light you won't run out.

Re:In ten years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155624)

You're right, ARIN will just make more money :)

Re:In ten years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155654)

that's before we meet with the populous race of Gliese 581d...

Re:In ten years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155790)

Remember that in that 2^128 address space, there are 48 bits that are determined by the MAC address of the interface.

Re:In ten years. (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155870)

The number is almost 5x10^28 actually. 5 times more.

Re:In ten years. (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155928)

Thanks, that makes a big difference :)

Re:In ten years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155566)

There are enough IPv6 addresses to for every ATOM on the surface of 100 Earths. I don't think we'll be running out any time soon.

Re:In ten years. (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155570)

I'm pretty sure that there are Christmas exterior displays in my neighborhood which have been continuously up longer than most Internet sites. By simple longevity, they probably deserve static persistent network addressing more than, for instance, Zynga.

Re:In ten years. (2)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155840)

2^128: think a planet, the size of earth, made of only sand, 1 cubic mm grains. now think 300 planets. that's 2^128 grains of sand.
do you get the picture now?

wanna calculate? calculate the volume of a 40.000km circunference sphere, in cubic milimeters. divide 2^128 in that. result? roughly 300.

Please give one to every LED in my OLED screen (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155444)

It's 480x800 pixels. Does it use 3 LEDs per pixel for colors? That'll be 1152000 IPv6 addresses please. Thank you.

Re:Please give one to every LED in my OLED screen (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155504)

we could. However they wouldn't give them to you, but to the manufacturer.

Re:Please give one to every LED in my OLED screen (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155596)

So should I be blowing glass bulbs and putting metal wires in it to receive them myself then?

Re:Please give one to every LED in my OLED screen (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155892)

And we have enough IPv6 to make 2.95x10^32 screens.

Negligent use of the IPV6 Space (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155468)

Didn't we learn from IPv4 that we need to be more responsible with how we allocate IP addresses?

Hint: if you get a big $75000 bonus at work, don't go out and frivolously spend $75000. Sure, go nuts within reason, but save some of that money for an emergency when you'll need it most.

PS: why the hell would you want to give a lightbulb enough processing power to operate a full TCP/IP stack? That's wasteful considering they're designed to be cheap and replaceable. This is stupid. Like the FP said, if you really want to do it right, give the fixtures addresses and make the lightbulbs depend on the fixture.

Re:Negligent use of the IPV6 Space (1)

TheBig1 (966884) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155576)

128 bit addresses make for amazingly large address space -- it has been said that "This address space is probably sufficient to uniquely address every molecule in the solar system! " (http://www.garykessler.net/library/ipv6_exp.html, among others). It will last for at least a couple more years...

Re:Negligent use of the IPV6 Space (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155908)

But is it sufficient to uniquely address every elementary particle in the universe? No! That's where we must start (and we also have to have a quantum-state addressing submask).

Re:Negligent use of the IPV6 Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155944)

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that there are more IPv6 addresses than we would ever need on Earth, but let's treat this new system as if it's supposed to last us forever.

That said, I know it would be cool to give a butter knife a globally routeable IPv6 address, but does it really need it?

What could POSSIBLY go wrong ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155470)

... in this scenario?

Now let's wait for someone to hack them (1)

FumarMata (1340847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155472)

Who will be the first to sync the lights of an entire city with Lady Gaga's last song ?

Re:Now let's wait for someone to hack them (2, Insightful)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155532)

Her 'last' song? Does this mean she has retired? Surely that is to much to hope for.

hmm (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155500)

So an IP address does not equal a person but it does equal a light bulb, interesting...

dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155544)

I propose we go back to using a simple torch.

How many sysadmins (4, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155590)

does it take a change a lightbulb?

IP (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155598)

IP stands for internet protocol. Unless your lightbulbs are serving or downloading internet content, I don't see any point to addressing them with their own IP addresses.

Re:IP (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155798)

You would be able to control them...wait for it...over the Internet! Using IP to tell them to turn on and off, or get bright or dim. If you were out and you forgot you left the lights on at dinner, you could then turn them off from your phone or something I guess by communicating directly with each bulb (light socket).

Not saying it's a good idea or bad. Just saying, that yes, they are indeed talking about hooking your light bulbs to the Internet. Do they need there own IPv6? Could you have one device that hooked to a router then used a different protocol inside the network to run the lights? Sure, sure, but could you give a unique IPv6 to each light socket? I guess. Would you want to?

Re:IP (1)

MischaNix (2163648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155872)

Well, I suppose you saw my point regardless--it's entirely frivolous to use a protocol as relatively advanced as IP for something as simple as changing the statuses of light-bulbs. Although, there is a critical point where using little IP-supporting microchips that are mass produced in tandem with a software solution is less costly than using a proprietary hardware solution... We'll see, I guess.

In 10 years this will appear on a list (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155612)

And I don't mean a list of great ideas. This will be on one of those "top 10 stupid Internet ideas" lists.

There is no upside here. We take something that is simple and works, and make it complicated. We make it FAR more expensive to build. We open it up to attack where it previously wasn't. We use more energy in the process. And we get nothing of value out of it.

The only way this has any hope of succeeding as an idea is if they can convince the government to make a law requiring it in the name of "green energy" or "safety" or some other bullshit reason that governments like to use to create stupid laws.

Re:In 10 years this will appear on a list (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155730)

On the upside, if the lights go out you'll have to hire an electrician and a network administrator to fix it.

Re:In 10 years this will appear on a list (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155946)

Well, that'll be one way to get some job security.

ISP;s will love this $5/m per bulb / ip! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155622)

ISP;s will love this $5/m per bulb / ip!

Bring in the law makers (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155636)

FFS, this idea is so bad it boggles all comprehension. Perhaps these "greenies" didn't take into considering that running the required hardware to support an internet accessible service on every light bulb would dramatically INCREASE power consumption world wide? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

If they want to track light bulbs, then a simple RFD and a cheap USB wand-reader device to be used by interested parties is enough.

900 mhz (1)

maxrate (886773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155638)

What Google 900Mhz announcement? Please, don't tell me to 'Google it' ....

Re:900 mhz (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155848)

Google's Android @home [gizmodo.com] initiative.

Re:900 mhz (1)

Uhyve (2143088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36156008)

Does that have anything to do with the 900Mhz spectrum? I mean, yeah, it's using wireless, but why couldn't all that be done over wireless a/b/g/n? Or am I missing something really simple?

Re:900 mhz (1)

silverglade00 (1751552) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155976)

Whatever you do, don't Google it. Using a search engine to search for information is ridiculous.

Lights bulb on standby (1)

tmpsantos (1161451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155640)

Great idea, now every light bulb will consume some energy even when they are off, or more precisely, on standby.

Steven Wright (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155666)

Soon his joke about randomly flipping a light switch and getting nasty letter from some guy in Germany willl come true JUST AS THE PROPHECY PREDICTED.

Re:Steven Wright (1)

Meddik (1849590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155936)

Bravo

WTF (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155672)

Can anyone explain, in a logical manner, why exactly we need IP addresses assigned to light bulbs?

Re:WTF (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155874)

It's part of a broader home automation effort by Google called Android @Home. It will allow easy home automation through open source libraries, standard protocols, and reference implementations.

Re:WTF (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155880)

to run a beowolf cluster on them...

Re:WTF (1)

itsenrique (846636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155980)

Why of course! We need them to sell people crap so we can make more money than we did last (year, quarter, whatever). Oh, wait, you mean why do we the consumers need these?............

So many possibilities (1)

ideaz (1981092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155676)

I can already imagine your neighbor hacking into your network to turn the lights on your bedroom when you forget to dim the blinds while you're at it

Cloud computing light bulbs (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155704)

Can I then have light bulbs that are powered from the cloud?

Overdesign (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155732)

Remote lighting control has been around for decades. X10 has been available for a long time, it's inexpensive, and you can buy the gear at any Home Depot.

The next generation system after that was Echelon LONworks, which is a bidirectional power-line network for home control. That system really does give every device a unique address, set during manufacture, like Ethernet addresses. It's only 78kb/s, but that's enough for lighting control. It never caught on for home control, but it turned out to be useful for subway and railroad trains, because it has extremely good noise immunity. It's used on trains to control lights, HVAC, destination signs, doors, and other auxiliary equipment. Some office buildings use it, and it's sometimes used in semiconductor manufacturing plants.

Full Internet connectivity for each lighting device is a bit much. Do you really want to bridge that data to the outside world?

Coercive Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155746)

Can't wait until governments like California use this to turn off my lights when they don't think I'm sufficiently green enough.

Smart Grid Privacy Intrusion here we come! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155830)

This is entirely a bad idea. As long as a possibility exists for this to enable dumb grid technology, it is a bad idea.

Expensive (1)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155846)

Excellent. Now instead of paying less then a dollar for a perfectly good incandescent light bulb, and instead of paying $50 for a light equivalent LED "bulb", I can now pay $55 for a light equivalent LED light with network connectivity. Sure over time the costs will go down, but I bet that adding the network connectivity will always cost more than the original incandescent bulb would have.

Copyright lawsuits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155850)

I can't wait for someone's lightbulb to get sued by mistake for downloading copyrighted content. That should be entertaining.

Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155852)

Sounds more like a surveillance system to me.

omg!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36155904)

If the recent IPv4 debacle taught us anything it's that these strings of numbers are not infinite! When the IPv6 barrel bottoms out, where will we go? This grievous misuse of a precious commodity sickens me and I hope it's never gone through with.

control lights from your phone (3, Interesting)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155918)

No longer will you need a lousy LED flash on your phone camera. Just tap to brighten all lightbulbs in the area. Or if you're into being dark and mysterious, a constantly running app that dims all lights within 50' of your GPS location... people will know when you're coming...

Tracert teh-overhead-light (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155934)

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\windoz>tracert teh-overhead-light

Tracing route to teh-overhead-light [3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf] over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms Wireless_Broadband_Router.home [192.168.1.1]
2 6 ms 7 ms 8 ms microsoft.com [65.55.12.249]
3 11 ms 8 ms 9 ms google.com [216.239.51.99]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 17 ms 16 ms 16 ms facebook.com [69.63.189.16]
6 19 ms 16 ms 18 ms nsa.gov [12.120.186.8]
7 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms teh-overhead-light [3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf]

Trace complete.

Hmmmm .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36155950)

So, is it going to cost more to make the individual bulbs addressable ... or to build in the home automation which makes it all go? The sheer amount of extra crap and infrastructure required to make sure I've got the wireless network of lightbulbs is staggering -- and, seems pointless. Why does everybody want every object I own to be internet enabled?

This seems to be a common condition of people who envision the "house of the future" -- we're going to plan for a tremendous amount of infrastructure which will never be affordable, or widely deployed. Most people don't care about it. But, dammit, we're going to envision it anyway.

This just seems like one of those "solutions in search of a problem". Microsoft has been envisioning the "house of the future" for what seems like at least two decades -- we're no closer to it, most of us don't want it (or even care about it), but people are spending millions on it to tell us that's what we'll be having soon.

I'm sorry, but short of a Star Trek like revolution in our energy economy where we can rebuild from scratch with cost not being a barrier -- most of this stuff falls into the category of purely speculating just because we can. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to buy stocks in this company either.

This is something that people who are rich or eccentric will play with, and the overwhelming majority of us will continue about our lives without being impacted by this. The last thing I want is for my house to get a virus. :-P

What a waste! (1)

Ezzer (2169040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36156004)

If the recent IPv4 debacle taught us anything is that strings of numbers are not infinite! Where will we go when the IPv6 barrel bottoms out? This is a grievous misuse of our precious commodity and it sickens me deeply on several levels.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>