Why do some many things come with their own wifi module
-
Like my thermostat. To hook it to the wifi it has two parts. One connected to the furnace board that is the wifi board. Then a second device near my router that bridges the part at the furnace to the router. Why? Why can't the part at the furnace board just connect directly to the router? I have several other things like this, most I don't hook up.
edit
Some clarification. Thermostat talks to furnace board via wire. Next to the furnace board is an add on board that is the wifi board. Next to my router is a small box that plugs directly into the router and the power. The wifi board at the furnace talks to this small box to get to the router. Why is the small box needed.Another example. I am looking at a hot tub. To connect it to the wifi you need two parts. One wired to the tub, and one wired to your router. It talks wirelessly between the two. But why the box near the router, why not go direct from the wifi add on part at the hot tub to the router. Should cost them less.
edit, update:
Some have commented they could be using a different protocol and/or frequency that allows greater range and such since they don't need as much bandwidth. This would also reduce frequency conflict with existing wifi devices.Others pointed out that configuring the wifi connection would require a way to give the board a password. Which they can avoid if they add that wired device that sits next to the router. Customers can interface with that via phone or computer and enter like a serial number for the board that will sync them.
Also, it has been pointed out that newer thermostats often do have direct wifi to the router, so no extra board on the furnace even.
Maybe for ease of setup. So you don't have to somehow give if credentials to your own wifi.
-
There is an extra board at the furnace that is the wifi component. But then there is a device at the router that it talks to instead of just going to the router directly.
are you sure the board at the furnace has wifi? It's probably some simpler rf protocol that only the other device can understand. the control board usually does not have any buttons or screen, sometimes they can't be placed to an easy to reach place.
-
Like my thermostat. To hook it to the wifi it has two parts. One connected to the furnace board that is the wifi board. Then a second device near my router that bridges the part at the furnace to the router. Why? Why can't the part at the furnace board just connect directly to the router? I have several other things like this, most I don't hook up.
edit
Some clarification. Thermostat talks to furnace board via wire. Next to the furnace board is an add on board that is the wifi board. Next to my router is a small box that plugs directly into the router and the power. The wifi board at the furnace talks to this small box to get to the router. Why is the small box needed.Another example. I am looking at a hot tub. To connect it to the wifi you need two parts. One wired to the tub, and one wired to your router. It talks wirelessly between the two. But why the box near the router, why not go direct from the wifi add on part at the hot tub to the router. Should cost them less.
edit, update:
Some have commented they could be using a different protocol and/or frequency that allows greater range and such since they don't need as much bandwidth. This would also reduce frequency conflict with existing wifi devices.Others pointed out that configuring the wifi connection would require a way to give the board a password. Which they can avoid if they add that wired device that sits next to the router. Customers can interface with that via phone or computer and enter like a serial number for the board that will sync them.
Also, it has been pointed out that newer thermostats often do have direct wifi to the router, so no extra board on the furnace even.
Some might use a different wireless language and frequency that can travel further but is not as fast as wifi.
Not sure how often that's actually the reason.
Others might want to use a wireless technique that uses les battery power than traditional wifi - such as small battery powered sensors etc.
-
Like my thermostat. To hook it to the wifi it has two parts. One connected to the furnace board that is the wifi board. Then a second device near my router that bridges the part at the furnace to the router. Why? Why can't the part at the furnace board just connect directly to the router? I have several other things like this, most I don't hook up.
edit
Some clarification. Thermostat talks to furnace board via wire. Next to the furnace board is an add on board that is the wifi board. Next to my router is a small box that plugs directly into the router and the power. The wifi board at the furnace talks to this small box to get to the router. Why is the small box needed.Another example. I am looking at a hot tub. To connect it to the wifi you need two parts. One wired to the tub, and one wired to your router. It talks wirelessly between the two. But why the box near the router, why not go direct from the wifi add on part at the hot tub to the router. Should cost them less.
edit, update:
Some have commented they could be using a different protocol and/or frequency that allows greater range and such since they don't need as much bandwidth. This would also reduce frequency conflict with existing wifi devices.Others pointed out that configuring the wifi connection would require a way to give the board a password. Which they can avoid if they add that wired device that sits next to the router. Customers can interface with that via phone or computer and enter like a serial number for the board that will sync them.
Also, it has been pointed out that newer thermostats often do have direct wifi to the router, so no extra board on the furnace even.
Ok, so your question is why systems like Zigbee or Z-Wave has a bridge directly connected to the network and won't just rely on the normal network.
That is because Zigbee and Z-Wave is a different technology than wifi.
I have Philips Hue lights at home, they use the Zigbee sytem, Zigbee is a low power meshing network, any commands are sent from the bridge, and relayed by the devices on the network until it reaches the specific node requested, the response is sent back through the network.
So why not just use wifi?
Plenty of smart home stuff does use wifi, it is a matter of what the manufacturer decided to use.
Personally I prefer Zigbee, I find it easier to work with and it doesn't clutter my network with random smart lights.
I am building a NAS machine and will probably migrate over to using home assistant on that rather than just relying on the standard bridge from Philips.
-
The part that connected to the furnace board is an addon. It's only purpose is internet. Yet it still needs a device connected to the router for it to talk to.
That’s silly, brand?
I have a few hvac devices and they just added a wifi module. Sounds like yours isn’t even that, it’s proprietary wireless radio.
-
There is an extra board at the furnace that is the wifi component. But then there is a device at the router that it talks to instead of just going to the router directly.
I imagine it’s a rf interface, because the furnace typically is isolated in the house and also is metal, and surrounded by metal. Because it’s not sending/receiving volumes of data, wifi isn’t needed, and the complexity and the frequency may make it unreliable whereas a rf to dongle situation is more reliable.
-
Ok, so your question is why systems like Zigbee or Z-Wave has a bridge directly connected to the network and won't just rely on the normal network.
That is because Zigbee and Z-Wave is a different technology than wifi.
I have Philips Hue lights at home, they use the Zigbee sytem, Zigbee is a low power meshing network, any commands are sent from the bridge, and relayed by the devices on the network until it reaches the specific node requested, the response is sent back through the network.
So why not just use wifi?
Plenty of smart home stuff does use wifi, it is a matter of what the manufacturer decided to use.
Personally I prefer Zigbee, I find it easier to work with and it doesn't clutter my network with random smart lights.
I am building a NAS machine and will probably migrate over to using home assistant on that rather than just relying on the standard bridge from Philips.
Ok, I can buy that. But they don't advertise compatibility with any home automation systems, and don't seem to operate any kind of mesh. The furnace thing is more than 10 years old, seems newer thermostats have direct wifi on them instead of a special board connected to the furnace. But I have several other things that have these two part solutions as well that must be using their own proprietary protocol for some reason. I just can't figure why they would do such a thing. Maybe there is no good reason.
-
Some might use a different wireless language and frequency that can travel further but is not as fast as wifi.
Not sure how often that's actually the reason.
Others might want to use a wireless technique that uses les battery power than traditional wifi - such as small battery powered sensors etc.
avoiding frequency conflict could explain it. And getting more range by using a different frequency could also explain it. I guess I assumed the range they were allowed to use was pretty small. But I just checked, and it is pretty wide actually.
-
Most I don't actually want connected to the internet. Ideally they would just connect to my router, and I could block them from leaving the house. But when they do this two part connectivity thing, they often require internet. But they could still require it even without the two part thing, so that doesn't explain why they do the two part thing.
That said, for some things I do want to be able to get at them from the internet, as they are basically monitoring devices. But again, I would rather have them talk to my router only. Then I could have my home server manage connections to them from the internet so I could secure it better.
-
are you sure the board at the furnace has wifi? It's probably some simpler rf protocol that only the other device can understand. the control board usually does not have any buttons or screen, sometimes they can't be placed to an easy to reach place.
Well, I assume it doesn't us basic wifi, or it would just connect to my router. But why would they work our their own connection protocol and such? Seems pricey. And the main board does have buttons and a screen. limited of course. But maybe that is the reason. With their own communication tech, they could also manage authentication. Then they don't have to come up with a way to allow you to enter a password or some other connection like bluetooth so you could configure the wifi from your phone.
-
I guess I don't understand your issue. What is your thermostat?
It's not an issue. It works. I just don't understand why they don't use normal wifi from the board to my router instead of inserting their extra device there. Others have commented they could be using a different protocol and/or frequency that allows greater range and such. Someone else pointed out that configuring the wifi connection would require a way to give the board a password. Which they can avoid if they use their own device, as I can interface with that via phone or computer and enter like a serial number for the board that will sync them.
-
That’s silly, brand?
I have a few hvac devices and they just added a wifi module. Sounds like yours isn’t even that, it’s proprietary wireless radio.
honeywell for the furnace stuff. It is more than 10 years old. Seems the new setups have the actual thermostat talk directly to the router. So I guess they decided it wasn't a good idea after a while. For the hot tub I am looking at... cal spa. Maybe they just haven't updated their tech in more than 10 years.
-
Well, I assume it doesn't us basic wifi, or it would just connect to my router. But why would they work our their own connection protocol and such? Seems pricey. And the main board does have buttons and a screen. limited of course. But maybe that is the reason. With their own communication tech, they could also manage authentication. Then they don't have to come up with a way to allow you to enter a password or some other connection like bluetooth so you could configure the wifi from your phone.
But why would they work our their own connection protocol and such? Seems pricey.
they probably didn't. if you get into home automation with Home Assistant and such you will find that lots of "brands" just repackage an already existing solution from china.
Then they don't have to come up with a way to allow you to enter a password or some other connection like bluetooth so you could configure the wifi from your phone.
well they still have to for the wifi unit. I think it's just that sometimes the controller can't be placed so that it's easily accessible, so they make it like this. the heating controller I last dealt with was even marketed so that you can control it from your living room with the unit on your shelf
-
Ok, so your question is why systems like Zigbee or Z-Wave has a bridge directly connected to the network and won't just rely on the normal network.
That is because Zigbee and Z-Wave is a different technology than wifi.
I have Philips Hue lights at home, they use the Zigbee sytem, Zigbee is a low power meshing network, any commands are sent from the bridge, and relayed by the devices on the network until it reaches the specific node requested, the response is sent back through the network.
So why not just use wifi?
Plenty of smart home stuff does use wifi, it is a matter of what the manufacturer decided to use.
Personally I prefer Zigbee, I find it easier to work with and it doesn't clutter my network with random smart lights.
I am building a NAS machine and will probably migrate over to using home assistant on that rather than just relying on the standard bridge from Philips.
ZigBee is way better and I'll be doing that next time. I didn't fully understand it all when I bought bulbs 5 years ago and wifi was easier. But now the network is crazy large and iot is just asking to get broken into or data leaked.
