Dec 15 8:28 AMView Source
I have had some correspondence recently with Grant Wichenko from Appin Associates in Winnipeg.
As some of you may know, Grant is an SSPC participant and consultant with specialization in
BACnet. He has made some statements that run counter to my perception of the Lighting industry
in North America. I quote him directly:
1. “…This will become a bigger problem as all lighting vendors are dropping MS/TP.”
2. “…Who else besides Wattstopper and Blue Ridge uses MS/TP for lighting? nLight, Fifth,
Daintree, Leviton, Lutron, Douglas do not. ”
While some lighting vendors continue to use and support proprietary protocols, I have had
the impression during our seven years as a working group that the interest in, and support
for MS/TP, was a key aspect of lighting vendor’s participation in BACnet and the LA-WG.
Certainly many of our debates, for example over the need for compressed representation
of values in WriteGroup service, and the service itself, as well as the introduction of 115K
for MS/TP, have all been driven by supposed “lighting industry need.” So it comes as a
surprise to me that there is a perception that lighting vendors essentially only want to use
BACnet/IP and everything downstream of their controllers would be and remain
Besides being different from my (possibly flawed) perception, this doctrine would seem to
run counter to what many owners and specifiers are saying to me all the time which is that
they are becoming less and less tolerant of proprietary solutions.
So which perspective accurately reflects where the lighting industry is, and where it is going?
I’d like to hear from the LA-WG at least on these points.
914 South Aiken Ave
Pittsburgh PA 15232-2212