No Subject
I would like to respond to several points raised by George Roberts on
behalf of Schlumberger in an effort both to correct several points of fact,
as well as to respond to several matters on which there is clearly room for
differences of viewpoint. On each point of fact, I will issue a challenge
to any reader who questions my statements. If I can not back the claim, I
will post a statement of retraction on this website. If I can, I will ask
the challenger to post a statement supporting my claim on this site.
Points of Fact are most easily addressed first.
1. George writes of C12.19 that "No accepted guidelines exist for
their use with telephone based communication nor with radio based
communication." In my earlier response, I noted that this is not correct
?
there are standards that can be used today on the telephone network with
the architecture that complies with IEEE 1390, developed over two years ago
at AMRA. This standard is available for purchase from IEEE or AMRA and can
be ordered through their websites. The hardware that implements these
standards has been commercially available from most phone companies for
over a year. If any reader doubts this, please EMail me and I will arrange
to have a salesperson contact you - they welcome the leads. It is only
necessary to contact your phone company to arrange for the support of this
system. Alternatively, for those not wishing to use derived local channel
service on the phone network, more conventional modem options, such as ANSI
C12.21 will be available soon. To move our discussion forward, it is vital
that we settle this matter of fact. If any reader believes me in error,
please contact me. I will concede your point in a posting on this website
if I can not arrange a sales call from a phone company offering IEEE 1390
compliant service that can also transport C12.19 tables. In return, when
you have been offered this service, I will ask you to acknowledge this
point in a posting on this website. However, it does not benefit any of us
to talk past one another on an issue so easily and unequivocally proven..
2. George quotes Jack Pazdon of GE as stating that the C12.19 tables
are standards "only insofar as they are used in conjunction with optical
ports." I will leave it to Jack to respond as he sees fit. However, as I
thought I had made clear in my last posting on this website, ANSI C12.19
tables are designed to work with far more than an optical port. These
tables can provide metering data for ANY utility and over any reasonably
flexibly designed standard communication medium (including telephone, RF,
and most other systems.) These tables were developed both for use with
electric meters on an optical port AND for any other transport medium that
was designed to provide envelope service or an end-to-end clear channel
transmission of data streams. It is vital to recognize that these tables
were designed to handle gas, water, and electric. As someone whose salary
is paid by the gas industry, I would regard myself for having been remiss
if as Chair of SCC31, I had allowed an optical-port-only or an
electric-meter-only standard to be adopted. If you believe I am incorrect
on this point, please tell me where I am in error. I claim that I will be
able to find you a manufacturer willing to move gas and/or water and/or
electric metering data using C12.19 tables over a telephone network or an
RF network. If I can not deliver, I will so state on this site. If I am
able to deliver on this challenge, I will ask you to so state on this site.
In either case, I suggest we settle the point and move on. I apologize for
repeating this comment made in my earlier posting on this site, but it is
critical to move the discussion forward. The telephone standards are
emphatically not "pending, envisioned, under development, or hypothetical".
These standards have already been implemented in most telephone switches.
I am so confident of this point that I offer the following challenge - I
will withdraw this point and refrain from further argument on it if any
major California metropolitan area can not obtain telephone data transport
using ANSI C12.19 in compliance with IEEE 1390 within 6 months. The key
point is that the telephone standards already exist and are available
commercially.
3. George states that no guidelines exist for transporting tables with
RF systems. This statement is partially true. Several vendors of existing
systems do tell me that their systems can not transport table date
efficiently; such RF systems can not transport tables at all, unless they
are re-designed extensively. The vendors of these systems are present in
force in the PSWG proceedings, as they should be to represent their
interests. I believe it is essential that their needs be addressed and that
they be given time to make the required system modifications. (For the
last 8 months, standards committees have been meeting to modify the
existing tables to circumvent these difficulties. This would allow
virtually ANY RF system to carry tables. Those who are interested in these
issues are invited to attend the next joint AMRA/ANSI/IC ?Tablefest? in
Montreal, July 20-24.) However, this is only half of the story. It is also
true that there are many other RF systems that are perfectly capable of
moving table data today. The suppliers of these general purpose RF packet
networks are not present in the PSWG proceedings because their systems need
no protection. Like the telephone companies, they are as ready to move
packets containing tables without any need for delay. I am concerned that
PSWG may base its standards on the capabilities of the least flexible RF
systems, rather than RF systems that have average to good flexibility and
are available today. How confident am I of my facts? I will again agree
to stop making this claim and make a public statement of agreement with
your position if I am not able to find at least two RF systems that are
available today that can move packets that carry C12.19 tables. Any reader
of this posting who wishes to take this opportunity silence my comments on
this issues is welcome to do so. All I ask in exchange is the converse - if
I am able to find two such networks, I ask that my challenger make the
public statement that indeed RF systems are able to carry C12.19 tables..
(I note in passing that the systems that are designed in compliance with
UCA standards will have no difficulty carrying C12.19 tables.)
With respect to issues of opinion, we both agree that it is in the
interest of the utility customers of California to provide the framework
for a "fluid, dynamic electric market". Since it has now been decided that
whatever standards are adopted for the electric industry will automatically
become the standards for the gas industry, I share this goal. However, we
do have a serious difference of opinion on how best to achieve this. As I
argued in my last posting, standardizing at the MDMA-only level is not the
way to achieve this goal. There is no point in repeating these arguments,
to which I did not see any direct response. I argued that standardizing at
the MDMA level seriously restricts the ability of all innovators - except
the existing large meter manufacturers - to enter the market. The closest I
could come to a response was the statement that "Making it easy for new
participants to compete with ABB and G.E. is not our charge". (Actually,
these two companies are the strongest supporters of C12.19!) As a
personal, value judgement, I do not feel that we are framing a "fluid,
dynamic electric market" by raising barriers to new entrants. I argued in
my last posting that if MDMA's are the ultimate and sole point of
standardization, those who control the few protocols that now exist can
make it difficult for any other company to innovate. Why? How would an
innovator get its data into the MDMA? Will each manufacturer agree in
advance to support innovations from other companies? Will we require that
MDMA's accept any and all new comers and convert the new protocols into the
standards at the MDMA level? Until these points are addressed, I will
remain convinced that innovation will be difficult to effect for any but
existing manufacturers. I apologize if I missed the response to these
arguments.
I was not able to find a justification for George's statement that
data should "fly through the air in table format just because it is nice to
do so. Doing so achieves utterly nothing for interoperability...It does not
achieve the mythical world of 'Plug and Play', the unicorn of our
proceedings." I apparently failed in efforts in my previous posting to
show that (ultimately) standardizing at the meter level indeed DOES offer
substantial benefits. I urge concerned readers to re-read this posting
with an eye to the following arguments. 1. Standardizing at the meter
level allows customers to access their data without going through the MDMA.
2. If home automation equipment is to emerge with the capability to use
meter data directly to shift loads or conserve energy, I argued it is
important to have this meter standardized at the meter level, or the
customer will have to call the MDMA each time data is needed. In response
to this home automation argument, George comments, "We are not gathered
together to decide anything inside people's private residences". Indeed,
by deciding not to standardize at the meter level, we have done exactly
that. We have denied customers the option of reading their own data
directly or buying equipment that does this for them automatically. I
argued that MDMA-only standards effectively foreclose these technical and
market options. I do not feel that we have set up the framework for a
"fluid, dynamic market" by foreclosing options. This is one of several
reasons why I favor meter standards. It is NOT "just because it is a nice
thing to do!"
I welcome a point-by-point discussion of my earlier posting. I am
ready to concede any point on which I am in error and indeed, I welcome the
better understanding. However, I also wish to see the discussion move
forward by having accepted those points that can not be effectively
countered.
I must also respectfully disagree with the CellNet position that there
is no consensus on the need for C12.19. I note that this consensus
standard was developed over a period of about 5 years jointly by IEEE,
ANSI, and Industry Canada in an open process to which everyone was invited.
Some manufacturers have already begun producing meters that use the tables.
In fact, most of the paricipants in the PSWG support this standard, as
demonstrated that it very nearly passed with a 2/3 majority in voting at
the last session. It is likely to pass that same vote at the next meeting.
There is a vocal minority that strongly opposes C12.19, but I find it
difficult to reconcile the view that there is no support for C12.19 with
the votes in the PSWG.
There is one important philosophical framework that should be
recognized as influencing the discussion of these points of contention.
That is - what is the goal of the PSWG? Is it narrow, in the sense that it
is only to enable a competitive electric metering market and nothing else?
Or is it broader, in the sense of constructing a framework that will allow
technical innovations, new marketing strategies, and new alliances to offer
consumers a wide variety of choices. If the former is the goal,
standardizing at the MDMA level is a defensible position. The existing
protocols will become de facto standard inputs to the MDMA, no new
competitors will enter the metering market without the help of existing
meter manufacturers, it will be difficult to add new technical
capabilities, and customers can only access their data through the MDMA..
The PSWG will have enabled a market place, but it does not coincide with my
concept of a "fluid, dynamic market".