Home AMX General Discussion

Restricting communications via IP without license

MLaletasMLaletas Junior MemberPosts: 226
Sooo I hear Cr$ptron will be instituting a new rule sometime soon that they will the sever an IP connection to particular third party Lighting manufacturer without a license. Man thats going to cause a roar, thoughts? Personally I think thats just messed up, you are no longer a control system platform youve transformed yourself to an all in one solution. Being experience by far and large in AMX I am kind of hoping it blows up it their face...

Comments

  • HARMAN_ChrisHARMAN_Chris Harman Professional University Posts: 306
    That is an interesting move: http://bit.do/dfXvt
  • pdabrowskipdabrowski Aussie Guy Posts: 184
    What lighting systems are they referring to exactly?

    C-bus?
    Hue?
    Lutron?
    Dynalite?

  • MLaletasMLaletas Junior Member Posts: 226
    They did not specify, I gotta assume lutron has got to be the biggest one, maybe vantage, hue, etc...
  • shr00m-dewshr00m-dew Junior Member Posts: 394
    Trying to pay off the Lutron Settlement?
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,356
    Wow $500 for a key just for any non Crestron lighting system. I guess they're trying to force future installs to use their own products?
  • zack.boydzack.boyd Smacks Keyboard Repeatedly Posts: 94
    I happened to be at their office when this went out. The engineers I was with pretty much said 'Yeah... we didn't exactly agree but it was way above our pay grades'. I enjoyed being a smug AMX fan-boy. (they love me there!)*dripping with sarcasm*
  • pdabrowskipdabrowski Aussie Guy Posts: 184
    vining wrote: »
    Wow $500 for a key just for any non ******** lighting system. I guess they're trying to force future installs to use their own products?

    But the question is how are they going to enforce this? Sniffing TCP/IP packets and blocking ones that match pre-defined patterns or not allowing certain modules to work?
  • zack.boydzack.boyd Smacks Keyboard Repeatedly Posts: 94
    pdabrowski wrote: »

    But the question is how are they going to enforce this? Sniffing TCP/IP packets and blocking ones that match pre-defined patterns or not allowing certain modules to work?

    I was told they're dissallowing connections to a range of MAC addresses. They acknowledged there were many work-arounds;)
Sign In or Register to comment.