[HN Gopher] The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee...
___________________________________________________________________
The Connectivity Standards Alliance Announces Zigbee 4.0 and Suzi
Author : paulatreides
Score : 110 points
Date : 2025-11-18 17:35 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (csa-iot.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (csa-iot.org)
| krackers wrote:
| I thought Threads was already the next generation of zigbee.
| hypfer wrote:
| The good thing is that at least for a somewhat technical crowd,
| there is absolutely no need to buy into any of this, as there
| have been proper solutions available since at least 2018.
|
| Just buy Hue, maybe Aqara sensors, use zigbee2mqtt with Home
| Assistant and be happy while observing the shitshow that is
| this market from a safe distance.
| gruturo wrote:
| Oh cool it's not just me doing exactly this.
|
| Sticking to pure zigbee devices with zigbee2mqtt and
| slae.sh's excellent USB coordinator. A couple weeks ago I
| bought a bunch of spare IKEA zigbee devices before they go
| out of stock. Around 2030 I'll take a look if thread/matter
| is anywhere near mature and has settled.
| tomtom1337 wrote:
| Are the ikea zigbee devices going to stop being sold?
| Massive shame if so, they are extremely reliable and easy
| to use.
| simondotau wrote:
| IKEA's whole smart home ecosystem is presently being
| overhauled from Zigbee to Thread/Matter, with a product
| availability gap in the meantime.
|
| https://www.ikea.com/global/en/newsroom/retail/the-new-
| smart...
| tomtom1337 wrote:
| Oooh, thank you for sharing! New product lineup looks
| interesting, but I echo other concerns here about it
| thread maybe eventually requiring internet.
| darkwater wrote:
| I just bought some spare pieces (remotes, bulbs) just in
| case
| microtonal wrote:
| What gap though? Our local IKEA has plenty of lights,
| smart plugs, etc. available still.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Personally, I find their contact sensors (the tall-ish
| thin ones) to be quite unreliable. I live in a modest
| home with plenty of zigbee devices as repeaters nearby
| and the contact sensors often stop reporting at random.
| I'll pop it off the door, click repair on my coordinator
| and then hit the reset switch on the sensor; back online.
|
| I like them because they can use rechargeable AAA
| batteries but if I still have to touch them every few
| weeks to repair, I'd rather switch to a different brand
| that is more reliable and uses less ideal battery
| formats.
|
| That said, the newish Inspelling plugs in the EU market
| are fantastic. They report reliably, can handle larger
| loads, and cost about EUR10. For that price, it's hard to
| complain that they are a bit larger than other options.
| andrepd wrote:
| Side question but where would one learn how to do this that
| way? Any guides, reddit? The home automation market seems
| such a mess every time I check it out.
| knob wrote:
| Feed that comment into an ai (claude suggested). Let it
| know what you have, and just work out a "numbered list
| roadmap". Love ais for that!
| microtonal wrote:
| Easiest way is to put HAOS (Home Assistant OS) on a
| Raspberry Pi, Home Assistant Green, or some NUC:
|
| https://www.home-assistant.io/installation/
|
| Then get a coordinator recommended for zigbee2mqtt:
|
| https://www.zigbee2mqtt.io/guide/adapters/
|
| Then install and start the following add-ons in Home
| Assistant:
|
| - Mosquitto - zigbee2mqtt: https://www.zigbee2mqtt.io/gui
| de/installation/03_ha_addon.ht... - MQTT
|
| And that's pretty much it, you can add devices through
| the MQTT add-on page. They will also become available as
| entities in the rest of Home Assistant, and you can make
| graphs, dashboards, actions, etc.
|
| You can also run + install zigbee2mqtt and Mosquitto on a
| Linux machine, but HAOS give you more of an integrated
| solution with dashboards, graphs, backups, cloud access,
| etc.
| lawn wrote:
| > Just buy Hue, maybe Aqara sensors, use zigbee2mqtt with
| Home Assistant and be happy while observing the shitshow that
| is this market from a safe distance.
|
| The only worry is if manufacturers stop developing Zigbee
| products. Ikea for example made cheap and good Zigbee devices
| but they've said they're moving away from Zigbee.
| brabel wrote:
| I hope Zigbee stays. It's widely used and works really well.
| Matter may be even better but it also makes it really hard for
| manufacturers to actually make products that can be sold
| cheaply. Zigbee is just good enough and I believe the push to
| replace it has ulterior motives.
| stavros wrote:
| Yeah, same. Zigbee hits the sweet spot of offline and just
| interoperable enough. Matter has added so many features that
| I might as well just use WiFi devices, and it doesn't sound
| like the consortium has the customer's best interests in
| mind.
| microtonal wrote:
| Yeah, I can just not wrap my brain around the Thread and
| Matter push. Zigbee works great, devices are affordable,
| there are many devices out there already. Also people who
| already have Zigbee will have to build an additional Thread
| mesh. This all seems so pointless unless there is another
| motive.
| willis936 wrote:
| Zigbee is indeed good enough. The issue is that it solves the
| problem well enough and doesn't allow for maximizing how much
| customers are milked for. So customers will always choose
| Zigbee over any other option that also solves the problem
| plus some useless features, less control, and increased
| security surface area.
|
| There is a very clear signal that is easy to pick up: either
| you support zigbee in your IoT device or you are trying to
| undermine the customer. No customer wants to be undermined.
| This should make Zigbee support a very easy choice for
| companies operating in a competitive space. Simply succeeding
| in the market should be enough and if it isn't that is the
| company's existential challenge.
| amluto wrote:
| IMO Thread has one major benefit over Zigbee: the Thread
| mesh can extend over Ethernet (via TREL). Zigbee ought to
| be able to do this too, but I'm not aware of anyone
| actually doing it.
|
| There are a couple of in-progress implementations of Zigbee
| on a regular computer using Thread radios and the Thread
| RCP protocol. Maybe one of them will add the ability to use
| multiple radios.
| sebazzz wrote:
| More power usage though.
| hobofan wrote:
| > Threads
|
| You mean "Thread"? Or "Matter over Thread", which some vendors
| also just call "Matter" (which technically can also stand on
| it's own, but in many cases implies a Thread requirement). I'm
| wondering if that muddiness in bad communication will be a
| significant factor in hindering consumer adoption.
| codeflo wrote:
| "Matter" can in practice also mean "Matter over Wi-Fi", and
| lots of vendors use it that way.
| yuumei wrote:
| That's my issue with it: iot devices shouldn't have access
| to the internet by default. With Matter it's possible. No
| one is going to create outbound firewall rules for these
| things.
| microtonal wrote:
| I think it's only a matter of time before it's the same
| for Thread + Matter. Currently they get an ULA IPv6
| address on (most?) border routers and you can ping the
| devices on the local network. It will be too attractive
| extend the standard to permit phoning home for 'analytics
| to improve the product' (I don't think this is possible
| yet with the current standard? But hard to tell.).
| samoit wrote:
| I hope Matter becomes the "the facto" standard... now we have
| several more "standars"
| hobofan wrote:
| > the facto *de facto
|
| Any reason you prefer Matter rather than Zigbee? Zigbee has
| been a thing far longer than Matter, so I don't think the "one
| more standard" criticism is valid here.
| samoit wrote:
| It is supposedly an open source standard that do not requires
| internet connection to work, and can use regular wifi
| (2,4ghz) networks as a means to connect devices so you do not
| need to buy a hub for them. You can create your own hub with
| a mini pc for instance with a regular wifi card. No need for
| specific hardware
| gunalx wrote:
| All of this can be done with ZigBee. It is open and local
| mesh over 2.4ghz.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| For matter over thread you do need a hub and you need more
| certifications for matter, so for manufacturers it is less
| open.
|
| The standardization is a plus though.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| I mean you can already do exactly that with zigbee after
| buying a zigbee usb connector which are extremely cheap.
|
| I know because that's what I have been doing for the past
| five years.
|
| But to be fair my setup is now mostly IKEA so I guess I
| could go back to a bridge and stop having to maintain my
| stuff at some point.
| microtonal wrote:
| _No need for specific hardware_
|
| Meet zigbee2mqtt and ZHA. You only need a cheap USB adapter
| as a Zigbee coordinator and you are ready to go.
| Koffiepoeder wrote:
| What I really don't like about thread/matter is that it is
| becoming the de-facto standard that thread border routers are
| connected to the internet.
|
| This will in time result in IoT devices that actually mandate
| this connection (it was already stipulated in a recent version
| of the protocol). The end result will be that a new protocol
| was created, but rather than devices being able to run on their
| own, we end up with beds in heating mode, ie. the garbage we
| were trying to avoid in the first place.
|
| So for me, zigbee it is!
| dwaite wrote:
| A lot of zigbee infrastructure also expect an internet
| connection.
|
| These border routers also double as admins, and people want
| their smart home stuff to be available while they are outside
| their home network.
|
| Thread devices can mandate internet connectivity the same way
| Wifi devices can.
|
| Matter defines profiles and does certification that says your
| light bulbs cannot require an internet connection. The admin
| your water leak detector connects into can (and arguably
| should) alert you even when you are away from home, but the
| leak detector _itself_ cannot do that and be certified.
| moogly wrote:
| > A lot of zigbee infrastructure also expect an internet
| connection.
|
| Like what. I have several hundred zigbee devices of almost
| all category you can think of, and I have never come across
| such a requirement. I don't understand how that would even
| work.
| mcny wrote:
| Linked on the same page is the announcement for matter 1.5
|
| In Case you missed it, https://csa-
| iot.org/newsroom/matter-1-5-introduces-cameras-c...
|
| > Matter 1.5 introduces one of the most anticipated additions to
| the specification: cameras. Developers can now build and certify
| cameras that interoperate directly with Matter-enabled
| ecosystems, without the need for custom APIs or integrations.
|
| > Matter cameras support live video and audio streaming using
| established WebRTC technology, enabling two-way communication and
| both local and remote access via standard STUN and TURN
| protocols. The specification also defines support for multi-
| stream configurations, pan-tilt-zoom controls, detection and
| privacy zones, and flexible storage options, including continuous
| or event-based recording to local or cloud destinations.
|
| You might as well put a pause on any new IP camera purchase for
| now until these hit the market.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I have to say that the Matter Cast standard sounded good, but
| ended up being an abomination, imo. Instead of ther being a
| boradly available platform for casting, my crude understanding
| is that to have Matter Cast work, there has to be some out of
| band way for an app that wants to cast to have a reciprocal app
| available on the target device. There's nothing provided to
| help facilitate this.
|
| Where-as with DIAL and for the first decade of Google Cast, the
| device being cast to was basically a web browser & could run
| any url. It made it so any device could be cast to from any
| app. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_Launch
|
| It's been incredibly disappointing seeing Matter build a
| standard that completely fails to offer a usable path. I really
| want to be wrong here, but it sure seems like Matter Cast
| requires every device to have its own unique bespoke
| partnership & install already loaded, for everything that will
| be able to cast to it. It standardizes some protocols for how
| to communicate, but there's such an anti-standard vendor-
| controlled limited anti-ecosystem basis.
|
| I really really want Matter to be a good better world. I hope
| Matter Cameras can bring some unity to streaming camera
| systems. But man I can not see how Matter Cast could be worse
| designed, more hostile to the freedom to cast that we've
| enjoyed, and I really worry for this ecosystem as a whole if
| this is what Matter is willing to ship.
|
| I'd also really like to see affirmations that Matter is usable
| sans any big network, sans Google Apple and whomever else. That
| it really is something we can run ourselves. But I haven't seen
| validation that Matter really is as liberatory as it's
| promises, haven't seen evidence that folks really can undo the
| Internet of Shit damage with Matter. I hope it's just all us
| being extremely slow on the uptake, but I have heard just so
| little about running our own provisioning/control networks on
| Matter. I want so much to believe but my vibe is that we've
| been rug pulled again.
| nona wrote:
| > I'd also really like to see affirmations that Matter is
| usable sans any big network, sans Google Apple and whomever
| else. That it really is something we can run ourselves.
|
| I'm using Matter (over Thread, mostly) with Home Assistant -
| in addition to using it with Apple HomeKit, but I could have
| done it exclusively HA. My devices get an IPv6 ULA from the
| border router, HA can directly talk to them without any
| internet or cloud involved. Does this qualify?
|
| It's true that certain non-standardized features are only
| available through "extensions" ie. the device vendor app. But
| both Thread and Matter get new revisions, and the devices get
| firmware updates in a standard way (again, installable via
| Home Assistant) to take advantage of new features and
| stability updates. All of this has gotten better with time.
|
| But the best thing about Matter is that I'm not locked into a
| specific ecosystem or dependent on an app from the device
| vendor. So, in my view it has been a slow start but with
| steady improvement. And the right direction IMHO.
| humanfromearth9 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/927
| whitehexagon wrote:
| No thanks. Quite happy with my ConBee II and small collection of
| open hackable ZigBee devices thanks.
|
| Why would I want yet-another-standard with self-updating devices,
| using more power (strong cryptography), and closed to certified
| devices only.
|
| And Suzi sounds like it is going to stomp all over Lora? Hard to
| tell from that marketing fluff.
| Spivak wrote:
| Yeah this all just seems objectively worse for end users, like
| me, who are spoiled with cheap reliable and completely isolated
| from the internet devices.
| not_that_d wrote:
| I don't understand people criticizing this. Didn't they read the
| article? The new Suzi stuff doesn't want to replace Zigbee, and
| the new zigbee version is backwards compatible.
|
| What is the pain there?
| retSava wrote:
| I would assume, yet _another_ standard. There are a bunch of
| them, and product builders are taking a long long time to
| properly implement, and often buggy. And they often result in
| the consumer need to buy yet another gateway/router, and learn
| the ins/outs and quirks of another protocol that won't work
| properly in years, all the while two new competing standards
| have been introduced. An example - how long has Matter existed?
| Yet, it hasn't had a profile for smart plugs with energy
| monitoring (eg the 12$ IKEA one). Such a basic use case...
|
| And all this so Samsung et al can siphon off more user data and
| show more ads.
|
| I fully understand the consumer viewpoint.
|
| But, it's great news imo with sub-GHz (Suzi)!
| tzs wrote:
| > An example - how long has Matter existed? Yet, it hasn't
| had a profile for smart plugs with energy monitoring (eg the
| 12$ IKEA one). Such a basic use case...
|
| That was added with version 1.3 of Matter, released in the
| middle of this year. You just need to wait for your smart
| home ecosystem to support it and for IKEA to release a
| firmware update.
|
| As far as ecosystems go, Home Assistant (HA) fully supports
| it, as does Samsung SmartThings. Google has a public beta,
| from what I've read. Amazon and Apple are in the on the way
| stage.
|
| As far as device goes, all my energy monitoring smart plugs
| are Tp-link Tapo, and they have been quick to update
| firmware. I'm using several Tp-Link Tapo P110M Matter smart
| plugs [1] and a Tapo P316M Matter smart power strip [2] with
| HA.
|
| The P316M, purchased in the middle of October, came with
| firmware that supported Matter 1.3 out of the box. I simply
| added it to HA using the "Add device" button on the HA screen
| and it worked.
|
| The P110Ms, purchased at the start of this month, came with
| older firmware so they did not show energy use out of the box
| in HA. A quick trip to the Tapo app to add them to it during
| which it checks for and installs the latest firmware, brought
| them up to the latest firmware. After that the energy
| monitoring information showed up in HA.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DKG52WQ4
|
| [2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F5LNYTR7
| indolering wrote:
| Any particular advantage to Suzi over Thread? Why didn't they
| adopt an IP based standard that is interoperable with ... all
| major networks since ~1995 (if not before)?
| petre wrote:
| Multiple reasons like not enough v4 IPs, devices being able to
| sleep most of the time to conserve power, security cameras and
| IoT devices getting hacked and faling prey to by botnet
| operators etc.
| tom_alexander wrote:
| > not enough v4 IPs
|
| No one is giving their IoT devices public IPv4 addresses.
| They would be behind a NAT. RFC 1918 provides 17,891,322
| usable IP addresses for each private network. If we want to
| be a little more adventurous, RFC 6598 provides an additional
| 4,194,302 usable addresses and 240.0.0.0/4 is another
| 268,435,454 usable addresses "reserved for future use" since
| 1989, but still sitting unused so we can use them as internal
| addresses inside a NAT anyway (for example, AWS uses this
| range internally).
|
| Show me a network that is using all 290,521,078 addresses and
| I'll show you a network managed by a team of network
| engineers who can just set up IPv6.
| petre wrote:
| You still have to manage those and assign them through DHCP
| every time the device wakes up and turns the radio on.
| Maybe WiFi 7 will address that with the low power mode?
| Also, I don't want a 100 sensor mesh network on my LAN.
| That's why Thread uses a IPv6 6LoWPAN. One should use that
| if they want to bridge to IP.
| microtonal wrote:
| Thread uses IPv6.
| petre wrote:
| Exactly, over over IEEE 802.15.4. Easy to bridge to IP
| using the appropriate border router or whatever they are
| called.
| indolering wrote:
| Don't use IPv4 and NAT < firewall.
|
| Why would IP based routing be inherently more power hungry?
| sashahilton wrote:
| All these new standards looking to become the successor to
| WiFi/Zigbee IoT devices, yet every single one makes the same
| mistake - they think that because they find ways to force
| certification, take away end user control and extract licensing
| fees, that they're somehow going to convince people to buy it as
| the next big thing.
|
| I was cautiously optimistic when Matter/Thread was in its early
| days, but predictably as with most of these industry backed
| standards it's turned into another pay to play walled garden. The
| CSA seems to be particularly bad at this.
|
| Cant wait to see in subsequent years all the additional e-waste
| when manufacturers consider devices obsolete, and no one can
| repurpose them because of Matter spec mandating secure boot.
| andsoitis wrote:
| To succeed, consumers need to be able to rely on standards
| conformance.
|
| Certification is an obvious way and that costs money.
|
| Is there a way without certification that results in high
| conformance that consumers can rely on?
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Certification is desirable to me, so long as it doesn't
| mandate taking away the freedom of the owners of devices for
| local control and the ability to install whatever software
| they want on those devices.
|
| I had no idea that Matter/Thread mandates secure boot.
| Presumably that's secure boot without end user freedom to
| load their own keys. That's no good.
| sashahilton wrote:
| The standards side of things is true, however this can be
| largely solved by providing a reference implementation, given
| that no device manufacturer is going to implement the stack
| from scratch. Automated testing of firmware would also work.
| As for high conformance... WiFi and BT devices manage to work
| well enough by simply buying a tested chipset and building on
| that, no external testing/fees necessary.
|
| I understand the certification if a manufacturer wants to
| sell a product commercially as 'Matter Certified'. For
| hobbyists or smaller players, pulling the reference
| implementation, loading it onto a cheap MCU, and calling it
| 'Works with Matter' would suffice.
|
| As it stands, the latter isn't an option, because of the
| codesigning they've shoehorned into the spec. And for all the
| noise made about security, once connected to the hub the
| manufacturer can run whatever they like on it and send data
| back to their servers with very little visibility to the
| user.
|
| Thread is arguably the interesting part for low power
| devices, and doesn't force certification. Matter is little
| more than a protocol spec, at the tradeoff of locked down
| devices and annual fees. For Matter over WiFi, I can't see
| any point whatsoever in using it. And for the costs of Doing
| Matter/Thread certification most smaller hardware startups
| will balk at the hundreds of thousands required to do so, and
| stick with WiFi/BT/Zigbee/Thread + roll their own
| protocol/app.
| doug_durham wrote:
| Having been in the business of creating standards compliant
| equipment in the past, the problem is not as simple as you
| state. You can provide all of the reference implementations
| you want and you still will get variances.
|
| The state-of-the-art solution is to put a bunch of people
| on planes and burn a bunch of jet fuel to attend a "test
| fest". You can't issue interoperability until you do this.
| This costs money that needs to be paid by someone.
| naasking wrote:
| > Is there a way without certification that results in high
| conformance that consumers can rely on?
|
| Open source a reference implementation and a conformance test
| suite. Open, transparent, and low cost. Also, don't lock out
| devices that aren't blessed.
| intrasight wrote:
| Why not have it be like the law profession? 100% open
| source with licensing.
| ajross wrote:
| FWIW, the "Suzi" thing they're talking about seems like an
| attempt to compete with LoRa, which while technically an open
| standard is entirely dominated by Semtech.
|
| It's not clear to me why the manufacturers aren't just making
| LoRa radios. This feels like an xkcd 927 situation to me.
| surajrmal wrote:
| The model seems to work. Is there precedent for the alternative
| working out well?
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Working well for device manufacturers who want users to
| forklift out gear every few years?
|
| I have been avoiding "IoT" in my home because I want stable
| 20+ year lifetimes for protocols and standards. I want to
| know that the outlets I hard-wire today will be controllable
| with whatever software I choose in 5, 10, 15 years. I want my
| thermostat to continue to have all its "smart" features for
| the lifetime of my HVAC system. I don't want separate "apps"
| for my washer, dishwasher, automatic water shut off, etc. I
| don't want Internet connectivity to servers that may be
| turned off at a manufacturer's whim to gatekeep features (or
| worse, basic functionality). The market is dysfunctional.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| You're in luck! That's Zigbee.
|
| (Not IoT)
| hamdingers wrote:
| Does a device that provides an interface via a HTTP server
| need to pass any kind of TCP or HTTP certification?
|
| Maybe I'm making some category error here but I can think of
| dozens of protocols that do not require certification.
| thequux wrote:
| As much as I dislike mandatory certification, I can
| understand the need for it in wireless battery powered
| devices: a malfunctioning decide can talk the battery life
| if everything within range, and most consumers aren't
| equipped to realize that this is happening much less
| identify the device that's causing the problem
|
| Perhaps the solution is to make the spec open but make
| using the trademark contingent on certification (much like
| USB, for example)
| eisa01 wrote:
| So this will compete with Z-wave, that already operate in the
| 800-900 MHz space?
|
| It's very confusing with a new Zigbee standard when I thought it
| was being replaced with Thread
| microtonal wrote:
| _It 's very confusing with a new Zigbee standard when I thought
| it was being replaced with Thread_
|
| And from the same organization that co-designed and promotes
| Matter.
|
| Personally, I'm very happy that Zigbee continues to be
| developed. I am not very enthusiastic about everything being IP
| addressable (even if it is just ULA) and the convoluted Thread
| flow where a bunch of border routers require you to initiate
| the pairing with a phone over BLE to hand it over to the
| router. I have an Eve Energy Thread + Matter plug and it
| requires many takes to pair it correctly. Most Zigbee devices
| are just a matter of permitting join on your coordinator and
| holding/pressing the pairing button on the device.
|
| I wish that Apple and Google would just add a Zigbee
| coordinator (or just leave home automation to others) and put
| some effort into supporting a wide variety of devices rather
| than trying to disrupt a perfectly working standard. They often
| cannot even bother implementing the latest Matter spec timely.
| windexh8er wrote:
| As someone who's run (and continues to run) both ZWave and
| Zigbee networks for over 10 years I find the direction of
| Zigbee rather frustrating. They used to be the antithesis of
| Zwave with it's frustrating "licensing" and now seems to be
| as though they're towing that line. Most likely because they
| got in bed with Google, Apple and the garbage that is Matter.
| willseth wrote:
| What's wrong with Matter?
| windexh8er wrote:
| It didn't solve any of the issues it proclaimed to. And,
| if you look across open platforms (e.g. HomeAssistant) it
| has, comparatively, low uptake on available integrations
| because Matter is a vehicle for proclaimed interop by
| walled garden experts (e.g. Apple, Google, etc).
| tzs wrote:
| Could you be more specific?
|
| I've got several Matter smart plugs and a couple Matter
| smart bulbs.
|
| They all were quick and easy to set up with their first
| Matter controller (an RPi4 running Home Assistant or an
| iPad with Apple Home), and quick and easy to add to
| whichever controller I didn't use as the first
| controller.
|
| They all worked then without requiring me to get their
| manufacturer's proprietary app or make an account or
| anything like that.
|
| Some needed a firmware update to support Matter 1.3, and
| so I had to use the manufacturer's app for that. Some
| also have proprietary functions and options (for example
| one of bulbs supports some kind of presence detection if
| you have at least two of those bulbs in the same room) so
| I might get the manufacturers app if I decide I want to
| use those functions.
|
| Adding them to the manufacturer's app does not interfere
| with their use as Matter devices so if I do decide I want
| to use some of the proprietary stuff it doesn't break
| things.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Pairing worked flawlessly with my Tado X thermostats, to add
| another anecdotal data point.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-22 23:01 UTC)