I would also have chosen the Ethernet option, however, I have the WiFi option, so am unlikely to buy a second.
I agree with all of David’s points
1 Like
I would also very much like an ethernet version as the device will be sitting in a metal cupboard, making wifi connection difficult if not impossible. Since the ethernet switch for the whole house is in that cupboard, it would make more than sense to connect it to that switch. Power over ethernet would be fantastic.
1 Like
Put me down as someone who would like an Ethernet version. I just moved into a newly constructed home and will be purchasing an IotaWatt very soon, but would absolutely purchase a wired version if it existed. I’d even be willing to pay more for the wired version.
Generally speaking, it really annoys me that my garage door openers/appliances/ecobee/etc can only connect to wifi. And most can’t even use WPA2-Enterprise (more secure), they can only use WPA2-PSK (less secure).
An Ethernet port would be nice but for those who have a real problem connecting do what I did an purchase a $35 Rpi and mount beside your IoTaWatt, run cable to the Rpi, connect the IoTaWatt to it. See Directions below. Also created an Open VPN server for access from abroad. Create a Wi-Fi hotspot in less than 10 minutes with Pi Raspberry! – Howto Raspberry Pi
1 Like
I’ve advocated just using a cheap wired access point, but the Rpi is a solution as well. What I’m interested in is for someone to put together a reverse-proxy to translate HTTP requests to HTTPS using something like nginx on the Rpi (or a NAS box). Would work nicely to do both.
Ethernet would be a great option, although if I really had my druthers, a Zwave option would be even better. I’ve been waffling a bit on whether I’d rather purchase the Emporia Vue, which has individual circuit monitoring but uses WiFi protocol, or the Aeotec product which uses Zwave but only offers mains monitoring, and I’ve ended up delaying my purchase in the hope that eventually Aeotec would add a circuit monitoring expansion or Emporia would add Zwave capability.
A friend just referred me to your device and the fact that it supports local data processing even though it’s WiFi is a huge plus! Emporia’s product looks like it would be close to useless without their cloud service…maybe even enough of a plus that I’ll treat myself to this device now and hope there might someday be an add-on/retrofit/upgraded model that will add Zwave support 
+1 for both ethernet and wifi.
1 Like
Just another vote for Ethernet.
About to buy one, would have picked it up days ago if it were Ethernet. Large house with metal lath walls so Wifi is a challenge, even with a mesh network. I wired the house with Ethernet and the switch is about three feet away from the mains box. I’m almost certainly going to have to add a mesh node to that area.
1 Like
+1 for ethernet here too. Have a large property with multiple access points, I don’t really want to install one out in the garage and shed to cover off my monitoring requirements. I’ve got to run a cable to an AP just so that the last 1 foot can be done wireless???
Appreciate that the underlying hardware doesn’t support ethernet and the hoops you’ve had to jump through to certify, so I do appreciate the challenges, but I think for a stable long term monitoring device, ethernet over wifi every time.
2 Likes
+1 for Ethernet. I asap need an Ethernet version. Possible for extra payment I get one? Someone can made this hardware modification to add Ethernet shield and made the software support for that? Possible? What price? Can be this a product? I can beta test a new product and I can pay for that.
I feel pointless to use WIFI if my Raspberry Pi near 30 cm from the IoTaWatt device. Seems like no reason why use WIFI if my all network communication about home automation are wired in Gigabit Ethernet. Also, WIFI communication can be more issues than wired: bad signal / too many WIFI devices at same channel, pocket loss (but it is problem only with UDP, the TCP also fix it and resend), WIFI device die more or not working more than wired. And etc, etc, you know it… 
About my Ethernet based connection is my concept and it’s important for me, and it worth more money for me. (Like if +1000 USD more the Ethernet version for IoTaWatt, I use WIFI because not worth it for me or choosing other product with Ethernet support)
I understand when can be useful the WIFI, if the Web service/server are far from Energy sensors. (But if I have same situation, I have dedicated UTP CAT6A single shielded / CAT7A double shielded cable for that communication, like currently for all.)
I came from OpenEneryMonitor my topic forum. This is my first comment. <3
If you already have a Raspberry Pi in your hardware plan, you can configure it to be a wireless access point for very little additional cost, zero additional cost if your RPi model has built-in WiFi. If you don’t have a built-in WiFi adapter you can add a USB based one for less than $15 US. There are many guides on the internet that show how to do this. It’s not very difficult.
Note that many of the available guides actually describe setting up a WiFi router rather than an AP even though they are advertised as a “wireless AP”. While the former will work correctly for this application, it’s more complicated compared to setting up just an AP.
1 Like
Yes, I can enable WIFI in RPI 3B PLUS, it’s easy. But using if possible a wired communication it’s a plan and concept, but also if no other good way to do this, I will use WIFI. But I still hope in next few weeks something happening and a new IoTaWatt product will available with WIRED communication. 
I really don’t know why problem the Ethernet shield connection to this device, but it not possible or so hard, why not other wired communication, like serial port or USB, or something else WIRED? 
I prefer a wired communication what also a Raspberry Pi supporting, but I can also add any Shield for special communication like CAN Shield or something else. 
Should be solution to work IoTaWatt with wired communication. 
If you go back and look at a few previous posts around this topic of adding Ethernet to the IoTaWatt you will see that the difficulty is not simply adding ethernet physically. You could easily do this with your own homebuilt IoTaWatt device if you wanted to.
However, the difficult aspect is that the product, as is, went though certification ensuring it is safe and meets specific requirements, CE for example. This certification process take time and money which is not often freely available for an open source project like this one. Changing or adding any item to the certified device voids the certification. If people were willing to assist to pay for recertifying such a device, I bet @overeasy would be more than happy to add it in the future; not speaking for him.
1 Like
Hi, thank you for answer. It’s a valid aspect and I forgot this way. True, I understand this. So no chance in 1-2 months to Ethernet version will available about IoTaWatt project. Seems like I should use the currently available version.
Also, I do not want problems, like adding Ethernet Shield and this product will burn or die. I want to use energy metering as safe as possible, this is why I choose CT version of sensors.
1 Like
Certification issues notwithstanding, it’s just not a technically feasible. There is no support that I’m aware of for the ESP8266, and the support provided in the ESP32 is mutually exclusive with other critical functions or requires more GPIO pins than are available.
It is a WiFi power monitor. There are other products out there that use alternative communication. If Ethernet is your prime consideration, you should start your search with products that support your prime consideration.
1 Like
I not found other product, but searched for long, what is:
- wired, Ethernet / RJ45 preferred
- NOT cloud based, i can collect and use data manually with other tools, like emonCMS or and web server based serice
- Can use at least 14 CT sensor
So actually this is the best product for me. <3
1 Like
New user, and a techie, so just 2c here:
As we say in the opensource world: if you want a feature that bad, you can do it yourself. Or as the Greybeards would say: don’t complain about a missing feature unless you’re prepared to do a pull request. 
Also, are people hitting blockers with Wifi? Is there a bug / Issue on Github? If there were some technical problem with Wifi, then the convo would be different.
My only issue – and it is a small one, not a blocker – is the use of mdns / Avahi for Wifi initialization. (I block such nasty things on my WAP and switch, but had to enable it for IoTaWatt. Did I prefer to do that? No, but there have been no issues after enabling Avahi.) So if there are no blockers with using Wifi, then there are probably more important features that overeasy or whoever to focus on.
2 Likes
I think Ethernet is a good option for long runs, but for the average home it shouldn’t be necessary. For an unattached garage, then probably would want to use Ethernet.
True… however it is very simple to add a WiFi-to-Ethernet Bridge, or an extra WiFi Access Point, if you already have hardwired Ethernet cabling available. This would provide a very strong WiFi signal for the IoTaWatt in a remote location.
Personally, I prefer WiFi as none of my WiFi devices have ever been lost due to lightning strikes nearby. Whereas I’ve lost many devices that were hardwired Ethernet devices over the past few years due to two nearby lightning strikes.