Ken

    OMG!  Us "old-timers" are just laughing at what we see about "line seizure, and "techs"."  If you "order a new POTS line for your first line for FA" and install as a RJ38-it's a done deal.  Don't think you are going to use a "dial 9" number and get away with it.  Second-test it (the second line/the backup line) and see what gets cut off.  I sure hope the people that write this stuff understand they are scaring the hell out of what is coming out of the industry to bring up these questions and concerns-WOW!  No wonder the industry is being attacked.

    Next-POTS lines will soon become HISTORY!  Over 30 years ago we made the transition from McCullough, Direct connect and dedicated lines from the C/S, and of course police connect to the central station.  Now Voip, internet and wireless technology WILL be the norm sooner than those would like it to happen.  Yes, there are 100's of thousands of digital dialers out there that will need upgrading and no one wants to do it.  No one wants to spend the money.  They need to wake up and get in line and unfortunately will be forced into it.  Cowboy up.  Just consider yourself fortunate if you are a small to midsize company and make the transition, life will be better for you and your subscribers.  Look for vendors who are offering technological equipment to help you do that.

    Here's the problem with the industry...I go to the ISC's.  They are as big as the proverbial gnats behind compared to the CES (Consumer Electronic Show).  With might be considered a lot of crying as I see on this blog site, "ain't" going to be productive, so get with the program.  Your local telco, who ever and where ever it is already has their switch connected to the "backbone" of the mainframe and really doesn't care to listen to your problem.  Sorry I sound so Hardball about this issue, but its coming.  I'm so sure of it that I know the Integrators are doing it now, and yes, integrators are not regular security companies, but are laughing all the way to the bank!  Read and learn.

M Winger

Martin Security Engineering

**********

Hi Ken,

    Regarding Line Seizure:  The RJ31X is intended to be the demarcation between the alarm and the phone system.  Supposedly, the jack is theirs (a telephone system component) and the cord with plug is ours.  Why should it be incumbent on us (the alarm industry) to cure the lack of line seizure at our expense or to assume any extra liability if line seizure can't be achieved after we have made a reasonable effort?

    My particular contracts say that we aren't responsible for the telephone company's equipment, but if we do work on any non-included equipment, all the provisions of the contract, especially the limitations of liability, will apply.

    So many things happen that put the alarm company in a perfect position to repair or replace damaged jacks and wiring - or to correct others' screw-ups - that it doesn't make sense for us to demand that the phone company come out and fix them when we're already there and can do it.   As a conundrum, the RJ31X jack is listed with a price on the proposal and installation contract among the devices to be installed.  We are therefore knowingly expanding our scope of operations but also expanding our liability with it.  (Theoretically, we should write a separate contract just for the jack that isolates it liability-wise from the alarm installation.)  Notwithstanding that the alarm company installs the RJ31X  99.9% of the time and we are getting paid to do it, we always tell the subscriber that "We only do it as a convenience to the subscriber [and ourselves] and because we don't trust the 'real' telephone technicians to get it right or to deliver it timely enough."

    Many locations don't have line seizure because the jack installer did not have the expertise, the resources or the ambition to get it right.

    That said, every alarm company will eventually run into a location having a phone system that simply cannot be configured to achieve proper line seizure. It may be cost-prohibitive or it may actually be physically impossible.  Some of the examples:

    * A phone line that has an off-premises extension (AKA "Dual service").  Picking up a phone at the other location defeats the line seizure function even if an RJ31X jack is properly wired at the protected premise.

    * An apartment, condo, office building or old city block where the phone service line comes directly into the back of a regular phone jack.  A typical prewired apartment house almost certainly has a common distribution point, but it's often in an inaccessible space like an outdoor telco pedestal; who knows where in the apartment building's attic; or even inside another (possibly unidentifiable) building in the complex!

    * Many apartments were prewired with unjacketed twisted pairs from such a source directly to each unit (often via a pipe in the slab that emerges invisibly within a wall) with the first stop typically at the kitchen phone - but it could go to any jack first.  Then they daisy chained the rest of the jacks from there.  Some such multi-pair cables even carry all the dial tone lines for all the apartments, making it a risky proposition to "take over" an apparently "unused" pair for line seizure purposes.  We've run into a few phone lines that became cross-connected because of this.

    * Then, if they happen to be daisy-chained and you do identify the closest jack to the head end, you can't always be certain there are absolutely no other undiscovered jacks tapped in ahead of that point.

    * A common problem is that once you identify that "first" phone jack, there are not enough spare conductors to route line seizure via another existing jack that's closer to the alarm panel location.  Theoretically, if you can identify the head end, you can install a new 4-conductor RJ31X wire from there to the panel, but it may be too impractical.  It might require objectionable surface wiring or may be too costly; would have to be run around or up and down the outside of a building; would have to run across a hallway, fireplace hearth, tile floor, concrete steps, etc.

    * A detached garage that has its own separate alarm panel requires four conductors to tap the main house phone line.  Ideally it should have six conductors if there's also a phone in the garage.  Sometimes we find just one pair and the pipe is too clogged to pull in any more wires.

    * In other cases, including single family homes, there's a totally-hidden lightning protector and block somewhere above a drywalled basement ceiling or in an attic - perhaps under a thick layer of insulation or behind a ton of junk - and the head end simply cannot be found or accessed.  Separating the entire collection of phone devices from the source of dial tone could thus be impossible without substantially rewiring the premise.

    * Running a new cable to achieve line seizure is sometimes so cost prohibitive that the client won't pay for it.  Presumably you're not paying for it either.  A standoff on an unexpectedly expensive jack can result in a cancelled installation.

    Fortunately, there are a few solutions.  You just have to pick one that everybody can live with.

    * If the inability to establish line seizure is discovered during an original installation, the correct thing to do would be to deduct or adjust the jack fee and tell the subscriber they must have a professional phone installer do it, but we're leaving them with the "temporary" non-line-seizure connection that we were able to establish.  Make sure the client understands what line seizure is; signs off on the fact that there is no line seizure or only partial line seizure; understands that leaving particular phones off the hook will block alarm messages; and agrees that it's impossible/impractical for us to achieve it.  (Hopefully you can do all that customer education and butt-covering in less than two hours.)

    * Once the issue is identified and covered by a signoff, get your RJ31X ahead of as much customer equipment as possible.  Then hope for the best.  Mention the deficiency to the subscriber as often as circumstances allow.

    * Have the client order another phone line for the alarm.

    * Use a cellular or radio solution as the primary transport mode.   This trades one set of problems for a new set, but also covers some other potential liabilities.

    Regardless of whether you achieve full line seizure, someone can - and eventually will - unwittingly tap in ahead of your RJ31X.  We're constantly discovering such taps, along with back-fed dial tone and outright disconnections due to a change of telephone vendors.   It's not us and it's not our fault, but we'll get blamed.   Therefore, be vigilant.  Ask the subscriber as a matter of routine whether any work has been done on the phone system.  Your regular inspection service should include a visual spot check of the accessible phone wiring and the RJ31X tap-in point, plus a functional check to verify that line seizure hasn't been compromised.

    A final anecdote:  We lost an account when the phone repair man took over our RJ31X wire as a replacement for a lightning-damaged upper floor phone extension.  We made him come back and install his own new wire.  Then we returned and reconnected as before.  They billed the customer on a time sensitive basis, same as we did.  Their bill was over $600 and ours wasn't far behind.  That was over 15 years ago.  I estimate that the lost revenue falls somewhere between $3600 and $9000.  Should we have just kept our mouths shut and run ourselves a new wire?  Hmmm.  Today I would definitely cut them a break if they had a monthly repair agreement, though technically the repair would still not be covered.

All the best,

Lou Arellano

**********

RE:  UL Requirement

********

Yes UL requires the communicator SEIZE THE LINE AT THE DEMARK. 

    The  FCC REQUIRES THE RJ31X for connection of ANY DEVICE TO THE SWITCHED TELEPHONE NETWORK. (PSTN) as a Standard Network Interface

    You will find an FCC REGISTRATION NUMBER on any communicator manufactured since 1979. This registration number is evidence that the communicator will not interfere with public communications and has been approved for use by the FCC.

    FIRE requires the primary line to be dedicated for UL Listed systems.

Ground start lines (dial 9 first ) are NOT ALLOWED FOR FIRE Systems.

    (Unless your company IS a UL LISTED INSTALLING COMPANY you cannot issue a UL CERTIFICATE.)

((As an honest dealer you can indicate that ALL EQUIPMENT  IS UL LISTED FOR THE PURPOSE INSTALLED...)))

Joel Kent

FBN Security Co LLC

*************

    We were a UL listed Residential Company with 3 UL/FM Approved Central Stations.  We never had a single insurance company ask us for a certificate on a residential burglar system, so we dropped that listing as it was expensive.  Now, insurance companies are more interested if the Central Station is UL listed for fire monitoring, no certificate involved, just what requirement does the central station meet.  With an Insurance Certificate which can state the equipment, signals sent, active for monitoring etc. the insurance companies are satisfied.  Don't know the specs on UL Residential System now, but UL Commercial is explained somewhat below.

Also, when programming the *7 or *8 or any other prefix to the phone number you use, we always include the 800 number in the second number dialed in case something changes with their services.  If they say get rid of ground start lines, no 9 needed, if call waiting is dropped does the the number programmed to ignore that change the dialing?  Either way, with the second number is void of anything before the 1 if long distance then just the 7 digits, the panel's call will usually get through, even though it will be delayed while the panel tries unsuccessfully the first number.

BTW, the majority of our UL Commercial installations had AA line monitoring which was done through multiplex, AES Radio, Potter DW and the old McCullough LIT equipment so even though there was a digital dialer was present the primary signal was through AA equipment which did not require line seizure.  The digital dialer sent more information such as O/C, supervision signals etc.  It also sent the alarms, but by then the AA signal which was immediate had been dispatched and the runner in route.

Both Jim and Joel gave a very through explanation of the RJ31X.  If you are not using line seizure by running a cat 5 to the telco termination point and splitting incoming from house side, you sooner or later will get caught with a signal not getting through.  And as we all know, that will be the one you really, really needed to get through.

elmore@ix.netcom.com

John Elmore

Security By Elmore Inc

Birmingham, Alabama