July 11, 2011
Comments
Hi Ken,
We have created a separate waiver that the client signs when having us connect the alarm to a VoIP connection. Not all VoIP providers are the same so it informs them of the need to have a back up battery for their VoIP equipment to ensure that the phone continues to function and also tells them that changes made by their internet provider may cause their alarm to stop communicating reliably and that this is beyond our control. We certainly dont shy away from these installs. I have my own alarm on VoIP and its very reliable. We are however at the mercy of the provider.
Regards,
Kevin Buckland, Manager / Client Satisfaction
True Steel Security
**********
Ken,
I don't believe the "industry" is yet endorsing VOIP over POTS. I don't believe that there will ever be an endorsement, from the industry as whole, until such time that the VOIP providers can prove, point positive, that the connection, transmission of signal, maintenance, facility management, back up equipment, etc. is as reliable as the POTS network.
I am sure I will catch flack from those that are drinking the Kool-aid. I know that some of these products contain literature saying that the equipment does not work with alarm systems, but yet there are companies that will try to utilize the equipment anyway. Technicians for the VOIP companies use a scripted statement with the customer that the equipment may not work with their alarm system and require that a test signal be sent after the switch. Some are now simply mailing the equipment and leaving the homeowner on their own with an easy plug and play set of instructions. Any bets that the alarm system is never thought of? I am not sure if any of this VOIP equipment, i.e. modems that are going into the homes has been submitted to and tested by a third party testing laboratory, such as UL, and is listed for its full intended use, which would include to be used as a intrigal part of alarm transmission. I believe Karim mentioned that all modems in NY have battery back up. OK, but how long will those batteries last on a power outage. Security and fire alarms have a minimum requirement, which can vary, for their battery back up requirements. Do the modems meet the minimum for these different types of systems? Are the batteries in these modems supervised meaning that some sort of indicator, that cannot be ignored or bypassed, alerts the owner that there is a low battery problem on that device? It does not make for a good argument of reliability when being part of an assembly if the alarm panel requires a minimum of 4, 10, 12, 18 hours of continuous battery back up if the modem that is in place has no battery, 10 minute, 20 minute, 1 hour, etc of battery backup time. Some of this equipment is transportable and can be taken from the home at times. What happens to the alarm signal at that point? Does the homeowner even realize the consequences? Is the power source secured in a manner comparable to the securing requirement of an alarm panel power device? What is happening on the other end of the network?
Just this last week in SE Florida, AT&T lost their internet service to over 218,000 locations due to a server issue. They were down for over 3 hours. How do I know the number? The tech support person offered the information when I inquired about my loss of internet. Should critical information be divulged to whoever calls in when there may be security issues at hand? The people that are coming into that end of the business are coming into an area that will require a different mind set and level of responsibility. Right now security is the furthest thing from their mind if they think of it at all.
I do understand and agree with Mr. Meyers that the industry cannot bury their heads in the sand about the inevitable. POTS will go away as some point. The manufacturers will have to step up which they are starting to do. However, this is a highway with multiple lanes and all involved will need to head down this path together while working out the kinks along the way or it will be the public that is at risk. Right now, the only ones that I see endorsing VOIP are the telecommunications industry, the computer industry, and intergrators which many are the new kids on the block that have had a computer in their hand since first grade. Everything new and fast is really cool. This is their world. They are mesmerized by technology but at the same time not necessarily considering the down side when it comes to the necessity of reliability. If they get kicked off the internet, no problem, they just log back on. If their text message doesn't go through right away, no problem, it really wasn't important anyway.
This is not acceptable in the world of security and fire alarm transmission. Their lust for technology is great because these industries and folks are the ones that will carry us into the future. However, let it be said that we cannot forget and they should not ignore the mission of the security and fire alarm industry and that is we are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people we serve. We do not want to move so fast with new technology that we fail to provide this service. By some promoting technology that is, at this point in my opinion, less reliable than what the industry was built on should not be considered an endorsement by the industry. It would be for your world Ken, to look at any liabilities that may be looming when something is sold, installed or used that is known to be not reliable should there be an incident, especially if there are other options. At what point is the liability transferred to the homeowner or the VOIP provider should this change of telecommication service occur after the initial sale and install without the company's knowledge? It is my understanding that we cannot transfer or contract away negligence. Is there negligence if one is promoting a technology that is know to have intermittencies? At what point do we as an industry go out and with good conscience sell the latest and greatest IP equipment? Right know I believe we are in a Catch 22.
Robert M. Worthy CPP. President
Secur Technologies, Inc.
***********
Ken
Insurance provides defense and or indemnification Coverages and also can help to mitigate Alarm Contracts Limitations of Liability ---if and when the Coverages and or Case Law support Liabilities and or exposures. Disclaimer Notices are not Coverages---- Today the Internet and or wireless is the communications path for all computers , it also affects Security Installations & IP Monitoring with new exposures regarding Insurance and Legal Understanding-- and endorsements.
Is the Security Industry ready for a class action Identity Theft Breach Law suit against an alarm dealer??? Does the GL Policy and the Alarm
Contract address this Liability???
This is one of the top ten (10) exposures facing the Security Industry today we need to be clear from a Insurance & Legal standpoint we are Prepared to protect Security.
Mike Kelly
Michael J. Kelly Insurance Agency
www.mjkinsurance.com
**********
The warning may be good to keep, but the wording may be modified to something like alarm system manufacturer specified (or recommended) communication path. Let the alarm manufacturers make up their mind, or bite the bullet.
Dusan
*************
Ken,
In answer to your question the POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) line as we have known it will be gone soon. POTS is delivered over the legacy "Circuit Switched Telephone Network" that has served us since before Lilly Tomlin ever put on an operators headset. That network is going away. On Jan 6 2010 AT&T filed a petition with the FCC requesting a date be set for the sunset of the Circuit Switched Telephone Network and I believe 2014 is the target date in that request. The Telcos are spending $$$$ maintaining those phone switches for the old network while nationwide over a million copper wire customers are disconnecting from those legacy switches every month. The cost is still there whether the switch handles 30,000 lines or 12 lines so the Telcos want to force a sunset of the old network.
New customers are being handled by wireless or network based phone systems that use "Packet Switched Telephony" where your voice becomes small packets of data that are sent over various networks and re-assembled at the destination and converted back to voice for the user at the other end. The efficiency and lower CAPEX and OPEX of these new networks have already been demonstrated and the migration of our telephone network from circuit switching to packet switching started some 10 to 15 years ago. Some of this packet switched network has been in use for many years for inter-city and long distance circuits. VOIP is a system that converts voice to packet switched telephony for transmission over TELCO or other data networks such as the Internet. For various technical reasons the common alarm dialer will be less reliable over a packet switched (VOIP) line than a circuit switched line. That could range from a few percent less reliable on a high quality VOIP line to 99% less reliable over a low grade VOIP circuit. These variations depend on the quality of service from the VOIP provider but also depend greatly on the quality of the customers network access on internet connection. Packet switched telephony will of course improve as it becomes the standard for telephone communication over the next decade but it is designed specifically to convert VOICE to data and back and is not currently and will likely never be designed to transmit data like we send from a dialer. Sending Dialer data over VOIP is like putting a truck on a train car the putting the train car on a truck to haul it, doesn't make much sense right? converting alarm DATA to VOICE then back to packet DATA for transmission is very similar. Why would you build a network to move DATA then convert the DATA to VOICE (dialer tones) then back to DATA before sending it. That is exactly the process used when we send dialer signals over VOIP. Because the standard of reliability that we have seen for decades with the POTS line is no longer required of the largely unregulated VOIP services the reliability of the dialer for alarm transmission must now be in question.
As an industry I believe the future will not contain dialers so we need to revise our agreements to encompass all of the various transmission means which are now or may in the future be available for alarm signaling. In the meantime we need specific language to cover the transition from POTS to VOIP and others. Often the dealer has no idea that the customer changes their phone service and indeed may find out when the customer calls to report a burglary that was not received by the central. We can not simply replace all of the dialers with direct network connections next week, that transition will take place over the next several years so we will need to contractually address this customer line conversion issue for the rest of the decade until dialers are no longer part of our business.
Ken, thanks for providing this forum and hopefully many of the dealers that read it will learn from the information presented and benefit from it.
Mike Fletcher
Heeth LLC
Fire Alarm Training and Consulting
Tampa, Fl
*************
Ken
In reply to your response, I'd say it is time to curtail warning against using VoIP over POTS. Within the foreseeable future, POTS will phased out altogether leaving us with other transmission technology . The only drawback presently is the AHJs accepting VoIP in some municipalities for primary fire transmission.
Regards,
Ron Petrarca