May 18, 2011

 

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

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

Comments

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

Ken;

As usual your forum provides in INTERNATIONAL network where all companies can share knowledge and ideas for the betterment of the industry and our bottom line.

With regard to the VOIP issue, where a manufacturer has come out and said they do not endorse or recommend VOIP, and indicate that POTS lines are the only telephone path they have usually provided ALTERNATE and RELIABLE communication paths.

BROADBAND or IP monitoring where the alarm panel is connected to the customers broad band router, either cable company or wire line phone provider allow the alarm panel to communicate over the internet. THis differs from VOIP because this is not a VOICE CHANNEL. Broadband IP based is a DATA CHANNEL ONLY. ((UL has accepted this method for FIRE communications))

In addition to the BROADBAND IP signal transmission path, GSM radio, UHF Radio or RADIO REPEATER systems are all available in our toolbox to be used as a backup or secondary path.

Our industry is prepared for the exodus of POTS lines as more and more customers stop using the traditional wired phones in our homes and businesses.

I have a customer that bought a device for $89.00 that makes all of his wired phones in his house answer and dial out on a cell phone. (((The phones in the house work seamlessly just like a POTS line but it is all using his cellular phone,))(((He had his cell provider port his old HOME number to a cell phone....))))

Thanks again Ken for shareing.

Joel Kent

FBN Security Co LLC

Windsor CT

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

Ken,

The POTS lines are going away as of February 2014. AT&T has already put the Sunset clause request before Congress. Just like the old analog TV's, the old POTS are going away. The burden is on the manufacturers to create solutions. Might I suggest Cellular Only monitoring for fire and security. With fire, there is no need for a secondary means of communication if you use the cellular option.

I Hayden

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

Ken,

Our Central Station has installed a new system to receive VOIP communications. We must buy the manufacturer’s VOIP dialer to use this service. The company who supplies the equipment is out of Canada LoBenn. Our Central Station just installed this and I believe certified it about a week ago. They claim this is now certified for Fire Alarm communications. We have not yet bought a dialer to test out the system and I have not seen the certification on the equipment and installation.

We too have had situations where we suddenly have interruptions in comms. from blocks of panels using POTS lines in specific areas. I believe Qwest is changing over equipment in areas to digital and sometimes it takes a few days for it to “settle out”; probably tweaking by Qwest engineers who are watching traffic streams. I have had to insert many pauses before the ph number string in older panels with older comm. formats to get them to communicate consistently over POTS lines that Qwest states they have done nothing to. These panels were communicating fine for years and years and suddenly our central station tells us the panel is sending un-interpretable data. As soon as we make some adjustments to the phone number string in programming, which I believe is allowing for the data to get synchronized and the comm. path to become stable, everything is communicating fine again.

Of course when we follow up with Qwest customer service and our customers do the same, Qwest states that there is no problem on their end. I think we will continue to see more issues with POTS comms. as the large carriers continue their progression to support VOIP instead of POTS service.

Keith CO

 

***********

 

Ken

Regarding VOIP and dropped messages, if you carefully monitor your panel downloads and digital alarm transmissions, you can detect the very brief signal dropouts and a few other anomalies (like static, incorrect audio levels, periods of one-way-only, failures-to-connect and error recordings on 800 calls) that occur due to digital transmission and various general phone system malfunctions. The dropouts are brief enough that a voice message is not bothered. An alarm message, however, depends on a clean connection and then all the bits getting through unbroken. Given that the alarm industry cannot possibly replace all of its transmitters, and given that POTS is on the way out, it's my opinion that the final solution will be software/firmware upgrades and further debugging in the phone network itself that change how the existing equipment behaves. In the same fashion that conventional dial up modems were gradually improved through software solutions so they could reliably handle binary data at 56k, there must be some things that the Telcos can do to reliably transport a simple contact ID message.

We need to mobilize our alarm associations to put some heat on the Telcos to remedy the bad system behavior fouling up our Contact ID and other transmissions. If enough people complain, they will come up with permanent solutions. They have invested an enormous amount of money into the digital infrastructure and they won't be willing to trash the apparatus that is causing these troubles for alarm companies unless we put some real heat on them.

Part of the problem is they’re not bound to a “Building Code” like we are for our fire systems. If there were a code that says every telco system must reliably do this, this and that, then the ball would start rolling.

Lou Arellano

 

***********

 

Ken,

the hard and true answer for Todd Smith with Shadow Alarms concerning Honeywell's refusal to support VoIP is to stop using the product. It's not superior in any way to other products. I can remember a manufacturer that made panels that were very susceptible to lightning damage; and giggled about it. We stopped using any of their products 25 years ago when we discovered that sort of attitude. There are other examples. Obviously this isn't going to wiggle their corporate-worth graph, but it will reward the manufacturers that do give good technical support. So the short answer is; Honeywell does this because they can get by with it. Don't let them or any other equipment-maker treat you that way. I know that doesn't cover your situation with current systems but Ken's contracts will resolve that.

 

Zeke Lay

Comtec

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

HI Ken--

Your Alarm contracts has a disclaimer on the use of VoIP , but you “Limitations of Liability extends to either Pots Line or VoIP/ Internet services & monitoring----Right. !!!

On the Insurance side of coverage’s—the GL/E&O policy does not extend to VoIP Liabilities such as: ID theft Liability, Virus monitoring disconnect Liability, Frailer of Services / CCTV/ Access Control / Video due to “Virus Breach”, etc---the need for a Network Security –E&O Liability will cover these and other VoIP exposures. I have a separate Network E&O Security Policy for VoIP expoures.

Thanks==As Always

Mike Kelly

www.alarmchannel.com