PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
1 edit | VoIP and Burglar Alarms: Bold thinking or old thinking? What kinds of experiences have people had with using VoIP (or other telco alternatives) with burglar alarm systems?
From what I'm reading and hearing, some alarm companies feel that there are genuine technical problems, while others just seem stubborn. This is a barrier to more widespread acceptance of VoIP.
The movie industry was horrified when TV came around---until they slowly realized that TV gave them a whole new market! Today we'd call that "providing content".
Likewise, are there some alarm companies that realize that this can be a great opportunity, while others have the idea that "if a phone line ain't copper it just ain't proper". |
|
| There can be problems sometimes. Also more places for the system to fail. For commercial fire alarms that require two pots or pots grade lines I doubt voip will be accepted for quite awhile, Ok maybe as one of the lines but still a pots backup to the VOIP. |
|
kwest
join:2003-05-15
Dallas, GA
1 edit | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:What kinds of experiences have people had with using VoIP (or other telco alternatives) with burglar alarm systems? From what I'm reading and hearing, some alarm companies feel that there are genuine technical problems, while others just seem stubborn. This is a barrier to more widespread acceptance of VoIP. I have worked for an alarm company for the past two years and we run into this problem 2 or 3 times a week and I can tell you first hand that alarm systems using the industry standard contact ID format will NOT work over VOIP, the ONLY VOIP service we find that a alarm system will work with reliably is Comcast digital voice, with all other VOIP systems what we do to work around this problem is to set the panels to call out using one of the old 1980's formats like 3+1, 4+1, 4+2 until we get it to work with one of them.
Modern contact ID uses high speed DTMF and VOIP can't handle this but the old formats are slow 300 and 1200 baud communications. With contact ID the panel will send the name of the alarm zone such as "front door" and the old slow formats send zone numbers like just "1" or "01" so we have to send in a list to the monitoring station saying ok if you get a "1" this is front door and if you get a "2" this is back door and so on this leaves room for error because the monitoring station then must program these zones by hand in their computer system. So it is not a matter of acceptance it is truly a technical issue that the voip companies need to address.
So when using voip other than Comcast the only choices as far as I know are...
A-use older communication format panel.
B-use cellular link instead of phone line.
C-use Nextalarm.com using An ABN(monthly rate has gotten to high)
The problem best we can tell is the VOIP companies have to address this issue, the problem could be the ATA's. the gateways, who knows, Faxing has the same issue it is hit or miss on VOIP |
|
| said by kwest:So when using voip other than Comcast the only choices as far as I know are... A-use older communication format panel. B-use cellular link instead of phone line. C-use Nextalarm.com using An ABN(monthly rate has gotten to high) Let's clear up this whole "VoIP and Alarms don't mix" statement.
Let me clarify why people think that alarm systems do not work with VoIP. Firstly, a VoIP service provider has control over some of the network settings (namely the codec) between your VoIP adapter and the number you are calling. All they care about is providing crystal clear human voice for their customers. They do not care about your alarm system and it just so happens that many of the technologies used in providing clear human voice have a deteremental affect on alarm signal transmission.
Something outside of everyones control is network jitter - or latency. In simple terms - delays from one end to the other. VoIP service providers try their best to work around it - once again at the expense of alarm transmission.
At this stage you must be thinking that alarms do not work with VoIP and although it is possible to get some good signals thru - the statement rings true.
So, let's take the VoIP service provider out of the equation and what you are left with is a "raw" Internet connection. Place a specially provisioned Linksys ATA at the protected premises and an IP receiver at the Monitoring Center and what you have in effect is your own private network - a "controlled" path to the Monitoring Center. Even though the data still travels over the public internet, you have full control of the optimsation technologies and you can adjust them to suit how an alarm panel works - not a human voice.
There are actually two technically different ways to make alarm systems work over IP but please excuse me if I don't give away too many of my secrets.
In summary, armed with an off the shelf Linksys VoIP adapter that is provisioned for alarm monitoring as opposed to human voice, it is 100% reliable to send alarms over the internet. I know this because I provide Alarm Monitoring Centers worldwide with the technology to do this - see ipalarms dot net.
The availability of the internet connection obviously cannot be gauranteed, however, at least with the advantage of line supervision over IP you will get to know about loss of network or line cut within a few minutes. The Linksys SPA3102 has an FXO port that can be used for fallback to POTS or cellular dialler if you do not have full confidence in your internet up time.
So there you have it. That's what all the fuss is about |
|
|
|
 usa2kBlessedPremium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Canton, MI
kudos:3
·VOIPo
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: VoIP and Burglar Alarms: Bold thinking or old thinking? I would check out »NextAlarm.com for an IP approach, rather than try and make an analog system work over an improper solution.
I would similarly say this about FAX also. There are web options that don't take a poor fit like VoIP to run it over. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to PX Eliezer
Re: VoIP and Burglar Alarms: Bold thinking or old thinking? Thanks to all for these informative posts!
It does look like some alarm service providers are seeing the opportunity here and responding with new technology.
It is unfortunate that most VoIP companies have largely ignored this. Unfortunate for the whole industry because it constitutes a barrier to acceptance of VoIP and forces many people to keep a backup POTS line.
Still, VoIP companies are probably afraid to promote alarm capability, because of the liability risks. Easier for a VoIP provider to say it's not recommended. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to PX Eliezer
One of my clients recently moved, and with the move ended up with a new alarm system. It uses the Internet primarily, with the landline only as a backup. The alarm company likes it because they can manage things remotely.
If your alarm's only circuit to the outside world is over VoIP (other than VoIP provided by your circuit provider, like Cox, Comcast, or what have you), there's not really anything to be gained by having it dial in at all.
Personally, if I were the sort to have an alarm, I'd buy a metered rate land line. It's only a few dollars a month. You can't get anything like that from cable, although there are a few VoIP providers with similar rates. (Future Nine and at&t charge about the same for the same 200 outgoing minutes, and both with essentially unlimited incoming)
I'm currently paying $13 a month for an unlimited minute landline with no features whatsoever. (yes, that includes tax, as does the metered rate figure) Luckily, touch tone is free now. Otherwise it would be $14. 
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 | reply to kwest
Why are burglar alarms phone and not internet based? |
|
 christcorpPremium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
kudos:1 | reply to PX Eliezer
The problem is with the alarm companies, fax machine companies, etc...
When a fax machine first came out; the phone company did not change their technology so a fax machine could work on it. Neither did Ma'Bell change things so a Dial Up modem would work on the phones. Neither did Ma'Bell change their equipment so an alarm would work on it. These devices DEVELOPED their equipment to work on the media available. That is the natural means of technology.
Actiontec, Cisco, etc... built their modems to work on DSL specs. Ford, Chevy, etc... build cars to work on ROAD. They don't demand the department of transportation to build roads to certain automobile specs.
If VOIP is a market that alarm companies want to cater to, then they need to build their equipment to deal with Voip packets instead of streaming analog. Same with Brother and other Fax machine companies. If a company was smart, they wouldn't try to change their system. They would design, or contract for design, for a simple Analog to digital converter. All it would require is a buffer system that can keep the 2 ends "Alive". Either way, the problem is with the manufacturers of the devices and not the media that it rides on. |
|
| It may all come down to the fact that phone & power are delivered separately. Thus, if a power outage happens, the alarm's backup has enough juice to analog-dial for help.
If the power went out, there might be several boxes that require battery backup to ensure the IP network remains running (router/switch, Network adapter, etc.).
So the rule of KISS may be coming into play. Simple analog lines may be more reliable than IP. Catastrophes not included. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:12 Reviews:
·voip.ms
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·Vitelity VOIP
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
1 edit | reply to christcorp
Thanks for thoughtful analysis!
Historical note of interest: It actually was AT&T that largely developed the original 20th century fax machines. So, yes, the fax machines were compatible with traditional telco lines from the beginning.
More info:
»www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputat···fax.html
In terms of names, telefacsimile became telefax became fax. |
|
BruceNHi
join:2006-11-17
Roswell, GA | reply to PX Eliezer
In my own life, before VoiceStick, I was the owner of a high volume company that sold surplus computer parts.
I had break ins all the time, worse our telco was the pits. They had a dirty line feed that lacked enough pairs. Eveytime you saw the PacBell truck you wondered if they had just stold your clean pair and gave it to someone else.
It got real bad, so I had Charter bring in a cable and I signed up for Vonage, made it my line 6 and also put the alarm on it.
After months of nagging the phone company they ran a new 150 pair cable into the park.
A week later some fools with a chain saw came into the cabinet pedestal and sliced the new line then started to break in. I had left my alarm on Vonage.
The bell scared them away, and one hour later I got there, then the Riverside PD showed.
The moral of the story, be in the computer business, trust Voip, and never do business in Riverside, Ca. |
|
 rec9140Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL | reply to PX Eliezer
At this point in time alarms and VOIP are not reliable.
An alarm system falls into the mission critical phase ie:
protection of life and property
There are larger amounts of anomalies that can occur on a connection via the internet v. a POTS or RF link.
That said, POTS and RF links can have their issues too. At this time none of the various AOIP are acceptable in my opinion. (I deal with this for work, and I don't accept AOIP. You will FAIL the inspection.) Your insurance company also may not accept anything other than POTS, or RF. In the event of claim they could deny a loss if the alarm didn't alert public safety due to AOIP issues.
In the future maybe the alarm industry, the ISP industry, networking vendors and etc. will all work together  to create a reliable AOIP.
Till then get a RF (cellular based) alarm if you want to dump POTS. Otherwise stick with pots for the alarm. Its pretty much the only mode that will meet codes/alarm ordinances in most areas. Your area may vary.
--
Ban all copyright, trademarks, and IP laws!//Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
| reply to PX Eliezer
First off, putting one of those "Protected by" stickers or signs out simply tells a would be robber to cut the phone line first. To that end, a POTS-based alarm is inheriently insecure. There should always be a backup, be it IP or RF or cellular, or what-not.
Back in the day, an alarm typically ran over a dry line, that is, a twisted pair that didn't have a dialtone and fed right to the alarm company. So when the Bell companies (SBC/Bellsouth, I'm looking your way) all of a sudden couldn't provide dry lines for DSL, it was a total load of BS.
Anyway, all alarms using a phone line operate on simply sending audio over the connection, be it DTMF or FSK-like data. There are two things standing in the way of that functionality on VoIP: DTMF relay and compressing codecs. The first is usually required due to the second.
Methods of DTMF relay involve one end point detecting DTMF generated on that end and sending an instruction to the other end to re-create the DTMF signal it detected; the DTMF signal is not sent as pure audio. Some endpoint devices are fairly good at this, others are very bad (Linksys Sipura chipsets, I'm looking at you now). The reason that these schemes are needed are that compressing codecs lose some of the definition of the audio due to lower bitrates and/or sample rates.
A possible solution is to disable DTMF relay and use a codec that doesn't perform compression: G.711u for North America, G.711a for Europe. These codecs are what ISDN circuits use to digitize audio on their respective areas, so most media gateways that connect to the PSTN world won't need to do any transcoding, reducing the possibility of loss of the signal. The downside is that doing this usually breaks the use of DTMF for other purposes, such as voicemail or navigating IVRs. |
|
 blohner
join:2002-06-26
Cortlandt Manor, NY
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Google Voice
·ooma
·Vonage
| reply to PX Eliezer
I would say it strongly depends. I am running on VoIP only and my alarm is running over VoIP (no choice unless I get a new console) with no trouble.
My Internet is more stable than POTS ever was. Might have to do with my POTS lines coming from about 5 miles away, load coils and all - while the Fiber Node from the Cable Company is almost in sight of my house...
Cable for me in all outages I had was also self healing (e.g. the outage was the whole area - someone calls - it get's fixed) vs. phone was almost never self healing and out around 1-2 times a year... Now if I travel for 2-3 weeks (regular vacation) and the phone goes out and noone notices the alarm won't be able to talk to central for 2-3 weeks. If the cable goes out there is a good chance that it's back after a few hours...
My router, VoIP adapter and switches are on a UPS that provides power for much longer then the UPS for the computers etc so I am pretty good during a power outage...
And then I would also think most thieves would cut the phone lines at the pedestal on the street corner (unless they are really stupid) - but how many would cut the cable tv line? hmmm...
--
I am addicted to speed --- OOL speed that is --- |
|
