[Leave Security To The Experts?...]

EN signalling standards require the device to be protected from substitution. Messages and polls also need to be substitution and encrypted which the UK and European test houses can approve products to. You can go further and get your solution penetration tested too. If your buying products which havent been tested under the EN framework then your going to be vulnerable. Make sure your installing products that have been tested to "do what they say on the tin".

[Super Arcs]

That's a novel approach. Certainly AMS software is proven to handle hundreds of thousands of connections - you only have to look at the scale of systems in the US where an ARC literally monitors millions of connections. The ability to route alarms is not a simple task - though is built into ATS providers receivers (because ATS providers have hosted and direct architectures for alarm delivery to AMS systems). In the UK we are seeing more and more smaller ARCs started by installers who have enough connection volume to warrant providing their own services - a remote architecture and software for them to use/manage would certainly be an option. 

[Convergence - Where Will It Lead?]

Convergence requires integration of diverse products at the premises and delivery of the data from each of those systems to an operator screen or diagnostic platform. If you go the route of using an individual "manufacturers own" comms device for every panel, DVR, camera etc you won't get the "integrated" feel/performance needed for confirmation and management. You'll also get variances in the way these comms systems operate, protect the data (i.e. many different types of encryption and key management), are supported and approved. Asking the AMS at the ARC to "manage" the comms (polling, encryption/decryption, statistics, fault flood control etc) for every type of manufacturers device is a big task - and possibly undesirable. ARCs could end up with AMS software which is bloated, requires ever more regular updates and hardware improvements to manage such a diverse set of tasks. Using ATS providers to deliver the integration at the premises (i.e. a communicator with multiple data interfaces to legacy and modern equipment such as panels, DVRs, cameras etc) also requires a receiver or management platform in a hosted environment or at the ARC. The disadvantage for ARCs is that there is more equipment to manage, but the advantage is that those receivers are dedicated to a specialised task - taken the burden off the AMS which was designed specifically for event management. For installers, using an ATS provider to deliver a comms path for UDL to diverse platforms means that the security and dial up costs are taken care of - as well as the complexity of access to the site (either via a call or via the firewall). If using individual comms devices to achieve this the firewall configuration (or number of different types of modem) becomes unweildy, difficult to manage and undesirable for the end customer. A hard subject to convey everything in "text", but if our view is that if you want all your information delivered to an operator screen, and you want secure remote access to your devices then an integrated ATS provider approach can deliver you the "signalling architecture" you need.