Carl Meason

Do we give thoughtful technical consideration to the future when providing customers signalling? Digital communicators are becoming a less utilised method of alarm transmission thats true but do we need to give up on the Dinosaur? With manufactures developing more intuitive devices and offering additional added extras such as, Remote Maintenance, meaning you can omit 1 of your 2 maintenace vists, UPDL for remote diagnostics, visual verification for intruder and HUA without costly DVR's and the ability to integrate with other devices giving you added features to sell, should we see the end? These added extras means the installer and/or ARC can tidy up the balance sheet and account for any added annual costs. Easy sell to the customer too, saves on phone call charges and the customer has the ability if the so wished to save on a telephone line. Many installers are steadfast in an approach of only processing 'futureproofed' technologies with a view for tomorrow but many continue to install this type of signalling and Digital communicators still makes up a significant percentage of the UK's signalling estate. For those still installing or maintaining this form of signalling could it be time for a review? Do we continue until the switch is turned off? Its a certain inevitability that this technology will be extinct in the future, but how near is this future? what is the realistic shelf life of the Digital Communicator?

Is an unregulated industry the future? Companies that operate outside the parameters of the BS & EN standards but attempt to offer services within its scope are on the increase...nothing new you say.... ...yes thats true, what is new though is that growing sympathy is swelling for the unregulated and possibly these companies are even seen as forward thinking by some rightly or wrongly, although this debate will certainly cause conflict it does raise an important issue of how and why these companies can offten operate and offer the same services as the regulated? ACPO are currently discussing the growing number of calls for LWD attendance without URNs. At the same time there are companies claiming ACPO support and guaranteed police response without demonstrating accreditation. Unregulated security companies are falsely advertising as "Police approved", "secured by design approved" and claiming adherance to BS and EN standards, interesting, what is to stop these companies from operating in this manner? I have spoken with various people within the industry and it is apparent that there is a lack of faith in the current mechanism to ensure that only accredited companies achieve a police response. This could potentialy erode the legitamacy of our trade. Has has there been a lack of collaboration between trade bodies and inspectorates? Is there a risk that more companies will move to this unregulated, less costly approach? Are industry trade bodies approaching this issue robustly enough? Has your business been affected by unregulated trade?

Test! This is why we have standards, rules and regulations. Was this product proved to be of a suitable state? Was the installer acredited in any way? If the answers are yes we have a problem. If the answers are no do we need to worry?