21 Cn

[Guest anguscanplay]

hi Angus,

are you saying GT's digis are not compliant if so any idea why? or did you mean slowing/extending the tx rate because it would be seen as a slightly backwards step, more like the older 'slow format'.

would be odd as we are talking say 1 - 2 seconds more delay at most, but better chance of a successful communication 1st time over the 'media' path being supplied.

regs

alan

just doesnt comply with the time limitations as far as I have been told - something jitter ? is the main problem, but as you know I dont really do tech, I`m more a hit it with a hammer type of guy

[IPAlarms]

just found a bullet in from Gardtec,

they have been trialling there communicators which all operate ok.

Of course they operate OK - there is nobody using 21CN yet. The network is perfect and running at peak performance.

OMG - it's like the blind leading the blind.

the audiable signals will be multiplexed, so i think the cure is to extend the tone time windows to overcomes the delays in switching.

Wrong. The cure is to convert to equipment that has been designed from the outset to work over IP.

[IPAlarms]

surely the simplest work-a-round is for bt to have in their software a 'step' which prevents multiplexing for devices which issue an 'enquiery' tone?

would save all this hassle at a single stroke.

Let's think about that for a moment.

Optimise the network for crystal clear voice and keep tens of millions of customers happy or change it to suit a few hundred thousand digis and jeopordise our "Digi Replacement Strategy" ?

Arf - there is no BT software, the network runs on SIP. The problems only occur when the network is under load and try as you may - it cannot be fixed.

[Guest anguscanplay]

Of course they operate OK - there is nobody using 21CN yet. The network is perfect and running at peak performance.

Wrong. The cure is to convert to equipment that has been designed from the outset to work over IP.

I typed both of those points then thought better LOL, by designed from the start are we asuming you mean your adaptor or a whole ground up new way of thinking?

I`ve heard some "panel free" ideas been talked about

[IPAlarms]

I typed both of those points then thought better LOL, by designed from the start are we asuming you mean your adaptor or a whole ground up new way of thinking?

Not just my adapters - those of Emizon, Webway, Chiron and Terrier too.

A new way of thinking would be nice too. Problem is, a lot of us have been inside the security box for far too long to think that there may possibly be better things outside of it.

I`ve heard some "panel free" ideas been talked about

...and from my experience - probably laughed about too.

Here's my angle on this - and I'd like to hear yours too (promise I won't laugh).

I will use my Alarm Management software product as an example. Going back a few years, we used to write MS Windows applications and send them out on floppy disks and later CD's to our customers. A year down the road when Microsoft updated Windows and advised us that all the programs we had sold would no longer work on the newer version, we had to send out updates to each of our customers. (They have just done it again with Vista)

Then some bright spark threw the internet at us and gave us this clunky thing called a browser ( - there's no way that puppy was going to take off). Then Microsoft said - why not write your program just the once, plonk it on a server and have all your customers connect to that server when they use your software ?

Yeah - like that's going to happen !!!

Well, strangely enough the banks started offering internet banking, a weird looking thing called Google appeared and all of a sudden it became a reality. Now when we make a change to our software, it is made once on the server and the customer usually does not even get to know about it. And they all lived happily ever after.

Getting back to the "panel-less" alarm system - it is now so easy to store all the system parameters on a server. Our IP board for one could easily operate as an alarm panel leaving only the bare minimum of settings within the board itself. The downsides will come flooding in, so I will just mention a couple of the upsides...

1. Programming. Done via a web browser from an experienced person rather than a tired, stressed junior installer after a hard days graft.

2. Software upgrades. No need to attend site next time ACPO move the goal posts.

... and so on...

[arfur mo]

Let's think about that for a moment.

Optimise the network for crystal clear voice and keep tens of millions of customers happy or change it to suit a few hundred thousand digis and jeopordise our "Digi Replacement Strategy" ?

Arf - there is no BT software, the network runs on SIP. The problems only occur when the network is under load and try as you may - it cannot be fixed.

you will have to bare with me, i'm not into remote signaling these days (due to URN restrictions) so i have not read to deeply into the finer points of this new technology.

to clarify Gartec (the kit i favour) have sent out a bulletin claiming all their kit operates properly under full test lab condition within the peraneters laid down by BT.

i'm old enough so not gullible enough to be one who see's a bench test as a full fiate test but until it's rolled out, i have no 'evidence' against them, and i do still have several monitored systems in operation all with recent digi's fitted as i moved the systems to confirmed signals, so i do need to keep apace of any possible ill effects.

it's not just alarm digi's there are modems, fax machines, private monitoring like councils have for schools and libraries, and miriad of other kit which will need to overcome the new restrictions. so i don't think BT can be blaisy and overlook this client base, as problems could be costly and very very bad publicity for them - they also have a duty of care.

regs

alan

[IPAlarms]

you will have to bare with me, i'm not into remote signaling these days (due to URN restrictions) so i have not read to deeply into the finer points of this new technology.

to clarify Gartec (the kit i favour) have sent out a bulletin claiming all their kit operates properly under full test lab condition within the peraneters laid down by BT.

i'm old enough so not gullible enough to be one who see's a bench test as a full fiate test but until it's rolled out, i have no 'evidence' against them, and i do still have several monitored systems in operation all with recent digi's fitted as i moved the systems to confirmed signals, so i do need to keep apace of any possible ill effects.

it's not just alarm digi's there are modems, fax machines, private monitoring like councils have for schools and libraries, and miriad of other kit which will need to overcome the new restrictions. so i don't think BT can be blaisy and overlook this client base, as problems could be costly and very very bad publicity for them - they also have a duty of care.

Arf - you are thinking like an honest man. I suffer from the same problem and sometimes get taken advantage of.

Something tells me that BT are not being totally honest - but I just can't figure out why just yet - unless they secretly own Emizon ?

Either they don't care about modems, fax machines, private monitoring like councils have for schools and libraries, and miriad of other kit that you mention - or they are up to something

VoIP (21CN if you like) hit the alarm industry hard 5 years ago in the US and continues to do so today. The difference is, their industry bodies paid for all the studies and experiments and concluded a long time ago that ALARMS DO NOT WORK OVER VOIP - or 21CN in our case.

BT can't tell us that they do not know all about that

[Guest anguscanplay]

.

to clarify Gartec (the kit i favour) have sent out a bulletin claiming all their kit operates properly under full test lab condition within the peraneters laid down by BT.

youve obviously not read the bit where it says they all need new chips then ( at a cost too) and a special (there words not mine LOL) tool to insert them

telling you - prodigies, forget them in a few years time

and why are you doing confirmation upgrades ( your secretly an NSI gold on the side arn`t you PMSL)

[chemical]

Something tells me that BT are not being totally honest - but I just can't figure out why just yet - unless they secretly own Emizon ?

Thankfully, I can assure you Emizon are not owned by RedCARE

VoIP (21CN if you like) hit the alarm industry hard 5 years ago in the US and continues to do so today. The difference is, their industry bodies paid for all the studies and experiments and concluded a long time ago that ALARMS DO NOT WORK OVER VOIP - or 21CN in our case.

Couldn't agree more. Several large building societies came a cropper recently. They use there phone system for alarm signal transmissions through to the ARC. The phone system got upgraged to an IP based system... and the 'Fail to Communicate' messages flooded in from the staff in the branches.

[arfur mo]

youve obviously not read the bit where it says they all need new chips then ( at a cost too) and a special (there words not mine LOL) tool to insert them

telling you - prodigies, forget them in a few years time

and why are you doing confirmation upgrades ( your secretly an NSI gold on the side arn`t you PMSL)

naught to do with being NSI gold.

i did not see any reference to the need for upgrade or a tool, will see if i can dig it out and have another look

i still have several systems on digi monitoring in the london area, as systems went dodgy or other facilities required like g-tag (usually older scannies on sequencial timed confirm) they got replaced.

as improvements or innovations come on line, as i'm sure you do i advise my clients of the benefits - simple as, obviously confirmed signals with 1st knock key holder only, reduces the risk of Police blacklisting, so makes perfect sense to upgrade that systems signaling and so to keep the regular income for monitoring.

regs

alan