from my point of view i have enough to do witjhout managing additional mobile costs. plus im sure my buying power is a lot weaker than the signalling provider guys

from my point of view i have enough to do witjhout managing additional mobile costs.

....and the result is that systems end up on log only. Get where I'm coming from James?

....and the result is that systems end up on log only. Get where I'm coming from James?

Agree, back to not being consistant.

Reporting has to be , or rather failed path has to be INSTANT .

Red care GSM is still the bizz for me.

How so ipalarms?

What difference does it make it I pay for the sim or someone else does?

How so ipalarms?

What difference does it make it I pay for the sim or someone else does?

none at all.

Don't the insurance companies dictate how often the device has to poll ?

Thought it where defined in 50131 ? (polling time & faults in grades?)

On one system, a device may be in an ideal location for a particular network provider and be able to maintain a solid connection. On a second system, the device may be in a notoriously bad area and suffer regular outages. The two systems should not be forced to use the same client or server side polling/checking intervals.

other nextwork can be supported by certian products, personally I prefer the sim bundled in with a product

How so ipalarms?

What difference does it make it I pay for the sim or someone else does?

You would have control over the data plan and thus the polling interval. Right now, the client side polling interval is controlled by the manufacturer with the end result that there are too many poll failures and systems end up on log only. The polling rate should be adjustable within the IP device so that the installer can change it to suit the individual client. All GPRS connections were not created equal.

On the cost side, if you deal direct with the SIM provider, you would pay just a small amount to up your data plan, but generally with the GPRS manufacturers, they charge charge a fair old chunk. This is how they make their money and fair enough. I have no idea how much it costs for different plans from the UK manufacturers.

These are just my suggestions for improvement based on how we run our IP/GPRS solutions outside of the UK. Understand that this is for debating only, as at the end of the day, you guys have no choice anyway.

Reporting has to be , or rather failed path has to be INSTANT .

Red care GSM is still the bizz for me.

Am I missing something here?

If I block the GSM with my jammer at the same time my dodgy mate cuts the phone line - are you telling me the ARC is notified instantly ?

I always understood that the biggest issue with gprs is using it infrequently, ie at g2 and g3. But if using it all the time there isn't an issue.

Are you saying that if you slow down the polling you are less Lilly to have gprs failures, or do you leave the active poll times alone and just extend the 'poll lost' timer?

I'll upload a table with it all on. Unless someone beats me to it as it's pool night.

50136 table 6 I think.

James....I just realised...you posted Table 6 right at the beginnnig of this discussion.....for those interested.

IP Alarms...with regards to being outside the UK, I think you should also include Europe to. The EN standards are very clear with regards to the reporting times of the various grades. It is our responsibility as ATS providers to determine the adequate level of polling to identify a service affecting failure within the guidelines. There is also a requirement (in dual path systems) to step up the polling frequency on the remaining operational path should one of them fail.

Therefore data and SIM management is very key to providing a reasonably priced service(with no suprises, as I mention above). So I stand by my statement that Installers (and indeed ARCs and Nationals) have not got the appetite or the resource to administer SIM contracts. Granted the more you poll, the greater the bandwidth useage and the more likely you are to uncover a failure. But we can't have it both ways, we either monitor the path for the tighter reporting times (which means faster polling) or decide that the risk dictates this is not necessary. It is this decision that is (normally) out of the installers hands and he then has to provide a signalling service that meets the requirement.