I found myself agreeing with much of Simon Bank’s piece about IP alarm signalling last week (I4S video: Simon Banks on the IP signalling debate), even though my company is an IP alarm signalling equipment manufacturer. His comments on both the industry’s attitude to IP, and to standards, caused a wry smile here.
It was interesting to hear how CSL has grown up as a company around a new approach to alarm signalling technology. That idea of companies developing around changes in technology is perhaps a clue to understanding where IP alarm signalling currently is in its development.
I have been around long enough to remember the introduction of Redcare, and back then I was in a position to take a particular interest in that system. In its early days, the reaction of the large installers and monitoring companies was mostly negative.
A huge amount of effort went into educating installers and there was much to do to improve the systems to give monitoring centres the reliability that they require. I am sure that Simon’s company has been through a somewhat similar process with their alarm signalling solutions.
Early development
Although IP alarm signalling has been around a while it is still at an early stage in its development as a mainstream technology for the security systems industry.
One of the main reasons is that it is often more complex to install and there is no single organisation guiding it like BT did when Redcare was introduced.
IP can involve talking to people the security systems industry are not used to talking to, like IT departments. So, in many ways, the industry prefers to stick to the telephone line and rub along in the way it has done for so long.
There are those who do get reliable service from IP alarm signalling and the installers achieving it are those that have learnt how to install it. The bloggers, gamers and hackers amongst the installation fraternity certainly had an idea of what they were getting into and used their computer networks knowledge to adapt more quickly.
Reliability issues
However, the idea that IP alarm signalling is somehow inherently less reliable than other types of system is not one that I can agree with. The same problems affect communication media whatever the type of alarm signalling that it carries.
We know that damp joints cause problems in local telephone networks, we know that overhead lines can be problematic and we all suffer from poor mobile telephone coverage from time to time.
Whilst the Internet, wide area networks and mobile telephone networks cannot guarantee absolutely 100% reliability, they tend to be reliable for one simple reason. It is in the interests of the operator to make them reliable because he won’t keep customers if it is not.
Simon’s company has done more than most to help the industry to recognise how to deal with unreliability and that is by adopting dual-path signalling – this gives dual-redundancy to the protected premises. Monitoring centres have used dual-redundant systems for many years and now the communication path to the protected premises is getting the same attention.
So, with the attention to the detail that any new product requires, IP alarm signalling can be reliable and provide its users with the cost-savings it clearly offers.
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
