Simultaneous failover of WAN and phone to 4G cell

I know I could use something like a HAI C3 to failover the phone to cell. (Unfortunately it is not 4G, but I don't know yet of a device equivalent to the C3 that works with 4G. So I'm using it as a well-known example.)
 
I know I could use a TP-LINK TL-MR3420 to failover the WAN to cell. (This is actually a 4G-capable device.)
 
But this means getting two USB modems and two sims, etc.
 
Now, my cell phone is capable of doing data and voice at the same time so it seems to me there could exist a device that can device that can handle both the phone and WAN failover. Does anyone know of such device?
 
Thanks in advance.

There's a bunch of IP based communicators that can fail over or cause the host panel to go a separate route, but since you don't mention the panel, service carrier, etc. it's hard to say.
 
The downside of using TCP/IP as the primary communications route is the weak link lies with your CS and their SOP's on loss of heartbeat/keep alive.
 
Off the top of my head, Alarmnet units can do both.

DELInstallations said:

There's a bunch of IP based communicators that can fail over or cause the host panel to go a separate route, but since you don't mention the panel, service carrier, etc. it's hard to say.

Click to expand...

 
I used the HAI C3 and the TP-LINK TL-MR3420 as my examples. Neither device are tied to any specific panel. You can plug in a phone into the HAI C3 and use it to make a call over the cell network. You can plug your computer into the TL-MR3420, and access the internet.
 
I'm wondering if there exist a device that can do at once what those two devices can do independently. I'm not looking for panel-specific solutions.

What you are looking to do is entirely relevant based on panel choice and what the host system can support, as the same with the comms route. Some communicators only support direct panel data connections while others only support dialer capture or summary signal.
 
You can do a Honeywell panel with Alarmnet IP/Cell communications, you can use something like a IPdatatel CBAT or there's a few others out on the market.
 
Remember, there's a significant difference between a device like a HAI C3, which is not UL listed and is consumer grade vs. a UL listed central station based communications device and routing.
 
If you're looking for a DTMF/POTS emulator that allows TCP/IP and 3/4G cellular and VOIP functionality, you're not going to find it on the market.

DELInstallations said:

Some communicators only support direct panel data connections while others only support dialer capture or summary signal.

Click to expand...

 
I know that but it is not my concern right now.

So why not just put out what the actual design criteria is instead of playing the 50 questions, I want XYZ game? The panel choice makes a huge difference even though you're discounting that fact.
 
If you're looking for a UL listed product, designed to communicate to a CS and meet standards, that's one thing, but if you're looking for a consumer grade wifi router and services, then put that out there. That's a huge difference in design criteria.
 
You may not believe it based on the sarcasm directed towards an informational post in your other topic, but some of us deal with security and these devices on a daily basis.

Yup; the Ericsson W25 is UL approved and more of a commercial device than a residential device. 
 
It works fine with the OPII panel.

Pete, not to be argumentative, it's not UL listed for alarm communications.
 
The only UL listing it carries is that it's not going to burn your house down or kill you if used normally.

Thanks Del,
 
Yup; see a tiny UL sticker on the device with no mention of alarm use.
 
Looked at my Telguard dialer and it does have a UL sticker inside the can it sits in that states it's a signaling device suitable for alarms.

BTW I utilize PFSense as my firewall and it does load balancing and failover with the wireless 3G/LTE wireless connection.  Very easy to do in PFSense.  There are more granular pieces to this and I suggest reading the PFSense help documentation.
 
1 - create a new WAN interface in PFSense
2 - go to PFSense gateways and gateway groups.
3 - define each gateway with a weighted tier (1,2,3) where as 1 is higher than 2
4 - create a gateway group and call it failover and put a time of say 3 seconds for failover (default is 10 seconds)
5 - test it out via GUI disabling primary tier (or main ISP connection)

I've been running internet notification to Alarm Relay now for a year or so, backed up with the Uplink cellular, and it works terrifically.
 
The internet notification is nearly instantaneous.  It is not always reliable, because of outages (and it could be cut outside).   The Uplink is extremely reliable if a bit slow.   Alarm relay tells me within seconds (via email) when my internet is down, it is more often than I would have thought (a few times a month, not a lot, but sometimes for longer periods during storms which is an increased risk period for fire). 
 
I like the combination, and while it costs a bit (if I recall about $10/mo) it requires no hoop jumping or worries.  I am all for jury-rigging things and trying to save a buck, but this also prepared me to drop my home phone line in favor of VoIP and cell, saving FAR more than the Uplink costs.

@ Linwood, I think your experiences with the speed of the Uplink reflect more of the CS and how the data is being ported to them. Most likely, AR is getting the data from them as an emulated POTS dialer instead of direct port from Uplink via TCP/IP. (easier dealer setup and universal compatibility with more receivers, virtual and true) whereas a TCP/IP receiver is a more dedicated and specialized device and some of the smaller CS don't own many of them yet.
 
A cellular communicator ported into the CS via TCP/IP is not significantly slower than a direct TCP/IP monitoring account.
 
I won't get into specifics with AR. For some it's an option, but when I asked them if they were UL and to what extent, the stammering and lack of response followed by "my manager will need to call you back" with no return call said it all to me. Even dealing with them on a convenience level (I did service some orphaned accounts monitored by them via Watchlight-their real company) and it was painful and the operators weren't prepared for zone changes, report codes and the like....they only understood what the panel sent via event code and couldn't understand when I discussed templating the account properly.

Unrelated to the above stuff here timing failover on just the internet portion of the created PFSense gateway via the Ericsson W25 and how much I notice it via a 3G failover.   Also testing a failover to LTE.   Takes me back a few years here.  First internet I had was via DSL via local telco.  This was much faster than the modem speeds.  
 
Last home had broadband with DSL failover which worked fine.  I wanted to do something with that here.  Nobody though has ever installed fiber here and there is only cable.  Kind of a joke in a way.
 
AT&T came by with a good deal but using the old cable infrastructure was not worth it. 
 
In FL have FIOS now but the choice of CC cable is there with autonomous wires which would work fine for failover / load balancing.
 
Personally here would prefer a "wired" failover over that of a cellular broadband connection.
 
The failover via the PFSense firewall is easy to do as testing is part of the PFSense configuration stuff.   
 
CC base.  
 
 
 
Cellular 3 G - via Ericsson W25 - Combo LAN/WLAN/POTS emulation (all of it works)
 

 
Tested Ooma Voip line on failover to work fine.  
 

 
Cellular LTE - using ZTE combo 4 G hotspot to test. -
IE: USB to firewall connections can be done but really relating to a bit of a hack.
 

DELInstallations said:

@ Linwood, I think your experiences with the speed of the Uplink reflect more of the CS and how the data is being ported to them. Most likely, AR is getting the data from them as an emulated POTS dialer instead of direct port from Uplink via TCP/IP. (easier dealer setup and universal compatibility with more receivers, virtual and true) whereas a TCP/IP receiver is a more dedicated and specialized device and some of the smaller CS don't own many of them yet.
 
A cellular communicator ported into the CS via TCP/IP is not significantly slower than a direct TCP/IP monitoring account.
 
I won't get into specifics with AR. For some it's an option, but when I asked them if they were UL and to what extent, the stammering and lack of response followed by "my manager will need to call you back" with no return call said it all to me. Even dealing with them on a convenience level (I did service some orphaned accounts monitored by them via Watchlight-their real company) and it was painful and the operators weren't prepared for zone changes, report codes and the like....they only understood what the panel sent via event code and couldn't understand when I discussed templating the account properly.

Click to expand...

 
Thanks good to know.  I will say, however, as a consumer they have been pretty good.  The few times something unusual happened I got a call immediately, and the person on the other end seemed knowledgeable and communicated clearly.  The last time (a bit of a surprise) was after a power failure, before the power supply dropped out -- I had forgotten it had a delayed report just for the outage. 
 
I have done minimal zone changes nor needed advice from them, so cannot speak to how easy it would be if you needed their support in something complex.  I did need to talk to them about internet outages -- for a while I was getting a phone call every time my cable modem dropped out briefly.  They were very helpful and set it up to still send an email, but not call on the phone, for internet failures, but to call for cellular failure-to-test. 
 
One issue is that there are limited choices for those who are real CO monitoring, who will work with a DIY'er.   I am more happy with Alarm Relay than I was with NextAlarm (though they were decent), but my last search really found a dearth of other choices.
 
Did you have a suggestion of a better place to hook up?