National Alarm Monitoring Companies for DIYers

[JimS]

Pete,
 
It does sound like you had some bogus deals and are rightly upset about them but I am still a bit confused....  In post #7 you say it was Alarm Relay that sent you an email raising your rate $10 a month.  In your latest you say it is American Digital.  Did you just type the wrong name or are you saying it is the same company?  I think it is important that the problems get attributed to the proper company.
 
Jim

 

[pete_c]

Fixed post #7.  It is/was American Digital.  I typed the wrong name.  Yup; historically this company has used numerous names; guessing now why they did.
 
Here is the original link which I used:
 
http://www.alarmmonitoringservices.com/ourrates.html
 
Per link #1:
 

This does include an emailing to text or email setup similiar to next alarm dot com.

 
This "emailing to text or email" was validated with customer service and "installation engineer" prior to and after installation; otherwise I would have just utilized another service.
 
But it really was mostly my fault for giving them the benefit of a doubt considering the online complaints about them and multitude of BBB complaints.
 
I was originally billed for a digital device I did not need and was credited for said device afterwards.
 
I was also billed for a "letter of certification for insurance purposes" and didn't need that and was credited afterwards.
 
Then from May, 2013 everything was fine.  No issues.  One call to validate a power issue during that time and normal email/texts for closing and opening stuff.  I never did go to the web site though to see my logs as the emails were all I needed.
 
Then Saturday, September 7, 2013 they sent me a bill upcharging me starting September 7, 2013 for the email reporting an extra $10 per month.
 
As previously noted I see this as a deceptive business practice.
 
As stated early on; I switched services on Monday, September 9, 2013, did the self testing and starting yesterday began to receive the email/ texts closing and open.

 

[pete_c]

Just a note regarding to follow up to above mentioned issue.
 
1 - Initially phone call in response to my email of cancellation of service sent on 09/07/2013 came in on Monday, 09/09/2013.
2 - Said customer service representative stated that my service had been changed by me and that I needed to follow a procedure for cancellation of said service.  I reponded with a verbal "no" I did not and a letter requesting cancellation was all that they needed which had already been sent.
3 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 I filed a formal complaint with the State Attorney's office relating to their business etiquette and issues at hand.
4 - Thusday, September 12, 2013 I receive two emails concurrently.  One from the State's Attorney's office that they had opened a case and a representative had been assigned to my concern.
5 - 2nd email came from an accountant / customer service person with verbiage relating to my issues and using the website to cancel the service.  She did leave a phone number and I called.
6 - We spoke and CS/Accountant was very pleasant.  She did review my logging and saw that the intial testing and validating included the email reports as stated earlier which started in May, 2013.  After review and discussion; she noted that my account had been closed and that there would be no issues post conversation.  I asked for an acknowlegement in an email.
7 - Pending receipt of email will forward said email to person assigned at the State's Attorney's office.

 

[pete_c]

26, November, 2013 Update  (note that I switched alarm company monitoring when I got upcharged for no apparent reason in the middle of a one year contract).  Customer service / Account billing services at the company acknowledged their "fault" over the phone.
 
Alarm Monitoring Company: (personal opinion - not a company to utilize for central alarm services - total sham).
 
A.S. Alarm Services
8525 120TH AVE N.E. SUITE #222
KIRKLAND, WA 98033
(800)365-2527x113
 
Washington department of consumer affairs / State Attorney's office: (personal opinion here: Useless entity - a waste of tax monies to pay these folks)
 
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
800 5th Ave. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA. 98104-3188
Phone: 1.206.464.6684 or 1.800.833.6388
 
My personal list: (actually this is something that Consumers report should write about).
Non functional entities today : Illinois, Washington
Functional today: Florida, California, New Jersy.
 
1 - First case with the Washington State's Attorney's office relating to company's methodologies of business was closed based on a letter from the owner of the company to the State's attorney's office stating that a credit was issued (it was not).  I called and wrote to the Washington State's attorney's office and recieved no email / phone calls regarding the case.
2 - Credit card company disputed charges and offered to credit my account for said charges.  I replied to CC company only if the company in question admited to their own contradictions in billing and credit charges.
3 - Opened a second "case" with the Washington Department of Consumer affairs.  Nothing, nada, no dialog.  This irrates me as it appears that they are currently appear to be a useless entity.
 
Alarm company in question continues to send me invoices for past due services (which they originally credited me for).
 
It is time to up endeavor a notch.

 

[Linwood]

Next alarm has some background issues that I wouldn't like to get into and have to provide everything from soup to nuts....but there's a lot of issues that come around with their service, service model, what they offer vs. what it actually is.
 
Buyer beware is the best I can say.

If you've had good results, then I say good, but knowing the entire industry and who is interconnected and interrelated and certifications, it's not a warm fuzzy place I'd want to go or be involved in.

 
I've had good results so far, but I decided to do some more thorough testing and am having a bit of trouble.  Hopefully they will work it out. But...
 
Knowing the environment, have you a recommendation?   What I need is: 
 
Uplink cellular + pots 
Option for digital over internet should I get rid of my pots lines
UL Central station dispatch for fire and burglary 
Email (and web) notifications for trouble, etc. (or phone calls are fine) 
Regular periodic testing (and would like a "we haven't gotten a test in too long" but NextAlarm won't do that)
OK with the fact I'm a DIY'er.

 

[Del91574]

1. Uplink is transparent to the CS if need be. It can also be a direct IP port from Uplink to a supporting CS.
2.I would not recommend TCP/IP for monitoring, especially as a primary source. The source of much heartache for residential.
3. Are you referring to a UL listed CS or actual guard/response by a party to your property other than the PD
4. Varies by CS and service, but most will or can fax summary reports (some charge). Best is if your host panel can report those events to you, then leave the monitoring as just that.
5. A system with fire MUST have a periodic dialer test, minimum of every month. If the CS allows you to run a system without one, that should be an indicator. Usually it's most common to have a weekly test on an account.
6. Can't help you there, I am a dealer.

 

[Linwood]

2.I would not recommend TCP/IP for monitoring, especially as a primary source. The source of much heartache for residential.

I have the Uplink 2500 as the primary source.  It seems silly not to use the internet as a backup if it's there.
 
I'm in the middle of switching from POTS to VoIP. (I hadn't really planned that when I wrote the above).  VoIP and Alarms seem a bad idea, and indeed in a brief test today I can't get CID to work with NextAlarm with a VoIP system.  Interestingly about 80% of the time I can get SIA to go through, but not reliably (it's baffling to me, since I think both use DTMF (?) that one works and the other doesn't, but I saw someone else here post that and tried.  Anyway... forget that, don't plan to do it.
 
So what I would really like is Uplink 2500 + Elk M1XEP if possible as reporting.
 

3. Are you referring to a UL listed CS or actual guard/response by a party to your property other than the PD

 
I'm not sure I'm smart enough to answer that correctly.  My IMPRESSION was that to get insurance reduction, the monitoring CS must be UL approved.  I have no idea if that's true.  NextAlarm made my insurer happy, so I need only whatever level of "official" they had, apparently.
 

4. Varies by CS and service, but most will or can fax summary reports (some charge). Best is if your host panel can report those events to you, then leave the monitoring as just that.
5. A system with fire MUST have a periodic dialer test, minimum of every month. If the CS allows you to run a system without one, that should be an indicator. Usually it's most common to have a weekly test on an account.

 
I've been running a daily dialer test, and then having NextAlarm send me email, because I am not confident that I trusted them to notice if the testing stopped.   I'm very much a belt, suspender, and hold-onto-pants type.
 

6. Can't help you there, I am a dealer.

 
Well, from your postings, you've helped others, and me a lot; thank you.
 
Here's the current flavor of the question: NextAlarm is OK.  I had some weirdness, but after some testing I think it's on my end (or the M1G's end, still trying to sort that out).   I am not unhappy with them.  HOWEVER, I'm not going to be able to use them for dialup monitoring over the VoIP.  At least it appears so.
 
I'd rather not use the Uplink alone, with nothing else.  I can -- it's been very reliable, plus it's (sort of) supervised.  But it would make me feel better if I had a company that could monitor over the internet from the M1XEP as well as the Uplink. Alarm Relay says they can.  They are about the same price (a few cents cheaper if I understand correctly).   They are the only other company I've found so far.
 
If you are so inclined, I'd love your thoughts on those two, and/or if there's another alternative I should consider.

 

[Linwood]

I'm in the middle of switching from POTS to VoIP. (I hadn't really planned that when I wrote the above).  VoIP and Alarms seem a bad idea, and indeed in a brief test today I can't get CID to work with NextAlarm with a VoIP system.  Interestingly about 80% of the time I can get SIA to go through, but not reliably (it's baffling to me, since I think both use DTMF (?) that one works and the other doesn't, but I saw someone else here post that and tried.  Anyway... forget that, don't plan to do it.

 
I was just dead wrong on this, SIA doesn't use DTMF, I jumped to that completely wrong conclusion - ignore.

 

[Del91574]

SIA is FSK. CID is DTMF.

CID will work on a ISP based "digital" phone line reasonably reliably with QOS from the ISP, but via a 3rd party device (OOma, MagicCrap, or Vonage) I would stay far away. If CID doesn't work, usually the ISP can modify some settings on the modem (like Uverse).
 
Keep in mind, I know what happens behind the curtains at Nextalarm and other CS'. I'm very wary of what Next offers because of what I know within the industry and what exists behind the curtain "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN...."

 

[Linwood]

SIA is FSK. CID is DTMF.

CID will work on a ISP based "digital" phone line reasonably reliably with QOS from the ISP, but via a 3rd party device (OOma, MagicCrap, or Vonage) I would stay far away. If CID doesn't work, usually the ISP can modify some settings on the modem (like Uverse).
 
Keep in mind, I know what happens behind the curtains at Nextalarm and other CS'. I'm very wary of what Next offers because of what I know within the industry and what exists behind the curtain "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN...."

 
OK, except in this case I'm configuring my own modem and router (and alarm).  I've got QoS turned on, and a 110/20 megabit service.  RTT and jitter are really good as well, with no packet loss.   But I understand the point -- this is Ooma, and I have no control (or not much and ill documented) over their codec, and no control over what happens in their downstream carriers.   And CID doesn't work, though SIA is at the moment working OK.
 
But back to the main point... 
 
I hear your concerns on NextAlarm.  I realize you are avoiding specifics and respect that; please understand it's hard though to do more with that than be cautious.
 
Would you have similar concerns with AlarmRelay  (EDIT: Sorry, this said NextAlarm for a few seconds, in case you got it in email), which is one of the others that does seem to do the same stuff, but also offers monitoring with the M1G's ethernet out of the box?    (And again, I get it -- not trusting the internet entirely, have the Uplink).

 

[Del91574]

The QOS doesn't come in an item you control....you don't control the ISP or modem, so you're only modifying what is on your LAN. As you also stated, you don't know what goes on into your ATA. The biggest item is when you take an already digital signal and redigitize it.....a panel (or fax) and send it on VOIP. It's usually the reason why slower speed comms methods work but the higher speed ones do not.
 
Alarmrelay, while I don't agree with a lot of their policies and how their SOP's for certain items and signals affect  the integrity of the service, the largest item is they are at least a CS and brick/mortar.
 
I would still not run TCP/IP to them as a primary form of comms. Their SOP's for TCP/IP monitoring leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Linwood]

The QOS doesn't come in an item you control....you don't control the ISP or modem, so you're only modifying what is on your LAN. As you also stated, you don't know what goes on into your ATA. The biggest item is when you take an already digital signal and redigitize it.....a panel (or fax) and send it on VOIP. It's usually the reason why slower speed comms methods work but the higher speed ones do not.

 
Not quite sure what you mean there.  This is probably more than you want to hear, but in case people are curious.
 
In a typical home setup: 
 
modem <--> router <--> lan/wireless <--> VoIP ATA 
 
For outbound traffic (which is the most speed limited) the modem acts as a funnel, and randomly drops packets if too much data is headed out.  With QoS, you are moving the funnel effect back into the router, and can tell the router to selectively drop packets so that the VoIP traffic always had bandwidth, essentially reserving outbound bandwidth for the VoIP traffic, and the modem has no role then to play in traffic management, because (for outbound) it is never saturated.
 
You can't control what happens after it leaves your modem,of course - the big bad internet carriers can honor or strip the QoS tags from packets (some honor, some strip, some reprioritize to suit themselves).
 
For inbound traffic, which on most circuits is 5-10x as wide of bandwidth, you really have no control.  It's like a reverse funnel -- QoS on your LAN side does pretty much nothing for you, unless you're running inadequate hardware that gamers, video, etc. is saturating purely on the LAN side (and if you're saturating your LAN, not WAN, you really shouldn't be doing anything yourself with networking  ) 
 
Now this presumes of course you provided (or at least can program) your router, and know how.  It's why Ooma recommends: 
 
modem <--> VoIP ATA <--> router <--> your lan

They built QoS and a simple router function into their ATA so people who don't know how to configure their router can still benefit from the QoS, but if you have a complicated Router setup, this screws you up.  But it works well for people who treat the router as plug and play.
 
Regardless, I agree completely with the more generalized thing you are saying -- VoIP is not a good thing for primary alarm functions.
 

Alarmrelay, while I don't agree with a lot of their policies and how their SOP's for certain items and signals affect  the integrity of the service, the largest item is they are at least a CS and brick/mortar.
 
I would still not run TCP/IP to them as a primary form of comms. Their SOP's for TCP/IP monitoring leave a lot to be desired.

 
My basic choices are these: 
 
1) Happy with Uplink, it's been working nicely, it will be primary.  So...
 
2a) Go without secondary, 
 
2b) Limp along with VoIP secondary and NextAlarm using SIA (did some more testing, it was mostly 100%, but doesn't work with their web features at all, and haven't tested through to their CS yet). 
 
2c) Go with NextAlarm's ABN - not going to do that, I don't want another device to fool with and an additional cable to run in the attic.
 
2d) Switch to AlarmRelay, and use their native M1G monitoring via ethernet device
 
2e) Keep POTS line and pay the extra $20+/mo -- pass
 
To me either limping along, or switching to AlarmRelay, seem like it gives a tiny bit of additional protection for no real money or effort.  Just trying to decide which.

 

[jlegault]

I have a bit of bad luck with Next Alarm in their recent platform transition. I've learned that I'm dealing with a company that is pretty much vapor/virtual at this point. I hope it does not mean they are dismantling it or putting it on autopilot. It's been 7 years, but I think it's time to look for an alternative. If there is no other good alternative, I will stick with Next and hope it's not shutting down. Sounds like just AlarmRelay is the alternative? TIA

 

[JonW]

I used Alarm Relay for about 3 years.  Just recently closed the account as I sold the business.  Alarm Relay was far and above the service I used to receive when I was on Protection One.  A/R answered the phones promptly when I called them and on the couple of occasions I did have alarms triggered, their calls to me were immediate (unlike P1 which called long after the alarms were triggered and were even very slow to dispatch police).
 
I'll have no issue signing up with A/R again.

 

[ano]

I switched from Next Alarm to Alarm Relay about two months ago. Alarm Relay works but it is very no frills. There is no web page or any place to see your account that I know. You call them for everything. But they seem reliable. I had doubts with Next Alarm.