alarm monitoring - phone line or internet?

[MikeB]

Looking at getting my Elk M1 monitored by alarmrelay.com. It looks like they offer both internet and phone line communications.

My phone is over Verizon FIOS, so it's likely if one connection is down the other would be as well.

Can anyone offer any opinion one way or another?

Thanks!

 

[mikejrc]

if your communications are tied a physical line to your house, you should consider wireless
I have some info on connecting alarmrelay and a cell communicator.
otherwise if you decide to use a phone you will need to make sure to protect somehow that incoming line the best you can
Internet would require the use of a Ethernet add on module to your M1

 

[Del91574]

Also depends on the charges and what they offer you. The TCP/IP connection IS supervised via heartbeat as long as they are using a Sur-gard receiver and the appropriate programming is done on your end and they have the heartbeat enabled. It's better than sticking to a straight VOIP solution, because I have seen FIOS where TCP/IP was up and there were connectivity issues with the VOIP.

Also, what is their response going to be on a missed heartbeat supervision connection?

I'm assuming that you're going to buy the ethernet module for the Elk.

 

[Digger]

I may be mistaken but I thought Alarm Relay required the purchase of a seperate module to montior over the internet and could NOT monitor by directly communicating the the ELK-M1XEP. I thought that the only CS Receiver that the ELK-M1XEP could be monitored by was the Osborne Hoffman receiver not the Sur-Gard.

Again I may be mistaken as I have not kept up with this for a while now.

Also many CS will not agree to monitor is you are dialing in with a VOIP line.

 

[Ira]

Although I don't have one (yet), I like the concept of the HAI C3 cellular device as a backup to a POTS line (or vice versa), especially if you already have a reliable GSM cellular service.

 

[apostolakisl]

I have the HAI C3 unit and the Elk M1G. It works perfectly for alarm monitoring. My alarm monitoring company treats it exactly the same as a regular phone. You will need to add another line to your cellular and you need to be on a gsm service (ATT/Tmobile). I am on ATT and it adds $10/mo cost. I am monitored by watchlight at something less than $10/mo. (Total cost is less than $20). I do not have a regular pots line, the HAI over GSM cellular is my only home phone (I also use it for the whole house).

It is not the best for the whole house becuase it does not relay through caller id and call waiting. Since I use my iphone 99% of the time anyway, I don't care.

 

[Digger]

Looking at getting my Elk M1 monitored by alarmrelay.com. It looks like they offer both internet and phone line communications.

My phone is over Verizon FIOS, so it's likely if one connection is down the other would be as well.

Can anyone offer any opinion one way or another?

Thanks!

Your best bet is to call Alarm Relay and verify that they can monitor over VOIP or if you prefer the internet and if they can interface with the ELK-M1XEP directly (I do not believe they can and you will have to buy a module from them for line capture).

Others suggestions of GSM are a great idea if you can add to an existing plan for reasonable price.

 

[mikejrc]

I may be mistaken but I thought Alarm Relay required the purchase of a seperate module to montior over the internet and could NOT monitor by directly communicating the the ELK-M1XEP. I thought that the only CS Receiver that the ELK-M1XEP could be monitored by was the Osborne Hoffman receiver not the Sur-Gard.

Again I may be mistaken as I have not kept up with this for a while now.

Also many CS will not agree to monitor is you are dialing in with a VOIP line.

that is correct the OH is the only receiver that can communicate with the XEP

Surgard is DSC same company

 

[apostolakisl]

I spoke with a couple monitoring co's that said voip doesn't work. Appearantly the "analog" signal gets garbled in the conversion to ip. For some reason cellular doesn't have that problem. If IP is your only communication line you will probably need to do the direct IP panel to monitoring co and they charge extra for that.

Again, I can't speak highly enough about the HAI over gsm. It is tamper-proof (from outside the dwelling), was easy to set-up, has low cost, and has never failed me.

 

[Digger]

I spoke with a couple monitoring co's that said voip doesn't work. Appearantly the "analog" signal gets garbled in the conversion to ip. For some reason cellular doesn't have that problem. If IP is your only communication line you will probably need to do the direct IP panel to monitoring co and they charge extra for that.

Again, I can't speak highly enough about the HAI over gsm. It is tamper-proof (from outside the dwelling), was easy to set-up, has low cost, and has never failed me.

Depending on the panel and depending on the service provider VOIP is not reliable. Since things can also change (provider upgrades equipment etc.) it seems most CS do not want to allow its customers to report over a VOIP line. I know that where I work we had a problem with a Cable Company VOIP system that did not allow installers to remote download to the panel without failing. It was eventually traced to a new routing facility and a firmware change on newer equipment. The Cable company did correct the situation though. Luckily it was only downloading affected and not reporting.

TCP/IP is the cheapest alternative and it is pretty reliable. I agree GSM is better (my opinion) where available but I am still using TCP/IP for now.

 

[mikejrc]

[sub]the problem is not TCP/IP per se.[/sub] [sub] [/sub] [sub]is the use of non TCP/IP signals. DSC panels reporting to a Surgard receiver or an M1 reporting to an OH panel or any panel capable of reporting to the OH will provide reliable communications to CS because they will communicate using a protocol format designed for TCP/IP transport.[/sub] [sub] [/sub]
That means adding ethernet modules to panels and upgrade the CS equipment. Its easier to get people stuck on POTS.

I still have my doubts on TCP/IP based monitoring because regardless of the equipment needed to work, we cant predict that your internet signal is always there. I have lived in too many areas where my "always on" cable modem or dsl goes down a couple of times a day. We cant control those outages so as long as the ISP is a variable in the equation TCP/IP monitoring would not take off.

 

[mikejrc]

the only way traditional monitoring could work with any standard panel over IP, someone would have to design a dial capture unit that will act like a regular digital receiver. Once the reporting code is received and acknowledged this device would take the ASCII code (text), make an encrypted packet, and send it over the existing internet connection.
But at the CS you will need the same type of device to take that packet, strip it down to the original ASCII text and finally pass it to the CS software.
The problem falls into companies trying to send a signal using VOIP as if it was a regular telephone connection and thats not the case, your voice is encoded into zeros and ones and sent over the internet. A control panel communicates using tones, or frequencies, and thats where the VOIP conversion fails.

 

[Digger]

[sub]the problem is not TCP/IP[/sub]
[sub]
[/sub]
[sub]is the use of non TCP/IP signals. DSC panels reporting to a Surgard receiver or an M1 reporting to an OH panel or any panel capable of reporting to the OH will provide reliable communications to CS because they will communicate using a protocol format designed for TCP/IP transport.[/sub]
[sub]
[/sub]
That means adding ethernet modules to panels and upgrade the CS equipment. Its easier to get people stuck on POTS.

Its cheaper for the CS to eliminate POTS lines because of the loading requirement set in place by the NFPA and UL etc. they need so many. POTS is more reliable on the premise end though. POTS is going away very quickly and being replaced by newer and cheaper technology. Newer is not always better in some ways I guess.

 

[Digger]

the only way traditional monitoring could work with any standard panel over IP, someone would have to design a dial capture unit that will act like a regular digital receiver. Once the reporting code is received and acknowledged this device would take the ASCII code (text), make an encrypted packet, and send it over the existing internet connection.
But at the CS you will need the same type of device to take that packet, strip it down to the original ASCII text and finally pass it to the CS software.
The problem falls into companies trying to send a signal using VOIP as if it was a regular telephone connection and thats not the case, your voice is encoded into zeros and ones and sent over the internet. A control panel communicates using tones, or frequencies, and thats where the VOIP conversion fails.

Exactly

 

[mikejrc]

that is the dilemma Digger, the CS are not doing much about it.
I understand they are not manufacturers, but they could start by interfacing panels with an ethernet card and make it part of their "setup fee", just to get you on board.
In the end like you said it helps their business too by eliminating their dependency on POTS