BAT CDMA (CBAT) dual path bug....

Madas said:
Most routers tell the clients (through DHCP) to use the firewall for dns resolution.  Then you firewall will make the DNS requests to the outside world.  If something has recently been queried then your firewall will cache the DNS resolution and will NOT go out the internet.  This will still return a valid IP to the requesting device for some period of time even when your internet is down.  My IPDataTel seems to failover much quicker when the DNS resolution fails vs when the DNS resolution succeeds but the connection itself fails.
 
It definitely made a difference in my setup.
 
I don't know how to find the firmware version.  I have a HAI panel so its not hooked to my keypads as it would be in a DSC
 
Ahh. I see. Well I've been through 3 different routers since I this has been an issue. A d-link dir-655. Replaced 2 weeks ago with a TP-Linc AC5400 which was crap and had to be sent back because it kept dropping wifi and ethernet(not at the same time) and the UI would on the device would freeze for 30 seconds at a time every 10 seconds making it difficult to configure. Replaced that last week with an Asus AC1900 which has been great. No issues.
 
All three routers were using the stock DNS settings and CBAT has behaved the same through all three. On Friday we disconnected the CBAT from IP and alarm relay is monitoring both my EVL4 through IP and the CBAT through Verizon, so I'm good for now. 
 
SterlingDonnelly said:
Yes I'm familiar with how servers could supervise the connection and my point was more that I really don't think the Telguard units are supervised at the intervals that Ano believes.
Telguard is supervised. Part of the UL listing.
 
sorka said:
All three routers were using the stock DNS settings and CBAT has behaved the same through all three. On Friday we disconnected the CBAT from IP and alarm relay is monitoring both my EVL4 through IP and the CBAT through Verizon, so I'm good for now. 
If it was me, I'd run two tests to prove that the IP switchover works. 1) Disconnect the modem (simulating a burglar cutting your line) then within a minute or so simulate a break-in. 2) Disconnect the CBAT directly (simulating the network wires burning in your house) then within a minute or so trip a smoke alarm. Hopefully it works in both cases.
 
DELInstallations said:
Telguard is supervised. Part of the UL listing.
 
I guess I'm not being clear.
 
I'm trying to say that I know Telguard units are supervised. However, as far as I know, they aren't supervised every second the way Ano believes. Unless I'm mistaken, the best level supervision they offer on their more popular units is daily supervision which means a unit could be down for up to 24 hours before the central station or end user would know.
 
I'm not saying that's bad as that's pretty standard for UL listed devices but 24 hours is a lot longer than what Ano believes.
 
SterlingDonnelly said:
I guess I'm not being clear.
 
I'm trying to say that I know Telguard units are supervised. However, as far as I know, they aren't supervised every second the way Ano believes. Unless I'm mistaken, the best level supervision they offer on their more popular units is daily supervision which means a unit could be down for up to 24 hours before the central station or end user would know.
 
I'm not saying that's bad as that's pretty standard for UL listed devices but 24 hours is a lot longer than what Ano believes.
Let me explain it like this. In the olden days, after Alexander Bell invented the telephone, man had end-to-end communication, and this is what most panels used. They would dial a number, establish communications, communicate and then break the connection.  This is how the once-a-day, or once a week communication worked. People were happy for the most part. This was called "circuit-switched" communications.
 
Then one day, Al Gore invented the Internet and the world would be changed.  No longer would you need to use your 300 baud modem to establish a connection. You could have 100% 24/7 connections that were always on. This was called "packet-switched" communications.
 
Cellular did go through its own transformation, first using circuit-switched analog (making a call) and this was called 1st Generation, or 1G for short. But in the early 90's, packet-switched data became available in cellular, and it was called 2nd Generation, or 2G. This was digital.
 
Today we are at 3G or 4G with cellular, and packet-switched networks are very common.  So YES, the technology does exist today to have a completely monitored connection over a digital link.  Its not magic, and information on if a connection exists or not is actually built into the standard, as with a wired standard. Look at where an Ethernet cable plugs into your device and you usually see a green and yellow LED. Remove the connector and the LEDs go out. Cellular has the same concept but maybe not the green and yellow LEDs. This is connection and data information. So YES, it does REALLY exist.
 
By the way, even with circuit-switched networks, places like banks commonly used a constantly monitored analog connection, so if the line was cut, both sides would know it, and this was in the 1800's.
 
ano said:
Let me explain it like this. In the olden days, after Alexander Bell invented the telephone, man had end-to-end communication, and this is what most panels used. They would dial a number, establish communications, communicate and then break the connection.  This is how the once-a-day, or once a week communication worked. People were happy for the most part. This was called "circuit-switched" communications.
 
Then one day, Al Gore invented the Internet and the world would be changed.  No longer would you need to use your 300 baud modem to establish a connection. You could have 100% 24/7 connections that were always on. This was called "packet-switched" communications.
 
Cellular did go through its own transformation, first using circuit-switched analog (making a call) and this was called 1st Generation, or 1G for short. But in the early 90's, packet-switched data became available in cellular, and it was called 2nd Generation, or 2G. This was digital.
 
Today we are at 3G or 4G with cellular, and packet-switched networks are very common.  So YES, the technology does exist today to have a completely monitored connection over a digital link.  Its not magic, and information on if a connection exists or not is actually built into the standard, as with a wired standard. Look at where an Ethernet cable plugs into your device and you usually see a green and yellow LED. Remove the connector and the LEDs go out. Cellular has the same concept but maybe not the green and yellow LEDs. This is connection and data information. So YES, it does REALLY exist.
 
By the way, even with circuit-switched networks, places like banks commonly used a constantly monitored analog connection, so if the line was cut, both sides would know it, and this was in the 1800's.
 
I'll ignore the history lesson and just tell you that it depends on the Telguard module you are using. While they do offer units that can be supervised at a rate as good as every 200 seconds, most of their units don't offer better than daily supervision.
 
I'm not saying the technology doesn't exist to supervise it more frequently. I'm just saying that on a cellular device, that constant pinging would use up a lot more data than a daily supervision would and therefore, the cellular manufacturers charge much more for supervision that's better than daily.

Perhaps you do have a TG-4 or TG-7 version communicator (usually used for commercial fire accounts or facilities that require Standard Line Security or AA Grade security such as banks, jewelry stores, pawn shops, etc) and your company has it setup for link supervision so that it can tell you if it's down, within 200 seconds, but if you don't, your cellular connection isn't supervised the way you think it is.
 
ano said:
If it was me, I'd run two tests to prove that the IP switchover works. 1) Disconnect the modem (simulating a burglar cutting your line) then within a minute or so simulate a break-in. 2) Disconnect the CBAT directly (simulating the network wires burning in your house) then within a minute or so trip a smoke alarm. Hopefully it works in both cases.
 
I did that on Friday morning with the tech. We tested the system twice with only one or the other connected. Interestingly, the CBAT is used like a dialer and so if you have delay notification set in the 1832 to say 10 seconds and disarm alarm prior to that 10 seconds, it won't notify the monitoring station. So we had to test again and wait for more than 10 seconds.
 
The EVL4 doesn't obey this rule and notifies immediately when an alarm is triggered. I had to send them in writing a request to dismiss the alarm if it was deactivated with 10 seconds.
 
With both devices hooked up, they get both notifications. The EVL4 is *way* faster through IP. It took an extra 15 seconds for the CBAT notification to come through.
 
SterlingDonnelly said:
I'm not saying the technology doesn't exist to supervise it more frequently. I'm just saying that on a cellular device, that constant pinging would use up a lot more data than a daily supervision would and therefore, the cellular manufacturers charge much more for supervision that's better than daily.
I don't believe any pinging is required, but maybe they do. Does maintaining a cellular connection use data? Sure. How much, I have no idea, but lets say 20 bytes of data are exchanged every 15 seconds. so that is 20Bytes x 4 per hour x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 30 days= 3.4 Mb per month.  My wife and I split 500Mb on our cell plan and it costs about $10/month, so I'm sure 3.4Mb costs them under $1/month.  Telguard with Alarm Relay DOES cost more for monitoring by about $2-$3/month, so I doubt anyone is loosing money on the deal.
 
ano said:
I don't believe any pinging is required, but maybe they do. Does maintaining a cellular connection use data? Sure. How much, I have no idea, but lets say 20 bytes of data are exchanged every 15 seconds. so that is 20Bytes x 4 per hour x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 30 days= 3.4 Mb per month.  My wife and I split 500Mb on our cell plan and it costs about $10/month, so I'm sure 3.4Mb costs them under $1/month.  Telguard with Alarm Relay DOES cost more for monitoring by about $2-$3/month, so I doubt anyone is loosing money on the deal.
 
I agree that all cellular monitoring providers should provide a better level of cellular supervision without charging more (or at least much more) for it but from working in the industry, I know that accounts with the type of supervision you believe you have would cost much more than a few extra dollars per month.
 
Do you happen to know what the model number is on your Telguard communicator?
 
SterlingDonnelly said:
Do you happen to know what the model number is on your Telguard communicator?
Alarm relay only offers two that I've seen. The CBAT which is CDMA-Verizon, and the TG-1 Express which is GSM-AT&T.
 
If you read Alarm Relay's description for the CBAT, they say: "Supervised connection to ensure constant connectivity"
 
ano said:
Alarm relay only offers two that I've seen. The CBAT which is CDMA-Verizon, and the TG-1 Express which is GSM-AT&T.
 
If you read Alarm Relay's description for the CBAT, they say: "Supervised connection to ensure constant connectivity"
 
Well I'm not sure about the CBAT but I do know the TG-1 Express doesn't offer constant supervision and at best is supervised daily. 
 
Read the section titled Telguard Automatic Self-test Report at the bottom of page 6 - http://www.telguard.com/home/portals/0/documents/tg1xinstallationmanual.pdf.
 
SterlingDonnelly said:
Well I'm not sure about the CBAT but I do know the TG-1 Express doesn't offer constant supervision and at best is supervised daily. 
 
Read the section titled Telguard Automatic Self-test Report at the bottom of page 6 - http://www.telguard.com/home/portals/0/documents/tg1xinstallationmanual.pdf.
 
The manual you linked to has a publication date of 2/27/2010.  There is a newer version of the manual, dated 4/20/2016 which says that the TG-1 can also be programmed for a self-test every 6 hours.  Not sure why Telguard still has the old version on their web site.
 
RAL said:
The manual you linked to has a publication date of 2/27/2010.  There is a newer version of the manual, dated 4/20/2016 which says that the TG-1 can also be programmed for a self-test every 6 hours.  Not sure why Telguard still has the old version on their web site.
 
I just got off the phone with 2 different Telguard tech support reps and our company rep as well. The first tech insisted the TG-1 Express only supports daily, weekly or monthly self testing. The 2nd one finally pulled up the document you linked and said that he wasn't aware that was an option and that I'd have to call tomorrow to see for sure. My rep told me they did add 6 Hr Self Test for some of their units but he didn't think it was added to the TG-1 Express and if it was, it may only be the LTE versions. He's going to look deeper and let me know and I'll reply back once I hear from him. 
 
3/8/17 Update - My rep called me back this morning and confirmed it's a typo in the documentation and that the best level supervision on the TG-1 Express is daily.
 
Back
Top