Elk Intoduces Central Station Alarm Over Internet

[BraveSirRobbin]

For Immediate Release from Elk Products, February 27, 2006

Central Station Alarm over Internet Monitoring and Reporting is now supported by the ELK-M1XEP Ethernet Interface for M1 controls with the release of firmware version 1.2.0. This new feature can be supported by Central Stations using the Osborne Hoffman OH200E Receiver. Reports are sent in the Contact ID format.

For more information, visit www.elkproducts.com or contact Amy Strickland at (800)797-9355 or [email protected]

 

[Mike]

That's great news! It means the extra unit is no longer needed and the Elk is self-sufficient in this regard. One more reason for those on the fence about the ethernet module to buy it.

 

[WayneW]

It means the extra unit is no longer needed and the Elk is self-sufficient in this regard.

What "extra unit"? There are a couple people that have set up NextAlarm VOIP monitoring and they didn't need the extra hardware, but probably some people did, all depending upon your VOIP service. But VOIP is totally different than the new native TCP/IP monitoring.

Now if we can just get a list of what central stations have the required receiver and are willing to do it.

 

[Mike]

It means the extra unit is no longer needed and the Elk is self-sufficient in this regard.

What "extra unit"? There are a couple people that have set up NextAlarm VOIP monitoring and they didn't need the extra hardware, but probably some people did, all depending upon your VOIP service. But VOIP is totally different than the new native TCP/IP monitoring.

Now if we can just get a list of what central stations have the required receiver and are willing to do it.

I was referring to the broadband adapter that NextAlarm has. This addition to the elk is not to support voip, but the transmission of alarm reports to a compatible reciever over the internet.

You don't need the ethernet adapter to use VOIP monitoring.

 

[WayneW]

NextAlarm has confirmed that they do NOT support internet monitoring. So who DOES support it?

 

[AutomatedOutlet]

I use NextAlarm with my Elk. I have a vonage VOIP line wired to the panel at the telco interface.

 

[WayneW]

Martin, that is using telephone monitoring, even though your phone service is provided by VOIP over the internet.

 

[Mike]

NextAlarm has confirmed that they do NOT support internet monitoring. So who DOES support it?

But they do support 'internet enhanced monitoring'

NextAlarm.com provides Internet-Enhanced Alarm Monitoring Services for residences and small businesses at an affordable discount rate. Most existing alarm systems are compatible with our service, or purchase the new Abbra Professional Series to make the most of our unique Internet capabilities. We can even monitor your security system using your Broadband Internet Connection - no telephone line required! (Click here to learn more about our Alarm Broadband Network)
Click to learn more about NextAlarm.com!

https://nextalarm.com/abn.jsp

This is not what the elk is now supporting though and is proprietary from what I understand.

 

[WayneW]

But they do support 'internet enhanced monitoring'
<snip>
This is not what the elk is now supporting though and is proprietary from what I understand.

The Elk has worked fine with the NextAlarm telephone/VOIP monitoring for a long time. Some customers use it without any NextAlarm hardware and probably some need the hardware, but that primarily depends upon their VOIP service and has nothing to do with the new true internet monitoring.

So, who supports this new feature?

 

[Digger]

Using the ethernet module the M1 can communicate with the Central Station via the internet using PSDN. It would have the ability to "poll" so if someone cuts the cable or DSL line the Central Station would know. Polling is required to be less than 90 seconds per the NFPA if the system is used to residential fire monitoring. Imagine knowing within a few minutes that you can no longer communicate with the Central Station. Other manufacturers are already doing it and I have used one other. Alarms get through in 5 to 12 seconds over the internet based on my experience.

The ethernet module in my opinion provides a superior method of communication with the Central Station since alarms are received faster than a panel can dial out over regular telco or voip. Also you know if your communication is down faster. I bought my ethernet module for the purpose of Central Station monitoring and I am about ready to search out a company to monitor my system.

The big push for this is that the Central Stations can have a T1 line etc coming in and handle hundreds or thousands of accounts (not sure of the loading). That is a lot cheaper than paying for all of the Telco lines and receivers you would need for them. Yet I bet they dont ut a break on the price of monitoring. Just more profit I guess.

We should probably start a list of Central stations and their monthly costs so we can comparision shop.

 

[jlehnert]

I'd expand that list to include stations that are DIY friendly using regular telephone monitoring.

 

[Steve]

Once there are some names in the list, could it be pinned for easy reference?

 

[jello4]

But the point is: Who supports this new capability of the Elk?

It is great that it exists but from a practical standpoint if no one supports it then, "So What".

There are lots of ways to get a signal to a Central Station. I am switching over to VoIP, my Elk works fine via my providers TA to NextAlarm. But NextAlarm does not support the new capability of the M1XEP to send alarm signals via the network. I would personally like to remove the telephone line from the Elk and have a direct network connection, but that is my opinion...

-Mike

 

[d505]

I work for a central station which is capable of receiving signals from the M1. What they forgot to mention is that the central station must have an OH2000 receiver AND the GE Caddx IP card for it.

Our central station can also receive IP signalling from Alarmnet, Uplink, DMP, and we will probably add DSC and Teldat (including Firelite) very soon.

We are a wholesale central station, so we do not sell service to end users, but any of our dealers nationwide, can offer these IP services.

Nextalarm is not transmitting signals using one of these IP protocols. They are simply transmitting the signal using VoIP.

One poster mentions the possibility of using T1's / PRI trunks for the inbound signalling. I can tell you that any large central station is already doing this, at least to their PBX. The receiver still has to have analog lines connected to the line cards.

With IP, there is just an ethernet interface on the receiver, and the central station's network can be connected to the internet using any available technology.

Everyone assumes that there are massive cost savings on the part of the central station when using IP, but that really isnt true. With the IP enabled panels, the communications path is tested much more often than with a dial up panel, and there is a substantial cost difference involved there. But the biggest cost that the central station has to bear is that of payroll, and that doesn't change. We still have to have the same number of staff in the call center all the time.

 

[Digger]

Curious question......

Since the communication path is ethernet and NFPA require a maximum 90 second polling for fire alarm transmission systems over "Other Technologies" do you see a lot of Communication Failures?

I work in the alarm industry and I have several coworkers that are very hesitant about the technology. I personally have tested it and I think it is significantly better than a DACT/DACR system.

Just was wondering if you ahve an opinion since you work for a CS that is using the technolgy.

Also do you receive your Alarmnet directly from a 7810iR to the automation system or do you still use a 685 receiver with the 7810iR as a line card?