Recommendations for monitoring companies

[apostolakisl]

Dell,

The C3 is a 12vdc device. Just like 99% of all the other stuff you attach to an alarm panel including the Uplink device. . .right? You keep getting stuck on the internal battery like it is the mandated one and only backup power. Just pretend the c3 is like your uplink . . . a 12vdc device with no battery in it all. Just unplug the battery, throw it away and pretend it never existed. Your uplink is undoubtedly plugged into an aux power supply with its own battery back up and supervision. Just plug the c3 into that. . . now it is supervised exactly the same as an uplink. You must understand, the c3 built-in battery is an optional convenience. . . it does not exclude a supervised power supply/battery backup system in its stead. The c3 is used by some as a home phone. . .not for securirty at all. For them, the built-in battery is a nice convenience.

As I mentioned, c3 could have an internal radio failure or expired minutes and you wouldn't know it until test day. Expired minutes is just your own stupidity and is akin to not paying your annual monitoring co bill, so it doesn't count. Both are supervised in the sense that both co's will annoy the crap out of you trying to get you to pay and if you don't pay it had to be on purpose.

I challenge regarding data only successfully transmitting through a tower that fails dtmf on voice line. DTMF might fail, but it will know it failed and it will repeat if need be. The cellular data can fail just the same, and it will repeat also.. .but it can do it more quickly. But the time difference is not particularly relevant in a residential alarm.

I understand the difference between the data networks and the voice networks. The biggest reason the data system is used is for efficiency. . not reliability. It is a cost thing. The data lines only use the bandwidth they need and can do so using addressing similar to the internet. .. rather than making what would amount to a dedicated tunnel which is what voice does using far more switching and bandwidth. Realize that the biggest customers of these sorts of data connections are not security systems, they are things like vending machines and fleet vehicles. There is also a reasonable chance that my own startup co which monitors bar and restaurant beverage sales may use that technology . . . but at present we are leaning toward the internet . . but this is off topic. If it had to make a voice connection that would be much more burdensome and the cost would be much higher.

 

[Del91574]

<_<

As I said, ignorance is bliss.

Lou, you don't have to defend your installation and what you justify as being an acceptable risk, as you already made your decision, as you seem happy with the product, but to state it's equivalent or can be made equivalent simply is not true, nothing can make it be an equivalent product offering.

Yes, the C3 is 12V and could be powered from an external source, supervising a couple of points to remove them off the list of key differences, but you're missing the entire point that had been brought up:

The C3 does not have any provision to notify an alarm panel or end user there is an issue with the unit or the service provider in a timely and appropriate manner. It is NOT supervised, polled or looked at the same as a dedicated alarm cellular communicator.

I'm sure people may have their reasons to choose this product, but for economic comparison, side by side, it's foolhearted, and honestly, if one really shops around, even more expensive than a real cellular communicator.

As I stated, the C3 is the wireless equivalent of connecting an alarm panel to POTS, without any of the pros of using a true cellular communicator.

 

[apostolakisl]

As I said, ignorance is bliss.

I wouldn't know. . . Never tried it. . . .but I'll take you word on that.

As I stated, the C3 is the wireless equivalent of connecting an alarm panel to POTS

Yes, agreed.

without any of the pros of using a true cellular communicator.

Not agreed.

1) The simple act of a burglar cutting the wire at the telephone pole or side of the house is eliminated as a system compromise.
2) You still retain all the benefits of POTS that you don't with uplink. ie you can dial into the system and the system can dial out using voice transmission.
3) You can run the c3 through your house in place of pots if you want and still have it run the alarm also.
4) POTS can coexist with C3 under the same contract with the CS.
5) It's a bit cheaper.

Timely notification of a broken c3 is relative. Keep in mind that it would require an odd situation where the c3 was on and functioning, but only the radio had failed. Certainly possible. . . but it would be odd. If the entire c3 went down, the panel would recognize 0 volts at the phone line and notify. If the tower went down. . . then both of us wish we had POTS. Of course with the C3, POTS and C3 can coexist. AGAIN, IT IS ABOUT PROBABILITY. You need to consider the chances of needing the system and simultaneously the system being down. For most residential settings the probability of a C3 system failure (needing it at the same time as it fails) is likely going to be one of the least likely points of failure. In a residential setting, the most likely point of failure will probably be user error by orders of magnitude higher than c3 failure.

The biggest driving force for an alarm monitoring company to use uplink style is $$$$. They make big bucks charging for the cellular service that they only pay pennies for when they buy their data bundles from ATT, Sprint, or whoever. It's the same reason that vending machines use it. .. it's cheap and it works.

I will say that it would be nice if the C3 had a supervision relay on it that changed state if it lost it's radio comm with the tower. I don't exactly know the details, but phones and towers log into each other and I believe the phone can recognize when it's not logged in. Certainly the cell system knows if your not logged in as evidenced by your number going straight to voicemail when the phone is off. Which makes me think, that might be a way to supervise . . . set up an automatic dialer to your c3 number and if it doesn't ring at least 3 times it notifies you. . . .Just a brainstorm.

 

[Del91574]

Wow. That's all I can say. I'll leave it at that.

If you really want to know how the hardware works, interacts and services involved, I'm more than happy to sit down and explain, but your assumptions and conclusions are, to put it simply, incorrect. As I said, I'll show you a real monitoring setup, from the account(s) to the head end. I have a few different head ends that I could show you enough technology that would hopefully open your eyes up.

If you're happy with your C3 and prepaid SIM, rock on. It's not what someone that is concerned with reliability, safety and security would be using, but it's all about probability (and in your mind, profitability)...after all, with probability as you put it, we don't need to really do load calculations on a system to plan for an appropriate standby time, since a power loss happens with such rarity and for such a short period of time, it'll be fixed soon, before the system powers down, and of course an actual alarm event won't happen during those sorts of periods of time. All probability, as you put it.

Let's just be honest, though the comparison may be drastic for most, the C3 is DIY grade and quality equipment, service, and functionality, akin to a voice dialer on POTS, although it can be used to get a digital communicator to speak with a CS,ii has clear and defined vulnerabilities and design flaws. It's like stating an X-10 line carrier alarm system is the same as installing a UL certificated hardwired installation to merchantile safe & vault with BMS' and everything tampered, in conduit and attack rated.

 

[tmbrown97]

OK I've literally been ignoring this thread, not clicking on it once, until now... Here's what I see.

1. The C3 *is* HAI's solution for cell monitoring. It's not my style, as I prefer the direct communication link of the Uplink 2500 that can communicate real-time status with the M1; but to each his own. I see nothing wrong with Lou's setup - he seems to be educated enough about the situation to make that decision for himself.
   
2. DEL - you often mention comparing apples to bananas as far as a C3 vs. a 2500 or any other two such systems; but how about the fact that you're basically comparing grapes to watermelons when you're comparing a low-profile residence to a larger targeted commercial installation? There are a lot of differences. As Lou mentioned, it doesn't matter if you don't know the cell tower is offline if you're not home and can't fix it anyways - you have other problems! However, if you're at a bank and can alert security that something has gone wrong, you can put security and everyone on-site on high alert. They're just different situations. Even in a high end home in the Hamptons, you can alert your security guards that there's a problem with security, and get the client protected. Nobody's going to come protect Lou or stand guard around his house because his alarm didn't communicate no matter what his panel tells him. And he seems perfectly willing to risk not knowing there's a problem with his communicator for up to 24-hours playing the odds that someone won't break in during those same 24-hours before he figures out the problem due to a failed alarm clock dial.
   
3. Teken - no, the Pentagon isn't secured by an Elk M1G - but it's not secured by a Vista 20P or an ADT SafeWatch either. What's your point? And contrary to your statement, the M1G is first and foremost a security panel, which can also do automation.
   
4. I prefer Cellular monitoring over anything for all the reasons stated above; can't be cut; most people won't be carrying jammers, it's faster to connect/transmit, etc. That said, I can tell you that where I live right now, if you rely 100% on cellular you are open to a huge vulnerability. About twice/year, we get a power outage that lasts 4-8 hours. During that time, nearly every single resident in this city fires up Facebook to bitch and/or Pandora to listen to music, Tweets about their life in the dark ages, etc; During that time, you won't get a single packet of data through or any successful phone calls without having the patience to keep trying over and over again and failing. We just don't have enough towers/bandwidth to handle it. You'll have a perfect 5-bar signal (especially with all the area's RF interference powered down) and it'll look great until you try to pass data and it just fails. If there's a problem, I have to drive 5 miles away to make a phone call. Any crook that realizes that can cut phone lines and rob this area at will, unless the homeowner has a way to protect against that scenario. For that reason, I must look for 2-3 methods.

So lets keep this discussion on topic - nobody is talking about protecting a casino or a bank with an M1G and a C3; this is about your everyday homeowner in his tract home looking for reasonably good monitoring that's a step above relying on the phone line that's strung from the pole to your roof 7ft off the ground, or to the DMARC on the side of your house that anyone can walk by and open and cut the lines inside of. That brings the level of drama down considerably.

 

[apostolakisl]

Work2Play. . . well said.

after all, with probability as you put it, we don't need to really do load calculations on a system to plan for an appropriate standby time,

Dell, step back for a second and realize that you just proved my point. You said load calculations for an appropriate time. What is an appropriate time? You can only determine that based on probability.

Everything is probability.

As a security expert who apparently installs high-end security for sensitive clients, you should be running your probability numbers and reporting that probability to the customer. No system is 100%. . . every component has a failure rate and backing up a component with a second component that also has a failure rate does not make failure rate zero. Never ever is it 0. It is a simple matter of spending your money on the items that most reduce your failure rate.

Basic statistics. . .

1) Failure rate of primary power supply (the city) for one contiuous hour. . . lets say .01%
2) Failure rate of secondary power supply at 1 hour . . . lets say .01%

Probability of event 1 times event 2 gives you probability of power system failing .01% x .01% = .000001%

Now lets say for 8 hours

1) Failure rate of primary power supply (the city) for 8 contiuous hours. . . lets say .0001%
2) Failure rate of secondary power supply at 8 hours . . . lets say 99%

.0001% x 99% = .00099% rate of failure

Now maybe you say for $10,000 I can get a secondary with .01% failure at 8 hours.
.0001% x .01% = .00000001% system failure rate

So for $10,000 you went from .00099% failure rate to .00000001% failure. Let say the customer loss risk is $100,000. Does spending $10,000 to improve failure rate from .00099% to .00000001% make sense when your max loss is $100,000? That's what you need to ask your customer.

Realize of course that you have to multiply the .00099% or the .00000001% times the probability of a loss during those 8 hours. .. Maybe .01%? For that you need to go to police statistics. Just because the system fails, doesn't mean a loss will occur.


But here is a much more bottom line analysis. Take the system as a whole rather than just the power part.


Let&rsquo;s say police statistics for your town would indicate a .01% chance of home invasion during a one year period.

Now take security systems with various levels of downtime for a one year period.

System 1: 100% downtime (no system) . . .100 % x .01% = .01 % chance of undetected invasion.
System 2: 10% downtime (90% uptime) .01 % x 10% = .001% undetected invasion
System 3: 1% downtime = .0001%
System 4: .1% downtime = .00001%
System 5: .01% downtime = .000001%

Now compare those statistics to other aspects of your life that could cause a loss and ask yourself should I be putting my efforts elsewhere once I hit some number?

 

[Del91574]

Work, all the systems I put in are larger, so while they may not meet the McMansion, cookie cutter mold, they are appropriate for the risk assesment.

Teken & Work, I've done federal and military work, I know their panels, components, and installation practices. They're truly not that much different than a real security install, just more BMS', encryptors, dry pair copper, and 100% detection performance. The drawbacks are there's typically increased falses, but that's acceptable based on the inherent increase in security. Contrary to popular belief, they do use some of the panels listed, just not within the more secure systems and areas. For those curious, we typically used Infraguard and Base+ panels and built the head end to match. Typically dry copper pairs back to head end.

Lou, I didn't prove your point. I was proving how ridiculous your reasoning was based on you citing probability. If probability and cost were the two factors, then every system out there would have a 3 hour stanby time. Standards exist for a reason. As I said, if you feel warm and fuzzy with your C3 and numbers, more power to you.

 

[apostolakisl]

Standards exist for a reason

there you go again. They do. . .it's probability.

If you don't understand probability. . . you will probably make a mistake. .. and you probably won't know it.

 

[JonW]

Sorry, but someone had to do this....

 

[Teken]

Discussions like these I find either educate, or infuriate others that don't share like minds.

I can't speak for DEL, as he is more than capable in affirming his position in these things. But, what some members are simply ignoring is the simple fact the two devices are not created or behave the same way. All people can ever do is provide the information and the facts that surround the views, and than let the end user (customer decide).

If they do a risk analysis / threat assessment and fully understand the pro's and con's of going one way vs the other.

The answer becomes quite clear . . .

I have yet to meet, one single home owner, who has ever performed a threat assessment, nor a risk analysis on their residence. There are four rings of security at play, and most folks simply focus on this one part (alarm system). The majority of them have no clue how to secure their homes, never mind their business.

To be fair, I see this same behavior in many business.

At the end of the day a lot of good information has been provided on both sides. Whether or not those who read this thread in 99999999999 years later, action what has been plainly stated as NOT to do!

Is entirely up to the client, even if its completely wrong! :nutz:

Teken . . .

 

[Teken]

Teken & Work, I've done federal and military work, I know their panels, components, and installation practices. They're truly not that much different than a real security install, just more BMS', encryptors, dry pair copper, and 100% detection performance. The drawbacks are there's typically increased falses, but that's acceptable based on the inherent increase in security. Contrary to popular belief, they do use some of the panels listed, just not within the more secure systems and areas. For those curious, we typically used Infraguard and Base+ panels and built the head end to match. Typically dry copper pairs back to head end.

Its not just about 100% detection, it is also the fact they have layered and fail over protection. All communication is 100% monitored and stay alive / heart beat is always present. I know (they know) instantly if something has not reported in, or if their is a malfunction anywhere in the system.

Nobody I deal with lives on hope . . .

Because, hope don't float!

With respect to the whole cellular system, I am a fan of its use. I just don't rely on it being the only source of communications to ensure my systems are being monitored. Currently I am using both land line, cellular, IP, and a old school paging device.

Teken . . .

 

[apostolakisl]

Discussions like these I find either educate, or infuriate others that don't share like minds.

I can't speak for DEL, as he is more than capable in affirming his position in these things. But, what some members are simply ignoring is the simple fact the two devices are not created or behave the same way. All people can ever do is provide the information and the facts that surround the views, and than let the end user (customer decide).

If they do a risk analysis / threat assessment and fully understand the pro's and con's of going one way vs the other.

The answer becomes quite clear . . .

I have yet to meet, one single home owner, who has ever performed a threat assessment, nor a risk analysis on their residence. There are four rings of security at play, and most folks simply focus on this one part (alarm system). The majority of them have no clue how to secure their homes, never mind their business.

To be fair, I see this same behavior in many business.

At the end of the day a lot of good information has been provided on both sides. Whether or not those who read this thread in 99999999999 years later, action what has been plainly stated as NOT to do!

Is entirely up to the client, even if its completely wrong! :nutz:

Teken . . .

For the most part I agree with you. But I do believe that many people are engaged in threat assessment. People who live in different neighborhoods behave very differently with regards to security. They may not do a scientific study, but they do "eyeball" it and come up with reasonable ideas based on their own personal history and the history they know of their neighbors.

The most obvious example of this are the windows with bars on them in some parts of some towns. Certainly I wouldn't do that I my house . . . even though it would improve my security. The threat level is simply too low and the cost (both aesthetically and monetarily) don't justify it.

Sometimes people get too close to a subject and lose the forest for the trees.

 

[apostolakisl]

All communication is 100% monitored and stay alive / heart beat is always present. I know (they know) instantly if something has not reported in, or if their is a malfunction anywhere in the system.

Be careful. . . you have made an assumption that the monitoring company has 0% chance of failure. The CS has a failure rate as well.

 

[tmbrown97]

Who's to say something is "wrong" vs just a different comfort level? Again, the average homeowner isn't protecting a bank vault.

You guys must deal with average joe customers... You know, the guys who decide that an ADT sign in the yard is a good deterrent and that proper perimeter detection is too expensive. Most people won't even spring for 2nd level window sensors or sufficient glass breaks, but more than once I've seen a house broken into with the homeowner's own ladder left leaning up against their house after a crook used it to gain entry Also, homeowners are more afraid of fines from false alarms than 100% detection. Priorities are just different for different people. In every one of these cases, the homeowner is weighing cost vs benefit, even if they're doing it naively.

 

[Teken]

For the most part I agree with you. But I do believe that many people are engaged in threat assessment. People who live in different neighborhoods behave very differently with regards to security. They may not do a scientific study, but they do "eyeball" it and come up with reasonable ideas based on their own personal history and the history they know of their neighbors.

The most obvious example of this are the windows with bars on them in some parts of some towns. Certainly I wouldn't do that I my house . . . even though it would improve my security. The threat level is simply too low and the cost (both aesthetically and monetarily) don't justify it.

Sometimes people get too close to a subject and lose the forest for the trees.

What you have stated is very much what I have observed over the years for sure. But, keep in mind the people in this forum are the remote 5%.

Most folks have no clue about HA, or security. Most of the folks I know count on one good dog and a 45 at the bed side. This is why I stress to all those entering the security field that they first decide what it is they are trying to protect.

Is it life? is it property? Is it the combination of both?

Regardless of the answer it comes down to the basics and knowing you're using tried and true methods. There is always room for advancements for sure. But, when something has been used and proven in the field over time (time is the victor) its not hard to decide what to do.

Be careful. . . you have made an assumption that the monitoring company has 0% chance of failure. The CS has a failure rate as well.

No argument there . . . That is why I always find it interesting to read this forum and many others about what company they have decided to rely upon for monitoring.

98% of the people in this forum have never called or tested their monitoring company to vet their response time. Nor even gone so far as to see how it really works, regardless of all the sales hype.

We had a so called 5 diamond CS which was touted as the best of the best. After vetting and validating this company after only 2 system tests, they were fired.

Why??

Because their response time, along with the inept actions per the violation in progress dictated a completely different outcome. These companies have UL SOP's to follow, so when they can't even read the board and perform the correct action to make the most basic end solve.

These people can't be trusted to serve even the home owner . . .

Who's to say something is "wrong" vs just a different comfort level? Again, the average homeowner isn't protecting a bank vault.

You guys must deal with average joe customers... You know, the guys who decide that an ADT sign in the yard is a good deterrent and that proper perimeter detection is too expensive. Most people won't even spring for 2nd level window sensors or sufficient glass breaks, but more than once I've seen a house broken into with the homeowner's own ladder left leaning up against their house after a crook used it to gain entry Also, homeowners are more afraid of fines from false alarms than 100% detection. Priorities are just different for different people. In every one of these cases, the homeowner is weighing cost vs benefit, even if they're doing it naively.

This is pretty much human nature for sure. But, at the end of the day, let me be blunt.

You can't fix stupid . . .

Teken . . .