My problem with back-up radios

I've had this long time question about the turn in the evolution of back-up radios.

The question is .......... what ever happened to redundancy?

I have a real problem with the fact that nobody (installers and manufacture rs) has any problem with the lack of redundancy reporting of back-communica tion devices in the "newer" equipment now available.

How can it be alright to have a device (radio/cellular) installed on an ala rm installation that is supposedly sold to the client that has a higher con cern for the integrity of communication ..... a device that could possibly sit there for the next 5 years or longer (if there is no telephone failure followed by an alarm condition) and never be tested to send an alarm signal to central station?

I just don't get it ... why no one has a problem with this.

Am I missing something? Doesn't it seem more resonable to have a wireless d evice that sends an alarm code at the same time as the land line communicat or? Is it just something that the manufacturers and wireless service provid ers have promoted to cut down on the tower traffic in spite of the fact tha t it doesn't actually qualify to serve the true essance of a back up commun ication device? Rather favoring benifits to them over the greater good of p roviding better insurance to the customer.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? Anyone know of a wireless full d ata transmission device that will provide redundancy reporting? I don't kno w about other panels but Napco has a dual reporting feature. Most panels ha ve backup reporting. It would seem to me that there should be some way to t ake advantage of this to be able to provide full data reporting. Or ..... s ome way for the wireless communication device to "listen in during land lin e reporting and send a simultanious radio transmission. On Napco panels I c an program it to not wait for hand shake. I don't know about other panels.

I know,.... I know, ....they send in their daily/weekly supervisory signal ... I don't know about you, but to me ... that's NOT and alarm signal and isn't proof enough for me that it will really send an alarm signal when the time comes. And I know that there are non-full data radios that will send redundant signals. I just think that full data radios should send them also .

But, ... even with other panels lacking all of the above capability, I thin k I have a kind of klugy way to provide redundancy on these "non redundant" full data devices, but I'll wait for replies to this post before I pass it by everyone.

Reply to
Jim
Loading thread data ...

Jim,

I hope this answers you concerns: Telguard radios can be programmed to test the transmitter daily, weekly, or monthly... You may program them to send alarms via cellular first and use the landline as a backup, while using the phone line monitor of the TG-4/7 to activate a zone on the control panel if the line goes dead for an extended period of time.

When using the Honeywell 10/15/20P controls and an AlarmNet Radio that uses the ECP method of communications, it is possible to send all alarm events via the Radio and phone line. Or program the panel to send all signals via cellular first and use the phone line as the backup. You should also program the line fault feature of the control panel to monitor the phone line. AlarmNet can have the radio supervision (A.K.A. Transmitter Test) set at Daily, or Monthly as well as no supervision.

Just my 1/2 cent :)

Regards, Russ

The question is .......... what ever happened to redundancy?

I have a real problem with the fact that nobody (installers and manufacturers) has any problem with the lack of redundancy reporting of back-communication devices in the "newer" equipment now available.

How can it be alright to have a device (radio/cellular) installed on an alarm installation that is supposedly sold to the client that has a higher concern for the integrity of communication ..... a device that could possibly sit there for the next 5 years or longer (if there is no telephone failure followed by an alarm condition) and never be tested to send an alarm signal to central station?

I just don't get it ... why no one has a problem with this.

Am I missing something? Doesn't it seem more resonable to have a wireless device that sends an alarm code at the same time as the land line communicator? Is it just something that the manufacturers and wireless service providers have promoted to cut down on the tower traffic in spite of the fact that it doesn't actually qualify to serve the true essance of a back up communication device? Rather favoring benifits to them over the greater good of providing better insurance to the customer.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? Anyone know of a wireless full data transmission device that will provide redundancy reporting? I don't know about other panels but Napco has a dual reporting feature. Most panels have backup reporting. It would seem to me that there should be some way to take advantage of this to be able to provide full data reporting. Or ..... some way for the wireless communication device to "listen in during land line reporting and send a simultanious radio transmission. On Napco panels I can program it to not wait for hand shake. I don't know about other panels.

I know,.... I know, ....they send in their daily/weekly supervisory signal ... I don't know about you, but to me ... that's NOT and alarm signal and isn't proof enough for me that it will really send an alarm signal when the time comes. And I know that there are non-full data radios that will send redundant signals. I just think that full data radios should send them also.

But, ... even with other panels lacking all of the above capability, I think I have a kind of klugy way to provide redundancy on these "non redundant" full data devices, but I'll wait for replies to this post before I pass it by everyone.

Reply to
Russell Brill

to test the transmitter daily, weekly, or monthly... You may program them t o send alarms via cellular first and use the landline as a backup, while us ing the phone line monitor of the TG-4/7 to activate a zone on the control panel if the line goes dead for an extended period of time. When using the Honeywell 10/15/20P controls and an AlarmNet Radio that uses the ECP method of communications, it is possible to send all alarm events via the Radio a nd phone line. Or program the panel to send all signals via cellular first and use the phone line as the backup. You should also program the line faul t feature of the control panel to monitor the phone line. AlarmNet can have the radio supervision (A.K.A. Transmitter Test) set at Daily, or Monthly a s well as no supervision. Just my 1/2 cent :) Regards, Russ

Thanks Russ.

Some of those things I know about but ideal would be if ....

Every time an alarm occured, both radio and land line would send a signal. If the radio fails ( or doesn't complete contact with central) , a signal i s sent on the land line. If the land line fails ( or doesn't complete conta ct with central, a signal is sent on the radio. If either fail, notificatio n is given at the keypad. Giving notification at the keypad isn't failsafe, it's just a convenience. I've got lots of clients that don't occupy their homes for months at a time.

I just get annoyed at the fact that there are manufacturers that are promo ting this landline communication and radio transmission only if the landlin e fails .... and installers are just doing it. I don't see any manufacturer promoting or educatating installers about the shortcommings of this. You'd think that somewhere there'd be a radio mfg out there promoting the fact t hat their competitors don't provide for redundant signal transmission .... as a selling point. I don't see it. Not doing this allows the installers t o become complacent in their offerings, which in turn gives the customers a false sense of security. This puts the installer (me) who wants to do th e right thing at a disadvantage. It's nothing new, fer sure, but it just gr ipes me that the mfgs are "promoting" this by not providing the products no r the education about the shortcommings.

Reply to
Jim

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.