Pros Talk Opportunities and Challenges in Alarm Signal Transmission
Due to advances in cellular and IP communications, alarm signal transmission has changed more in recent years than during the preceding century.
Burglar and fire alarm signaling has long been the lifeblood of the electronic security and life-safety markets. Advances in alarm signaling technology has propelled both aspects of the industry well beyond the original vision of those who first forged a path to what has now become an extremely lucrative business.
This is especially true where it comes to recurring monthly revenue (RMR) through central station monitoring.
“Monitoring is one of the most important aspects of my business. Not only does it provide opportunity for service calls after warranties have expired, but it also gives us a dependable source of monthly recurring revenue. Being able to rely on a steady source of income is key for any business,” says Mike Pearson, president of Safeguard Data & Security of Sugarcreek Township, Ohio.
It’s not profit alone, however, that drives the need for security dealers to provide monitoring. Monitoring, in fact, plays a central role in selling, installing and maintaining many if not most residential and commercial accounts. Without it, many people wouldn’t buy security in the first place.
The changes in alarm signal transmission has made it challenging for dealers to keep legacy customers/systems updated with current primary and backup communications to the central station.
At the same time, such changes can potentially be angled as opportunities to reach out to and better serve the customer base. Leading alarm panel/communicator makers and installing dealers speak to the present landscape and offer recommendations.
Signaling Then and Now
The technologies in use today in the protection of homes, businesses and institutions are radically different than when Augustus Pope patented the first “electro-magnetic alarm system” in 1853.
And where it comes to the original central station application in 1871, there’s barely a comparison possible between the direct, dedicated-wire systems of that time and the cellular/IP-based systems of today.
“Alarm communication technology has changed significantly in the last decade,” says Tom Mechler, regional marketing manager with Bosch Security and Safety Systems. “Telecom companies have been replacing copper phone lines with newer technology. Wireless and Internet-based phone services are taking the place of traditional phone lines.”
Mechler explains the adoption of these newer technologies can disrupt service at sites with intrusion and fire alarm control panels that use older technology for alarm communications.
“Communication failures can frustrate users and cost dealers and integrators time and money when a truck roll is needed to resolve an issue,” he continues.
The fact is plain old telephone service (POTS) is no longer the reliable means of communication it once was. In addition, these lines are relatively expensive to use compared with cellular and Internet.
“The traditional tip and ring, as we used to call it, simply isn’t there. Even VoIP isn’t there in many locations anymore,” says Steve Shapiro, general manager for intrusion with DSC of Tyco/Johnson Controls. “It’s on an overall decline whether it be traditional POTS or VoIP.”
By offering cellular communications, the alarm dealer actually unlocks another source of RMR, further increasing the financial bottom line while saving clients a ton of money. Not only that but using cellular and IP in tandem increases your chances of getting signals through to the central monitoring station.
“At Alula we have long embraced multiple paths of communications including Ethernet, WiFi and cellular technologies, and not only utilize these for alarm signals but also audio and video verification services. The ubiquitous nature of Internet connectivity has prompted the migration of virtually all voice, video and data transmission over this network,” says Dave Mayne, vice president of product management with Alula (formerly Resolution Products and ipDatatel).
Impact of Cellular and IP
The electronic security industry’s evolutionary advances beyond digital dialers and POTS represent more than simply efficient and cost-effective means for transmission. Notably, it is a conduit to expand the universe of connected devices and associated services.
“Many of the customers affected by alarm signaling advancements are long-term, high value, recurring revenue providers to the dealers. They have benefited from their security offering for many years,” says Mayne. “The advances in signaling technologies give dealers the chance to introduce new services to their customers, and demonstrate how they — and the industry as a whole — has grown to deliver state-of-the-art connected home offerings. Introducing new technologies and services to your customers helps reduce attrition and potentially increase RMR.”
Cellular was the first to emerge on the scene in the early 1990s, then the Internet within a decade or so after that.
Through the wonder of digital communication, alarm data can now make it from alarm panel to the central station in a fraction of the time of yesterday’s older digital dialers using POTS.
Today, most alarm panels continue to include a digital dialer. But there are add-on modules and other options that provide IP/network and cellular as well as panels equipped with all of them on the motherboard.
“Most of our panels have a dialer on-board with or without network capability. We also make panels that have WiFi. Our cell communicators are typically modular so they can be added. This is in addition to WiFi modules that also can be added at a later time,” says Adam Kindler, alarm panel product manager with DMP.
Napco, DMP, Bosch and others also make an approved cellular fire alarm alternative.
“One of the nice things about our cellular [on the fire side] is that it’s approved by UL, the California State Fire Marshal and the New York City Fire Department for sole-path communication,” says John Adams, product manager of central station products with DMP.
He says this enables fire alarm installers to meet compliancy requirements whether it involves a DMP fire panel or anyone else’s.
“You can hook it up and have cell comm as your sole path of communication,” says Adams. “The reason why it’s accepted is how we provide supervision at the receiver. Our panels ping the receiver at intervals that meet NFPA code [Table 22.214.171.124(g), NFPA 72, 2013 Edition]. So it pings every 5 minutes or every 60 minutes, depending on the NFPA code [2013 or prior], but it checks in with the receiver and if it fails to do so, our receiver at the central station initiates an alarm.” (See Section 126.96.36.199, NFPA 72, 2016 Edition for more information.)
Keep reading to learn how manufacturers are accommodating legacy panels and more…
Security Is Our Business, Too
For professionals who recommend, buy and install all types of electronic security equipment, a free subscription to Security Sales & Integration is like having a consultant on call. You’ll find an ideal balance of technology and business coverage, with installation tips and techniques for products and updates on how to add sales to your bottom line.
A free subscription to the #1 resource for the residential and commercial security industry will prove to be invaluable. Subscribe today!
Great article on alternative communication in the alarm monitoring industry. Just want to clarify on Mr. Adams statement regarding his reference to DMP communicators. While the FDNY has issued “Certificates of Approval” for both the DMP cellular & IP Network communicators, they are prohibited for use as sole path communication, as NYC code requires dual path technology. I have included the excerpt referenced above…..
“One of the nice things about our cellular [on the fire side] is that it’s approved by UL, the California State Fire Marshal and the New York City Fire Department for sole-path communication,” says John Adams, product manager of central station products with DMP.” etc.
Mr. Wimmer, we made mention of this in a follow-up piece. I was contacted by another individual who made this known to us. I appreciate your time and effort in making sure that this information is readily available to the field.