Emizon

[IPAlarms]

It only then reported this when I failed the Primary path, to which it then reported Primary and Secondary at the same time. I don't feel this is good enough. To me, whats the point in having a dual reporting path if both are not self monitored. If you fail the Primary it reports very quickly and swaps to Secondary so why if you fail the Secondary does this not happen?

In short - industry demand to keep costs as tight as possible.

It is not a limitation in the product itself, it's just that on a GPRS network - data costs money. Every heartbeat the device sends out uses up a small amount of data and somebody has to pay for it.

[SCT]

And the TCD takes a lot of power (well, possibly 200mA normal and that can go up to 350mA at certain times) so this has to be taken into consideration when fitting to a panel that already has a lot of power draw.

Haven't used the Emizon yet but if it draws this much, shouldn't it have its own power supply(with backup battery)? This way if the CP loses power for whatever reason the TCD should report a panel mains fail, low batt, CPU fail...wouldn't it??

[Paulypudding]

In short - industry demand to keep costs as tight as possible.

It is not a limitation in the product itself, it's just that on a GPRS network - data costs money. Every heartbeat the device sends out uses up a small amount of data and somebody has to pay for it.

I fully understand these limitations but it does mean that the installers, and end users, are of the belief that they are being protected by a dual path device which in actual fact is less secure than a gsm. At least the gsm (depending which type of course) will monitor both the primary and secondary paths.

If the TCM can correctly determine when the signal level has fallen below the required threshold then surely it can trigger an event via the Primary Path. This wouldn't require any extra polling by the gprs supplier (optus in this case).This to me would be a very easy fix and address what I can see as a failing in this product. I would welcome more comment into this issue

Paul

[Paulypudding]

Haven't used the Emizon yet but if it draws this much, shouldn't it have its own power supply(with backup battery)? This way if the CP loses power for whatever reason the TCD should report a panel mains fail, low batt, CPU fail...wouldn't it??

Again, to me, this is a feature of the TCM that hasn't been addressed properly. It's ok the manufacturers and suppliers saying that you just connect to an existing panel and off you go, but in reality, extra power supplies and backup batteries may be what is required, along with its own a/c fail and battery fail reporting.

As I said before, I am not bagging this product as our company is looking at using it, but it isn't as secure as made out to be due to the limitations we've discussed. I want to address these before we start to fit them out in the field.

[IPAlarms]

I fully understand these limitations but it does mean that the installers, and end users, are of the belief that they are being protected by a dual path device which in actual fact is less secure than a gsm. At least the gsm (depending which type of course) will monitor both the primary and secondary paths.

If the GPRS portion of a dualpath solution is used as it should be, with 60 second to say 3 minute polling, then there would not be a problem.

If the TCM can correctly determine when the signal level has fallen below the required threshold then surely it can trigger an event via the Primary Path. This wouldn't require any extra polling by the gprs supplier (optus in this case).This to me would be a very easy fix and address what I can see as a failing in this product. I would welcome more comment into this issue

The Emizon solution was designed in the UK and I know from certifying our own products that EN regulations at the higher grades require this. I would be very surprised if the Emizon board does not support this in Australia. Have you asked them ?

All GPRS solutions providers, except us, have fixed data plans which allow polling at a certain interval. This is a way for the manufacturers, monitoring centres and alarm companies to make more money from the end user.

With our GPRS devices, you source your own SIM, chose your own plan and send as many polls as you like - we don't care !

If you decide the site requires 60 second polling and the signal level falls below the required threshold, then you would get a supervision failure in 60 seconds. Either way, the GPRS side should let the IP side know about the signal level problem and you should get a warning almost immediately.

[Paulypudding]

If the GPRS portion of a dualpath solution is used as it should be, with 60 second to say 3 minute polling, then there would not be a problem.


The Emizon solution was designed in the UK and I know from certifying our own products that EN regulations at the higher grades require this. I would be very surprised if the Emizon board does not support this in Australia. Have you asked them ?

All GPRS solutions providers, except us, have fixed data plans which allow polling at a certain interval. This is a way for the manufacturers, monitoring centres and alarm companies to make more money from the end user.

With our GPRS devices, you source your own SIM, chose your own plan and send as many polls as you like - we don't care !

If you decide the site requires 60 second polling and the signal level falls below the required threshold, then you would get a supervision failure in 60 seconds. Either way, the GPRS side should let the IP side know about the signal level problem and you should get a warning almost immediately.

The pricing stucture of the Emizon system doesn't allow regular polling of the gprs due to it being the Secondary path. (I believe). When the Primary path fails (IP) then the polling for the Secondary is changed to suit and will then poll more frequently. But, while the gprs is only being used as a Secondary, it doesn't poll regularly and so disconnecting it won't bring up a fail (as far as I've tested anyway) We had a rep visit our office and I told him this. He was suprised (he said) and wanted me to test further and then let him connect in and check the log. Really think they should be doing that themselves, but If I get a chance next week then I will oblige.

[IPAlarms]

The pricing stucture of the Emizon system doesn't allow regular polling of the gprs due to it being the Secondary path. (I believe). When the Primary path fails (IP) then the polling for the Secondary is changed to suit and will then poll more frequently.

That sounds logical and fair. I wonder what happens when someone using their base plan that only polls once daily has a prolonged primary IP failure, say for a couple of days ?

What polling rate does the GPRS switch to - and who foots the bill for the extra data ?

[keef82]

I agree, the control room setting up is important, but so is knowing what the product does as well. Control rooms can only action based on what they know from techs and stuff.

Like I said before. The Secondary path, which is GPRS, doesnt get checked regularly when the Primary path is in tact. Therefore, if you disconnect the Secondary path, Ie, remove the aerial (if the area allows this) and the signal strength drops to a level where it wont report (i,e 99) then this is not picked up at the control room end cos it doesnt report it. I had one on test and the first time I tried it, it took 24hrs before it reported a Secondary fail and the second time I tried it, it took 48 hours.

It only then reported this when I failed the Primary path, to which it then reported Primary and Secondary at the same time. I don't feel this is good enough. To me, whats the point in having a dual reporting path if both are not self monitored. If you fail the Primary it reports very quickly and swaps to Secondary so why if you fail the Secondary does this not happen?

Test one next time you get a chance. I think by finding out these things and letting the manufactures know is the only way we'll get a product we're all happy with.

Wow, that's Interesting, i thought that both path's were polled?
How can it be that the secondary path is not polled at the same rate as the primary, that sux

[IPAlarms]

How can it be that the secondary path is not polled at the same rate as the primary, that sux

poll = data
data = $$$'s
1 poll every 7 minutes = approx 1mB data

Think about the network providers Telstra and Optus. What do they get out of GPRS alarm monitoring solutions ?

Split $4.50 between the network operator, Emizon & MCM and you'll understand why you only get 1 poll per day !

Knock out the costs of attaining AU standards certification, the trade shows, reps travelling round CMS's and the Emizon investors are looking at a looooooong return on their investment. What sounds too good to be true - usually is !

The words "Bait and Switch" spring to mind. From what I hear, a lot of companies have taken the $4.50 bait. How else were Emizon going to get into the GPRS marketplace with strong players like SCSI, Suretek and Permaconn all offering technically great products ?

Anyone using the daily polling plan is getting nailed at $4.50 a week. You are basically selling an expensive IP only solution when there are other lower cost IP solutions available at just 75 cents per week.

If you are only going to poll the secondary path once a day - why not just do a daily test over PSTN or GSM dialler and save your and your customer a few bucks ?

[No Brainer]

Awesome product, not had a SINGLE issue, no gprs fails, nothing, rock solid baby.

Wow, that's Interesting, i thought that both path's were polled?
How can it be that the secondary path is not polled at the same rate as the primary, that sux

This is an interesting phenomenon I strongly belive that not many people at technical level actually understand IP monitoring technology. I guess there are those that just believe the sales reps, those that just install what they are told to install by their bosses and those that actually test and find out for themselves..

Sorry Keef not a personal dig just an interesting observation of your comments.

[IPAlarms]

This is an interesting phenomenon I strongly belive that not many people at technical level actually understand IP monitoring technology. I guess there are those that just believe the sales reps, those that just install what they are told to install by their bosses and those that actually test and find out for themselves..

I second that.

PaulyPudding is going about this the right way. He is asking questions and putting any answers to the test. Even more important, he is doing it on the bench - not out in the field !

It is clear from Keef's statements that he was unaware that the secondary is not always polled at the same rate as the primary. It begs the question: What does the Customer think he is getting ?

[downunderdan]

It is clear from Keef's statements that he was unaware that the secondary is not always polled at the same rate as the primary. It begs the question: What does the Customer think he is getting ?

Why would both paths need to be polled at the same, presumably high rate? The secondary path, is precisely that. Secondary. Surely it would only need to 'step up to the plate' when the primary path was inaccessible.

[IPAlarms]

Why would both paths need to be polled at the same, presumably high rate? The secondary path, is precisely that. Secondary. Surely it would only need to 'step up to the plate' when the primary path was inaccessible.

Insurance companies and Aussie standards dictate how often each path has to poll and it varies for the different classes.

[Paulypudding]

Why would both paths need to be polled at the same, presumably high rate? The secondary path, is precisely that. Secondary. Surely it would only need to 'step up to the plate' when the primary path was inaccessible.

Correct but if the secondary path goes down then I want to know about it BEFORE the primary also goes down. Bear in mind that the IP primary path is usually connected through the clients router which won't possibly have a battery backup. This means that there is a high chance of the primary path failing with power outages and if the seconday isn't adequately checked then you suddenly have lost both. I know this will be reported but if there was a genuine incident at the same time (probably unlikely) then all the control room will get will be a primary and secondary fail at the same time but no knowledge of what is actually occuring at the premises.

That could in turn slow down the response time to action it. You think about it, a patrolman is sent to site cos theyve just lost primary and secondary. Probably doesnt mean that much in itself, but if primary was lost with lots of alarms also being sent then it gives more urgency and accuracy to the incident which could be mean quicker response times.

[downunderdan]

Bear in mind that the IP primary path is usually connected through the clients router which won't possibly have a battery backup.

It comes down to risk assessment. If that is a significant concern for you, then put a UPS on the internet connection. The typical small-office internet router consumes so little power, even the cheapest, nastiest UPS will be able to keep it upright for hours. People need to consider what they will do if the communications path goes down. Either treat as serious, or alternatively, create additional redundancy to further reduce the likelihood.

It will interesting to see what happens over the next few years however, as so-called "high availability" systems become more mainstream, where once products like Securitel and Direct Line were confined to the big end of town.

This means that there is a high chance of the primary path failing with power outages and if the secondary isn't adequately checked then you suddenly have lost both. I know this will be reported but if there was a genuine incident at the same time (probably unlikely) then all the control room will get will be a primary and secondary fail at the same time but no knowledge of what is actually occurring at the premises.

Again, horses for courses. In the absence of a good explanation, we would regard a total communications failure as a very serious event, assume the worst and respond accordingly.

That could in turn slow down the response time to action it. You think about it, a patrolman is sent to site cos theyve just lost primary and secondary. Probably doesnt mean that much in itself, but if primary was lost with lots of alarms also being sent then it gives more urgency and accuracy to the incident which could be mean quicker response times.

I disagree.

In my opinion, an outsourced patrol response will get to a job as quickly as they can, regardless of the nature of the call-out or the alarm events which preceded it. The sooner they get there, the sooner they get paid and can resume their normal patrol or attend other jobs.

The only exception where urgency drives response speed, might be a police response. However in the case of communications failures, it's an irrelevant discussion as they probably aren't going to turn on the blue lights because someone's Internet failed...

[SCT]

The only exception where urgency drives response speed, might be a police response. However in the case of communications failures, it's an irrelevant discussion as they probably aren't going to turn on the blue lights because someone's Internet failed...

Can't say with any certainty about other states but NSW police will only respond to a verified alarm event.
This notice regarding changes to NSW police alarm response policy was distributed in may this year.

[SCT]

Question about Emizon to those that are currently using it.

I have used MCM products in the appropriate circumstances for many years as I like to support local industry and have always had excellent tech support from them when necessary (gave up using Solution equipment when EDM was sold to Detection Systems).

Having said that..am I alone in being uncomfortable about subscribing to a monitoring system where signals have to be bounced half way around the world and back again??
I know that the time taken for the transmission is pretty much irrelevant, I just dont understand why they didn't set up a system that utilised a local server??? or am I being too old school???

[downunderdan]

SCT,

Practically all Internet traffic passes through a number of third-party servers, from DNS to other network points. While you can certainly encrypt a VPN tunnel between two endpoints, across a number of intermediary points, the whole concept of 'end to end' is almost entirely a myth as soon as you are talking about the Internet.

I'd say any criticism is commercially motivated and based on Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) rather than any objective assessment of the facts.

Personally, I would prefer a well maintained, secured system in a secure environment overseas, than trusting this to the maintenance of a typical Australian security company who struggle to even set up a mail server properly.

The whole discussion is a beat-up.

The other thing to remember, is that the security of any system is only as strong as its weakest link.

People on this site could argue forever about ways and means to hack systems, bypass security, overthrow networks, foreign government interference. But all of that's moot if you can simply kick in the door of the place they are protecting... Sound familiar?

The other thing I've learned, dealing with foreign owned telcos and major ISPs, is that the money they stand to lose, if their system was exposed as corrupt, is generally orders of magnitude larger than the value of any single or few assets protected by it. In other words, you have nothing worth stealing that's so valuable they would throw away their entire business for it.

That's from a security perspective. In terms of speed and network latency, again, it's a trivial matter as these systems on their worst day, are still comparable to if not better than what we've happily put up with for decades. A second here or there isn't going to matter. I also expect local nodes once any foreign service grows in this country.

[kiwitech]

SCT,

The other thing to remember, is that the security of any system is only as strong as its weakest link.

With this in mind why would you then connect a comms transmitter onto the public domain ?.

[downunderdan]

With this in mind why would you then connect a comms transmitter onto the public domain ?.

Because unless you want to run your own piece of string between your premises and the monitoring station, you do not have a choice.

Instead, you create layers of security which compensate for the inadequacies of a public environment and help assure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of your signal.

To draw an analogy, short of a helicopter, there's no way to get cash from the bank head office to a branch, without driving on insecure public roads. So they use an armoured truck.