GPRS rumor

[madtech]

Has anybody else heard any whispers re SCSI being in deep doo doo re poll rates and point to point that isn't?

[keef82]

Is anyone actually monitoring (auditing) these suppliers, and checking their poll rates, event time rates e.t.c to the standard?

[No Brainer]

Hi

yes I have heard the rumours and sadly for the Australian Security Industry....they are exactly that...rumours..

If you check SCSI's website "news" you will see that there is a particular company in NSW (former user of DW) who is the source of the rumours and no doubt in a lot of doo doo themselves with their problems only scheduled to get worse in the new year.

Rather than address their commercial inadequacies, this company has chosen to start rumours and where did they start?....you got it !!... they took the rumours to the opposition...and what happens with rumours...they start as rumours and quickly become slander and libellous....Sadly people in this industry are not preparred to do their own homework but simply chose to believe what they are told....a good bit of goss hey??...like the Security Industry is not famed for it !!

Anyway...to answer your question....No.. SCSI is in no trouble whatsoever, but unfortunately due to its success it does tend to suffer from the tall poppy syndrome.

For those who dont know....the outrageous allegation is that SCSI has servers in the middle that "fudge" polling....This is the most rediculous rumour ever thought up !!

As a reminder to those who dont know...DW is the only GPRS product on the market that polls point to point from the field transmitter directly to the CMS...All DW polls are recorded directly into the control room..there are NO middleman servers and no middleman management of signals...

The above statement is made by SCSI without reservation and is true and correct...if anyone believes that it is incorrect then they are invited to take their concerns to the ACCC.

We hear that these allegations are in fact being supported and hyped up by companies who do actually have middleman servers of their own....work that one out !!...consider this..are they in fact saying that as they, themselves, have middleman servers which in turn gives them the capacity to fudge polls, then so should SCSI ??....food for thought...another conspiracy theory, but really !! People in Glass Houses should not throw stones..

DW was the first Certified product to market which was actually tested live and under load. DW has been certified by Comtest and they reported no middleman servers when they conducted their "Independent" certification process of the network. If anyone has any doubt..why dont you take the time to bench test a Dw unit and simply switch it off and see what happens ??? In fact why not set up all competitors products, side by side and switch them off and see what happens ???

Anyway to cut a long story short SCSI's board of directors do include highly reputable legal professionals and It is doubtful that these people would remotely contemplate allowing SCSI to "fudge" or misrepresent services to the industry and therefore risk their position within the legal community. Nevertheless SCSI has invited the source of the rumour to "put up or shut up" and take the matter to court, todate there has been no response but SCSI looks forward to it if they do.

Anyone interested...DW has the following polling plans:-

Residential - 1 poll a day with limited data traffic (ideal for homes moving to VOIP etc etc when you dont want to lose the client)

C2M (Class 2 monitoring) - Hourly Poll - Unlimited Data

C3M (Class 3 monitoring) - 90 Second Polling "Point To Point"

C3M+GSM (Class 3 monitoring) - 90 Second Polling 'Point To Point" with Free...Yes Free !! Unlimited GSM Voice as a back up path should GPRS ever become unavailable.

C4M+GSM (Class 4 monitoring) - 60 Second Polling "Point To Point" with Free GSM Voice.

Speak to a member CMS for details and Rates.

DW Signals Do Not - I repeat Do Not, transverse through some middle man server and certainly do not do a round the globe trip through some UK processing centre..

Thousands of DW transmitters have been sold and continue to do so.....Maybe when you look at who has specified DW and who is using DW and actually take the effort to contact a member CMS and ask them for their opinions, then you may start to understand that rumours are simply that...rumours...started generally by someone with an axe to grind...and in this case started by someone who, because of poor management simply cannot pay their bills....The fact that competition has decided to pick up and run with the rumour mill, is not surprising and simply not worth commenting on...

[IPAlarms]

Is anyone actually monitoring (auditing) these suppliers, and checking their poll rates, event time rates e.t.c to the standard?

The suppliers have already been audited during the certification process. It's the CMS's responsibility to check themselves, but in my experience, they won't.

[admin]

Please dont waste my time posting off topic , unintelligent or mud throwing crap. Repeat offenders will be removed from the thread. I'm all for a bit of interesting conversation so lets do just that please.

[keef82]

Please dont waste my time posting off topic , unintelligent or mud throwing crap. Repeat offenders will be removed from the thread. I'm all for a bit of interesting conversation so lets do just that please.

Who is posting off topic? i don't see any mud, rather a rumor being dismissed with a very constructive and helpful reply.

[admin]

You dont see any mud because its been removed. On with the topic please.

[keef82]

ok, cool. as u said, i didn't know

[downunderdan]

DW Signals Do Not - I repeat Do Not, transverse through some middle man server and certainly do not do a round the globe trip through some UK processing centre..

Nobrainer, that comment immediately struck me as a none too veiled attack on Emizon.

Having commenced your comment bemoaning the scuttlebutt and muckraking which plagues the security industry, it would seem you need some introspection.

Apropos signals direct to the CMS, personally I don't regard any of the major CMS as having an especially robust IT department and would see them as the weak link in the chain. Similarly, I don't regard a "middle-man" as any sort of liability, of itself, considering the very nature of the Internet in the first place.

I'm all for propeller-headed discussions about the pros and cons of various systems, however it seems that marketing hype (as distinct from any genuine technical advantage) is interfering with the discussion.

As far as I am concerned, unless you have a single, unbroken piece of copper going from the installation to the monitoring station, you are always going to have signals transferred via a series of third-party intermediary points. And so what if you do? It is not an issue at all and any suggestion such a system implicitly presents some type of liability is just silly.

[No Brainer]

Thanks for your response Dan

I have gone some way to address the source of the rumours. My veiled mention of Emizon is simply because the market is reporting back to SCSI that the scaremongering and rumour mill is being actively pushed along by the Australian arm of this competitor. There are of course others, all on their soapboxes, all with their own vested interests spruiking to all who will listen.

To clarify, once the DW signals (polling & alarms) hit the Optus tower, they immediately enter the totally secure DW network. From there they transverse through the Optus heart and backbone for delivery straight into the CMS by Frame Relay delivery. The polls and alarm signals are acknowledged within the CMS. Our signals do not leave the Optus network. With DW there are no "Third Party" intermediary points or DNS such as those you mention and naturally would expect to encounter with any internet solution. The DW solution is the closest thing you will ever get to that single, unbroken piece of copper that you mention, hence the name DirectWireless.

Now lets look at the core of the rumour, that being Polling and in particular... ""where is polling managed""

Most solutions that I am aware of has some kind of data centre or processing centre in the middle (whether it be in Australia or overseas) from where polling signals are managed...with "exception" reporting of alarms and fault signals being passed onto the CMS.

Im not entirely sure where this sits within AS/NZS2201.5:2008, but thats fine as everyone has their own design platforms for providing GPRS monitoring, but from here the rumour (falsely created) states that there must be some "fudging" of polling signals by some middle servers...To clarify DW does not have any middle servers as all signals go direct to the CMS and are in fact acknowledged within the CMS. The CMS doesnt particularly need any robust IT department to manage this as the system is fully automated and self managed.

I am not pushing the Pros and Cons of various systems as we have all been down that rather boring track and market share has ultimately dictated the success ratios. What I do find totally amusing is that the likes of a supossed "respected industry professional" is rumouring the "security aspect" of DW signals when in his mind they must transverse through some middle servers and hence can be fudged....This type of comment is made by a hypocrite who's own system relies on a middleman data centre ??.....im sorry, it just does not make sense to me, when these comments are made by those who do actually have a middle man data centre and hence the capacity to control the exception reporting. Would this not be highlighting the possibility of security risks in their own systems ???

I didnt raise this as a type of liability but it is being raised as a security issue by those spreading the rumours....go figure !!

[downunderdan]

To clarify, once the DW signals (polling & alarms) hit the Optus tower, they immediately enter the totally secure DW network.

If I may draw an analogy, it's a bit like saying to a driver "you'll have a totally free run all the way to Melbourne (just after you go up Parramatta Rd, through thirty nine sets of traffic lights)."

From your description, it's as "Direct" as any other signal which traverses a third-party network (refer my earlier post). As I said, there's nothing wrong with that however a public argument about whose network topology is more secure based solely on that issue, seems as fatuous as two virgins arguing who's the bigger stud.

[No Brainer]

Thanks Dan, but with some introspection im sorry your comments do not hold water when referenced to the Network Engineers who were sitting around the Board Room table just the other day explaining the performance benefits and piece of mind gained through Frame Relay delivery. Naturally with consideration towards the amount of money paid to the networks, we wanted some comfort as to why we pay so much money for frame relay delivery to our CMS members when we find ourselves in a market where we are compared to other solutions by service providers who have absolutely no idea.

I have spoken to both Optus and Telstra engineers and both camps have delivered the same positive conclusion without the need to go up Parramatta Road nor arguing like a couple of virgins.

Now your analogy in comparing topology is a little off the mark or you may have missed the point of the rumour...and that is the ability of a middle server to fudge signals.

SCSI dont need to worry about those accusations because we simply dont have them....end of story.

[downunderdan]

Thanks Dan, but with some introspection im sorry your comments do not hold water when referenced to the Network Engineers who were sitting around the Board Room table just the other day explaining the performance benefits and piece of mind gained through Frame Relay delivery.

I wasn't there, so can't really comment. Having said that, I've sat around plenty of tables in the past being promised heaven by (variously) BDMs, sales consultants, technical analysts, implementation engineers, solutions architects, network gurus et al, and ultimately watched as hell was delivered.

Now your analogy in comparing topology is a little off the mark or you may have missed the point of the rumour...and that is the ability of a middle server to fudge signals.

Again, having only heard these rumours apparently fourth-hand (via yourself) I can't really comment on those either, other than to repeat my earlier point that the best defence against muckraking probably isn't more muckraking. Name names if you have to, and that way the courts can easily sort it out if untrue.

[balun]

A middleman fudging signals would go along way to explaining the high level of network performance from SCSI of late.

Haven't seen many, if any poll fails of late, even with all ex securitel clients online.

[downunderdan]

Balun, it sounds like a great conspiracy theory but you'll forgive my cynicism. Why would you need a "middleman" server to fake polls, pings, dings or things? You could simply fudge log files if you were so inclined. Hey, give me ten seconds with a text editor and I'll give you a log that tells you anything you want... Anything!

However there would be other ways to prove veracity of signal traffic (or highlight a problem).

If anything, that strikes me as a possible weakness of the supposedly 'direct' connection between an end-user and a monitoring station. How can you independently verify signals and what happened? The monitoring station will often attempt to conceal any downtime (for obvious if somewhat unethical reasons) and the end user can only rely on what information is given to them.

Traditionally, it they can request call or IP logs from a telco etc. they or a third party auditor would have an easier time working out 'what really happened'.

Having said that, I noted earlier, the system can't be completely "direct" anyway and there would certainly be breadcrumbs left on third-party networks, so it's purely an academic argument But I like those.

[No Brainer]

A middleman fudging signals would go along way to explaining the high level of network performance from SCSI of late.

Haven't seen many, if any poll fails of late, even with all ex securitel clients online.

LOL

Shows how robust the network has become...but I say it again If anyone has any doubt..take the time to bench test a Dw unit. Have it polling and simply switch it off and see what happens ??? In fact a true performance comparison would be to set up all competitors products, side by side and switch them off and see what happens ???

If you set it up and then switch it off in theory the rumoured fudgy wudgy servers wont be able to work out what the hell you are doing.

[downunderdan]

I would like to bench test one of these fudgy wudgy servers. Where can I get one?

Anyway, I don't think that all the alarm generated IP traffic in the whole country, would come close to the traffic from even one mildly popular website. Maybe I've missed something but I wouldn't have thought it was too hard to achieve a very low rate of dropped packets.

[balun]

Balun, it sounds like a great conspiracy theory but you'll forgive my cynicism. Why would you need a "middleman" server to fake polls, pings, dings or things? You could simply fudge log files if you were so inclined. Hey, give me ten seconds with a text editor and I'll give you a log that tells you anything you want... Anything!

However there would be other ways to prove veracity of signal traffic (or highlight a problem).

If anything, that strikes me as a possible weakness of the supposedly 'direct' connection between an end-user and a monitoring station. How can you independently verify signals and what happened? The monitoring station will often attempt to conceal any downtime (for obvious if somewhat unethical reasons) and the end user can only rely on what information is given to them.

Traditionally, it they can request call or IP logs from a telco etc. they or a third party auditor would have an easier time working out 'what really happened'.

Having said that, I noted earlier, the system can't be completely "direct" anyway and there would certainly be breadcrumbs left on third-party networks, so it's purely an academic argument But I like those.

I take it from your own conspiracy theories you may have experienced this first hand? do you really believe your own SCSI units in the field are dropping out and being "stitched up" or are u just commenting on GPRS units in general?

[downunderdan]

Balun, I'm not sure you understood my post.

[balun]

Balun, I'm not sure you understood my post.

I understood your post, u are plainly saying there is no need for a fudgy wudgy server as the alterations can be done at the control room end.

In my circumstance I know for fact(100%) that data is not being altered at the control room end and I am curious as to the existance of a fudgy wudgy server.