Several years ago I remember comparing my ageing British AJS Sapphire Sports motorcycle with a shiny, new, twin-exhaust Honda ‘superbike’ from Japan. Put simply, my AJS wasn’t in the same league – in any area.
Nonetheless, a friend was able to reassure me. “Don’t worry, Graeme,” he said. “The Japanese bikes are so tinny they will not last as long as our ones. They haven’t our history or track record. They might well have twin exhausts, but they’ll not be reliable. Few people want Japanese bikes.” I felt happier.
These days you don’t see many Japanese bikes, do you? Or Japanese cars? Not many! I see a number of relevant parallels between the motorcycle and an alarm transmission path. Both are there to transport from A to B.
One major problem with the security industry is the fact that there are many stakeholders, all with different priorities that are often too contradictory. Insurers act as specifiers to minimise losses, but are keen not to be seen pushing end users towards expensive solutions. Installers need to be insurer-compliant while minimising false alarms by confirmed systems (two activations) under the ACPO Security Systems Policy to conserve precious and diminishing police time.
Manufacturers need to design and manufacture to current European/British Standards on a competitive basis, with police and insurer needs being met. For their part, the management teams at Alarm Receiving Centres (ARCs) need to process as many signals as quickly and effectively as possible.
The end user, meanwhile, probably doesn’t want a system at all, and may well resent – not to say view with deep suspicion – any perceived attempt to tell them what system they ought to deploy on their site(s) for the good of their company. Add to that little lot poor communication between all concerned and it’s small wonder there’s often fighting in the streets before bedtime!
Insurers apply the brakes
Understanding this complex interaction is, I believe, absolutely critical to assessing the future for IP-based transmission. If we were to continue the motorcycle analogy, insurers are rather like the brakes – they are capable of restricting the speed of progress, but they cannot stop it. As has already been reported in SMT (‘Broadband stand’, SMT, June 2006, pp33-34), the larger organisations such as Dixons Group self-insure. In effect, they are both insurer and end user.
Self-insurers take their own security decisions. They stand and fall by them. They are quicker on their feet than traditional insurers, who are almost duty-bound to remain extra cautious – many pension funds have shares in them. A thoughtful and well-analysed decision inevitably takes time. There are no boy racers here!
In days gone by, intruders developed a nasty habit of cutting telephone lines which knocked out digital communicators rather effectively. As a result, the insurance community was hammered. A solution was needed. Mobile telephones provided the opportunity for a second signalling path if the telephone line was cut. Both paths supervised each other, and so dual path alarm signalling had arrived. Bingo! Happy insurers. Happy end users.
Well, yes, but not everyone was over the moon. Price sensitivity was a real issue for some. Dual path may be a reluctant purchase, however logical it may seem.
Compatibility with existing control panels and ARCs is a ‘must have’ since new alarm installations alone would not provide commercial viability for the new generation of IP products. Likewise, ARCs need an interface that links seamlessly with their existing software and hardware. Such development inevitably takes a good deal of time.
CCTV over the Internet has one major advantage: the operator can deduce straightaway if there is any break in transmission, and they may even have ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures that mean the missing bit is no longer critical. IP interfaces for alarms will typically try five times to send the signal before reverting to the second path.
Generally speaking, the Internet is like the UK road network. If you know the M1 is jammed you will take alternative routes and, with IP, you’ll pull your motorcycle away and go around the problem. Proponents of IP happily point out that this option exists and, in any case, they’ll say that there is another route if the Internet is jammed.
A cautionary leaflet produced by CSL – entitled ‘Think Twice’ – points out the pitfalls of IP through its eyes. These include mobile networks potentially upping their prices for SIM cards, alleged reservations by ARCs about reliability and the security of transmission, technical issues relating to EN 50131 and component power supplies and the statement claiming that: “Alarm companies have restricted knowledge regarding IT installation expertise, maintenance, firewalls, weak entry points and network integrity.”
Others point out that there are no recognised, specific IP-related standards as yet, which makes it difficult for the National Security Inspectorate and the Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board to inspect any system since they can only do so with a Standard to measure against. While EN 50131 is much more of a results-led Standard than BS 4737, there are still grey areas that will need revision in the current rules (including the protection of components).
Arguments such as whether Internet connections terminate inside tamper-proof housings may be a red herring. In my experience, intruders lift manhole covers and chop the whole cable. They don’t risk being caught inside buildings fiddling about in cupboards, so we must be realistic here. Sure, make life as difficult as possible for intruders, but pragmatism and common sense need to be applied. Cartographers of old used to write ‘Dragons be here’ to signal possible danger in areas as yet uncharted. There is a parallel.
‘Bolt-ons’ for the network
You either slow your change to accommodate the rules or you let the rules catch up with you at a later juncture. You either please the design innovators or the administrators. In Europe, the move towards IP-based technology is happening much faster, leading to fears of the UK being left behind.
Historically, BT’s redcare and CSL’s DualCom provided network ‘bolt-ons’ (ideally plug-ons) in the control panel that use their own dedicated mobile phone network to provide the signal to the ARCs (which, in BT’s case, is routed via its own scanners and host computer) whose operators then accept responsibility for passing the information on to the end user to action.
New generation companies including WebWayOne and Chiron IP Security have ‘done the rounds’ of leading panel manufacturers to explain the benefits of alarms over IP, not least of which is the ability to use a network of your choice by purchasing a standard SIM card that will interface with it.
These new generation companies are, therefore, offering an unbundled solution wherein the end user is not tied to any one specific network provider. This is key. Alarm monitoring over IP offers significant cost savings for services such as e-mail, voicemail, alarms and Internet access, etc – all of which are available at no additional outlay.
In a saturated commercial marketplace, the new generation of interface modules need to be compatible with legacy systems. In researching this article, I conducted an informative discussion with Chiron’s group managing director Ian Tredinnick. Just now, Chiron is looking to add value to the existing concept of dual path signalling. The company’s literature suggests that its Iris system “connects to all security panels”.
Tredinnick points out: “IP brings down the cost of security to levels previously not thought possible, and does so at EN ATS (Automatic Transmission System) Level 6 [the highest available, which is now accessible to the SME and domestic markets]. In Canada, hundreds of homes are going to have the highest possible levels of security simply because the cost has come down so much. Securitas are doing the same in Europe.”
Tredinnick’s message is one of change that’s already happening – regardless of the fact that some practitioners may find this concept somewhat difficult to swallow.
WebWayOne also reports excellent levels of co-operation from manufacturers and the company’s Richard Alder – an experienced professional whose CV includes a spell as managing director of ARC software provider Bold – sees it as a foregone conclusion that widespread panel compatibility is a given.
The use of a serial bus to connect WebWayOne hardware to control panels means that SIA (point ID) can be used. This opens up a superb vista of information for the ARC – 32 extra channels in addition to the number of zones, offering differentiation between a PIR in alarm, being masked, in tamper, or perhaps having high resistance, for example. Future software enhancement may be downloaded without fuss.
At Emizon – another emerging player – ex-BT redcare stalwart Bob Tuck’s mission as managing director is to offer a universal interface to a future-proofed Emizon service platform, effectively managing the entire process for installers and ARCs (see panel below ‘Emizon: the proposition, the service and the benefits’). It’s this kind of management of what is a ‘fluffy’ area that they see as their own real benefit. ‘Let us worry about the technology and let us take the strain’ is the clear message. Ease of use for installers, ARCs and end users is continually emphasised, while insurers are likely to be pleased if accountability is included.
ARCs: those who’ll cash-in
ARCs in particular stand to make huge savings by turning to the new providers as the Internet slashes call charges. The ARC’s need is a seamless solution as close to plug-and-play as possible that will run a single data platform wherein all of the client information can be found in one place. In turn, that means work needs to be done by the software providers like Monitor and Bold. To date, Chiron lists over 50 European ARCs as readily accepting its Iris software. In the UK, that list includes Chubb, Initial Shorrock, ADT and EMCS. Only the odd King Canute syndrome has been encountered. In Europe, Securitas, Siemens and Falck are leading the way.
The majority of UK installers are lagging far behind their European counterparts in the take-up of IP alarm monitoring. As such, end users who decide to take the IP path must ask some searching questions about installers’ actual experience and then map this against their claimed capabilities. Installers present a section of road for the end user that might be pot-holed and offer a bumpy ride. For end users, it remains a case of ‘caveat emptor’.
Understandably, BT and CSL have defended their excellent track records and are sticking road warning lights up along the way while pointing out key elements of their own propositions, not least of which is the equivalent of proven, Japanese-style reliability (to return to our original analogy). That does count for a great deal.
BT’s is perhaps the ultimate solution, combining dual path with optional CCTV over IP so that you can see exactly what’s happening and act accordingly. With Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB) third party accreditation, redcare’s assure (launched at IFSEC last year) promises a top end solution at a commensurate price. The benefits of a fully-managed solution have been stressed, with low Internet router reliability quoted as one ‘fear’ involved with IP. Since routers are (in theory, at least) the traffic lights of our analogy, bottlenecks could seriously degrade the arrival time of the signal or the quality of that signal which may well result in a lost message. These are difficult to measure on a daily basis. The real test will be if losses occur and they can then be directly ascribed to delays.
Against this argument, few security professionals expect to see the police attend alarm activations that quickly these days, so the argument then goes: “What’s the difference between a slow police response (and key holder arrival) and a slow signal?” Cynics would argue that we are close to the police pulling out of alarm responses altogether in any case. Therefore, the very idea that reception time of the alarm signal is all-important is, in reality, not the case. If 20 minutes is considered a reasonable time span for key holders to arrive, would an IP delay of, say, even two minutes be critical?
Such an argument has no real answer. In reality, it depends on the individual circumstances. “How much lower would the losses have been if the police were there two minutes earlier?” is, historically, a very difficult question for the Courts to answer with any degree of credibility.
Insurance endorsement: the key
Another supplier, Australia’s Inner Range, comes from a panel manufacturing background. The company sees insurance endorsement as a key objective. After all, both CSL and redcare have earned heavyweight insurance endorsements and it’s natural to want to be there. Inner Range’s Martin Heap would like to see the market move a little more swiftly. “IP and GPRS will undoubtedly be the two paths of the future,” he concludes.
Roughly speaking, GPRS is really a Next Generation GSM. Like Chiron, Inner Range supplies both control panels and ARC software, and so seamless integration ought to be a given. Moreover, their panels have five transmission path options and the panel will decide which to use at the time – traditional copper PSTN, GPRS, GSM, Intranet or Internet.
King Canute’s lesson is valid. You cannot hold back the tide. It’s not ‘if’ but ‘when’ IP will become the norm. I can see compelling reasons why the juggernaut of Broadband and BT’s 21st Century network will push aside any temporary barriers in their way. BT is stating 99.98% quality of service (the equivalent of one outage every three years) for BT Broadband Advanced. Traditional PSTN telephone lines occasionally disappear today for all sorts of reasons, so where is the additional problem? Some wonder.
If more businesses can afford dual path signalling then, overall, insurers are at less risk on a global basis. However, this is a benefit that’s a little difficult to quantify.
The road ahead is already clearing as manufacturers have pulled out from the feeder lanes and are now beginning to accelerate hard. Quality panel manufacturer Risco’s sales director Rob Evans typifies the mood. “The main advantage [of IP] is the amount of data that can be sent in relation to speed and the saving on the cost of PSTN call charges. The speed of up-and-downloading the control panel is so vastly increased on systems with integrated TCP/IP modules.”
Most ARCs are now up-and-running with IP. It’s fair to say that UK security installers have been the back markers, yes, but that hasn’t stopped solutions like Chiron’s Iris boasting a growing end user list of High Street names. There are installers out there with the necessary knowledge, expertise and desire to embrace the new, it seems.
In addition, there’s also a great deal of effort being put into the development of IP by Chiron, Emizon and WebWayOne. This competition will probably result in an accelerated burst towards solving any problems for the end user as soon as they emerge.
‘Point-to-point’ signalling
Insurers need to know that wherever losses occur due to third party acts or omissions there’s then an opportunity to pursue responsible parties, which would not necessarily exist if the Internet is no-one’s responsibility. Accordingly, the insurers’ own research Think Tank – IPCres – commissioned a report on the implications of alarms over IP and, despite having some caveats, my understanding is that the brakes will be released shortly.
A second IPCres document is imminent. End users will find IP as an acceptable path option, at the very least for Grade 2 systems where ‘point-to-point’ signalling is available. Lower risk sites will thus effectively ‘prove’ the technology, which makes perfect sense. With polled IP under EN 50136, ARCs will have statistics on path availability so a clearer picture of path integrity will emerge and any additional needs flagged at an early stage.
Problems? Of course there’ll be some. There are bound to be technical and operational losses, just as accidents occur on our roadways every day, but the news of a multi-car pile-up on the M1 on a cold, foggy winter morning will not stop us using the motorways. There will also be the odd bout of road rage as the new generation of IP solutions providers argue about technicalities that would seem to mean a lot at the time but, ultimately, common sense will prevail.
Through time, standards will simply – OK, standards have never been simple! – be rewritten to accommodate the new status quo, just as happened with other technical advances such as end-of-line resistors, ‘ID Biscuits’ and, of course, dual path signalling.
Not all suppliers will be as reliable as others. The free market will surely weed out those that are the weakest or the most difficult to deal with. Eventually, the market will begin to consolidate and a handful of major players will then dominate (with BT, of course, well placed to be among them). There will also be technical advances in encryption and, as Chiron’s recent feedback to IPCres indicates, “early notification of failure of alternate routes for the early detection of faults”. This means that the more reassurance IP demonstrates, the better.
Triple path signalling is possible!
Currently, under the more rigorous EN 50131, the failure of either signal path should be signalled at the control panel. Insurers will certainly welcome any advance in this area.
Personally speaking, I foresee the possibility of triple path signalling with the most expensive transmission path being the third (and ‘last resort’) choice if the others fail – if only to satisfy doubters. As confidence improves maybe even this will fade. With a price plunge there will be real opportunities to open up the domestic monitored market. Companies like Intamac have pioneered the use of the Internet and mobile messaging SMS in domestic intruder signalling and home management systems. It was no surprise when BT climbed on board that bus.
And just as British motorcycles soon faded away, ceding ground to shiny, reliable Japanese twin-exhaust bikes, one day the security industry will perhaps look back and wonder why it ever doubted the Internet would become one of its favourite allies (albeit one we must learn about and understand first).