DSC Alarm Compatible Modems
Mark
Here's something I haven't seen posted here yet...
I work for a very large monitoring company and we do a ton of
up/downloading on lots of different brands of alarm panels, The main
panel we deal with is the DSC5010 now, but we have a large installed
base of DSC 1550 panels.
My problem is finding compatible modems for the DSC systems, currently
we have several Hayes Smartmodem 1200's although we use those for
everything else since they have a habit of locking up with heavy use
on DSC systems (reliable as hell on the other brands), we use Huyndai
1200 modems primarily for the DSC systems although their not of the
highest quality (speakers tend to go bad, relays freeze)
My current problem is finding replacement modems and my question is
aside from Practical Pheripials (spelling?) 1200SA externals has
anyone used a brand NOT listed by DSC's downloading software reliably?
I'm wondering if there is a more common modern modem out there that
can upload/download DSC panels.
thanks
VSS DOUG
mle...@iadfw.net wrote
>I'm wondering if there is a more common modern modem out there that
>can upload/download DSC panels
DSC no longer lists the Hayes as a compatible modem on their latest software, I
still use them on the latest DLS1 software but have had no luck with Hayes on
the DLS2 software, in fact my Practical peripials modem does not work with the
DLS2 software(at least on my system).
My understanding of the incompatibilty issue, is that the DSC panels require a
speed of 110 baud to work, since nowadays this speed is virtually unused by
the mass market, modem makers no longer bother to include that speed on their
modems.
I have a customer who has a computer upgrade center and he lent me of box of
about 50 older 1200-2400 modems, both internal and external, I tried them all
and spent hours playing with different initilization strings but the only ones
that would work reliably were the Hayes and the Practical Periphirals. Even
the modems that would run at 110 baud would not work with the DSC(at least I
couldnt make them work)
I have an associate who uses a Best Data Products 2400 internal modem(probably
unavailable now) that will communicate at 110 baud and he uses that with great
success, as time goes by I would imagine there will be less and less modems
that will communicate at 110 baud.
DSC is now making (or having made for them) an external modem that is fully
compatable with the DSC product line, so your only option may be to use that.
Doug L
Flyboy
We use an Intel SatisFAXtion 144i with no trouble at all. I also have
an internal no-name modem on my laptop (9600b) that works just fine.
Have used the PP Mini1200SA also.
--
Tom and Sandra Brown Hyak Ski Patrol
Olympic Security and Communications Systems NSPS #P008-67286
GSX1100G VS700 KLR600 KLR250
Remove the "no.spam." from address to reply.
Mark
I'd say you got screwed on that deal, almost any electronics supply
house will have a compatible Hayes 1200 baud for around 20 bux, I used
to make fun of how expensive Hayes modems were back in the old days, I
know now WHY they were so expensive at the time, they last forever.
On 25 Oct 1997 01:34:21 GMT, "Robert L. Bass" <alar...@home.net>
wrote:
>I bought a modem from DSC for about $100 -- $130. It's compatible.
>
>Flyboy <os...@no.spam.seanet.com> wrote in article
><3451498A...@no.spam.seanet.com>...
>: We use an Intel SatisFAXtion 144i with no trouble at all. I also have
>:
>:
>:
Robert L Bass
Mark wrote:
>
> I guess I should have mentioned that we tried several of the DSC
> modems, forgot the model but it didn't fare very well, lockups, etc..
>
> we slam our modems hard tho, usually do 150-200 downloads a day..
>
> (Mr. Bass, please refrain from figuring the math on this one okay?)
>
Sorry pal, I like math.
Let's see. Two minutes to read the list of program changes you need to
do. Five minutes to write the program changes. Two more to get on line
with the alarm system. A DSC download takes about four more minutes
(real slow stuff). These are conservative figures which presume you are
very efficient, never have to ask for clarification and always get
through on the first try. If you're in the habit of changing in phone
booths to a costume with a big, red "S" on your shirt, this may be quite
easy for you.
That's thirteen minutes apiece. If you only do 150 downloads that's 1650
minutes, which equals 26.5 hours per day. However, if you do 200 per
day, that's 2200 minutes, which comes to 36 hours and 40 minutes a day.
Of course, if you have five separate computers dedicated to downloading,
with 5 staff members working them and nobody goes to the bathroom, the
whole daily workload can be met during the day shift.
Now let's see what that amounts to in a year's time. In the US, we get
about 250 normal workdays (excluding weekends and holidays. So if your
company doesn't do downloading on weekends or holidays, you are doing
between 37,500 and 50,000 panels per year. Of course, if like many alarm
companies you have techs working 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year, you
must be doing between 54,750 and 73,000 panels a year.
Must be quite a busy office. What did you say was the name of the
company. I think I'll buy some stock.
Blue Skies,
RLBass
.............................................
. Bass Home Electronics .
. 80 Bentwood Road, W Hartford, CT 06107 .
. http://www.BassHome.com .
. Voice (860) 561-2020 | Fax (860) 521-2143 .
.............................................
Irv Fisher
Guess Robert didn't know you were with Westar. Based on Mr Bass's well
known position on mass marketers, it's not likely he'll be buying stock
though.
> Sorry pal, I like math.
> ...must be doing between 54,750 and 73,000 panels a year.
jmdolan
>My problem is finding compatible modems for the DSC systems, currently
>we have several Hayes Smartmodem 1200's although we use those for
>everything else since they have a habit of locking up with heavy use
>on DSC systems (reliable as hell on the other brands), we use Huyndai
DSC is "supposed" to now be making their own modems just for
use with their software so you may want to ask you DSC regional
rep.
I know that the Hayes 2400/9600 Optima Smartmodems work real
well with DSC and Moose has these in stock.
Robert L. Bass
Irv Fisher wrote:
: Guess Robert didn't know you were with Westar. Based on Mr Bass's well
: known position on mass marketers, it's not likely he'll be buying stock
: though.
What? I don't have a position, well-known or otherwise, on mass marketers. I do
have strong beliefs about what constitutes an effective security system. And I
have been known to oppose (strongly) the sale of "mini-systems" as an alarm
company's primary marketing.
However, the crack about buying stock was a joke. I did get a kick out of the
claim in the other gentleman's post about "slamming" modems by doing 150-200
downloads per day. It sounded like the recent poster (was that the same guy or
someone else?) who claimed he takes over hundreds (thousands?) from one
competitor every month or something like that. This fellow piqued my attention
by posting "please don't do the math...."
As for mass marketing, I sell alarm systems on-line to DIYers. How could I be
opposed to mass marketing?
Blue Skies,
RLBass
Irv Fisher
Now you've piqued my interest.... How do you define mass marketers? My definition
means "the masses", your average American homeowner or renter? The "masses" dont
buy full perimeter systems. They buy something that "suits their budget and their
needs" in that order. The mini systems, based on a lot of reseach done by the big
boys, suits the "masses" budget. 0-$99 down and $25 or so a month. How can you
mass market full perimeter systems? Has it ever been done? How could it be done?
I dont believe for a minute that the average home security buyer believes he can
comfortably afford $500-$1000 per system, nor do most people want to install their
own, (which would save a huge hunk of the cost). So to get to the point, if all
mass marketers sell mostly mini-systems then mass marketers and mini systems become
synonymous. If you have "strong beliefs" against mini-systems, you would have to
hold similar "beliefs" against mass marketers. It doesn't mean you think ADT or
Brinks or Westar are bad folks. It means their methods of marketing are considered
wrong by you. The reason I'm pushing to define this is where I live, the
independent doesn't separate the system from the player. If ADT sells $149 down
and $25.00 per month for 2 doors and a motion, the alarm guy's disgust is directed
at ADT. Let's face it, all mass marketers primarily market the mini system. If
it isn't, they're not a "mass" marketer. They could be a "major" and even a "high
volume" marketer of full-perimeter systems but a mass marketer, I dont think so but
I'd like to hear your views on that one.
> What? I don't have a position, well-known or otherwise, on mass marketers. I do
> have strong beliefs about what constitutes an effective security system. And I
> have been known to oppose (strongly) the sale of "mini-systems" as an alarm
> company's primary marketing.
> As for mass marketing, I sell alarm systems on-line to DIYers. How could I be
> opposed to mass marketing?
You know as well as I do that d.i.y'ing really lends itself to "complete" security
systems. Also, d.i.y'ing as a "mass marketing" strategy brings up an excellent
question on whether diy is a "mass" market. You've got me on that one. The price
of a contact, the typical workhorse of our business, is probably >500% higher when
professionally installed because of the labor costs. Not too many people would cut
back on 10-15 contacts at what, $3 a pop with wire? Correct me if I'm wrong but
wouldn't you say most d.i.y'ers would at least try to complete a full perimeter
system? Based on some numbers I heard once from someplace, they said Radio Shack
had the most installed systems of anyone in America, (of course that was a few
years ago). If you define the "masses" as d.i.y'ers, then I have to agree with you
that this particular form of mass marketing doesn't mean mini-systems. But
SecurityLink, Brinks, ADT, and Westar's backbone are mostly mini-systems arent
they? That's what, 400,000 systems per year at today's numbers amongst those 4
companies alone?
Mark
This is true, it would be great if everyone can afford a full
perimeter system but when you start talking about a few grand to do it
they tend not to call back.
Our price is around $100 with 26.95 a month monitoring, for that you
get a DSC Power 832, 3 doors, one DS 835 motion.
we install around 5-6000 systems a month (no Robert, I don't install
that many)
Robert L Bass
Mark wrote:
>
> Again shall we say "Open mouth insert foot"?
Naah. Why waste a perfectly good cookie (what I'm eating right now)?
> if I had said our MODEM did 150-200 a day you'd have a point, I
> however instead said MODEMS (meaning more than one)...
>
> we have 2 for standard DSC systems, 2 for our own Power 832 variant
> and 2 more for Napco, FBI and whatever else comes to play.
We are a small firm. We only have two systems set up for downloading.
One is in use and the other is a backup in case machine #1 crashes. Each
downloading PC has: 1 DSC modem, One Supra (for Napco), one Hayes 1200B
(moose, Apex, etc.). I also have a couple of laptops for field work. The
techs carry them to job sites.
> you may LIKE math, problem seems to happen when you DO it.
Only on your posts, friend. I'm fairly confident in my math skills. I do
wonder about your numbers, though. Anyway, the numbers you quote imply
that your firm is doing more business than Bristol-Meyers sells
Bufferin. I don't care if you own 35 modems. I hope they all work well
for you, pal.
> BTW, why does it take you 5 minutes to write the program changes? I
> can do a complete upload/edit/download of a 1550 in 5 minutes without
> even breaking a sweat.
I take the trouble to check my work before downloading. By the way, I
gave you times based primarily on what the panels take to receive the
downloads. Try getting on-line via modem, doing an upload, then going to
the proper data entry pages and editing the results, then checking your
work (you do check your work before downloading, don't you?), download
the edited file and finally disconnect (also takes time). Time it and
tell me again you do it in less than 5 minutes.
> 1.5 minutes to do a upload with status, download takes maybe 1 minute.
> granted we're not counting a regular Power832 which can go on till
> next week it seems.
I set up default files for my Power-832 jobs. It still takes a few
minutes to type in the entries, check my work and do the download. It
also takes time to access the correct file, have the modem make the
double-call, upload (always important before downloading), etc.
>> Let's see. Two minutes to read the list of program changes you need to
>> do. Five minutes to write the program changes. Two more to get on line
>> with the alarm system. A DSC download takes about four more minutes
>> (real slow stuff). These are conservative figures which presume you are
>> very efficient, never have to ask for clarification and always get
>> through on the first try. If you're in the habit of changing in phone
>> booths to a costume with a big, red "S" on your shirt, this may be quite
>> easy for you.
>>
>> That's thirteen minutes apiece. If you only do 150 downloads that's 1650
>> minutes, which equals 26.5 hours per day. However, if you do 200 per
>> day, that's 2200 minutes, which comes to 36 hours and 40 minutes a day.
>> Of course, if you have five separate computers dedicated to downloading,
>> with 5 staff members working them and nobody goes to the bathroom, the
>> whole daily workload can be met during the day shift.
>>
>> Now let's see what that amounts to in a year's time. In the US, we get
>> about 250 normal workdays (excluding weekends and holidays. So if your
>> company doesn't do downloading on weekends or holidays, you are doing
>> between 37,500 and 50,000 panels per year. Of course, if like many alarm
>> companies you have techs working 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year, you
>> must be doing between 54,750 and 73,000 panels a year.
>>
>> Must be quite a busy office. What did you say was the name of the
>> company. I think I'll buy some stock.
Blue Skies,
Robert L Bass
Irv Fisher wrote:
>
> Now you've piqued my interest.... How do you define mass marketers?
My definition (others may differ) of mass marketing is offering one's
goods and services in more than just a local or regional market. The
idea (mine anyway) is that the marketing effort is what is "mass" or
"local," as compared to the population pool. I sell all over the
country, but my clients aren't necessarily the "masses" as in "Give me
your.... teaming masses, yearning to breath free."
Anyway, that's not the marketing ploy with which I take issue. I do not
believe in marketing the "mini-system" (typically 2-3 doors and a motion
detector) as one's primary offering. I feel that these "systems" give so
little (if any) protection as to be close to useless. As we have
discussed at length, if a client has been offered a comprehensive system
at a reasonable price and still declines, I have no problem with dealers
offering him/her a less effective alternative at a reduced cost. The
deceitful practice of offering these "mini systems" and holding them
forth as "state-of-the-art," comprehensive protection of home and family
is, IMNVHO, unethical and unfair.
Needless to say, there are those who disagree.
> My definition
> means "the masses", your average American homeowner or renter? The "masses" dont
> buy full perimeter systems. They buy something that "suits their budget and their
> needs" in that order. The mini systems, based on a lot of reseach done by the big
> boys, suits the "masses" budget. 0-$99 down and $25 or so a month.
What I've seen is that some companies only offer these under-powered,
totally inadequate systems. The salesman is not about to tell the
clients that the system is a weak, ineffective, little thing. He wants
to make the comission for selling the monitoring contract. So the
unsuspecting client never even hears about the real thing. This happens
every day.
Very often I go to a home to bid on a security system after there have
been several other proposals -- some from local firms and others from
one or more of the national chains. Most of the time when I make my
proposal the clients are amazed that a comprehensive package is even
available. They have not even heard that such protection is offered at
any price.
Guess who makes the sale.
> How can you mass market full perimeter systems? Has it ever been done? How could it be done?
I;m doing it as we speak, friend.
> I dont believe for a minute that the average home security buyer believes he can
> comfortably afford $500-$1000 per system, nor do most people want to install their
> own, (which would save a huge hunk of the cost).
I will remember your concept all the way to the bank. Your beliefs are
similar to those held by Computerland a few years ago -- until Dell,
RatShack and Gateway put them out of business in many markets. You'd be
amazed at the resources and resourcefulness of many consumers. And when
their family's safety is at stake, many (most?) people are indeed
willing to spend a bit more.
True, the DIY market is a small percentage of the overall residential
security industry. But then I only need about .000001% of the total
market to make a nice living doing something I truly enjoy.
> So to get to the point, if all
> mass marketers sell mostly mini-systems then mass marketers and mini systems become
> synonymous. If you have "strong beliefs" against mini-systems, you would have to
> hold similar "beliefs" against mass marketers. It doesn't mean you think ADT or
> Brinks or Westar are bad folks. It means their methods of marketing are considered
> wrong by you.
I'm not here to speak good or ill of ADT, Wells Fargo, Brinks, etc. They
can stand or fall on their own merits. And if some Brittish conglomerate
buys up ADT (they did, didn't they) or if they get swallowed up by
another mega-player, I really couldn't care less. If someone who works
for them knows what he's doing as a technician or salesman, he can get
good work elsewhere when they "down-size." If ADT wants to sell a
comprehensive system, I'm all for it. If they insist on marketing
"mini-systems" and IF (big "if") the sales peeople misrepresent the
quality and effectiveness of the system, well shame on them. It's the
system, not the marketplace.
Irv, there's much we agree about regarding security. You seem
knowledgeable and thoughtful, something that's not always evident in
some people's posts to this NG. But this is one area where we apparently
don't see eye to eye. (perhaps you're just taller than me:))
--- snip ---
> > What? I don't have a position, well-known or otherwise, on mass marketers. I do
> > have strong beliefs about what constitutes an effective security system. And I
> > have been known to oppose (strongly) the sale of "mini-systems" as an alarm
> > company's primary marketing.
>
> > As for mass marketing, I sell alarm systems on-line to DIYers. How could I be
> > opposed to mass marketing?
>
> You know as well as I do that d.i.y'ing really lends itself to "complete" security
> systems. Also, d.i.y'ing as a "mass marketing" strategy brings up an excellent
> question on whether diy is a "mass" market. You've got me on that one. The price
> of a contact, the typical workhorse of our business, is probably >500% higher when
> professionally installed because of the labor costs. Not too many people would cut
> back on 10-15 contacts at what, $3 a pop with wire? Correct me if I'm wrong but
> wouldn't you say most d.i.y'ers would at least try to complete a full perimeter
> system? Based on some numbers I heard once from someplace, they said Radio Shack
> had the most installed systems of anyone in America, (of course that was a few
> years ago). If you define the "masses" as d.i.y'ers, then I have to agree with you
> that this particular form of mass marketing doesn't mean mini-systems. But
> SecurityLink, Brinks, ADT, and Westar's backbone are mostly mini-systems arent
> they? That's what, 400,000 systems per year at today's numbers amongst those 4
> companies alone?
--
Doug Winslow
Robert L Bass wrote:
(etc.)
> can stand or fall on their own merits. And if some Brittish conglomerate
> buys up ADT (they did, didn't they) or if they get swallowed up by
I understand that ADT *was* own by a Brittish company but they are now
owned by an American company called Tyco (no not the toy
company). Doug
Mark
Yes I was actually
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:16:11 -0500, Robert L Bass
<alar...@BassHome.com> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Oct 1997 17:21:13 GMT, "Robert L. Bass" <alar...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Umm Bob, that was also me, and I said I took over approx. 5,000
>> systems in 5 years. and that WAS me who took over hundreds (I believe
>> I said around 500 a year from Ranger American)
>
>My, you must be busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
Mark
>We are a small firm. We only have two systems set up for downloading.
>One is in use and the other is a backup in case machine #1 crashes. Each
>downloading PC has: 1 DSC modem, One Supra (for Napco), one Hayes 1200B
>(moose, Apex, etc.). I also have a couple of laptops for field work. The
>techs carry them to job sites.
>
we have 6 machines, 4 for DSC, 2 of those for a specialized Ademco
brand we once installed, 2 others for everything else, those run Hayes
1200 Smartmodems, the DSC systems use Hyndai 1200's (SP?)
> BTW, why does it take you 5 minutes to write the program changes? I
>> can do a complete upload/edit/download of a 1550 in 5 minutes without
>> even breaking a sweat.
>
>I take the trouble to check my work before downloading. By the way, I
>gave you times based primarily on what the panels take to receive the
>downloads. Try getting on-line via modem, doing an upload, then going to
>the proper data entry pages and editing the results, then checking your
>work (you do check your work before downloading, don't you?), download
>the edited file and finally disconnect (also takes time). Time it and
>tell me again you do it in less than 5 minutes.
>
which brands are we talking about? FBI is the fastest, a DSC 1550
still is 5 minutes, a PC5010 can go as far as 15 minutes uploading
tho, most of the others are still around 5 minutes max, are you
suggesting I DON'T check my work Robert?
Robert L Bass
I wrote:
:>
:> I bought a modem from DSC for about $100 -- $130. It's compatible.
Mark responded:
>
> I'd say you got screwed on that deal, almost any electronics supply
> house will have a compatible Hayes 1200 baud for around 20 bux, I used
> to make fun of how expensive Hayes modems were back in the old days, I
> know now WHY they were so expensive at the time, they last forever.
It all depends on how much time you have available to screw around with
various old modems. I could have spent a couple of hours and saved maybe
$70 or $80. But when DSC comes out with some new mods a couple of years
from now it may not work. Back to "Ye Olde Modem Shoppe" for few more
cheapies. Naaah! I value my time too much to bother. I don't clip
supermarket coupons either for the same reason.
I have a separate computer with a multi-channel switch connected to
several external modems. That machine also has an internal B1200
Smartmodem, a PCI-2000, etc. All this could have been done cheaper using
some of our other PC's. But I find it saves time if all the various
downloading needs are being met in a dedicated location. We do daily
backups to a SCSI DAT drive from this machine.
VSS DOUG
>if some Brittish conglomerate
>by a Brittish company
FYI there is only one T in British
gAV
I use a Banksia Bit Blitzer, it only runs 2400 baud max, is very basic, but
only needs the correct init string for Bell format (B1)- I belive the power
832 panel (5010) can communicate at higher than 110.
Robert L Bass
Mark wrote:
--- snip ---
> We are a large firm, we monitor around 500,000 accounts at our site,
> we have 6 machines, 4 for DSC, 2 of those for a specialized Ademco
> brand we once installed, 2 others for everything else, those run Hayes
> 1200 Smartmodems, the DSC systems use Hyndai 1200's (SP?)
>
> BTW, why does it take you 5 minutes to write the program changes? I
> can do a complete upload/edit/download of a 1550 in 5 minutes without
> even breaking a sweat.
>
> which brands are we talking about? FBI is the fastest, a DSC 1550
> still is 5 minutes, a PC5010 can go as far as 15 minutes uploading
> tho, most of the others are still around 5 minutes max, are you
> suggesting I DON'T check my work Robert?
Not at all. I'm just asking because your post indicates you do
upload/edit/downloads at a blazing speed. I guess I'm just a lot slower
than you. It takes me about 15 minutes to write and download a Power-832
the first time. That would include setting up 32 zones with alpha zone
names, setting all the parms, etc. I can do a Napco MA-3000 in about 20
minutes.
On a Power-832, I start out with a set of my usual default settings for
these larger panels. Then I make all the necessary changes. This is
especially important with the Power-832 because each zone's alarm,
restoral, trouble and trouble restoral codes must be individually set.
That is just too much typing to redo every time. We pre-program the
default file with zones as follows:
1 Exit/Entry Delay
2-5 Perimeter
6-7 Interior Follower
8 Fire (std 24-hr)
9-32 Perimeter
I set up all the reporting information, including Open & Close,
Automatic Reporting Test, etc. Then I enable or disable these as groups
for each application. The same goes for what to report (Alarms,
Restorals, Troubles, Nothing...).
On Napco systems, I almost never do the initial program via modem. My
two installation techs (one > 6 years and one > 16 years experience)
carry laptops with PCI-MINI connectors. They do the initial programming,
diagnostics, etc. When the job is finished, I call in and upload the
files for our records. Since the MA-3000 and the Gemini each take
several minutes to transmit or receive a complete download via modem,
but only take about 5 seconds for a laptop download, this makes field
work faster and more reliable.
This does require a high level of confidence in our technicians. Since
we've all been friends and have worked together for so many years, this
is not a problem. As I mentioned, we're a small company. This might not
be feasible for some of our larger colleagues, such as your own firm.
BTW, most of my DIY clients use the DSC or Napco software which we
provide them from their own PC's. We do the initial download for free to
get them started without the extended learning curve on these advanced
systems.
Mark
well there is the difference, I do my work after the install, not
before (on most occasions)
Perhaps you should have thought of that when you made your original
comment about the work I do.
Robert L Bass
Mark wrote:
>
> well there is the difference, I do my work after the install, not
> before (on most occasions)
>
> Perhaps you should have thought of that when you made your original
> comment about the work I do.
That doesn't make upload/downloads any faster. It only means you don't
have to write the whole program. The Tx/Rx time is identical. The log-on
process is the same. The business of checking one's work should take as
long, if not even longer, since you're either correcting someone else's
mistakes or making program mods for changes and additions to the system.
Anyway, I only program installed systems. It is extremely rare for us to
program a control panel before the system is installed. Perhaps you
should have though of that.... (;->
Tom White
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Mark wrote:
> My problem is finding compatible modems for the DSC systems, currently
> we have several Hayes Smartmodem 1200's although we use those for
> everything else since they have a habit of locking up with heavy use
> on DSC systems (reliable as hell on the other brands), we use Huyndai
> 1200 modems primarily for the DSC systems although their not of the
> highest quality (speakers tend to go bad, relays freeze)
>
> My current problem is finding replacement modems and my question is
> aside from Practical Pheripials (spelling?) 1200SA externals has
> anyone used a brand NOT listed by DSC's downloading software reliably?
> I'm wondering if there is a more common modern modem out there that
> can upload/download DSC panels.
>
I have used a Cardinal 2400 baud modem and a Supra 14.4K modem (both
setup to run a 1200 baud). Both worked fine. I think the DSC just listed
the modems that they had tested - I have only used four different models
so far - all worked fine.
Regards,
Tom White
Irv Fisher
Robert questions all newbies' abilities. It's the tradititonal right of
passage to alt.security.alarms. His mission is to uncover phonies. You're
doing OK so far. But you're right. It's dragging. Either introduce some
serious black humor to make it interesting for the rest of us voyeurs or go
private. On the bright side, I now know as much about downloading 832's as
I'll ever want to.
Mark wrote:
> like I said Robert, 5 minutes per download, and I could do a complete
> reprogram in that time as well, I know the receiver numbers, signals
> sent, download #'s, nothing to it.
>
> and remember, you originally questioned ME, and MY abilities, had you
> not said a word we wouldn't be dragging this out so far.
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:48:01 -0500, Robert L Bass
> <alar...@BassHome.com> wrote:
VSS DOUG
Irv Fisher wrote
>Robert questions all newbies' abilities.
Mark a newbie ??.
I dont think so Irv
>. On the bright side, I now know as much about downloading >832's as
>I'll ever want to.
Irv, with your new found expertise on downloading 832's
how long will it take to download 7.5 million of them, which is how many I
expect to install/take over in the next 30 days,(full perimeter systems of
course with audio glass breaks on plastic windows and electrical tape masking
the motions), if you download 150-200 a day, replace a burnt out modem two
times a day, stop once a day to buy/sell stocks in Westar, spend 1.5 hours a
day composing newsgroup replies, 45 minutes a day working out how long it
takes some else to do it,and you dont waste your time changing in a phone
booth or hopping around on one leg kicking butts.
By my own careful calculations I think it can be accomplished before this
thread dies a death. Unless of course you dont have a compatible modem, which
reminds me, I'm wondering if there is a more common modern modem out there
that can upload /download DSC panels.
Doug L
Robert L. Bass
This is truly funny, Doug. Anyway, I don't question *all* newbies. I do often
wonder out loud about some of the claims I read in the news group, though. It
does sound like Mark knows what he's doing, even if his numbers may be a bit
"puffed."
VSS DOUG wrote in article
: Irv Fisher wrote
:
:
:
Robert L. Bass
Here's the text from DSC's manual. It's a start...
begin 600 modems.txt
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Irv Fisher
Must be my terrible memory for names has followed me from the real world into the
virtual world. I don't remember Mark's posts for the first couple of weeks
watching the group. Sorry if I've messed up there. (On the positive side, I also
forget jokes so people can tell me the same ones every month and still get a
laugh).
> Irv, with your new found expertise on downloading 832's how long will it take to
> download 7.5 million of them...full perimeter systems...audio glass breaks on
> plastic windows and electrical tape masking the motions), if you download
> 150-200 a day, buy/sell stocks in Westar, Unless of course you dont have a
> compatible modem, which reminds me, I'm wondering if there is a more common
> modern modem out there that can upload /download DSC panels.
Only after I install a minimum of 2 Austrailian systems AND program them each with
a full 64,000 users--number of partitions doesn't matter.
>
>
> Doug L
Mark
See Bob, this is where you tend to get into trouble. I don't recall
you being in my truck when I was doing all those "puffed" panels, I
don't recall you doing my schedule, counting which panels from which
companies, therefore you have no clue exactly WHAT I did now do you.
I don't recall commenting on ANYTHING you've done out in the field nor
would I want to since I haven't ridden in YOUR truck, I don't question
your knowledge on alarm systems because I'm sure you have lots of
experience in the field, more than myself I'm sure.
you need a bit more skill in math tho, those "Puffed" figures seem to
throw you off a bit.
On 28 Oct 1997 19:08:39 GMT, "Robert L. Bass" <alar...@home.net>
wrote:
>This is truly funny, Doug. Anyway, I don't question *all* newbies. I do often
Mark
Thats a new one on me, considering that most alarm panels speak to the
montoring station receiver at 20 baud, its not suprising it requires
110 to download.
but you never know.
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:05:28 -0500, Irv Fisher
<iii.f...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this whole modem disucssion stem from the fact
>that DSC, (and many others I'm sure), fake the behaviour of a "modem" chip through
>software on the panel board. I remember a discussion on this years ago. Instead
>of buying and using a real "modem" chip, the mgrs write software that emulates a
>modem chip, which operates much slower than a modem chip therefore, the 110 baud
>limiit. I understand the use of a real modem chip would have increased the panel
>cost $10 to $15 at retail and that's why we don't download at 14,400 today.
>
>> as far as the Modems since I originally asked the question I thank all
>> those who responded, at least I have more options, we're looking to
>> expanding the download aspect and your responses helped greatly
>> considering the obvious poor supply of 1200 baud modems these days.
>
>
>
Irv Fisher
This answer reminded me I wanted to know if any of you have noticed anything odd about
DSC's 832 SIA implementation. I noticed an unusual number of retries with 832's programmed
for SIA. Never noticed anything odd at the automation end but when I looked for failed
attempts using the SIMS VaporPaper utilities, (yes Ken, some of us have actually found a
use for VaporPaper that goes beyond noise pollution---stats and more stats), there were far
more than you'd expect. I know this is kind of an exotic reqeuest but the reason I went
looking is that several dealers complained of busies on a line I had been monitoring the
theoretical load on but not the actual load. If that sounds like gobbly-gook, what I mean
is I expect to add lines at so many controls combining o/c and passive and tests. So I was
surprised when I was well below the add-a-new-line point when I heard these rumblings from
the field. The point is, what's the point using an ultra-fast format when it comm fails at
a higher rate than 20/40, DTMF formats? We don't monitor enough other mfgrs of SIA panels
to get a good feel for this problem. Any comments would be welcomed. (PS-I see a lot of
this from old Acron PAS1WC's but that's because of the timing problem being aggravated by
failing amps in the telco circuits and the board wasn't the best in the first place. Need
a couple of really good thunder storms to clear out most of my old field inventory but
haven't been that lucky in the past few years)
Irv Fisher
> Thats a new one on me, considering that most alarm panels speak to the
> montoring station receiver at 20 baud, its not suprising it requires
> 110 to download.
>
> but you never know.
I wont even touch the idea of downloading at 20 baud.Most newer panels, (possibly
starting with ITI---a waaaayyyy back), operate at 110, SIA is the most popular format.
Although I personally find SIA not as reliable as Contact ID, it is an improvement over
20/40 baud.
Robert L. Bass
Mark wrote:
: Bob, please in the future start reading my posts, I said MOST alarm
: panels speak to the monitoring station at 20 baud, yes many ARE
: capable of higher speeds however while doing those "puffed" 1000
: systems a year I often notice that its very rare that other companies
: ever go higher than that on their systems.
I read the post. MOST alarm systems installed in the last 10 years are
communicating MUCH faster than 20 baud. MOST alarm dealers that I know ALWAYS
set their systems up to transmit at the HIGHEST baud rate the C-Station can
HANDLE.
: We have many systems out there running 20 baud even tho we're fully
: equipped for Contact ID, SIA etc... reasons are simple.
:
: 1: the particular panels in question (mostly FBI XL-2's, older DSC
: models simply are not capable of Contact ID or SIA.
:
: 2: They may be systems aquired during a byout of another company who
: had them set up that way. (No I'd rather not download and redo 10,000
: systems)
Why not? If you have all the dedicated PCs you claim, why that's only about 2
weeks' work. Do you prefer allowing panels to transmit at 20 baud so your
clients' signals are slower? Or is it the minimal data you prefer? We like to
get all the information the panel is capable of transmitting. Also, when you
buy out a competitor, are you telling us you don't even bother to
upload/edit/download each account (a little 5-minute effort, according to your
own claims)? Aren't you even curious as to whether the panels are programmed
properly? Tsk, tsk.
: on systems capable of the faster formats we do tend to use them.
That's nice. On systems capable of faster formats we insist on using them.
Slower systems we upgrade.
--
Blue Skies,
RLBass
========================>
Robert L. Bass
Bass Home Electronics
80 Bentwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06107
alar...@BassHome.com
http://www.BassHome.com
(860) 561-2020 voice
(860) 521-2143 fax
========================>
Irv Fisher
> I read the post. MOST alarm systems installed in the last 10 years are
> communicating MUCH faster than 20 baud.
That's correct, but it's 40 baud. Don't know who's got the market share and where
it exists. But DSC, which represents the largest chunk of Canada and a
significant chunk in the past few years of the US, didn't go above 40 until the
4000's and now the 832, 1575 and 1555. I found it very easy to get my guys to go
to 40 but I've pulled back on SIA for the reasons I stated in the previous post.
> MOST alarm dealers that I know ALWAYS
> set their systems up to transmit at the HIGHEST baud rate the C-Station can
> HANDLE.
Guess we travel in different circles. Most dealers I know know very little about
formats. I spent 10 years training most of them to understand 2 digit codes.
Once we moved to DTMF and SIA, they're hopelessly lost, (for the most part). My
operators run a very close 2nd. Fortunately, the automation package, (when
programmed properly and speaking the same language), translates accurately.
> Also, when you
> buy out a competitor, are you telling us you don't even bother to
> upload/edit/download each account (a little 5-minute effort, according to your
> own claims)? Aren't you even curious as to whether the panels are programmed
> properly? Tsk, tsk.
As I mentioned in my previous post, very few independents in my area download.
We've bought 1500 systems in the past 6 months. We're a bit unusual because we
usually buy the rmr. The independent continues to service and get referrals from
his customers. So we never touch the programming although the start to use our
resources for downloading and service support. The systems we did purchase
outright and assume service for, we visit as time permits. Most of them are not
programmed for downloading although most of them can be turned on. I am always
torn between not touching anything lest we be accused of breaking it and our duty
to make sure the system works properly.
> That's nice. On systems capable of faster formats we insist on using them.
> Slower systems we upgrade.
Using touchtone dialing, a 20 baud format typically transmits from dial out to
hang up on averarge, 25 seconds. At 40 baud, 20 seconds, Contact ID, 15 seconds,
SIA, 15 seconds. In my humble opinion, speaking from a large station's
perspective, the faster formats greatest advantage is we can handle more accounts
on a single line. When you consider the total time from dialout to arrival of
police/fire, we're talking saving 10 seconds over what, 20 minutes, (L.A.
excluded). If you want to emphasize multiple signals, it's primary value again is
to the station, not the end user. When our automation system receives the first
b/a or fire code, we're moving. Anything else we get is just icing on the cake
and it's there by the time the PSAP answers regardless if it's 10 baud or Contact
ID. However......my personal experience comparing 40 baud to SIA and Contact ID
is that at 40 baud, we never got as many signals from a panel as we do now with
SIA--so any savings we got from SIA rapidly evaporated in the real world. Cynical
or obnoxiously opiniated--maybe--but that's what the computer tells me.
Irv Fisher
> I am astonished. Pulse formats suck,
I agree they're not as elegant as contact ID or SIA but they do represent the majority
of electronic security communication in existence today. (At least in Canada and the
stations I've been invited to in the US). Is this common among the nsg members.
> and one important reason is the
> greatly increased chance of pulse errors being interpreted as signals from
> another account.
This I've never actually seen although I do agree it's theoretically possible. But I
have seen 3 categories of screwups that caused an alarm to appear on someone else's
account. 1st and most difficult to control is the installer who misprograms the
account number. 2nd was the PC2000, 1000, 1500, 2500, 1550, 2550 and 3000's pink
alerts when installers would use a "0" instead of an "A" for a "0". Solution--stop
giving out account numbers with '0" in them. We'd figure them out by adding a "0"
somewhere in the account number and eventually, find the right account. 3rd was a
subtle mistake using Napco's where the installer would not program burg restores but
tell the panel to send them anyway, (default I understand). So the panel would call
us, give us the account number and then hangup. Solution. Convert all 3-digit
accounts to 4. Operators distinguished themselves by showing rookie ops how easy it
was to tell who the culprit was, (still happens today). They were real easy to tell.
Add the code to the account number and you had the right account number. Now we have
caller I.D. so we let the software tell us who the real sender is. Works most of the
time.
> The only reason pulse formats even exist is that
> when the digital communicator was invented, that was the only cost
> effective way to send signals. 300 baud modems were hot, and expensive.
Remember the Sescoa communicator that if it didn't receive a kissoff after a few
attempts would drop to 10 baud. The operator could actually count the pulses on the
phone line and a-la-morse code, get the account number and code.
> Why in the world would you want to remove restores and cancels?.
My apologies. Didn't mean to include cancels. In fact, we demand it from
installers. Soon will charge more to monitor an account that doesn't send cancels.
As for restores, aaaaahhhhh. This may not be a very popular answer but I still dont
see any use for burg restores. Whether it's a 10 baud format or a DTMF, they simply
eat up receiver time and tell me nothing. Again, my experience is limited to Canada
but police have enough trouble dealing with being given the exact entry point at the
prem. I can't imagine telling them the burglar has gone in through the front door and
he's closed it behind him. I see the value of restores on fire and holdup, but not on
keypad panic or burg. Can someone tell me why DSC provides a restore on keypad panic,
fire and ambulance?. Are we to tell the police the customer is not holding the keypad
button down at this point in time. Perhaps someone out there can convince me I've
been wrong all along. What restores do however, is compete for space on an emergency
comm channel. In my humble opinion, there has to be more plus than negative to have
them there. From a service perspective, if my techs need to know if a zone has
restored, they can download it, (yes, my techs download--most of the alarmco's we
monitor for dont).
> It's a whole lot simpler to program most panels from the computer
> instead of the keypad. Faster and more accurate, too.
Absolutely true. But computers and telco lines cost money. When the independent
finally does come home, he's beat and he's probably got a teenager or two he's got to
kick off the phone to program the panel. Many independents complain to me that they
can't download anymore because one of their kids messed up their software. No joke, I
hear this all the time.
> A great time to do keypad programming...
Like I said, pllllleeeaassseeeee, someone, anyone write an "installer's" guide to
installing panels and I promise, I'll make you immortal. >
> It's a whole lot simpler on an Ademco panel, for example, to select
> Contact ID than to manually insert reporting codes for each zone.
Like I said, by pushing that button it also sends all the codes we dont want.
Openings/closings/burg restores. Because of the way the mfgrs defaulted panels, it
has played havoc with my station. I would like to see simple switches that turn on or
off burg restores, openings or closings. In many panels, you have to back them out
individually or put them in individually. What a mess. So I've taken to sur-charging
50 cents a month for burg restores and $1.00 for closings or openings or both, (yep,
some Paradoxes just send us closes---and don't ask why---It just makes me angrier.)
> I can't
> imagine why anyone with access to a 685 receiver would use any
> other format for an Ademco panel.
We still have our old reliable 685 sitting on a rack but the SurGard DRL2A's have
taken up the front line positions for the past several years. Truth is, we see very
few Ademco's installed in my station. Usually just the wireless stuff because ITI up
here is only available to the high end alarmco's and the multi-nationals. If any of
you have heard of or used Paradox, I saw more Contact ID panels installed in the first
month dealers started using them than in the previous 12 years. We had a great time
with them too until some fool at the factory decided to give installers the ability to
change the Contact ID standard. Since them, I've given each of my operators crystal
balls so they have something to help them decipher alarms.
Robert L. Bass
Irv Fisher wrote:
: That's correct, but it's 40 baud. Don't know who's got the market share and
where
: it exists. But DSC, which represents the largest chunk of Canada and a
: significant chunk in the past few years of the US, didn't go above 40 until
the
: 4000's and now the 832, 1575 and 1555. I found it very easy to get my guys
to go
: to 40 but I've pulled back on SIA for the reasons I stated in the previous
post.
In the US, the largest portion of the market is split between Napco, Moose,
Radionics, Ademco, DSC, ad infinitum (almostum, anyway). Virtually every major
brand has had faster than 40 baud available for years.
: > MOST alarm dealers that I know ALWAYS
: > set their systems up to transmit at the HIGHEST baud rate the C-Station can
: > HANDLE.
:
: Guess we travel in different circles. Most dealers I know know very little
about
: formats. I spent 10 years training most of them to understand 2 digit codes.
: Once we moved to DTMF and SIA, they're hopelessly lost, (for the most part).
My
: operators run a very close 2nd. Fortunately, the automation package, (when
: programmed properly and speaking the same language), translates accurately.
It seems as if you have most of the corner on tech knowledge among your
friends, Irv. That's a shame. Not that you know lots but that they don't. I
suggest you educate them. It's such a sad state of affairs when manufacturers
spend millions developing high tech communications protocols and so many
professional dealers set the things up to run like an Edsel.
These dealers and their clients losing the benefit of the extensive information
which these panels are able to send to the C-Station, which can expedite
service, as well as aid the police in capturing bad guys. Also, by opting for
the slow speed, clunky formats of yesterday, the dealers are forcing the
C-Station receivers to spend more time per transaction. This increases
exponentially the likelihood of a missed or dropped signal.
:> Also, when you
:> buy out a competitor, are you telling us you don't even bother to
:> upload/edit/download each account (a little 5-minute effort, according to
your
:> own claims)? Aren't you even curious as to whether the panels are programmed
:> properly? Tsk, tsk.
:
: As I mentioned in my previous post, very few independents in my area
download.
: We've bought 1500 systems in the past 6 months. We're a bit unusual because
we
: usually buy the rmr. The independent continues to service and get referrals
from
: his customers. So we never touch the programming although the start to use
our
: resources for downloading and service support. The systems we did purchase
: outright and assume service for, we visit as time permits. Most of them are
not
: programmed for downloading although most of them can be turned on. I am
always
: torn between not touching anything lest we be accused of breaking it and our
duty
: to make sure the system works properly.
We provide C-Station services for several other local dealers. We do the
downloading for all but one of them as a courtesy. The installers love the
time-saving assistance from our C-Station staff and we like setting the systems
to transmit the maximum amount of information at the highest available comm
speeds. By doing the zone definitions for our dealers, we save them (and
ourselves) a lot of errors in recording this information. This level of service
requires a lot of training for our staff. The training is continuous since
there are always more systems to learn. It does make it a lot of fun working
here, since no one is ever bored by the same old stuff day in and day out.
: > That's nice. On systems capable of faster formats we insist on using them.
: > Slower systems we upgrade.
:
: Using touchtone dialing, a 20 baud format typically transmits from dial out
to
: hang up on averarge, 25 seconds. At 40 baud, 20 seconds, Contact ID, 15
seconds,
: SIA, 15 seconds. In my humble opinion, speaking from a large station's
: perspective, the faster formats greatest advantage is we can handle more
accounts
: on a single line. When you consider the total time from dialout to arrival
of
: police/fire, we're talking saving 10 seconds over what, 20 minutes, (L.A.
: excluded).
There are two much more significant issues regarding transmission speed. First,
since the receiver and/or the software will throw out incomplete transactions,
it is critical to get the signal out before the thief can attack the panel. In
a small apartment or store this can be a matter of seconds if the thief knows
where to find the panel. Second, as stated above, the more time required to
transmit, the higher the probability of a dropped signal.
: If you want to emphasize multiple signals, it's primary value again is
: to the station, not the end user. When our automation system receives the
first
: b/a or fire code, we're moving. Anything else we get is just icing on the
cake
: and it's there by the time the PSAP answers regardless if it's 10 baud or
Contact
: ID.
There's another advantage. We tell the PD we have a burglar alarm activated and
the PD often asks, "Where is it coming from?" The answer with an old system
txing at 10-20 baud in 3x1 format is "I dunno." With Point ID the answer is,
"They came in through the left overhead garage door, then they opened the
inside door, tripped the motion in the family room and right now they are
apparently in the master bedroom." With the addition of 2-way voice, we can
add, "Be advised it sounds like there are two males with Hispanic accents. One
of them called the other 'Pedro.'" No disrespect for Spanish speaking persons
is intended. This is just by way of example to illustrate what CAN be done
using modern technology.
None of this useful information is sent when the professional alarm dealer
refuses to take the trouble to learn to use the many tools that are available
to him and his clients. I applaud your efforts to educate your own staff, Irv.
It would help a lot if the rest of your dealers took the same approach.
: However......my personal experience comparing 40 baud to SIA and Contact ID
: is that at 40 baud, we never got as many signals from a panel as we do now
with
: SIA--so any savings we got from SIA rapidly evaporated in the real world.
Cynical
: or obnoxiously opiniated--maybe--but that's what the computer tells me.
Opinionated is good, Irv. :) As for SIA, we don't use it either. I find Point
ID (sometimes called Contact ID) to be much more reliable.
Bruce Thornhill
aa...@deltanet.com wrote in message <63drc0$r8u$1...@news01.deltanet.com>...
>It's a whole lot simpler on an Ademco panel, for example, to select
>Contact ID than to manually insert reporting codes for each zone. I can't
>imagine why anyone with access to a 685 receiver would use any
>other format for an Ademco panel.
I can't imagine anyone still using a 685 receiver!
Bruce Thornhill
Robert L. Bass wrote in message
<01bce679$a2c85300$8289...@C282040-A.htfdw1.ct.home.com>...
>Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
number in
>a "kill file," which is checked by my Caller-ID program on every incoming
call
>to the receivers. When that ID shows up, the relay terminates the call
without
>allowing the receiver enough time to do a process the transmission.
Just out of curiousity, does UL allow this?
Steve Ryckman
On 1 Nov 1997 02:56:28 GMT, Robert L. Bass wrote:
I changed the subject of this post to be more in-line with the conversation
actually transpiring in the thread, hope you don't mind.....
:>There are two much more significant issues regarding transmission speed. First,
:>since the receiver and/or the software will throw out incomplete transactions,
:>it is critical to get the signal out before the thief can attack the panel. In
:>a small apartment or store this can be a matter of seconds if the thief knows
:>where to find the panel. Second, as stated above, the more time required to
:>transmit, the higher the probability of a dropped signal.
First off, no receiver that is UL listed anyways will "throw out" an
incomplete signal. It may not be able to report all the data (because it
didn't get it) but every major receiver I know of will report a transmission
error at least. With a receiver like the Surgard with Caller-Id enabled if
the call is completed by the phone company you can at least get the account
number from the automation software.
Ok, have any of you calculated the amount of time it would save to transmit
an alarm message with any of the formats ? The actual transmission speed of
any of the formats is really irrelivant when sending the same signal. The
average alarm message consists of a total of six to twenty characters. It
only takes a couple seconds to actually send those characters once the phone
line is seized, dialed and handshaking is done with the receiver. That is
where your time is spent, "setting up" the call..... not sending the data.
Lets forget about alarm panels for a second and use a computer related
example.....
Lets say we need to send 30 characters of data from point A to point B with a
dedicated phone line. We have no line seizure, no dialing, no handshaking
with the receiver, that is already done for us and all we have to do is
transmit the data.
At 300 baud it would take us roughly 1 second to send our thirty characters.
At 9600 baud it would take about 0.03 seconds to send those same characters.
Ok, so we saved 0.97 seconds by increasing the baud rate, that looks like it
is a real savings and worth the effort.... but wait.
Lets factor in the handshaking the modems must do in order to determine which
protocol and speed they are going to use.....
Now instead of the receiver picking up the phone line and giving only one
handshake tone we have to give one tone, wait for a second or two if there is
no response then start the second handshake tone. So now lets be generous
and only add one second for handshaking with the second protocol.... now our
transmission time is 1.03 seconds which actually increases our total time to
send those same number of characters.
Now lets go one step further and lets say you have a receiver like the Ademco
685 or FBI Cp-220 that handle six to eight protocols. Have you ever listened
in on a but-set when a panel is connecting ? If you use any protocol besides
3x1, it is going to take four to six seconds before the panel transmits data
usually. It listens to the 1400hz answer tone, then the 2300hz tone then the
bleep-blip for Ademco High-Speed then then probably an 1800hz tone before
ever getting to Contact Id or SIA or whatever protocol the panel is waiting
to hear the tone for. Just like modems, the receivers have to start at the
low end of the capabilities and work their way up because the older equipment
won't understand the new tones and might hang up if they hear the wrong
tones.
Most receivers have the capability of changing the order of the answer tones
but you can only safely do that if you can 100% guarantee that older panels
won't be reporting in. Try making an old Acron DD1 dialer report in on a
line that answers with the SIA handshake first and you'll never get a signal
through because the dialer will think it heard a telco error message and drop
the line.
Baud rate has little to do with the total time it takes to send an alarm
signal in from a panel. It's the line seizure (two seconds), dialing (1-2 if
touch tone, 7-15 if pulse), line connection time (1-15 seconds) and receiver
handshaking (4-6 seconds) that takes the most time.
Of course then you have to factor in that a SIA panel will send you three
signals on an average false alarm (front door alarm, cancel code, restore
front door) where as a 3x1 dialer will probably just send you one signal.
I can't count the number of times we've found that people have gone and
reprogrammed the baud rate of the recevier output to the computer to 9600 or
19200 baud thinking it would make a huge differance in speed of the signals
coming in. In reality the differance between the signals is a minute
differance from the 1200 or 2400 baud most receviers come set for from the
factory. You also have a possibility of lost data though when you increase
the baud rate because most computers still don't come with buffered (16550)
uarts on their serial ports.
In order to really change the transmission speed you have to go to something
lilke DMP's multiplex loops or a Base-10 STU or even radio (not cellular)
transmission methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Ryckman
Security Information & Management Systems, Inc.
sryc...@simsware.com http://www.simsware.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do computers in prison have <ESC> keys ?
Steve Ryckman
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:32:22 -0500, Irv Fisher wrote:
:>pressure to leave, and start to program when they're minds are mush. I've never
:>been able to convince them to hang the panel first and program/test it when they're
:>fresh or program/test it before they go out on the job or have it call-in while on
:>the job. Maybe someone in the newsgroup would like to take a shot at writing a
After doing my first couple of installs, I ALWAYS installed a system in this
order......... hang the panel, run the phone line, run a primary keypad, run
the primary openings and then the other sensors. I found that if I could
actually get the panel and a keypad operational quickly, that I could have it
downloaded right away (since other installers were waiting until later) and
then the customer could actually "play" with the keypad and read the owners
manual and such ahead of time. I always put EOL's on the empty zones when I
hang the panel that way the user can arm and disarm it as they want. As I
got zones wired I would conect them to the system so the user could see how
they worked with the system also.
When we started our own alarm company that was the unofficial procedure for
the installers to follow.... it is how I trained them and how they continued
to the best of my knowledge. I don't remember once that an installer didn't
have a panel programmed within the first hour of being on-site unless they
ran into complications with the phone lines or something like that.
Besides, if you have a customer following you around watching you drill each
hole in their wall, it's better to show them something "working" as soon as
you can. When you have drilled twenty holes in their walls and have nothing
to show for it they are a little more on edge with you.
Irv Fisher
OK Steve. You rarely speak but when you do, it's a doozy, (did that come from "I Love Lucy").
I still believe there's little effect that 10 baud vs 20 vs 40 baud has on signals getting knocked
out. But there's a significant difference between 10s and 40s from a station's point of view. I'd
take 40 anyday. I attended a seminar where a guy from Radionics told us that 10's were less stable
than 40's because it was slower and I still dont believe him. But that's my own opinion. I
originally thought Acron Superfast was the best format made until I found it was susceptible to
telco timing problems which killed a huge percentage of transmissions and is still doing so as I
speak. A similar problem has developed with DSC's PC2000's AN502 chip, (which I must accept primary
responsibility for but plead ignorance in defense of). I've seen too much unpredictability with SIA
because mfgrs have implemented it poorly or come up with nutty codes that aren't in the standard.
We've been ambushed a few times. SIA agonizes over it today but they can only set the standard. If
mfgrs wish to bastardize it, there's not much they can do.
Although I have no love for Ademco, (nor any particular dislike either), my station's experience
with their format is it's still the most stable when you weigh all factors in. Perhaps its limited
and that's why the 110 baud format is apparently the favoured horse in this race. The only negative
thing I have to say about it is the tweaky thing done to the format to get partitioning, (you're
right on that one Ken).
> With a receiver like the Surgard with Caller-Id enabled if
> the call is completed by the phone company you can at least get the account
> number from the automation software.
We do that about a hundred times a day. That's how we find the SIA's that retry and phone lines
that are becoming marginal. Without a formal plan to investigate every incomplete transmission, a
station really can't know what's going on in the field. We still get a charge out of calling an
installer on site when he hasn't had the courtesy to contact the station before programming a panel
from a dealer block of account numbers. The new installers are always surprised.
> The actual transmission speed of any of the formats is really irrelivant when sending the same
> signal.
Except when you compare a 3x1 extended at 10 baud vs. a 4+2 at 40 with parity. I've actually fallen
asleep watching the former. But for 20/40 vs. the high speeds, your statement is correct.
> Just like modems, the receivers have to start at the
> low end of the capabilities and work their way up because the older equipment
> won't understand the new tones and might hang up if they hear the wrong
> tones.
I've never considered this the way you described it but I know from fiddling with DRL2A's, this is
what we end up doing. When we put up a new line card, we try to optimize it to the faster formats
but then a few days later, someone with a 3/2 or with some strange Napco implementation of Silent
Knight has trouble communicating. In the end, you're right Steve, we end up darned close to your
ramp up scenario. But for our elitist dealers, we now offer a "snob" line that only emits dah-dit,
dah-dit, daaaahhh and SIA 2300. Let the rest eat cake.
> Try making an old Acron DD1 dialer report in on a line that answers with the SIA handshake first
> and you'll never get a signal through because the dialer will think it heard a telco error message
> and drop the line.
But it's great for false alarm reduction.
> Of course then you have to factor in that a SIA panel will send you three
> signals on an average false alarm (front door alarm, cancel code, restore
> front door) where as a 3x1 dialer will probably just send you one signal.
Heck man, I fill screens on VaporPaper with 832's and SIA. Sometimes the panel is on line for 2-3
minutes and sends 100's of signals. Never saw that on a PC1550. Maybe there's some psychological
thing going on here. When I tell this to the installer he's utterly impressed, like wow, a hundred,
no kddinm but hey, while you've got me, can you read them back in order please--starting with
first.........Wadyu mean a "recent closing". What's a "recent closing", I didn't send no "recent
closing". Yeah, right....
> I can't count the number of times we've found that people have gone and
> reprogrammed the baud rate of the recevier output to the computer to 9600 or
> 19200 baud thinking it would make a huge differance in speed of the signals
> coming in.
Dont look at me. If it something's working, I seal off that part of the station.
> ....even radio (not cellular)
You touched a nerve there Steve. We just installed a radio network, (first in Toronto that I know
of), and for the first time in about 10 years I was actually humbled by my first experience with
it. I was on the phone with an installer about 15 miles away and asked him to trip the system. I
was on the phone looking away from the screen when I said it. As I said it, I turned and no
kidding, it was on my screen. Like 100ms or something like that. Now for the down side. I put one
in my house. I usually trip my system once a month getting the paper or opening a window or
something stupid. Because I use A&C, (us SIMS guys know that means you buffer the alarm for 30-60
seconds at the station before presenting it to the operator--waiting for the cancel), I dont care
because the cancel signal causes the alarm to go write to the computer without an operator ever
seeing it. But, as you can guess, the alarm from the radio hits the operator before I hear the
siren on an instant zone. So I turn off the keypad, go back to my coffee and the phone rings, (I
have 4 lines--2 for internet--as any fool can tell--and 2 for the Mrs and me), I say, what are you
calling me for, I sent the cancel and the opeator goes, oh yeah, there it is now. Sorry to disturb
you. So now I delay the radio alarms by 30 seconds too. Problem solved.
Irv Fisher
> Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
> number in a "kill file," which is checked by my Caller-ID program on every
> incoming
>
> Just out of curiousity, does UL allow this?
Who cares. It's a great idea. Got to figure out if it'll work with a couple
of thousand accounts. Right now, we just log unknown transmissions and do a
check of account numbers on a spreadsheet every week or so to make sure we
haven't missed something important.
I always wondered if we could dispense with account numbers and just use
caller id when there was only one alarm on that line and it wasn't one of
those circuits that chooses a different number each time it calls.
So Steve, ask Ken what he thinks of that???
Mark
true, however I'll wager a weeks pay that while its available its NOT
in use, one thing you forget is when people begin using a certain
format they tend to continue using it, I can't tell you how many
Ademco systems I've taken over that were still using 4/2 -20 baud
format, bigger companies tend to use Contact ID, smaller companies
(which have the larger market share) seem to tend to use the older
formats.
Bill Leibe
Irv Fisher <iii.f...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
[...]
>> Just out of curiousity, does UL allow this?
>
>Who cares. It's a great idea. Got to figure out if it'll work with a couple
[...]
>So Steve, ask Ken what he thinks of that???
Hi Irv,
As a long time lurker in this ng with an eye toward installing my own
system in the near future, I am enjoying ya'll's (that's cracker for
'youse guys') discussions very much. However, I am having trouble
sometimes keeping up with who it is your most recent replys are
directed to. Would it be possible for you (and others too) to set
your readers to include the "so and so wrote:" line in your replies?
I, and maybe some others, would very much appreciate it.
Thanks!
Bill Leibe Rail Down on Starboard
To reply you need to deal with the redundancy in the return address.
aa...@_no.spam.deltanet.com
In <345C08B6...@sympatico.ca>, Irv Fisher <iii.f...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
>> incoming
>> allowing the receiver enough time to do a process the transmission.
>>
>
>Who cares. It's a great idea.
I'd care. It IS a great idea, but a failure of this system disables the
receiver. Putting it another way, it becomes just as important as
the receiver itself.
>I always wondered if we could dispense with account numbers and just use
>caller id when there was only one alarm on that line and it wasn't one of
>those circuits that chooses a different number each time it calls.
I think you still need the account number. People do change their phone
numbers without notifying their alarm company, and you wouldn't want
to throw away a signal because of it.
Robert L. Bass
aa-2@.deltanet.com wrote:
: Irv Fisher writes:
:>> Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
:>> number in a "kill file," which is checked by my Caller-ID program on every
:>> incoming
:>> allowing the receiver enough time to do a process the transmission.
:>>
:>> Just out of curiousity, does UL allow this?
:>
:>Who cares. It's a great idea.
:
: I'd care. It IS a great idea, but a failure of this system disables the
: receiver. Putting it another way, it becomes just as important as
: the receiver itself.
When I designed the system, I anticipated this. The relays fail open, allowing
normal, uninterrupted communications. Also, the relays are all DPDT. The 2nd
side of all relays are wired in parallel. These trip a count-down timer. Any
time a relay kills a call for more than 7 seconds a MA-2 (intermittent
sonalert) sounds and a light flashes. The operator can press the an over-ride
switch at that point, shutting down the kill system.
Another thing I did was program the system to report all line activity. This
tells me who called at what date and time (communicators AND voice calls), what
line they called in on, how long it took before the operator answered, how long
they stayed on the line and, in the case of "kill" signals, what calls were
killed from what numbers.
Daily reports tabulate all incoming line activity. We also record the SMDR
information from our telephone system on the same computer system. Outgoing
calls are noted with the station making the call, date, time and duration of
the call as well as the phone number dialed.
Also, like almost all Central Stations, we record all incoming and outgoing
calls with time and date stamps on audio tapes. In the event there is ever a
discrepancy between what my operators say and what the police dispatcher says
transpired, the tapes and print-outs can save us an expensive lawsuit.
I began doing this when a friend and competitor from East Hartford told me
about his near-nightmare situation. This gentleman, Chuck Anderson of
Associated Security, is a well-respected dealer with a solid reputation for
honesty and good workmanship. He and I have competed for business in the same
market for 18+ years now and we often share "war stories" after the dust
settles on bids we have fought to win. We have a very strong, mutual respect.
Anyway, Chuck's operator called the state police one night on a burglary
signal. While he was talking to the dispatcher, he said, "Oh, I have to call
the fire department too. We're now getting a fire alarm from [the same
location]." The PD said not to bother. He would radio the FD to respond as
well.
The state police patrol some of Connecticut's outlying areas using Resident
State Troopers. They try to do a good job, but it's hard for one cruiser to do
much when he covers a 30-40 square mile "beat." The dispatcher in this case
radioed the RST and told him of a burglary signal. He told him to also check
for a possible fire. He did not call the FD as he promised the alarm company
operator he would.
It took almost 30 minutes for the trooper to arrive. The burglar alarm was
real. It was an arsonist. The building was "fully involved" in the fire by the
time the RST arrived. The state police dispatcher claimed he had never been
told about the fire alarm. The insurance company began an inquiry to determine
if they might subrogate against the alarm company. Chuck gave the insurance
investigator a copy of the tape, including the date/time stamp, and the matter
was dropped. Since the PD are generally immune from suits in such
circumstances, the insurer had no recourse.
What this lesson taught me is the extreme importance of fully documenting
everything we do in this industry. It is not enough to do a good job. It is not
enough to do an excellent job. We must be able to prove conclusively that what
we do is the best that we can. Nothing can guarantee you'll never be held up to
scrutiny. But you can do a lot to make sure that scrutiny displays an honest,
sincere effort to properly protect your clients AND your staff.
: >I always wondered if we could dispense with account numbers and just use
: >caller id when there was only one alarm on that line and it wasn't one of
: >those circuits that chooses a different number each time it calls.
This might be possible in a limited number of circumstances, except that people
who move within the boundaries of same telephone company central office may
bring their phone number with them to the new location. Now if we could someday
have access to the Extended 911 service that PD and FD offices use, this might
be feasible.
--
Robert L. Bass
Steve Ryckman wrote:
: Robert L. Bass wrote:
:
: I changed the subject of this post to be more in-line with the conversation
: actually transpiring in the thread, hope you don't mind.....
:
::> There are two much more significant issues regarding transmission speed.
First,
::> since the receiver and/or the software will throw out incomplete
transactions,
::> it is critical to get the signal out before the thief can attack the panel.
In
::> a small apartment or store this can be a matter of seconds if the thief
knows
::> where to find the panel. Second, as stated above, the more time required to
::> transmit, the higher the probability of a dropped signal.
:
: First off, no receiver that is UL listed anyways will "throw out" an
: incomplete signal. It may not be able to report all the data (because it
: didn't get it) but every major receiver I know of will report a transmission
: error at least. With a receiver like the Surgard with Caller-Id enabled if
: the call is completed by the phone company you can at least get the account
: number from the automation software.
This is quite right, Steve. The receiver doesn't throw out the trash. However,
many automation packages do so. Unfortunately, BOLD doesn't even tell the
operator if the receiver is getting a slew of trash. Presumably, SIMS handles
this more professionally. Your comments are solicited on this.
: Ok, have any of you calculated the amount of time it would save to transmit
: an alarm message with any of the formats?
--- explanation of transmission times of various formats, etc., snipped ---
I agree there is little time-saving from implementation of complex, high speed
formats. The main issue for me is not the time it takes to transmit -- though
this can be quite significant when the thief is trying to get at the control
panel before the call can be completed. Then of course every second counts.
The above scenario only accounts for a relatively rare occurrence. However,
with the use of Point ID (Contact ID for all you Ademco fans) we have the
ability to know precisely what is happening at the premises, where it is
happening and a great deal of additional information about the type of circuit
that has been tripped. This can really prove helpful in diagnosing problems,
not to mention providing precise, detailed information to the police or fire
dispatcher in the event of an emergency.
Since we do a rather full implementation of the Point ID format on our
monitored systems, usually including daily automatic communications testing, we
are obviously not interested in maximizing the number of clients we can squeeze
into the least number of phone lines. I just don't look at security from that
perspective. I want to maximize the services available to my clients and the
heck with the cost of a few more lines on our receivers.
Thanks for your comments, Steve. Please add to this.
aa...@_no.spam.deltanet.com
In <345C0777...@sympatico.ca>, Irv Fisher <iii.f...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>You touched a nerve there Steve. We just installed a radio network, (first in Toronto that I know
>of), and for the first time in about 10 years I was actually humbled by my first experience with
>it. I was on the phone with an installer about 15 miles away and asked him to trip the system. I
>was on the phone looking away from the screen when I said it. As I said it, I turned and no
>kidding, it was on my screen. Like 100ms or something like that. Now for the down side. I put one
>in my house. I usually trip my system once a month getting the paper or opening a window or
>something stupid. Because I use A&C, (us SIMS guys know that means you buffer the alarm for 30-60
>seconds at the station before presenting it to the operator--waiting for the cancel), I dont care
>because the cancel signal causes the alarm to go write to the computer without an operator ever
>seeing it. But, as you can guess, the alarm from the radio hits the operator before I hear the
>siren on an instant zone. So I turn off the keypad, go back to my coffee and the phone rings, (I
>have 4 lines--2 for internet--as any fool can tell--and 2 for the Mrs and me), I say, what are you
>calling me for, I sent the cancel and the opeator goes, oh yeah, there it is now. Sorry to disturb
>you. So now I delay the radio alarms by 30 seconds too.
I don't know what type of radios you're using, but some brands allow you
to program a delay into the radio itself, by zone. Consequently, you can
put a 5 second delay on a burglary zone and not delay a holdup or fire
zone at all.
If you haven't already had this happen, wait until an installer programs
an automatic bell test on a radio system, and you get a false alarm
every time the system is armed.
Irv Fisher
> <<AA2 to Bass>>Chuck gave the insurance
> investigator a copy of the tape, including the date/time stamp, and the matter
> was dropped. Since the PD are generally immune from suits in such
> circumstances, the insurer had no recourse.
<<Fisher to Bass>>When I was naive I'd have relied on the police tapes to exonerate
your operator. Now I wouldn't. Your last statement should be filed by the members
of the ng for future reference.. It will take on a whole new meaning when you move
bigtime to private response.
> Now if we could someday
> have access to the Extended 911 service that PD and FD offices use, this might
> be feasible.
Before Bob Ohm left Westinghouse, I was told that facility would be available to
them if not already. Anybody know if you can have this if you've got the bucks and
the clout. Mark, do you know if you have it now?
Mark
One thing I HAVE seen is a DSC PC1550 send about 4,000+ signals a
night while in run-away, I love that panel but when its in runaway it
does it in a MAJOR way. So far thats about the only one out there from
the major brands that will do that many in one night, closest I've
seen is an FBI XL-21 doing 150
(Bob, umm do some math on that one)
Mark
To my knowledge no, but then I'm not up to date on the actual
monitoring end of it.
Mark
The DSC software IS also designed for direct connect.
they term it "PC-LINK", fancy name for a null modem
On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:07:48 -0800, Flyboy <os...@no.spam.seanet.com>
wrote:
>Robert L Bass wrote:
>
>> BTW, most of my DIY clients use the DSC or Napco software which we
>> provide them from their own PC's. We do the initial download for free
>> to
>
>Curious: How do you tell your clients to use the DSC software, which is
>designed for dial-up and not direct-connect to the panel?
>
>--
>Tom and Sandra Brown Hyak Ski Patrol
>Olympic Security and Communications Systems NSPS #P008-67286
>GSX1100G VS700 KLR600 KLR250
>Remove the "no.spam." from address to reply.
>
>
aa...@_no.spam.deltanet.com
In <01bce7d4$4ea8ce60$8289...@C282040-A.htfdw1.ct.home.com>, "Robert L. Bass" <alar...@home.net> writes:
>aa-2@.deltanet.com wrote:
>: Irv Fisher writes:
>:>> Here's my solution. It works like a charm. I place the client's phone
>:>> number in a "kill file," which is checked by my Caller-ID program on every
>:>> incoming
>:>> allowing the receiver enough time to do a process the transmission.
>:>>
>:>> Just out of curiousity, does UL allow this?
>:>
>:>Who cares. It's a great idea.
>:
>: I'd care. It IS a great idea, but a failure of this system disables the
>: receiver. Putting it another way, it becomes just as important as
>: the receiver itself.
>
>When I designed the system, I anticipated this. The relays fail open, allowing
>normal, uninterrupted communications. Also, the relays are all DPDT. The 2nd
>side of all relays are wired in parallel. These trip a count-down timer. Any
>time a relay kills a call for more than 7 seconds a MA-2 (intermittent
>sonalert) sounds and a light flashes. The operator can press the an over-ride
>switch at that point, shutting down the kill system.
>
>Another thing I did was program the system to report all line activity. This
>tells me who called at what date and time (communicators AND voice calls), what
>line they called in on, how long it took before the operator answered, how long
>they stayed on the line and, in the case of "kill" signals, what calls were
>killed from what numbers.
I think this is a great idea. You could package it and sell it. I'd just
feel more comfortable with it if it had a UL sticker on it. And, for
a UL listed central station, in my opinion such a system would have
to be UL listed equipment if any UL accounts reported to that receiver.
Will we soon see this system for sale on the Bass on-line store?
Robert L. Bass
MADNO
>Subject: Re: Central Station communications (topic changed)
>From: "Robert L. Bass"
>The use of police tapes became very important to me personally one day. I
>passed another car and then attempted to merge into the lane. The other
>driver
>had some kind of mental problem. He followed me, passed me and then cut me
>off.
Guess Bass is just as aggravating on the road as he is on a NG.
Robert L. Bass
MADNO <ma...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971103064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
In an effort to maintain civility and professionalism in the news group, I have
decided not to refrain from calling inerudite posters such as this individual
morons or idiots. One does wonder if his parents bore more children after the
marriage.
aa...@_no.spam.deltanet.com
In <3DF11737F0726EC0.D084AA65...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, mle...@iadfw.net (Mark) writes:
>We use that receiver daily, and it is indeed convenient for changing
>programming via trapping the codes the problem comes with attrit
>accounts or disconnected accounts. Can't download those ITI panels
>unless someone is there to answer the phone.
Maybe we're talking about different things. If you have a cancelled
account that's still sending in signals, you set up a trap for that
account number. When it calls in (open/close/timer test/whatever),
you've got access.
Mark
Thats fine but I don't think they make DTI 550's anymore :>
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:31:45 -0500, Irv Fisher
<iii.f...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> <<Mark to fisher>>One thing I HAVE seen is a DSC PC1550 send about 4,000+ signals a
>> night while in run-away,
>
>You see, that's why you should install and monitor crappy panels. A crappy panel would be dead at 150.
>
Flyboy
Mark wrote:
> The DSC software IS also designed for direct connect.
> they term it "PC-LINK", fancy name for a null modem
Yes, but the 5010 panel will not operate its phone line if it is not
there. Therefor the need for line power. I guess if you have a line
already hooked up it could work. My only application was hooking a
laptop to the panel with no phone line present (model home). I am not
familiar with "PC-LINK".
Flyboy
Robert L. Bass wrote:
> yelling "Oh my God, he just rammed me. I'm trapped now. For God's
> sake, where
> are the police?"
Yet another good reason to own, practice with, and carry a loaded
firearm in your pants... :-|
Irv Fisher
> to say, "Get a gun and blow them away." It's another thing to live with the
> memory.
Bob's right about the living with the memory thing. Know the original poster was
making light and am not chiding the post. Just think it's worth repeating if you
ever do find yourself in a situation like that, remember what Bass has said.
Unless you've been there, it's impossible to describe the affect it has on your
life.
Dan
Mark wrote:
>
> My experience is anytime the customer calls the phone company to
> complain about a problem they ask "Is there a security system in your
> house?", if the answer is yes then "Yup, thats the problem!"
> regardless of what the problem is. and 90% of the time it ends up
> being either a phone company problem or interior house phone wiring.
>
> Alarm company and Ma Bell seem to have a mutual hatred for each other.
Have a customer with an alarm system but using cellular and not the
phone lines. She was asked immediately if she had an alarm system and
when she said yes, the phone company told her that if the problem was
with the alarm, they would be charged for the service call. They came
out and did charge her telling her that the alarm was the cause of her
problem. It only took me one call to straighten that out and she got
$100 credit on her phone bill. Actually, it was the pad out at the
street that had water in it. Gee, how many others get taken?
Snalespace
Dan replied.
>the phone company told her that if the problem was
>with the alarm, they would be charged for the service call. They came
>out and did charge her telling her that the alarm was the cause of her
>problem. It only took me one call to straighten that out and she got
>$100 credit on her phone bill. Actually, it was the pad out at the
>street that had water in it. Gee, how many others get taken?
Blame it on the alarm company is a frequent refrain. I have no idea how this
idea originated (well I sort of do).The phones, the Muzak, the cable tv, the
intercom, the lights, the doorbell, the fax machine, the computer network, the
microwave oven and every other imaginable problem that occurs is blamed on the
alarm company. (well I actually haven't heard of a microwave oven not working
being blamed on the alarm company but it wouldn't surprise me).
Jon
Scott Millsap
I was working on a hookup for two seniors several years ago. I did the
job, made the contracts, and went on my way. About 7 PM that night I
received an emergency page from the m/s asking me to call the people. I
did. It seems that every minute or so the keypad would beep. No chime, no
trouble light. I decided as they were 3 miles from me I would just check it
out. I went by the "bad" keypad and waited. All of the sudden I heard the
beep. I turned around and looked at the microwave. After guessing that the
microwave beeps after it cooks your meal and before you open the door as a
reminder I told them their meal was ready.
My favorite was a more or less irate client who called me saying the
smoke detectors were beeping. Never in the history of this company have we
ever installed a smoke that beeped I told him. He didn't care. I had to be
there that day or he was pulling the account. I responded with "It's
probably a pager or microwave." He wasn't convinced. "If I am right I have
to charge a service call." I guess he was a betting man. After going out
there I stood underneath the "bad" smoke detector. Beep. Once again,
showing absolutely average stereo hearing I knew it was coming from a nearby
desk. Guess what? A pager just merrily doing its job. His response was "I
thought that this pager wasn't working." Being the nice guy that I am I
replied "I understand, what check number are you paying with?"
I have many stories like this. It almost seems to me that if it beeps
its that faulty alarm again.
Snalespace wrote in message
Robert L. Bass
Scott Millsap wrote:
--- funny story snipped ---
I have had numerous calls over the years from clients whose alarms were
beeping. They are often quite certain the sound, a 1/4-second, high-pitch
"blip" once every few minutes, is coming from the alarm. Almost invariably we
find a "forgotten" 9-volt (non-system) smoke detector in need of a fresh
battery. Sound familiar?
One night we got a call from a customer a few miles from my home. He said the
alarm was making a terrible racket. The sound was coming from the garage, he
said. We could hear the noise in the background, a high-frequency squeal that
didn't sound at all like one of our sirens. I hopped in the car and drove over.
As I got out of the car, the noise coming from the garage was annoyingly loud
-- though definitelt not emanating from my system. If you've ever tried to
locate the source of this kind of sound you know it's very hard to pinpoint.
The ears play tricks on us at times.
After checking inside the attic hatch in the center of the ceiling, I realised
the sound was loudest on one side of the room. I started taking boxes down from
the shelves in that area. The stuff on the shelves appeared to have been
accumulating for years. At the bottom of one stack I found a box with a smoke
detector in it. The weight of the pile had finally crushed the box enough to
exert pressure on the test button.
Problem solved. Since these people were clients for many years and rarely
caused any problems I didn't charge for the visit. In most cases I would have
at least billed them for the minimum though.
Bruce Thornhill
Darren Lesage wrote in message <346552a6...@news.island.net>...
>This is assuming that you want every single signal sent. This is VERY
unlikely.
>Plus on a DSC Power 832, SIA doesn't work 100% of the time with a Surgard
MLR-2 receiver, even thought they should be
>compatible, since they are made by the same manufacturer.
>
>Sure but they are very reliable, unlike SIA.
>
The Power832 that you mention can selectively attenuate any code, or more
usefully, entire groups of codes. (O/C, troubles, etc)
As for reliability, I have found SIA to work flawlessly with MLR2, offering
even higher immunity to bad phone lines than other formats. You may have
problems elsewhere in your system, such as th eautomation software.
Irv Fisher
>The Power832 that you mention can selectively attenuate any code, or more
>usefully, entire groups of codes. (O/C, troubles, etc)
true, but you can't attenuate burg restores from burgs, that's my only
complaint.
>As for reliability, I have found SIA to work flawlessly with MLR2, offering
>even higher immunity to bad phone lines than other formats. You may have
>problems elsewhere in your system, such as th eautomation software.
since everyone says this implementation is great, I'm going to target
line amps as the source of my problems. if i find out any more, i'll
post it.
Irv Fisher
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:44:11 -0400, "Bruce Thornhill"
<bthor...@accesscable.net> wrote:
>Actually, you can. Just "zero out" addresses 324-327 and no zone restorals
>will be sent. And if you "zero out" specific parts of 329, you will avoid
>the "keypad restores" you talked about earlier.
>
it does and it doesn't. the point is I dont want installers going
into the code area. once they're there, anything is possible, (and
probable). an on/off switch is still the best bet.