Envisalink monitoring satisfaction?

[Starpilot]

I am considering Envisalink monitoring.
They are reasonably priced, UL certified and appear to be a viable option.
Has anyone used them or heard of someone who has? And would you recommend them?

Thank you for your thoughts.

[tourman]

Yes, we use this device for DSC panels in our business, although to use them with other than the designated monitoring station, they must be unlocked by paying EyeON an unlocking fee. If you do use this device, make sure your router/modem is a quality product, and that you buy a separate UPS for the modem and router. Note that these cannot be used with the newer DSC NEO series panels; DSC has encrypted the keybus in a typical self serving fashion to keep third party applications from being useable with this line of panels[I hope they learn they cant be doing this kind of selfish, self serving thing if they ever plan to be part of the Internet of Things in the future....]. This is being done to force installing companies to give up some of the RMR that normally would go to the end dealer....]although I'm sure they have some other excuse.

Bottom line, it's a good device, but difficult for an end user to set up properly without a measure of experience with it....

[Starpilot]

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I have three systems that I think I will now convert over monitoring by Eyezon. I've been using their card for quite some time so I am familiar with their functionality. Using their monitoring should save me a portion of my current costs, plus provide me greater flexibility with my ability to deal with the monitoring service directly.

I presently use them with Vista 20P's.

I do appreciate the idea of battery back ups on the modem and router. Good chance I would have forgotten that until an episode called it to my attention.

[Jim]

I've been on a search for products similar to the Envisalink that are compatible with other alarm panels. This whole new "intrusion" of alarm equipment manufacturers on the RMR business of installation companies has really got me pissed off.

There is no reason in the world why the company that I buy my equipment from has to intrude upon my income stream that I've worked for with my clients. Any alarm panel will do anything that any other alarm panel can do so there's no exclusivity of functions as far as any particular manufacturer goes. So they think by providing these chargeable services they can lock in the people who use their products.

The closed circuit TV camera manufacturers can provide servers at no charge (Yes, I realize they include it in their pricing) so there's no reason why alarm equipment manufacturers have to charge the fees that they do just to "forward" information to a central station. Yeah, yeah, I know, Control 4 and all these other "service providers" charge their fees but for the alarm manufacturers to jump on the same band wagon and charge the companies who have been loyal to them for years, what I consider exorbitant pricing for minuscule service ..... just because "they can" is just too much for me to accept.

There are ways around it and as time allows I'll be experimenting with some of the "other" technology that will circumvent them. The Envisalink is a third party device that works with DSC and Honeywell. There are other devices that work with other manufacturers and as time will tell, I think that these opportunist alarm equipment manufacturers will not be as happy as they think they'll be in the future.

These manufacturers are still living in the past where every new idea was connected to an exclusive "franchise" or "dealership" So they think they can make their products "exclusive" That only works for the dummies who can't make it on their own and depends on the turnover of people who try it and fail and a constant supply of new dummies to take their place.

Today, we live in too dynamic a technological age ..... There's and App for everything and a device that can do whatever it is that you want to do and .... the Internet of Things is directed towards the end users not professional installation companies. You would think the alarm manufacturers would be providing installers with ways to offer similar or better capabilities to their clients at lower prices rather than providing them with the same things at the same prices that they can get by doing it themselves or going with the mega companies.

As long as I've been in this trade it seems the manufacturers are always a day late and a dollar short.

[E DAWSON]

Hi,

The trend of companies locking their security systems is
counter-productive. I attended last year a DSC "NEO" new product
presentation by one of their regional reps. I lasted about 45 minutes
waiting steadfastly and impatiently for the coming break. The rep kept going
on and on about Alarm.com and how their new NEO products had locked out
"their" bus- so no one will be able to use it except whom they choose. It
was reported that negotiations were still underway for them to license their
bus to Alarm.com. I was only interested in the specs of the new system. I
quickly came to find out that NEO is not backward compatible for anything;
not keypads, not wireless, not fobs, not anything. That was a very grave
error on their part-NUMBER 1. Their bus being locked out so that add-on fobs
cannot be used, nor IPdatatel, nor anything that you can think of that is
made by other companies. Another very serious error-NUMBER 2. And then, if
you looked at the pricing for the dealers, it was just about twice the price
of the PC 1616 kits. And that is the last nail in the coffin-NUMBER 3. Oh
yes, now you can see some lower pricing for their "kits" -they took out the
keypad in it so that they could sell the kit cheaper. They have now become a
joke in the industry. Just lately, I was talking to one supplier. He was not
even aware that the bus was locked out.

This was not a decision made by DSC, this is more of a decision made by
the parent company TICO. DSC has had good products reasonably priced for
quite a while. I cannot imagine that after a long track record of good
accomplishments, that the same folks would suddenly destroy their company.
They have thoroughly painted themselves into a no-return corner. Greed has a
way of making you blind, so they say. And the new folks at DSC have just
proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When DSC does away with their Power-series line and only has NEO to
sell, we will end our relationship with DSC and go with our second-in-line
being Networx. And I believe that there will also be a great rushing
stampede by very many security companies out the DSC doors also.

Manufacturing companies need to wake up and pay attention! Security
companies want and need affordable inter-operable products! And, that is
because the customers-who are the true end-buyer, want their "free" "cheap
to operate" "give me a lot of extras for free" security systems!!!

Wake up and smell the roses manufacturers. Get out of your stale-aired,
greed-intoxicated, power-hungry cubicles and breath the fresh air of the
real folks!

e dawson

P.S. I don't give a "Wam" that your new wireless can communicate up to one
mile. Will the moron who thinks that this is important please stand
up....please!

[Rocky]

I'm still waiting for Wade (Elk & Moose Products) to return with a simple,
hearty, BA..
His company made an excellent product back in the 80's, the Z900 & z1100e

Of the several hundred customers we've sold to over the last 35+ years NOT
one has ever
wanted a "Do-it-all" control system. Simple on and off, that's what they
all wanted..
No fancy auto arm auto bypass whole house tie-ins, none of that "selling
point" crap
the manufacturers want to push...

One of the toughest BA's I ever installed was the MPI-50
I had several survive Lighting strikes which destroyed every piece of
electronics in the same building.
To this day I still have 3 MPI-50's that still work just like they did the
day they were installed..

Granted there are some new ideas and equipment that bear including in any
system
but as a whole the large manufacturers, in my opinion, have dropped the
ball..
Not everyone wants a "Lexus or Lincoln" some just want a Simple Hearty
"get-er-done" system.

Now that my two minutes are over I'll get off the soap box..

RTS



"E DAWSON" wrote in message news:bc3b$54af2392$4b5b3eda$19...@ALLTEL.NET...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Jim]

although I agree with you for the most part, unfortunately advertising and marketing dictate what the public will want .... and that comes from the nationals and other large companies with the deep pockets. What with the "Internet of Things", Free Apps for everything, the ability for end users to do their own systems .... I think that the handwriting is on the wall. Not in the very near future, not while I'm still active but the mid to new-comers in this trade are going to eventually be squeezed out of a good portion of what we do now. The "There's an App for Everything" mentality surely leads end-users down the path of DIY, self monitoring or cheap equipment and internet remote monitoring .... which will eventually be "good enough". Unless central stations get on the band wagon and begin offering "cloud" storage services, remote control services and such .... in the future the majority of their monitoring will only be large commercial burg and fire alarm systems. Residential will diminish over time. The residential end user will be satisfied with "good enough". That's how this trade has been evolving for decades. First there was direct wire and McCollough, then the tape dialer was "good enough". Then the digital dialer a brief respite in the "good enough" decline. Then came DTMF dialing. How long did it take for that to be trusted over rotary dialing? Then came VoIP. Fire marshals were "NEVER" going to accept that kind of communication .... yeah .... sure" Then came long range radio.... who was EVER going to trust THAT? Then redundant radio and landline. Now we've got Cellular or radio and Network monitoring with no redundancy ...... that's acceptable???

So now they've jammed down our throats the erroneous concept that it's Ok for some combination of a long range radio, cellular network and land line where only one is used for a primary transmission technology and the "backup" technology never gets actually tested until and unless the primary technology fails. "What do you mean?" they say. "The back up technology sends in periodic "supervisory" signals." I say, how do you know it will send in "alarm" signals unless it's tested every time an alarm signal is generated? How do you know that something hasn't been disconnected at the installation and the radio isn't just sitting there disconnected for the last 5 years ... since the primary has never failed, and the "backup" is just sending in supervisory signals but not able to send in alarm signals? If you think it can't happen, Ask DSC about the time their network went down and nobody knew about it for weeks and weeks because their network could only receive supervisory signals but not alarm signals ..... and nobody was notified!!!!

Which ... by the way is the main reason I don't and never will ever use DSC anything, ever again. They NEVER tell anyone when a failure occurs. Another reason is During Sandy I had a customer who was without power for weeks. When they were back up I went back to power up their system and couldn't get the cellular radio to work. When I called tech support they asked if the battery was left connected after it died. I said "of course". The tech had the nerve to nonchalantly say, "Oh, that's a problem with those radios, if you leave the battery connected and it dies, the cellular radio has to be replaced. That's a little problem we have with those units." ..... WHAT!!!!!!

They just play the numbers. If you have "the" problem .... then you've been notified otherwise ... why do you need to be informed? Why should they spend all that money replacing or repairing units that dealers never have the problem with? Recall? WATSA RECALL????

Any way, I think that the "alarm" installation trade as we know it is changing and if you don't diversify or adopt some of the new technology, (whether you like it or not) if your mid way or just getting into the trade .... you're going to be left behind.

Do I use some of the above technologies that I've complained about? Yep, Not because I think it's good, or right or secure ... it's just that I know if I hold out, my old fashioned alarm monitoring RMR market is going to slowly diminish. End users are being charmed by the Telephone companies, Best Buy, Cable companies, National alarm companies, DIY self install it by DIY Web Site companies selling Chinese mfg'd systems ....... at $15.00 a month. Pretty soon Google and Apple will be "one upping" each other with their version of DIY systems and Apps. Think "DropCam", "Nest" and "SimpleSafe". OH and another thing, do you really think that your alarm equipment manufacturer of choice "ISN"T" providing their equipment to end users on the Internet ? REALLY?
The only thing separating them from dealing direct with the end user right now is that they haven't released a DIY version of the installation instructions.

This is why I say that the alarm equipment manufacturers are doing the wrong thing by "forcing" installers pay prices for equipment and services so that we've got to compete with all of the above. If they want to keep their bread and butter customers, they should be providing us with equipment and control services that compete with all of the above but at lower pricing .....

Makes sense to me.

[Jim]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:59:17 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote:
>
> although I agree with you for the most part, unfortunately advertising and marketing dictate what the public will want .... and that comes from the nationals and other large companies with the deep pockets. What with the "Internet of Things", Free Apps for everything, the ability for end users to do their own systems .... I think that the handwriting is on the wall. Not in the very near future, not while I'm still active but the mid to new-comers in this trade are going to eventually be squeezed out of a good portion of what we do now. The "There's an App for Everything" mentality surely leads end-users down the path of DIY, self monitoring or cheap equipment and internet remote monitoring .... which will eventually be "good enough". Unless central stations get on the band wagon and begin offering "cloud" storage services, remote control services and such .... in the future the majority of their monitoring will only be large commercial burg and fire alarm systems. Residential will diminish over time. The residential end user will be satisfied with "good enough". That's how this trade has been evolving for decades. First there was direct wire and McCollough, then the tape dialer was "good enough". Then the digital dialer a brief respite in the "good enough" decline. Then came DTMF dialing. How long did it take for that to be trusted over rotary dialing? Then came VoIP. Fire marshals were "NEVER" going to accept that kind of communication .... yeah .... sure" Then came long range radio.... who was EVER going to trust THAT? Then redundant radio and landline. Now we've got Cellular or radio and Network monitoring with no redundancy ...... that's acceptable???
>
> So now they've jammed down our throats the erroneous concept that it's Ok for some combination of a long range radio, cellular network and land line where only one is used for a primary transmission technology and the "backup" technology never gets actually tested until and unless the primary technology fails. "What do you mean?" they say. "The back up technology sends in periodic "supervisory" signals." I say, how do you know it will send in "alarm" signals unless it's tested every time an alarm signal is generated? How do you know that something hasn't been disconnected at the installation and the radio isn't just sitting there disconnected for the last 5 years ... since the primary has never failed, and the "backup" is just sending in supervisory signals but not able to send in alarm signals? If you think it can't happen, Ask DSC about the time their network went down and nobody knew about it for weeks and weeks because their network could only receive supervisory signals but not alarm signals ..... and nobody was notified!!!!
>
> Which ... by the way is the main reason I don't and never will ever use DSC anything, ever again. They NEVER tell anyone when a failure occurs. Another reason is During Sandy I had a customer who was without power for weeks. When they were back up I went back to power up their system and couldn't get the cellular radio to work. When I called tech support they asked if the battery was left connected after it died. I said "of course". The tech had the nerve to nonchalantly say, "Oh, that's a problem with those radios, if you leave the battery connected and it dies, the cellular radio has to be replaced. That's a little problem we have with those units." ..... WHAT!!!!!!
>
> They just play the numbers. If you have "the" problem .... then you've been notified otherwise ... why do you need to be informed? Why should they spend all that money replacing or repairing units that dealers never have the problem with? Recall? WATSA RECALL????
>
> Any way, I think that the "alarm" installation trade as we know it is changing and if you don't diversify or adopt some of the new technology, (whether you like it or not) if your mid way or just getting into the trade .... you're going to be left behind.
>
> Do I use some of the above technologies that I've complained about? Yep, Not because I think it's good, or right or secure ... it's just that I know if I hold out, my old fashioned alarm monitoring RMR market is going to slowly diminish. End users are being charmed by the Telephone companies, Best Buy, Cable companies, National alarm companies, DIY self install it by DIY Web Site companies selling Chinese mfg'd systems ....... at $15.00 a month. Pretty soon Google and Apple will be "one upping" each other with their version of DIY systems and Apps. Think "DropCam", "Nest" and "SimpleSafe". OH and another thing, do you really think that your alarm equipment manufacturer of choice "ISN"T" providing their equipment to end users on the Internet ? REALLY?
> The only thing separating them from dealing direct with the end user right now is that they haven't released a DIY version of the installation instructions.
>
> This is why I say that the alarm equipment manufacturers are doing the wrong thing by "forcing" installers pay prices for equipment and services so that we've got to compete with all of the above. If they want to keep their bread and butter customers, they should be providing us with equipment and control services that compete with all of the above but at lower pricing .....
>
> Makes sense to me.

Oh, and one more thing. Take a look at some of the DIY help websites.

By far, the most popular panels ..... by the thousands ..... in the hands of DIY'ers on EVERY DIY help web site is ... yep ...... DSC .... with Honeywell a close second.

In return, please tell me how much loyalty do you think they actually deserve ?????

[Rocky]

"G. Morgan" wrote in message
news:olv6bah3rb7aifrs6...@Osama-is-dead.net...

Jim Wrote:

>Oh, and one more thing. Take a look at some of the DIY help websites.
>
>By far, the most popular panels ..... by the thousands ..... in the hands
>of DIY'ers on EVERY DIY help web site is ... yep ...... DSC .... with
>Honeywell a close second.
>
>In return, please tell me how much loyalty do you think they actually
>deserve ?????

>I can't comment on DSC since I have not touched their stuff in 10 years.
>I assume they are worse than ever, they were bad when I quit dealing with
>them so long ago.

>In fairness to Honeywell, at least they take a stance about not helping
>end-users with installation issues. Its been a while since I've called
>support, but they would always ask my name and company before assisting
>and keep a record of how often I called. You're right about end-user
>installation manuals too - they are not "dumbed-down" for the masses like
>a Home Depot sold DIY system might be. Alarmnet radios have to be
>programmed with proprietary programmers, or OTA (not something an
>end-user can initiate).

>The problem I see is online outlets selling professional parts to DIY'ers
>*and* offering cheap monitoring. No competent technician has inspected
>the system, now online, and it's capable of summoning emergency response
>to any location (even an incorrect location if the account number is
>wrong!). No one checks to make sure the appropriate signal is programmed
>for the device(s). If a smoke detector trips; it may send a trouble,
>supervisory, or burglary signal. That's a mistake that could be deadly
>and not caught until its way too late.

>I think there should be a national standard that all local responders
>adopt which states that no emergency response will be summoned unless the
>system has been certified by a competent & licensed company. That
>certifying company *should* be in a contract with the monitoring company
>to complete the liability chain. The monitoring company should (shall)
>require the DIY'er to undergo re-certification every time programming
>mode is entered. I suppose a remote panel connection would be good
>enough for that, after the initial physical inspection. Also, require
>periodic (annual?) physical inspections for DIY installed & monitored
>systems.

>I guess you've seen the TV commercials for SimpliSafe
>http://simplisafe.com/ . It shows the DIY'er 'mounting' a PIR by
>placing it on his fireplace mantle! WTF? I almost spit out a mouthful
>of coffee when I saw that.

"G. Morgan"
As much as I agree with your assessment of the current situation,
I DO NOT think Fed or Even State involvement will cure the problem.
Not sure how it is in your state/local area, but here in Kentucky all the
government uses regulations for is revenue collection..
Safety is very low down on their list of concerns.
ie... they passed a law that restricts Emergency Aid Buttons that are
remotely monitored to just one company..
(unless you’re a Hospital and self monitoring your own equipment)
(I'll let you guess who makes most of the money on that little caper ...)
ie... fire alarm monitoring is only allowed under the NFPA 2002 edition..
No allowance is given for VoIP or Cellular, POTS only....
(AT&T has already told the state PSC regulators they plan to drop POTS in
2014/15)

I guess we're all just waiting for the "@#$% in a Hand Basket" to come
swinging by.. ;-)

RTS

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

http://www.avast.com

[Jim]

I think you're right. Security is not the concern of politicians or any of the recent players jumping on the latest security system bandwagon. It's all about the RMR. And without the politicians placing restrictions on the garbage that's being offered now and only looking for more revenue producing laws, the garbage will just pile higher and higher.

Most end users and/or DIY'ers will forego the possibility that they've done something wrong .... willing to take the chance as long as they don't have to pay anything (or very low rates) for anything. After all, they don't know what they don't know. What if they don't get the call from their self monitored alarm system? They'd rather take that chance then pay for monthly monitoring. Why "isn't" it alright to put a motion detector on a mantle? It's a lot easier than having to mount that ugly thing on a wall. Here's one for you ...... "A cat is not going to set off a motion detector because it isn't a person." That's what's out there. There's no effort by the alarm industry to educate the public about what the failings in these systems are because the manufacturers are profiting regardless. It would be nice if the industry had a national association who would run educational adds to educate the public .... right? But .... wait a minute .... we DO have a national association ...... but alas, it's made up of alarm manufacturers and National Alarm companies that all profit from the lack of education to the end users. OH WELL ...... guess there's no help there.

When you're dealing with that kind of ignorance ..... and the seller isn't concerned about it ..... you know where all this eventually leads. To the total commoditization of security systems that offer worthless security which will reach the point that authorities will no longer respond to any kind of residential alarms.

I say again, if you're just starting out or midway in this trade, you'd better diversify something fierce in the coming years. Security as you have known it is going to disappear.

All I can say I'm glad I was in it during it's heyday.

[tourman]

Let me take a lesson from your book and give another hard opinion on this whole idea of self monitoring. Anyone who thinks that self monitoring using his cellphone as the main contact is a MORON and truly doesn`t understand security other than what he thinks he knows. Unfortunatly with the current move to selling simplistic DIY alarm and self monitoring systems, this is only going to increase.

But that`s the beauty of a free market; one can make all the mistakes you want without anyone calling you to task for it. Luckily for them, real alarms are not common relative to the 99 percent of alarms that are false. This might be the only thing that saves these folks (in an ironic twist of fate....)

[rickle...@gmail.com]

Have you heard of the class action lawsuit filed against ADT for using non-encrypted wireless communications. The NEO is one of a very few wireless security systems that use encrypted wireless sensors & fobs with spread spectrum technology. If you continue to install all of those non-encrypted systems (2GIG, GE, Honeywell, DSC Power Series, etc.) you may be decreasing the re-sell value of your monitored accounts.

We use this as a selling point and the customers are willing to pay more for a better system - even in an ultra competitive region like Dallas.

I don't like paying more for the panel & keypads either (the sensors themselves are actually little cheaper than power series wireless devices).

Also, NEO has a place in larger warehouse installations. We have used it in a number of jobs this year where we otherwise would have had to pay $300-$400 for renting a lift to run wires. Conventional wireless would not have worked in those installs.

I am working on a quote right now that the customer does not want monitoring but does want remote smart phone control. He now knows about the encrypted NEO wireless versus the non-encrypted systems and wants a NEO. I will have to break the news that an Envisalink will not work on that system. That will NOT break the deal and he might even decide to go ahead with monitoring and then I will get another monitored account.

[ns4...@gmail.com]

I've used them for monitoring two medium sized systems for almost 2 years now, one a DSC and the other a Honeywell, and they are an excellent monitoring company IMO.
Not only am I saving a significant amount of money, but they are also more prompt in responding to signals in comparison to the company I paid 4 times the amount of money for monitoring before. I've purposely tripped the system to test this and the premise phone was ringing in less than 30 seconds of the panels going into alarm. Other people may have different opinions (I am in Canada and they contract the service out to CML Monitoring, so it might be different in the US) but I am happy with the service and find it an excellent value.

[ns4...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 4:24:44 PM UTC-5, Starpilot wrote:

It is important to make sure the system is set up correctly though if you are doing it yourself. Replicate a scenario where there would be some sort of smoke in the house or a intruder open a door to your house (and test all the components) and you'll have some peace of mind knowing it works correctly, and if not, you can fix it until it is operating correctly. In my experience, not so much for Burglary (the cops take HOURS to show up and will just file the police report and stop no one), but more so if you have life safety devices connected to them. Make sure you are using EOL resistors and that they are operating correctly (the alarm techs around my area are not very good and they just skip using resistors on everything they can, they just cross a resistor between the fire zone connections and on all other zones they have to use EOLs and don't put an EOL anywhere including even smoke detectors!!!) but in a fire or CO detection scenario it can potentially save your life. Every second matters when it comes to a fire growing out of control. It's not rocket science, and if you are good enough with your hands, it's not that sophisticated to do. It's important to do it properly though and test your your components, especially life safety devices like smoke detectors with some mock smoke and make sure the signal gets to the monitoring station. Besides that it works well and is definitely worth it if you're looking for the internet functionality and want to save some money too

[abca...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 4:24:44 PM UTC-5, Starpilot wrote:

you installers are funny, anyone with a little research can install alarms as well , and much neater than you do. I respect that you make a living doing it but
come on. For one if i install my own i don't have to worry about some crook installer (most are honest) or monitor not reporting a break in.

[Jim Davis]

IIB