Caddx NX-8E - RS232 ASCII Codes
Sparkes
the RS232 port to a home automation system. For example, when someone
opens a sensored door, have the NX-8E send a ASCII command to my
lighting system to automatically turn on the light. Any idea what
commands it sends and receives?
Les
Frank Olson
"Sparkes" <ho...@adams-home.com> wrote in message
news:1120592904....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I think you must be dreamin'. ;-))
Frank Mc Alinden
Hi
Check out the link....Homevision can talk to the Caddx panels
http://www.csi3.com/hv_app.htm
HTH
Frank
--
Frank Mc Alinden
Frank Olson
"Frank Mc Alinden" <Frank.Mc.Al...@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au>
wrote in message news:Frank.Mc.Al...@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au...
>
> Hi
> Check out the link....Homevision can talk to the Caddx panels
>
> http://www.csi3.com/hv_app.htm
>
> HTH
> Frank
That's great, Frank, but the OP asked specifically for the communication
protocols the panel uses. At least that's how I've interpreted his question
about "any idea what commands it sends and receives?". I don't think CADDX
is going to share that information with an individual.
Frank Mc Alinden
Ooops Sorry
TBH ...I didnt read the doc....But at least he knows
of one HA Controller that will talk to his caddx system....;-)
Sorry
Frank Olson
"Frank Mc Alinden" <Frank.Mc.Al...@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au>
wrote in message news:Frank.Mc.Al...@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au...
>
> TBH ...I didnt read the doc....But at least he knows
> of one HA Controller that will talk to his caddx system....;-)
CADDX is one of the more "progressive" manufacturers when it comes to
releasing this kind of information to OEM's. There are a number of others
and a few that get pretty "testy" when it comes to divulging communication
protocols. I doubt *any* would provide it to an individual though. Thanks
for the link anyway, Frank!!
Sparkes
program to talk to it...what's the big deal. So now, instead of having
my security system talk directly to my lighting system, I have to
purchase something like Homevision. I thought this was suppose to be a
good DIY security system.
Les
Frank Olson
I guess it depends on the manufacturer. Some wish to keep their technology
proprietary. Others (like ELK) want to take as big a slice of the home
automation "pie" that they can. Judging by the quality of their products,
and their innovative approaches, they're going to be on the cutting edge for
some time. KUDO's to the guys at ELK!!
Robert L Bass
Like most alarm manufacturers, Caddx (GE Security) caters to alarm
dealers -- not the public. Many dealers will drop a line if they think the
manufacturer is willing to give support to DIYers.
> If I want to write my own program to talk to
> it...what's the big deal. So now, instead of
> having my security system talk directly to my
> lighting system, I have to purchase something
> like Homevision...
I used to have the protocol on my old PC. Unfortunately, it was one of the
files I failed to back up when I bought new machines this year. Next time I
talk to GE I'll ask them to send it to me.
> I thought this was suppose to be a good DIY
> security system...
It's not a bad system but you have to get your support from your equipment
supplier -- not the manufacturer.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Sparkes
instead. I have a Lutron Homeworks lighting system and would like to
have it talk to my security system. It sounds like I probably won't be
able to communicate directly between my Lutron and Caddx system and
will need an automation system. If that is the case, will my Caddx
keypads NX-148E work on the ELK system. I would only use the ELK for
automation and security.
Les
wkearney99
>
> Like most alarm manufacturers, Caddx (GE Security) caters to alarm
> dealers -- not the public. Many dealers will drop a line if they think
the
> manufacturer is willing to give support to DIYers.
From a business perspecive there's some logic to the notion. Selling to a
few well-trained resellers can avoid a lot of increased support and
liability costs for the vendor. It's a matter of where the money is best
spent. It's the smart vendor that recognizes how to work the fine line
between the two markets. There's little sense in antagonizing what can be a
very effective sales channel (the end-user) by refusing to engage them
directly. A motivated DIY or actively interesting homeowner can often help
sell product. Often to customers not otherwise motivated to use a local
reseller. Likewise, that same user could suck up an inordinate amount of
support costs for little or no profit. Tough call to make, either you piss
them off and don't grow and sales from it or your support costs go up.
At the same time a reseller that doesn't aggresively serve the local markets
doesn't help either. Or, worse yet, they do such a bad job the market
avoids the product. We've all met these resellers. But then again, we've
all met (or have been) high-cost users too.
With the ease of webpages it's sort of foolish to keep the motivated
end-users out of the loop. No vendor-direct support but webpages for
registered customers is one way to keep the costs lower. Smart vendors seem
to be grasping this idea.
-Bill Kearney
Marc F Hult
message <1121693367.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Sounds like you are buying hardware and then trying to find software that
will bring it together. Try the reverse -- software first. For what it's
worth, Premise Systems (now Motorola) supports Caddx NX-8 and NX 8E
and Lutron www.premisesystems.com).
HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
Marc F Hult
wrote in message <PuadneMP9vA...@speakeasy.net>:
>> > Why wouldn't they give out the commands?
>>
>> Like most alarm manufacturers, Caddx (GE Security) caters to alarm
>> dealers -- not the public. Many dealers will drop a line if they think
>the
>> manufacturer is willing to give support to DIYers.
>
>From a business perspecive there's some logic to the notion. Selling to a
>few well-trained resellers can avoid a lot of increased support and
>liability costs for the vendor. It's a matter of where the money is best
>spent. It's the smart vendor that recognizes how to work the fine line
>between the two markets.
There's a third "market" and those are installations that are glued together
by software from independent vendors such as Premise Systems (which _does_
support CADDX as well as HAI and Apex security) and CyberHouse (supports
Apex, Ademco, Napco, Radionics, Silent Knight, Elk).
In this market, support can be shunted/shared with the software
manufacturer, software vendor, software installer, and end user as well as
the hardware installer. Who gets the most inadequately compensated
work/calls (read 'can't survive') with this model?
Marc
Marc_F_Hult
Robert L Bass
> NX-8E system and get an ELK instead. I
> have a Lutron Homeworks lighting system
> and would like to have it talk to my security
Unless the Luton system can be reprogrammed to accept what Caddx sends, it
won't be directly controllable by Caddx. Because you can customize the ELK
system's I/O it should work fine with your Homeworks system.
> It sounds like I probably won't be able to
> communicate directly between my Lutron
> and Caddx system and will need an
> automation system.
If you got the system from my store and if it's still in new condition, I'll
take it back and credit the cost toward a replacement system for you.
Presumably, so will any other reputable vendor but check first.
> If that is the case, will my Caddx keypads
> NX-148E work on the ELK system.
No. The M1Gold talks to ELK's keypads. Although it will work with
Caddx/ITI wireless devices, it can't use Caddx keypads.
ELK has a new release of the ELK-M1XSP which has the Lutron Radio RA
protocol built in. I spoke to one of their engineers this morning and he's
going to see if it's the same protocol as Homeworks. If so, we should have
the new version available shortly. If not, they will implement the
Homeworks protocol for us but it takes two or three weeks to complete.
I've requested the EEPROM map of the ELK-M1XSP so that we can write
protocols in for clients who request them. That may take some time but it
should be doable. I won't hack their (or anyone else's) firmware but if
they will divulge the EEPROM map it's not necessary to even know the
firmware.
We also discussed the possibility of them making a user configurable
protocol. That would allow experienced users and/or dealers to create our
own device control interfaces -- a major leap forward IMO. Your thoughts?
Robert L Bass
>> Security) caters to alarm dealers -- not the
>> public. Many dealers will drop a line if they
>> think the manufacturer is willing to give
>> support to DIYers.
>
> From a business perspecive there's some logic
> to the notion. Selling to a few well-trained
> resellers can avoid a lot of increased support
Absolutely right. They can answer a question from me and I'll explain it to
a thousand DIYers. Or they can answer the same question to a thousand
DIYers themselves. However, since DIY represents a tiny fraction of the
alarm market, they really don't care if they annoy DIYers. They really *do*
care if they annoy dealers. My business model (online DIY sales), vexing
though it may be to traditional alarm installing dealers, creates a
challenge for manufacturers and distributors alike. On the one hand they
don't want to irritate regular dealers by seeming to cater to companies like
mine. However, I buy much more equipment than most independants and at
least as much as any individual office of even the large nationals in my
region so they don't want to lose my business either.
> It's a matter of where the money is best spent.
> It's the smart vendor that recognizes how to
> work the fine line between the two markets.
Companies like Honeywell (Ademco) have such wide market participation that
they will sell to any dealer in the trade, regardless of the dealer's
clientele. However, they won't even talk to end users. The same is largely
true of nearly all security system manufacturers. Companies like ELK
Products are much smarter about it. They neither encourage nor discourage
DIY. They will answer questions from anyone though they prefer that we
(dealers) call them with customer questions whenever possible. If an end
user calls wanting to buy a system to DIY they get his information and have
one of their online dealers from his area assist him. That, IMO, is the
best approach. They realize that DIY is a growing segment of the industry
and they try to put DIY customers in touch with those of us who are willing
to work with them.
> There's little sense in antagonizing what can be
> a very effective sales channel (the end-user) by
> refusing to engage them directly...
I agree, but it depends on one's perspective. From the point of view of
most alarm manufacturers, DIY is insignificant compared to the possible loss
of major dealers. They figure if you don't buy from them you'll go to
RatShak or whatever. They really have no idea of the skill and
determination level among many DIYers.
> At the same time a reseller that doesn't aggresively
> serve the local markets doesn't help either. Or,
> worse yet, they do such a bad job the market
> avoids the product. We've all met these resellers...
Yup. They come over from ASA every now and then. :^)
> But then again, we've all met (or have been)
> high-cost users too.
True. I get a calls every so often from folks who want an hour's tech
support prior to purchasing $10 worth of merchandise. I answer patiently,
figuring they may come back and buuy a lot more stuff later or they may
refer a friend. It all comes back eventually.
> With the ease of webpages it's sort of foolish to
> keep the motivated end-users out of the loop.
That is true, yet we still see most alarm manufacturers hiding even
installation manuals behind a firewall. That, IMO, is based on poor
thinking.
> No vendor-direct support but webpages for registered
> customers is one way to keep the costs lower.
ELK does exactly that. Every user of the M1 Gold system can receive a
username and password to access all support materials -- even firmware
upgrades -- directly from ELK's website.
Robert L Bass
version) costs $750 at Worthington. The user will still need a hardware
security solution. IMO ELK is a better option. Then again, I sell ELK and
I don't sell Premise Systems *yet* so I'm probably a little biased in ELK's
favor... :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
news:34end15rdulkfl2jl...@4ax.com...
Sparkes
Premise and it looks like just what I was looking for. The "Personal
Edition" should be good enough for what I need. Thanks.
Les
Frank Olson
"Robert L Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i7mdndG9dfR...@comcast.com...
>> Why wouldn't they give out the commands?
>
> Like most alarm manufacturers, Caddx (GE Security) caters to alarm
> dealers -- not the public. Many dealers will drop a line if they think
> the manufacturer is willing to give support to DIYers.
What a load of poppy-cock. Alarm manufacturers want to maintain the
integrity of their products and therefor won't release the codes to the
general public. There have been many examples where manufacturers actually
get together to provide additional features and benefits to the end user by
improving an existing product.
CADDX, DSC, Ademco, FBI, and a host of others manufacture their products for
installation by trained technicians. A trained technician is *not* someone
you "teach in two hours over the phone".
wkearney99
> integrity of their products and therefor won't release the codes to the
> general public.
That's the usuall bullshit line most installers give. Sure, everyone wants
what they sell to avoid being a hassle for the customer. Both to keep
support costs low and avoid loss of future sales due to difficulties and the
network effect. But calling it "integrity" is almost entirely bogus.
wkearney99
to
> a thousand DIYers. Or they can answer the same question to a thousand
> DIYers themselves. However, since DIY represents a tiny fraction of the
> alarm market, they really don't care if they annoy DIYers. They really
*do*
> care if they annoy dealers.
People get nervous when c.h.a discussions veer into security territory. How
'bout we back away from it....
I think in that case the on-going monitoring service has to be considered.
There's little point (for most situations) in having that sort of system
without remote monitoring. (and can we not sink into endless thrashing of
reasons otherwise?)
> ...are much smarter about it. They neither encourage nor discourage
> DIY. They will answer questions from anyone though they prefer that we
> (dealers) call them with customer questions whenever possible. If an end
> user calls wanting to buy a system to DIY they get his information and
have
> one of their online dealers from his area assist him. That, IMO, is the
> best approach. They realize that DIY is a growing segment of the industry
> and they try to put DIY customers in touch with those of us who are
willing
> to work with them.
Yep, I think what most people want is the choice. When deprived of the
option or faced with deliberate attempts to stymie their efforts customers
will turn on a vendor. Much worse than losing a sale is poisoning the well
against future sales to all those the customer might influence. At the same
time, it's probably fair to say that most customers are willing to work
with, and pay, a competent professional to help make it all work.
From my perspective what I'm willing to do, and the effort it takes, is
something I readily share with less-experienced friends and discourage them
from doing it otherwise. I like the bleeding edge and those I influence (in
various small ways) may be intrigued but more importantly they're
*informed*.
Robert L Bass
True. Installing dealers have variously claimed that keeping product
documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts of
other nonsense. The reality is most alarm dealers don't want clients to
know how to change service providers. The rest is 100% smoke screen. I get
a lot of flak from the ASAIB because I speak up against some of the
practices in the industry.
joe
>>That's the usuall bullshit line most installers give... calling it
>>"integrity" is almost entirely bogus.
>
>
> True. Installing dealers have variously claimed that keeping product
> documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
> integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts of
> other nonsense. The reality is most alarm dealers don't want clients to
> know how to change service providers. The rest is 100% smoke screen. I get
> a lot of flak from the ASAIB because I speak up against some of the
> practices in the industry.
>
the op was wanting info from the manufacturer and you turn it into a
flame on dealers and the ASA neither of which have anything to do with
manufacturers supplying proprietary information to end users that they
didn't sell the equipment to. No wonder you are a known dip shit who
almost receives as much abuse as you deserve.
your friend
Robert Green
> > That's the usuall bullshit line most installers give... calling it
> > "integrity" is almost entirely bogus.
>
> True. Installing dealers have variously claimed that keeping product
> documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
> integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts of
> other nonsense. The reality is most alarm dealers don't want clients to
> know how to change service providers. The rest is 100% smoke screen. I
get
> a lot of flak from the ASAIB because I speak up against some of the
> practices in the industry.
They might have a realistic claim in that the more people know about the
internals of an alarm system, the easier it will be for them to defeat it.
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
> into security territory. How 'bout we back away
> from it....
No one gets "nervous". Some of the ASAIB post trash when I mention any of
the problems within the industry. Backing away from a valid discussion for
fear of them amounts to accepting intimidation. I don't do that.
> I think in that case the on-going monitoring service
> has to be considered...
It's a simple question. The user either does or does not want monitoring.
If you want the service, order it from someone who is willing to do business
without a multi-year contract. NEVER allow the monitoring firm to program
your system for you. Some of them will change the programming access code
to lock you out of your own system. The excuse is this protects them from
liability. Reality is it's done to protect their recurring monthly revenue
stream.
> ... I think what most people want is the choice.
> When deprived of the option or faced with
> deliberate attempts to stymie their efforts
> customers will turn on a vendor. Much worse
> than losing a sale is poisoning the well against
> future sales to all those the customer might
> influence...
True indeed. There was one firm in Denver that at one time had the lion's
share of the alarm market. Since I was located in Connecticut my brother
went with them for service to a system I installed for him. They tampered
with the programming of his system, refused to give him the code and conned
him on the terms of the agreement. He exercised his right of rescission
within the 3-day period. They at first refused to refund his payment,
claiming they were entitle to a year's monitoring fee for having sent a
salesman to the house to get his signature and check and to program in their
central station phone number (a five-minute operation).
That company has not only lost my brother's business. They've lost business
from everyone he tells about their dishonest practices. Over the years
they've managed to earn the worst reputation in the Denver area for doing
the same sort of thing.
> At the same time, it's probably fair to say that
> most customers are willing to work with, and
> pay, a competent professional to help make it
> all work.
Most are but I cater to those who want to go it alone. Some of my DIY
customers buy online because the local dealers' proposals were over-priced
or the protection offered was inadequate. Others simply don't want
monitoring and most dealers won't sell a system without a multi-year
contract. Either way, the issue is choice.
wkearney99
> internals of an alarm system, the easier it will be for them to defeat it.
Oh and now it's the "security through obscurity" excuse? Even more
pathetic!
Robert Green
> > They might have a realistic claim in that the more people know about the
I don't think it's unreasonable, as a security panel customer, to expect my
manufacturer to restrict operational details as they see fit. It's my
choice as a customer to patronize them or not. If I don't like the fact
that they don't hand out operational details at will, I can choose another
vendor. As soon as you show some certain types of bright people a security
plan, they'll figure out a way to game it.
Here's a test. Call up Ft. Knox and ask for the alarm protocols for the
gold vaults. I'm betting they might even come in person to answer your
questions. :-) Obscurity is plenty good for plenty of situations and not
so good for others. OS's should not depend on the obscurity factor, but
alarm panel makers products different: They are not connected to the
internet 24x7 - yet.
There's been a mass exodus of engineering plans of all kinds from the net
after 9/11 because those in charge decided it gave terrorists too much of a
leg up on doing bad things. I'm loathe to admit I agree. YMMV.
I would have preferred if we had kept learning how to fly a jet a little my
obscure than it was. After WWII the Russians didn't want the physical atom
bomb nearly as much as they wanted the bomb *plans.*
--
Bobby G.
wkearney99
> gold vaults.
How about picking examples that are even close to relevant? That's
certainly not.
Likewise, spare us the 9/11 hype. Sure, it was indeed a tragedy but it has
nothing to do with the thread.
joe
you've got an equal chance of getting either one, but maybe if you whine
some more they will listen to you.
Frank Olson
>> That's the usuall bullshit line most installers give... calling it
>> "integrity" is almost entirely bogus.
>
> True. Installing dealers have variously claimed that keeping product
> documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
> integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts of
> other nonsense.
Name one such "dealer". Read the documentation that comes with the alarm
equipment you sell (as well as the dealer software). What does it say??
"For use by trained service personnel" (or words to that effect). I suppose
you'd advocate DIY'ing elevators if you could manage to sell the parts
required... Do you do your own brake jobs?? Lot's of places sell brake
pads and parts online... some even provide "training over the phone"...
Some of us may be qualified enough to do so, but those individuals are few
and far between.
> The reality is most alarm dealers don't want clients to know how to change
> service providers.
Most clients have a contractual arrangement that they can cancel anytime
they wish (providing they provide the requisite notice). There may be
penalties associated with early cancellation or cancelling in the middle of
a contract term. It's a lot like the insurance contract. You pay a premium
and if you decide to cancel half way through, there is a certain amount of
that premium that the insurer will retain (depending on when in the policy
term you've decided to cancel). Clients can change service providers
whenever they want. It's not rocket science.
If they want a UL (or ULC) listed monitoring station to receive the signals
from their alarm equipment and respond in the appropriate manner, they're
going to have to go through a dealer (much the same as when you were
flogging monitoring for Alarm Central, remember??)
> The rest is 100% smoke screen. I get a lot of flak from the ASAIB because
> I speak up against some of the practices in the industry.
You get a lot of flak because you frequently post lies, innuendo, and
misleading statements and for no other reason. You don't "advocate" for
anyone but yourself and continue to flog product in ASA against the Group's
FAQ. People "tolerate" your doing that here because you're "helpful", but
in ASA you contribute absolutely nothing that isn't laced with some form of
personal attack or invective.
You still haven't answered Mark's question about which "distributor" I work
for and you can't because (once again) you don't really know and you've been
caught telling another lie about someone. Tsk!!!
Frank Olson
>> People get nervous when c.h.a discussions veer
>> into security territory. How 'bout we back away
>> from it....
>
> No one gets "nervous". Some of the ASAIB post trash when I mention any of
> the problems within the industry. Backing away from a valid discussion
> for fear of them amounts to accepting intimidation. I don't do that.
>
>> I think in that case the on-going monitoring service
>> has to be considered...
>
> It's a simple question. The user either does or does not want monitoring.
> If you want the service, order it from someone who is willing to do
> business without a multi-year contract. NEVER allow the monitoring firm
> to program your system for you. Some of them will change the programming
> access code to lock you out of your own system. The excuse is this
> protects them from liability.
Which it does. I would *not* accept advice concerning the security and
safety of my family from an individual that peddles parts alongside the
likes of Radio Shack and Home Depot. There are many things one can do for
one's self. It's highly unlikely you'll find a UL (or ULC) Listed
monitoring station that won't insist you deal with a licensed (or otherwise
qualified) dealer. Those that don't are not listed to any recognized
standard.
> Reality is it's done to protect their recurring monthly revenue stream.
Pure "horse twaddle".
>
>> ... I think what most people want is the choice.
>> When deprived of the option or faced with
>> deliberate attempts to stymie their efforts
>> customers will turn on a vendor. Much worse
>> than losing a sale is poisoning the well against
>> future sales to all those the customer might
>> influence...
>
> True indeed. There was one firm in Denver that at one time had the lion's
> share of the alarm market. Since I was located in Connecticut my brother
> went with them for service to a system I installed for him. They tampered
> with the programming of his system, refused to give him the code and
> conned him on the terms of the agreement. He exercised his right of
> rescission within the 3-day period. They at first refused to refund his
> payment, claiming they were entitle to a year's monitoring fee for having
> sent a salesman to the house to get his signature and check and to program
> in their central station phone number (a five-minute operation).
>
> That company has not only lost my brother's business. They've lost
> business from everyone he tells about their dishonest practices. Over the
> years they've managed to earn the worst reputation in the Denver area for
> doing the same sort of thing.
What's the name of this "firm"? Is it still in business?
>
>> At the same time, it's probably fair to say that
>> most customers are willing to work with, and
>> pay, a competent professional to help make it
>> all work.
>
> Most are but I cater to those who want to go it alone. Some of my DIY
> customers buy online because the local dealers' proposals were over-priced
> or the protection offered was inadequate. Others simply don't want
> monitoring and most dealers won't sell a system without a multi-year
> contract. Either way, the issue is choice.
Robert's favourite word is "most", so let's put a little "twist" on it.
Most of the Dealers I know have no problem with installing a "local" system,
and yes, most will try to convince the customer that monitoring may be a
good option. That doesn't mean "high pressure" sales tactics. Most of the
Dealers I know have excellent ratings with the BBB. None I know of have
"outstanding issues". I do agree with Robert, though... "Choice" is an
issue, but only after you've been shown all the options and can make a
decision based on your own research and the facts. Try and leave emotion
out of the decision if you can. I know that's not always easy.
Frank Olson
Perhaps not. Imagine for a moment that the manufacturer *did* provide you
with the protocols. What would you do with them?? Design your own keypad,
perhaps?? Have the system "talk" to your computer (in real time)?? What
about sending "packets" to the system in return?? Perhaps design a unit
that will "flood" the control or lock it up?? How easy would it be for
someone to enter a premise and connect such a device to the keybus within
the standard entry delay of say 30 seconds?? Not a "big deal" if it's
*your* home, right? After all, you have insurance. What if that individual
decided to do the same thing to the CADDX system at your local museum or
library?? It's doubtful they'd be able to walk away with anything of value
if it was a bank after hours (unless of course they could also "crack" the
vault and that employed sensors connected to the same alarm system they've
just disabled). ELK's M1Gold is a rock solid security system, but it was
never designed to be placed in a high security environment. It's an HA
system that blows the doors of HAI and several others in a very specific
market niche.
Feel free to continue the "security through obscurity" rant all you wish.
You don't work in the industry and Robert's primary market (even when he
did) was residential. Robert now "caters" to a small group of people that
happen to enjoy all the modern conveniences and have the time, knowledge,
and the money to tinker (the house with "Jeanie" in it blows even me away).
I have no problem helping individuals that have an interest in installing
and laying out their own security system. I have no "agenda" that includes
words like "I sell **** so I'm a little biased", or "I sell the **** system
through my online store and here's a link (my site)". I am in the trade
though (contrary to Robert's frequent misleading comments otherwise), and my
clientelle includes several institutions and businesses that value the
services we provide represented by the choices we've made with respect to
the equipment we sell, install, and service. The manufacturers whose
equipment we've chosen to represent all have a vested interest in ensuring
the integrity of their systems. If I won't compromise my customer's
security why should they?
Sparkes
the question and along the way I got an answer. I purchased Premise.
Thanks for the info. It looks like a great product and is one of the
few, if not only that directly supports my Lutron HWI, Caddx NX-8E, and
Nuvo Concerto sytems. The reality is that I did find the RS232 ASCII
codes for the NX-8E and have them for the Lutron Homeworks system and
could do it myself....but the Premise software didn't cost that much
and I can get it done much quicker.
Since most of this thread is off the topic. I suggest since I have the
answer to my original question....this thread end.
Marc F Hult
message <1121872301.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
In bygone, less unruly times, it was expected practice for folks posing a
question in usenet to summarize the responses or otherwise provide a
conclusion. You've done this nicely by explaining that you've purchased the
Premise Systems (now Motorola) software and why.
Thank you.
Do consider starting a new thread as time permits to let us know how the
software worked out for you. Several of us would be interested especially in
knowing whether the less expensive user/owner version was satisfactory.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
Robert L Bass
> more people know about the internals of an
> alarm system, the easier it will be for them
> to defeat it.
Engineers who deal with network security (lots of them read this newsgroup)
would tend to disagree. The fact is that "security through obscurity" is a
phantom.
Robert L Bass
> alarm panel makers products different: They are not connected to the
> internet 24x7 - yet.
That "yet" is getting smaller by the minute. The largest manufacturer of
security systems in the US and probably the world is Honeywell. Their
popular Ademco Vista line just got a new addition which will shortly* become
standard on all their panels. The Vista-20PI ("I" as in "Internet) will
support programming and reporting over the 'Net. Every other manufacturer
that wants to remain competitive is or soon will be developing panels with
the same capabilities.
This is the way things are going -- not something that "might happen some
day".
> There's been a mass exodus of engineering plans
> of all kinds from the net after 9/11 because those
> in charge decided it gave terrorists too much of a
> leg up on doing bad things...
I doubt Bin Laden is going to try to hack your home alarm system any time
soon. If he wants you he'll send some idiot kid with 20 pounds of C4
strapped to his chest.
> I would have preferred if we had kept learning how
> to fly a jet a little [more] obscure than it was...
Anyone can fly a jet. Mr. Olson claims to have snap-rolled a 737 at 5000
feet. It's easy to take off in a jet airliner. They're not hard to fly at
all. The landing is where it gets tricky but terrorists don't seem to mind.
> After WWII the Russians didn't want the physical atom
> bomb nearly as much as they wanted the bomb *plans.*
Plans for construction of a nuclear device are readily available online --
further proof that security through obscurity is a myth. You find ways to
detect and locate those who are building one and then make a loud noise in
their immediate vicinity. :^)
Robert L Bass
>> excuse? Even more pathetic!
>
> Perhaps not. Imagine for a moment that the manufacturer
> *did* provide you with the protocols. What would you
> do with them?? Design your own keypad, perhaps?? Have the system "talk"
> to your computer (in real time)?? What about sending "packets" to the
> system in return?? Perhaps design a unit that will "flood" the control or
> lock it up?? How easy would it be for someone to enter a premise and
> connect such a device to the keybus within the standard entry delay of say
> 30 seconds??
Aside from the fact that one enters a *premises* the idea of someone doing
all that to defeat your home alarm / HA system is ludicrous. That said,
anyone with the skill to build such a device could easily obtain the
necessary information without reading the manuals. Besides, the manuals in
question don't even include keypad communication protocols.
> Not a "big deal" if it's *your* home, right?
> ELK's M1Gold is a rock solid security system...
Hmm. Do you now claim to have installed one? You're not an ELK dealer. I
agree it's a great system but you should limit your proclamations to systems
you've worked on.
> Feel free to continue the "security through
> obscurity" rant all you wish. You don't work
> in the industry and Robert's primary market
> (even when he did) was residential...
True, but I've also sold more commercial fire and security alarm systems
than most dealers in my region.
> Robert now "caters" to a small group of people...
Not so small a group as you might like to think. :^)
> I have no "agenda"...
Uh-huh.
Robert L Bass
>> documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
>> integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts
>> of other nonsense.
>
> Name one such "dealer".
Google the word "liability" in the security newsgroup where you flame me
roughly 20 times a day (speaking of "agenda").
> I suppose you'd advocate DIY'ing elevators if
> you could manage to sell the parts required...
Naah. Too heavy to offer free shipping.
> Do you do your own brake jobs??
Nope, but that's because I'm not an auto mechanic and brake work requires
expensive tools which most DIYers don't own. I have a cousin who is a
network communications engineer. He's also a knowledgeable mechanic who
fixes his own cars. If I were expert on things automotive I might sell auto
repair parts online. Since my expertise is in alarms and systems
integration, I sell alarm and HA systems online instead.
>> The reality is most alarm dealers don't want
>> clients to know how to change service providers.
>
> Most clients have a contractual arrangement...
Exactly! Monitoring revenue is the prime reason dealers want to keep end
users from learning how to service their own systems.
> It's a lot like the insurance contract...
No, it's not but that is irrelavent to the discussion at hand.
> If they want a UL (or ULC) listed monitoring station
> to receive the signals from their alarm equipment and
> respond in the appropriate manner, they're going to
> have to go through a dealer...
Bullshit! Each central station makes its own decision whether to offer
services to DIYers. Some do. Some don't.
> (much the same as when you were flogging
> monitoring for Alarm Central, remember??)
Flogging? I offered their services for several years. I don't make enough
profit on it for the time required to maintain the service so now I just
refer people to online vendors who offer services direct to DIYers.
However, Alarm Central is UL listed and they do monitor DIY systems.
>> The rest is 100% smoke screen. I get a lot of flak
>> from the ASAIB because I speak up against some
>> of the practices in the industry.
>
> --- snip unprovoked flames ---
wkearney99
> someone to enter a premise and connect such a device to the keybus within
> the standard entry delay of say 30 seconds?? Not a "big deal" if it's
> *your* home, right? After all, you have insurance.
If they're in then that alarm's not worth much now is it?
What if that box was so poorly designed and the protocol so fragile as to be
competely breakable with only the slightest of effort? More often than not
something claming security through obscurity won't hold up to anyone
actually investigating it's details.
> Feel free to continue the "security through obscurity" rant all you wish.
> You don't work in the industry
And given how poorly those that claim to be behave online I'm glad not to be
associated with it.
wkearney99
> equipment you sell (as well as the dealer software). What does it say??
> "For use by trained service personnel" (or words to that effect). I
suppose
> you'd advocate DIY'ing elevators if you could manage to sell the parts
> required... Do you do your own brake jobs?? Lot's of places sell brake
> pads and parts online... some even provide "training over the phone"...
> Some of us may be qualified enough to do so, but those individuals are few
> and far between.
Frank, if all you can do is flail with completely irrelevant arguments then
perhaps you should just hang it up.
Robert Green
> > Here's a test. Call up Ft. Knox and ask for the alarm protocols for the
> > gold vaults.
>
> How about picking examples that are even close to relevant? That's
> certainly not.
How about even *giving* us an example before finding fault with mine? And
remember, just because you don't understand the relevance doesn't make it
irrelevant. :-) I'll try again.
Alarm makers are trying to protect their assets. Is there some reason they
are not entitled to try to protect the integrity of their intellectual
property? Or is their some reason you *have* to buy from a manufacturer who
refuses to cross-license their IP to you for nothing in return? Or is there
something you're offering that panel maker for access to his protocol that I
didn't catch? They're stupid if they give away something for nothing,
aren't they? I don't believe in patronizing stupid vendors.
You claimed that "security through obscurity" was "pathetic", IIRC. My Fort
Knox *analogy* is therefore quite relevant. Anyone charged with protecting
something REALLY valuable doesn't go about revealing the details of that
protection to any Joe on the internet who asks. They usually don't reveal
it to anyone who doesn't have a "need to know."
Why do they call the men who protect the president "The Secret Service?"
Wouldn't your theory of "non-obscure security" dictate that they call it the
"Public Service" and copiously publish where the President will be at all
times and how many people will be guarding him and what weapons they will
carry? You should be starting to see why your comment has provoked my
rather incredulous response.
Perhaps you can explain to me why you, or me or any Joe Websurfer, would be
entitled to design details about a HA or alarm panel? You should have known
what level of tech support they offered when you bought it, right? It
shouldn't be surprising that I and others feel the less a panel maker
reveals about the innards, the more secure a product they make. Sure there
are scoundrels that use secrecy to conceal shoddy design, but you can't just
cover every situation with a blanket indictment of obscurity's value to
security the way you did.
Do you *honestly* believe that an alarm manufacturer would make their
customers any safer by providing anyone who asks all the details of their
hardware? If so, then YOU buy from them. Let me buy from the people that
don't think that's such a good idea for their customers. (-:
The casinos don't publish the numerous ways they check for cheats or their
"cheat books" (faces of cheaters and dossiers of their preferred techniques)
because they know that the more thieves know, the more they'll be cheated.
> Likewise, spare us the 9/11 hype. Sure, it was indeed a tragedy but it
has
> nothing to do with the thread.
Jeez. You must see red a lot. Please pardon my unsolicited headshrinking
Bill, but when something seems to light up your hot button LED, your ability
to make logical connections appears to suffer. I'm pretty sure if we had
you hooked up to a polygraph or an EEG we could see some pretty big spikes
as you heard the words "9/11" or "security by obscurity" or "Group
Moderator" or "WiFi is totally safe" being spoken. :-)
Slow down, get a cup of coffee, sit down at the PC and I'll go over this
again, because it's clear you didn't make the connection. Perhaps my
writing was too obscure. :-)
The Feds are spending BILLIONS on "security through obscurity." They are
removing thousands of previously public documents about the national
infrastructure from the WWW. Why do you think they are doing that? Because
security often comes through obscurity.
The best minds they could find decided that granting access to building
plans and infrastructure to someone in (insert terrorist symp nation here)
via the WWW may help them plan their attack. I'm sorry if this seems some
sort of cheap sentimental shot at 9/11 to you, but to me it's a very real
indication that experts believe in limiting critical infrastructure
information to those with a need to know. It's proof that's occurring all
around us that with total openness comes a certain amount of risk.
So, seeing information being limited all around them at a national and local
level, isn't it reasonable for an alarm panel maker to at least *assume*
that less is safer? Watching what their own government is doing to become
more secure, aren't they right in believing the less details they give out
about system internals, the less likely they will be hacked? This is just
the way of the world.
Now I will readily agree it's NOT the way to design a worldwide internet,
but it may well be appropriate to most other things that need protection.
Obscurity figures prominently not only in protecting national
infrastructure, but in the protection of almost all valuable assets, whether
it's gold in Ft. Knox or casino chips or plutonium or my frikkin' household
goods!
Why do you think the NSA is the most obscure branch of the federal
government? Because "Security" is its middle name. I mean, c'mon, Bill, it
hits you like a mackerel in the face everywhere you look. Now if you had
said something less general like "some vendors hope that obscurity will hide
the shoddy underlying nature of their goods" and given an example of the
perpetual buffer overflow exploits that infest MS Windows, I would have had
to agree with you. But the further you move away from the one example, the
more heartburn I have with your contention's global assertion.
Are you familiar with US secrecy protocols like CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP
SECRET, SCI or SAP? I am, and it grates me to read a sweeping generalization
about "security through obscurity" being "pathetic." A TS violation
(revealing information or material which reasonably could be expected to
cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security) can get you put
to death. Killed. Dead.
When you get as TS clearance, they make you sign a paper saying that you
understand the penalties for making TS data "unobscure." People have been so
spooked by what those penalties are that some have opted out.
Someone other than me clearly believes in obscurity being a good thing for
security purposes.
Decisive victories like Midway were possible because neither the Japanese
nor the Germans built an obscure enough code nor kept it secret enough. All
we needed to break those codes were the design documents and some Polish and
English geniuses. We had the advantage of one of the most obscure languages
on the planet, Navajo. The Axis couldn't break it. Obscurity is good.
In fact, it's a really, really good adjunct to security in almost everything
BUT the internet and that's because the internet is so unique in its
interconnectivity. Please don't assume that one oddball case where
obscurity is a hindrance sets the mark.
< Click! (MY hot button thermal breaker just reset) > :-)
--
Bobby G.
B Fuhrmann
> Frank, if all you can do is flail with completely irrelevant arguments
> then
> perhaps you should just hang it up.
Naw, his purpose for being here is really just to attack Robert. He used to
be just another jackass from ASA chiming in whenever the leaders decided it
was attack time.
He is smart enough to realize how badly they were viewed and shifted his
tactics. Now he occasionally mixes useful information in among his tirades.
--
Bill Fuhrmann
Remove DELETE to reply
Robert L Bass
That and their relationship with installing dealers. That has nothing to do
with liability or security -- just profits.
> Is there some reason they are not entitled to try
> to protect the integrity of their intellectual
> property?
They're free to do so all they like. Just don't pretend it has anything to
do with prtoecting clients' security or terrorism.
> Or is their some reason you *have* to buy from
> a manufacturer who refuses to cross-license their
> IP to you for nothing in return?
I don't recall asking anyone to do that. However, companies like mine do
give manufacturers and distributors something in return -- increased sales.
> Or is there something you're offering that panel
> maker for access to his protocol that I didn't
> catch?
I usually don't need the keybuss protocol but I offer my purchase orders in
return for what I do require. That usually works well enough.
> They're stupid if they give away something for
> nothing, aren't they? I don't believe in patronizing
> stupid vendors.
I believe in encouraging my suppliers to do whatever makes it easier for my
customers to use that product. One of the most frequent requests is for the
manuals. I provide those with the product. If the manual is available
online I share it with those who have a legitimate need for it -- clients,
prospective clients, friendly competitors, etc.
> You claimed that "security through obscurity" was
> "pathetic", IIRC.
Someone else put it that way, but I agree.
> My Fort Knox *analogy* is therefore quite relevant.
Security at Fort Knox is primarily provided by heavily fortified walls and a
contingent of well-armed guards. The electronic security uses industry
standard equipment and techniques. The work was done in compliance with
pulished mil-specs and established standards. If you want to devote the
time to it, you can learn who the service providers are, what equipment was
installed and how.
The primary reason Fort Knox is so secure is twofold. Most people believe
it's impenitrable so almost no one tries to break in. The other is that the
multi-layered systems (CCTV, live guards, various types of intrusion and
perimeter sensors) are strong enough to detect or stop even someone who
knows the system. If not, we would have had to treat the installers the way
the Egyptians did upon completion of the pyramids. Most modern technicians
would object to contracts which call for their entombment. :^)
> Anyone charged with protecting something REALLY
> valuable doesn't go about revealing the details of that
> protection to any Joe on the internet who asks...
There's a huge difference between free and open discussion of security
system protocols and revealing the mens to gain entry to any particular
home.
> They usually don't reveal it to anyone who doesn't
> have a "need to know."
Hollywood spies and crooked politicians worry about "need to know". In this
forum we discuss means of improving security and HA systems. Anyone with an
interest in the subject has sufficient need to know.
> Why do they call the men who protect the president
> "The Secret Service?"
Umm, because no one would want their friends to know that they have anything
to do with the guy? :^)
> Wouldn't your theory of "non-obscure security"
> dictate that they call it the "Public Service"
Nope. That name is trade marked by a bus company in NJ.
> --- snip ---
>
> Perhaps you can explain to me why you, or me or
> any Joe Websurfer, would be entitled to design
> details about a HA or alarm panel?
Sure thing. If Joe Websurfer wants to install an HA or alarm system at the
Websurfer residence he needs to understand how the system works. Likewise,
if the Websurfer family is fed up with poor service and slow response to
alarms from Brick & Mortar Alarms, LLC, he is entitled to know how to
service his own system.
> Sure there are scoundrels that use secrecy to
> conceal shoddy design...
Really? :^)
> but you can't just cover every situation with a
> blanket indictment of obscurity's value to
> security the way you did.
It's not a blanket indictment. It's simply a fact that obscurity is a myth.
You cannot possibly keep panel design a secret no matter what you do. That
means that obscurity cannot be maintained. Furthermore, there are lots of
people other than alarm installers with a legitimate need to understand
their own security systems.
> Do you *honestly* believe that an alarm manufacturer
> would make their customers any safer by providing
> anyone who asks all the details of their hardware?
No one is asking for *all* the details. Most DIY clients only want to know
how to program the system.
> If so, then YOU buy from them.
I do... daily.
> Let me buy from the people that don't think that's
> such a good idea for their customers. (-:
Feel free to continue. Meanwhile, I'll keep sharing what I can about alarm
and HA system design with anyone who wants to learn.
> The casinos don't publish the numerous ways they
> check for cheats or their "cheat books" (faces of
> cheaters and dossiers of their preferred techniques)
> because they know that the more thieves know, the
> more they'll be cheated.
Wrong. Casinos routinely invite TV camera crews and reporters in to view
and broadcast to the public the innards of their anti-cheating and
anti-crime systems, including video cameras catching employees and customers
trying to beat the system. By doing so they create an image of practically
unbeatable security which significantly reduces the number of people who are
willing to try to cheat.
>> Likewise, spare us the 9/11 hype. Sure, it was
>> indeed a tragedy but it has nothing to do with
>> the thread.
>
> Jeez. You must see red a lot.
Nope. We just prefer to focus on things that matter to HA and security
alarms. Crazies flying airplanes into the World Trade Center have nothing
to do with your home alarm system.
> --- snip ---
[Gentle Readers: What follows is completely OT but what the heck...]
> The Feds are spending BILLIONS on "security
> through obscurity." They are removing thousands
> of previously public documents about the national
> infrastructure from the WWW.
... while collecting tens of thousands of pages on such "terrorist"
organizations as the ACLU. Don't for one minute believe that the present
administration gives a rat's jiminex about national security. Their *only*
concern is consolidation of their own grip on power and the financial
windfall they and their friends have gained because of 9/11.
> Why do you think they are doing that? Because
> security often comes through obscurity.
Bushit!
> The best minds they could find....
Heh, heh, heh... :^)
> Why do you think the NSA is the most obscure
> branch of the federal government?
Makes it easier for them to steal $billions from the public?
Frank Olson
>>> True. Installing dealers have variously claimed that keeping product
>>> documentation and software tools away from end users "preserves the
>>> integrity" of their systems, protects them from liability and all sorts
>>> of other nonsense.
>>
>> Name one such "dealer".
>
> Google the word "liability" in the security newsgroup where you flame me
> roughly 20 times a day (speaking of "agenda").
"20 times"?? Another misleading comment. I haven't flamed you once. I
pull your chain about as much as anyone elses, and that's all done in good
fun.
>
>> I suppose you'd advocate DIY'ing elevators if
>> you could manage to sell the parts required...
>
> Naah. Too heavy to offer free shipping.
>
>> Do you do your own brake jobs??
>
> Nope, but that's because I'm not an auto mechanic and brake work requires
> expensive tools which most DIYers don't own.
Really?? I do my own brake jobs. A couple of crescent wrenches, a one-way
bleeder and small bucket is about all you require... Oh... there's a
degree of "elbow grease" needed as well, and a couple of good solid jack
stands.
> I have a cousin who is a network communications engineer. He's also a
> knowledgeable mechanic who fixes his own cars. If I were expert on things
> automotive I might sell auto repair parts online. Since my expertise is
> in alarms and systems integration, I sell alarm and HA systems online
> instead.
You've missed the point... again...
>
>>> The reality is most alarm dealers don't want
>>> clients to know how to change service providers.
>>
>> Most clients have a contractual arrangement...
>
> Exactly! Monitoring revenue is the prime reason dealers want to keep end
> users from learning how to service their own systems.
What a load of cod's whollop. Oh... I forgot... You're not a Dealer, are
you?? Had to abandon your monitoring clients because the Florida Attorney
General's office investigated your operation and made a few "suggestions",
right??
>
>> It's a lot like the insurance contract...
>
> No, it's not but that is irrelavent to the discussion at hand.
In your mind, perhaps...
>
>> If they want a UL (or ULC) listed monitoring station
>> to receive the signals from their alarm equipment and
>> respond in the appropriate manner, they're going to
>> have to go through a dealer...
>
> Bullshit! Each central station makes its own decision whether to offer
> services to DIYers. Some do. Some don't.
Uh-huh... Name one (that's UL or ULC listed).
>
>> (much the same as when you were flogging
>> monitoring for Alarm Central, remember??)
>
> Flogging? I offered their services for several years. I don't make
> enough profit on it for the time required to maintain the service so now I
> just refer people to online vendors who offer services direct to DIYers.
> However, Alarm Central is UL listed and they do monitor DIY systems.
Seems to me that a "profit margin" on an item that exceeds 1000% must have
been pretty tough to let go. After all, AC did offer free monitoring to
their Dealers that sold a particular package, didn't they?? As for their
being UL Listed... I'd suggest you do a little further investigation.
Seems to me that a company interested in providing service to independent
Dealers would ensure their UL Listing information appears somewhere on their
website...
>
>>> The rest is 100% smoke screen. I get a lot of flak
>>> from the ASAIB because I speak up against some
>>> of the practices in the industry.
>>
>> --- snip unprovoked flames ---
Let's not. I'd like the people here to see what you consider to be
"unprovoked flames":
"You get a lot of flak because you frequently post lies, innuendo, and
misleading statements and for no other reason. You don't "advocate" for
anyone but yourself and continue to flog product in ASA against the Group's
FAQ. People "tolerate" your doing that here because you're "helpful", but
in ASA you contribute absolutely nothing that isn't laced with some form of
personal attack or invective.
You still haven't answered Mark's question about which "distributor" I work
for and you can't because (once again) you don't really know and you've been
caught telling another lie about someone. Tsk!!!"
Show me where any of the above isn't true. Post the name of the distributor
you say I work for, Robert.
As for your earlier comment on about my not being an an Elk Dealer... I
have told you on several occasions that trying to find things out about me
in particular only serves to highlight your rather miserable investigative
skills... But do please keep trying... I find your frequent efforts at
discrediting me actually quite amusing...
Robert L Bass
> are you?? Had to abandon your monitoring clients because the Florida
> Attorney General's office investigated your operation and made a few
> "suggestions", right??
You're lying... again.
>> Each central station makes its own decision
>> whether to offer services to DIYers. Some do.
>> Some don't.
>
> Uh-huh... Name one (that's UL or ULC listed).
Alarm Central has been monitoring DIY installations for years and you know
it. NextAlarm offers UL listed monitoring direct to the public, especially
to DIYers. There are others I've contacted from time to time but I don't
keep a list.
>>> (much the same as when you were flogging
>>> monitoring for Alarm Central, remember??)
>>
>> Flogging? I offered their services for several years. I don't make
>> enough profit on it for the time required to maintain the service so now
>> I just refer people to online vendors who offer services direct to
>> DIYers. However, Alarm Central is UL listed and they do monitor DIY
>> systems.
>
> Seems to me that a "profit margin" on an item that exceeds 1000% must have
> been pretty tough to let go.
That would be pretty good if it actually existed outside your mind.
> After all, AC did offer free monitoring to their
> Dealers that sold a particular package, didn't they??
I think they still do. The first year was (is?) free to the dealer if the
dealer sells one of several packages from certain distributors. I passed
most of that on to my clients by reducing the first year's monitoring fee
from $151 to $100 if they ordered the service with the system.
> As for their being UL Listed... I'd suggest you do
> a little further investigation. Seems to me that a
> company interested in providing service to independent Dealers would
> ensure their UL Listing information
> appears somewhere on their website...
You might like to think so but their UL listing is available on UL's
website. That is sufficient.
>>> --- snip unprovoked flames ---
>
> Let's not.
Naah. Let's. You only post in this newsgroup to pester me. You've no
other interest here. Everyone knows it. You've been repeatedly asked by
numerous other folks to go away because you contribute virtually nothing but
flames. I'll add my voice to the chorus. Go away, Olson.
wkearney99
"Frank Olson" <feo...@shawcdn.ca> wrote in message
news:qrGDe.6634$s54.35@pd7tw2no...
> I find your frequent efforts at
> discrediting me actually quite amusing...
Nowhere near as frequent as your own efforts to discredit yourself. Hang it
up Frank, you're nowhere near credible anymore.
Frank Olson
>> What a load of cod's whollop. Oh... I forgot... You're not a Dealer,
>> are you?? Had to abandon your monitoring clients because the Florida
>> Attorney General's office investigated your operation and made a few
>> "suggestions", right??
>
> You're lying... again.
Oh?? I suppose the recent investigation you went through had absolutely
*nothing* to do with the fact that you've stopped actively selling and
collecting money for providing a monitoring service.
>
>>> Each central station makes its own decision
>>> whether to offer services to DIYers. Some do.
>>> Some don't.
>>
>> Uh-huh... Name one (that's UL or ULC listed).
>
> Alarm Central has been monitoring DIY installations for years and you know
> it.
Nope. They don't deal with end users direct. You must purchase their
service through a Dealer.
> NextAlarm offers UL listed monitoring direct to the public, especially to
> DIYers.
NextAlarm is a Dealer. They outsource their monitoring to "several UL
Listed stations around the country." Read their FAQ. In fact they even
sell a security package that includes a wireless intrusion system.
> There are others I've contacted from time to time but I don't keep a list.
Uh-huh... and you frequently "lose" business cards too... You frequently
use innuendo, misleading statments and lies to bolster your rather fragile
ego and flame individuals that don't agree with (or object to) your
"agenda". When you get caught you ignore comments from the individual that
catches you... Where do I work again?? What's the name of my company??
>
>>>> (much the same as when you were flogging
>>>> monitoring for Alarm Central, remember??)
>>>
>>> Flogging? I offered their services for several years. I don't make
>>> enough profit on it for the time required to maintain the service so now
>>> I just refer people to online vendors who offer services direct to
>>> DIYers. However, Alarm Central is UL listed and they do monitor DIY
>>> systems.
>>
>> Seems to me that a "profit margin" on an item that exceeds 1000% must
>> have been pretty tough to let go.
>
> That would be pretty good if it actually existed outside your mind.
Uh-huh.... When you obtain a service for FREE and charge the customer
$100.00, what's the markup??
>
>> After all, AC did offer free monitoring to their
>> Dealers that sold a particular package, didn't they??
>
> I think they still do. The first year was (is?) free to the dealer if the
> dealer sells one of several packages from certain distributors. I passed
> most of that on to my clients by reducing the first year's monitoring fee
> from $151 to $100 if they ordered the service with the system.
So what's the markup from "FREE" to $100.00?? And what's the "deal" with
the use of the word "dealer"?? I thought you just said they offered
monitoring to DIY's... You keep "dancing" in one spot like you do and
you'll wear out the carpet.
>
>> As for their being UL Listed... I'd suggest you do
>> a little further investigation. Seems to me that a
>> company interested in providing service to independent Dealers would
>> ensure their UL Listing information
>> appears somewhere on their website...
>
> You might like to think so but their UL listing is available on UL's
> website. That is sufficient.
Heh... If UL is like any other large organization, the "listing" there
doesn't mean much (their webmaster may have not gotten around to removing
them). Why not ask them (AC) why they killed the page on their website that
*said* they were UL Listed for fire??
>
>>>> --- snip unprovoked flames ---
>>
>> Let's not.
>
> Naah. Let's. You only post in this newsgroup to pester me.
Nope. I only "pester" you when you lie.
> You've no other interest here.
Aux contraire. I have several.
> Everyone knows it. You've been repeatedly asked by numerous other folks
> to go away because you contribute virtually nothing but flames. I'll add
> my voice to the chorus. Go away, Olson.
Dream on, Robert.
Frank Olson
>
>
> Nowhere near as frequent as your own efforts to discredit yourself. Hang
> it
> up Frank, you're nowhere near credible anymore.
Uh-huh... sure... There are several individuals here that Robert has
frequent clashes with. They all start with something Robert says first
(whether it's in this group or another). I'm sure that when he finally
leaves for Brazil, you won't see these kinds of responses for at least the
three months that he's gone. Robert has called me a liar. I invite him to
prove that or shut up.
Frank Olson
No problemo. You'll notice that Bass *still* hasn't posted where I work.
He "says" I work as a "counter clerk" for a "small distributor in
Vancouver". I've asked (as have others in ASA) what the name of that
"distributor" is, but every time we do, he goes "silent". If this isn't
proof enough for you then I'm not certain what "standard" applies here.
He's a self-serving, ego-centric, lying bastard (and that's *not* a
flame!!). It's amazing to me that you tolerate his attitude based on a few
"helpful" posts (that always include some reference to his website). You
seem to think I have a "personal vendetta" against this man. I don't. He
doesn't even know who I am or where I work for pete's sake!! He hasn't
harmed me either personally or professionally. He has lied about me, used
innuendo, and posted some rather vile and depraved remarks about me that no
one in their right mind would tolerate. Yet you have the temerity to
suggest that *I* have no credibility!!
He's completely wrong with respect to the Elk M1XEP module (but won't admit
to it). Oh... and anyone can become a Dealer for Elk as long as they
register an initial panel (provide them with a serial number) and submit
relevant contact information (you have to be an alarm company or a company
involved in the low voltage side of the electrical business).
I have no wish to foster any emnity in this Newsgroup. I am interested in
HA and have learned a lot about Russound and other such products here. I
will continue to offer advice with respect to security related queries and
issues (it is, after all, my area of expertise). I will try to avoid
posting comments about Robert, though. I have no wish to create any
problems here. I will *not* however ignore libellous or unsubstantiated
comments about me from this man. If Robert wishes to avoid dragging this
group "down", then he will also make the effort to avoid making posts he
knows I will have no choice but to respond.
By the way, the Elk M-1 Gold will *not* transmit ASCII strings over the
M1XEP. You cannot "instruct" the panel to do so either. There is *no*
provision for doing so in programming and certainly none in the software.
This may be something the Elk Engineers may consider adding in the future,
but the present firmware does not allow (or make provision for) it.
B Fuhrmann
> I have no wish to foster any emnity in this Newsgroup. I am interested in
> HA and have learned a lot about Russound and other such products here. I
> will continue to offer advice with respect to security related queries and
> issues (it is, after all, my area of expertise). I will try to avoid
> posting comments about Robert, though. I have no wish to create any
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
No one who has watched your postings can believe you typed that with a
straight face.
You came here as with a vendetta against Robert because of what you and the
jerks in ASA perceive to be an insult by him (giving homeowners the ability
to configure their system when their "professional" installer wouldn't"
You have continually called him names and hurled insults at him, in many
threads that had NOTHING to do with you or any "errors" that you think he
made.
If you actually would post a quarter the number of useful comments as you
currently post insults, people might start to respect anything you say.
joe
giving homeowners the ability
> to configure their system when their "professional" installer wouldn't"
now that's a load of crap!
I don't care what he gives homeowners.
I do care that he is a troublemaker and a jerk and a liar and attacked
me the first time I asked a question years ago an usenet.
B Fuhrmann
> I don't care what he gives homeowners.
> I do care that he is a troublemaker and a jerk and a liar and attacked me
> the first time I asked a question years ago an usenet.
Are you FRANK OLSON?
Oh, I just looked through previous messages, just another alias from someone
from ASA.
All credibility is gone.
joe
>
> Are you FRANK OLSON?
> Oh, I just looked through previous messages, just another alias from someone
> from ASA.
> All credibility is gone.
>
I know you CHA guys are thick but no I am not Frank, I am Joe.
I am not 'from' ASA, I am in usenet.
As for credibility, I am just posting my observation.
Don't like it that you can't control usenet, huh?
Well like bAss has said many times, paraphrasing here.......I am going
to post what I want when I want and you or nobody else can stop me.
Frank Olson
"B Fuhrmann" <b-fuhrma...@mplsfridayDELETEskate.com> wrote in message
news:11e9jrl...@corp.supernews.com...
> WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
>
> No one who has watched your postings can believe you typed that with a
> straight face.
I can assure you I never once "cracked a smile", or "sniggered" under my
breath... :-))
>
> You came here as with a vendetta against Robert because of what you and
> the jerks in ASA perceive to be an insult by him (giving homeowners the
> ability to configure their system when their "professional" installer
> wouldn't"
If you sincerely believe that, then you obviously haven't seen my postings
in ASA. Unlike Robert, I *don't* sell product online. I have no "agenda"
and I have posted many helpful comments in both this group and ASA. The
fact that Robert and I don't see "eye to eye" has nothing to do with
"helping someone configure thier system when a so-called professional
installer wouldn't". I've already explained the reason so I won't repeat it
here. Indeed, where people have taken over systems in homes they've
purchased I've always pointed them in the right direction. I invite you to
prove otherwise.
>
> You have continually called him names and hurled insults at him, in many
> threads that had NOTHING to do with you or any "errors" that you think he
> made.
That may have been early on. Since December, I've never called Robert
anything but "Robert" (other than the reference I made in my previous post
which is based on personal observation of his "antics" over the course of
the last several months). He has no interest in "civil" discussion (either
in this group or ASA). I've decided to adopt a different "tactic" when it
comes to posting in threads in which Robert spouts blatant lies and
innuendo. You've no doubt noticed I've been asking for verifiable proof.
He's been "out of the trade" for so long yet continues to make
"observations" based on hearsay (what other people tell him). Only recently
he remarked on how bad Brinks was. He even went so far as to say he'd
removed a Brinks panel (besides being a vioation of Florida Statute because
he's unlicensed to perform any sort of service, he couldn't recall the
method they used to tie in the phone line) which is another outright lie to
make people like you "think" he's still "in the trade". As for his numerous
"errors", I'd point those out regardless of who actually posted them.
>
> If you actually would post a quarter the number of useful comments as you
> currently post insults, people might start to respect anything you say.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention. ;-))
Satan
"B Fuhrmann" <b-fuhrma...@mplsfridayDELETEskate.com> wrote in message
news:11e9jrl...@corp.supernews.com...
Lay Down FUR MAN - you are a bigger jerk off than Robert L Bass could ever
try to be.
-Satan said that - furball.
Penguinator
Getting back to the original post, here is a copy of the NX-8E RS-232
ascii protocol:
http://www.geocities.com/home_automation_pro/Caddx_NX-584_Communication_Protocol.pdf
Just FYI, you could always use an RS-232 'sniffer' while using DL900 to
see what ASCII codes DL900 sends and the NX-8E replies with. That's in
case you couldn't find the above document. Not for the faint of heart,
but always a good fallback.
Finally, it might be easier to use this software instead of dealing
with the rs-232 protocol directly, this makes it a lot easier:
http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Support/Drivers/SecurityPanels/InterlogixNetworxNX-8.htm
Finally, to put in my 2 cents on this long thread, it would be nice if
someone would try to actually answer the original poster's questions,
instead of babbling on with an argument.
--
Penguinator