wired vs wireless alarm system

fred funk }{ · 06-06-2009 9:09am

As far as the integrity of the actual panel security goes, as an alarm installer for 25 years, in my opinion I would say wireless is MORE secure than wired - on a wired system, cables can be spliced open (by someone in the 'know') and the correct wires short-circuited. Such is not possible on a wirefree system.

And as you will know, you should have your resistors EOL to prevent this.

steifanc · 06-06-2009 9:33am

Clause 8.4 in the 2006 standard relates to PROCESSING OF SIGNALS to an ARC (Alarm receiving Centre).
Clause 8.4 in the 1997 standard again relates to processing signals to an ARC.
There is no such quote, as you claim:confused:.

Thats what i was thinking, if that was a direct quote i would be worried about the person that wrote the standards

STEIFANC:
You are correct that a 10-bit intelligent code can be cracked - however wireless devices use what is called a 'rolling code' - so the same 10-bit code is never ever repeated again. Therefore it is of no use to the person who decodes it.
when you know the codes whats to decode ?

H1 H2 H4 H8 Key Codes D1 D2 D4 D8 D16
A 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
B 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0
C 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
D 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 0
E 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0
F 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0
G 0 1 0 1 7 0 1 0 1 0
H 1 1 0 1 8 1 1 0 1 0
I 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 1 1 0
J 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 0
K 0 0 1 1 11 0 0 1 1 0
L 1 0 1 1 12 1 0 1 1 0
M 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0
N 1 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 0
O 0 1 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0
P 1 1 0 0 16 1 1 0 0 0
All Units Off 0 0 0 0 1
All Lights On 0 0 0 1 1
On 0 0 1 0 1
Off 0 0 1 1 1
Dim 0 1 0 0 1
Bright 0 1 0 1 1
All Lights Off 0 1 1 0 1
Extended Code 0 1 1 1 1
Hail Request 1 1 0 0 0 1
Hail Acknowl. 1 0 0 0 1
Pre-set Dim 2 1 0 0 1 1
Extended Data 3 1 1 0 0 1
Status = On 1 1 0 1 1
Status = Off 1 1 1 0 1
Status Request 1 1 1 1 1

The bit sequence will have the following form:

1 1 1 0 H1 /H1 H2 /H2 H4 /H4 H8 /H8 D1 /D1 D2 /D2 D4 /D4 D8 /D8 D16 /D16

10 bit code , using binary logic , 0-9 conditions per bit, giving 10 possibility's per bit ,by 10 bits that gives 1e+10 conditions of code ,
depending on the panel scan cycle, 100MS, i wouldn't say its even that fast, ,at 100ms the same code is repeated every 100s

steifanc · 06-06-2009 10:18am

As far as the integrity of the actual panel security goes, as an alarm installer for 25 years, in my opinion I would say wireless is MORE secure than wired - on a wired system, cables can be spliced open (by someone in the 'know') and the correct wires short-circuited. Such is not possible on a wire free system.

why do you think wireless are more secure ?

i assume you would have to be on the inside of the building to splice the cables, so how do you do that with the alarm on ?

fred funk }{ · 06-06-2009 11:32am

That could be done while the premises/house alarm in off. For example if it were a shop window in a changing area the thief could be working area shorting out the sensor/contact cable for that window and come back later that night and break in through the unprotected window. But if the alarm is installed properly and the end of line resistors are installed where they should be they would prevent this.

steifanc · 06-06-2009 1:07pm

fred funk }{ wrote: »

That could be done while the premises/house alarm in off. For example if it were a shop window in a changing area the thief could be working area shorting out the sensor/contact cable for that window and come back later that night and break in through the unprotected window. But if the alarm is installed properly and the end of line resistors are installed where they should be they would prevent this.

how did i know that would be the next answer !
so some one can get in and fiddle around with the wires ,as much as some one can fiddle with remote wireless sensor's.
there is nothing there to state that wireless is more secure or less secure than wired ?

why would a eol resistors prevent some one shorting the contact ?

fred funk }{ · 06-06-2009 5:28pm

steifanc wrote: »

why would a eol resistors prevent some one shorting the contact ?

When they open the contact it will trigger a tamper condition on the alarm. If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition. Thats why they're called END OF LINE resistors.

06-06-2009 6:20pm

If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition

+ 1

jamesbond · 06-06-2009 6:25pm

i wouldnt touch visonic with a barge pole,ive installed a few,batteries range from 1 year to 3 in the different sensors,you tend to be changing batteries all the time,the shock sensors are verry poor,if a battery goes you have to reset the sensor after new battery in replaced,
send me a PM and ill advise you on some good systems,there are not many good wirefree systems on the market today

steifanc · 06-06-2009 6:26pm

fred funk }{ wrote: »

When they open the contact it will trigger a tamper condition on the alarm. If somebody tries to splice the cable going to the contact to short out the wires the panel will no longer see the resistors and will then generate a tamper condition. Thats why they're called END OF LINE resistors.

Daisey chain the Resistance and tap the cores .

being brief in an effort not to incriminate my self on a public forum .

jamesbond · 06-06-2009 6:27pm

oldhead wrote: »

watching to many james bond films, yea whatever, i would have wired over wireless anyday, even though there is a new wireless system coming out in the next month or so, that uses a higher frequecy, which looks to be very good. also on the batteries, ive seen them replaced well before 5 years.

i wouldnt touch visonic with a barge pole,ive installed a few,batteries range from 1 year to 3 in the different sensors,you tend to be changing batteries all the time,the shock sensors are verry poor,if a battery goes you have to reset the sensor after new battery in replaced,
send me a PM and ill advise you on some good systems,there are not many good wirefree systems on the market today

06-06-2009 6:36pm

Daisey chain the Resistance and tap the cores .

I dont know what you mean here and I dont think it would work, whatever it is! Even if you are correct the solution is simple, ensure that the wires are inaccessible.

Both wired and wireless can provide fantastic security for any installation once quality equipment has been selected and it has been properly installed.

It is the standard of installation that seems to be the weakest link in the chain IMHO.

I accept that in theory it is possible to get around a wireless system with the correct equipment and expertiese. But if you are a thief that has all of that at your disposal why bother with any building that has less than a few million in cash or a few gold bars????

KoolKid · 06-06-2009 6:40pm

Well this thread has certinly taken on a life of its own.
I think we have definitly proven that all systems have their vunerabilities at this level but Oldheads point that wireless are less secure has certinly been proved wrong.

steifanc · 06-06-2009 7:03pm

2011 wrote: »

I don't know what you mean here and I dont think it would work, whatever it is! Even if you are correct the solution is simple, ensure that the wires are inaccessible.

Both wired and wireless can provide fantastic security for any installation once quality equipment has been selected and it has been properly installed.

It is the standard of installation that seems to be the weakest link in the chain IMHO.

I accept that in theory it is possible to get around a wireless system with the correct equipment and expertiese. But if you are a thief that has all of that at your disposal why bother with any building that has less than a few million in cash or a few gold bars????

i cant really explain it any more,with out telling you how to do it,and that i can get into trouble for.! maybe if you read on multi taps, Resistance related,
think about this tho , an analogue system using Resistance to verify the integrity of the circuit , the CPU uses closed loop control with the resistor .
your using a series loop , what happens if your eol isn't where its suppose to be, how dose that affect the loop ?
i know the answer so don't post it !

as i have said before that both systems will preform fine for what there doing,
the reason i got involved in this one was firstly to counter the believe that the systems were impenetrable.
secondly was the idea that because something carries a standard , that it has to be right !
and finally why someone thinks one system is better than the other, on a security level that is

06-06-2009 9:50pm

i cant really explain it any more,with out telling you how to do it,and that i can get into trouble for.!

OK,I think I know what you are saying, but it would require access to the cables when the system is disarmed?
The solution is to ensure that access to the cables is not possible.

what happens if your eol isn't where its suppose to be, how dose that affect the loop ?

An EOL resistor can not be moved within 1 scan cycle while the alarm is armed.

as i have said before that both systems will preform fine for what there doing,

+ 1

the reason i got involved in this one was firstly to counter the believe that the systems were impenetrable.
secondly was the idea that because something carries a standard , that it has to be right !

I agree with both points. I also feel that the EN50131 needs to be looked at again. Some alarms that meet this standard are simple enough to defeat, (both wired and wireless) without any fancy technology or expertise.

and finally why someone thinks one system is better than the other, on a security level that is

I have found some of the points made quite informative and interesting.

steifanc · 06-06-2009 10:48pm

but it would require access to the cables when the system is disarmed?
The solution is to ensure that access to the cables is not possible.
very true , but remember why we were talking about this, someone stated that unwired systems were more secure than wired, i asked why, and this is the answer i got , that someone could mess with the cables,

so where are we now ?
wired system ,
someone has to get access to the building ,
has to be able to access the cables
has to understand how the panel works understand closed resistive control

wireless,
system can be accessed with in radio frequency of the units
no entry to the building is needed
having the skill set to change carrier code and manipulate the signal, finding someone willing and able , very slim

An EOL resistor can not be moved within 1 scan cycle while the alarm is armed.

once the panel reads the Resistance on the scan it doesn't matter where it is,

just as a matter of interest on my behalf, where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact, i am not an alarm installer so i don't know, many years ago i would of put them in , i have been involved in debate about the final position of the elo before, and out of pure interest id like to here your views.

bushy... · 06-06-2009 11:01pm

The main fact here is this "argument" is still going on.

Plain to see , Steifanc knows waaay more than he is prepared to say ( for good reason)

If the rest are putting their faith in

A: a resistor

B: wireless

it says a lot.

Jnealon · 07-06-2009 7:00am

steifanc wrote: »

just as a matter of interest on my behalf, where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact, i am not an alarm installer so i don't know, many years ago i would of put them in , i have been involved in debate about the final position of the elo before, and out of pure interest id like to here your views.

IMO eols should be put in the sensor. Putting them in the panel is just lazy and defeats the purpose

07-06-2009 7:17am

steifanc

very true

OK, so we are both talking about the same method.

Here is another thought for you wrt wired systems: Non PSA and non alarm people are permitted to first fix alarm systems. Would it not be easy for them to wire an alarm system in such a way that it would be easy to intercept cables? Perhaps they could even install a device on a cable within a wall so that zones for the alarm could be switched of remotely?? The alarm contractor would have no idea of this whatsoever.

steifanc

where is it recommended to put the eol in the panel or final contact

Where is this written? I dont know TBH. It is so fundemental that it must be stated in EN50131, somewhwere. What I do know is that this is the best place to install them from a security point of view.

Jnealon

IMO eols should be put in the sensor

I think everyone will agree with you there.

Putting them in the panel is just lazy and defeats the purpose

It would make it far too easy to bypass the system.

altor · 07-06-2009 10:10am

screwlox wrote: »

I have a copy of the TWO standards here in front of me:
EN50131 1997, AND EN50131 2006.

Clause 8.4 in the 2006 standard relates to PROCESSING OF SIGNALS to an ARC (Alarm receiving Centre).

Sorry my mistake its TABLE 16, 8.8.3 that this refers too..
maximum permitted duration of unavailability
this requirement is intended to establish if communication is possible by monitoring the communication media to ascertain if it is available to convey a signal or message. monitoring may take the form of listening for jamming when rf techniques are employed or when an i&has shares a bus system with other applications checking that another application has not taken permanent control of the bus.

steifanc · 07-06-2009 11:21am

bushy... wrote: »

The main fact here is this "argument" is still going on.

so lets get all the pros and cons and ill construct a positional weighted model and see what the figures say ?
any thing ye can think of

steifanc · 07-06-2009 12:50pm

selection criteria wireless wired

cost of panel 1 0
cost of contacts 1 0
cost of cabling 0 1
installation time 0 1

complexity of controls 1 0
need for batteries in sensors 1 0
need for building to be pre wired 0 1

Security

can alarm be accessed outside the building 1 0
can cables be tampered with 0 1
level of difficulty to breach 1 0
rouge signal interference, close freq 1 0

false alarm triggering 1 0
long distance runs 1 0
diy installation 0 1

get it started
shurly ye can come up with more than me !
unfortunality i couldnt post a screen print ,it wouldnt paste , hence the joumbled up copy and paste, take the first digit as wireless

bushy... · 07-06-2009 3:42pm

You need tags for it , the forum stuff seems to be designed to tidy up posts as much as it can

steifanc wrote: »

selection criteria

                                                               wireless	wired				

cost of panel	                                                    1	0	
cost of contacts	                                                    1	0	
cost of cabling	                                                    0	1	
installation time	                                                    0	1	

complexity of controls	                                       1	0	
need for batteries in sensors	                                      1	0	
need for building to be pre wired                                  0          1	


Security			

can alarm be accessed outside the building	             1	0	
can cables be tampered with	                          0	1
level of difficulty to breach	                                       1	0
rouge signal interference, close freq	                          1	0


false alarm triggering	                                       1	0
long distance runs	                                                    1	0
diy installation	                                                    0	1

get it started
shurly ye can come up with more than me !
unfortunality i couldnt post a screen print ,it wouldnt paste , hence the joumbled up copy and paste, take the first digit as wireless

screwlox · 08-06-2009 10:53pm

Some good arguments being made from both sides guys....

But at the end of the day, I still maintain 'one is as secure as the other', when it is armed - and maintained properly.

The biggest downside to W/L is battery replacement....:(

Someone mentioned in a previous post that Visonic was dirt....

Untrue. Visonic SENSORS are dirt - their control panels are excellent quality radio products - far better than anything I've ever seen (and I have 18 different types of W/L systems stored away, that I tested myself over the years as they were launched - Scantronic, Rockonet, Crow, Daitum, Siemens etc. etc.)
Installers are 'nervous' of W/L systems, where as I will 'pull them to bits' before I ever fit one. I knew from day one that visonic had 'issues' with some of their sensors - and still do (even though they are in denial) - however their radio control panel cannot be faulted whatsoever...
Some of their stuff is HALF the price of G.E. and twice as good.

Anyways, how the heck do I subscribe to this thread??? Mods?
I don't see an option on the page any where??

09-06-2009 7:27am

screwlox

I still maintain 'one is as secure as the other', when it is armed - and maintained properly.

and installed properly! The standard of installation is the most important part IMHO

KoolKid · 09-06-2009 9:54am

screwlox wrote: »

Anyways, how the heck do I subscribe to this thread??? Mods?
I don't see an option on the page any where??

At the top of the first post on the page Select Thread Tools & select subscribe from the drop down list

screwlox · 09-06-2009 9:38pm

Cheers, Kid!

steifanc · 10-06-2009 8:45am

But at the end of the day, I still maintain 'one is as secure as the other', when it is armed - and maintained properly

yet the data presents a slightly different picture ?

screwlox · 18-06-2009 11:02pm

Data???

All I see is 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 00 !!

Makes no sense to me....:o

Yes, I still maintain Wireless to be more secure...

steifanc · 20-06-2009 10:13am

screwlox wrote: »

Data???

All I see is 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 1 0 0 00 !!

Makes no sense to me....:o

Yes, I still maintain Wireless to be more secure...

i wouldn't expect it to make any sense to you unless you were in that line of work , thats code ,and is out of context to the security of the systems.
thats code for the 10 x system , i posted it because you had the illusion that a rolling code doesn't repeat its self .

as for the two systems. as was discussed in the course of this thread.
a wired system has security with in its self if its off grid "and not connected to any thing that can be used to infiltrate its security protocol . this being the scenario you have to be inside the building to tamper with the alarm.

a wireless transmitting signal can be harnessed outside the parameter of the building. with the right equipment and the right person the signal carrier can be manipulated.
by no means is it an easy thing to do , but it can be done.
and i have read the manufactures outlook on harnessing signals and how the claim to protect there system.
which would work , but if you new what you were doing you wouldn't be taking the most straight forward approach .

altor · 21-06-2009 9:22pm

steifanc wrote: »

i wouldn't expect it to make any sense to you unless you were in that line of work , thats code ,and is out of context to the security of the systems.
thats code for the 10 x system , i posted it because you had the illusion that a rolling code doesn't repeat its self .

as for the two systems. as was discussed in the course of this thread.
a wired system has security with in its self if its off grid "and not connected to any thing that can be used to infiltrate its security protocol . this being the scenario you have to be inside the building to tamper with the alarm.

a wireless transmitting signal can be harnessed outside the parameter of the building. with the right equipment and the right person the signal carrier can be manipulated.
by no means is it an easy thing to do , but it can be done.
and i have read the manufactures outlook on harnessing signals and how the claim to protect there system.
which would work , but if you new what you were doing you wouldn't be taking the most straight forward approach .

hi steifanc,
is this why the standards where brought in that the sensor has to report to the panel every 100 seconds, or do you think in your own opinion it can be done in less than this time ?

steifanc · 21-06-2009 10:33pm

altor wrote: »

hi steifanc,
is this why the standards where brought in that the sensor has to report to the panel every 100 seconds, or do you think in your own opinion it can be done in less than this time ?

hi altor.
im not familiar with the standards, I'm relaying on you guys for that information, if it is seconds it seems very long to me. that would leave 100 seconds for some one to enter the zone undetected . may be its Milli seconds ?

the scan cycle can be altered all right. the can scan that fast that you would need another computer just to detect the speed .
the faster the CPU , the more expensive it becomes . and like the design of most things the engineer is strangled with a tight budget, and gets the best preforming chip the can for the money.
with that being the case you have to find a balance between speed and process capability. not good being fast and not able to put the information together.
so can it be done in less time then its already doing, ?
with out up grading the CPU, and taking that the engineer has optimized the performance of the chip . the balance between speed and performance has been achieved . so speeding it up will slow something else down.

is that the info you were looking for ?

altor · 21-06-2009 10:51pm

steifanc wrote: »

hi altor.
im not familiar with the standards, I'm relaying on you guys for that information, if it is seconds it seems very long to me. that would leave 100 seconds for some one to enter the zone undetected . may be its Milli seconds ?

the scan cycle can be altered all right. the can scan that fast that you would need another computer just to detect the speed .
the faster the CPU , the more expensive it becomes . and like the design of most things the engineer is strangled with a tight budget, and gets the best preforming chip the can for the money.
with that being the case you have to find a balance between speed and process capability. not good being fast and not able to put the information together.
so can it be done in less time then its already doing, ?
with out up grading the CPU, and taking that the engineer has optimized the performance of the chip . the balance between speed and performance has been achieved . so speeding it up will slow something else down.

is that the info you were looking for ?

no, its 100 seconds. i dont know how the blocking and manipulation of the signals work but with regard to the panel it gives off a tamper situation and activates the alarm. i know hkcs new panel will be relaying the signals back to the panel from the sensors every 20 seconds which i hope will cover this problem in the event it ever happens.

steifanc · 22-06-2009 2:33pm

altor wrote: »

no, its 100 seconds. i dont know how the blocking and manipulation of the signals work but with regard to the panel it gives off a tamper situation and activates the alarm. i know hkcs new panel will be relaying the signals back to the panel from the sensors every 20 seconds which i hope will cover this problem in the event it ever happens.

I'm surprised the cycle is that slow, just goes to show you the level of components there using.

I'm sure the panel is set up that if the signal changes it will activate the tamper.its not really the route i would go down if i was trying to by pass the system.

from what your saying the senors are using an open loop control , which isn't a great way of doing it. but i can understand why its done like that if your Dependant on battery's. so the senor only activates when in fault condition.
and the panel is scanning every 100 seconds to talk to the senor making sure its operational.

this being the case it would make the panel less Sucre than i had original taught.

altor · 22-06-2009 2:50pm

they will have to come up with something to make it more secure, how fast can it be manipulated in your opinion ? is hkc going the right way making it 20 seconds or should they try for less ?

steifanc · 22-06-2009 3:15pm

altor wrote: »

they will have to come up with something to make it more secure, how fast can it be manipulated in your opinion ? is hkc going the right way making it 20 seconds or should they try for less ?

i wouldn't think there too worried , having the skills to do it and wasting them trying to crack alarm code is a bit childish.

the wireless system using a 10 bit encrypted code.
your fire wall on your computer uses a 128 bit encrypted code.
128 bit codes can be broken in under a min.

with the scan cycle at 100SEC there is a more simpler way of breaching the system. thats over a min ,thats really bad . shorting this would most likely eliminate this.

druidhill · 20-05-2015 4:24am

Hi all,

After searching this forum, I read with interest this old thread and as it is so old, I wondered what contributors' current opinions are for the points thrown up for discussion.

Particularly interested in the current quality of wireless systems nowadays (e.g. have vulnerability issues been improved or addressed in any way since).

I am looking to install a system in an old house so wireless is the neatest and (I'm guessing probably) cheapest as it is not pre-wired.

Brand recommendations from the professionals for sensors and control panels would be good too.

Thanks in advance.

KoolKid · 20-05-2015 7:42am

For a fully wireless system we use and recommend GSD and Risco Agility or Risco LightSYS 2.
Reliability has come a long way over the years and so has the features.
All good systems now offer apps giving you alerts and remote access to the system.
There is some interesting information on these features in this thread
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057394782/11/#post95550399

20-05-2015 2:33pm

With any modern system I would have no concerns in terms of vulnerability.
It sounds like running in cables in their example would not be cost effective or practical. If this premesis was prewired I would not go for the wireless option.

Stoner · 21-05-2015 9:28am

Druidhill

There is a whole forum for this now. I'll let this sit and move it there later today

21-05-2015 11:03am

Thread moved.

altor · 21-05-2015 7:02pm

druidhill wrote: »

Hi all,

After searching this forum, I read with interest this old thread and as it is so old, I wondered what contributors' current opinions are for the points thrown up for discussion.

Particularly interested in the current quality of wireless systems nowadays (e.g. have vulnerability issues been improved or addressed in any way since).

I am looking to install a system in an old house so wireless is the neatest and (I'm guessing probably) cheapest as it is not pre-wired.

Brand recommendations from the professionals for sensors and control panels would be good too.

Thanks in advance.

I would also throw the HKC Quantum 70 into the list of systems provided.
With the added ability to add extra wired devices, shocks and contacts from the wire free devices from the sensors inputs.
Systems used today offer more protection options using two way detectors also.

homeguru · 23-05-2015 3:32pm

Wirefree are just as good use a siemens GE(aritech) or (HKC) HKC prob more user friendly only reason wirefree are slow at coming to the fore is all these companies have large hardwired selling divisions that are affected. Visionic is ok but the above are better and price wise not much difference put it this way all these devices will likely be wire free in the future.

druidhill · 25-05-2015 7:25am

Thanks for all replies - it is great to get some first-hand advice with this.

Pegasus177 · 28-09-2017 8:26pm

Anyone have some up to date costs of getting a un-monitored alarm fitted in a pre-wired home? Ball park figures will do

Thanks

KoolKid · 28-09-2017 8:29pm

It would vary a lot depending on the number of accessible windows & doors . Could go anywhere from €700-€1500. Your best bet is get a few licenced installers out for a free survey & quote.
They will give you a written system design proposal. That will make it easy to compare like with like against different systems.

Pegasus177 · 28-09-2017 8:35pm

KoolKid wrote: »

It would vary a lot depending on the number of accessible windows & doors . Could go anywhere from €700-€1500. Your best bet is get a few licenced installers out for a free survey & quote.
They will give you a written system design proposal. That will make it easy to compare like with like against different systems.

I was filling out quote requests online and one just called me back in the time since I posted my question as he was working late.
He quoted me 600 so I guess that's not a bad price if 700 is the norm low end. Thanks for your reply.

kub · 28-09-2017 8:49pm

Pegasus177 wrote:

I was filling out quote requests online and one just called me back in the time since I posted my question as he was working late. He quoted me 600 so I guess that's not a bad price if 700 is the norm low end. Thanks for your reply.

There is such as thing as being too cheap as well so please be careful

KoolKid · 28-09-2017 10:57pm

Pegasus177 wrote: »

I was filling out quote requests online and one just called me back in the time since I posted my question as he was working late.
He quoted me 600 so I guess that's not a bad price if 700 is the norm low end. Thanks for your reply.

Its really down to what you are being specced for. Ideally all accessible windows & doors with shocks & contacts & a couple of PiRs.
Also make sure you are buying the equipment not just renting it.In which case the €500-€600 is just a very expensive installation fee.:eek:

wired vs wireless alarm system

Comments