GSM diallers will be a thing of the past shortly

novice

Wow. Surely this statement is worth its own thread.

fred funk }{ wrote: »

GSM diallers will be a thing of the past shortly. There are ways of easily disabling them externally. This a new revelation, and as Koolkid said don't waste your money on one. All monitoring company will soon cease using them and will go back to radio.

Really?

I haven't heard this from the guys quoting for my alarm.

And for self-monitoring it make little difference - the GSM blocker will be gone as soon as the burglar is.

Why does every installer I talk to seem to be dead against self-monitoring? Is there a big kick-back from monitoring companies?

If installers can cut out GSM diallers, then self-monitoring will drop? I hope there's no hidden agenda there ...

KoolKid

novice wrote: »

Wow. Surely this statement is worth its own thread.
Really?

I haven't heard this from the guys quoting for my alarm.

I would be looking at a different installer. If they are willing to overlook this what else will they overlook?

novice wrote: »

And for self-monitoring it make little difference - the GSM blocker will be gone as soon as the burglar is.

In many cases the blocker has been left in place to ensure no call gets out.

novice wrote: »

Why does every installer I talk to seem to be dead against self-monitoring? Is there a big kick-back from monitoring companies?

If installers can cut out GSM diallers, then self-monitoring will drop? I hope there's no hidden agenda there ...

There is comission on monitoring sold. Just like any other service. As an installer my first concern is informing the customer of the reliability of the security they are purchasing.
TBH there is more money to be made selling and connecting GSM monitoring than via a landline. But we just blankly refuse any monitoring connections via GSM.

seawolf145

koolkid wrote: »

I would be looking at a different installer. If they are willing to overlook this what else will they overlook?

In many cases the blocker has been left in place to ensure no call gets out.


There is comission on monitoring sold. Just like any other service. As an installer my first concern is informing the customer of the reliability of the security they are purchasing.
TBH there is more money to be made selling and connecting GSM monitoring than via a landline. But we just blankly refuse any monitoring connections via GSM.

<snip>

altor

novice wrote: »

I haven't heard this from the guys quoting for my alarm.

And for self-monitoring it make little difference - the GSM blocker will be gone as soon as the burglar is.

Why does every installer I talk to seem to be dead against self-monitoring? Is there a big kick-back from monitoring companies?

If installers can cut out GSM diallers, then self-monitoring will drop? I hope there's no hidden agenda there ...

If you looking to get a GSM installed then the pros and cons should be explained to you. If you want remote access to your alarm then thats the reason your getting a price for the GSM. There are systems out there that you can have remote access through your phone line, maybe you should get a price for these. With regard the blocker it will be activated then removed when they leave.

Yes i believe self monitoring will drop but not because of installers. A well protected phone line is the best solution.

Jnealon

These GSM blockers have been around for years, they will just block the signal and stop it from getting through to the CS. If the line was polled then this may not be an issue but we dont have theluxury of redcare or dualcom here..yet
There is another device that can simulate a base station and intercept a call being made by the GSM unit.This lets the GSM unit think that it has sent through a signal to the CS.
Radio is not immune to jamming either but as it is in constant communication with the CS the theory is that it will be detected once the link is lost between the Radio unit and the CS. That said I have decommissioned active radio units on active accounts and the CS has failed to contact the account holder.

As already mentioned a physically secure phone line is best imo

homelogic.ie

GPRS monitoring is the way to go gentelman. 2 way communication with monitoring station using gprs and phone line and you covered. it takes only seconds to send message to MS via GPRS if phone line is down.

seawolf145

Not if you use a mobilephone jammer.
It will also jam the gprs signals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_jammer

KoolKid

These jammers block GPRS also. A secure phone line backed up by radio would be best IMO.

seawolf145

koolkid wrote: »

These jammers block GPRS also. A secure phone line backed up by radio would be best IMO.

Correct a much better option.
And private frequensies,ie same as the offshoreindustry,maritime,police and defence forces are using,hard to jam them.

homelogic.ie

Sure they will block GPRS but my point is - it can take up to 24 hours (dependable of alarm/dialler settings) till MS won't get O.K. from site. Owner/MS may not know for next 24 hours (especially if off site) that someone was tampering with phone line or backup GSM. Until then any place can be cleaned. Note that so far phone line/GSM provides one way transmission to MS. GPRS is a two way comms. Radio comms are a good idea, some systems sill have them, but can you honestly see that coming to residential market? I would say IP diallers may be an option, but so far a phone line and a GPRS (GPRS if no phnone line available) backup is my choice.

KoolKid

If a customer is willing to pay for the ammount of calls involved test call intervals can be set & agreed with the central station. We are not talking about old style radio reporting channels here. This is a new network that can report SIA & Contact ID. I have already set them up on domestic sites.
I would say its only a matter of time before GSM based communication is removed from the standards.

homelogic.ie

GPRS monitoring is a data transmission so there is no such thing as a call like in phone/GSM diallers. All you need is a SIM card with data enabled usually provided by the installer, so you get fixed payment. Message "weight" is very small that's why is far better and faster than dial-up connection.
Can you say a bit more about this new technology? What frequency is used?

altor

homelogic.ie wrote: »

GPRS monitoring is a data transmission

So if you have no signal or reception it will still send the data

KoolKid

To clarify these jammers block the GSM network, all networks Full Stop!
Its not blocking a call, I have seen them tested. Your phone will simply have no service.

seamus

koolkid wrote: »

I would say its only a matter of time before GSM based communication is removed from the standards.

Has no-one come up with a relay system?

That is, you have an intermediate station between the phone and the alarm. The station pings the house alarm every X minutes and reports to the mobile phone if it loses connection.

I would have thought that signal jamming/interference was one of the primary and easiest methods of disabling GSM alarms, only slightly easier than cutting the telephone wire.

What I can't believe now is that web-based alarm monitoring isn't being widely used. Any salesmen who've called to my door have always been offering either phone or GSM monitoring. IP-based monitoring would be by far the most powerful and cheapest way of monitoring an alarm.

KoolKid

I agree IP is the way to go . The stations are very slow to embrace this though (As are the manufacturers). However unless you are using wireless broadband you are still at the mercy of a cable coming into your house.

seamus

Nothing's infallible to be fair. If they have GSM blockers, then blocking wireless broadband is nothing more than changing the frequency and using a slighty stronger transmitter. Hook a couple of car batteries up to a blocker and you could kill every wireless device in a 50m radius

I would consider any cabled connection more secure only insofar as it looks more suspicious hiking a ladder up the side of a building to cut the cable or messing around with junction boxes.

KoolKid

seamus wrote: »

I would consider any cabled connection more secure only insofar as it looks more suspicious hiking a ladder up the side of a building to cut the cable or messing around with junction boxes.

Except on newer property's these boxs are on ground level & usually around the side out of view. The more options available for monitoring the better.
Cut the phone line, alarm may be using IP, Broadband may be via cable, cut the cable it may be wireless, jam the wireless it may be radio.

altor

seamus wrote: »

Nothing's infallible to be fair. If they have GSM blockers, then blocking wireless broadband is nothing more than changing the frequency and using a slighty stronger transmitter. Hook a couple of car batteries up to a blocker and you could kill every wireless device in a 50m radius

I would consider any cabled connection more secure only insofar as it looks more suspicious hiking a ladder up the side of a building to cut the cable or messing around with junction boxes.

Where theres a will there is always a way. The best solution is a well protected phone line.

Jnealon

Depending on the location of the phone box the line can be protected by conduit. Along with a metal door on the outside it would be very hard to get at the line

altor

Here is a link to an article on this.

homelogic.ie

seamus wrote: »

...That is, you have an intermediate station between the phone and the alarm. The station pings the house alarm every X minutes and reports to the mobile phone if it loses connection. ...

That is what GPRS is doing, and the advantage of it. Signal can be blocked (as any of radio as well, it is just a matter of knowing frequency), but a monitoring station will know about it in minutes. As I wrote previously GPRS ia a two way monitoring instead of most popular at the moment one way reporting to monitoring station realized via phone line, GSM or both to increase security.

KoolKid

I think I'm missing something here,AFAIK GPRS is still one way but faster.I don't think polling is an option over here. If the station can know within a minute of a signal being blocked then why would they be investing 100s of thousands in a new radio network.

homelogic.ie

Typical dialler either phone or GSM is reporting to MS. If there is no reports from site MS has no option to "ping" the site. With GPRS MS has this option. All current solutions have advantages and disadvantages. Hard to say why MS is investing in some radio comms,as I have no knowledge about that project. Can you put some light on this new technology? Is it national or just local?

KoolKid

All National. I know polling will be an option on IP but the big question is what do you action on a loss of communication? I doubt Garda policy will allow it as any sort of alarm activation or anything that would warrant Garda response. So what would be the benefit?

homelogic.ie

Good question. If you are expecting someone to ring you as always and it is not happening isn't suspicious? A good private security company will send a patrol to check it out. I agree with you Garda policy is to response only to veryfied alarms, so from that point of view there is no benefit in knowing that something may be wrong. You get only stressed by thinking about it
Anything more on this new radio technology?

KoolKid

Whether using IP or GPRS there are going to be drop offs. GSM diallers regularly restart when they are trying to get a better signal. IP will be the same. Your DSL connection may restart to renew your IP address or may simply from time to time re sync.
Leaving Garda policy aside can a monitoring station be expected to contact everyone when a signal is lost? What if there is a cell outage or a broadband outage in an area?
Would you want a call because your broadband has gone down for 2 minutes ?
I really don't see how any polling is going to really practical unless immidiate response is to be actioned. This would only be warranted in very rare instances. I still have to say my preference would be a secured phone line & a radio back up

homelogic.ie

You must be very unlucky if the alarm will be sending report in those 2 minutes when comms are down. As you know there is a toleration of a couple of minutes (depending of MS and settings) in reporting becouse of drops off. Signal is send couple of times and if unsuccesful it may trigger alarm (like DMC FTC on HKC) and reflect on overall alarm performance (silent PA etc.). I'm just saying - alarm systems have recognition of comms fault or undelivered messages and prabobly there is a reason for it.
If this new radio technology (I would like to know more about it but the way) is jamming proof, delay proof and reasonably priced it would be my prefference too.

KoolKid

homelogic.ie wrote: »

You must be very unlucky if the alarm will be sending report in those 2 minutes when comms are down. .

Is that not you would be expecting to happen if a signal is being jammed??
What do you want to know on the radio ?
I am not going to disclose frequency's if thats what your asking.:)

homelogic.ie

koolkid wrote: »

I am not going to disclose frequency's if thats what your asking.:)

S***t! My plans to become a milionaire on selling jammers have to be reviewed . First of all is it affordable to the end user? Is it stable and reliable? What protocols can be send via?

KoolKid

Stable & reliable. Monitoring costs around the same cost as proper GSM monitoring. Units are around €500 mark
Has the ability to send channels or contact ID.