Re: Next Alarm

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c81lg1t543ul88ov5nm7te48habippa810@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> Which non-UL compliant methods?  I'm not doubting you.  I don't
>>> recall a discussion about that.
>>>
>> They use a device that intercepts the dial attempt,
>> and re-routes it over the internet....
>
> Oh, yes.  Thanks for the reminder.  But doesn't that only apply
> to folks using VoIP.

Nope.  It's quite obvious to me you haven't done your "homework" on the
people you're "recommending" your customers use...  Speaking of "homework",
I'd suggest you read up on the Elk M1-Gold...


> If so, then for most folks that shouldn't
> be an issue at present.  In a few years when POTS lines become as
> rare as good advice from Olson everyone will have to find a VoIP
> compatible solution.


VoIP will never replace a POTS line.  Canada has the largest per capita
ratio of internet users of any country (even Belgium) but most alarmco's
here won't use high speed internet as the primary means of communication
without the POTS as a backup.  Not many people are willing to put up with
the "we're upgrading the hardware in your area and your cable internet
service will be inoperative between the hours of 1:00 and 5:00 am."  Of
course, since you don't install or service alarms for a living, are rarely
available for direct technical questions, and are currently "on extended
vacation" *in Brazil*, you might feel differently...