Re: More VOIP/Digital Voice

["JL" <2joester@xxxxxxxxx>]

> If you want simplicity go Honeywell, anything else will require knowing ip
> addresses, gateways, DNIS servers etc

Yep, but you have to pay AlarmNet and deal with their billing system
and their "technical support".  We do accept AlarmNet-I, we just don't
like the Administration required by the Central Station when working
with AlarmNet.  We made our own to cut-out the administration involved
with the middle-man.  And, we can do full reporting on any most panel,
not just specific manufacturers and models of panels.

But, if you are using Ademco equipment and don't mind working with
AlarmNet then I'm sure AlarmNet-I is a good option.  I've never worked
with one directly and only have one or two dealers who have ever used
it.  Apparently the AlarmNet-I units are a bit pricey (compared to
$150).  My biggest problem with AlarmNet-I (and -A and -C and -GSM) is
that it has to go to New York first, then come back to Me.  We've seen
signals get hung-up between here and AlarmNet that got delivered
several hours later because AlarmNet didn't notice there was a problem
between Phx and NY.  I don't care for systems that require a
third-party relay.  For best reliablity, alarm signals should go
Directly to the Monitoring Center without other uncontrollable entities
in the middle of the transmissions.  But maybe that's just me being a
control freak.

Functionally, AlarmNet has always been VERY reliable.  Very rarely are
there problems with the relaying of signals.  From the Dealers point of
view, AlarmNet may be great, but from the Monitoring Centers point of
view, they are a nightmare to administer.  We've been requesting them
to give us better access to the data we want but they just don't have
the technical resources to Improve anything.  They want to keep making
new products but won't spend any time to improve the way they
communicate with the Monitoring Centers to help make us want our
dealers to use them.

Mark Leuck wrote:
> "JL" <2joester@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1165267623.569173.290110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Well, why didn't you Say So.  I'd be happy to Send you one.  Did you
> > fax me the Beta Test Agreement?
> >
> > I asked a while back if anyone had used a decent Internet Communicator
> > and never did find one with the simplicity I required.  They all have
> > proprietary receivers and equipment costing thousands for the Central
> > Station to get started (then the C/S has to get their dealers to
> > purchase the end-user equipment and hope everyone wants to use it).
>