Re: More VOIP/Digital Voice

["Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8P6dnRgmkq20tevYnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "JL" <2joester@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1165344761.266525.75910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > 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.
>
> With the ENT series you don't have to go through AlarmNet.
>
>
>> 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).
>
> They initially were however at the time the monitoring was free, now they
> cut the price of the 7845I and Symphony and have a small charge for the
> monitoring
>
> 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.
>
> We've had some problems in the past but that appears to have been cleared
> up
> and that was only on the older C, not I or GSM. Also the third party relay
> IS the reason it's so easy to install since you don't have to program IP
> addresses
>
>> 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.
>
> Well I'm in a central station as well and I don't see the nightmare in
> administration, they are constantly improving the web page and it's a far
> cry than what they started with, now if only TelGuard would get theirs up
> nd
> running...

Joe works for a central station that is doing a lot of its own developing
and innovation directly.  One of the reason I use them.  Cool toys, and they
work.


--
Sincerly,
The guy who makes the final decision on who we buy from.
Bob La Londe

The Security Consultant
Bob La Londe - Owner
849 S Ave C
Yuma, Az 85364

(928) 782-9765 ofc
(928) 782-7873 fax

Licensed Contractor
ROC103044 & ROC103047



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com