Re: Simon test

["ditto" <nosp@xxxxx>]

plus I'm getting tired of messing with it.  time for pots.
gracias

"Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ynggg.2$c37.665@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I don't have the tech knowledge to explain it, it  has something to do with
> how info is sent through voip...packets..whatever. All I know is at this
> point in time it's unreliable with most alarm panels. I won't use it. That
> being said...if your alarm signals are getting through so should the test
> sigs...but you never know with voip.
>
>
> "ditto" <nosp@xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:qpfgg.9232$EX2.3691@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:0d8gg.49$vp6.99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > VoIP is unreliable, at least in my experience. Test fine for a week,
> then
> | > nothing, test for a few days, then nuttin'. I won't connect to Voip
> | > anymore...had clients get pots lines.
> | >
> |
> | if I had the Simon programmed correctly and the test reports failed
> | shouldn't I get a fail to communicate indication at the panel?  So far I
> | haven't seen any indication of a FTC.  This makes me think it's not
> trying
> | to send tests.  I'd hate to have customer switch to pots and still get
> no
> | test reports. :(  This voip stuff seems pretty straightforward to me,
> other
> | than the internet going down I can't see why it couldn't work as a
> method
> to
> | report alarms.  Phone service can go down too.  Just put a UPS on the
> modem
> | and router and should be close to as reliable as pots.  Am I missing
> | something?
> |
> |
> |
>
>