Re: Can a Napco system & DSL connection co-exist?

["alarman" <alarman2000@xxxxxxxxx>]

"FIRETEK" <firetech(change-the-ch-to-k)@telus.net> wrote in message
news:zGVUf.3226$Ph4.190@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Splitting hairs even further, why take the chance on a single phone line
for
> your alarm system?  "Seems like a no brainer" to include cellular or
> wireless backup for every installation but how often is it done?  Mr. Bass
> was correct in his response.  In reviewing the OP's diagram (however crude
> it was), you don't need a filter for the alarm panel to communicate with
the
> monitoring facility.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking sides here.  I agree with "Petem" that
> there is a risk (however small) of a problem developing in the DSL line
and
> that the correct way to wire any single line communicator would be to use
> the Excelsus Filter to eliminate even that small chance.
>
> Before this particular filter was on the market, the only way to ensure
> uniterrupted DSL and alarm communication was to wire the PROT exactly as
the
> OP describes.  I'm certain there are still many installations out there
that
> retain this type of wired connection.  What are you (the industry) doing
to
> address these?

Frank:
I can't speak for the industry, but I homerun the phone line to the alarm
control back to the protector, wire it ahead of everything else, and use the
Excelsus filter if the customer has DSL. No muss, no fuss.
js