[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sole Path ???



"Bob La Londe" <onebikenut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iirs8o$lv9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:d86dnWuJf4e7U83QnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Nick,
>>
>> The TG-7FS is polled by the Telular Comm center servers every couple of
>> minutes.. If it fails to check-in for more than 5 minutes a
>> communications
>> trouble will be sent to the central station... The TG-7FS has far more
>> supervision than a standard phone line(s)....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Russ
>
> Interesting.  However, just a couple days ago I replaced a TG-7 (not
> fire).
> It was checking in just like it was supposed to, but the panel was showing
> a
> line fail.  The unit was failing to connect to the panel or recognize the
> signals or call attempts from the panel.  Ping the unit from the on-line
> interface with Telular got a response and no troubles showed, but it would
> not communicate signals from the panel.  In this case the supervision
> would
> have failed where I not the paranoid sort that always programs the panel
> to
> send its own autotests and monitor the line.  It got an Uplink 2550 in its
> place because that is what I had in the truck.  Wish I had kept the unit
> to
> play with, but the customer asked for it.  I think they plan to play with
> the SIM card.
>
> Sorry, unless they can show the TG-7FS is an inherently superior
> communicator rather than just a differently packaged (red metal can or
> whatever) and priced (to cover their product liability insurance) unit
> then
> I'm not going to recommend sole path.  I do very much like cellular as
> secondary or even primary for fire, and I wouldn't have a problem with
> installing two separate units using two different carriers.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Robert (Bob) J La Londe III
>
> The Security Consultant
> P.O. Box 5720
> Yuma, Az 85366
>
> Licensed Communications Contractor
> Serving Yuma Since 1994
> Commercial & Residential
> ROC103044 & ROC103047
>
> (928) 782-9765 Voice
> (928) 782-7873 Fax
>
>
>
Hi Bob,

You can use the TG-7FS without another radio by programming your fire panel
to send a test signal every 24 hrs... You'll have the 5 minute window of
supervision for the transmitter, and a daily test for the
panel/communicator... Your CS should look for a CID code E355 (loss of
Radio) and a Fail-to-Test from a Sole Path account... No cost worries about
the daily test signal, if you elect to use the 5 minute supervision setting,
Telular charges a flat monthly rate...

I think your customers will be fine with both the dialer test and 5 min.
supervision feature, and you'll keep the monitoring cost down because they
won't need two phone lines or a second radio...

Just my 1/2 cent :-)
Russ
>
>> "nick markowitz" <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:63cb8e2e-c077-412f-b6a8-c1ee9657a80b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Feb 7, 5:53 pm, jewellfish <jewellf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2:18 pm, "Bob La Londe" <n...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I received a phone call and an e-mail the other day from one of the
>>> > reps for
>>> > Telular. He was all excited that they have a communicator suitable for
>>> > sole
>>> > communication for commercial fire. I listened to him and read some of
>>> > the
>>> > info he e-mailed to me and it just doesn't add up.
>>>
>>> > It looks like a GSM communicator sending two signals instead of one.
>>> > Big
>>> > whoop. Its still a single communication path. Now if it incorporated a
>>> > GSM
>>> > and a CDMA communicator with a trouble output if either fails to test
>>> > I
>>> > might buy into it, but it sure doesn't look that way when giving it
>>> > the
>>> > quick once over. Instead they seem to indicate the the NFPA standard
>>> > was
>>> > changed???
>>>
>>> > Really? All these years that we have been required to provide two
>>> > communication paths, and now NFPA says we only need one? Is this true?
>>> > What am I missing?
>>>
>>> > Esplain it to me Rucy.
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> I am most familiar with the 2002 & 2007 editions of the code as most
>>> locations I deal with have not adopted the 2010 version of NFPA yet
>>> and so the following refers to these versions of the code. If I
>>> understand NFPA 72, chapter 9 it does not mandate two communications
>>> paths for all methods of signal transmission. This chapter breaks
>>> down into sections dealing with different transmission technologies.
>>> Now, when systems use DACTs, then yes the code specifies that that
>>> primary method must be a phone line and the secondary path can be a
>>> phone line or several other alternates methods ( one of which is
>>> cellular phone, which Tellular models are designed to fulfill).
>>> However, other sections that deal with other technologies do not
>>> mandate multiple paths. For instance, in the Chicagoland area many
>>> municipalities have direct connect (reverse polarity) connections.
>>> Signals over one set of conductors. AES radios are taking the place
>>> of these hard-wired connections but, again, they are a single radio
>>> transmitter using a private network. The Tellular TG-7fs literature
>>> seems to indicate that it is using standard cellular networks, so
>>> there must be some change in the code to allow for this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bill
>> Way it was described to me
>> Tellular sends a fault to central if its servers do not see a check in
>> after so many minutes from unit so it is supervised .
>> that plus UL has lowered the requirements  realizing dual paths really
>> mean nothing in digital age if one phone line goes down all will. on
>> most telco systems these days
>>




alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home