Re: My problem with back-up radios

["Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

I hope this answers you concerns: Telguard radios can be programmed to test
the transmitter daily, weekly, or monthly... You may program them to send
alarms via cellular first and use the landline as a backup, while using the
phone line monitor of the TG-4/7 to activate a zone on the control panel if
the line goes dead for an extended period of time.

When using the Honeywell 10/15/20P controls and an AlarmNet Radio that uses
the ECP method of communications, it is possible to send all alarm events
via the Radio and phone line. Or program the panel to send all signals via
cellular first and use the phone line as the backup. You should also program
the line fault feature of the control panel to monitor the phone line.
AlarmNet can have the radio supervision (A.K.A. Transmitter Test) set at
Daily, or Monthly as well as no supervision.

Just my 1/2 cent :)

Regards,
Russ

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a9732072-8360-440b-89d9-7cf1616519dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've had this long time question about the turn in the evolution of back-up
radios.

The question is .......... what ever happened to redundancy?

I have a real problem with the fact that nobody (installers and
manufacturers) has any problem with the lack of redundancy reporting of
back-communication devices in the "newer" equipment now available.

How can it be alright to have a device (radio/cellular) installed on an
alarm installation that is supposedly sold to the client that has a higher
concern for the integrity of communication ..... a device that could
possibly sit there for the next 5 years or longer (if there is no telephone
failure followed by an alarm condition) and never be tested to send an alarm
signal to central station?

I just don't get it ... why no one has a problem with this.

Am I missing something? Doesn't it seem more resonable to have a wireless
device that sends an alarm code at the same time as the land line
communicator? Is it just something that the manufacturers and wireless
service providers have promoted to cut down on the tower traffic in spite of
the fact that it doesn't actually qualify to serve the true essance of a
back up communication device? Rather favoring benifits to them over the
greater good of providing better insurance to the customer.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? Anyone know of a wireless full
data transmission device that will provide redundancy reporting? I don't
know about other panels but Napco has a dual reporting feature. Most panels
have backup reporting. It would seem to me that there should be some way to
take advantage of this to be able to provide full data reporting. Or .....
some way for the wireless communication device to "listen in during land
line reporting and send a simultanious radio transmission. On Napco panels I
can program it to not wait for hand shake. I don't know about other panels.

I know,.... I know, ....they send in their daily/weekly supervisory signal
... I don't know about you, but to me ...  that's NOT and alarm signal and
isn't proof enough for me that it will really send an alarm signal when the
time comes. And I know that there are non-full data radios that will send
redundant signals. I just think that full data radios should send them also.

But, ... even with other panels lacking all of the above capability, I think
I have a kind of klugy way to provide redundancy on these "non redundant"
full data devices, but I'll wait for replies to this post before I pass it
by everyone.