Installation videos, documentation and signalling advice is ready and at your fingertips.

Click the icons to meet us online:

*All videos and documentation are also available on our website under the Products tab.*

 Your Monitoring Centre opened  in 2007, since then Corps Security has been keen to develop the offering of CCTV monitoring services, including the switch from analogue to digital signalling. Tell us more about that journey.

Corps Security has realised the potential for IP over analogue systems in the recent months. With Insurers and Stakeholders embracing IP and GPRS we have entered a new dimension for alarm signalling and Corps Security is pleased to adopt this technology. Corps Security provides a range of security and business support services including Alarm Response, Key Holding and CCTV monitoring. By adopting the IP technology we are now able to provide our customers with the most reliable form of signalling.

How has WebWay benefitted the business offerings of Corps monitoring station?

The adoption of WebWay technology means Corps Security has seen an increase in interest from corporate businesses. WebWay enables the integration of not only CCTV but Intruder, Fire, EAS and Business Management systems all through a single device; providing significant cost savings to end users.
Integration offers benefits for both end users and us as a security company. As the economic climate continues to be challenging, so resources for all parties become increasingly valuable. WebWay’s integration and management solutions enable us to provide a truly managed service to customers.

The primary focus of end users in recession is to save money, but they require products that add value. What key elements of the WebWay solution deliver value in an application?

WebWay has pioneered the migration from PSTN to IP in the market which has led to many benefits.  The integration to alarm panels via the serial data interface enables two key new remote signalling features. All products come with the protocols of all leading alarm panel manufacturers for SIA alarm transmission and remote service capabilities.  This means there is no need to send this information over a costly telephone line.  A remote service can also be facilitated over IP or GPRS – removing call charges from site and increasing security of the remote connection with AES encryption.

Delivering solutions to globally recognised brands is a professional business. What makes WebWay your signalling partner of choice in this market?

At Corps Security, we pride ourselves on providing a high level of service. However, a good monitoring service relies not only on good people, but also good technology. The team at WebWay has always been right behind us. WebWay’s products and services deliver our end users a future proofed solution, capable of saving money without reducing security and enabling integration of other systems. Both our companies will work together to deliver exceptional service to our customers.

WebWay has launched an online community which is aimed at aiding engineers when out on site. How do you see this as helping your customers?

WebWay are now strengthening their initiative to become the “best signalling provider to do business with” and have launched an online community, instantly communicating core messages to installers and providing education instantly.

Our customers will benefit because all training is available on the WebWay YouTube channel, or they can visit the website to download videos and installation manuals.  They can also connect with Webway on Twitter and Facebook to get further information and updates.

 A key advantage is that the WebWay products have been independently tested and approved to LPS1277 Issue 3, what does this mean for Corps Security?

The LPS1277 Issue 3 certification means we can be certain the signalling meets all insurance requirements and industry best practices. The ability to include automatic stepped up polling on the secondary path, should the primary fail, means the customers of Corps Security will be secure in the knowledge that their premises are monitored to the highest level.

 What appeals to you about WebWay’s Smart Reporting?

Corps Security’s use of Webway’s Smart Reporting architecture negates false alarm, user error and faulty signalling issues.  Smart Reporting is achieved through constant end to end communications (polling) between our Monitoring Centre and alarm system. Using Smart Reporting, Corps Security will be able to provide customers with real time statistics on every path of every system purchased. The availability calculations obtained provide a clear measure of performance and identification of fault cause, enabling quick action: mitigating future risk and false alarms. By operating our business efficiently and minimising false alarms, we can offer a high calibre service at a fair and reasonable price, delivering both quality and value.

 What were the highlights for Corps Security in 2011?

2011 was a year of change for Corps Security as it focused on strengthening its position as the UK’s leading independent security specialist. We believe that we have a truly integrated monitoring and guarding business that offers the most secure and cost effective solutions for its customers.

This clear focus has started to deliver significant growth for Corps Security as the market recognises that multi-service contracts do not deliver the secure business environment they need and that global service providers do not deliver the quality of service required.

Corps Security’s investment in its monitoring centre and it willingness to seek integrated electronic and manned guarding solutions made 2011 a very significant year in our 152 year history.

WebWayOne and Corps Security work in partnership to deliver innovative value added solutions and cost savings to end users. The below interview with Corps Security provides a valuable insight into the benefits of choosing WebWay signalling products.

Your Monitoring Centre opened  in 2007, since then Corps Security has been keen to develop the offering of CCTV monitoring services, including the switch from analogue to digital signalling. Tell us more about that journey.

Corps Security has realised the potential for IP over analogue systems in the recent months. With Insurers and Stakeholders embracing IP and GPRS we have entered a new dimension for alarm signalling and Corps Security is pleased to adopt this technology. Corps Security provides a range of security and business support services including Alarm Response, Key Holding and CCTV monitoring. By adopting the IP technology we are now able to provide our customers with the most reliable form of signalling.

How has WebWay benefitted the business offerings of Corps monitoring station?

The adoption of WebWay technology means Corps Security has seen an increase in interest from corporate businesses. WebWay enables the integration of not only CCTV but Intruder, Fire, EAS and Business Management systems all through a single device; providing significant cost savings to end users.
Integration offers benefits for both end users and us as a security company. As the economic climate continues to be challenging, so resources for all parties become increasingly valuable. WebWay’s integration and management solutions enable us to provide a truly managed service to customers.

The primary focus of end users in recession is to save money, but they require products that add value. What key elements of the WebWay solution deliver value in an application?

WebWay has pioneered the migration from PSTN to IP in the market which has led to many benefits.  The integration to alarm panels via the serial data interface enables two key new remote signalling features. All products come with the protocols of all leading alarm panel manufacturers for SIA alarm transmission and remote service capabilities.  This means there is no need to send this information over a costly telephone line.  A remote service can also be facilitated over IP or GPRS – removing call charges from site and increasing security of the remote connection with AES encryption.

Delivering solutions to globally recognised brands is a professional business. What makes WebWay your signalling partner of choice in this market?

At Corps Security, we pride ourselves on providing a high level of service. However, a good monitoring service relies not only on good people, but also good technology. The team at WebWay has always been right behind us. WebWay’s products and services deliver our end users a future proofed solution, capable of saving money without reducing security and enabling integration of other systems. Both our companies will work together to deliver exceptional service to our customers.

WebWay has launched an online community which is aimed at aiding engineers when out on site. How do you see this as helping your customers?

WebWay are now strengthening their initiative to become the “best signalling provider to do business with” and have launched an online community, instantly communicating core messages to installers and providing education instantly.

Our customers will benefit because all training is available on the WebWay YouTube channel, or they can visit the website to download videos and installation manuals.  They can also connect with Webway on Twitter and Facebook to get further information and updates.

A key advantage is that the WebWay products have been independently tested and approved to LPS1277 Issue 3, what does this mean for Corps Security?

The LPS1277 Issue 3 certification means we can be certain the signalling meets all insurance requirements and industry best practices. The ability to include automatic stepped up polling on the secondary path, should the primary fail, means the customers of Corps Security will be secure in the knowledge that their premises are monitored to the highest level.

What appeals to you about WebWay’s Smart Reporting?

Corps Security’s use of Webway’s Smart Reporting architecture negates false alarm, user error and faulty signalling issues.  Smart Reporting is achieved through constant end to end communications (polling) between our Monitoring Centre and alarm system. Using Smart Reporting, Corps Security will be able to provide customers with real time statistics on every path of every system purchased. The availability calculations obtained provide a clear measure of performance and identification of fault cause, enabling quick action: mitigating future risk and false alarms. By operating our business efficiently and minimising false alarms, we can offer a high calibre service at a fair and reasonable price, delivering both quality and value.

What were the highlights for Corps Security in 2011?

2011 was a year of change for Corps Security as it focused on strengthening its position as the UK’s leading independent security specialist. We believe that we have a truly integrated monitoring and guarding business that offers the most secure and cost effective solutions for its customers.

This clear focus has started to deliver significant growth for Corps Security as the market recognises that multi-service contracts do not deliver the secure business environment they need and that global service providers do not deliver the quality of service required.

Corps Security’s investment in its monitoring centre and it willingness to seek integrated electronic and manned guarding solutions made 2011 a very significant year in our 152 year history.

 For national retailers alarm signalling is a critical and expensive component of premises protection. The choice of technology governs how a site is protected and managed.  The BRC report showed that expenditure on crime prevention by retailers rose by 1.4% to £214 million, a median spend of £700,000 per company.

Summary of findings:

• Overall cost of retail crime has soared by 31% to £1.4 billion.
• Number of robberies increased by 20%: average cost per incident is up 17% from £847 to £989.
• Average value of goods taken was more than £2,000, causing total losses to increase sharply.
• Estimated total value of goods stolen by customers was over £147 million, up £10 million on the previous year. Customer theft accounted for nearly 60% of the cost of crime.

Migrating to digital signalling saves money and improves security. Dual path signalling with false alarm management can drastically reduce call outs and business interruption meaning keyholders will not be sent out to false alarms. A well designed and managed system can alert you to unconfirmed faults only in working hours.

Estimate your own return on investment

What are the associated costs with analogue digi systems?

Call charge costs have increased 3 times since 2010.  Analogue phone calls now cost 7.95p per minute. Sending only Open/Close and a 24 hour test call will cost at least £62.01 in calls for each digi, plus the cost of monitoring from the ARC. Many businesses turn off the monitoring of Open/Close and test calls in an attempt to cut costs, but therefore reduce security and efficiency. 

How much can I save on replacing telephone lines with digital technology?

Removing the need for the PSTN line means a saving of £160+ p/a per site.

WebWay Benefits

• Reduce communications costs.
• Upgrade to dual path signalling by using operational cost savings.
• Investigate events remotely, reducing site visits.
• Improve security by detecting catastrophic faults quickly.
• Proactively mitigate risks by monitoring communications performance per site.
• Improve transmission security and enable remote maintenance.
• Save more by applying the same principles can be applied to fire, CCTV, EAS, BMS and fridges.

Successful retail project roll outs include: Tesco, Dixons, Travis Perkins and The Cooperative Group. Click here to view our case studies.

Articles of interest

The BSIA briefing: February 2012

PSI Magazine: Report shows IP migration will influence intrusion detection

Please contact ckale@webwayone.co.uk if you would like to receive any further information.

Download the PDF here.

Alarm transmission equipment (ATE) forms a vital part of any alarm system installation. It guarantees that an alarm event is reliably and quickly transmitted to the Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC). This then ensures a prompt and appropriate human response.

The LPS 1277 approval scheme brings all the various Alarm Transmission System (ATS) requirements relevant to the UK fire and intruder alarm market together. It also deals with any omissions and ambiguities surrounding existing European and national standards.

The overriding aim is to help specifiers and end users confidently select or recommend ATS – through reference to a single approval scheme – at a performance level (eg ATS 1 through to ATS 6) and type (eg single/dual transmission path) appropriate to the risk being managed.

The requirements of LPS 1277 Issue 3.0 are based on the BS EN 50136 and BS EN 50131 series of European Standards. While it builds on and clarifies these standards, typically in areas relating to intrusion and hold-up alarm systems, LPS 1277 doesn’t in any way undermine their use or future development.

The European Standards set minimum requirements that should be met – in this case by ATS – but this doesn’t preclude specific market demands from requiring more. Indeed, exploiting capabilities/requirements above the minimum makes for good business practice, enabling quality providers to stand out from the crowd. Many in business will be familiar with the term ‘differentiate or die’.

LPCB and BRE Global: standards development

LPCB and BRE Global have a long history of helping to develop many of the national and international standards in the areas of security, fire, sustainability and the built environment which are published as BS, ISO, IEC and EN standards.

The Loss Prevention Certification Board is a certification brand of BRE Global Limited (formerly known as BRE Certification Limited) which is part of the BRE Group and owned by the BRE Trust (a registered charity that uses profits made by the BRE Group to fund research and education programmes designed to improve the built environment).

National and international standards are the preferred basis for LPCB approval schemes as demonstrated in the LPCB’s Red Book listings (www.redbooklive.com) where, for example, numerous products are approved to the BS EN 54 range of fire alarm standards.

The LPCB only produces loss prevention standards when no national or international standard(s) are available or published standards do not adequately cater for the needs of relevant stakeholders.

In this case, published and latest draft revisions of BS EN 50136 and BS EN 50131 do not fully address the needs of specifiers operating in the UK. For example, the need to recognise the ATS requirements of BS 8243 (formally DD 243), a Code of Practice dealing with the generation and transmission of confirmed alarm conditions.

By evaluating ATS products in a comprehensive, impartial and objective manner, irrespective of the technology used, a level playing field is created. This allows specifiers to select ATS by generic performance requirements rather than by particular provider or product, and so avoids uncertainty over the nature of individual ATS products and their key performance parameters.

Focusing on Annex C

In addition to outlining clear performance requirements, LPS 1277 contains (in Annex C) guidance for equipment installers which the suppliers of LPS 1277 Issue 3.0 approved ATE are required to include in their installation instructions.

This guidance covers good ATS installation and configuration practices, and clarifies current installation standards.

For example, it defines what should be considered as site network equipment (ie any part of the alarm transmission equipment or other equipment in the end user’s premises which is key to the normal functioning of the ATS).

The guidance aims to ensure that clear identification and adequate protection will help to minimise the risk of criminal compromise or accidental disconnection.

Annex C is only a means of drawing good practice to the installer’s attention, as ATE suppliers are clearly not able to take responsibility for the actions of installers. However, an alarm company claiming to have installed LPS 1277-compliant signalling must feel an obligation to be able to demonstrate that it has paid some regard to the supplier’s installation instructions.

Also, other specifiers such as insurers and end users may make adherence to Annex C a formal part of their requirements.

Many of the issues tackled by LPS 1277 Issue 3.0 are likely to be relevant to insurers, and are highlighted in the recently published RISCAuthority Guide S15 – Security – ‘Guidance on evaluating the performance of alarm transmission systems for use with intrusion and hold-up alarm systems’.

Comparing the features of LPS 1277 with Appendix C (Summary of BS/EN issues) of the RISCAuthority guide clearly illustrates how the LPCB approval scheme can ease much of a specifier’s work and concerns when considering the performance and reliability of an ATS and its related alarm transmission equipment.

The text of Appendix C is reproduced below with the kind permission of The RISCAuthority. A copy of its full Guide S15 can be downloaded from https://www.riscauthority.co.uk

Key questions and answers

Should a level of ATS availability be required?

Availability is a key performance parameter for any alarm transmission system (ATS): without an operational network no message can be sent.

The LPCB approval scheme recognises this and requires that availability be measured at the time of testing, based on the framework in BS EN 50136, which had been missing from EN 50131-1.

The resulting performance parameter [A] of measured availability is displayed in the Red Book listing. It’s checked annually and, if appropriate, updated.

Are claims of the percentage of time that an ATS is available based only the period an associated alarm system is set, or on the combined period of set and unset states?

In LPS 1277 the percentage of time that an ATS is available is based on the entire time the ATE remains powered, which includes both set and unset states.

Is a dual path ATS one with two different ATS, or one ATS with two paths?

LPS 1277 clarifies that a dual path ATS is one ATS with at least two paths of different technologies, each capable of performing fully in place of the other. The Red Book product listing entries declare the number of transmission paths available and their associated technology type (eg PSTN, Broadband or GPRS, etc).

In dual path ATS should the ‘main ATS’ fault reporting time be taken as applying to the whole ATS or the primary path only?

The reporting time of the secondary transmission path of dual path ATS is permitted to be longer (ie less frequent check signals) when in standby mode, provided the primary transmission path is fully operational. LPS 1277 requires that the reporting time of the secondary path ‘steps up’ to that of the primary path should the primary path be lost.

By way of information for the specifier, the actual fault reporting performance measured during testing to LPS 1277 is shown in the Red Book listing by the corresponding parameter [T] for each combination of path failure.

If an ATS has two paths, should the secondary path…

• be capable of fully matching (stepping up) its performance level to match that of the primary once the primary is lost?
• be permitted to have a longer fault reporting time when in stand-by mode?
• be actively checked for correct operation immediately upon loss of the primary, or be passively assumed to be operational pending expiry of the ‘stepped up’ fault reporting time?
• be able, through immediate checking within a defined short period, to quickly contribute to a designation of catastrophic (total) ATS failure?
• have a defined period of operation in ‘stepped up’ mode?

A fundamental requirement of the LPS is that the secondary path will step up to match the performance of the primary path in the event of primary path failure.

In fact, all the performance parameters associated with the secondary path should normally be the same as those of the primary, with the exception that checking of the path integrity (eg polling) can be performed less frequently while the primary is fully operational. Checking the integrity of the secondary less frequently can significantly reduce the running costs associated with an ATS.

In order to meet the reporting time requirements of LPS 1277 for the different combination of path failures, the secondary path must be actively checked immediately on detection of failure of the primary path.

An additional short duration is permitted for detection of catastrophic ATS failure (30s for enhanced ATS 5 and 60s for enhanced ATS 4Plus and below).

The introduction of the requirement to detect and report catastrophic failure is denoted in LPS 1277 by the term ‘enhanced’ ATS performance (e.g. enhanced ATS 5), thus differentiating the performance levels of LPS 1277 from those of the current EN standards.

Clause 5.2 of LPS 1277 requires the ATS to remain in the ‘stepped up’ mode for a minimum of 96 hours which is intended to allow for extended weekend periods.

If a duplicate primary path exists should it…

• be capable of fully matching the performance level of the primary once the primary is lost?
• require any background checks when not in use?
• be checked for correct operation immediately upon loss of the primary, and if so within or outside the primary path fault reporting time?
• have a defined period of operation when in use?

The purpose of a duplicate path is to add extra resilience, for example by operating two primary paths simultaneously. If communication over one of the primary paths ceases momentarily, as can happen with a GPRS radio link due to changes in atmospheric conditions, then the duplicate primary carries on working. Theoretically there has been no loss of the primary path and, therefore, no need to ‘step up’ the secondary path reporting.

During testing to LPS 1277, the performance of any duplicate path is measured to confirm that it does match that of the designated primary path (or if applicable, secondary path).

In the event of failure of the primary path, the LPS requires any duplicate primary path to immediately take over within the primary path reporting time. Checking of the duplicate primary path, by polling or equivalent means, will then commence at a rate sufficient to maintain the fault reporting time at least equal to the performance of the claimed ATS rating of the primary path.

Once checking of the duplicate primary path is initiated, its fault reporting time will persist until any primary path fault is cleared and normal service resumes, or a period of 96 hours elapses (whichever is the sooner) – in which case a suitable path failure report will be passed to the AE.

In either case, the duplicate path reporting function is then permitted to return to normal.

There is no requirement to check availability, correct operation or operational communication of the duplicate path while the primary path is functioning correctly. If both the primary and duplicate paths have failed the ATS is expected to revert to operation on the secondary path in ‘stepped up’ mode.

An examination of fault reporting times

If the fault reporting times of an EN Grade 3 dual path ATS are not generally considered adequate, what alternative figure should be followed?

A new ‘enhanced’ ATS performance level has been added to LPS 1277 Issue 3.0 – ATS 4Plus. This provides a ten-minute reporting time which bridges the gap between the five-hour reporting time of ATS 4 and three minutes associated with ATS 5 (as specified by EN 50136-1-1:1998).

Albeit the new revision of EN 50136 attempts to reduce the gap, but at 30 minutes this is still considered too long. Realistically, ten minutes represents the maximum amount of time that primary path failure should be tolerated. If set longer, any related criminal event is increasingly likely to have concluded by the time a response arrives.

Should the fault reporting times of each path be determined by end-to-end polling or site ATE?

LPS 1277 requires fault reporting of each transmission path to be determined by end-to-end polling or background checking, rather than relying on potentially vulnerable site ATE to monitor the path integrity/availability. Local site monitoring may be used in addition to end-to-end monitoring to provide early warning of a failure, or as a means of assisting with identifying the location of a fault.

Local site monitoring may only confirm that there is a line voltage present at the point of network connection on a PSTN line, for example, or that the radio signal to the nearest GSM base station is present. Whereas end-to-end polling or background checking ensures the entire transmission path between the ARC and secure premises transceiver is functioning.

Are key aspects of ATE fitting instructions and ATS configuration parameters suitably drawn to installers’ attention?

Supplied fitting instructions are assessed during the evaluation test programme to ensure they contain the information to correctly install the ATE. It is a requirement of the LPCB approval scheme that any installer configurable parameters must be included in the fitting instruction or similar documentation.

Is sufficient advice given to installers on identifying and protecting site network equipment?

Annex C of LPS 1277 provides good practice guidance to installers, and includes advice on identifying and protecting of site network equipment.

What protocols exist to ensure ATE/ATS with viable performance parameters are provided in a recognised (‘grade’) default configuration and suitably authorised by end users if set up by installers differently to the default, or later changed from it?

LPCB approval requires any system configurable parameters* (ie those usually implemented by the ARC) required for compliance with the designated enhanced performance levels of LPS 1277, to be defined. The details shall be made available on request to facilitate checking of the system configuration.

*Some ATS require configuration settings be made to the application software which may be located at the ARC. These settings define the reporting times and other key functions of the ATS and may be in addition to the configuration settings made at the secure premises transceiver (SPT) by the installer.

Guidance provided in Annex C of LPS 1277 reminds the installing company of its obligation to advise the end user that, where the performance of the secure premises transceiver is capable of being changed after installation, such changes will be confirmed in writing by the customer (with the relevant notification stating that any such change is compatible with the risk assessment and/or the requirements of any interested party, for example an insurer).

What protocols exist to ensure that ATS messages are immediately passed to the ARC AE (and thus an operator) for action?

Such protocols are normally a function of the management procedures in place at the ARC.

However, LPS 1277 requires that any message holding feature as supplied is disabled by default, with a reminder in Annex C that enabling message holding is by written agreement involving all associated parties.

LPS 1277: building on the basics of the EN Standards

In summary, LPS 1277 has built on the basic requirements of the EN standards with the following:

• the detection of faults on transmission paths determined by end-to-end polling/background checking
• a ten-minute reporting time classification via ‘enhanced’ ATS 4Plus
• ‘stepped up’ reporting of the secondary transmission path when the primary has been lost is to be operated for at least 96 hours
• confirmation of the time to detect a fault in the event of catastrophic failure – for example, a fault in the power supply circuitry of the secure premise transceiver, where communication over both the primary and secondary paths immediately stops
• the recognition of duplicate transmission paths
• testing performed over a ‘live’ network to confirm performance in ‘real world’ conditions (the parameters derived from these tests are displayed in the Red Book listing, giving the specifier information about the actual performance that can be achieved)

The LPS also provides clear ‘good practice’ installation guidance in Annex C, supporting the information given in the BS EN 50131 series of standards.

Adding to the UK’s alarm signalling requirements

LPS 1277 has added clarity to the UK’s alarm signalling requirements, but its core criteria remain deeply rooted in BS EN 50131 and BS EN 50136. It can be argued that the scheme both supports the use of European Standards and encourages their continued development.

The LPCB approval scheme ensures continued compliance with the standards through regular checking of the approved product and auditing of the quality management systems at its place of manufacture.

Being better informed about ATS requirements, coupled with the use of a recognised scheme for objective assessment, will help specifiers to select ATS in general – and specifically to ensure their performance and reliability is appropriately matched to the (risk assessed) nature of the alarm systems with which they are used.

To download a free copy of the LPS 1277 standard and view Red Book listings visit the Red Book website.

WebWay: Securing the advantage

For national retailers alarm signalling is a critical and expensive component of premises protection. The annual cost of alarm signalling, security maintenance and event management is considerable using analogue telephone lines. Costs can be reduced using digital communications technology. National multi site retailers have realised that the annual cost of alarm signalling, security maintenance and event management is considerable when using analogue telephone lines. Digital networks enable multiple applications to use the same line without interruption, saving interference and high ongoing costs.

Customers such as the Co-operative Group, have made savings by installing WebWay in over 1000 locations. Other customers include Travis Perkins, Dixons Group and Mothercare.

The ongoing savings of a migration to digital are compelling, but new value can also be realised. The following features are benefits for digital migration.

Detecting catastrophic failure

UK insurers and professionals have recognised the critical base component of the ATS is the detection of a catastrophic failure.

European intruder alarm standards introduced a system of “Grading” from 1 (lowest security) to 4 (highest security). In general terms only Grade 2 and 3 intruder alarm systems are relevant.

The EN50136 standard also defines “Grades” for signalling systems, with the key parameters being encryption, substitution protection and the reporting time of faults/attacks on the communications networks.

The flaw in the European standards for Graded signaling is that even at the highest Grade (4), the failure of the communication device, both networks or a disaster at the alarm receiving centre would not be detected for 5 hours. At Grade 3 and 2 this time to detect lengthens to 24 hours.

UK insurance and industry best practice recognises that this time gap is too long and the LPS1277 Issue 3 scheme tests alarm transmission system to the following parameters:

New terms and detection:

Shared network

Digital communications are designed for multiple applications to use the same line without interruption or interference. The security systems can share the digital line (broadband/ADSL or other) simultaneously with no need for separate circuits.

Combined signalling

The digital security communicator reduces the number of lines required. Intruder, fire, BMS, EAS plus other security and retail applications can all be connected to a single device.

No dial up cost

There are no dial up processes or call charges for broadband enabling the transmission of all data from the alarm systems.

Lower cost network monitoring

Analogue systems require equipment at the local exchange and/or a centralised host computer. The host distributes alarms to the required Alarm Receiving Centre over digital networks. The digital Alarm Transmission System (ATS) does not require this infrastructure to convert from analogue to digital and is less expensive to operate.

Reduced site visits

Because the digital ATS transmits the exact alarm the security system has generated, rather than a simple interpretation, alarm reports are greatly enhanced. Events can be audited remotely and faults can be diagnosed for a first visit fix.

Secure remote maintenance

The digital ATS encrypts data to higher standards than analogue technology. Remote access is more controlled and secure. UK and European security standards state that remotely maintained systems may be visited once a year, rather than twice for visited premises.

Download Pathway August 2011.