sundance-communications.com/forum Forums Wiring - Telecom Carriers - Trunks & Services Telecom Service & Providers test results / voip

This is taken from an alarm forum. The writer did multiple sets of 100 tests of an alarm system, using various voice media: (I have added some comments)

"Just my 2 cents about voip vs pots. I think everyone agrees that a POTS line is the best form of security. BUT in today's world of cheaper phone service it needs to be a item of discussion. For the last few years VOIP alarm transmission have been on the rise. From discussing the matter with many security companies as well as customers i have put together some interesting statistics. In my office I have verizon phone service. Because the price was so cheap i also got a cable modem, vonage, and sunrocket. With a average alarm system in my office we set off the same alarm, same zone 100 times on each service. We did this in a central station so we could get a clear picture of whats happening.

Verizon was 99 out of 100.
Cable Modem was 85 of 100.
Vonage 71 out of 100
sunrocket 39 out of 100

the most common reason for the lack of transmission from the alarm system to the central station was that the alarm seemed confused about a phone being present.

(???? Not sure what he means here...could be he meant "dial tone" rather than "phone")


the other major failure was that the line never hung itself up so the alarm would time out and go into comm failure.

(No CPC)


There are a lot of other interesting stuff we found out.
On a side note all of the above carriers (not verizon) never informed us that they do not guarantee data transmission.
On a side note I would like to see a POTS line on a alarm. Alarm system owners forget that it is their security at stake. Hope this info helps."

(I believe that his results were skewed because he attempted multiple alarms in a short time frame, not allowing the VOIP lines -- without proper CPC -- to reset. In a real world, the alarm system would make one call, only, and not be affected by a tied-up line due to no CPC)

If you've ever been burned by fire or robbed after a break-in, then a conversation about "non-guaranteed" service is not only uninteresting, but a complete a waste of time.

I wonder how many people have really taken a POP tour. They're those nondescript buildings that are often made of brick. Rarely will you see signage, but you're sure to notice all the lightening arrestors that pepper the outline of the building.

Once inside (by appointment only), you'll have to pass through various levels of security. In many instances, I noticed that I could not travel into the adjacent room without first allowing the door behind me to close.

Then of course there are the batteries...lots and lots of batteries all tied together with thick, shiny bars of copper cut in right angles. Relay racks are hung on tubing rather than being firmly bolted to the floor. This allows them to swing during earthquakes (rather than shaken free from rigidly-mounted racks as the screw's thread gives way to the violent side-to-side shake). Equipment is no good once it's flung to the floor.

Sure, telcos screw our orders up all the time. But when it comes to reliablity, I feel that the traditional/incumbent telcos still very much care about reliablility.

Now take all that info and pair it with the local Fire Marshall's insistance that there STILL be two distinct true POTS lines for your fire alarm. What does that say to you? To me, it means that fire is costly, dangerous, scary and that it is probably the very worst way to die.

I will never have a conversation about second-rate telco service for anything that has to do with my life. Sorry if I sound like an a$$hole, but I feel that there are just certain things that you don't mess with.

To be clear Arthur, I'm unsure as to which is your commentary and which is straight from the other forum. Please don't interpret the rather strong feelings that I have about this topic as an attack against you personally.

In fact, it's important that you relay what others are saying about this sort of thing. Just as our forum is looked upon for advice, I'm sure that whatever alarm forum that you garnered this info from is respected as well (I haven't looked, but I hope it's not us).

And if you find that something I say makes a lot of sense, then feel free to repeat it. I don't care about credit as these are just ideas...none of which are truly owned by me.

I thought what I wrote was pretty clear, but I guess not.

1. The quote is from an alarm forum. My comments are in parenthesis.

2. I neither agree nor disagree with the original author's research, since it's his research and not mine.

3. I am a firm believer in ILEC service for alarms.

4. I am a fire marshal, as well as a phone guy.

Some alarm installers here are setting up internet monitoring (and I do not mean VoIP lines). The reasoning is that when a phone line goes out of service it may not always be noticed until it fails to notify on the next cycle. Internet monitoring is pretty much in real time and a loss of connection would be noticed almost immediately.

On another alarm situation: Our local weather (Tornado) sirens experimented with radio signaling until problems surfaced. They are now back onto POTS lines.

Bottom line: Our lives are the guinea pigs for the bean counters.

I know of a situation where a municipal sewage pump overflowed because the POTS line, which the auto-dialer used to notify the local police station when the sump became too full, became disconnected and nobody knew about it until it was too late.

(As to why it's programmed to notify the police station--they answer the phone 24 hours a day, the public works dept does not).

The person who engineered that alarm obviously did not understand the basics of safety and security. Every (unattended) alarm needs to be set up such that it communicates a test signal regularly. Just installing a simple auto-dialer, to be activated only during an alarm, instead of a real alarm panel, with redundant power and trouble/test capabilities, is silly.

It's telling, to me, that most sewage pump stations have UHF antennas on them, indicating that they are using radio for control.