Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

  Reply # 73599 6-Jun-2007 11:09
Send private message

Phin: ...All the installation information tells you to connect the alarm first in the line.

The reason they recommend this is so that the Alarm Panel can "seize the line".  This means that it can interrupt the connection of any telephone devices in the house before going "On Hook" for a short time.  Then the modem will go "Off Hook" and dial out.  So it will still work if somebody left a phone off the hook somewhere, or they are talking on the phone when the alarm goes off.

At least, that's the way it works with a monitored alarm panel which dials OUT whenever there is a change of state.  In your case where you have to dial IN, it is a little bit different because if one of the phones in the house is already "Off Hook" it won't be possible for the alarm to answer.

Phin: ...I think the problem lies in timing issues  within the Voip protocol.

Yes, I agree with you there.  However, trying to run analogue modems over a digital network is not a good way to be doing things in the 21st century.

It is now the responsibility of alarm panel manufacturers to provide an Ethernet port as alternate access for those homes with Naked DSL -- or no landline at all -- which is going to be increasingly common in the future.

21383 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4333

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 73605 6-Jun-2007 11:39
Send private message

Grant17:
Yes, I agree with you there. However, trying to run analogue modems over a digital network is not a good way to be doing things in the 21st century.

It is now the responsibility of alarm panel manufacturers to provide an Ethernet port as alternate access for those homes with Naked DSL -- or no landline at all -- which is going to be increasingly common in the future.


They already exist, just need to work on the price. When it costs them stuff all to integrate a cheap low speed modem on the alarm board, any IP connectivity will add to the cost of the alarm, its just at the moment the IP board costs more then most complete alarm systems do.

I have never thought it was a good idea to have alarm monitoring reliant on a cable thats easily accessible on the side of most buildings, and gsm alarm backup is even more expensive then the IP connectivity. Also its still call based rather then using gprs or 3g. When I asked the guy I was going to get an alarm off why that was it was just that the monitoring centers are firmly stuck in the dark as to what people want, and still rely on phone calls rather then an always up connection.




Richard rich.ms

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

  Reply # 73609 6-Jun-2007 11:55
Send private message

richms: They already exist, just need to work on the price. When it costs them stuff all to integrate a cheap low speed modem on the alarm board, any IP connectivity will add to the cost of the alarm, its just at the moment the IP board costs more then most complete alarm systems do.

Well, then somebody is ripping us off here...

I can show you a small circuit board called an "Ethernet Enabler" which has an RS-232 port and a 10/100Base-T Ethernet port.  It connects via pin header and needs only a 5V power supply.

It comes with driver software which lets you set up a Virtual COM port on your PC so any monitoring software package thinks it is talking to a local COM port.

Cost is NZ$85 to $100 depending on quantity.  What could be easier and cheaper than that?

21383 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4333

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 73612 6-Jun-2007 12:12
Send private message

Thats not going to achieve alarm monitoring since they have to proactively connect to the alarm, which the centers are not capable of doing. The proper IP boards will connect out, they also do stuff like email out log files and other things that an $80 ethernet router is capable of, yet costs 10 times that on an alarm system.

I suggested a lantronix adapter to the OP to solve their problem since they are wanting to connect into the alarm, but that also will not solve the problem of getting it monitored via an alarm company in a manner that will get you your insurance discount.




Richard rich.ms

26931 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6373

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 73614 6-Jun-2007 12:31
Send private message

Alarm monitoring is a big cash cow for companies. Setting up an alarm concentrator is as cheap as chips - anybody can get a PC with a couple of phones lines and cheap modems can offer the service for virtually nothing.

Switching to an IP based alarm monitoring system costs money and also has increased costs for the provider. If you're running your monitoring over a CDMA or GPRS IP solution then you have the cost of providing the equipment, ongoing costs associated with the cellular unit and also need a need to have a reliable internet connection and also the software to handle this. None of this comes cheaply which is why nobody seems interested in moving on from the 20th century.

It's a move that will have to happen however, once naked ADSL appears on the scene and Telecom's NGN is rolled out there is going to be a move away from a phyical POTS connection.

3535 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

  Reply # 73616 6-Jun-2007 12:32
Send private message

richms: ...that also will not solve the problem of getting it monitored via an alarm company in a manner that will get you your insurance discount.

It's not necessary to have your alarm monitored in order to get a discount.

We get a discount on our contents policy just for having an alarm installed and in my case, I've set it up to dial my cellphone.  It then plays a siren noise and if I press a key on my cellphone, it cancels further calls, otherwise the alarm will keep on dialling every few minutes until it resets.

No fancy modem needed there, just the ability to respond to DTMF signals which would work over any phone system, VoIP or otherwise.

3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

  Reply # 73652 6-Jun-2007 15:54
Send private message

Okay, this is what I did last night to make a modem work over VFX.  The modem in question is on an AC Neilson HomeScan system.  It is a 56k modem which dials an 0800 number.  It does not work when plugged streight into the VFX socket, it does not handshake with the server.  I have no idea what protocol they use, the only info I can find is that it is a 56k modem.  They also supply a specific ADSL line filter, saying they have had lots of trouble with other cheaper ones.

So I installed the ADSL line filter between the HomeScan modem and the VFX port, and all of a sudden the modem connects to the server and does all the handshaking and what not.  The purpose is not to filter out ADSL signals, but rather to act as a low pass filter so you do not have problems from difference in sample rate of the ADC and DAC conversions.

The filter can be connected any way round, does not matter, as long as one connection is to the "phone" socket and the other connection is to either the "modem" socket or the "line" connector (because the modem and the line connector is connected streight through).  Most likely the easiest is to connect to the "modem" and the "phone" sockets on the filter, else you need a female to female adaptor.

Anyone, please try it and let us know how it goes.  It works for me and I can explain why (it is not the position of the sun or moon).  When I have free time, I will do a proper writeup on why this works.  Started on it a few times today, desided I had better things to do (like work!).

By the way, I've also got the Lantronix XPort and WiPort modules (had been sitting here for more than a year).  Nice stuff, but it is too expensive for call centres to change technology.  Also, call centres do not do R&D and have little knowledge of how to implement this.




You can never have enough Volvos!




42 posts

Geek


  Reply # 73656 6-Jun-2007 16:02
Send private message

I think we have lost our way. The security people I have talked to say Ethernet enabled alarms are more prone to being hacked because of the always on status where as modems only respond when called and are easy to secure with maximum try's ect ect.
A simple serial adapter won't work for the above reasons, eg have to authenticate within a certain period of the call being placed ect ect. Kinda like dial up networking.
The modem is built into the alarm, 1 chip does it all, It,s a proprietary  chip and for obvious reasons you can get no information on programming.
The original question was will a modem work. According to the manufacture the alarm modem will work over Voip, tried and tested. How come I can get 56k dialup but not the alarm? they are both analog modems.
This leads me to believe that it is a VFX problem. According to the search on the net there is a specific protocol called mvoip which sorts these issue out.
I guess Vfx doesn't support this protocol.
Maybe one of the techs at vfx can answer the question, You need to provide legacy support for simple things like modems. There are lot's of equipment for one reason or another don't support Ethernet and Internet connections(security is a big reason).
Is Vfx doing any work in this area or are they not interested?
Has anybody found any successful solutions to getting modems to work At commands ect
Would tricking the ATA into t38 help if so how could you do this.
I'm not interested in Ethernet connections and or mobile solutions because they are just to expensive at this time.
regards




42 posts

Geek


  Reply # 73661 6-Jun-2007 16:10
Send private message

Niel: Okay, this is what I did last night to make a modem work over VFX. The modem in question is on an AC Neilson HomeScan system. It is a 56k modem which dials an 0800 number. It does not work when plugged streight into the VFX socket, it does not handshake with the server. I have no idea what protocol they use, the only info I can find is that it is a 56k modem. They also supply a specific ADSL line filter, saying they have had lots of trouble with other cheaper ones.

So I installed the ADSL line filter between the HomeScan modem and the VFX port, and all of a sudden the modem connects to the server and does all the handshaking and what not. The purpose is not to filter out ADSL signals, but rather to act as a low pass filter so you do not have problems from difference in sample rate of the ADC and DAC conversions.

What brand was the filter, tried a dse one with no success.

3594 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 79

Trusted
WorldxChange

  Reply # 73664 6-Jun-2007 16:50
Send private message

The original question was will a modem work. According to the manufacture the alarm modem will work over Voip, tried and tested. How come I can get 56k dialup but not the alarm? they are both analog modems.

This leads me to believe that it is a VFX problem. According to the search on the net there is a specific protocol called mvoip which sorts these issue out.
I guess Vfx doesn't support this protocol.

Maybe one of the techs at vfx can answer the question, You need to provide legacy support for simple things like modems. There are lot's of equipment for one reason or another don't support Ethernet and Internet connections(security is a big reason).
Is Vfx doing any work in this area or are they not interested?

Has anybody found any successful solutions to getting modems to work At commands ect
Would tricking the ATA into t38 help if so how could you do this.




Sorry but I have been extremly busy at the moment, now this topic is hugely compliacted and will take some time to explain and I will not be going through everything, the major issue is Fax or Modem over VOIP, now there are a large number of factors which effect both of these services, from line rate, noise, dtmf detction , jitter , latency, A to D conversion, hardware , protocols etc ,  Firstly let me say yes we do care and thats why primarily our intend has been to get Fax working Nationally over VOIP and we believe that it is working pretty well at present, it is not 100% but generally works well, In some cases modems may also work but to a much lesser scale,  Try using Fax over some other VOIP providers and do some comparsions, I'm sure ex italk user's will confirm that fax never works....in saying that we are looking to improve performance all the time there are a mydrid of things that need to be looked at, changing one single parameter can effect how national faxing works and when you have multiple carriers where some support T38 some don't , some will do Alaw some Ulaw you then have major problems for FAX and Modem traffic.
 
mvoip does not sort these types of issues out , t38 does not sort these issues out, different CPE implentations also compounds the issue as well, our prime focus has been Voice but we have put a lot of effort into supporting Fax nationally which works pretty well,  we will continue to work on other modem / international issues but they are a lower priority at present as the demand is actaully not high, dosn't mean we are not interested it just means it's ongoing




Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well Wink

             

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 77

Trusted

  Reply # 73682 6-Jun-2007 18:39
Send private message

Phin:
Niel: Okay, this is what I did last night to make a modem work over VFX. The modem in question is on an AC Neilson HomeScan system. It is a 56k modem which dials an 0800 number. It does not work when plugged streight into the VFX socket, it does not handshake with the server. I have no idea what protocol they use, the only info I can find is that it is a 56k modem. They also supply a specific ADSL line filter, saying they have had lots of trouble with other cheaper ones.

So I installed the ADSL line filter between the HomeScan modem and the VFX port, and all of a sudden the modem connects to the server and does all the handshaking and what not. The purpose is not to filter out ADSL signals, but rather to act as a low pass filter so you do not have problems from difference in sample rate of the ADC and DAC conversions.

What brand was the filter, tried a dse one with no success.


This is the one: http://www.infortek.co.nz/catalogue/product.aspx?449
It looks like a cheapie, no name on it.  The only identification is Telepermit PTC 280/02/002.  But my DSE XH7556 also does the job for my application.  When I get a chance, I will test my D-Link filter as well.




You can never have enough Volvos!


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.