The legacy of UK intruder alarms

The British intruder alarms market has long been overdue for a shake-up. That shake-up will duly occur following the introduction – on 1 October – of European Standards for all new or refurbished alarm systems. There is another important factor at play in that UK practitioners are finally waking up to the reality of a cheaper, ‘future-proof’ alarm transmission alternative for the 21st Century.

That alternative is already waiting to end the perpetuation of BT’s virtual signalling monopoly created by RedCare, a system which is ageing, slow to adapt and noticeably more expensive than IP networks.

What is more, the older RedCare-style technology employed in the UK and across Europe may not yet meet some requirements of the now mandatory European Standards. Creaking at the seams, these systems no longer appear relevant in the context of growing corporate IP networks and Broadband ADSL take-up.

IP network technology has most certainly ‘come of age’ and can no longer be ignored. That said, while IP has largely been regarded as a medium primarily suited to the CCTV world, it can also be actively exploited for alarm monitoring and management. Besides delivering significant cost savings when compared with more traditional dial-up systems, alarm monitoring over IP also offers a variety of add-on service benefits.

In spite of this, a rather curious two-tier international market has developed wherein many end users, installers, insurers and alarm receiving centres (ARCs) in the UK have largely continued to use RedCare. The same is true of Sweden, where the Securinet system dominates, and in Norway (where Multicom is all-pervasive). In recent years, on the other hand, many European nations have forged ahead with Broadband IP connections. The underlying reason for this has been a faster roll-out of Broadband elsewhere in Europe, encouraged largely by significantly lower installation and operation costs than have been available here (until very recently, that is).

The distinct lack of a suitable, certified IP system for the British market has further hampered change in this country, while publicly-voiced concerns over issues including bandwidth capacity and the security of IP networks has also served to dampen demand. The big difference now, though, is that all of these related factors have been satisfactorily addressed and resolved, finally unlocking the key to the advantages inherent within current IP-based technologies.

Building blocks in place

While there remains some uncertainty about exactly how European alarm standards will impact on alarm signalling technologies, it’s clear that approval to this new benchmark represents a significant step forward in the UK.

In recognition of this, our own Iris system is the first to be independently certificated by two leading European test houses to the highest grade (ie Grade 4 ATS6) risk category under the European systems standards BS EN 50130, 50131 and 50136. The latter approval is interesting, since it involved Chiron providing proof of polling at 20-second intervals, and the reporting of any line faults or alarm conditions to an ARC within the same timeframe.

Compare that scenario with the RedCare system, which is said by BT to provide “instantaneous notification” of an event. In practice, though, it’s believed that this term doesn’t mean an event can be reported to the ARC within 20 seconds.

Moreover, as a result of the Application Guidelines that accompany the new European alarm standards, insurers will expect new and replacement systems for commercial premises to incorporate dual signalling – another area in which RedCare is found wanting.

While it may be true that the RedCare system uses GSM, this is slow, expensive and offers limited monitoring capabilities.

The all-new EN Standards for monitored alarm systems are quite specific in setting performance criteria for all systems, irrespective of whether they are PSTN-based, IP or radio-based, and define such characteristics as polling frequencies, response times, encryption standards, substitution prevention and alternate routing.

While we have lived for many years with telephony-based systems such as RedCare, and have considered them to be highly secure, the new European Standards raise an interesting question… Would these legacy systems meet the regulations introduced on 1 October?

Would RedCare still be thought of as ‘high security’ if measured against the new European Standards? For instance, can it meet the highest EN category of Grade 4 ATS6?

Perhaps, as a result of such important doubts, the Association of British Insurers should request an immediate evaluation of legacy systems currently operating in the UK.

IP: better than dial-up

IP is clearly an attractive medium for carrying alarm alerts and monitoring by dint of the fact that it offers a high speed ‘always on’ capability in combination with low costs. Many companies already boast established IP networks for their mainstream IT applications and, thus, the attraction of extending this to security is high.

Besides their comparative cost gains and quicker transmission of alarm signals to the ARC, IP alarm systems allow continuous monitoring of both the main and back-up communications routes (such as traditional ISDN/analogue paths, or optional GSM/GPRS routing). Remote alarm panel management may be carried out, saving on time-consuming site visits, while additional services such as SMS alerts direct to line managers are a further possibility and plus-point.

ARCs wanting to exploit the full benefits of modern security panels now find the traditional RedCare route both limiting and costly. They are increasingly interested in the potential to offer end users a wider range of additional services across IP

IP also offers end users an opportunity to seamlessly upgrade the scope and variety of information carried over their network, for instance by adding building management services telemetry for reporting on heating levels, water usage metering and freezer temperatures. This type of capability is easy to organise, adds extra value to the IP network and provides the sort of ‘future-proof’ element that is plainly missing from existing systems such as RedCare.

The new intruder alarm systems strategy launched by the British Security Industry Association’s Security Systems Section chairman Steve Kimber at this year’s IFSEC Exhibition states that advances in IP signalling techniques through a secure, managed network bring many opportunities to reconsider the component items constituting an intruder alarm system. Internal web cameras with integrated motion sensing, supplemented by voice-over-IP, could be the new motion sensors to replace TMDs. In other words, detectors which employ multiple sensors within one casing.

The introduction of remote servicing and diagnostics for alarm systems will also play a central role in identifying the causes and/or the potential causes for false alarms.

ARCs wanting to exploit the full benefits of modern security panels now find the traditional RedCare route both limiting and costly. They are increasingly interested in the potential to offer end users a wider range of additional services across IP, while there is considerable scope for increased integration between both video and alarm monitoring (as well as interfacing this equipment with access control systems to achieve a somewhat more holistic form of site protection).

The opportunity for these security systems to stop working in stand-alone mode and start interacting with each other – as well as in conjunction with other building management systems, as suggested by September’s Main Feature in Security Management Today (‘Physical and IT Security: Only Connect’, pp26-28, pp30-31 and pp33-34) – will allow a variety of operating efficiencies to be extracted from them, too.

The insurance logjam

A key element in progressing the implementation of alarm systems over IP lies in gaining insurers’ approval. Again, this has proved a sticking point in days gone by as a direct result of market inertia caused by the lack of an equivalent equipment approvals structure to that of mainland Europe.

Outside of the UK – in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and the Scandinavian nations – the situation is far more black and white. Essentially, unless the appropriate certification and label has been obtained for a product there (from a body such as VdS in Germany, SKAFOR in Scandinavia and INCERT in Belgium, or NCP for the Netherlands) the insurer will not underwrite it. That being the case, the manufacturer is therefore completely unable to sell the product or system, the installer cannot fit it on site and the end user is unable to realise any benefits.

Ironically, while some commentators regard this structure as being a more rigid one than exists in the UK, it does make everything much easier to understand and plan for in terms of meeting relevant approvals and insurance criteria. In Britain, the lack of a similar approvals structure and independent evaluation has meant that insurers have simply not had a baseline against which they could measure IP alarm transmissions.

That limitation on standards and a clear approvals mechanism within the UK is most certainly restricting the growth of new technologies, while the rest of Europe is powering ahead of us. Aided, in no small way, by a clear approvals system. Do we really want to fall so far behind while continuing to rely on outdated, monopolistic monitoring technologies? An easy question to answer.

Thankfully, certain developments are helping to unblock the market logjam in Britain. For instance, a national ARC has begun to convert one of its leading retail clients from dial-up links to IP. This represents a phased conversion programme involving all future High Street outlets opened by the retailer, as well as any branches that may be refurbished.

Many of the insurance companies now operate European-wide. In the absence of any clear industry lead on approvals, we will see these insurers approving – by default – new technologies they currently accept in Europe here in the UK.

On that basis, would it not be better to have the same clear system on home shores that currently exists in Europe?

IP: security and integrity

In essence, the reasons why insurers, ARCs and their commercial clients may be confident that IP networks are a suitable transmission medium for their alarm systems can be traced to satisfactorily answered questions surrounding the technology’s overall security and integrity, its operating resilience and bandwidth requirements. IT departments that are already using IP to route other data are understandably concerned that intruder alarm ‘traffic’ will not clog up the system. Likewise, end users and ARCs want reassurances that their networks will be protected.

A variety of technical issues on these topics have been resolved. In our own Iris system, for example, a high level of security and encryption of all communications is inherent. IP networks possess an inherent ability to adequately separate different signal types – such as voice, BMS, IT, access control, CCTV and alarms – that use the same transmission path in order to ensure that no interference or corruption occurs.

Alarms-over-IP is a field-proven signalling method that’s already being actively used by installers and ARCs across Europe for the benefit of many, many clients. Increasing numbers of end users are taking advantage of the speed, reduced cost and flexibility offered by IP networks, which themselves engender a range of monitoring possibilities. When integrated with CCTV and visual verification systems, they can also provide a variety of new services that promise better site security.

Voice-over-IP is set to turn the telephony market on its head by providing cheaper phone calls over Broadband. Just like the alarms-over-IP market, voice-over-IP has taken off far more quickly outside of the UK. It most certainly possesses the ability to provide better and cheaper services for end users, which is a point of fact that should not be lost on the practising security manager.