Indeed, it would be true to say that over the past few years an all-new industry has materialised, built largely around the exploitation of digital processing technology for security applications (and, in particular, video surveillance).
Although initially technology-driven, this industry has rapidly moved on to meeting the needs of end users who are now demanding the same sort of increase in performance and productivity which they derived from their IT systems years ago.
That's all well and good, but the IT and CCTV industry cultures are radically different, and thus it's fascinating to try and predict what might happen when they meet... Will they work hand-in-hand, or battle head-to-head?
The very latest development in the rise of digital CCTV systems is the concept of Ethernet CCTV (also known as video-over-IP, networked video and IP video surveillance – take your pick). This is a direct result of the fact that CCTV is merging with IT systems.
By the way, the IP stands for Internet Protocol, and is actually a shorthand for TCP/IP or Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol – the catchy name thought up by the people who invented Ethernet networking at Xerox Parc many years ago. It defines a standard way of formatting packages of data for transmission over an Ethernet network, and has become a standard for the Internet, too. Partly because of this, many people tend to assume that all IP-based systems are Internet systems, which is clearly not the case.
More and more end users have medium-to-large network systems, and their IT managers are familiar with the technology which supports them. Increasingly, end users will want to exploit the investment they have made in both equipment and staff training. Therefore, if CCTV can be tied-in somehow then so much the better. Eventually, a camera will simply become another device which is plugged into the network. Longer term, there will be a drive towards the integration of CCTV, access control, fire and safety systems and general management information systems.
How will all of this happen, though? And when will it occur, exactly?
Ethernet is the future – or is it?
A walk around any security exhibition these days (this year's IFSEC being a classic example) would be enough to convince most end users that there's a proliferation of networked video products out there. There's also a good many bold statements being made about the potential of video-over-IP networks.
Let's take a closer look at some of the claims being made and try to separate the substance from the froth. What about the claimed advantages? In terms of cabling, you can use existing structured cabling to set up your system. True... if cabling already exists, that is. It's alleged to be simpler and more cost-effective to set up your system. Again, that's true if cabling exists. Cabling can carry audio, video, control, alarm, time and date and multiples thereof on a single cable. This is true, and is a major plus, but some of the claims about numbers of video channels on a single network are overly optimistic to say the least!
Video-over-IP is said to be flexible. You can input audio or video anywhere on the network. Again that's true – subject to the whims of your IT department – and is a huge advantage. Similarly, end users are also able to output anywhere on the network.
What of the digital systems themselves? Well, the signals are digitised at or near the cameras, such that there's no further signal loss or interference, no termination issues and no earthing problems. This is partially true, but requires more technical development of products. 'Better integration' is also much-touted as a benefit: better integration, that is, with access control, digital recorders, transmission systems, fire and safety systems and management information systems. That's only true, however, if and when manufacturers make their software compatible.
Better access and a high degree of scalability. Any substance there? True, there will be local and remote access to live and recorded data from multiple points with standard IT equipment (ie PCs). It's also true to say that networked systems will indeed be highly scalable in contrast to the rigid structures and poor scalability of analogue systems.
Now let's take a look at some of the disadvantages of video-over-IP which, understandably, are not often highlighted by the vendors of such equipment.
There's usually a high cost per camera to convert video for network transmission (having said that costs will come down at some point, and are somewhat application dependent).
In terms of the cameras themselves, the use of models with a built-in network port reduces application areas due to restricted choice of sensor and camera performance. This situation will change over time. Meantime, the software available for control, management and recording of images is quite limited, requiring considerable expertise for initial setting up.
Video-over-IP is said to be flexible. End users can input audio or video anywhere on the network. That’s true – subject to the whims of your IT department – and is a huge advantage. Similarly, end users are also able to output anywhere on the network. N
Evolution, not revolution
There are good, solid reasons for the rapid – some would say explosive – uptake of digital video recording systems. There's no tapes to change, instant access to recordings is viable, remote access is available, there's flexible recording schedules with automatic audit trail generation and Data Protection Act compliance is made somewhat easier. Question is, are there similarly good and concrete reasons for the uptake of video-over-IP?
The answer is a firm "maybe", but not enough people understand the reasons yet. Is there a compelling reason why users will convert to networked video systems? The answer to this is that they will not! Instead, Ethernet CCTV will evolve as end users exploit it for what it is. A cost-effective add-on to existing CCTV installations.
Some of the claims about networked video have a good deal of substance. Given that the technology is developing fast, why are there so few 'real world' applications as yet? An obvious answer on one level is that there's a distinct lack of end user awareness of the potential of networked video surveillance systems.
As we've already seen, one of the strongest claims made for networked systems is that they can make good use of cabling and equipment already in use in corporate networks. In my opinion, this is a complete misconception. In truth, responsible IT managers are simply NOT going to allow networked CCTV and control systems to use unknown quantities of precious network bandwidth which could, if not strictly controlled, bring corporate networks to a halt.
Unlikely? No. It's already happened in a couple of cases which became the subject of much gossip in the industry a year or so ago.
The deployment of networked video systems will be helped by the fact that IT managers are highly familiar with network concepts, equipment and maintenance. Networked CCTV will not frighten them so long as distinctly separate parts of their networks are set-up for dedicated security use. At the appropriate control points, these may be safely linked to the corporate network such that the security data can be made available to those with the proper authority wherever they are located within the corporate system.
There's also a general lack of installer expertise out there. Thus they're reluctant to sell the concept to their customers (if indeed they understand it in the first place). Many installers are still coming to terms with digital video recorders – which already introduce a networked element into their installation projects. Further to this, installers have little knowledge of the specific network products available, and what they could do for their end user client base.
None of this is meant as a criticism of CCTV installers, as they can't be expected to know everything straight away. It's just that the world is changing, and they must (like the rest of us) stay one step ahead of the game. This is where a clash of cultures is highly significant – an area which we'll turn to in due course.
The lack of good network video recorder systems which can seamlessly integrate with digital video recorders (and which record analogue cameras directly) is a further factor holding back networked installations.
Surveillance over the Internet
At this point I'd like to draw a clear distinction between video-over-IP systems using closed networks and systems designed to use the Internet. There appears to be no end of confusion about this (end users who've sussed it already are invited to skip over the next few lines of text!).
Video-over-IP systems transmit video, audio and other data over networks which include local cabling within a building, for example, and long-distance cabling which might consist of leased fibre optic cables between two or more sites. Another method of linking systems is dial-up networking, whereby an ISDN or standard telephone line is brought into play. This DOES NOT involve the Internet! The end user dials direct to the site in question, links to it and views /records/controls or does whatever it is he or she needs to do.
By definition, Internet-based video surveillance systems are accessible through the Internet and (potentially) available to anyone with an Internet connection. In this case the CCTV system is permanently connected to the Internet through some kind of server (either by being a server itself, or through an Internet service provider).
OK, I accept that with the proper precautions such as encryption, user names and passwords an Internet video surveillance system can be made reasonably secure, but why bother connecting your security system to the Internet when you could dial directly into it?
To me, this would seem a strange thing to do. Spend a lot of money on a video surveillance system to provide security, deterrence and (possibly) management information, and then go and connect it with the world. It's easy to understand the domestic appliances of such technology – watching your house while you're away on holiday by checking on it from an Internet café, for example – but connecting a professional CCTV installation to the Internet is simply asking for trouble. What is the aspiring hacker going to choose to tap into? Some boring database, or a juicy CCTV system with lots of pictures and security data all over the place?
In truth, the actual terminology defines it. CCTV stands for 'closed-circuit' television cameras as opposed to 'broadcast' television which goes out over the air to anyone with a television receiver. LAN or WAN networked video systems are the equivalent of CCTV, while Internet surveillance systems are the equivalent of broadcast systems. The whole selling point of Internet-based systems is that they can be accessed from anywhere in the world. To me, that's not the best basis for a security system.
As the technology develops and the support expertise begins to grow, so networked CCTV will come to dominate the industry and provide benefits to end users far beyond anything achieved with traditional analogue systems... but it will take some time before
How are CCTV installers going to keep up with all this new technology and maintain and develop their businesses? They'll need to learn new skills and expertise in networking technology within their companies, probably by hiring IT and network-literate staff.
Currently, a great many IT personnel are out of work due to the severe downturn in the telecoms and IT industries. However, pay differentials between the IT world and the security world are steep.
Are there any SMT readers out there who can think of a security manager that's paid more than the IT manager in the same organisation? The differences are likely to be very similar on the installation side of the equation.
When it comes to managing projects, IT people take quite a different approach. They can be ultra-cautious, and like to plan and schedule everything out to the last detail. Again, this is no criticism of either CCTV installers or IT departments as they have their own priorities and requirements.
Installing a CCTV system has traditionally been a very separate task. While there may be considerable physical upheaval in such installations, it doesn't normally affect the day-to-day running of the end user's business. In stark contrast, IT installations and upgrades often affect the very core of a business – as the entire business is managed and run with IT systems. Thus IT projects tend to be longer in the planning, far more pre-testing and pilot installations are carried out and, very often, the projects themselves will run over long periods.
IT approaches to project management
As networked video installations become more common, and IT departments become deeply embroiled, so the IT approach to project management will strongly affect the way in which they are handled.
One effect might be that network CCTV installers may wait even longer for payment than the already long lead times to which they've become accustomed!
With networked video, installation projects are likely to be on the larger side, taking longer to complete to everyone's satisfaction. Coupled with the careful IT-based approach to project management, CCTV installers will need to find the finances to bid for such projects or avoid them entirely.
For their part, manufacturers have their own role to play. They must make their CCTV systems far easier to both set up and use. To make this successful, manufacturers will be required to have a clear understanding of the market, sympathy and support for the CCTV installer, be able to talk the language of the IT manager and deliver excellent all-round technical advice. This is no mean feat, as large networked systems can be complex animals.
It's not all bad news, though...
On the upside, the potential market for networked video applications is huge. The flexibility, better integration and remote accessibility of networked video security systems all provide enormous advantages for end users, in particular the larger corporations. As the technology develops and the support expertise grows, so networked CCTV will grow to dominate the industry and provide benefits to end users far beyond anything achieved with traditional CCTV systems... but it will take time.
So who will be first against the wall? Well, a number of manufacturers of CCTV network devices for a start, as the cruel reality of market forces begins to shake out those who have overestimated how fast such technology will be taken up and underestimated how easy to install it must be. Almost certainly, a large number of CCTV installers will experience difficulties in taking on this new technology as they struggle with new concepts, a lack of networking expertise and the cashflow problems associated with more complex projects and extended completion times.
On the bright side there are fantastic opportunities unfolding for all – be they manufacturers, consultants, systems integrators or installers – who fully embrace networked systems, understand the technology and the potential, and make an effort to establish and maintain close working relationships with their customers, suppliers and the end user who's paying for it all.
Source
SMT
Postscript
Alastair McLeod is managing director of Visimetrics (UK)
No comments yet