Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

VOIP Phonelines for Fire Alarm dialout UPS?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gadfly56
    replied
    [QUOTE=MisterCMK;1168457]You will know of telco failures long before 24 hours. The panel will set a local trouble for phone line fail and it is up to the building occupants to do something about it at that point. Otherwise yeah, the daily test fail will be an indication that phone lines are down.[QUOTE]

    If, for some panels, the installation tech remembered to select "YES" for phone line monitoring. I've seen this not happen with Silent Knight IFP series panels

    With the IP communicator it will provide notification that it failed to communicate with the central station. The system will still work locally. This is why I always tell our customers to call the fire department themselves if there is a problem and not to rely solely on the communicator. More calls is better than none.
    Always a good idea. No question.

    Leave a comment:


  • MisterCMK
    replied
    Originally posted by gadfly56 View Post
    From what I've been told, they are trading off overall system reliability for early notification of the circuit path interruption. For the usual POTS line setup, you could wait as long as 24 hours before realizing that there was no connection between the central station and the FACP, assuming both lines went down at the same time. When the central station fails to receive a test timer, it will notify the responsible parties.

    If the central station is capable of getting information from Honeywell/FireLite's IP-DACT, for example, the receiver pings the IP-DACT every 7-15 seconds and you'll get notification in a hurry if anything goes down. This doesn't address the issue of what happens if there's a fire while everybody is trying to fix the Internet. I'm pretty sure that if the local fire official is notified (as he/she is supposed to be) that he'll require a fire watch by the premises owner.
    You will know of telco failures long before 24 hours. The panel will set a local trouble for phone line fail and it is up to the building occupants to do something about it at that point. Otherwise yeah, the daily test fail will be an indication that phone lines are down.

    With the IP communicator it will provide notification that it failed to communicate with the central station. The system will still work locally. This is why I always tell our customers to call the fire department themselves if there is a problem and not to rely solely on the communicator. More calls is better than none.

    Leave a comment:


  • dirtwheels
    replied
    Originally posted by love9099 View Post
    We have an installation that just switched all their lines to VOIP, they did not tell us about it and normally the panels self test every day. One day the VOIP system went down and we stopped getting test signals from the 10 buildings on site, later we found out it was due to the system shutting down and not being reset. They corrected this and now we are getting test signals. We are used to using Analog phone lines where we can set up line siezure using an RJ31X block. We contacted the State Fire Marshal and we were told VOIP was ok as long as it met the rest of the codes. The issue I see is they do not have a 24 hour battery backup UPS on their VOIP system to avoid the kind of problem that occured. Analog lines would not go down if there was a power outage. Can you help me with a code reference to support this UPS backup?
    Is your dialer listed as compatible with the phone line specs? If not no, the device used must be listed for the purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • gadfly56
    replied
    Originally posted by hbiss View Post
    This is from Cablevision's TOS as I was saying above:

    Cablevision does not support the use of Optimum Voice for Business as a connection between (i) medical alert systems, (ii) any high security monitoring systems (UL 681 or similar) or (iii) fire alarm systems (UL 864 or similar). and the central station monitoring Subscriber must maintain an alternate connection.

    I would further add that it won't make any difference if you are using the dialtone off a cable modem or the broadband internet connection. Both are subject to the same reliability issues. So I can't see under what conditions a UL approval for an IP communicator is possible.

    -Hal
    From what I've been told, they are trading off overall system reliability for early notification of the circuit path interruption. For the usual POTS line setup, you could wait as long as 24 hours before realizing that there was no connection between the central station and the FACP, assuming both lines went down at the same time. When the central station fails to receive a test timer, it will notify the responsible parties.

    If the central station is capable of getting information from Honeywell/FireLite's IP-DACT, for example, the receiver pings the IP-DACT every 7-15 seconds and you'll get notification in a hurry if anything goes down. This doesn't address the issue of what happens if there's a fire while everybody is trying to fix the Internet. I'm pretty sure that if the local fire official is notified (as he/she is supposed to be) that he'll require a fire watch by the premises owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • zbang
    replied
    Just to flog a dead equine- VoIP is Voice over IP, not any audio signal over IP. The only reason that fax's work is because the terminal adapters specifically recognise fax tones.

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    This is from Cablevision's TOS as I was saying above:

    Cablevision does not support the use of Optimum Voice for Business as a connection between (i) medical alert systems, (ii) any high security monitoring systems (UL 681 or similar) or (iii) fire alarm systems (UL 864 or similar). and the central station monitoring Subscriber must maintain an alternate connection.

    I would further add that it won't make any difference if you are using the dialtone off a cable modem or the broadband internet connection. Both are subject to the same reliability issues. So I can't see under what conditions a UL approval for an IP communicator is possible.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • zbang
    replied
    Originally posted by nhfire77 View Post
    Ultimately the phone line coming into the building is a single circuit (point of possible failure).
    In telco-speak, each POTS line, trunk, etc is a separate circuit. They may all be in a single cable, but they're considered separate. As for physical damage, yes, it can happen but isn't nearly as common as things like internet router crashes and such failures, and telcos are still known for quick repairs when a car takes out a 200pr cable. Redundant cable paths are available in some places, however you pay dearly for them so people accept the risk.

    Originally posted by nhfire77 View Post
    Wireless transceivers that use multiple wireless paths that are redundant are much safer that POTS lines. Sure the transceiver is a single point of possible failure, just like a POTS cable that can be cut. However all the POTS lines eventually go to a single point outside the building before hitting a central station. A wireless wireless mesh network does not need to rely on such a scheme. The system I use has a min of 4 and max of 8 available routes..
    I was referring to a single-span wireless link as are commonly used for Internet delivery (e.g. WiMAX). A purpose-built multi-path system is much preferable to any single-path system. Given the choice, I'd take the multi-point radio system, then copper POTS lines (or both), and only VoIP on a non-dedicated path if that was all that's available.

    Leave a comment:


  • nhfire77
    replied
    Originally posted by zbang View Post
    (Put all your comm on a single circuit, much less a single wireless link? Not my facility.)
    This is just my opinion.

    Ultimately the phone line coming into the building is a single circuit (point of possible failure). The cable could be damaged at the street, a pole carrying it could be hit by a truck and come down or the Telco CO/Switching station could be flooded and there would be no phone service for weeks (happened here last year). These are all single points of failure outside the building that could sever communications.

    Wireless transceivers that use multiple wireless paths that are redundant are much safer that POTS lines. Sure the transceiver is a single point of possible failure, just like a POTS cable that can be cut. However all the POTS lines eventually go to a single point outside the building before hitting a central station. A wireless wireless mesh network does not need to rely on such a scheme. The system I use has a min of 4 and max of 8 available routes.

    Maybe you were referring to GSM? That's another topic with its own challenges.
    Last edited by nhfire77; 02-16-10, 08:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nhfire77
    replied
    Originally posted by MisterCMK View Post
    Does the manufacturer of the communicator say that it will work with anything but plain old copper?
    Exactly, no FACP out of the box, without an additional device is compatible with VOIP. Ask any of the tech reps for any brand and they will tell you NO, it won't work

    Will it really work,? Maybe. Is maybe good enough for Fire?

    The 24 Hours of back up power of course is a huge issue, that until recently has been completely overlooked.


    Sell them a new form of communication.

    Try AES intellinet radios if the service is available in your area. No phone lines. Universal compatibility for any FACP! Ul 894 9th ed approved http://www.aes-intellinet.com/docume...788_TC_000.pdf

    Having control over your FACP communication... priceless for me, and it adds to the RMR.

    Leave a comment:


  • dbuckley
    replied
    Where I work we comission a new building every couple of years, and although all new buildings use VoIP for phones, and the BMS is now over IP, when the telecomms guys are laying their fibre they still throw in a fifty pair for lifts, FA etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • zbang
    replied
    Back in the day... every decent-size PBX out there would have a couple of POTS lines so that if the PBX failed or some/all of the trunk circuits went away, there was a path. There were also power-fail transfer boards so that when the PBX batteries finally died, those lines would cut straight over to plain analog phones.

    IMHO it's false economy to eliminate -all- 2-wire direct copper POTS lines from a facility. Even the best data centers and internet providers don't approach the relaibility of POTS. (Put all your comm on a single circuit, much less a single wireless link? Not my facility.)

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    We have an installation that just switched all their lines to VOIP,

    I think what you are really saying is that they changed to dial tone provided by a cable company via a cable modem. That may or may not be VoIP and shouldn't be called that, but at any rate that kind of situation shouldn't be confused with using something like the Fire-Lite IP communicator.

    So as for "cable company telephone", I believe if you can find and then dig deep enough into their terms of service you will find a disclaimer about the reliability of their service and that it may not function properly with alarm monitoring services. They recommend that it not be used with fire systems.

    I would further question the reliability of using a broadband connection, particularly that supplied by a cable company since it still relys on the same type modem and connection that provides dial tone. Further, the broadband service is dependent on the public internet.

    I can't be sure from what was posted, but the approval for use of an IP communicator such as the Fire-Lite may be dependent upon a dedicated IP internet connection directly to the central station, not the public internet unless there is a redundent backup. That would be the only thing sensible in my mind from a reliability standpoint.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • MisterCMK
    replied
    Does the manufacturer of the communicator say that it will work with anything but plain old copper?

    Leave a comment:


  • ryant35
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlon_S View Post
    Some manufacturers have UL approved internet communicators. This is an example:

    http://www.firelite.com/support/bull...LMU08-02-1.pdf

    They are not common and some municipalities may not like the idea, but they are approved. Plus, it save the customer money by not requiring them to have a dedicated phone line in some cases.

    Target stores now use this product to communicate with their own central station. They also use one of their VOIP lines as a back-up.


    I was discussing this with one of my contractors looking to replace the 2 phone lines in 50+ Vons stores with VOIP or an IP-DACT. I think it would be the end user's responsibility to use a reliable internet provider.

    One of the questions that came up was when you have 2 phone lines, they leave the building to the phone provider's service as 2 separate pairs of wires. Both lines on a VOIP leave on one T1, cable or DSL line. But on the other hand, if construction broke the phone lines they would probably break all of them them anyway. So mention that to the AHJ as an argument and then will they ask to have the phone lines provided in 2 separate locations of the building?

    There are problems and possible failure points in all 3 types of communication.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlon_S
    replied
    Fire Alarm Internet Communicators

    Some manufacturers have UL approved internet communicators. This is an example:

    http://www.firelite.com/support/bull...LMU08-02-1.pdf

    They are not common and some municipalities may not like the idea, but they are approved. Plus, it save the customer money by not requiring them to have a dedicated phone line in some cases.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X