jimcarter

Totally agree.

Thanks James....I'd agree that we don't really know what the affect of the new version on the market will be, but signs are that new installations will need to comply. I doubt very much that the old systems that do not meet the new version of LPS will require immediate replacement. They may in time, but this should not herald a mass change out. I think this is the fear of many people, and some of the current manufactures, but I also think that a more practicle approach will be taken.

It’s already been a long week having travelled to Leeds for an hour long (but very productive) meeting that spanned 8 hours in the car and plenty of time to think. No peace for the wicked as it is off to Helsinki tomorrow to meet with our partners ISS. I make no excuse to mention that we are currently replacing an old “National” PSTN based RedCARE type service for IP/GPRS. Domestics, SME’s, Corporate’s they’re all in there. The estate is already over the 3000 site mark and growing by several hundred systems per month. However, Certification and regulation has been on my mind this week. Now, I realise that many forum readers are in the “Un-regulated” sector of the market but even so, I think regulations and certification can help this sector as well as the “regulated” market. I meet with many installers of all sizes, and I think in general there is a good grasp of technology and a keen interest in things new. In my world, (Signalling) I think there is a lot of miss-information, but lets leave that alone for now. I read a post that suggested our UK market is over-regulated and that the rules were written for the sake of rules. I disagree. All of our European counterparts rely on the EN standards and prefer to recommend products that have been certificated. I think that where there are a number of different products or services available to an installer or client, the ability to specify something that has been independantly certified gives added value and credence to the advice that as a supplier you are providing. Just today I read a superb piece on info4security that described some of the positive aspects of regulation and certification. It is by Carl Gibbard who is MD of Concept Smoke Screen. The comments made are very comparable to my own experience of signalling regulation and the negativity around IP based systems. There is a link at the end of this piece. So whilst on this, you may have noticed that my company has just been acredited with LPCB approval for Fire. All well and good, and we are very pleased with this. However it is the forthcoming LPS1277 Certification (currently in Draft ) for Intruder Signalling that for me is the most eagerly awaited. LPS1277 is not new, and indeed in the past signalling providers have met and used this as their benchmark with regards to insurance approval. Their documentation relates to it, and their arguements against IP based systems have been based on lack of insurance approval etc. This is about to change, and it would appear, so too have the attitudes of analogue signalling providers to this accreditation scheme and the signs are that they are revolting against it. I wonder why? Finally, I read another comment regarding IP based signalling over PSTN. The “gist” being that Inspectors who have over 10 years experience specifying systems to clients based on risk still prefer and advise PSTN over IP. In my lifetime, and in particlar experience of telecommunications over 10 years (and more!) I have learned that experience is transitory. You should never stop learning and adding to your experience bank. A blind faith in old communications technology is a little like clinging to the railings of the Titanic, as she slips below the cold surface of the Atlantic and still firmly believing she is un-sinkable. Link to Carl Gibbard’s piece: http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=9&storycode=4126757&c=1