Search the Community

Hi guys! Hope everyone is well and enjoying the Christmas break! Firstly can I say thank you so much for providing me with great answers for some of my questions as I don't have many friends working in the CCTV sector it's great I have access to such a good forum. So I have another questions yet again which is that we mainly do installations for supermarkets and shops but not many restaurants and homes, and wanted to ask how people go about installing cameras on plastered walls and ceilings where fishing and wiring walls is a nuisance?

Is an unregulated industry the future? Companies that operate outside the parameters of the BS & EN standards but attempt to offer services within its scope are on the increase...nothing new you say.... ...yes thats true, what is new though is that growing sympathy is swelling for the unregulated and possibly these companies are even seen as forward thinking by some rightly or wrongly, although this debate will certainly cause conflict it does raise an important issue of how and why these companies can offten operate and offer the same services as the regulated? ACPO are currently discussing the growing number of calls for LWD attendance without URNs. At the same time there are companies claiming ACPO support and guaranteed police response without demonstrating accreditation. Unregulated security companies are falsely advertising as "Police approved", "secured by design approved" and claiming adherance to BS and EN standards, interesting, what is to stop these companies from operating in this manner? I have spoken with various people within the industry and it is apparent that there is a lack of faith in the current mechanism to ensure that only accredited companies achieve a police response. This could potentialy erode the legitamacy of our trade. Has has there been a lack of collaboration between trade bodies and inspectorates? Is there a risk that more companies will move to this unregulated, less costly approach? Are industry trade bodies approaching this issue robustly enough? Has your business been affected by unregulated trade?

　 Bigger = Better? Many barriers currently exist for businesses which are planning to run their own Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC). In the coming months we could potentially see some of those barriers crumble and a whole new way of doing business materialise. 　 　 Winners & Losers Traditionally setting up an ARC from scratch has been an expensive and time consuming process, which can rely upon expertise in the field to implement and is surrounded by very little shared information or open resources (ARCs for Dummies is not out yet). Existing ARCs face to lose out if more competition enters the fray and yet at the same time suppliers could benefit if more new business is generated. 　 Barriers So what exactly are the barriers to setting up a modern ARC? Building / Structure Buildings and structures must comply with specific requirements of the standards Equipment / Hardware In some cases specialist equipment may be required Communication Networks From voice communications to PSTN to IP via fibre links and all flavours in between AE Platforms Software packages used to monitor remote system Licensing / Accreditation Strict standards must be met in order to escalate calls to authorities Employees Skilled and capable staff are needed (You can automate some of this process but not all - yet Processes & Procedures You can have all of the above but without the correct procedures they will fall over Investment A large amount of money must be spent before you can earn a penny back If you think of any others please add them in a reply... 　 　 What's so 'Super' about that?... These and I am sure other points which I have likely overlooked, all make that first step of implementing an ARC a tough proposal. Given an ever improving core broadband network, with rapidly reducing prices and a growth in 4G wireless IP communication, can we now consider another approach though? ARCs usually build in a certain amount of spare capacity at any given time; this is good practice and is recommended at all times. Could some of this spare capacity be utilised to allow an ARC to operate as a 'Super ARC' by receiving and processing signals on behalf of a client ARC and relaying these processed alarms and signals back to them for handling? Why even go to another ARC? Could suppliers of alarm handling software packages not offer their own hosted 'Super ARC' platform? Maybe signalling providers could operate their own Super ARC to encourage more startups or extend reach? Why would a user choose to go to an ARC outsourcing to a Super ARC? Well, maybe they prefer the personal service offered by the smaller ARC but want the assurance of the capacity of the larger ARC. This could give rise to a stepping stone approach to bringing an ARC online, streamlining costs whilst allowing processes and procedures to be ironed out. The current standards would not lend to such a proposal, however the incoming standards allow a much less restricted approach and this type of centralised cloud based processing of signals is going to become a reality in many industries. Current latency and bandwidth restrictions will simply not exist in the same way in future. 　 Questions, questions... As usual we can end up with more questions than answers so I would like to ask you all to consider the following: 1. What problems would you foresee with such an approach? 2. Would you use an ARC which outsourced it's platform in this way? 3. Would you want to host services on behalf of a.n.other ARC? 4. What pros and cons do you see with this type of solution? 5. Is more ARCs a good thing or a bad thing? As always, please feel free to discuss, debate or disagree...