question about VOIP and liability

[Bob Worthy]

I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability insurance
underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the parking
lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented, signed etc.
That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate vail
can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't worth
the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case when
the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to be,
manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories, internet
providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every time
someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail in
their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer about
the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are alot
more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At this
time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance companies
about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have over
putting on that one account that is questionable.

 

[Crash Gordon]

Not a lawyer, so not sure how protected you'd be with a waiver since you are
acknowledging that VOIP is not reliable.
IMO..if it don't work reliably...don't use it..period.


|I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability insurance
| underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
| communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
| technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
| Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the parking
| lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented, signed
etc.
| That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate
vail
| can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't worth
| the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case when
| the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
| thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
| them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to
be,
| manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
internet
| providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
| about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
| without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
| necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every
time
| someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail in
| their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
| and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
| carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
about
| the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
| will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are alot
| more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At
this
| time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
| outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance companies
| about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have over
| putting on that one account that is questionable.
|
|

 

[Bob Worthy]

I understand what you are saying. But even with POTS line, there is a huge
security issue. This is why alarm companies have $250 limited liability
clauses in their contracts.

Which is useless when there is proof of negligence. Believe me when I say
this since I have been involved as an expert witness, in Florida, Texas, and
Arizonia and seen the court system in action.

Whether the transmission is by POTS, Radio, Cellular, NetworkIP, etc., the
customer is ultimately responsible to make sure the method of transmission
is working at ALL TIMES. Even POTS can be unreliable, depending how far away
you live from the nearest telco switch station.

I agree with you whole heartedly and there may be an assumed level of
reliability on using the POTS lines but there is to much floating around the
industry about the unreliability of VOIP and we still are will to connect to
it. Now what is the exposure to both the user and the company? That is why I
asked about direct communications with the insurers and what their feeling
are. They don't care about the technical pitfalls, they only care about
their exposure and that is where we get in trouble. It is alot easier to
decline when the insurance company won't insure it rather than trying to kid
ourselves that a waiver is somehow going to make everything ok.

I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability insurance
underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the parking
lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented, signed
etc.
That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate
vail
can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't worth
the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case when
the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to
be,
manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
internet
providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every
time
someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail in
their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
about
the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are alot
more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At
this
time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance companies
about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have over
putting on that one account that is questionable.

 

[Everywhere Man]

Channel 11 WPIX news in NYC just ran a hatchet job story about a BRINKS
customer in New Jersey and VoIP. Look for "Help me Howard" on their
website and follow the link to the BRINKS story.
www.wb11.com

 

[Don]

doesn't brinks have a clause in their contract that states it is the
subscribers duty to maintain a pots line?

Channel 11 WPIX news in NYC just ran a hatchet job story about a BRINKS
customer in New Jersey and VoIP. Look for "Help me Howard" on their
website and follow the link to the BRINKS story.
www.wb11.com

I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability
insurance
underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the
parking
lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented, signed
etc.
That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate
vail
can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't worth
the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case when
the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to
be,
manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
internet
providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every
time
someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail in
their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
about
the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are
alot
more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At
this
time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance companies
about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have
over
putting on that one account that is questionable.

 

[Everywhere Man]

Yes Brinks has that clause in it's contract and yes Cablevision warns
customers that VoIP does not work with all alarm systems but why let
the truth get in the way of a Help me Howard report? Has anyone ever
seen a news station consumer advocate report where the company
(regardless of industry) wasn't wrong?

doesn't brinks have a clause in their contract that states it is the
subscribers duty to maintain a pots line?

Channel 11 WPIX news in NYC just ran a hatchet job story about a BRINKS
customer in New Jersey and VoIP. Look for "Help me Howard" on their
website and follow the link to the BRINKS story.
www.wb11.com

I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability
insurance
underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the
parking
lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented, signed
etc.
That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate
vail
can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't worth
the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case when
the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to
be,
manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
internet
providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every
time
someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail in
their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
about
the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are
alot
more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At
this
time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance companies
about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have
over
putting on that one account that is questionable.

 

[secure15]

Yes Brinks has that clause in it's contract and yes Cablevision warns
customers that VoIP does not work with all alarm systems but why let
the truth get in the way of a Help me Howard report? Has anyone ever
seen a news station consumer advocate report where the company
(regardless of industry) wasn't wrong?

TF- Great info! I'm letting some of my jack--- customers view the video-
Trying to convince them about Optimum Voice is like banging a bag of
crap against a balloon! THEY JUST WON'T LISTEN! OR are too stupid to
comprehend- maybe they're VISUAL LEARNERS!

 

[Crash Gordon]

I think every contract I have *ever* read makes the client responsible for a
working means of communication between the system and the CS. Kinda a dumb
story...musta been a slow newsday for pix.


| Yes Brinks has that clause in it's contract and yes Cablevision warns
| customers that VoIP does not work with all alarm systems but why let
| the truth get in the way of a Help me Howard report? Has anyone ever
| seen a news station consumer advocate report where the company
| (regardless of industry) wasn't wrong?
|
|
| Don wrote:
| > doesn't brinks have a clause in their contract that states it is the
| > subscribers duty to maintain a pots line?
| >
| > | > > Channel 11 WPIX news in NYC just ran a hatchet job story about a
BRINKS
| > > customer in New Jersey and VoIP. Look for "Help me Howard" on their
| > > website and follow the link to the BRINKS story.
| > > www.wb11.com
| > >
| > > Bob Worthy wrote:
| > >> I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability
| > >> insurance
| > >> underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
| > >> communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over
new
| > >> technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all
that.
| > >> Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the
| > >> parking
| > >> lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being presented,
signed
| > >> etc.
| > >> That is a step towards defending your company and you if your
corporate
| > >> vail
| > >> can't be broken, ha ha. [ Even those written by attorneys aren't
worth
| > >> the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case
when
| > >> the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable
and
| > >> thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and
had
| > >> them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers
to
| > >> be,
| > >> manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
| > >> internet
| > >> providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some
conclusions
| > >> about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed
pass
| > >> without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
| > >> necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that
every
| > >> time
| > >> someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another
nail in
| > >> their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance
company
| > >> and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that
is
| > >> carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
| > >> about
| > >> the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if
they
| > >> will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are
| > >> alot
| > >> more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer.
At
| > >> this
| > >> time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
| > >> outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance
companies
| > >> about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have
| > >> over
| > >> putting on that one account that is questionable.
| > >
|

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Bob Worthy said:

I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability insurance
underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all that.
Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the parking
lot.

Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The real question
is, does your insurance company have the right to deny coverage if you
connect an alarm system to a VOIP service? I've read my policy, and the
answer is no.

Naturally, your insurance company's lawyers want to be on the strongest
legal footing possible. Meaning, they want your contract to be up to
snuff, and they want you to fully disclose weaknesses and vulnerabilities
in the system to avoid a charge of failure to warn or misrepresentation.
But the bottom line is, do they have the right to deny coverage?

It's pointless to talk to your insurance agent about stuff like this,
because the VOIP issue probably hasn't been litigated in your state yet,
and the agent won't know what you're talking about. Your contract should
contain a limitation of liability, which applies even if you are negligent.
Those are magic words to insurance companies: even if the insured is
negligent, their exposure is limited to a few hundred bucks.

That leaves the question of gross negligence, which generally isn't covered
under the limitation of liability. First of all, that's probably not your
problem, since your insurance company still needs some reason to deny
coverage, something that is spelled out in the policy they sent you.
However, you can probably use a waiver to get rid of a gross negligence
claim.

You need to explain to your subscriber, in plain English that any moron can
understand, why VOIP is not as reliable as regular telephone service. You
need to tell them that regular telephone service is not guaranteed to be
working either. And, if you can, you need to offer them an alternative
like radio at an extra charge. If it's written in plain English and
explains the options and their limitations, they can hardly come back later
and say they didn't understand.

Nobody is forcing them to buy a system from your company. You are not a
public utility. They can shop around and compare the security offered by
different providers, and choose the system and the price tag that is right
for them. Talk it over with a lawyer who does business in your state, and
pay him for his advice. Why rely on what a bunch of alarm guys tell you?

- badenov

 

[[email protected]]

Let's not make this more complicated than it really is. The real question

is, does your insurance company have the right to deny coverage if you
connect an alarm system to a VOIP service? I've read my policy, and the
answer is no.

All of the blather in ASA about VoIP is not going to change the fact
that VoIP or something like it is going to replace the vast majority of
POTS lines in the not too distant future. Some telco's are already
using VoIP to handle their long distance calls rather than paying for
conventional lines.

I remember when I was just getting started nearly 30 years ago "high
security" systems used leased telephone lines to connect to the
monitoring facility or, in some cases, to the police department. When
the telcos stopped offering new leased lines the industry fretted over
the loss of secure lines (as though leased lines weren't easy to
subvert). Eventually, most installations went to digital
communication, sometimes backed up by RF telemetry and later via
cellular. As I recall the sky didn't fall. I doubt it will this time
either.

Now some folks are all upset about VoIP. Get over it. The fact is
that more and more of your clients *are* going to choose VoIP no matter
what you tell them. Learn to deal with it. There are monitoring
options for VoIP which will work as long as you provide power to the
modem and router. True, the VoIP connection won't work if the DSL or
cable connection goes down. But that's not much different from the
problem of down phone lines. After a bad storm, both are subject to
outages.

This isn't a threat to your businesses. It's an opportunity to expand
your product offering. If you don't find ways to deal with it,
competing services like Next Alarm ($8.95 a month for monitoring
burglary and fire) will beat you to it. Come to think of it, they
already have. ISTR they offer a TCP/IP monitoring solution that works
where the customer chooses VoIP.

Regards,
Robert L Bass
www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

 

[J.]

I remember when I was just getting started nearly 30 years ago "high
security" systems used leased telephone lines to connect to the
monitoring facility or, in some cases, to the police department. When
the telcos stopped offering new leased lines the industry fretted over
the loss of secure lines (as though leased lines weren't easy to
subvert). Eventually, most installations went to digital
communication, sometimes backed up by RF telemetry and later via
cellular. As I recall the sky didn't fall. I doubt it will this time
either.

Leased lines offer something that is impossible to do with digital
communicators: Line security. While this isn't critically important
to 99% of alarm users out there, it is very important to customers who
need intrusion detection systems the most. Two-way supervised radio
is subject to frequent service outages in some areas, and network
communicators are exactly as unreliable as the computer network that
they are connected to. I was speaking to a DSS rep eariler this week
about this very issue. It's a problem.

Before any of you ask who DSS is: see www.dss.mil

J.

 

[Frank Olson]

All of the blather in ASA about VoIP is not going to change the fact
that VoIP or something like it is going to replace the vast majority of
POTS lines in the not too distant future. Some telco's are already
using VoIP to handle their long distance calls rather than paying for
conventional lines.

No argument there. As for the "blather in ASA about VoIP", let's put it
down to the fact that a group of professionals are discussing the
options available today to deal with it.

I remember when I was just getting started nearly 30 years ago "high
security" systems used leased telephone lines to connect to the
monitoring facility or, in some cases, to the police department. When
the telcos stopped offering new leased lines the industry fretted over
the loss of secure lines (as though leased lines weren't easy to
subvert).

"Leased lines" are impossible to "subvert". You'd not only have to be a
genius to figure out all the parameters, the perp would have to know
exactly what the customer has installed (equipment wise) and then be
able to match the account codes and transponder ID.

Eventually, most installations went to digital
communication, sometimes backed up by RF telemetry and later via
cellular.

Now, you see?? This is where you confirm that your "knowledge" of
systems is about as "Mickey Mouse" as your website. Digital
communication (using standard telephone lines) has been an industry
standard for *all* of the so called "30 years" you've been in the
business. How many McCullogh Loop systems did you *ever* work on?

As I recall the sky didn't fall. I doubt it will this time
either.

Nope. The sky didn't fall.

Now some folks are all upset about VoIP.

Uh-huh. And they should be. Customers I know that have switched to
VOIP have switched back to POTS within 3 to 4 months. They complain
about noise on the line, and frequent service interruptions.

Get over it. The fact is
that more and more of your clients *are* going to choose VoIP no matter
what you tell them. Learn to deal with it. There are monitoring
options for VoIP which will work as long as you provide power to the
modem and router. True, the VoIP connection won't work if the DSL or
cable connection goes down. But that's not much different from the
problem of down phone lines. After a bad storm, both are subject to
outages.

Outages of POTS lines are extremely rare. In fact, in all my years in
the trade I can only count one (and that happened during a tornado in
Edmonton).

This isn't a threat to your businesses. It's an opportunity to expand
your product offering. If you don't find ways to deal with it,
competing services like Next Alarm ($8.95 a month for monitoring
burglary and fire) will beat you to it.

"Next Alarm" isn't even listed as an approved central station. They're
a "Dealer" that sell third party monitoring services (very much like you
used to do). In fact, they won't even help your customer reprogram
their alarm panel (if it's locked out). They will sell them a
communicator module (they call it a "redirector") that they have to
install. Will their "redirector" be able to transmit more than a
generic "alarm" or "fire" signal? What about "openings and closings"?
Do you have any idea how they deal with "fail to communicate"
troubles that the customers panel will initiate when they disconnect the
telephone line and hook up Next Alarm's module? Who services their
equipment when it fails to test? What is the test transmission cycle?
Daily, weekly, monthly... never?? Is their communications "module"
(redirector) UL listed? What central stations do they use? All they
say on their website is that they're "UL Listed". For what? "Fire"?
That basic listing can be obtained by any CS that installs equipment to
the minimum standard. What about SIA certified operators?

Come to think of it, they
already have. ISTR they offer a TCP/IP monitoring solution that works
where the customer chooses VoIP.

You "recall"?? You mean you don't "know"?? I certainly wouldn't count
their "service" as any more reliable than VoIP.