SIA / Contact ID report tables

[scania]

Does anyone have a current Contact ID and SIA report table? Relying on the
panel manufacturer's is useless.

Thanks

--
................................................
........................................................
Todd Trowbridge
Home Security & Mgt. Co., Inc.
57 Central Drive
P.O. Box 695
Stowe, VT 05672
800.933.4762
802.253.2143 Fax
www.hsmc-ul.com

 

[Aegis]

Does anyone have a current Contact ID and SIA report table? Relying on the
panel manufacturer's is useless.

Thanks

Your use of the word "current" makes me wonder is what I have is outdated.

 

[scania]

Thanks for the help.

It seems ITI is taking some artistic license with their SIA tables. I
wanted to be sure our definitions were more industry accurate.

Todd

 

[Mark Leuck]

Thanks for the help.

It seems ITI is taking some artistic license with their SIA tables. I
wanted to be sure our definitions were more industry accurate.

Todd

The basic signals are the same however ITI throws in additional information
although any standard receiver will handle it

 

[Jackcsg]

I wouldn't exactly say they're all the same Mark. I know DMP can send
Contact ID, not SIA, but the CID is a little different from the standards. I
think DSC has a few things a little different from the standard as well.
Both Panels can transmit more information than CID Tables allow.
(4020)(XR-200)

Jack

 

[Mark Leuck]

If they are sending a different event code than listed I would call that a
change which neither ITI or DMP does, I don't think the SIA or CID tables
will do him any good.

From what I've seen ITI, DMP and DSC send the exact same signal if Contact
ID, they have to otherwise they become incompatible with every receiver out
there, The only panels that are different is the new Ademco panels which
send 10-digit account numbers. SIA is another story, you can send more
information in the same signal string but the automation may not be able to
handle it, for instance Napco and Silent Knight can send multiple burg/fire
signals within a single SIA string but DSC and ITI do not.

 

[Jackcsg]

I didn't mean to say different per say. Both DMP and DSC have many signals
(programming attributes) that are unique to each. The conversion to CID is a
general descriptor for those signals. I have only seen problems when sending
signals to older first round CID format receivers in which some CS's didn't
stay up with current firmware. But usually it was more of an automation
problem. DMP uses the fastest transmission method in the Industry which is
older than the digital communicator itself. SDLC and IBM format.

Jack

 

[scania]

It's not that the receivers are accepting the report correctly or not, nor
the software displaying the alarm properly:

My problem with ITI is their definition of a cancel code for burglary, as an
example, is sent as BH. This is actually Burglary Restore and changes the
functionality of procedures on alarms.
Their older version 1.0 Concord panels would send E130 for panic on the
keypad. This burglary code is obviously not a panic report.

They don't seem to be obeying the industry standards on report formats.

 

[Jackcsg]

Sounds more like an ITI issue? I hear what your saying, I had a similar
issue when sending CID from a DMP XR-200 Control Panel to an Ademco 685
Receiver. You may have to go into your automation and make up a new set of
defaults for that particular panel.

Jack

 

[Mark Leuck]

It's not that the receivers are accepting the report correctly or not, nor
the software displaying the alarm properly:

My problem with ITI is their definition of a cancel code for burglary, as an
example, is sent as BH. This is actually Burglary Restore and changes the
functionality of procedures on alarms.
Their older version 1.0 Concord panels would send E130 for panic on the
keypad. This burglary code is obviously not a panic report.

They don't seem to be obeying the industry standards on report formats.

Thats not changing the CID code tho, ITI does do some wierd thing but much
of this isn't up to ITI more than it is up to SIA who is pushing false alarm
prevention into as many panels as they can

 

[Mark Leuck]

Sounds more like an ITI issue? I hear what your saying, I had a similar
issue when sending CID from a DMP XR-200 Control Panel to an Ademco 685
Receiver. You may have to go into your automation and make up a new set of
defaults for that particular panel.

Jack

Can't really do that without screwing up everything else, we monitor about
200+ different systems and never had to alter the codes for either CID or
SIA

 

[Jackcsg]

You can't add a new set of defaults to your automation? Don't change the one
you have as defaults, add a new one and modify the defaults of the new.

Jack

 

[Mark Leuck]

You can't add a new set of defaults to your automation? Don't change the one
you have as defaults, add a new one and modify the defaults of the new.

Jack

I've not had to do this at all

 

[Jackcsg]

I hear ya. Well if, big **IF** Ademco ever breaks the 250 point barrier it
would (will) effect you. I'm still not a big fan of CID, and never will be.
But, I do understand its place for those who use it. I don't have a need for
it.

Jack

 

[Mark Leuck]

I hear ya. Well if, big **IF** Ademco ever breaks the 250 point barrier it
would (will) effect you. I'm still not a big fan of CID, and never will be.
But, I do understand its place for those who use it. I don't have a need for
it.

Jack

With DMP you wouldn't have to although if you ask me it's a dying format
just like Radionics Modem II

 

[Mark Leuck]

That's not really true. While SIA *is* encouraging manufacturers to
incorporate false alarm reduction they are not in a position to force ITI
(or any other manufacturer) to do their bidding. The real power over
manufacturers is that which large customers exert.

Not true at all, if it were up to larger customer then we wouldn't see much
of this however several large cities now want (soon to require) SIA
standards

 

[Mark Leuck]

It's not that the receivers are accepting the report correctly or not, nor
the software displaying the alarm properly:

My problem with ITI is their definition of a cancel code for burglary, as an
example, is sent as BH. This is actually Burglary Restore and changes the
functionality of procedures on alarms.
Their older version 1.0 Concord panels would send E130 for panic on the
keypad. This burglary code is obviously not a panic report.

They don't seem to be obeying the industry standards on report formats.

The Simon 2 would send a burg in SIA or CID when the emergency and chime
special motions were pressed which always struck me as dumb but that isn't
actually changing the current SIA/CID standard

I think I still have a Concord v1 and 2 laying around, I'll test that one

 

[Jackcsg]

Dying? It's 3 times faster than CID, and sends twice as much information,
and is at least 10 years older than the first pulse (digital) format. But
dying. I think not. Same for M2, and M2E. You are seriously warped by the
Ademco Mode of Operation Mr. Mark. No pun intended...

Jack

 

[Mark Leuck]

Dying? It's 3 times faster than CID, and sends twice as much information,
and is at least 10 years older than the first pulse (digital) format. But
dying. I think not. Same for M2, and M2E. You are seriously warped by the
Ademco Mode of Operation Mr. Mark. No pun intended...

Jack

And its not supported by most current receivers either which is why I say
its dying. The current movement in the industry is SIA and CID. Radionics
has now added CID to its new 6412, ITI abandoned the ITI format for both CID
and SIA etc etc.

I could always be wrong, time will tell

 

[Jackcsg]

I know...I know. DMP put it in their panels too. They had too. It's a
helpful tool when your trying to sway dealers. It's not dying. It's just
proprietary. Manufacturers don't like to pay for someone else's formats. Why
do you think Osborne-Hoffman was so successful? I see all POTS pulse and
tone formats going bye bye some day too. Soon? Nope. 3/4 of the industry is
in the "If it works, don't replace it" mode of operation. The Internet is
the wave of the future...surfboard?

Jack