FARMINGTON, Conn. — UTC Fire & Security will break ground on a new Fire Innovation Test Center in Florida in December, the company announced Wednesday.

UTC officials say the facility to be located in West Palm Beach will strengthen the company’s ability to design and deliver industry-leading fire/life-safety solutions that meet customers’ needs.

The facility will also enable UTC to test the its broad range of technologies as well as demonstrate products in real-world situations to customers. The new facility is expected to open in 2011.

“We see this as a center of excellence for fire testing, application engineering and customer demonstration,” says William Brown, president of UTC Fire & Security. “The integration of these capabilities into one state-of-the-art facility will significantly contribute to the delivery of cost effective solutions to our customers, while also providing an environment where new technologies and applications can be developed, tested and refined.”

A test observation room, with viewing windows into the main test hall, will be able to accommodate witnessing of live fire tests. An adjacent customer conference room and product display area is also in the plans.

The new facility will allow testing at a scale that is currently not available for UTC Fire & Security products such as water mist, chemical suppression, foam and all types of portable extinguishers.

A further advantage is the capability to accurately measure and demonstrate product compliance with regulatory standards as well as conduct scientific observations on temperature, oxygen levels and other data points crucial to the fire safety industry, according to the company.

The new Fire Innovation Test Center has been developed applying the design principles of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). These criteria for building energy efficiency were set out by the U.S. Green Building Council with the goal of achieving the highest level of LEED certification.

“The facility will reduce the environmental footprint of operations to the lowest extent possible and meet stringent requirements with respect to wastewater, emissions and other environmental regulations,” says Brown.

The test center will be built on land owned by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, a sister company within United Technologies.

Pinnacle settles with NY AG

Calls AG’s public statements damaging and unfounded, however

By Martha Entwistle – 08.17.2010

ALBANY, N.Y.—The New York Attorney General’s office announced Aug. 12, in a strongly worded press release, it had reached an agreement with Pinnacle Security over deceptive sales practices used by some of its salespeople beginning in January of 2008. “Pinnacle used dirty tricks and deception to pressure New Yorkers who were simply trying to ensure the security of their homes,” AG Andrew Cuomo is quoted as saying in the release. “This settlement holds Pinnacle accountable for their actions and makes fundamental reforms to the company to prevent such fraud from happening again.”

California municipality adopts verified-response policy

Industry left scrambling to inform customers of options

By Daniel Gelinas – 08.14.2010

CATHEDRAL CITY, Calif.—City officials here have adopted a verified-response policy in order to cope with its false alarm problem. Worse than the move itself, security industry officials say, is that the municipality apparently gave no warning to alarm companies and has, reportedly, ceased speaking with representatives of SIAC and the Inland Empire Alarm Association, who have been proactively working to combat the problem for more than a year.

“It is a sad day when a decision like this is made with no concern for the citizens, or any opportunity for the citizens to speak,” said SIAC director Ron Walters. “If this isn’t bad enough, to then cut off all communication … is proof that there is no interest on the part of the elected officials to understand all sides of this issue.”

Cathedral, with a population of roughly 50,000, has had a false alarm ordinance on the books since 1988. However, the ordinance was not enforced, according to Walters. “Pretty typical as the number one reason that ordinances fail is for lack of enforcement,” he said.

Mace CSSS VP Morgan Hertel, who is also president of the IEAA, said the police department claims to respond to 4,000 to 5,000 false alarms a year. “We estimate that there’s probably 3,000 or 4,000 systems in the city, based on population. I don’t think the city knows because their ordinance doesn’t require any permitting,” He said. “Those numbers track with cities that have never done anything with ECV … When you move to fine and fee structures and ECV gets mandated then you see those numbers drop. And we tried to tell the city that, but they just weren’t interested.

“The ordinance they have now is very weak,” Hertel continued. “So we put together one for them that has some teeth and sort of last minute they sprang this on us with no discussion.”

A July 14 agenda report from the CCPD to the city council on alarm response from outlines the reasons for its decision to go to verified response. “The police department intends to implement an ‘Alarm Response Policy,’ as an operating policy and procedure for responding to residential and business alarm calls within the community,” the notice reads. “Research suggests that adopting a policy of law enforcement agencies as first responders to locations of concern to homeland security, robbery or panic alarms and alarm calls verified by alarm companies to be legitimate, and is an effective way to reduce false alarm calls.” The report to the city council also made clear the impending implementation date.

A July 20 letter from Cathedral City to industry execs announced and attempted to explain the quickly approaching policy change. “Effective August 1, 2010, the Cathedral City Police Department will implement a policy change to all burglary alarm calls … As the alarm and/or monitoring company, it will be your responsibility to verify an alarm is actually making notification of a problem or crime in progress prior to contacting police,” the letter reads. “A verified response can include sound/video of crime in progress, an eyewitness that can confirm there is a problem or private security that responds to the scene and verifies that there is a crime in progress or that a crime has been committed.”

SIAC officials were surprised. “We had several meetings with the police over the last year. The first contact was over a year ago and was completely proactive on our part,” Walters said. “We promoted the model ordinance and each time we were told they were not making a decision. When the notice finally came out it was with only a couple days notice leaving no time to notify customers or make other response options available to the alarm users.”

Police officials were quick to respond to queries from SSN and to point out they are not discontinuing alarm response. “Anything that’s manually operated—hold up or panic, for example—we’ll still rate those as priority one as we always have. The only thing we’re changing is that if it’s a mechanically activated alarm—motion, for example—until it’s verified we won’t necessarily respond,” said CCPD public information officer Lt. Chuck Robinson. “Those alarms will still be dispatched out, but it will be up to the officers in the field to decide what priority they give the response.”

Tony New England town begins suing repeat false alarm offenders

By Daniel Gelinas – 08.18.2010

GREENWICH, Conn.—Authorities here, where the median home price is $1 million according to CNN Money, have sued certain repeat false alarm offenders from both the residential and commercial markets for failing to pay false alarm fines. A recent story from Greenwich Time reports the town has followed through with a warning letter it sent out at the beginning of the year that told certain offenders with unpaid false alarm fines they would face legal action if the balances were not paid within 30 days. The town followed through with its threat, and offenders are reportedly not pleased.

This is not the first time a municipality has had to get tough on end users in regards to its false alarm ordinance. Seattle cracked down last year as well.

“Idle threats undermine credibility,” Greenwich Police Chief David Ridberg said in the published report. “If the town said that’s what it was going to do, that’s what it should do.”

Security Industry Alarm Coalition director Ron Walters agreed, and pointed out actions such as those executed in Greenwich are what give ordinances their teeth and help to curtail the false alarm epidemic. “Actually, this is the proper application of an alarm ordinance. Virtually every ordinance that fails does so as a result of lack of enforcement. Once in place no ordinance can hope to succeed unless there is the full will of the municipality to fully enforce every provision of the legislation,” Walters said. “Look back to last week and Cathedral City where an ordinance has been in place … but never enforced and now things are so bad they go to a very restricted response policy. So SIAC supports efforts by Greenwich to enforce the provisions of their ordinance.”

Connecticut Burglar and Fire Alarm Association executive director Pat Remes agreed. “Greenwich has an ordinance and the only way that will be effective is if the city follows through with what it says it will do,” Remes said. “They give the first alarm free. The offenders who are facing legal action must be abusing the system and the association can’t condone that. Greenwich is following the outline of an effective alarm management program.”

A total of 31 property owners were sent notices on Jan. 15 demanding payment within 30 days for outstanding false alarm fines or face legal action to collect the money. The total amount of fines owed to the town at the time was $74,375 and now sits at roughly $42,000, according to the Greenwich Time story.

My-Alarm has now added a LIFETIME warranty to all of it’s DIY systems. All active systems, alarm, video or GPS are guaranteed operational  for as long as they are connected to My-Alarm services.  If you own one of our systems and it is active we will make sure you are always protected. This is an industry 1st!  Contact us today for additional details. 866.641.6599 ext 1 or info@my-alarm.com

May 12, 2010, DALLAS — Home security companies have avoided the worst of the recession due to a stable core of consumers who have kept their monitoring services despite rising fees, according to research firm Parks Associates.

In its latest report, “Home Systems: Home Security — Analysis and Forecasts,” the firm finds the average monitoring fee for a U.S. household increased 15 percent, from $28.60 to $32 between 2008 and 2010. This rise has kept revenues from home security relatively stable despite declines in overall sales due to weak home sales and catastrophic drops in new starts, according to Parks Associates. This strategy relies on a group of existing customers who will retain their service despite rising monthly costs, which has been successful but has its limits.

“IP technologies open the door on all industries to new, nontraditional competitors,” says Parks Associates CEO Tricia Parks. “Moving forward, the security industry must be careful not to raise monthly fees too quickly, or it risks accelerating entry of these new players. Continued aggressive fee increases may create short-term benefits but risk long-term turbulence. Instead, security companies need to reposition to win new customers, rather than expecting their existing customers to carry the burden.”

The report provides an overview of the U.S. residential security market. It includes an assessment of the current and future market, consumer data on monitored security households, a review of dealer activities and challenges, briefs on selected industry players for equipment and monitoring, market forecasts, and scenarios for the future, including potential catalysts and inhibitors to market health.

Doubt the Cellular Revolution at Your Own Peril

Data released this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers the latest glimpse into just how fast U.S. households are abandoning landline telephones in favor of going wireless.

We’ll take a look at some of the stark data from the report, but the obvious omen to digest here is the consequence to alarm signal transmission and the business of monitoring.

The CDC “Wireless Substitution” study showed that nearly one in four households has a cell phone but no traditional landline. That number has more than doubled since 2006, the first year the annual study was conducted.

The number of households with both landline and cell service has remained more constant at nearly six in 10, a figure mostly unchanged since the beginning of 2007.

While living conditions and gender all influence whether or not households are wireless-only, the trend — no surprise — is being led by the young. 

The 25- to 29-year-old set are using landlines the least, with almost 49 percent of them living in wireless-only households. The figure drops steadily at age 35 and older, with only about one in 20 people age 65 and older relying only on mobile service.

The latest data, which was taken from 21,375 homes, also discovered that one in seven American households has a landline that is never used.

Here are some other tidbits from the study to chew on:

•  63 percent of adults living with an unrelated adult but without children had only cells, nearly four times the rate for related adults without children.
• More than four in 10 renters had only cells, about triple the rate for homeowners.
• 15 percent of adults in the Northeast had only cell phones, while the figure for those in other parts of the country ranged from 22 to 26 percent.
• Adults living in poverty were nearly twice as likely as higher income adults to depend solely on a mobile phone.

To put a hard number on it, there are roughly 52 million adults and 19 million children living in homes with no landline telephone, according to the data. Obviously, these numbers are going to increase exponentially.

The ramifications are increasingly ominous for installing security contractors not moving in parallel with the technological and lifestyle changes this report illustrates. Equally exciting, however, are the opportunities that are fast ushering in for those companies willing to seize upon this coming revolution.

Rodney Bosch
Managing Editor
SECURITY SALES & INTEGRATION

 
by Joan Engebretson
June 1, 2010

By including a DVR in a secured area, security dealers can help ensure that if visible cameras (like the one positioned above the front door in the photo above) are vandalized, there will be a visual record of the event.

The use of video surveillance equipment for residential installations is on the rise. But as dealers install more residential video systems, they also need to be aware of the unique concerns involving the security of that equipment and its connection to the outside world and take appropriate measures to protect their customers’ privacy and security.
Several factors are driving the increased popularity of video surveillance in the residential market, including a decrease in equipment prices and the increased availability of 3G cellular services that make it easy for owners to look in on their homes from handheld devices.
“It’s another way to check their home when they’re away,” comments Bill Boodman, president of Bill’s Sound and Security, a Costa Mesa, Calif.-based dealer.
People also like to use remote viewing capability — from a handheld device or desktop computer — to see what their pets are doing or, in the case of a second home, what the weather is like.
Demilune/Audio Labs, a Des Moines, Iowa-based systems integrator, now sells video surveillance capability with three out of four of its home automation installations. When video is tied in with home automation, homeowners can see what’s going on outside their home from their television — a capability that is popular with people whose spouses travel frequently, notes Harry Aller, Demilune/Audio Labs’ owner.
Although security dealers interviewed for this story say most residential customers who have video surveillance equipment also have alarm systems, those systems usually aren’t sold together. Instead, the video is added later and typically isn’t monitored by the central station. Some people don’t like the idea of central station operators being able to get such a close-up view of their home. Others simply don’t want to pay for video monitoring. Their real motivation for buying video is their own remote viewing capability.
The residential integrators of these projects say that other than concerns about the central station, most homeowners are not concerned about the security of the video connection itself. Nevertheless, dealers should be aware that certain risks do exist. The cameras or digital video recorders used for residential video installations typically use the Internet protocol for communication and as such can be at risk of problems, such as hacking.
Although the integrators interviewed here have not seen any extreme examples of this, they all agreed that it’s important to take appropriate steps to prevent such occurrences and to inform customers about how they should and shouldn’t use video surveillance.

9 Ways to Make Video More Secure

Here are nine different ways residential integrators can make equipment and connections installed in residential video applications as secure as possible.

1. Check the security of the customer’s existing broadband connection.
Today’s video surveillance systems rely on the customer’s broadband connection — typically a DSL or cable modem that also connects the customer’s home computer to the Internet. Todd King, president of New Tech, a Missoula, Mont.-based security dealer, makes sure that the computer has appropriate firewall protection and, if not, advises customers to address that requirement before connecting any video surveillance equipment to that connection.
2. User passwords should be used appropriately.
“People should change their password every few months,” advises Preston Colston, vice president for Global Surveillance LLC, a Salt Lake City-based dealer. “And they shouldn’t use passwords that people could easily guess.”
3. Use administrative passwords appropriately.
If clients just want to be able to play back and view video, they may not need an administrative password. But if a client is technology savvy and wants to have the administrative password, technicians at Phoenix-based dealer Morgan Security & Sound will give it to him. “We also add one for ourselves with their permission,” notes Ron Koistinen, co-owner of Morgan Security & Sound. Typically the company also gives homeowners a record of that password, cautioning them to store it in a safe place in the event that the customer may one day go to a different security company.
4. Consider using cameras only outdoors.
If the security of an outdoor camera were to be compromised, hackers would simply get a view of areas that typically are not totally private anyway. But because of the threat of hacking, installers may want to avoid installing cameras indoors unless there is a compelling reason.
5. Consider a kill switch for indoor cameras.
Some customers may have an important reason for installing one or more indoor cameras. For example, a Demilune/Audio Labs customer wanted the ability to check on her pets when she was not home. To give her that ability but also help ensure the client’s privacy, the integrator installed a switch to cut power to the indoor cameras that the client can use when she is home.
6. Consider using a hardwired solution.
Because wireless communications are easier to intercept than wired communications, several dealers we spoke with recommend using hardwired components for residential video installations as much as possible. “We only use wireless if a hardwired system isn’t practical,” said Jeff Scheurman, chief operating officer for Global Surveillance.
7. Provide a means of physically protecting cameras.
Video cameras can be vulnerable to vandalism, so dealers should mount them where they will be difficult for vandals to reach. When Demilune/Audio Labs installs video surveillance in combination with an HAI alarm system, the system can be set up to start recording the minute an intruder walks in the front door. “It will take a snapshot of all the cameras and e-mail it to the owner,” Aller explains. “That way you’re getting images off-site so if the intruder decides he has time to get to the DVR, the e-mail has already been sent.”
8. Restrict inbound and outbound communications
to appropriate port numbers.
“If we’re connecting to a client site, we put in our IP address and a specific port,” notes Brad Humphries, vice president and director of operations for Mishawaka, Ind.-based Indiana Security Systems. Using that approach, he says, “the system can’t be accessed from just any port — we do the same thing for the client’s office and cell phone.”
9. Consider a higher level of encryption for higher-security installations.
For installations requiring a higher level of security, dealers should consider equipment that can provide a higher level of encryption.

Higher Level Encryption Helps Secure Virtual Doorman

Virtual Service, a New York City-based security dealer, offers a monitored residential video system for apartment buildings aimed at enhancing security and eliminating or minimizing the need for a doorman. Marketed under the name Virtual Doorman, the system integrates video with access control so that, for example, a central station operator can respond to package delivery people — confirming the delivery person’s identify via video, unlocking the front entrance and watching the person put down the package and leave the premises. Cameras also may be installed in public areas such as laundry rooms and roof decks.
“Our sweet spot is buildings with between five and 100 units,” explains Colin V. Foster, vice president of sales for Virtual Service. Because the systems are so extensive, Virtual Service wanted to provide a higher level of protection against hackers than some other security systems provide.
“Each of our sites uses a VPN tunnel with triple DES encryption,” Foster describes. “Theoretically it makes hacking impossible.”
Noting that “impossible” may be too strong a word, Foster says, “It certainly makes it exponentially more difficult.” As a result, he says, would-be hackers are likely to move on to a different location with fewer safeguards.

DIY Goes MainStream

NutriSystem CEO gets into security

InGrid is now LifeShield, and $11 million richer; will DIY success follow?

By Martha Entwistle – 06.24.2010

YARDLEY, Pa.—The guy who took NutriSystem from a $27 million company to an $800 million company using a direct-to-consumer, cut-out-the-middleman strategy, has set his sights on security as “another industry that’s ripe for a change.” Michael Hagan, former CEO of NutriSystem, has joined LifeShield Security, formerly InGrid Home Security, as CEO. He and InGrid founder Lou Stilp (who is now COO of LifeShield) have raised $11 million in two funding rounds, opened a call center here, and assembled a staff of marketing experts who formerly worked with Hagan at NutriSystem. They’ve also brought some NFL starpower along: Hall of Famer Dan Marino is now an investor in the company and will be featured in LifeShield’s television commercials. All of this has been in the works for six months, said Stilp on June 22. “This is our coming out party.” Stilp launched InGrid, which is a self-installed, professionally monitored, wireless digital home security system, in January of 2007. Over the next two years, Stilp raised funds and partnered with some traditional security companies and some cable companies to sell his product. He also partnered with Guardian Protection of Pittsburgh for professional monitoring. Guardian CEO Russ Cersosimo is also an investor in the company, as well. The partnerships with cable companies and traditional alarm companies didn’t flourish, so late in 2009 Stilp decided that InGrid should take control of its own destiny. That was the beginning of the company’s conversion to a direct-to-consumer model, he explained. “The product has not changed,” he said, just the business model. He and Hagan bring different talents to the company. “He’s quite the marketing guy, far more so than me,” Stilp said. “I’m the tech guy.” Under Hagan’s leadership, Forbes magazine in 2006 named Hagan entrepreneur of the year and NutriSystem as the top public small company. When he joined NutriSystem in 2002, Hagan didn’t know a lot about the weight loss industry, he said. It was an industry that was “tired and in need of a change.” By changing the business model, he “brought down the cost to consumer and convinced the consumer that they didn’t need a middleman [franchises] as much as they thought.” He views security as “a different product, but the same opportunity.” Customers can install their own security systems, he said. His task is “really a customer acquisition game,” he said. He and his marketing team will take an analytical approach in deciding which mediums work best and how to reach consumers. He’s starting with TV and radio, but will look at print and Internet. It’s what he did at NutriSystem: “You figure out what makes each [media] channel work,” and tailor offerings accordingly. “You turn a lot of different dials to optimize each marketing campaign.” Hagan’s divided the home security consumer market into three segments: those who would never install a security system, no matter how simple, by themselves; those who need a little help or encouragement to install the system; and, lastly those who are not intimidated by technology at all. LifeShield is not targeting the first segment. He’s providing a DVD, customer-service support and Web site assistance to the second segment, and he’s actively targeting the third segment. Hagan said he’s not completely discarding the idea of partnering with traditional alarm companies in the future and he does believe that “nine out of 10” customers will continue to choose professional monitoring (still provided by Guardian). He notes that the metrics are different for security than for the weight loss industry. “If you held a customer for 10 to 11 weeks that was a success, but in security, a successful company like Russ Cersosimo’s holds customers for 10 to 11 years.” Does Lifeshield hold the same promise for success as NutriSystem? “That was a special ride. If we have a fraction of that success I think we’ll have created a great business,” Hagan said. “Our goal is to create an enduring, long term brand.” First round investors include: Associated Partners, CenterPoint Ventures, Novak Biddle Venture Partners, Novitas Capital and Hagan. Second round investors include earlier investors with new additional funding coming from First Round Capital, MHS Capital, and NewSpring Growth Capital.