|
Prospects for the development of equipment for centralized surveillance systems
Centralized surveillance systems, as systems should be, are multi-component. Meanwhile, a very curious picture is observed: of all the components of centralized surveillance systems, the most fully represented on various advertising platforms (exhibitions, media, etc.) are the facility equipment: detectors, control panels, etc. Other components are advertised much less frequently. True, in the last few years, manufacturers and suppliers of systems that use a radio channel or cellular network capabilities to transmit data from an object to a centralized surveillance console have become noticeably more active. Analysts associate this surge in activity with the entry of private security companies (PSCs) into the security console market, which for many reasons are forced to use these channels.
It should be noted that perhaps the largest consumer segment of the security market is made up of objects protected by centralized surveillance systems. Last year, according to some experts, its volume amounted to about a billion dollars.
It is somewhat more difficult to say how this money is distributed among the leading players. One thing is clear: the undisputed leader is the non-departmental security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Incidentally, this is almost the only structure that regularly reports in the open press on the results of its activities. At the end of 2007, the total number of objects protected by non-departmental security was more than 2 million (1.63 million apartments and more than 480,000 other objects).
The general situation was certainly influenced by the fact that for a long time this segment was, in fact, outside the market. Despite all the external signs of commercial relations, these were still relations between customers and a government structure.
Today, despite the fact that non-departmental security is still a key player, real competition has appeared in this market segment. It is no coincidence that several fairly serious marketing studies have been conducted. Among other things, they attempted to predict the prospects for the development of centralized security technology.
History of the issue
The organization of centralized security of facilities using technical means has a fairly long history. Work on the creation and implementation of technical security means began in our country (then the USSR) more than 40 years ago.
Naturally, the internal affairs agencies received a monopoly on the use of technical means in organizing security — there were simply no other structures designed to ensure security, except for state ones, in Soviet times. It must be admitted that the monopoly position did not affect the quality of the work of non-departmental security. The scale of activity was impressive: more than 1.5 million objects. About 500,000 employees. Defects in work — less than one percent. In addition, this was the only police structure that was self-supporting, i.e. did not live on taxpayers' money.
The main services provided today by non-departmental security are the provision of remote security with the dispatch of rapid response teams when an alarm is triggered, and the physical security of facilities. Remote security dominated the structure of services for many years, and today, when the Main Directorate of Military Security was reformed, this dominance has been preserved. And it is precisely around remote security that competition between private players and the Main Directorate of Military Security has developed. This information is important in order to more clearly define the vectors of development of technical means used in centralized surveillance systems.
Equipment and technology
Everything seems to be clear with the facility equipment. The market offers a very wide range of it. As befits high-tech devices, they are constantly being improved. Today, the vast majority of clients using centralized security services do not need to call the control panel when disarming and arming — the equipment does everything itself. Radio channel detectors and control and monitoring devices are increasingly used.
Control panel equipment is also becoming smarter. The GOST defines a centralized monitoring console (CMS) as an independent technical device (a set of technical devices), or an integral part of a notification transmission system, which is installed at a centralized security point to receive notifications about intrusion into protected facilities and (or) about a fire at them, service and control and diagnostic notifications from control panel terminal devices or a repeater, to process, display, record the received information and present it in a specified form for further processing, and also (if there is a return channel) to transmit remote control commands through the control panel terminal device to the repeater and facility terminal devices.
That is, the facility devices transmit information about the facility’s status and the events occurring there (arming, disarming, alarm, malfunction, power failure, etc.) to the central monitoring station, where the information is processed and the operator receives the corresponding messages.
Modern central monitoring stations are based on a computer and specialized software. Also, the work of central monitoring stations can be based on a local area network (LAN). This, as experts note, provides the ability to receive information via various communication channels, transmit it to a large number of users, and also to make maximum use of the capabilities of modern information technologies.
A fundamentally important point is the communication channels used to transmit information and data from the facility equipment to the central monitoring station.
Based on the type of communication channels used to transmit information, experts divide central monitoring systems into the following groups:
systems with switching for the period of protection of city (local) telephone network lines;
systems transmitting notifications using high-frequency multiplexing of telephone channels over lines of the city telephone network occupied during the security period;
systems using dial-up communication lines of the city telephone network. The main mode is data transmission in all standard communication exchange protocols (exchange formats SIA, SK, BFSK, SK 4+2, SK 3+1, etc.) or autodialing mode;
systems using a radio channel to transmit data from the facility to the centralized monitoring station;
systems that use the capabilities of a cellular network (voice channel, data transmission channel or SMS messages).
Non-departmental security units use systems of the second group to protect telephoned facilities. Private players most often offer clients systems of the third, fourth and fifth groups.
If we analyze the research data and publications in the industry press, we cannot help but note a curious fact: the discussion about which communication lines are best for organizing centralized surveillance is practically never-ending. Naturally, everyone praises what they use or produce, this is especially evident in advertising materials. The arguments of those in favor of using a radio channel are as follows.
First of all, there is no dependence on the telephone line and the quality of the network. Secondly, it is much easier to install the facility equipment. And finally, the use of a radio channel allows for the possibility of protecting any facility. Naturally, within the coverage area of the radio channel network. In many cases, a radio channel is indeed preferable. But there are also problems, and quite serious ones, which cannot be easily brushed aside. The main ones are insufficient protection of the radio channel, limited frequency resources, and the relative high cost of radio system equipment.
It seems that the truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. And, despite massive advertising campaigns, radio channel systems have hardly displaced those that use telephone lines to transmit information and data. Each system occupies its own niche. But the use of wireless facility equipment has a steady growth trend. Inside the facility, control panels receive signals from radio channel detectors and then transmit information via telephone lines.
Separately, it is worth mentioning the prospects for using systems that use the capabilities of cellular networks. Even non-specialists understand the shortcomings of such systems that exist today. First of all, we are talking about such an important factor as reliability. It is appropriate to recall a very common argument among opponents of using cellular networks in security systems: network overloads on New Year's Eve. One of the experts even called this argument typical. But another thing is also true: the GSM standard is constantly evolving, improving, and GSM equipment is becoming cheaper. That is, one cannot but agree with the opinion that every year mobile communications are becoming more suitable for use in centralized surveillance systems.
Leading industry experts believe that for the effective organization of security of facilities, it is necessary to ensure duplication (reservation) of channels, distribution of their resources by information transfer priorities, constant monitoring of the channel occupancy status for the possibility of their prompt switching, information protection and ensuring imitation resistance.
Using only informative systems that do not require additional equipment to be installed on the PBX and transmit alarm information by direct auto-dialing to the control panel is clearly insufficient, because in this case the communication channel is not monitored. It is enough to break the telephone line, and the alarm information will be lost, and the fact of the break will not be recorded on the central monitoring station.
What will happen in the end
Despite the fairly tough competition in this market segment, the vast majority of experts are almost unanimous: the future is in unification. This means that the systems must have a modular structure, including devices necessary to ensure operation via any communication channels, the ability to integrate with existing systems. This functionality must be implemented on a single software and hardware platform. Another important point: the exchange protocols used to transmit alarm and service notifications must be reliably protected from unauthorized interference. The information content of the systems must ensure a level of monitoring the state of the object that maximizes the response time of detention groups. As for the communication channels used in centralized surveillance systems, such a function as the ability to duplicate them (or reserve) must become mandatory, especially when it comes to organizing the transfer of information and data via channels with shared access, such as Ethernet (TCP/IP), GSM channel.
|
