<div style=”border:1px solid #ccc;color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:verdana;width:120px;text-align:center;padding:5px;font-size:11px;”><img src=”http://esitestats.com/images/rank.gif” alt=”Site Rank” /><br/>My site’s rank is:<br/><img src=”http://esitestats.com/images/imgr_my-cctv-pro.com.jpg” alt=”Rank” /><br/>What’s your<br/><a href=”http://www.esitestats.com/”>Site Rank</a>?</div>

Due to the Federal Aviation Administration’s recommendation that every commercial airport provide enhanced law enforcement and security by June 2007, Smyrna Airport, located just outside of Nashville, Tenn., decided to upgrade its surveillance and access control systems.

“We are ahead of schedule: we’ve already had our FAA and TSA inspections. As a matter of fact, the FAA is bringing other people in to see this system because they want to make other airports aware of its capabilities,” stated Johnson.

It’s not often that the security industry is presented with a completely new imaging technology – one that provides system designers, installers and users alike with a unique feature set that delivers improved efficiencies across the board. New pan focus technology is of great significance since it allows video surveillance cameras to focus on every object in the camera’s field of view, despite distances. In addition to the improved identification capabilities from the expanded depth of field, no manual focus adjustments are required, which allows pan focus cameras to provide extended coverage.

Before the development of pan focus technology, it was generally unpromising to achieve high resolution imaging with a large depth of field for video surveillance applications. That was the technological challenge that Sanyo worked to overcome by developing a unique lens that offers high resolution together with high picture quality. It was Sanyo’s development of deep focusing techniques and unique digital signal processing (DSP) capability in the camera itself that makes it possible to take the original image provided by the lens and apply sharp focus to every object in the frame. This innovative integration between the lens and the camera provides pan focus cameras with 520 lines of resolution and extreme depth of field.

In today’s world, an IP surveillance camera system may be the smart solution to a security issue in a home, business, or other establishment. Compared to traditional security cameras, IP or Internet protocol has its advantages and disadvantages. However, more and more customers are switching due to the ease of installation and higher resolution of video. CCTV (closed circuit television) and DVR methods are quickly becoming obsolete because IP allows business owners to view video from anywhere with an Internet or network connection. With a wide market out there, some business owners may feel a little overwhelmed. However, by looking at some of the top manufacturers and learning about the different options available within the IP security camera world, making a confident decision isn’t all that complicated
Large companies and retailers have a lot of property to protect. “Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee” (Proverbs 3:29). With an IP surveillance camera, the business can exist securely without any concern for theft or tampering going on unmonitored. An IP system can monitor an area 24/7, and the business owner can access either live video or recorded video through a network or on the Internet. These systems are becoming vastly more effective than CCTV and even DVR because clearer still images can be pulled from Internet protocol video, making it easier to identify culprits, even in quick motion. Plus, companies with previously established DVR or CCTV systems can easily integrate Internet protocol into the old system without making it completely useless. Others find that Internet protocol is superior to old methods of surveillance monitoring because CCTV requires expensive coaxial cabling while protocol cables are significantly cheaper and can be less obtrusive.

IP security camera systems are not perfect by any means. There are some disadvantages that some with the territory. IP cameras may not all perform as well as traditional cameras in low light. Frame rate can also be a problem for some Internet protocol models as well, making the image look jumpy. The quality of image sensors has come into questions with IP cameras, and there is a lack of standard when it comes to video encoding, meaning that not every type of camera is compatible with every type of encoder. Some of these kinks are already being worked out by the top manufacturers and may not even be a major issue with some of their best models. Customers will need to ask a representative about these issues and may also want to request some demos or sample videos from specific models.

An important part of selecting an IP surveillance camera is selecting the video encoder. To make compatibility less complicated, it’s best to purchase the encoder from the same manufacturer as the camera. The video encoder sends the video over the IP network, making it possible to view video from remote locations over the network or Internet. There are different aspects of video encoders that customers need to be aware of. Most encoders can be split into two categories: one-port and four-port. One-port or one channel means that the encoder only digitizes one camera’s analog. Four-port has four channels for encoding four camera’s analog video at once. Obviously, for every four cameras the company purchases, it would need another four-port encoder. Apart from port requirements, other important features to compare within these categories include maximum video resolution, compression rate, and embedded analytics. Embedded analytics can include motion detecting, video loss, audio detecting, and active tampering. Customers will want to look at each of these features in more detail on manufacturers’ websites.

Another aspect of selecting an IP security camera is the type of camera and whether it is designed for indoor or outdoor use. Some are conveniently designed for both. The outdoor cameras will be able to withstand the elements (to a degree) and handle adjustments in natural lighting more so than compared to indoor models. Most manufacturers will offer a wide selection of cameras that include features such as motion detecting, panning, and zooming. The need for these features really depends on the security needs of the establishment. Motion detection helps reduce the amount of recorded information. A motion detecting camera is designed to sense motion in an area and immediately record the motion. Some cameras will even notify the business owner that there is motion sensed. This greatly reduces the amount of recordings that need to be filtered through to get video of a theft. Zoom, tilt, and pan allow the camera to follow motion rather than maintain one wide view of activity.

When considering the purchase of an IP surveillance camera system, price always comes into consideration. The most top-of-the-line systems can cost an upwards of $60,000. Of course, this number involves an amount of cameras, encoders, and other accessories that not all businesses would require. Every business owner needs to contact the top manufacturers to discuss options and request a quote. Some manufacturers will not sell directly to customers but will provide a list of recommended merchants. It’s important to use these merchants as they are trusted by the manufacturer for not only sale but installation. It’s not a bad idea to also price CCTV and DVR security options as well, but be sure to compare video quality. If the business owner doesn’t have his heart set on monitoring video from anywhere, CCTV or DVR could be a less expensive alternative to Internet protocol. For large companies with a great deal of sensitive information or expensive inventory, an IP security camera system may be the best option. There’s really no price too high when it comes to keeping one’s business, employees, and inventory secure at all time.

www.my-cctv-pro.com , security cameras , DVR’s , monitors , cctv supply . los angeles & orange county free system design and estimate call today 1-866-967-1090

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.

It differs from broadcast television in that the signal is not openly transmitted, though it may employ point to point wireless links. CCTV is often used for surveillance in areas that may need monitoring such as banks, casinos, airports, military installations, and convenience stores. It is also an important tool of distance education.

In industrial plants, CCTV equipment may be used to observe parts of a process from a central control room; when, for example, the environment is not suitable for humans. CCTV systems may operate continuously or only as required to monitor a particular event. A more advanced form of CCTV, utilizing Digital Video Recorders (DVRs), provides recording for possibly many years, with a variety of quality and performance options and extra features (such as motion-detection and email alerts).

Surveillance of the public using CCTV is particularly common in the UK, where there are reportedly more cameras per person than in any other country in the world.^[1] There and elsewhere, its increasing use has triggered a debate about security versus privacy.

1-866-967-1090

President Barack Obama recently ordered a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity system to examine how federal agencies use technology to protect secrets and data.

Obama said former Bush administration aide Melissa Hathaway would head the effort to examine all the government plans, programs and activities under way to manage massive amounts of data, passport applications to tax records, personal tax returns to national security documents. A failure or attack on that infrastructure could harm the country by, for example, shutting down the nation’s airlines or crashing the stock market.

“The national security and economic health of the United States depend on the security, stability and integrity of our nation’s cyberspace, both in the public and private sectors,” John Brennan, Obama’s top adviser for counterterrorism and Homeland security, told the Associated Press. “The president is confident that we can protect our nation’s critical cyber infrastructure while at the same time adhering to the rule of law and safeguarding privacy rights and civil liberties.”

Between his election and inauguration, Obama had aides look at the proposal. Some advised him to keep his pledge for an overall overseer, while others advocated it go to DHS.

A senior administration official said the president remains committed to cybersecurity, but the official could not say whether the cyber czar would be a permanent position after the 60-day review. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Hathaway’s review of all government programs to address cybersecurity will include an inventory of what was already being done and recommendations on how it can improve, the official told AP.

The White House also has briefed members of the House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees about the move.

Automated cameras are the hot new law enforcement tool.  Cities use them to catch red light runners and speeders (I was caught by one myself earlier this year).  Washington is setting up hundreds of cameras to monitor streets, federal buildings, subway stations, and other locations.  Police used cameras with face recognition technology at last year’s Super Bowl to catch known fugitives.

Many of my libertarian friends are outraged by these cameras–creeping Big Brotherism, they say.  But the analysis can’t be as simple as “surveillance bad, privacy good”; and at least in some situations, camera systems can promote both security and liberty.

To start, the problem with cameras can’t be privacy.  These cameras are in public places, where people’s faces and cars are visible to everyone.  They catch only what any passerby, and any police officer who might be present, can lawfully see. For the same reason, cameras don’t involve “unreasonable searches and seizures,” in the words of the Fourth Amendment.  The Supreme Court has recognized that observing things in plain public view isn’t a “search” at all, much less an unreasonable one.

In fact, while we should be concerned with protecting our liberty and dignity from intrusive government actions, the red light cameras are actually less intrusive than traditional traffic policing.  The law recognizes that even a brief police stop is a “seizure,” a temporary deprivation of liberty.  When I was caught on a red light camera, I avoided that.

I avoided coming even briefly within a police officer’s physical power, a power that unfortunately is sometimes abused.  I avoided the usual demeaning pressure to be especially submissive to the police officer in the hope that he might let me off the hook.  I avoided any possibility of being pulled out and frisked, or of my car being searched.  I didn’t have to wonder if I had been stopped because of my sex, race, or age.

And while cameras aren’t perfectly reliable, I suspect that they can be made more reliable than fallibly human officers–so I may even have avoided a higher risk of being wrongly ticketed.  (It helps that the photos mailed with the ticket showed me in the driver’s seat, my car’s license plate, and the precise place my car supposedly was when the light turned red.)

The question shouldn’t be “Is the camera perfectly reliable?” but “Which is more reliable–the camera, with no observation by the police and little recollection by the motorist, or the observation and memory of the police officer and the motorist, without the camera?”  People are notoriously bad at observing and remembering exactly what happened.  Just how fast was I driving?  Exactly where was I the moment the light turned red?  Few motorists can know this with any accuracy even a minute or two after the fact. Even police officers are probably not very good at observing this.  So I think the camera evidence is generally more reliable than the police officer’s and the motorist’s observations–assuming, of course, that the camera is properly calibrated, but it’s easier to verify the camera’s calibration than the police officer’s observational acuity.

Some people object that such automatically gathered evidence violates traditional fair trial guarantees, such as the right to confront witnesses, the freedom from self-incrimination, and the presumption of innocence.  These objections are, I think, unsound.  The law has long recognized that people’s guilt can be proven using physical evidence, whether it’s fingerprints, DNA, or a traffic photograph. The burden of proof in such cases remains on the government, and the defendant remains free to cross-examine the human witnesses against him and to introduce testimony about the supposed unreliability of the physical evidence against him.  True, the physical evidence can be powerful, and, like other powerful evidence, it can put the defendant in a position where he faces conviction unless he comes up with some persuasive explanation for his actions. That, however, simply shows that the government has met its burden of proof, not that the burden has somehow been improperly shifted.

Automated traffic cameras can indeed change traditional legal rules in one important way.  A camera can’t always identify the driver, and drivers can exploit this by wearing sunglasses, caps, and other relatively unobtrusive disguises.  The public will be understandably reluctant to let these drivers get off scot-free just because the camera didn’t get a positive identification–and there will therefore be pressure simply to impose liability on the registered owner, regardless of who was driving.

But this is precisely what is done for parking tickets, where law enforcement likewise can’t identify who the driver is.  We generally accept this sort of owner liability, partly because the penalty is only money, not jail time, and partly because we recognize that owners can rightly be held responsible for the actions of those to whom they entrust their cars.  We might conclude that such owner-liability tickets shouldn’t count towards the loss of a driver’s license, but imposing a fine on the owner shouldn’t be a problem.

Expanding Government Power

Cameras are not cause for concern, then, when it comes to individual privacy, fairness, or accuracy; the real issue is government power.  Cameras are a tool that can be used for good–to enforce good laws–or for ill: to enforce bad laws, to track the government’s political enemies, to gather ammunition for blackmail, and so on.

In this respect, cameras are like other policing tools, such as the guns that police officers carry, wiretaps, the ability of police departments throughout the nation to share data, and even police forces themselves.  Each of these tools can be abused and has been abused.  We accept this risk because the tools are valuable, and because we’ve set up control systems that can help diminish the risk.

So we have to consider each camera proposal on its own terms and ask what I call the Five Surveillance Questions:

1.                  What concrete security benefits will the proposal likely provide?

2.                  Exactly how might it be abused?

3.                  Might it decrease the risk of police abuse rather than increase it?

4.                  What robust control mechanisms can realistically be set up and maintained to help diminish the risk of abuse?

5.                  And, most difficult, what other surveillance proposals is this proposal likely to lead to?

Answering these questions for traffic cameras suggests that they are a good idea, at least as an experiment.  They seem likely to help deter traffic violations.  They can’t easily be misused for gathering other sorts of information or for suppressing dissent. They decrease the discretionary and sometimes oppressive power of police over motorists.

There is a danger that local governments, which make money from traffic tickets, will use this cheap law enforcement device primarily to raise revenue without regard to whether it improves safety.  Governments could, for instance, be tempted to make yellow lights shorter (perhaps unsafely short) or to set speed limits too low.  This sort of moral hazard is always present whenever the government can financially profit from law enforcement.

But the solution to this, I think, is not to reject the useful technology, but to set up administrative control mechanisms to prevent its misuse; and precisely because cameras are evenhanded and catch the rich and powerful alongside everyone else, there are bound to be strong political forces pushing for such control mechanisms. Yes, bureaucrats do like getting the money from the traffic fines, but their bosses like to get re-elected.  When enforcement is widely spread and not focused on just a few people, the political reaction to any possible abuses is likely to be quite strong.

One friend of mine suggested that traffic tickets are a form of tax and that making the tax easier to collect will mean that this tax rate will effectively become too high. That might initially be true, but which sort of tax is fairer and likelier to be set at the proper level, a tax that is applied indiscriminately to thousands of people, or a tax that is borne by whomever a police officer chooses to pull over?

The one big unknown is the answer to the fifth Surveillance Question. Once the cameras are set up, might the data eventually be used not just to catch red light runners but to photograph and identify all drivers?  More about that shortly.

Other types of cameras, such as cameras at stadiums that look for known fugitives, or cameras mounted on government buildings and streetlamps that monitor the surrounding area for crime, are also probably worth experimenting with.  They can at least theoretically help catch some street criminals and deter others (though we should always realize that crime control proposals that sound worthwhile may end up not working in practice).  I’m not sure how much the cameras would help fight terrorism, as some people have suggested, but if they just catch street criminals, that’s not chopped liver.

www.my-cctv-pro.com , security cameras , DVR’s , monitors , cctv supply . los angeles & orange county free system design and estimate call today 1-866-967-1090

In the past four years, the CCTV industry has doubled its size, reaching $1.3 billion in factory and service revenues in 1998. The industry will continue its rapid growth due to rising user demand, the Internet, non-security applications and lower product and communication costs, according to the 1999 Report on the Closed Circuit Television Market conducted by J.P. Freeman, Management Services Consultants, Newtown, Conn.

Video transmission is in the early stages of a transformation from what was “closed-circuit” to a mix of methods that will progressively widen into hard-wired, phone line, TV cable, and wireless link systems. These innovations will significantly expand user demand, new product opportunities and channels of distribution – and will expand the way in which other communications services are used.

EXPANDING CAMERA USE Small users are installing camera systems for the first time while large users are expanding their use of CCTV through digital systems that can be integrated with other security and non-security systems. The strong economy is permitting many large users to upgrade their legacy systems as stand-alone or integrated CCTV, access control and burglary systems.

Most product advancements are incremental rather than quantum leaps and are focused on the use of digital, microprocessor-based technology. Software control will become more commonplace in mid- to large-size CCTV systems. The value of high-resolution images will expand the use of broad band transmission media and standardized communications protocols. This, in turn, will drive the development of new products that can process, analyze, and store high-resolution video material for yet more advanced and efficient user applications that can identify individuals by their personal characteristics.

THE FUTURE IS NOW The high-tech future of the industry predicted in the 1995 Freeman CCTV report is now occurring. Advances in digital and communications technologies have produced a variety of innovations that have significantly expanded the potential uses of CCTV systems. High-capacity video transmission systems, wireless communication systems, Internet video communications, and new video storage and retrieval methods have expanded the use of CCTV systems with security and non-security systems.

While these innovations have been created by video products companies of all sizes, a number of them have arrived from manufacturers whose revenues are concentrated more in the consumer market than in the commercial CCTV industry. Indeed, many commercial video innovations can be traced to developmental work conducted by these large corporations to expand their consumer businesses.

The 1999 report reveals the beginnings of market overlap between what had been strictly commercial CCTV products for security purposes and the consumer market for filming, recreation and family archiving purposes. It also reveals the rapid rise in importance of the integrated systems sector of the commercial marketplace. While digital and communications technologies have enabled these advances and have virtually guaranteed a continuing stream of system innovations into the foreseeable future, an important market factor remains unaddressed: For true integration compatibility to occur in the marketplace, supplier partnering among CCTV and access control companies has to grow.

DIGITAL’S IMPACT The advent of digital technology has substantially changed the value orientation of the CCTV business through the efficiencies that the technology enables. Faster production cycles, miniaturization, interoperable signal compatibility, higher levels of environmental endurance, and greater reliability are all now available to the user through the application of digital technology to new CCTV products.

In addition to these improvements in product attributes, one of the greatest contributions that digital technology makes to the marketplace is the economics of CCTV purchases. Systems are now more affordable than ever through price reductions across many product lines and higher levels of functionality in many new products.

Cameras are driving the CCTV industry in terms of a growing share of industry sales. As rapidly as the camera category is growing in revenues, unit sales are growing even faster due to lower costs and price reductions.

Beyond widening desire that so many commercial, institutional, and industrial organizations have for video systems to monitor and control events, the sheer economic attractiveness and versatility of CCTV systems will drive the growing demand ever higher.

A somewhat parallel development exists in the mechanical and electronic markets that comprise the access control industry. Recognizing that their hardware industry is “going electronic,” large mechanical lock companies have begun to acquire electronic door hardware control companies.

Looking into the future, these mergers facilitate the integrated system partnering problem at the portal level, since mechanical and electronic access control companies can become single “almost one-stop-shop” suppliers. The way that CCTV companies cope with this simplification process at the field level, however, has not yet become clear.

Access control manufacturers tend to be smaller firms relative to video companies and hardware companies. They could represent the “companies in the middle,” i.e. the next round of companies to be acquired as part of the overall consolidation now reshaping the security industry. Which kind of company acquires them – CCTV or hardware – will have a great deal to do with the efficiency of marketplace partnering to serve the demand for integrated CCTV systems.

www.my-cctv-pro.com , security cameras , DVR’s , monitors , cctv supply . los angeles & orange county free system design and estimate call today 1-866-967-1090

When the grainy images of suicide bombers and would-be bombers appeared on British TV screens and newspapers throughout Britain this month, it completed a revolution. Stealthily, in a mere 10 to 15 years, closedc ircuit television cameras have spread across the nation and a people once jealous of their privacy have scarcely raised a protest.Britons want their own CCTV. Every day, the average Briton is filmed going about his or her business: on trains and buses, in schools, hospitals, department stores, football grounds, streets and shops.
In 2001, the country had a million CCTV cameras; last year it had four times as many. Barry Hughill, of the human rights organisation Liberty, has described Britain as “the CCTV capital of the world”.
In their 2002 paper “CCTV in Britain”, criminologists Michael McCahill and Clive Norris partly trace the proliferation of the cameras to a doubling of recorded crime incidents in the country between 1979 and 1992.
The rising crime rate drove the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major to spend heavily on CCTV — and public support was sealed when cameras in a Liverpool shopping mall caught two 10-year-old boys leading two-year-old James Bulger to his death in 1993.
When he took power in 1997, Tony Blair was determined to erase the perception that Labour was soft on crime and his government has continued the spread of CCTV.
Yet its growth is not driven so much by the central government but by private companies and local governments keen to keep their town centres free of “yobs” and safe for shoppers.
The “big brother” analogy is often used but isn’t quite right. There is no central surveillance bureaucracy. Rather, much of the spying is done by private security outfits on behalf of companies, councils and transport operators. They will contact police when they see a crime or — as with the London bombers — the camera footage will be taken and viewed by investigators.
The evidence that CCTV reduces general crime levels is far from conclusive, but no matter. After the events of the past few weeks, the all-seeing eye is almost certainly here to stay.

www.my-cctv-pro.com , security cameras , DVR’s , monitors , cctv supply . los angeles & orange county free system design and estimate call today 1-866-967-1090

A variety of network-based security systems fall under the umbrella of physical security: video surveillance, access control, intrusion detection, location-based systems, data communications, mass message communications and media distribution, to name just a few. To effectively troubleshoot these systems, integrators first need to determine whether the problem lies with the physical infrastructure or the logical infrastructure.

Rooting Out Physical Infrastructure Problems

When troubleshooting physical infrastructure, integrators must examine:
• cabling and wireless networks,
• equipment that controls the network devices and system power, and
• wiring plant that supports the multiple network-based security systems.
The wiring plant includes the telecommunications closet, the intermediate cross-connect, the main cross-connect and the data center, as well as the command monitoring center and the main cable head where the physical infrastructure connects to TELCO services, external WANs or the Internet.
To determine the source problem, ask these questions:
Is there power? This is the most obvious place to start troubleshooting. Ferret out whether a break in the network cable is present or if the problem lies with the power sourcing equipment (PSE) or the powered device (PD) itself. It’s advantageous to have a network management system that can consistently monitor the endpoints of the network and pinpoint where performance has slowed down or stopped altogether, especially for larger networks.
Is the PSE’s capacity exceeded? If an Ethernet cable connects devices to a Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) switch, confirm that the device being powered can accept and use power from that Ethernet cable for its operation. As a safety precaution, a PoE switch or other PoE-compliant PSE won’t supply power over an Ethernet cable if it’s not connected to a PoE-compliant device.
Second, check the wattage rating of the network switch and the power requirements of all the PoE devices being powered by that switch. The PoE standard — also known as the IEEE 802.3af standard — designates a maximum power output of 15.4 watts per port, or 12.95 watts to the powered device after factoring in the normal power loss that occurs on a twisted pair cable. Attaching too many devices with large power requirements to a switch can exceed its power capacity. To determine the classification of a particular powered device, check the manufacturer’s specification sheet.
If the network switch supports the newly ratified Hi PoE standard — also known as IEEE 802.3at or PoE+ — it can deliver 25 watts of power per port, or 22.55 watts to the powered device once power dissipation in the cable is considered. If the Hi PoE network switch uses all four of the twisted pairs in the Cat 5 cable, it can deliver up to 51 watts of power per channel. This is more than sufficient to power and control pan/tilt/zoom network cameras, as well as heaters and fans in outdoor network cameras, over a single Ethernet cable.
Is the wireless network experiencing interference? Much like hardwired network systems, integrators should set up a network management system to monitor wireless transceivers or radios for power loss, fluctuating network throughput and poor signal strength. Radios can also be monitored for interference from external sources.

Rooting Out Logical Infrastructure Problems

When troubleshooting logical infrastructure, integrators must examine:
• network switches,
• firewalls, and
• network management systems.
This is the virtual portion of your network that controls how you segment access to network security devices and systems. It also involves the way you guarantee quality of service (QoS) for critical systems during spikes in bandwidth demand from various security systems on the network.
To determine where the problem might be originating in the logical infrastructure, here are a few pertinent questions to investigate:
Does the user have permission to access the system? If a user complains that they’re not receiving information from a particular network-based device, check the Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) to see if they have been granted permission to access that device. The VLAN is designed to separate groups of users to prevent unauthorized access to network components such as devices or databases.
For instance, human resources might have permission to look at an access control database but is barred from the access control panels themselves. A school superintendent may be able to see all of the video cameras in the district, but principals can see only the cameras covering their own campuses. Or in an emergency, first responders may be given temporary access to a building’s security cameras.
Is a new logical security application causing communication failures? If network-based devices suddenly stop communication, check to see if the network administrator has introduced a new logical security application that may have triggered the failure. This could be a new proxy server that doesn’t recognize the device, a new firewall that creates a barrier between the device and the network in accordance with the company’s information security management (ISM) policy, or a piece of security software that is blocking the network port used by the device.
The best way to test for these problems is to shut down the new application and see if the device begins communicating again. Start with the simplest communications path possible and then add layers of logical infrastructure and tracking when things start to fail.

Troubleshooting Specific, Network-Based Security Systems

After investigating the infrastructures, integrators should move on to the specific network systems for further inspection. The diagnostic strategies for two of the more popular network-based security systems — video surveillance and access control — are very similar.
Is the powered device working? Whether it’s a network camera or a card reader, the first thing to check is the device itself. Is it receiving power? Are all its parts functioning? If the problem doesn’t seem to be power or part failure, try resetting the device. Start with a soft reset: simply powering down the device and then powering it back up again. If that doesn’t work, a hard reset will restore the device’s settings to its factory default. Then you can change the settings one at a time to see if a particular new setting is causing the problem.
Is the problem in the firmware? One of the most common oversights in upgrading network-based systems is firmware compatibility between the network camera and the video management system or between the card reader, the door control panel and the access control management system. A manufacturer might have shipped you a firmware revision for the network device that isn’t supported by the management system. Or the network administrator might have upgraded the management system without considering its compatibility with the network device. Any of these scenarios could lead to a communications issue.
Are the databases synched? If multiple network-based security systems are designed to work in tandem, it’s important to synchronize their databases to ensure that they operate properly. For example, a visitor management system might allow visitors to enroll online to ensure a badge is waiting from them when they arrive at the facility. However, if that information doesn’t automatically populate the access control system database, then the visitor’s badge won’t be recognized by the card reader.
Is remote access being hampered? For network video surveillance systems in particular, problems can emerge with WAN connectivity when monitoring video streams remotely. To correct, first ensure that the individual monitoring the cameras is accessing the correct static IP addresses. If the network doesn’t use static IP addresses for the network cameras, check that correct port forwarding or network address translation protocols are in place. This might require specialized programming to determine if the camera’s video stream is transmitting properly through the router.
Hosted video solutions avoid much of this complex protocol connectivity by connecting the cameras to an outside dispatch service. The service automatically reconfigures the cameras to stream video to a hosted video portal, where it can be accessed by remote users.

Keeping It Simple

Even in a complex network environment, the simplest approach is the most effective one. Start troubleshooting by ruling out more obvious problems such as power loss before exploring other possible issues affecting system performance. Try to recreate a simple communications path between the network device and the user of that device’s information — be it a video stream or an entrance permission. Then gradually introduce other areas of the network to determine where and when the problem occurs. This systematic layering of complexity will make it easier and faster for you to root out the problem and bring the security systems back to full operation.

Troubleshooting Checklist:

Check physical infrastructure
• Power to all devices?
• Manual soft or hard reset?
• PoE capacity exceeded?
• Wireless interference?
Check logical infrastructure
• User permission for VLAN?
• New logical security application?
(Proxy server, firewall, security software, etc.)
• Firmware compatibility?

Alphabet Soup: Network Security System Acronyms

These are some of the acronyms you’ll need to recognize and understand if your business is troubleshooting network-based security systems:
ISM – Information Security Management
NAT – Network Address Translation
PD – Powered Device
PoE – Power over Ethernet, IEEE 802.3af standard
PoE Plus – Power over Ethernet Plus, IEEE 802.3at standard
PSE – Power Source Equipment
QoS – Quality of Service
VLAN – Virtual Local Area Network
VMS – Video Management System
VoIP – Voice over Internet Protocol

www.my-cctv-pro.com , security cameras , DVR’s , monitors , cctv supply . los angeles & orange county free system design and estimate call today 1-866-967-1090