Intrusion detection devices must maintain a delicate balance. Highly sensitive devices can cause too many false alarms while devices with insufficient “sensitivity are easily defeated by sophisticated intruders. Innovations in intrusion detection technology have enabled significant advancements in performance, resulting in excellent catch performance while virtually eliminating false alarms.”

Well-designed intrusion detection devices have the capability to ignore non-intruder events such as pets and other animals, changes in room temperature or lighting conditions, moving shadows, moving electrical appliances and other harmless events. These detectors incorporate and analyze data from multiple sensors, including a long-range passive infrared (PIR) sensor, short-range PIR sensor, microwave sensor, white light sensor and temperature sensor.

The concept of gathering data from multiple sensors isn’t new. Many detectors combine data from various sensors, but simply building multiple sensors into a detector does not increase its effectiveness. Using multiple sensors as checks and balances may increase a detector’s false alarm immunity but does so at the cost of catch performance. The critical difference is in the way this data is processed.

Sensor data fusion collects information from all of the sensors and feeds it into a microprocessor that analyzes the data using complex algorithms. This enables the detector to balance sensors and adjust sensitivities in order to make truly intelligent decisions to determine valid alarm conditions.

The following are a few examples of how this can work (click on each title to learn more):

As you can see, there have been many innovations in intrusion detection technology over the last decade. Conventional intrusion detection devices that degrade catch performance for false-alarm immunity or vice versa are being replaced by technology that eliminates the need to compromise between the two critical functions.

Look closely at the technology in the detectors you use for your next project, so you can be sure you’re providing your customers with the best performance for their security systems. Not all detectors are the same.

In 1988 Enzo partnered with a college friend to open Fox Alarms & Communications. Their new venture would focus on two then-emerging markets – cellular telephones and home, business and automobile alarms. Like any new business, they worked hard to create sales. They sold a lot of cellular telephones at weekly flea markets in the Montreal area, and their heritage gave us an advantage to offer security systems and cellular phones to the close-knit Italian community.

In the early 90s, the partnership was dissolved, with each partner continuing on their own. Enzo, whose wife Ornella also worked alongside him since the beginning in the marketing and design capacity, realized that mobile communications was taking off as a necessity beyond a luxury. In 1991 Frank joined Enzo to focus primarily on the cellular side of the business, while Enzo concentrated on growing the security side. At one time Fox Alarms & Communications operated two retail cellular stores in Montreal, as well as their security company offices.

Enzo adds: “You might say we grew up together with John and Bill Georgoudes. These relationships were, as I say, both personal and business-related. Things like weddings, holidays and other significant events would at times be celebrated together – and even today, we consider friendship and loyalty as an integral part of our relationship.”

Business continued to grow, and in 2004 Enzo and Frank had their third brother, Vito join the firm.

When asked about the benefits and disadvantages of having family members as partners, Enzo readily suggested that whatever the disadvantages might be, they would be trivial. On the other hand, he cited things like trust, and being able to rely on one another as well as defining each member’s strengths and weaknesses and commitment to success as the major benefits of a family business.

“It’s reassuring and encouraging to know that you can take a vacation, and walk out of the office with full confidence knowing things will be well cared for while you are away. Of course like all brothers we have, from time to time, had differences of opinion – but we also have always respected the separation of responsibilities within the company. It has also helped, that like most Italian families, we gathered regularly for Sunday lunch at our parents’ home. Good wine and great food has always been a big part of those gatherings and any differences that might have been lingering were quickly set aside.”

They also are able to respect the special skills that each of them brings to the business. Although they are not big on titles, an outsider would suggest that Enzo is the President and CEO. Vito, having taken business training in college, is the man in charge of the purse strings, and would be identified as the Chief Financial Officer, while Frank uses his considerable people skills to advantage on the sales and public relations side of the operation.

Having a family of entrepreneurs is especially interesting, given that their mentor and father, Nicola, made an honest living as a construction painter. Mind you, after retiring, he too played a part in FoxSecur, offering his assistance with daily banking chores and other errands as needed to help the growth of their enterprise.

“If we do make a move outside Quebec, we would probably be looking for a company that could sustain itself and operate fairly independently. Ideally, it would come to us complete with a seasoned general manager type who could run it as a separate entity under our guidance,” says Enzo. He also emphasized that although he and his brothers play pivotal roles at FoxSecur, there is also room for growth for others who do not share the Ventulieri family name, acknowledging that good people are not easy to find, and are worth rewarding and nurturing when they do come along.

You have chosen to earn your living at least partially, by providing reliable, practical security solutions for homes and/or businesses.

“One would think there is an argument that you are motivated not only by profit, but also by the rather noble cause of making the communities you serve safer and more secure – and to provide a level of peace-of-mind for your customers.”

Many people think of the electronic security industry as a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the use of electricity as a means of detection and notification of what we might call an alarm situation is considerably older than the telephone – and if you remove electricity from the equation, the industry is many centuries old.

By definition, an alarm system is meant to detect an event that occurs when a premise is unoccupied or when its occupants are committed to pursuits other than safety and security. Once an alarm occurs, it becomes necessary to warn occupants who may be in danger, and to summon help in order to minimize the effects of the event.

By that definition, our industry goes back to the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans who used geese to guard important sites. When an intruder showed his presence, the geese became quite aggressive and the noise associated with their aggression summoned help –not always before the bad guy learned just how hostile they could be!

Interestingly, records indicate that the ancient Greeks also developed a prototype of the modern fire extinguisher and pump! And geese, we are told, are still used to some extent to help protect some distilleries in Scotland and Ireland.

In a manner of speaking, these geese could be considered the forerunners of today’s guard dogs – although there are those who would suggest that wearing your new shoes when arriving after the dogs, or the geese, had free run over a long weekend was not a good idea.

The 19th century, however, was a time of significant innovation. Perhaps the most exciting development was the discovery of electricity (or perhaps more correctly the ability to harness it for our use). Soon after the concept of stringing wires to send electricity into distant places, came the development of the telegraph. Now messages could be transmitted to places far and wide!

In 1839, William F. Channing, a Harvard University student, proposed that the telegraph be used to transmit fire alarms. By 1844 Samuel Morse had established the first fire alarm telegraph system between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. These manually operated systems were later replaced by automated ones.

The electric burglar alarm system owes its start to the inventive genius of Augustus R. Pope and the business acumen of Edwin Holmes who founded the company known as Holmes Protective, Inc.

Transmitting devices were installed at major intersections, particularly in large cities. Using them, residents from the area could request service from police, fire or ambulance services. They could also often order a taxi, doctor or ice delivery and other services. Signals arrived at the telegraph monitoring station in the form of a ticker tape. The location of the sender was identified by a code unique to each site, and the type of service required was defined by the number of “rounds” (how many repeats) were received. Fire alarms – considered the most important – sent only one round, thus ensuring the fastest possible response. Requests for ambulance services sent two rounds, demands for police response sent three rounds, and so on. When a signal was received at the telegraph monitoring station, a runner was dispatched. The runner rode his bicycle to the location of the required service department to advise them of the request for service (remember, the telephone had not yet been invented).

By the turn of the 20th century there were 5 major players in this burgeoning business field. Some of the names are still around today. These industry leaders were Holmes, American District Telegraph (can you say ADT?), Grinnel Corporation, Automatic Fire Alarm and the similarly named Automatic Fire Protection.

Smaller firms relied on marketing ingenuity, technological innovation and personalized customer service to survive.

World War II sparked more innovation in electric technology and the period following the war saw a building boom that was unprecedented. Modern cities expanded. Suburbia became the desired place to be. New shops, hospitals, schools and other amenities sprouted up like weeds.

Companies like those previously mentioned strung wires throughout these growing cities. As a matter of fact, alarm companies employed linemen in cities throughout Canada until the 1960s and early ‘70s, when the switch was made to lines that were leased from the local telephone companies.

But suburbia posed significant problems. The technology of the day limited the ability to transmit signals as cities spread out. The cost, first to string their own telegraph lines, and later to “lease” lines from their telco providers was a major consideration, as was the reduced quality of the signal due to deterioration caused by long distances.

Enter the wonderful world of electronics! New transmission methods and better, more reliable detecting devices arrived as

It is interesting to note the continuation of the tradition of signal prioritization in the world of digital dialers that arrived in common use in the 1980s. Before the advent of more sophisticated transmission formats like SIA or Contact ID, signals used formats referred to firstly as 3/1 and later 4/2. 3/1 formats identified the location of the transmitter by means of the 3-digit code and the single digit that followed identified the type of alarm – usually a “1” for fire, “2” for ambulance, “3” for police and so on. Sound familiar? When 4/2 formats became the norm, the vast majority of monitoring stations and installers stuck with the same arrangement. The 4-digit site identifier was followed by a 2-digit alarm code – usually a “11” meant fire alarm from Zone 1, “12” was fire alarm Zone 2 etc. Similarly, “21” meant a medical emergency from either Zone1 or the keypad panic button (this was also, of course, substituted for a “panic” or “hold-up” signal) and once again relegated to third place, “31” a burglar alarm from Zone 1, “32” burglary, Zone 2 etc.

Of course like all things electronic, the life expectancy of any new technology is limited. Within a relatively few years after the introduction of digital communicators and receivers, we were introduced to cellular network transmissions – and even that technology has already undergone at least two significant upgrades! The use of the Internet for signal transmission is now commonplace – and no doubt will become more and more popular in the years ahead.

Who knows what will come next? But what’s really important is the realization that our industry will embrace the changes as they occur – and will once again demonstrate a willingness to do whatever it takes to contribute to the safety and security of communities in which we live and the citizens who live there.

BE PROUD! You have chosen to be part of an industry with a long and storied history of contribution to society. And you have chosen to do so as a private entrepreneur, without prodding by (and despite what some might call interference from) any level of government.

Monitoring stations are often asked by their dealers to issue a certificate that can be given to their subscriber for use when applying “for a discount on their home or business insurance. Although this practice is fairly commonplace, it is not something that should be supported by the stations.”

Once the proper equipment is selected, it must also be installed in a prescribed manner that assures the most effective performance possible. Upon completion of the installation, the installer must provide at least one suitable and approved means of communicating alarm signals to a monitoring station that must itself, meet or exceed the standards demanded by ULC.

In order to be able to issue ULC Certificates, the installation company must itself be ULC-listed. The requirements for such listings include the need to apply for certification. Once the application is accepted, ULC will arrange for its field representative to visit at least 3 installations while accompanied by a representative of the installation company. Such visits are meant to ensure that the standards have all been met. During these field inspections, the alarm systems will also be tested through to the monitoring station, which must already have undergone inspection and listing in its own right.

Once ULC has satisfied itself that the applicant understands and can perform according to their standards, the installer company will be listed by ULC and will thereafter, in conjunction with that specific monitoring station, be permitted to arrange for the issuance of a ULC Certificate for each site that has such a requirement.

Annual follow-up inspections are also required. These follow-up visits will involve the random selection by the inspector of 3 sites for which the company has issued certificates. As during the initial inspections, it will be necessary to exhibit adherence to all standards, a signed agreement with the subscriber and a signed agreement with the monitoring facility (if it is a 3rd party provider).

There are obvious costs for all these services –both to the alarm installation company and the monitoring station – and those costs will largely be borne by the installing company.

With all that in mind, alarm dealers can, if desired, prepare and provide a certificate of their own that may well be accepted by the customer’s insurance company. Sample forms of such certificates are often available from your monitoring company and can be modified as required by your staff. In each instance, this “certificate” should show the name and address of the subscriber, the name and address of the installation company, the fact that the system is being monitored (if the station is ULC-listed it might be wise to mention that fact) and what types of signals are included in the monitoring service (burglar alarm, fire alarm, sump pump failure, etc.).