Is ADT Over-Selling IP Video?
Published Dec 09, 2009 00:00 AM
PUBLIC - This article does not require an IPVM subscription. Feel free to share.
In perhaps the most over-stated marketing piece of the year, ADT's "Network Video Benefits and Guide" whitepaper provides a flawed case for moving to IP video.
While some points are standard claims, a number are problematic:
- Claims DVRs require scheduled downtime for service while network systems can be upgraded while the network is running (just not true, both can be upgraded while the network is running)
- Network systems can be viewed anywhere with an Internet connection (of course, so can DVRs)
- NVRs offer complete redundancy if a recording server goes down. While this is possible, it's quite expensive and basically out of the price range of any small to medium size business (the segment this guide focused on).
- Network systems are more efficient at managing network high-traffic times because they can stream at different rates. However, not only can DVRs do this, DVRs tend to be more efficient because they control the on-board encoding and can dynamically change stream size directly without requesting it from 3rd party IP cameras.
- Network video systems use more effective compression. This is untrue as both DVRs and IP cameras support the same types of CODECS - MPEG-4, H.264, etc.
- Security systems integration is possible over MAN/WAN networks. This is equally possible for both IP video and DVR systems. They both support network connections and they both can equally connect to systems over IP networks to the same basic degree.
The Guide features a puzzling quote: "IP-based solutions are 30 percent less expensive to purchase, 30 percent less expensive to install and take 30 percent less time to learn." Not only do I think all 3 are wrong, it's likely that IP is more expensive on all 3 accounts.
The paper concludes with a reference to a DvTel based solution that they are advocating for the small to medium size business market.