Eliminating Control Panels? Viscount Reviewed

Author: Brian Rhodes, Published on Dec 05, 2013

Every access control system requires control panels. But now one manufacturer claims that their 'Freedom' system eliminates the panel, trumpeting that:

****'* * ****** ******* ***** ***, ** ****, ***** ** the **** ****** ******* **** *******.

** **** ****, ** *************** ******* '*******', ******** **** ****'* **** *** *** ** ****.

The ****** **********

*** **** ** ********'* ****** ** * ****** *** ******* ***** * "******". ******* ******** *** ****** "***** *** **** ****** **** an ** ******" ******* *** **** ** * **********, ***"******" ** ****** * **********. *** **** ********** **** *****, *******, *** **** ******** are ***** **** *** ******, *** *** ***** ****** ** connected **** ** ******** ******* - *** **** ********** ** a  ******** **********.

*** **** ********** ** **** *** ****** ***** ** ******* decisions, *** **** ** ** ********* ***** *** ****** ********. ****** ****** comes **** ** **** *** *** ********* ** ******* ******* board ********** *** ******** ************. *** ********* ***** *** ****** of *** ***** ********** ****** * '**** **' ********** **** use ******** **********, ****** ******, *** *********** ******. *******, ** order ** ******* '*******' ~*"**" *** *******, *** ******** ********** are ** ********** **** *** ******** ******** *** **** *********. Viscount ****** '************', *** ************ *** ******** ************* **** ~$**-$**.

*** ****** *** ****** ********* *** ********* **** *********** ******* because **** ********* '******* ******' *** '********** ***** ********' ** software. *** *** ******* ******** ****** ****** *** ** ***** are:

**** ************: ***** *** **** *** ************ *** **** ****, **** indeed ********* *** * ****** ***** ********. *** ****** ********** are ********* ******** ** *** **** *** **** ****** ********* to * **** ********. ******* *** ********* ** ******, ******, and **** ****** ********, *** *** ****** ********* ****** ** other ******* **** ********* *** *********.  ** ************ ** **** control ****** *** ****, **** * ******* ** ************** *******.

****** *********:****** **** ********** ********, ******* **** ****** ********* ** * server ** ** ***********. ***** ******* *** ** ********* ** remote ******* ** '********', *** ******* ******** ****** ***** ******** ******* ** ****. These '********' ********* *** ******** ** ***** '****-*******' ** ******** clients ********* ** ******* ************ *** *** ** ********** *********. Failover ** ******** ************* ** *** ******, *** ******* ******** servers *** ** ********** **** **** ******.

**** ****** ** **** *******:* ******** ******** ** ***'* ********* ** * **** ***** of **************** **** ********** ******* **** ** ****** **** ** '********* *********'. *** ******* ****** * **** ***** ** ********** ******* including **** *******, ***, ***, ******, *** ********* *****, ** to ***** ***** **** ****. **** ** * ********** **** is *******, ** ****** ** ****** ******* *** ****** ** a ****** *** ******* *****. ** ******** ** * *** controller **** **** ***** **** *** ***********, ***'* ******* ******** has ** *********** ** ******* *******.

*******

********'* ********* *** ************* ****** ******** ** ************, *** ********* are ***** ** ********** **** *********. *** * ******** ****, ***'* solution ********:

*** ****** ***** ******** ~$***.   ***'* *****/****** ********* *** carried ** ******** ************ *** *** ** ********* ******* ******* training.

*** **********, ******** ******* ********* **** ********, ***** * ****** door'***** *****' ************* ******** ***** ~$***.

*** *** ******, ********* ***** **** **** *****, *******, ***********, and ******** ********** *** *** ******** *** *** ****** ** widely ****** '*** ****' *****.

*********

***** **** ** ***********, ***'* ******** **** *** **** ******* notable **********:

****** *********: ** ******* *****, *** ******* ****** ******* **** *** an ****** ********** ** * ******** ******.

*** **** ************:***** ***, ******* ********, ** ****' *********** *** '****', ***'* platform ** ***********. **** *** ******** ** *********, ** *** only ** **** **** *** ********** ********. **** ***** ********* into *** ** * ******** ***** ** * **** **** users ******** *****.

******* ***********:******* ****** ******* **** ***** ************ ** *** ** *** most ****** ************ ** ******** ********, *** ***** ** *********** with *** ***** ***.

Ideal ***********

***'* ****** ********* **** ******** ******** ** ********** *** '**** security' ***********. *** *******, *** ******** ** *******-* *********, ***** with ***-****** ***/*** ***********, *** ******** '**** **/**** ***' ************ as *******. *** ******** ** ****** ** ******* *** *********, and ****************** ******** ************, ******* ** ***********.

*******, *********** *** ******** ** ***********, ************ *** *******, *** an ************ ******* ***, **** **** ****** ** **** ****** system **** *** ** **** **** ***** ****** ** ***** access ******* ******** *********.

 

Comments (10)

Good to see you back writing articles Brian!

I don't think I would be comfortable having door controllers dependent on network connections, and I'm a network guy. It's one thing if a network connection to a camera gets interrupted- so you lose some video.... If these "bridges" loose network connection, you have access issues that prevent you from getting in or maybe getting out, or permitting unrestricted access, I guess whichever way the devices default too or are configured. This possibility increases exponentially if are using wireless access points.

I wish there was more mention or a development in terminology when reviewing access or other devices like this to distinguish systems that use a "sync'd data architecture", where the controllers or bridges are actually syncing and caching data, either with a master controller or PC based server, thus allowing them to operate independently when communication issues occur, versus systems that do not, where the controller or bridge cannot function on its own.

See John, free lunches don't affect my objectivity. =)

Luis, I like the way Mercury defines things. Their single door PoE controller (which has intelligence and will make decisions if th network is down) is the EP1501. The MR51e, on the other hand, they call a door interface, because it contains all the connections to the door, but will not do any decision making on its own. It has to connect back to one of the EP controllers via the network.

I think that's a good distinction. The Viscount Liberty bridge looks to me to be a door interface, in that case.

I approached VSI many times at their booths. I was impressed with the technology however they explained the system as using IT infrastucture and Active Directory to do the management. What I quickly found was that there must be an active directory domain controller on the site that has the devices since as you say, the credentials have to be passed to a system with a database to provide a response. So if you are network dependant, intersite for example, I would not be putting this in. It is a greate idea and can work on a local area network with a domain controller available. And that is where I left the product. The cost of deploying domain controllres everywhere and supporting them far exceeds the cost of a control panel at the site. Maybe what people may want to design is AD Domain Controllers that can fit in the palm of your hand and can hold 100s of thousands or millions of records. It would make the whole system plug and play for everyone.

Viscount has had a system like this for awhile. I've always called it Mesh, though they now have a different product called Mesh.

The Mesh system I worked with was server dependent, but without a "Bridge". The reader was semi-intelligent in that it handled all the connections, including lock relay, RTE, door position switch. But it needed the server for cards. If the server went down you were screwed. A single cat5e ran back to a hub/switch which could also server as a junction point for all the additional hardware if you didn't want to go right at the reader. The switch/hub had an in from previous reader/server, in from the reader, and then out to the next one. As well as a screw terminal set for the door hardware.

We've only ever had one customer on the system (and recently upgraded to a Keyscan system) and it did work surprisingly well for 6-8 years.

I like the idea of the bridge, as it would leave me able to use any reader, where as the older Mesh style we were stuck with Viscounts readers and cards.

My R&D developed a simillr system few years back, where we use fingerprint devices to read fingerprint images from users, and send back to server for verification. Result of verification return from server to the fingerprint devices to response to the users. The idea is similar, where server stores all credentials, verification algorithm, access rules and database. This is ideal because you will only need a server and multiple slave fingerprint readers.

When comes to real operation, we noticed the software can only handle single thread of data transfer. It only receive and proceed verification for the "first reach" fingerprint images. While it ignores the rest of the fingerprint images sent from other fingerprint devices. The result, only 1 fingerprint device can verify 1 user at the same time, while the rest fail.

By the end, we pull back the development and change to develop bigger fingerprint storage in our products. We know no matter how big the storage of the device can achieve, it cannot compare with server-client based system.

When comes to a server-client based verification system, how many threads can the server handle? Will it accept all "input" in queue? Or it ignore the rest? I am not familiar with the VSI, but I like the idea of server-client verification. However the delay time between every read/verification is my concern.

"When comes to real operation, we noticed the software can only handle single thread of data transfer. It only receive and proceed verification for the "first reach" fingerprint images. While it ignores the rest of the fingerprint images sent from other fingerprint devices. "

Kok, I would think that should have been a simple software fix- one system process that receives data and qeues them up for processing and another process that processes the images. If you send the fingerprint straight to the imaging process without any queing then I can see how you'd miss processing requests from other devices.

"This is ideal because you will only need a server and multiple slave fingerprint readers. "

What about that would be the ideal? Is it a possibly cheaper cost of the edge devices, since they don't have to perform any or a limited amount of intelligenece and storage? That would be the only benefit I could think of.

Hi Luis

Yes I agreed my R&D missed the part (queing fingerprints for verification) thus finally we discountinue the product. Therefore I am asking, how VSI handles queing of every card ID sent from the Bridge Card, and response to every Bridge Card (door open/close) and other (sensor, alarm output etc)?

VSI's software technology seems admittedly cool. However, I've noticed over the years that cool software technology doesn't always succeed in access control because:

  1. Putting access on a door, even a wireless lockset, is more labor-intenstive and costly than hanging cameras on walls.
  2. Because of point #1, Integrators/Installers like to have a piece of the hardware revenue stream. Thus moving costs from hardware to software provides less incentive to integration partners, as their business models might not be geared to reselling software. In a similar vein, I suspect Axis will see this with their A1001 controller.

VSI will certainly find some success with this in the higher-end market wtih established IT environments. Time will tell if this can become mainstream.

Any thoughts on using the Nano Cube Server or have any experience with it? I find it interesting and am wondering when these are generally installed. I would be worried to have my access database on something that someone could potentially plug into a wall socket not in a secured room.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Ex-Integrator Now Growth Strategist Interviewed on Apr 24, 2019
For more than a decade, Scot MacTaggart was a security integrator (at PA-based PSX). In late 2018, he left the industry. He is now a Growth...
19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
ACRE Acquires RS2, Explains Acquisition Strategy on Apr 19, 2019
ACRE continues to buy, now acquiring RS2, just 5 months after buying Open Options. One is a small access control manufacturer from Texas, the...
Access Control Course Spring 2019 - Last Chance on Apr 19, 2019
 Register for the Spring 2019 Access Control Course----Closed IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course in the industry. Unlike...
Door Operators Access Control Tutorial on Apr 17, 2019
Doors equipped with door operators, specialty devices that automate opening and closing, tend to be quite complex. The mechanisms needed to...
Alarm.com Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 15, 2019
The once dot com startup has evolved to become a core provider for home security and is now expanding into commercial. In their first entry in...
ISC West 2019 Report on Apr 12, 2019
The IPVM team has finished at the Sands looking at what companies are offering and how they are changing their positioning. See below for 50+...
Spring 2019 50+ New Products Directory on Apr 08, 2019
We are compiling a list of new products for Spring 2019 and have over 50 already. Contrast to Fall 2018 New Products Directory and Spring 2018...
Startup GateKeeper Aims For Unified Physical / Logical Access Token on Apr 04, 2019
This startup's product claims to 'Kill the Password' you use to keep your computers safe.  They have already released their Gatekeeper Halberd...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Verkada Salesman: IPVM "Stuck In A The Stone Age" on Apr 25, 2019
Verkada is 'tackling dinosaurs' and battling those, like IPVM, who are 'stuck in a the stone age'. Verkada's recent sales recruiting promotion...
The HIVIDEO $31 Face Detection DVR Tested on Apr 25, 2019
Face detection in a $31 DVR? That is what "HIVIDEO" (not to be confused with Hikvision, even if the company intends to do that) was promoting at...
Amazon Marketing Pro Installs of Amazon Security Systems on Apr 25, 2019
Is Amazon a threat to conventional providers like ADT, Vivint and Brinks Home Security? Many say no. Now, Amazon is advertising free in-home...
Ex-Integrator Now Growth Strategist Interviewed on Apr 24, 2019
For more than a decade, Scot MacTaggart was a security integrator (at PA-based PSX). In late 2018, he left the industry. He is now a Growth...
19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
Hikvision Admits USA Sales Falling on Apr 22, 2019
Hikvision, in a new Chinese financial filing, has admitted that its USA sales are now falling. Less than a year after the US government passed a...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Arecont Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 22, 2019
Arecont's net negativity remained the same in IPVM's 2019 integrator study, though integrator's feeling became relatively more neutral compared to...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact