# Don't use landline except for alarm...alternatives?



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Even the cheapest landline is 20.95 with shaw. Taxes in is almost 300/year. 

Cellular alarm communication is wr/month. A bit better but still.....

Considering the line is only being used 1-4 times a day 4-5 dollars a month sounds more reasonable. I wish someone offered an alarm line only. 

Anyway the whole point of this thread is to hear any alternatives to a land line for alarms. 

Cellular is one. I have also heard of shortwave radio. 
I am thinking majic jack would work but if there was a power outage and no one home to reboot the computer you are screwed. 

Thoughts?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Cell phones can run out of battery and phones lines can go down too

I would use VoIP with some kind of power backup and use a real VoIP adaptor that isn't locked to 1 carier

The Linksys PAP2T for example plugs into your router and would reboot on its own if the power flinched. Just make sure you don't buy a Linksys that is locked to Vonage

I don't use POTS (plain old phone) lines but there are some better alternatives to Magic Jack


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Get a dog? 

Is there some kind of benefit to having an alarm?

Before my hubby moved here I never even locked my door and no one ever robbed me. I live in Scarberia too. 

The best way to save money in this situation is to cancel the alarm and the phone line. Keep the stickers lol 

IMHO the most valuable thing in my place is me and my family. If I'm not there take the stuff. People are dying to sell me more stuff. If I'm there thats a real problem. Oh and I do have some nice stuff, I'm not saying this because I get all my stuff at Goodwill either.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

There is discussion on this web site about alarm services using Rogers Home Phone or other digital phone services. http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=39789

You can't blame the alarm company for the cost of a landline. That's a dedicated pair of wires running to your home, whether you have much traffic on it or not. The only way I could see of reducing cost would be to combine it with some other telecom services you can use. But from the alarm company's point of view it has to be something reliable and technically compatible with their equipment. And connecting it to cellphone that may not be located on the premises would be pointless.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

You can blame the alarm company for not getting with the times. They should have the option of digital signals and make the internet "technically compatible" then you wouldn't even use voip

digitalhome.ca is a great site for this kind of question, the most popular voip thread by far is voip.ms which is what I use

Majic Jack, Skype etc don't sell Cdn DID (area codes) but voip.ms does for 1 thing

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=78


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

I used to pay $70/mo with Bell Canada. 2 years ago, I switched to Vonage ($23/mo), and got a plethora of features. I've been very happy with it.

Vonage didn't work with my security system. The cheapest Bell telephone landline would have cost me $34/mo (tax included, plus a one-time $50 activation).

After much investigation, I opted for a cellular addon. The addon cost me a one-time fee of $350 (tax + installation). My security company charges me an ongoing fee of $12/mo for this cellular addon, plus $15/mo for the regular fire and security protection (for a total of $27/mo). (It's worth noting that I get a 10% discount on my home insurance as a result of this, and I also get peace of mind.)

I'm pleased with the result. Not only did I save money using Vonage + cellular (versus using a Bell telephone line), I also have the additional robustness of a system which cannot be stopped by cutting power or telephone wires.

(An alternative approach would be to have gone with Teksavvy, which works out to roughly the same [if not a little cheaper] as my Vonage + cellular solution. However, Vonage has a number of perks that I've come to like, and the cellular system offers great robustness.)


K.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I love to hear people using Voip but Vonage just has really good marketing

You can get a Canadian DID for $1.5/month USD and $.005/min = $2.5USD/500 mins with voip.ms. You get all the features you can imagine and you can adjust all the settings yourself on the site. You can sign up and use it instantly for $1.5, and cancel instantly for free

With Vonage you still have to deal with a CSR, use their locked devices, sign contracts for better prices, pay to cancel all the typical gimmicks. It's good but it's more like a voip/telco hybrid

How can voice be so cheap? Well you're already paying for internet usage


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I was perusing the Vonage site to see what they cooked up now

I see they charge extra to use the "Vonage Softphone $12.99/month" and all it is is a program anyone can download for free (google "X-Lite") but you have to pay to use it with Vonage service

They also charge $15/month for an additional line.... wow the whole point of voip is there is no line.... I can have all the virtual lines I want for free, even under 1 number I can have sub accts for each computer/smartphone etc

They charge for Visual Voicemail and it sounds like it's the same as what I have for free (it is just wav files playing on your computer after all)


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I'll tell you the one reason why Vonage has been the "killer app" for me: they allow you (for a fairly small additional monthly fee) to set up a virtual phone number anywhere in the world that Vonage operates so your clients, friends, or family in those places can call you for the price of a local call.

I know Skype lets you do that too, and I might switch to them if Vonage goes out of business (which has always been a looming possibility since they lost the huge lawsuit from Verizon a couple of years ago). 

All my clients and colleagues are in Washington, DC, and I have a phone number with area code 202 set up through Vonage for all of them to call me -- it's a local call for them but it rings in my office in Montreal. My mother-in-law is a pensioner in France and we've thought about setting up a local number there too so she can call us for free.

We have the more expensive unlimited calling plan from Vonage, but it works for me because I use that number for work and spend many hours on the phone in calls to the US, plus we can spend as much time as we like talking to family in France and friends in Ireland and England.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yes any voip provider lets you have a virtual number, it's inherant in the technology. Most though, like Skype, do not have Cdn numbers

Vonage charges something like $5/month for the virtual number and $15/ month for the line (what line?) and they charge for usage, setup, cancellation etc.

Voip.ms charges $1-$2 for each canadian/usa/france number (virtual) plus $.01 per second incoming (6 second billing increment!) and $0.005 per sec outgoing (depends on country). Or you can pay $5/month for unlimited. You can actually do a lot more with voip.ms than Vonage for far less. Most people would never use all the features and customization that voip.ms has, but Vonage is restricting even for a basic user.

Like I said Im always happy when people are using voip but Vonage is taking advantage of the situation. Notice all the big box stores only let you buy a voip adapter locked to vonage?

Im surprised Vonage hasnt gone out of business just goes to show how good marketing works


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> Im surprised Vonage hasnt gone out of business just goes to show how good marketing works


I think the value they're selling is convenience. To get my Vonage set up, I made one phone call and they sent me everything in the mail. I plugged everything in and was up and running in about 10 minutes. I don't have time or the inclination to learn how to do all the setup myself. I get my voicemails by email from Vonage, they set up the virtual number for me, etc.

I'm willing to pay them to handle those steps for me. Convenience has value, as any corner store owner will attest. Their prices are almost always considerably higher than those of supermarkets, and yet plenty of people still shop at convenience stores --- because they're convenient.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

There is simply NO better, no more higher quality reliable phone service than a landline. PERIOD. Having lived through Ice Storm '98 and Blackout '03 the one constant through both of those major events was phone service. No worrying about running out of power or looking for a power source. Forget about cell and cordless phones. Leave a normal, wire phone set in your house for maximum security and safety and make that your primary communications phone. Landline communications infrastructure is solid.


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> You can get a Canadian DID for $1.5/month USD and $.005/min = $2.5USD/500 mins with voip.ms.


I could also run Asterisk on my Kubuntu 10.04 LTS box, and setup any number of complex calling rules. Or ... I could just pay a company (e.g., Vonage) to do this for me. 



> Im surprised Vonage hasnt gone out of business just goes to show how good marketing works


Vonage is much cheaper in the US than it is here. I agree that it's conceptually pricier than (perhaps) it should be, but it's convenient for me and also cheaper than landline alternatives. 

As I get older, I find that my time & convenience are also worth quite a bit to me, and I'm willing to pay a company to handle these details.


K.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

brad said:


> I think the value they're selling is convenience. To get my Vonage set up, I made one phone call and they sent me everything in the mail. I plugged everything in and was up and running in about 10 minutes. I don't have time or the inclination to learn how to do all the setup myself. I get my voicemails by email from Vonage, they set up the virtual number for me, etc.
> 
> I'm willing to pay them to handle those steps for me. Convenience has value, as any corner store owner will attest. Their prices are almost always considerably higher than those of supermarkets, and yet plenty of people still shop at convenience stores --- because they're convenient.


I understand where you're coming from Vonage is geared for consumers. Voip.ms has far more setting but you don't use any of them to get the equivalent of Vonage

It's really not more convenient because you had to wait for something in the mail and call a rep - whereas I signed up online and Instantly had voip. The setup process is to download a program (any softphone) and insert a password/server address. I didn't even read the instructions on the site I opened a live chat and they copy/pasted these simple instructions. To get what you received in the mail I could buy any unlocked device online

It's the equivalent to typing the address of CMF and putting in your password.. you just need the 1 line server address

I understant the concept of a convenience store but we're talking about significantly higher monthly fees for nothing extra (I could understand a 1 time setup fee for someone to download and install the program for you)


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> There is simply NO better, no more higher quality reliable phone service than a landline. PERIOD. Having lived through Ice Storm '98 and Blackout '03 the one constant through both of those major events was phone service. No worrying about running out of power or looking for a power source. Forget about cell and cordless phones. Leave a normal, wire phone set in your house for maximum security and safety and make that your primary communications phone. Landline communications infrastructure is solid.


I guess you're lucky a single tree didn't fall on any landline and the telecoms kept fueling their generators

The only reliable comms are a radio with generator/batteries, as proven in a real disater


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> Voip.ms has far more setting but you don't use any of them to get the equivalent of Vonage


Yes, but when you see a page entitled "The Basics" on voip.ms and it consists of text like this, you know this is not something that just any average person can figure out on their own:



voip.ms website said:


> You connect any kind of device, server, switch, or software that support one of the 2 protocols we offer (SIP, IAX2) and at least one of the codecs offered to our server. You can authenticate by IP address or dynamic registration, which is supported by almost every piece of VoIP software and hardware on the globe. You can configure multiple devices with different usernames by using our sub account section. When you place calls, we terminate them for you. You can also order DID numbers. When people call these numbers, we send them to you via VoIP.


This language might make perfect sense to you, but I'm lost even before you get to the end of the first sentence. Where do I find a "device, server, switch or software" that supports one of these 2 protocols and codecs? Most people have no idea what an IP address is, and certainly wouldn't understand what dynamic registration is. And "terminating" a call to the average person means "hanging up."

So while voip.ms might be cheaper and better than Vonage, they are crippled by offering their services in a language that is intelligible only to geeks.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> I guess you're lucky a single tree didn't fall on any landline and the telecoms kept fueling their generators
> 
> The only reliable comms are a radio with generator/batteries, as proven in a real disater


Actually it was a lot more than just me being lucky. Bell was fueling those generators and had posted people to guard them around the clock (I had some friends who did this). Keeping the phone system open and operative was a PRIORITY and this was very much in the public eye.

Generators and batteries are hard to find during an ice storm. Shelves get raided within hours of the power going out. A regular phone is always there, always on. Can't beat that.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Dr_V said:


> I
> After much investigation, I opted for a cellular addon. The addon cost me a one-time fee of $350 (tax + installation). My security company charges me an ongoing fee of $12/mo for this cellular addon, plus $15/mo for the regular fire and security protection (for a total of $27/mo). (It's worth noting that I get a 10% discount on my home insurance as a result of this, and I also get peace of mind.)


The security company charges and ongoing fee? When I spoke with them in the past, they suggested the add-on would be a one-time fee. Does the company explain what that fee is for?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

brad said:


> Yes, but when you see a page entitled "The Basics" on voip.ms and it consists of text like this, you know this is not something that just any average person can figure out on their own:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha I know what you mean the website is not targeting people the same way as Vonage

Like I said I signed up before I read that, and I never read it even now

I went on chat and they gave me the server address sip.can1.voip.ms and that's all I needed besides my login info to setup the program (same program Vonage uses if you pay extra montly)

You can set up Caller ID and all the extra settings if you want on their site (no harder than using online banking)

The website is confusing I know, they obviously don't waste money on marketing haha


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Actually it was a lot more than just me being lucky. Bell was fueling those generators and had posted people to guard them around the clock (I had some friends who did this). Keeping the phone system open and operative was a PRIORITY and this was very much in the public eye.
> 
> Generators and batteries are hard to find during an ice storm. Shelves get raided within hours of the power going out. A regular phone is always there, always on. Can't beat that.


And what if a natural disaster or people cut the fragile and unprotected lines in several places or destroyes generators before they are guarded? (I war game these things all the time)

It is a priority over internet but I don't lose any sleep not having a landline at all.


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

Sampson said:


> The security company charges and ongoing fee?


Yes, mine does. Your mileage may vary with different providers.

My basic monitoring costs $15/mo.
The cellular-based monitoring costs an additional $12/mo.

I'm afraid that I don't have any additional details as to what they use the extra $12/mo for. I've observed that the $27/mo is roughly in the ballpark of what other colleagues are paying for their systems.


K.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

mode3sour said:


> And what if a natural disaster or people cut the fragile and unprotected lines in several places or destroyes generators before they are guarded? (I war game these things all the time)
> 
> It is a priority over internet but I don't lose any sleep not having a landline at all.


I'm with the Royal Mail on this one. Sure, a landline system isn't 100% secure. No single system is. But based on nearly a century of experience, the probability (ie. risk) of an extended power outage in our climate is a lot higher then the probability of an extended telephone landline outage.


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I'm with the Royal Mail on this one. Sure, a landline system isn't 100% secure. No single system is. But based on nearly a century of experience, the probability (ie. risk) of an extended power outage in our climate is a lot higher then the probability of an extended telephone landline outage.


Since this thread is about security systems, it's worth noting that, while most security systems are battery-backed, they're only designed to last for ~6-10 hours on the lead battery that they come with. (Less if the alarm is going off.)

In other words, in the event of an "extended power outage", it won't matter whether you're using a cellular, landline, or VOIP system ... your security system will be dead anyway.

From the perspective of security systems, I still maintain that cellular is your most robust option, since prospective thieves will be unable to cut any lines to stop the system from operating.


K.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

With all this talk about cutting phone lines, I have to ask, a) how often do you think thieves actually cut the line and b) I always assumed that the company essentially "pings" the system every so often so that if there was no response (i.e. phone line is cut) the alarm is tripped. As for using a cellphone system, one can make the argument that the thieves will use a cell jammer to prevent their operation.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yup that would be pretty easy accomplish since cell networks have no jam resistance and especially since the jammer could be coloacted with the target (requires very little power). Takes a lot more brains than it does to cut a line though

I guess in the end of the day, the alarm system is still a valid deterrent. I'd take the lowest monthly bill possible that would still lower your insurance

The problem with insurance companies is they usually point out these issues that void coverage after you try to make a claim


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> a) how often do you think thieves actually cut the line


It happened to friends of ours, actually. It's really easy to cut the phone lines on modern houses (at least in my neighbourhood), since the phone nids are at ground level on the side of the house.



> I always assumed that the company essentially "pings" the system every so often so that if there was no response (i.e. phone line is cut) the alarm is tripped.


At least for the security systems I've had, it does not work this way. 

Think of it like this -- if the company were "pinging" your security system, your phone line would be ringing all the time. Rather, what happens is that the security system will phone the monitoring company 1 or more times per week to ensure that it's still working. It's otherwise not in constant contact. 



> As for using a cellphone system, one can make the argument that the thieves will use a cell jammer to prevent their operation.





> Yup that would be pretty easy accomplish since cell networks have no jam resistance and especially since the jammer could be coloacted with the target (requires very little power).


I think that this would be pretty hard to accomplish. If the literature is to be believed -- I have a Honeywell AlarmNet system -- the system attempts to fall back to one of several approaches (mainly gprs and sms) in order to communicate out. 

My (unproven) suspicion is that a thief would need a pretty big power source to reduce the SNR to a point where it could not get out a "alarm went off!" message.

That said, no system is infallible. I prefer to optimize for the average case by defending against the "average" thief -- the guy who knows how to cut wires, not hook up a cellular-jamming system in my backyard prior to breaking into my home.

K.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Dr_V said:


> Since this thread is about security systems, it's worth noting that, while most security systems are battery-backed, they're only designed to last for ~6-10 hours on the lead battery that they come with. (Less if the alarm is going off.)
> 
> In other words, in the event of an "extended power outage", it won't matter whether you're using a cellular, landline, or VOIP system ... your security system will be dead anyway.
> 
> K.


In the context of a home security system, I agree the limited battery life is a problem. I think what Royal Mail and I were talking about was whether you would have a functioning communications system during an extended power outage. Once your cell phone batteries have died you are up the creek if you need to call 911.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Dr_V said:


> It happened to friends of ours, actually. It's really easy to cut the phone lines on modern houses (at least in my neighbourhood), since the phone nids are at ground level on the side of the house.


True they are generally at ground level, whereas power lines are a little higher to cut. But when it comes to security, all bets are off when thieves have physical access to the target.



Dr_V said:


> Think of it like this -- if the company were "pinging" your security system, your phone line would be ringing all the time. Rather, what happens is that


Actually, I was thinking along the lines of how you have can have DSL. Phone lines have channels that you use other than voice. 



Dr_V said:


> I think that this would be pretty hard to accomplish. If the literature is to be believed -- I have a Honeywell AlarmNet system -- the system attempts to fall back to one of several approaches (mainly gprs and sms) in order to communicate out.


These approaches are essentially the same, they depend on the cell network, so I'm not sure how that works as a fall back if your cell signal is jammed.



Dr_V said:


> My (unproven) suspicion is that a thief would need a pretty big power source to reduce the SNR to a point where it could not get out a "alarm went off!" message.
> 
> That said, no system is infallible. I prefer to optimize for the average case by defending against the "average" thief -- the guy who knows how to cut wires, not hook up a cellular-jamming system in my backyard prior to breaking into my home.
> 
> K.


DealExtreme sells personal cell jamming devices for $25 a pop: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355. As for their effectiveness, I couldn't say, but I don't think that cell jamming is as hard as everyone is making it out to be.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I can even get an RX9000 personal cell jammer and keep it in my shirt pocket to carry with me in public, in restaurants etc. Protects me from all the inconsiderate types.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Dr_V said:


> My (unproven) suspicion is that a thief would need a pretty big power source to reduce the SNR to a point where it could not get out a "alarm went off!" message.
> 
> That said, no system is infallible. I prefer to optimize for the average case by defending against the "average" thief -- the guy who knows how to cut wires, not hook up a cellular-jamming system in my backyard prior to breaking into my home.
> 
> K.


Nope it would not need a large power source at all if it is close. There are many jam resistant technologies now a day but cell signals do not use them because it would lower bandwidth

You do need a ridiculous amount of power to accomplish any kind of standoff jamming


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I can even get an RX9000 personal cell jammer and keep it in my shirt pocket to carry with me in public, in restaurants etc. Protects me from all the inconsiderate types.


Illegal in Canada btw


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

So are cellphones in cars, yet every day millions of people are using them while driving.


----------



## Dr_V (Oct 27, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> DealExtreme sells personal cell jamming devices for $25 a pop: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355. As for their effectiveness, I couldn't say, but I don't think that cell jamming is as hard as everyone is making it out to be.


I suspect that arguing any further is pointless, but I'm a sucker for stats ... From the website that you linked, the jammer claims to block:

- GSM 930Mhz~960Mhz
- CDMA 870Mhz~880Mhz
- DCS 1805Mhz~1920Mhz

I pulled out my Honeywell 7845GSM datasheet, just to confirm. As per the details on page 1-4, it has a tri-band GSM transceiver which can transmit on:

- GSM 824 - 849 MHz
- GSM 1710 - 1785 MHz
- GSM 1850 - 1910 MHz

with a 33 dBm transmit power. Given that the jammer linked above does not transmit in the 1710 - 1785 MHz range, I suspect that it may have trouble blocking this system.

There's another practical consideration: even if the jammer supported the transmit range of the AlarmNet 7845GSM, someone using it would likely have only a fairly narrow range (of a few metres) to position himself in order to compete with the 33dBm transmitter. I suspect that this could be difficult in practice, because the thief would have to have a good idea (ahead of time) of where it is installed in the house, so that he could stand reasonably close.

K.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

First of all the jammer is useless unless it jams the right freqs

Second you can't just compare dBm of jammer vs dBm of transmitter. Distance to jammer vs distance to receiver is the key here

J/S = ERPj - 20logDj - ERPt + 20logDs - Gr
J/S = 31 dBm + Gj + 30.5 dB (0.03 km) - 33dBm + 29.5 dB (10 km) - Gr
J/S = 58 dB

I don't know the Gain of the antennae, but you can basically pit the antennas against each other

Weather will also hurt the cell phone more than it will hurt a jammer located within 30 meters

Distance is what matters


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Think of it this way

Your Honeywell transmitter uses that 2 Watts of power to communicated with a cell tower X km away vs the jammer which uses 1.2 Watts to target a transmitter 30 meters away

If I knew the J/S required to defeat the signal, I could show you the math to calculate the distance the jammer has to be within, but most jammer state this on their site

I used specs from the RX9000 royal-mail mentioned


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Actually something I may have overlooked.... I am assuming a 2 way communication whereas your alarm probably only needs to send a short signal 1 way

So maybe I did all the math for nothing haha


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Dr_V said:


> I suspect that arguing any further is pointless, but I'm a sucker for stats ... From the website that you linked, the jammer claims to block:


I wasn't aware that it was an argument. I just wanted to point out that there are commercial cell jammers available. Doing a search on RX9000 that royal mail mentioned yielded a link to a UK site which has a catalogue of various types and strengths. http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/index.htm

At any case, it has been an interesting thread.


----------



## steve_jay33 (Aug 29, 2009)

Does anybody have a website or forum for a DIY setup of a home security system?


----------



## Elbyron (Apr 3, 2009)

This thread seems to have gotten sidetracked by VOIP and cellular jamming discussions, but to get back to the OP's question:

I went looking for an internet-based monitoring company that works in Canada, and I found a company called NextAlarm that offers this service for pretty good rates (starting at $11.95/month). No phone lines or VOIP service required! Cable internet is all you need (no Rogers/Shaw home phone, just the internet). There is a bit of hardware needed though. 
First you need to adapt from your alarm system's phone line jack to either ethernet or wireless. NextAlarm recommends the ABN Broadband Adapter, which costs $115 but comes with 3 months of free monitoring. It's just a modified Linksys VoIP ATA with custom software installed for NextAlarm, but you might be able to just use the Linksys PAP2T router mentioned previously. The ABN adapter doesn't come in a 802.11 wireless form yet, so if the security system's box is far from your internet router/switch then you'll need to either buy a wireless bridge, or run some wires. Since you're not using the house's phone lines anymore, you may be able to wire the security box to one of the phone wires leading to your computer room, then plug into the ABN adapter there. The ABN can then use a short ethernet cable to connect to your internet router - which you also must buy if you don't already have one.
I would also recommend buying a UPS (uninterrupted power supply) and plugging your cable modem, router, and the ABN adapter into it. This will protect your system's connectivity for a while if the power goes out. If you're also going to plug your computer into the UPS (to give you time to safely save and shut-down), then make sure the UPS is big enough to handle that much load.

Internet monitoring does of course require a constant internet connection, so if yours is unreliable then it may not be a great idea. But the monitoring is very cheap, and there's no fees for VOIP or Magic Jack services. Your computer doesn't have to be on - just the modem, router, and adapter. And thieves cutting your phone line won't affect you, though they might also cut the cable line as a lot of people now use Rogers/Shaw home phone service. Also, check out the eNotify and other online features that internet monitoring can provide: https://nextalarm.com/ENotifyBrochure.jsp

I am in no way affiliated with this company, I just found a good internet-based monitoring service and would like to share it with others who are in a similar situation as me (internet but no phone line).


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Awesome

This is the kind of thing I expect to see

The internet is far more capable of sending data than the old phone line. No need to pay for bandwidth twice

It's nice that they cut out the requirement for VoIP service, but really you shouldn't even need a Linksys PAP2T. This means their signal is designed for phone lines and the PAP2T converts it. An unlocked PAP2T is the way to go if you need to use POTS (plain old telephone)


----------



## Scottlandlord (May 27, 2010)

Sorry to bump an older thread. 

Google is now offering a phone service. Not yet 'officially released' in Canada. Still something to look into.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I bet they'll be keeping copies of all your conversations. I also think they'll figure out a way to advertise to you. No thanks. My existing phone service is rock solid, costs $40 a month and includes unlimited LD, is ALWAYS on (no charging, dropped calls, down time or other logistics to worry about) and isn't being tracked and recorded the way all these web outfits do.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

A) Do you realize how easy it is for anyone to tap your archaic phone line; and

B) Google fires engineer for listening to Google Voice

If you're scared of being spied on move to the woods. Did you know anyone can use a plain old cell phone to spy on you by simply turning off the ringer and setting it to auto answer


----------



## Andrej (Feb 25, 2010)

I have a Talkit VOIP device. It's like Majicjack but for Canada. Your computer doesnt have to be on, just your modem. Great quality hasn't changed in the 4 months I've had it. I paid $60 for the device and $60 a year for unlimited Canadian calling and I think US is $.02 a minute. I have a local number and it works just like a regular land line so far. I recommend it. It's paid for itself already.


----------

