Identifying the Obstacles

Jun 1, 2007 12:00 PM, By Michael D. Glasser

Some in the industry insist that IP video is the only way to go; others say the technology is not mature yet.

So how does a customer decide whether to use IP video on a project? Like everything else, it is important to weigh the positives and negatives.

The following is a short list of the obstacles that are typically encountered when specifying IP video solutions.

“Separate but equal”: Keeping equal functionality to analog systems

Going from black-and-white to color had its negatives; for example, black-and-white is typically superior to color in low light. Going from VCRs to DVRs had its negatives; when a tape breaks, you lose a day, but when a hard drive breaks, you lose a month. Most improvements come with a cost.

When analog communications-based systems are specified, the system performance is clearly defined. It is 30 frames-per-second (fps) of NTSC video available to every monitor connected to the system at any time with virtually no delay between when the image enters the camera and when it displays on the screen. A keyboard connected to a matrix gives an easy-to-understand interface: “CAM 1 - MON 1.” An electrical joystick is provided, which consumers have commonly been using since video games came out in the 1970s.

How is this environment replicated in an IP video world? The answers start by sidestepping the question.

They tell you that 30 fps aren't necessary, or that a slight delay doesn't matter, or that users don't even need a joystick.

IP systems are getting better. Bandwidth is becoming less of problem, map-based interfaces are becoming more powerful, and manufacturers are supporting keyboards. All of these things help equalize the situation. As IP systems continue to develop, this may soon become a non-issue, but for now, it can be a headache.

“Not on my network!”: Dealing with IT departments

The keynote presentation at last fall's ISC-East was entitled, “Not On My Network.” That says it all. This topic has been addressed over and over, but it still has not gone away. Communication between the physical security and information technology (IT) worlds is still challenging, so the issue bears mentioning. Until the IT world and the physical security world learn to work together harmoniously, the problem will persist.

“Not in my division!”: Construction specifications

Here's a problem that challenges consultants, architects and engineers. When an integrator sells a system, they sell a package. When an end-user buys a system, they buy a package. But when a consultant writes a specification for a system, they specify many different pieces that are then put into an entire construction package. The construction package is typically formatted using the Construction Standard Institute Master Format Specification. Each consultant is contracted to write his or her own section of the specification.

The problem arises when the communications consultant is not contracted to write a specification that takes into account the intricate needs of a security system. So what do many consultants do? They take the easy route and specify either an analog communications-based system or specify a separate dedicated security network.

The issue can be easily mitigated if the consultants involved coordinate their various sections and scopes from the outset. In addition, the CSI 2004 Master Format may help to reduce the required coordination.

“That's my cable!”: Shared network vs. dedicated infrastructure

Drivers in traffic know the downside of having to share the road with others. There are comparable problems related to sharing a computer network with millions of other users on the Internet, thousands of other users on a corporate intranet and hundreds of other users on an office LAN.

A shared network can be an extreme cost-saving possibility, but it also adds a lot of coordination headaches. Comparing a network again to a road, there may be variable amounts of traffic that, if not managed properly, can have a negative impact.

Most networks require maintenance, which can cause a disruption in the IP video streams, although redundant paths can help avoid the problems. Bandwidth restrictions become important when sharing a network.

A dedicated network removes many of these issues from the table, but it adds some of its own, including additional cost, equipment, management time and coordinating interoperability.

So what did we do when we had analog communications-based video? In many typical analog communications-based video deployments, the coaxial cable would run directly in a “home run” style to a security equipment room. So not only did we build a dedicated road for the security system, we built a dedicated road for each camera.

A dedicated network is a step up from the world of analog, but a shared network should always be considered.

“Does it come in blue?”: Available range of products

Open up any distributor's catalog and you will find endless camera choices. Box cameras, dome cameras, bullet cameras, hidden cameras, vandal-resistant cameras, cameras with infrared emitters, pinhole cameras, corner-mount cameras, etc. Now flip the page to the IP video section. You will find a limited selection of box cameras and domes. Not many other form factors can be found.

While most analog cameras can be used with an IP video system by installing encoders, it adds additional equipment and reduces features and functions obtainable with a fully integrated IP video camera.

Additionally, in the analog world, almost any camera can work with almost any system. Not so with IP video cameras. While most of the major manufacturers are interfacing properly, it is not uncommon to find that the one camera you prefer is not on the list of supported devices.

“We've been doing this for 20 years!”: Integrator/installer qualifications

A lot of people have been installing cameras and networks for many years. Yet, not one person has been installing IP video systems for 20 years because IP video is still in its infancy. Even so, there are “experts” who claim that they have been installing IP video systems for years.

Many qualified security companies cannot keep up with the intricacies of the new technology. Their dossier of project experience may not accurately reflect their true capabilities when it comes to IP video system implementation. Their knowledge of cameras and networks does not necessarily ensure a successful deployment of IP video systems.

“Of course we can integrate! We're using IP.”: Inter-product relationship

The purpose of an integrated system is to make life easier. In today's demanding world, personnel are required to perform many separate tasks to achieve a single goal. At its simplest, integrating the functions of separate systems into a fully integrated single system should reduce the operational complexity and manpower required for overall system operations.

For example, in today's world, a car is driven to an intercom-controlled gate, and the driver pushes an intercom button. This calls to an operator in a remote command center. The operator then must do the following: operate the camera, communicate with the driver, search a photo-book for the driver's image, check a visitor pre-registration book for his or her name, compare his or her photo to the video and if all is as it should be, finally release the gate.

In the world of tomorrow, the car is driven up, and the system reads the license plate number, which was saved from his or her last trip to the facility. By the time the driver pushes the intercom button, the system has already brought the camera image to the operator with the driver's name, a stored photo and verification that they are pre-enrolled in the visitor management system. The operator quickly communicates with the driver and grants them access.

The problem that hinders this high level of integration is that, at this point, there is no common interface between systems. Each system speaks its own language.

The manufacturers' politics can weigh heavily on integration capabilities. Some global manufacturers are branching out and own multiple products. They often integrate their own products together but will not allow for other products to be integrated. This forces the customer to stick to a single manufacturer's products rather than picking and choosing the best from multiple sources.

“How do you change the oil on this thing?”: System maintenance

Once you have addressed all of these issues, along with others not listed, you should have a fully deployed, well-designed and coordinated system. What's the next step? Maintenance. Every system needs some level of maintenance, whether it is as simple as replacing the air filters and cleaning the camera housings or performing periodic parts replacements.

In the old analog world, maintenance may have included servicing VCRs, cleaning heads, replacing tapes and focusing cameras. In the DVR world, maintenance may have required periodic servicing of the hard drive and, if you were on the ball, updating the software. So how does the maintenance of IP video compare to the maintenance of yesterday?

To start, an average DVR handles 16 cameras. Most systems do not have more than a few DVRs (48 cameras), so maintenance is a relatively quick task. The maintenance of a 48-camera IP video system differs a bit from the maintenance of a 48-camera DVR system.

You now have to consider that a 48-camera IP video system means you now have 48 computers as part of your system. Each one will need to be inspected, tested and updated, all of which can be automated.

Let's assume you are able to maintain the cameras without any issues. You may have to worry about the server. In the DVR world, you had 16 cameras per DVR, so if one DVR crashed, you lost one-third of your system. With IP video, you have a powerful NVR recording your entire system. Maintenance is required for all things, and the NVR is not exempt. If something as simple as a “reboot” is required, all video recording ceases during the system downtime. Once the system resumes normal operation, recording begins again from that point in time. The video that is typically lost during the downtime can be saved by a number of different methods (buffering at the camera, edge recording, etc.) but in most system deployments to date, it is not addressed. The small gap in video is considered an acceptable fact of life.

Network maintenance can be rough, but it is required, and you may have no control over when or how it will happen. In the DVR world, when the network went down, you might have lost your remote-viewing capabilities, but recording was maintained. In the IP video world you have a good chance of losing everything.

Maintenance is crucial to the operation of all systems. However, if not properly coordinated and thought out, the maintenance itself can have devastating consequences.

“That's not my regular system. I don't want it.”: Lack of knowledge

Many physical security directors are not especially IT-savvy. They need a good team of support personnel to ensure that the deployment goes well, and without such a team, failure may be imminent. So they stick to “old faithful.” They know a box camera connected to a matrix works because it has worked for years and is proven technology. But when deployed well, an IP video solution can be more reliable and cost-effective. Education is the key to success.

“The hidden threat”: Embedded device security

Many IT security professionals are well aware of the threat associated with embedded systems, and recently the general IT population has been made aware that embedded devices can be dangerous. The two threats most widely associated with embedded systems are Blackberry devices and network-connected printers.

The hidden threat is every camera, every encoder and every device that is connected to your network but is not part of your network security plan. IP video advocates often state that these devices are secure because they are embedded, Linux-based or proprietary. What is not commonly discussed is that even a magic black box can cause severe damage.

Picture this: your chief information security officer calls you into his office. He then explains that he knows you are committing industrial espionage and you are channeling data via hidden channels to the company's competition. As you sit there dumbfounded, you ask him what he's talking about. He explains that the IP video cameras that your group installed and manages are acting as a “BotNet.” He has been watching these cameras steal secret data and transmit it outside of the company.

How did these cameras get programmed to do this? Maybe it was a rogue employee who attacked the camera through the network and inserted a virus into its code. Maybe the service technician for the integrator you hired is getting paid by your competitor to steal the data. Maybe a disgruntled employee at the manufacturer has poisoned all of the cameras being distributed hoping no one will notice.

Ready to be deployed

After taking into account all of the potential obstacles and problems mentioned above, IP video should still be used today. However, a combination of the project scope, project-related circumstances and, most importantly, the project team, will determine which system should be used.

As long as the major issues are addressed, either through technology, coordination or “sweat and tears,” IP video-based systems are ready to be deployed. Some manufacturers' systems are in their infancy and negatively represent IP video, but some of the systems are ready to go.

As long as you perform adequate due diligence, an IP video system may not only outperform, but may also be more cost-effective than the more traditional analog communications-based systems.

---

Michael D. Glasser is a project engineer for Kroll's Security Group, based in the New York metropolitan area.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue