3455 S. Dairy Ashford Rd, #190 Houston, TX 77082 281-201-6611 www.coreveillance.com Volume 3, 2015 CENTRAL STATION REMOTE VIDEO MONITORING With recent innovations and improved economies of scale, central station remote video monitoring is becoming a value added service of numerous security companies. As the cost of intelligent cameras becomes more and more budget-friendly, companies are starting to dabble in central station remote video monitoring to capitalize on increased capabilities, amplified intelligence and improved situational awareness. But what does central station remote video monitoring actually accomplish, and what type of remote video technology solutions make a difference? Does simply having remote access to your own CCTV system accomplish anything? The reality is both simple and complex, and might vary depending on your specific needs as an end user. But, most importantly, the days of dedicated security personnel live monitoring a localized CCTV solution are beginning to dwindle at a rapid pace. The primary cause: cost and advancements to technology. 1
Unsurprisingly, people are fallible. Humans are not designed to sit and stare at a video screen all day. And yet, the average cost for a 24/7 onsite individual to monitor a local CCTV feed is often more than $100,000 annually. As a result, security professionals and end users alike are turning to hybrid solutions leveraging remote video monitoring. Companies no longer have to spend excessive resources for onsite personnel to monitor onsite security cameras 24/7. We can stream that feed to a remote location, in many cases, at a significant cost savings. But it begs the question: if the onsite individual isn t any good, why would an offsite professional do any better? Technological innovations play a role This is where innovations in technology have come into play. They provide the stimulus needed to analyze suspicious alarms when they trigger. Paired with a robust video solution, these alarms become more valuable because a monitoring service can verify what triggered the alarm remotely. And companies began turning to event-based models to make onsite or offsite security professional more effective. However, in the world of real-time monitoring, false alarms are the killer. Intrusion alarms and motion detection are examples of antiquated technology. They activate off an extremely simplistic ruleset. The contacts become misaligned, the alarm triggers. Pixilation change in the camera will activate an event. There s no intelligence to the signal and false alarms are rampant. But technology has advanced much, much more, providing monitoring personnel the tools to amplify the focus on the valuable intelligence sought. Innovations in video analytics allow operators and end users to get more specific on how and why an event should be triggered, even classifying objects and customizing rulesets within virtual zones. Video analytics provides smart technology. And when leveraged with a robust 2
remote monitoring center, video analytics can dramatically impact the level of actionable situational awareness and response. The result: significant reduction of false alarms, quicker intervention, and reduced dependency on labor. Is central station remote video monitoring the right fit? So how do you determine whether or not central station remote video monitoring is right for you? First, make sure your organization is leveraging innovative technology and not just outsourcing a feed. Simply pawning off your CCTV to a remote site doesn t mean it will have an impact to your security function. Making use of a technology like video analytics is essential. Second, think about your security holistically. Many corporate end users have a dream to create their own security operations center (SOC) that would monitor all of their security systems and CCTV across a region, nation, or worldwide. However, the vast majority that start down the path of visualizing their own robust monitoring center realize that the capital cost and staffing needs essentially demands they create their own security company within their organization. This is not to say that all corporate users should avoid building their own SOC, but in many cases, it isn t necessary. And since security is generally not a revenue generator, the best option for many major corporations is often to consider a third party provider. Over the next 5-10 years, we re going to see an incredible consolidation of security functions among some of the world s largest providers. Many corporate end users are pushing for one-stop shops that can provide the complete end-to-end physical security solution: equipment needs (intrusion, access control and CCTV), integration and service, manpower, and monitoring. This allows for a more universal approach to security design, with each function playing a key role 3
and working together to maximize the overall value, as opposed to piecemealing the solution across multiple vendors. Pairing those functions with a robust, remote security operations center to monitor and respond to events as they occur will dramatically impact security effectiveness and cost savings. Many points to consider So when determining whether central station remote video monitoring is right for you, consider whether or not the vendor of choice can provide the full suite of services. And finally, no matter how great the technology might be, it becomes worthless if the people monitoring the events do not have adequate training or the proper disposition to be effective in their response and judgment. Thus, the most important attributes to consider with respect to remote video monitoring are the following: what does the provider offer, and what do they do in house? Can they also supply manpower, access control, CCTV solutions, etc.? If so, is it through a partnership, or do they actually provide it themselves? And, most importantly, who are the people monitoring events and what kind of training do they receive? Consider asking questions like: How can you maximize the existing investment in security architecture that we have onsite? What type of existing technology can you integrate with? How will blending services impact my security budget? What services can you blend for us? How can we customize responses to triggered events? When picking a remote video monitoring provider, you should consider a provider that offers more than just the monitoring component. The technology they deploy and the ability to integrate with existing hardware will be vital to any impact made on your security design and spend. Embarking on a remote video monitoring solution, especially third party, can seem like an overwhelming mission. However, with considerable value add to be gained by augmenting your security function, it s imperative to educate yourself to recognize if it is right for you. Ask vendors to help you understand the ins and outs of what they provide. Ask them to educate you on the finer points of how the technology works, and what makes their monitoring center so great. Keep abreast of new technology, and stay involved in the industry to understand what new functions are being developed to improve capabilities and cost control. As always, the best way to impact your security functions is to be proactive! 4
Why Video Verification Is Seeing More Success Technology advances and crumbling costs are helping video verified alarms penetrate the security marketplace. Thanks to benefits that include better security and likelihood of apprehensions, as well as false alarm reduction, customers, law enforcement and insurers have taken notice. It all adds up to more recurring revenue. Video is now the most popular option on alarm systems, a fundamental change for the alarm business. Viewing cameras on a smartphone, known as self-surveillance, created value for the dealer and became a standard feature for all but the most basic burglar alarms. Now, video verification is building on the success of self-surveillance by actually delivering the video to the central station during an alarm event. This is the next logical step in security, making the video available to the central station so the operator can verify the alarm and improve police response to deliver greater security. Alarm business is built upon alarm system monitoring and video verification is the natural progression as it becomes more affordable. Swept Up in a Technology Revolution According to the ANSI standard created by the Central Station Alarm Association (CSAA), Video Verification is the use of Captured Video or real-time video in which the video information or recording is aligned with the action that initiated an alarm event to assist in determining the protocol to be followed for the alarm event. What is important is that the video seen by the operator is associated with the actual alarm event. That standard defines a clear difference between video verification and remote video investigation that happens after the alarm is triggered. Instead of viewing a video of what actually caused the alarms, with video 5
investigation the central station operator remotely uses the cameras after the event to attempt to see why there was an alarm. Benefits Include Better Security, Value Contrary to common perception, video verification s value is not primarily as a false alarm reduction solution. From the property owner s perspective, false alarm reduction is more a side-effect that reduces a negative rather than creating value with additional security. Consumers looking to purchase security want the best security they can afford and they typically equate this with fast police response in the event of a problem. Video verification delivers better security and more value to the residential and commercial property owner because it delivers faster police response since law enforcement prioritizes all incoming calls to the 911 center. Due to historical issues, traditional alarms typically receive a Priority 3 response from law enforcement. In contrast, video verification alarms typically receive a Priority 1 response and are treated as in progress calls by responding officers. The difference in response times between a 1 and 3 is significant. In Fairfax County, the affluent area around Washington, D.C., a video verification alarm receives response more than 12 minutes faster than a traditional alarm. From a property owner s perspective, a lot can happen in 12 minutes in a commercial burglary or home invasion. With reductions in municipal budgets affecting many jurisdictions across the United States and Canada, law enforcement has downgraded response to nonverified alarms in an effort to save money. Sometimes this means a broadcast and file policy where the alarm is broadcast over the police radio and officers can respond voluntarily if they have nothing more important to do. Sometimes this means police simply refuse to respond to nonverified alarms at all. What is important is that these same financially stressed jurisdictions all continue to respond to video verification alarms, and property owners are taking notice. Law Enforcement, Insurers Won Over The alarm business is built upon a partnership with the insurance industry and law enforcement. The insurers encourage their policyholders to install alarm systems to reduce claims and prevent
loss. The alarm industry depends upon law enforcement to respond to their alarms and protect their customers in the event of a burglary or intrusion. Video verification is already strengthening this partnership and creating value for the alarm business. The insurance industry has taken notice of priority response and what it means to them in terms of reduced losses. In January 2013, Pharmacists Mutual Insurance published the results of a five-year study that linked arrest rates and losses experienced to police response times. This study also noted the negative effects reduced municipal budgets have on alarm response. Other major insurance companies like Hanover, CNA, Allstate and State Farm understand the increased value of video verification alarms and are working on updating policies to encourage their policyholders to move to video verification. While this is a slow process, the insurance industry has begun to turn the rudder and the ship is in motion. In the past decade, video technology has fundamentally changed law enfocrcement with cameras in patrol cars, on highways and even portable cameras worn by officers. Law enforcement depends upon video and video verification alarms are another step in this direction. While law enforcement understands video verification means fewer false alarms, they also know that video verification alarms mean more arrests. Officers have always been motivated to catch the bad guys and video verification helps make this happen. Alarm response starts at the 911 center. The 911 calltaker assigns a priority code to the incoming calls, which are then placed in a queue that is handled by the actual 911 dispatcher. Violent crimes typically receive the highest priority followed by crimes in progress. Chief Steve Dye of Grand Prairie, Texas, said in a recent presentation, We see no difference between an eyewitness calling and a central station operator calling to report a crime they have seen on video. The fact a video exists of the actual event could mean the central station call could even be considered stronger. While continuing police response to traditional burglar alarms, Chief Dye is promoting priority response to encourage citizens to install video verificaiton alarms to help in the battle against crime. It is making a difference. Currently, the response time for a video verification alarm in Grand Prairie is less than two minutes.
HEADQUARTER 3455 S. Dairy Ashford Rd, #190 Houston, TX 77082 Office: (281) 201-6611 Toll free: (866) 490-8102 Fax: (281) 201-6612 www.coreveillance.com Technical Support support@coreveillance.com Sales sales@coreveillance.com Media Inquiries joey.tran@coreveillance.com Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. CST, Mon -Fri 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. CST, Saturday