Why misperceptions about IP-Surveillance?

As with any new technology, there is an initial period of market education. The more complicated the technology and/or the more entrenched the current technology and business model—the longer the period of market education. During this learning phase it is only natural that there are gaps in knowledge and misunderstandings. It is from these conditions that misperceptions and myths can grow and foster.

IP-Surveillance technology is by no means highly complicated, but the "IP" portion of it does take security out its natural state and move into the IT realm, unknown territory for many. In this sense, new technology and entirely new conditions can compound fears and stir support for the status quo. The fact that IP-Surveillance competes directly with the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) raises a number of issues, not the least of which is that it challenges the current assumption that DVR technology and the analog camera represent the end-point, and therefore best, technology. Let's face it, there is an entire industry, from manufacturers to installer and integrators on down to end users and their organizations, who have a vested interest in seeing the DVR be the dominant technology. To add to these "myth-making" market conditions, consider that the security industry is one in which proprietary, single-brand solutions are common and expected. IP-Surveillance solutions combine "best of breed" products and services from a number of different vendors. This ends up being great for the end user, but it is rather different from current conditions and expectations.

Now that we understand the reasons for the misperceptions and half-truths that have grown up around IP-Surveillance, we can examine some of them more closely.

Reality: It's true a network camera is more expensive than a comparable analog camera because it includes considerably more functionality, such as digitization, image compression and intelligence. If we analyze the total cost of the hardware (cameras, cables, and recording), an IP-Surveillance system will usually compare quite favorably to a DVR-based system. If we then add the installation cost component, the advantages with the IP-Surveillance system become obvious since the IP-based infrastructure is considerably less expensive than analog coax cabling. In addition, systems using PTZ controls require extra cabling, something not needed with IP. Power over Ethernet is another cost-saving feature that saves on power lines and connects to uninterrupted power supplies at the IT center.

In 2002, Axis completed a high-end installation in which 300 network cameras were deployed in a mission-critical high security area, with a high frame rate recording requirement. The total cost for installing the complete IP video surveillance system was $800,000, or $2,700 per channel. If a similar functioning, DVR-based system had been deployed, the cost was estimated at $1.8 million, or $6,000 per channel—more than twice the cost of the IP-Surveillance system.

Reality: Perhaps DVR providers want us to believe this, but video server technology is riding to the rescue and smashing this myth. Leading IP-Surveillance vendors have video servers readily available at a reasonable investment level. A video server converts the analog video signal into a digitized video stream over the network, basically converting any analog camera into a network camera. Most IP-Surveillance installations today have a combination of analog cameras, networked via video servers, and sections that are comprised completely of network cameras. An installation with fully functioning and already paid-for analog cameras is not a barrier to utilizing superior IP-Surveillance technology.

Reality: If you will only have a few cameras, then an existing Fast Ethernet (100 Mbit) office network will normally meet any transmission demands. For comparison, a typical single network camera video feed is 0.2 to 2.0 Mbps depending on compression, size and frame rate.

For any larger deployment of network cameras and video servers, we recommend a separate network for the video. Think of it as similar to rail transportation—once the existing track becomes too congested, you simply build another set of tracks. For enterprise size, your local network core would probably be running at Gigabit Ethernet. With today's network switches and routers, separating networks is easy. In addition, other specific steps can be taken to ensure that IP-Surveillance technology can be integrated into an organization's operations and will not tax the network.

Additionally, because of the local intelligence inside a network camera, the camera can actually decide which frame rate to send over the network based on events, motion, time of day, etc. So in many cases the camera will only send video over the network if the video is worth recording, which might only be 10% of the time. Ninety percent of the time nothing is being transferred over the network.

Reality: Although primarily used as a domain for public information, the Internet can also be used to transfer all types of sensitive information—provided the correct security measures, such as firewalls, VPNs and password protection, are implemented. With banks and financial institutions regularly using the Internet as a medium for global money transactions, it has emerged as a proven medium for other secure applications like surveillance and security monitoring. In stark contrast to this new digital technology, analog surveillance systems have no encryption or authentication of information whatsoever, making it extremely easy for anyone to tap into the cables and illicitly view "secure" video transmissions, or even feed their own false video information into the network (like in the movie Ocean's 11). This is impossible to do with secure IP networks.

Reality: When the basis for the IP networking architecture was developed in the 1960s and '70s, the ability to provide redundancy was the top requirement. In the same way today, transmission links, application servers, storage and switches can all have parallel layers of services and alternative routes of communications.

Storage can be consolidated to secure off-site locations, and servers can use redundant power supplies, hot-swap RAID disks, error-correcting memory and dual network cards. This is all up to the network designer, and although a small network will not deploy all of the possible safety measures, choosing high-quality IT components in the network is in any case likely to be a more reliable solution than CCTV with VCRs or black box DVRs. And don't forget, by using standard server and network equipment, replacing faulty hardware takes much less time and is less costly than with proprietary DVR solutions.

Reality: This is the biggest myth of all! Consider that the first network cameras were introduced in 1996. Axis Communications has already installed more than 200,000 channels of this "future" solution to date, and the interest in and orders for IP-Surveillance technology continue to mount. Whether it's cost, performance, reliability, or any other measure, IP-Surveillance has proven it is a solution for today and one that will grow and improve to ensure it is a solution for the future as well.

We have effectively disproved a number of existing myths and we've established that IP-Surveillance is highly scalable, while effectively and efficiently utilizing a company's network capacity. It provides significant cost and performance advantages over the DVR model that many think is the premier solution today. We've also seen that IP-Surveillance is flexible, based on high-functioning and affordable network cameras, and is highly reliable.