We look at some of the arguments commonly raised against IP based CCTV systems
Controlware examines the cost arguments against IP CCTV.
A comment often labelled against IP systems is that they are more expensive than their analogue counterparts. While camera for camera, IP cameras are more expensive this is not the complete picture when it comes to the cost of an IP solution. If it were, the only reason for buying IP would be its superior functionality and system capability. What is less well publicised is that when it comes to total costs, IP can often be the most cost-competitive solution.
I have addressed this before in an article where a leading manufacturer claimed a 750 camera system ended up costing £1.8M for an IP solution vs £600K for a hybrid solution but didn’t give a breakdown so you couldn’t compare apples with apples. When we looked at this from our end even though we upgraded the control room, provided redundancy and failover and UPS back up so that there would be no single point of failure, we could only spend £500K at end user prices.
When it comes to cost the main confusion seems to centre on what constitutes a hybrid system with the same terms - NVR /DVR /Recording server - being used to describe very different solutions. This confusion spills over into three main arguments against IP, so I want to take this opportunity to open these arguments up to a wider debate with Professional Security readers.
1: The cost of “ripping out” analogue cameras and replacing them with IP ones and all the upgrades to the network that go with it.
While IP cameras are often more expensive than their analogue counterparts on a one-to-one basis there is often no need to rip out analogue cameras if they still have life in them. Most analogue cameras can be migrated to IP through the use of encoders; and indeed I see this as a key foundation stone for the UK CCTV strategy over the next few years to avoid unnecessary cost. Encoders can be deployed at the camera (network edge) or in the Control room. Once you have encoders in place you can also start to add additional functionality to your system with the use of video analytics, which over the past couple of years have proven to offer demonstrable benefits; or driving additional services such as audio for announcements and commands, or connecting to other equipment such as PIR’s / Redwalls or opening and closing barriers.
2: “An IP solution will always cost more than Analogue”.
This is an interesting point because it depends where you start from and where you want to end up. Axis Communications carried out a very interesting exercise last year to answer this very question and the results were quite revealing. In a new installation (i.e. Cat 5 is installed as part of the building process) IP is always more cost effective and on other occasions for camera counts above 40 cameras, IP is still more cost effective.
We have also seen this in a number of projects we have undertaken with partners because these savings are brought about by such things as more efficient cabling (One cable to carry everything rather than multiple cables.), more cost effective use of storage (no wasted channels and scalability etc.) and the strength of using the larger IT market forces – Cat-5 cable for instance is a lot cheaper than Coax as far more of it is produced.
Again this all comes down to planning the correct system and either utilising new technologies to their best advantage or understanding how best to migrate existing infrastructure to meet the end users needs for functionality, future proofing and budget.
3: “IP is difficult to install or needs specialist IT skills”
It is widely acknowledged in the industry that there is a skills gap when it comes to deploying IP solutions. Analogue installer’s don’t know enough about the IP side: IP addresses, Subnet Mask, Raid configuration or building routing tables. IT integrators don’t know enough about the edge deployment: risk assessments, operational requirements, field of views for lens selection or camera location, waterproofing or vandal protection of housings. However these are growing pains for the industry as it inevitably moves to its next evolution to offer end-users better performance. There are many training courses available from companies such as Tavcom, which are modular enough to allow Integrators to pick up the required training to overcome knowledge gaps and in the meantime vendors and value added distributors such as Controlware are undertaking efforts to bridge the gap by offering design and consultancy services to ensure installers and end users get the best system for the above reasons.
In conclusion, there should be no reason why IP based systems are not being specified as the solution of choice because we can migrate existing systems cost effectively and quickly, while ensuring that end users needs for today and tomorrow are met.
