Search results

Every week, we do profiles on companies, interviews with executives, industry news reports no one else does, etc. that is included in that $199 annual price (see recent reports listed). This may very well not have any value for you but it does for many others. As for the unique tests and...

There's also the Axis design tool, which is free - AXIS Site Designer 2 Our (IPVM) position is that it's the easiest to use, with Google Maps instantly embedded, over 10,000 models from over 100 brands, etc. There are over 50,000 cameras added / calculated each month from people all over the...

We've researched this:

Wouldn't you then be the copyright owner unless you agreed to assign it over to them? Per the US government, "Copyright exists from the moment the work is created" and "registration is voluntary" "if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement "

For many years, the tool offered unlimited time free access. We only added in the timer 5 months ago. As such, the time out can't be the reason why you did not hear about it over the years. However, IPVM is not primarily designed for installers as we focus on new technology and business issues...

The contractor hates Dahua but is fine with selling you a company that relabels Dahua? For example, Ameta, the company behind the brand Eyeonet imported 45,000+ pounds of Dahua less than 2 months ago. Contractors often have no idea where their suppliers are getting their products from.

Import records show Eyeonet (the company is Ameta) is supplied by Dahua, Raysharp, and TVT (the latter of which are smaller PRC China manufacturers). Relabellers often get products from multiple suppliers so it's hard to immediately ascertain which product is from which. Contractors selling...

@CCTVCam It would take a fair amount of work to build that in (it's not rocket science but it is time). What would we get from doing this? I understand that you and other IPCamTalk users would benefit but how would we benefit? I am supportive of a fair trade but it's not clear to me what we get...

Interlogix was historically a Hikvision OEM and we (IPVM) have previously verified models that could be discovered with Hikvision's SDAP software.

Email support@ipvm.com and we will review and refund as appropriate

If the products are produced by Dahua, it does not matter who owns it, by NDAA rules, it would still be banned. For example, until recently Honeywell relablled Dahua and those were NDAA banned even though the name on the box was Honeywell.

I learn from feedback from various people. As for not giving it away anymore, as you mentioned we did so for years and we still give 90 seconds but we want to reward those who value our work by paying for it.

There are lots of "pros" but we see lots of "pros" using and paying for IPVM's calculator or competitors such as JVSG or System Surveyor. Pros are using our tool or competitors to e.g., have the exact model's AoV precalculated on a map, to see what it looks like on street view, satellite view...

Fenderman, at issue, is the entire list of prohibited uses: For example, critical infrastructure can be owned by private businesses but is subject to the same prohibition here. And, another example, is public schools, as "government facilities" included or excluded from this? And what...

You saying LE and "law enforcement" is simply factually false as the prohibited uses are far broader than simply "law enforcement". You've been adamant about being exact on points and you should hold yourself to the same standards. Fenderman, the FCC itself said directly that they are...

Agreed, nowhere do I claim they need to have a "plan" approved for every single device. The issue remains, contrary to your yelling and name-calling, the FCC has prohibited new authorizations of any Dahua product. This prohibition will continue until and unless the "full Commission" reviews and...

That language is if and only if the Commission approves the plan. Here's more detail from the report, which I've highlighted key sections:

I was not implying that. I was responding to your specific questions. I am adding them in now, for completeness. The "confusion" has already been done by many years of their marketing (online) and via its sales team (in person) to these applications (including more than 4 years since the NDAA...

And here is an example of Dahua marketing for "city buses", "school buses" and "police cars" Again Dahua is deleting this but it is very clear and unsurprising that Dahua, like any other large commercial video surveillance provider, would intend their products to be used by city buses, school...

Sure, here are some examples of Dahua USA marketing for law enforcement use: Dahua is now going out to delete these references but again it's very clear and unsurprising that Dahua, like any other large commercial video surveillance provider would intend their products to be used by law...

The FCC repeatedly refers to it as "prohibiting" or "prohibition" so you would object to "FCC Bans New Equipment Authorizations" but presumably you would be ok with "FCC Prohibits New Equipment Authorizations", yes?

The premise of the article is correct. Dahua intends its products to be used in public safety and removed the language because they want to avoid US regulation, not because the products are not actually intended for public safety. There is a ban, i.e., the FCC is prohibiting authorizations...

I admit the FCC's definition of "public safety" is different from the concept that I have for "public safety". I had not read that section before commenting. No, it's not that Dahua has to ensure this. It's that Dahua has to get the full Commission to approve a plan before it can get anything...

Yes they are, it's explained clearly at the beginning of the 183 page document, for your reference: I've shared my source. Please share your source for the allegation of "simply need direct approval".

The Dahua post was published days before the FCC order was released. The Dahua post point remains. Dahua knows it intends its products for public safety and the products did not fundamentally change, they just deleted the references from the website to hide that. Since you are alluding to the...

Generally bans include rebranded / relabelled products. Given this is the UK, US companies relabelling PRC products are less commonly used. Also the bigger US companies who relabelled like Honeywell and Stanley have stopped in the last few years.

This ban is broader than Hikvision as it encompasses PRC companies generally such as Dahua and Uniview.

That's fine. If you can't imagine that someone would legitimately disagree on something, that's your issue, not mine. I would find the argument equally unconvincing if Axis, Avigilon, Bosch, or whoever claimed their surveillance products were not intended for public safety. The experience of...

Dahua USA primarily markets to businesses, which they make clear on their website, e.g., excerpted below, of the 6 areas shown, 5 are for businesses: As someone who has worked in security and surveillance for two decades now, the concept of "public safety" being broader than just government...

You sure about that? I agree about something that is purely personal use (e.g. a heart rate monitor) but surveillance equipment even for business use is generally viewed as public safety. Indeed, even Dahua said its equipment was for public safety repeatedly until it realized that it could try...