US-12626569-B2 - Device for data routing in networks

Abstract

An integrated security system integrates broadband and mobile access and control with conventional security systems and premise devices to provide a tri-mode security network having remote connectivity and access. The integrated security system delivers remote premise monitoring and control functionality to conventional monitored premise protection and complements existing premise protection equipment. The integrated security system integrates into the premise network and couples wirelessly with the conventional security panel, enabling broadband access to premise security systems. Automation devices can be added, enabling users to remotely see live video or pictures and control home devices via a personal web portal or other client device. Camera management enables automatic configuration and management of cameras in the premise network. The camera management extends to remote control and monitoring from outside the firewall of the premise network to include routing of images or video from a streaming source device to a requesting client device.

Inventors

• Paul J. Dawes
• Marc Baum
• Reza Raji
• Gerald Gutt
• Chris DeCenzo
• Aaron Wood

Assignees

• ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC.

Dates

Publication Date

20260512

Application Date

20161108

Claims (20)

1. 1 . A system comprising: a plurality of premises devices located at a premises; and a computing device located at the premises and configured to: receive, from at least one premises device of the plurality of premises devices, data associated with the premises; determine, based on the data and a parameter of at least one of a user device or the at least one premises device, a routing protocol of a plurality of routing protocols; and control routing of the data, to the user device and via the determined routing protocol, based on a request for the data from the user device.
2. 2 . The system of claim 1 , further comprising a server located external to the premises and configured to communicate with the computing device.
3. 3 . The system of claim 2 , wherein the computing device is configured to control routing of the data via the server.
4. 4 . The system of claim 2 , wherein, based on the server being unavailable, the at least one premises device is configured to send the device data to the computing device and the computing device is configured to relay the data to the user device.
5. 5 . The system of claim 2 , wherein, based on the server being available, the at least one premises device is configured to send the data to the server and the server is configured to relay the data to the user device.
6. 6 . The system of claim 2 , wherein the user device is configured to initiate and establish a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with the computing device and the server.
7. 7 . The system of claim 2 , wherein the computing device is configured to initiate and establish a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with the user device.
8. 8 . The system of claim 2 , wherein a format of the data is automatically selected by the computing device.
9. 9 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the format comprises at least one of Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG-4)/Real-Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) format, a MPEG-4 over Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) format, or a Motion Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) (MJPEG) format.
10. 10 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the format is selected based on a capability of the user device.
11. 11 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the format is selected based on an authentication requirement of the user device.
12. 12 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the format is selected based on a privacy requirement of the user device.
13. 13 . The system of claim 8 , wherein the format is selected based on a determined capability of a network connecting the computing device and the user device wherein the determined capability is determined by the computing device.
14. 14 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises relative success among a plurality of routings of a video stream.
15. 15 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises relative success of Universal Plug and Play port forwarding.
16. 16 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises relative success of Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) through Network Address Translators (NAT) (STUN)/Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN) peer-to-peer routing.
17. 17 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises bandwidth availability of the user device.
18. 18 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises a processing capability of the user device.
19. 19 . The system of claim 13 , wherein the determined capability comprises bandwidth availability of the at least one premises device.
20. 20 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the plurality of premises devices comprises at least one of an Internet Protocol (IP) device, a sensor, a detector, a controller, an actuator, an automation device, a monitoring device, a camera, or a security device.

Description

RELATED APPLICATIONS This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/265,114, filed Apr. 29, 2014. TECHNICAL FIELD The embodiments described herein relate generally to a method and apparatus for improving the capabilities of security systems in home and business applications. More particularly, the embodiments described herein relate to enabling video cameras in a security system or home monitoring application to couple or connect to monitoring and/or control applications residing outside of a Local Area Network (LAN) in which the video cameras are situated. BACKGROUND The field of home and small business security is dominated by technology suppliers who build comprehensive ‘closed’ security systems, where the individual components (sensors, security panels, keypads) operate solely within the confines of a single vendor solution. For example, a wireless motion sensor from vendor A cannot be used with a security panel from vendor B. Each vendor typically has developed sophisticated proprietary wireless technologies to enable the installation and management of wireless sensors, with little or no ability for the wireless devices to operate separate from the vendor's homogeneous system. Furthermore, these traditional systems are extremely limited in their ability to interface either to a local or wide area standards-based network (such as an Internet Protocol (IP) network); most installed systems support only a low-bandwidth, intermittent connection utilizing phone lines or cellular (RF) backup systems. Wireless security technology from providers such as GE Security, Honeywell, and DSC/Tyco are well known in the art, and are examples of this proprietary approach to security systems for home and business. Furthermore, with the proliferation of the internet, ethernet and WiFi local area networks (LANs) and advanced wide area networks (WANs) that offer high bandwidth, low latency connections (broadband), as well as more advanced wireless WAN data networks (e.g. GPRS or CDMA 1×RTT) there increasingly exists the networking capability to extend these traditional security systems to offer enhanced functionality. In addition, the proliferation of broadband access has driven a corresponding increase in home and small business networking technologies and devices. It is desirable to extend traditional security systems to encompass enhanced functionality such as the ability to control and manage security systems from the world wide web, cellular telephones, or advanced function internet-based devices. Other desired functionality includes an open systems approach to interface home security systems to home and small business networks. Due to the proprietary approach described above, the traditional vendors are the only ones capable of taking advantage of these new network functions. To date, even though the vast majority of home and business customers have broadband network access in their premises, most security systems do not offer the advanced capabilities associated with high speed, low-latency LANs and WANs. This is primarily because the proprietary vendors have not been able to deliver such technology efficiently or effectively. Solution providers attempting to address this need are becoming known in the art, including three categories of vendors: traditional proprietary hardware providers such as Honeywell and GE Security; third party hard-wired module providers such as Alarm.com, NextAlarm, and uControl; and new proprietary systems providers such as InGrid. A disadvantage of the prior art technologies of the traditional proprietary hardware providers arises due to the continued proprietary approach of these vendors. As they develop technology in this area it once again operates only with the hardware from that specific vendor, ignoring the need for a heterogeneous, cross-vendor solution. Yet another disadvantage of the prior art technologies of the traditional proprietary hardware providers arises due to the lack of experience and capability of these companies in creating open internet and web based solutions, and consumer friendly interfaces. A disadvantage of the prior art technologies of the third party hard-wired module providers arises due to the installation and operational complexities and functional limitations associated with hardwiring a new component into existing security systems. Moreover, a disadvantage of the prior art technologies of the new proprietary systems providers arises due to the need to discard all prior technologies, and implement an entirely new form of security system to access the new functionalities associated with broadband and wireless data networks. There remains, therefore, a need for systems, devices, and methods that easily interface to and control the existing proprietary security technologies utilizing a variety of wireless technologies. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Each patent, patent application, and/or publication mentioned in this specification is her