Re: 34. Is monitoring required?

[-pull@shoot]

Thanks for your constructive reply..

On 20 Jun 2005 00:30:38 -0700, "A-traq" <okyaysenturk@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Firstly, the external siren has three main objectives:
>  a- To protect the property prior to any attempt of entry. A "bad"
>person would not enter a home or office with a siren installed. He/she
>would rather go to a home/office without a security system installed.

A dummy or a real siren, both help.

>  b- To alert the neighbours and other primary action teams of which
>you have asked for assistance earlier on.

True but in practice who care?
Anyhow you are right, its a mater of choice with unpredictable
efficiency.

>  c- To direct any type of action force (police, private security
>guards, etc.) to the premises with ease. Following the sound and the
>flasher helps find the home/office in complicated areas much easier.

True you are right, but what about central stations who don't have all
that marvelous help?

>Secondly, in reliance to why we need monitoring services. The main
>issue is of course the marketing aspect. You keep your customer
>satisfied and by means of CRM are able to add more customers to your
>references. If you are a company that does not give after sales support
>then you are bound to loose heaps of money in the first place. You are
>the type of company that goes from door to door and gives a thousand
>pack of "lies" to sell the equipment. Where as a company that uses CRM
>and other tools such as monitoring are always interconnected with their
>customers, meaning the automatic addition of new potential clients.
>There are many monitoring stations that reduce the amount of false
>alarms leaving only the true potential ones for any action to be
>involved.

What are the selection criteria's???

> But where as a dialer system sends an alarm no matter what.
>And you must attend these alarms as you have no detail of the
>situation.

My alarm is associated with phone speech who mention the sensor/alarm
type involved.

> A neighbour to a system with a dialer would go ahead nad
>check the system once, maybe twice but after two false alarms he/she
>would get the impression that "... Opps, there goes Rogers shitty
>system again..." and would not act at all to the system.

Probably true..
 The solution is to have a silent alarm and personal contact.

>I guess that you do not understand the full benefits of an alarm
>monitoring station Paul.

True i don't know the benefits but instead i know what i have when i'm
in charge of monitoring and that is the most important to me.

> It would be a good idea that you go to one and
>understand what other types of services are actually given. Services
>such as the in-depth usages of early/late open/close monitoring, test
>signals and the meaning of cross zone alarms, duress alarms, etc. I
>could go on for hours trying to explain the benefits of an alarm
>monitoring station but I fully reccommend that you go to one and have
>detailed information before you have any other "funny" ideas.

Thanks, it are not ideas but its a real solution to get writ of un
personalized monitoring.
 By the way, i have room listing capability on alarm in my home and i
know the voice of the persons who can have made a finger trouble, they
can explain...

>Never the less you must always consider that if a "PRO" is using
>monitoring services and "Amatuers" do not (which is not always the
>case), then there must be something lying behind it that makes the
>"PRO"s better in marketing, sales and all other comercial issues.

There are a lot of things in this world who are convenient, a pro
can't offer what i suggested: self monitoring.

I don't say that monitoring is useless, i just don't thrust it.
Experience (???): 3 alarms on a monitored system where i was contacted
because i was on "THE" fix list.

As i mentioned before i still think that self monitoring is feasible
and reliable.

Regards