Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fgb0n1pfmps0lrigkf7at0er96plpo75rv@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:28:41 -0500, "Bob Worthy"
> <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Through all of your focus groups, it is obvious you have been beat to
> >believe, by the law enforcement types, that **system failures** are the
> >cause of false alarms 99% of the time.
>
> No, I never said that.

Go back and read your 10/29 post: "Name another product that has a 99% +
failure rate. It wouldn't be tolerated"

Actually, user error is to blame most of the
> time.

Now you are getting on the right track.

>However, the end result is the same: A dispatch to an >alarm
> system site without a legitimate intrusion.

Yes, the result is the same and that is why a good working, managable
ordinance is important. Put the responsibility where it belongs. If the
person needs more training, so be it. It is up to them to make themselves
available for further instructions. That is why there is free alarm
dispatches in every ordinance I have read. If they continue to use the
system without further instruction, knowing that they have screwed up to
begin with and being warned about it, I would still put that into the user
error category and they deserve the consequences.

> What I said was 99% of alarm calls are for false alarms.

No, you said product and/or system failure.

The cause is
> irrelevant in this statistic.

No, it isn't. It is very relevent. If an ordinance says it will cut off
habitual offenders, that is one thing and probably deservant. However, if
you say "no response" is the way to go across the board, then you are
hurting the other 96.5% of the users that have no problems. The PD will not
respond to their needs if and when something happens. Take my case. I have
not had an alarm in three of my locations in nearly 20 years. Do I deserve
"no response"?

  The $99 burglar alarm killed the idea
> that the average consumer would care enough to learn how to properly
> operate the thing.   The mass marketing and commoditizing of the
> equipment and services has eliminated the possibility of "end user
> education" doing any good.

Believe it or not the mass marketers false alarm factor is right at the
average of .035%. Maybe a little higher in some areas, but still not what
you or others would like to believe. Everyone would like to say they are the
problem, but actually they are not. It is the $99 or **Free** no likes about
them, not their false alarm ratio.