Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

J. Sloud wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2005 20:35:42 -0800, "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >J! wake up!
> >
> >I don't believe I've got to go though this with someone who's in the
> >trade.
> >
> >If you have 20,000 alarm signals being received a month and all but a
> >few are false, you're saying that they have a 99% false alarm rate.
> >Now, lets say they do a revamp of the alarm systems, get every end user
> >to take alarm classes, set up fines and the alarm signals are reduced
> >to a fantastically low, 1000 alarm signals a month with all but a few
> >being false. By YOUR reckoning, all alarm systems have a 99% false
> >alarm rate.
> >
> >You're throwing this 99% around as if all alarm systems are sending in
> >false alarm signals and you're completely ignoring and not comparing it
> >to the actual number of systems that are installed.
>
> Not at all.  I'm only using numbers reported by law enforcement.
> According to all reports I've read that well over 90% of the time when
> police respond to a burglar alarm, it turns out to be a false.

So are you saying that regardless that the method used to obtain the
90% is flawed,
we, as an industry have to accept that?

>
> Most reports say 99%. That's the number.

See above.  Ditto

>
> What evidence do you have to support another number?

The evidence lays in the fact that politicians/law enforcement, may use
that figure to razzel dazzel the public, but the methdology of
obtaining that figure is flawed. 100 percent of anything ..... is 100
percent. If there were 10 false alarms out of 20,000 alarm systems or
10,000 false alarms out of 20, 000 alarm systems, there'd still be 100
percent false alarms. So how can that figure be used to qualify or
disqualify the value of alarm systems? The politicos may use that as a
ploy to get attention and money, but if you're telling me that you
really believe that there really is a 100 % false alarm rate ....... I
...... I .... just can't think of any thing more to say.

>
> The number of systems installed is irrelevant.  That isn't going to
> affect legislation.  Law makers only care about where the tax dollars
> are being mis-spent.  When the cops go to them and say we're wasting
> our time 99% of the time with false alarms, companies like your go out
> of business.

You're dreaming. First of all, more often than not, a compromise is
reached and the song plays on. There are relatively few that have
complete no response, in comparison to the total towns/cities etc, .
And we're all waiting for the big case where there's a major
catastropy/ mass murder etc. because the authorities didn't respond.
But.... If it ever comes to that point, the industry will simply fall
back to what it did before. It'll flow where the public takes it.
Installations that include more physical security with no monitoring or
private security response. Some companies will fall by the wayside.
Some will adapt. But before that happens, mostly the police will agree
to verified response, or fines or whatever foot draging consessions are
agreed upon. And the song plays on.

You give your big company persective too much credit. Even though you
think not, it's hard to see the little people from an ivory tower. Just
remember,  "companies like yours" are a liken to a flea on the ass of
an elephant when compared to the entire rest of the industry.
Individual small companies may come and  may go, but as an entity, they
will abide. A big company is either here ..... or it's gone. And I'd
have to say, if management there is using your logic to run the
business ......... whew!