Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

J. Sloud wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2005 07:33:44 -0800, "Al Colombo"
> <securitymission@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Unless the protected areas are behind outdoor chainlink fences, how can
> >you dispatch the police?  On the inside of the house, that's quite
> >possible today, I realize.  So, are  you suggesting that we forgo the
> >electronic alarm system and replace it with intelligent video?  Just
> >curious if that's something you would endorse.
> >
> >Al
> >
>
> Not yet.  There could be a day when motion detectors are replaced by
> video.  This is already being done in multiple outdoor applications
> and quite a few industrial type indoor apps where large scale motion
> detection isn't practical.  Eventually, this technology may be adapted
> to the smaller scale instrusion detection market.
>
> The point is the current technology doesn't work very well.  Name
> another industry where end-users tolerate 99% failure rates.  Once
> police response is eliminated through ordinances and no-response
> policies, the industry will be forced to rethink their value
> proposition.  What exactly are they selling?  Peace of mind?
> Protection?  Noise makers?
>

I don't know what you're trying to "sell" here but if you truly believe
that all alarm systems fail, you're either a politician or daft. Do you
really believe that all alarm systems fail? I don't mean to say that
they "never" fail, but all of them fail, all the time? I can say the
same thing about automobile accidents. 99% of people have fatal
accident. Because, certainly we don't want to consider all the people
who DON'T have fatal accidents or those who don't have any.

When ever an effort is made by a community to reduce false alarms,
don't they compare it to a figure that existed before they started?
Sure, starting from the viewpoint of 99% false alarms is a percieved
stating point, but it by no means says that ALL alarm systems are
sending in false alarm causing response. Some alarm systems signals are
verified ....others don't send any.


> IMO, the real money is in video/ access and recurring services outside
> of traditional burglar alarm monitoring.  Margins are better,
> competition is less, and growth rates are three times higher.

You know that that is only going to last as long as it isn't in the
mainstream. As soon as it gets into the realm of being easlily
available, is when the compitition begins and the margins get down to
reality. Right now, I'm making a fortune on doing home theater and
computer network wiring in the home. As soon as the technology is
reduced to being easlily installed or available retail, the margins
will go with it. So don't throw all your eggs into the basket. That's
simply a well known market phenomenon

> I'll
> leave the single family BA installations to you guys.

Haven't we already determined that in past threads?

None of what you've said (Except your incorrect 99% figure) in this
thread, really applies to residential which the majority of
participants in this group consists of. So when you say that CCTV is
the answer to cutting down on false alarms, and implying that no one is
using it, but you can't suggest how it would work in residential,
you're prophesy isn't universally accurate.

However I DO agree that it would go a long way in commercial. But then
it occurs to me that I don't remember where the source of most false
alarms
occurs. Commercial or residential? If it happens to be residential,
then your prophesy is that much the less accurate.

>
> J.