Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

J. Sloud wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 10:10:53 -0800, "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >I don't know what the reason is, but J Sloud only has to say that the
> >authorities "perceive" that the false alarm rate is 99% and that's what
> >we have to deal with.
>
> Jim,
>
> Many times perception is reality.  The fact that the only statistics
> available point to 90+% failure rates mean that these are the numbers
> in the public's view.  Show me a study that says false alarm rates are
> 5% or 10% or even 70%.  I'm well aware that system failures account
> for very few false alarm problems.  Even when the system is blamed,
> it's rarely caused by device failure.  Normally it's a bad
> application, incorrect installation, or some other problem causing the
> system to false.  Remeber, I work for a company with 5 million
> residential customers and close to a million commercial accounts.
> We're very aware of the problems, causes, and potential solutions.
> We've got more reporting capability than you can imagine, and we track
> every conceivable number related to false alarms.  Like you've said, a
> majority of systems never false.  In fact, they never send any signals
> at all aside from logging data and timer tests.  Remember, all of us
> sell things that we hope will never be needed.  The majority of the
> falses come from relatively few systems.  We identify these and
> dispatch a technician to identify and rectify the problem.  Sometimes
> it's simple customer education.  Occasionally, we discontinue service
> to customers who continue to be problematic.  The interesting
> statistic is the number of legitimate alarm signals as it relates to
> total alarm signals received.  Btw, we investigate (in person) and
> report every legitimate alarm signal.  When you take the number of
> actual alarms as a percentage of total alarm signals, you ariive at
> the number I've been quoting.  It's not uncommon for a small office to
> only one or two legitimate alarms in a month compared to several
> hundred user error alarms, nuisance alarms, bad equipment alarms, bad
> application alarms, etc.
>
> >
> >But for some reason he seems to actually believe that it's an accurate
> >comparison to compare false alarms to number of burgalaries  ........
> >only. And everytime someone comes up with an analogy that proves his
> >opinion is wrong, he ignores it and says there's a 99% failure rate.
> >
>
> See above.  The 99% failure rate is accurate when comparing legitimate
> alarm signals to total alrm signals over a given time period.
> Obviously, the number would be much lower comparing number of alarms
> that false to toal alrms installed.  I've never argued this.

My point is ..... that you keep bandying about this 99% figure as if it
had any actual meaning. Except for the fact that it's the incorrect
method to use to evaluate the value of alarms systems and it is used by
politicians and police departments to justify their greed or indolence.
It only has meaning because that what is being used as a measuring
stick by the politicos. It's an incorrect measure. No denying that if
you compare the number of alarms calls to the number of actual
burglaries it's an accurate figure. But it's not the figures that
should be used to evaluate the usefulness of alarms or their "failure"
rate or their value in preventing crime.

An oil burner service company recieves constant calls from people who
claim to have furnace problems.  Less than 1% don't have problems. Upon
reviewing their service records the service company comes to the
conclusion that since 99% of the people who called saying they had oil
burners problems, actually did have problems ..... Therefore, oil
burners are no good, aren't useful and don't heat homes.