Re: "Central Station Service" Poll

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael B. Baker said:

> A butt load of us are in
>Orlando this week to work on the 2007 version of NFPA 72.
>
>You're right badenov, it's a terminology problem.  It has to do more
>with history than anything else.  Committee members have improved the
>verbiage and continue to do so, but we need your help.  You're a smart
>guy (I assume or you'd use natasha) and I challenge you and all
>naysayers who spend time wailing and gnashing your teeth when trying to
>apply code language to the real world.  I challenge you to submit
>proposals to change the language.  To make it easier to use.  In the
>back of every NFPA standard is a form to submit a proposal.  Heck, I'll
>fill the form out for you.  Just email the exisitng code language to me
>along with your proposed change and I'll prepare the document with your
>name on it and submit it for you.
>
>It's not a rotten system and it doesn't mainly benefit UL, NFPA, and
>large alarm companies.  It (our system of building codes and
>installation standards) is the result of our industry's consenus as to
>how to balance life safety and property protection with available
>resources.  If you don't like it, fix it!  Propose changes, make
>comments to proposed changes, vote, and participate!
>

I've submitted code changes before, via the formal procedure.  Never had
one adopted.  Back when I was young, I actually believed people would care
about my opinions, if they were well thought out.  In my old age, I've come
to the conclusion that nobody gives a damn about my opinion.  So be it, I
won't waste my time making proposals.

I used to be a member of NFPA, until I discovered that I wasn't allowed to
vote unless I traveled to wherever the NFPA convention was.  Otherwise,
some damn fireman who traveled at taxpayer expense gets to vote, but a
working alarm dealer who can't take a week off and travel to the other side
of the country is disenfranchised.  Screw that!

And take a look at how the size of NFPA 72 has grown in recent years.  You
know it's never going to get any smaller.  A hundred years from now, the
standard will be the size of a dictionary, and we'll all have to be lawyers
to understand it.

That's really the crux of my dissatisfaction with the NFPA:  it's run by
anal-retentive people who love to impose detailed requirements on other
people.  It's not about life safety, it's about micromanaging.  And you've
succeeded in co-opting the fire service, so your micromanaging gets turned
into law.

Now, you want to micromanage burglar alarms.  You have the idiotic idea
that if you write detailed standards and inspect the hell out of
everything, false alarms will vanish from the face of the earth.

But getting back to "central station service" vs. "central station
monitoring," the solution to this confusing terminology is to come up
neutral names for the type of service provided.  For example, in short
form:

Class C1 fire alarm monitoring:  Monitoring of alarm, supervisory, and
trouble signals by a UL listed or FM approved central station.  Upon
receipt of an alarm signal, the central station shall transmit the alarm to
the fire department and notify the property owner or his designated
representative.  Upon receipt of a supervisory signal, the central station
shall notify the property owner or his designated representative.  Upon
receipt of a trouble signal, the central station shall notify the alarm
company that is contractually obligated to provide repairs, and also the
property owner or his designated representative.

Class C2 fire alarm monitoring:  (insert current definition of "central
station service", without calling it that.)

By all means, submit that.  For all the good it will do.

- badenov