Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Russell Brill" <russwbrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DYidnUTbPo71icHeRVn-ug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:oeWdnf7M0OQOn8HeRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e0rnl1h0ipa9u0tqqrj04anv8hevfarn7l@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:54:56 -0400, "Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >And what was ADT's answer to false alarms...
>> > >Sonitrash's two way audio has to be a little better than holding your
>> dick
>> > >in your hand?
>> > >"Always Dial Twice"....priceless
>> > >That's a joke John.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I thought it was America's Drinking Team.  At least that what they
>> > told me when I signed up.
>> >
>> > My answer to the false alarm problem is quite simple - no unverified
>> > police response.  That's really the only answer.  Verification can be
>> > be ASI response or video.  IMO, audio verification just isn't
>> > sufficient.
>>
>> I have to agree. No verification, no response, period.
>>
>> > Sonitrol's method of listening for a break-in and then deciding
>> > whether or not to dispatch was a cool idea ten years ago.  It's just
>> > been surpassed by video now.
>>
>> I think audio aides when it's two-way. But it's now cheaper to be 100%
>> correct with video.
>
> Okay so how do you propose video verification on someone without
> broadband?
> Only one I can think of is OzVision
>
>
You answered your own question :-))