Re: Commercial Alarm - help

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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