Re: Monitoring station response time

["Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Don't forget Exit Errors. Although we do call on an exit error, some
company's may not, or may drop call back to a lower priorty.

Our call back time is under 60 secs.



"R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PradnTyvNuk006jeRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|I would say.... that depends. If you disarmed the system right away (or
| during the time when
| the panel was still online with the station), then they could have
received
| a "cancel
| code" along with the alarm, and most stations won't even call, since they
| know someone with a valid code has disarmed the system. Your station
| might simply have been doing a double check (as many do) as a matter of
| policy, which can be some minutes
| afterwards depending upon how many alarms they are receiving at the moment
| without cancel
| codes.
|
| The normal interval to respond to an alarm (assuming no receipt of a
cancel
| code) I expect should be immediately or within a minute, depending upon
how
| busy they are at that moment. Early morning and around 5 pm seem to be the
| busiest periods of a workday when stations are running at peak capacity,
| which would normally slow things down a bit (Lots of people disarming
their
| panels at work and screwing things up etc.....)
|
| With a cancel code, response can vary (assuming the station calls at all)
| and can vary greatly based on other
| alarms being received at the same time. They should probably be explaining
| to the end user they are just doing a double check ; otherwise, the
| impression left is slow response as you felt. Cancel codes are one of the
| things that dramatically decrease problems for customers; however, they
| certainly can leave the impression of poor response.
|
| It should be noted however, that a lot of companies (and customers) prefer
| NOT to use cancel codes and wish the station to call on every alarm trip.
| This is a simple programming change in the alarm panel. While lack of a
| cancel code increases the workload on the station (and IMO likely doesn't
| add much benefit to the end user), it certainly does increase the false
| alarm rate substantially.
|
| If I lived in LA or another large community with lots of crimes against
| people, I might be tempted to forget about cancel codes (and probably also
| activate a duress code in my panel ). But if I lived in a normal community
| where crimes against people was not a major issue, a cancel code is much
| more likely to prevent a false dispatch and a fine than it is to decrease
| the effectiveness of your alarm in any meaningful way.
|
| This is something you should discuss with your alarm company in regards to
| your personal situation.
|
| Regards,
|
| R.H.Campbell
| Home Security Metal Products
| Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| www.homemetal.com
|
| "Warren" <warrens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:433542FC.3030705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > This morning I my alarm system was triggered.  Fortunately it was a
false
| > alarm, no damage or injury occurred.
| >
| > I checked on my watch as the alarm system released the phone line and
then
| > waited for a phone call from the monitoring station.  It took 3 minutes
| > and 18 seconds for the phone to ring.
| >
| > Their excuse for the delay is that they were busy.
| >
| > What is considered a maximum acceptable response time when phoning a
| > residence following an alarm?
| >
|
|