Re: False alarms

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Everywhere Man said:

>And our opponents here are the responders. The cops want people to
>believe 99% of all systems false. I made it clear to chamber members
>that 99% of all signals are false.
>I said our industry has ultimate control over the signals, control over
>the quality of equipment used, and the extent of training.
>I suggested members contract with licensed, bonded, and insured
>companies that abide by IQ standards of installation. I handed out
>samples of the Installer's & Customer's False Alarm Prevention
>checklist from the NBFAA, and I discussed how the end user is also
>responsible because all they care about is price. I talked about the 7
>day no dispatch policy and how it is extremely affective. I mentioned
>two way voice, and video monitoring.
>It appears that some are reading this as me saying 99% of all alarm
>systems are shit. I never said that, and I never would say that.
>Maybe they should reread what I said, and then tell me exactly what I
>was wrong about.

Saying 99 out of 100 dispatches are false may be a true statement, but it's
meaningless.  You have to look at the total number of installed systems to
determine whether or not you have a reliability problem.

Suppose there's a total of 100 dispatches in a small town that only has 50
working alarm systems.  Reliability problem?  Sure.  Each system is causing
two false alarms.

Suppose there's a total of 100 dispatches in NYC, with hundreds of
thousands of alarm systems.  Reliability problem?  Not at all.  The NYPD
would be thrilled to death if they only had to chase 100 false alarms a
year.

In each example, 99 out of 100 dispatches were false.  In the first
example, that 99% false alarm rate is a problem.  In the second, it's not.

- badenov