Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144907611.660814.22310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bob Worthy wrote:
> > "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1144858459.848363.157760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm not a proponent for this thingy that they're doing, I'm just saying
> that the way Irv Fischer explained how HE was doing it, looked like a
> great way to handle the false alarm problem. He's taken something that
> was mandated by the authorities and made it work for the betterment of
> all concerned.

I haven't seen what he is doing. If it is working for them, score one for
our side through his efforts.

>And you're saying that the third party Centrals would
> never accept this.  They didn't have a choice .....up there.

That is because it was after the fact. Across the board, everyone is trying
different approaches and it is in a proactive mode rather than a reactive
mode. Usually, when a program is getting off the ground, everyone needs to
be, first, aware of it, and then support it, so there is full participation,
or it doesn't fly. At that point, even a great program could be caulked up
as a failure.

 They were
> told that they were going to get fined for false alarms. It was up to
> them what they were going to do about it for the sake of self
> preservation.

The hammer came down and they had to live or die with the cards dealt to
them. Their fault for not being proactive to begin with. Sounds like Irv
learned quickly how to make apple sauce out of the smashed apple. I am sure
his program has been looked at, as how to deal with these things, since
Canada (Toronto) was one of the first when it came to law enforcement
aggressively addressing the FA issue.

>Fining the Centrals was a good idea from the point of
> view of the authorities because they had fewer entitys to deal with,

I understand the point, but I personally don't usually look for the easiest
way out as the best solution of all. After all, isn't that how we got here
in the first place?

> compared to fining hundreds of thousands of end users.  The centrals
> didn't want to lose their customer base by just simply handing down the
> fines that were levied, so they came up with some pretty innovative
> alarm handling procedures that, according to Irv, were surpprisingly
> accurate and sucessful in cutting down the false alarms to never seen
> before levels.

Did they not share this with the US or is Canada keeping a secret?

>I wish I could remember all the details but it was some
> time ago that Irv finally got tired of the Bass shit and left the
> group.

That is understandable.

> So this ISN'T "untried" it's actually working very well. And
> ..... Irv does do third party monitoring.

Do you know if he belongs to the CSAA?

> But ......... even WITHOUT the fining of Central stations, the
> procedures that Irv is using handling alarm signals could well be used
> by Centrals under ANY circumstances. You'd just have to see some of the
> statistics that Irv was brandying about when we were questioning him
> about it. I'm sure he would be more than happy to talk to you or anyone
> about it. Irv was a real nice and helpful guy.

Lets see if we can get a number. I will talk to anyone. I have even talked
to Bass and even in person, he just doesn't know it.

>Since the
> public usually doesn't have a say or even knowledge that the alarm fine
> process is being considered, They're the easiest target that every one
> in the alarm industry automatically points at.

Not necessarily true all the time. There is a difference, when it comes to
public awareness, when it is passed as an ordinance, which is best, or a
policy of some egos. Ordinances go through the public at first and second
readings and then voted on. Policies are just enacted as of a certain date.
The ones that miss both are the ones that aren't aware of things going on
around them until it is to late and then just bitch about it. Sorta like the
ones that don't vote for president.

 NOT ME .... fine the end
> user says the installer. NOT ME ..... fine the end user says the
> Central Stations. ..... What if the public were asked who to fine
> ...... what do you think the unanomous decision would be, if given the
> choice between the Centrals, installers or the public?

You expect an answer?


> Also, what if the authorities were given the choice between
> administrating fines to end users, alarm installers or central stations
> ..... which do you think they'd choose?

The ones that they have a legal ground for enforcement on. The user. If the
user doesn't pay, they stop responding, and lien their property. They have
no legal recourse on the alarmco or the CS. If they stop responding to an
address because a CS in Pakistan didn't pay a fine, the city might find
themselves in legal deep shit over a $50 fee. If they cut off that CS from
dispatching to the city, how can the PD notify the residents, that may be
using that central, that they are temporarily out of service? If you live in
an area that has an ordinance, you are legally bound by that ordinance. That
CS is not.

 Presuming that they had all the
> details of the amount of work involved with each of those choices. Just
> because no one has thought of it around here, doesn't mean that it'
> isn't a better idea.

That is the reason everyone needs to get to the table and work it out. This
us against them philosophy doesn't accomplish much. That is why Salt Lake
City is where it is at. It got personal.