Re: False alarms

["coord" <splunge@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At one time Irv was the national treasurer for CANASA   www.canasa.org
"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PTx%f.494$Kh5.352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.
>
>
>