Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Check your e-mail

"Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144864661.183841.15310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bob Worthy wrote:
> > > > > > "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1144702426.272614.144170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about fining the centrals?
> > > >
> >
> > > Very nice having an alarm unit at the local PD.
> >
> > It works well in every area it is implimented.<
>
> Any stats would be a tremendous help.
>
> >
> >  What if the customer
> > > refuses to attend the school?
> >
> > There is an incentive built in to attend. They attend after their third
> > alarm and have received a $50 fine. By attending, the $50 fine is
waived. If
> > they don't attend they pay the $50 and the next will be $100.
> > Another city, here in Florida, will waive fines equal to the cost of
> > upgrading the system. That is also popular. If someone has $400 in fines
> > pending, the city will waive those if the custmer spends the $400 to
upgrade
> > their system. <
>
> It sounds as if your jurisdiction actually cares about this issue.
> Those are some real nice options.
>
> >
> >
> > > I believe we have lack of effort/interest here. They like to complain
> > > but they won't sit down to address the issue.
> >
> > Those could be the most dangerous type. A quick knee jerk reaction type
> > policy takes no time or effort on their part. The industry needs to stay
in
> > their face to get them to the table. <
>
> That is why I addressed the Chamber. I certainly didn't want the PD to
> be the ones discussing methods of reduction because they believe it's
> by writing a ticket.
> I stole their thunder when I mentioned the false alarm rate, while
> making it crystal clear that it was 99% of the signals that were false,
> and how the customer with 600+ falses affected them. If I left it up to
> the PD they would have trashed our industry.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I contacted folks at IQ,
> >
> > I know you are affiliated with Brinks and they are a big supporter of
IQ. In
> > fact they could be the only supporter. IQ is a very weak Board with very
> > little support and funding. I am not bashing the intent of the program,
but
> > it is underfunded and is not really going anywhere. Unless things are
> > changing, Brinks in actually the one keeping it alive. <
>
> A few nationals are involved with IQ, but I honestly don't care who
> belongs and who doesn't. I care about their installation standards, and
> I abide by them. They really do have a good program.
>
> >
> > the NYBFAA
> >
> > To fragmented to be a real force. They can't agree with each other to
get
> > anything accomplished. They have a reputation of being not a unified
group. <
>
> NY State is such a diverse place it's impossible to get everyone on the
> same page.
> We have NYC which is a fast-paced, high maintenance zoo.
> Westchester, LI, Orange, Rockland, Putnam, & Dutchess Counties is more
> like CT, and Upstate NY is hillbilly central.
>
>
> >
> > >and the RAA.
> >
> > Who are these folks? <
>
> The Regional Alarm Association.
>
> >
> >  I was hoping to get
> > > FARA involved as well.
> >
> > They are mostly law enforcement folks and work well with the industry
but
> > again have very limited funds. They will make phone calls to areas
> > supporting a good ordinance program. Norma Beaubien has been a great
contact
> > for the industry, and John Moorehouse, also a FARA board member, is
running
> > a program at his Sheriffs office, here is Florida, that I mentioned has
had
> > a 78% reduction in F/A since he implimented their ordinance. He sits on
our
> > BOD, as the public safety liason, for the AAF as well. He is definiately
a
> > good person to talk with. <
>
> Their membership application has been on my desk for 3 or 4 weeks. It
> seems everytime I pick it up to fill it out I get distracted. I like
> what they stand for, and I will join.
>
> >
> > >If we have an opportunity to get the government
> > > to discuss alternatives to fines then we should jump at it.
> >
> > Enhanced Call Verification is the fastest proven method to reduce
dispatches
> > to date. There is absolutely no cost to the muni, no work on their part,
> > simply a reduction in request for dispatch. It is the easiest, fastest
way
> > to go for immediately reducing dispatches. <
>
> So what about the alarmcos that don't offer that? Are they now banned
> from doing business in the city? What about the DIY shnooks who sign up
> with these willly nilly centrals, or the trunk monkey with the receiver
> in his garage?
>
> > >
> > > And our opponents here are the responders. The cops want people to
> > > believe 99% of all systems false.
> >
> > Makes you think they may be getting ready for some sort of policy. <
>
> yes a very simple policy. Fine them early and often to replace the cash
> lost on the Mayor's 'Town Circle' project that is 2 years running now.
> Did you notice in the article it talked about how the Mayor came AFTER
> the discussion was over? They are gearing up to slam alarm users, and
> if they get away with it then our industry starts to look like a hassle
> to the customer rather than a security solution.
>
> >
> >  I made it clear to chamber members
> > > that 99% of all signals are false.
> > > I said our industry has ultimate control over the signals,
> >
> > That is where ECV comes into play.
> >
> > >control over
> > > the quality of equipment used,
> >
> > Mandatory CPO1 standards.
> >
> > >and the extent of training.
> >
> > School for abusers
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > All recommendations that have been here for some time now. These items
> > should still be supported as methods of false alarm reduction.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > People hear what they think they hear, not necessarily what is said. You
can
> > correct this by not addressing the senior centers luncheon. <
>
> I guess they are accustomed to hearing the 99% of alarms are shitty so
> much they assumed I was discussing alarm systems and not signals.
>
> >
> > > Maybe they should reread what I said, and then tell me exactly what I
> > > was wrong about.
> >
> > They won't remember yesterday, let alone what they read last week. <
>
> That's my problem. I forget everything
>
> >
> > > And YOU are allowed to skim read. I have a soft spot for old folks and
> > > know how the eyes play tricks on you. Norm is a MUCH MUCH MUCH younger
> > > guy than you so he has no excuse. Poor bastard is probably still
> > > pecking away at the keyboard emailing a hate letter to the paper.
NORM!
> > > Read it again ya friggin hot head. Doesn't it make you laugh when you
> > > see these kids go off half-cocked, Bob?
> >
> > Kids!!! Can't teach them anything. And the music they play, my God! And
> > these are going to be the leaders of our country.<
>
> :-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > My point is the police (the people we rely on to respond) only see the
> > > 99%.
> > > Let's cut it down to 50% so we can take them to task for slow response
> > > times.
> >
> > The 99% will always be there. You, me or the industry cannot improve
that.
> > What you really are referring to and if they are smart, what they really
> > want (but don't know how to say it) is to reduce the amount of
dispatches.
> > Enhanced Call Verification will do that. Immediately!! <
>
> Any info you can send me would be much appreciated, Bob
>
> >
> > > The more accurate we become the faster they will respond.
> >
> > I don't believe that for a minute. They (the opponents) do not believe
alarm
> > response is police work. <
>
> yet publically they will always claim otherwise. That is why I am
> pushing the envelope with them. I have a radio interview coming up, and
> a follow up story being written on this. It's the forum of public
> opinion that moves mountains since the keeper of the keys (the town
> council) are all elected officials, and wouldn't want to piss off the
> voters by appearing unwilling to resolve an issue they griped so loudly
> about.
>
> >
> > >Here is what
> > > I said our industry should do to cut the numbers down.
> > > I said:
> > > If the customer doesn't know how to use it we should teach them.
> > > If it's faulty we should fix it.
> > > If it's a chronic abuser we should shut them off.
> > > If we don't do that then slap the fine on me.
> >
> > You were doing great until the last line.<
>
> No, I believe if my company is the one providing service to the 600+
> alarm character then shame on me for keeping him online.
>
> >
> > > Aint I just the big bad boogey man?
> >
> > Not really, I applaud anyone looking for an answer, addressing the
concern,
> > and being professional enough to put it out there as a possible resolve.
It
> > isn't your fault no one else agrees.<
>
> I never expected anyone to agree with me, which is exactly why I
> started this thread.
> I wanted the differing opinions of people here, and knew who would
> reply and who wouldn't. I knew that some would take great issue with my
> statements but I welcome that because I also have to respect that many
> of you were in this industry when I was in diapers. Many of you paved
> the way for guys like me to earn the income I earn, and there is still
> alot I can learn. It's the generation of alarm dealers that I belong to
> who are for the most part responsible for this huge spike. We are more
> interested in slinging paper than offering quality. We couldn't tape a
> window if you gave us a month, and couldn't get a wireless device in
> places you guys would get wires. I will never reach a point where I
> know everything but I will never reach a point where I want to stop
> learning, and your generation is the best source of information.
> Seriously, thanks for replying.
>
> >
> > > I appreciate your opinions. You make valid points and welcome your
> > > response, but if it ever gets out that I was involved in a serious
> > > thread I'll have to shoot you.
> >
> > You will have to find me. I'll give you a hint, Frank is my counter guy,
> > Ejad does my installs, I hang out at Sumo wrestling matches watching
Norm,
> > and get my Kicks and Giggles from RLB. <
>
> Which Frank? There's at least two Franks but they are the same Frank
> posting from different places.
> If Ejad is your installer you must be out of business. A hard day's
> work and a warm beer would kill Jim.
> I really didn't need the visual of Norm in sumo attire, and I wish one
> of those kicks for bAss would wind up in his ass.
>
> > >
> > > > Catch ya on the rebound...<
> > >
> > > Is that a comment on my weight? Saying I am shaped like a basketball?
> > > Mom says I am not fat I am just jolly.
> >
> > No, she said "Jelly". Clean the crap out of your ears. <
>
> Sorry i couldn't hear you.
>
> >
> > > I hope someone whizzes in your senior center lunch.
> >
> > There goes the seriousness of the thread. That is OK, it was (still is)
an
> > important topic. <
>
> Sorry for adding a little levity to the thread, Bob. It is a very
> important topic. I sincerely thank all of you for responding, and hope
> this conversation continues so we can continue to discover more
> prevention methods.
>