Re: False alarms

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Everywhere Man Wrote:

"Norm is a MUCH MUCH MUCH younger
 guy than you so he has no excuse".

That's right Tom, make smartass remarks about Bob,
 just because he's an old man.....a very old man.
We should have respect for those older folks.

I'm just pecking away at the keyboard.

Norm Mugford



"Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144798937.422646.279410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bob Worthy wrote:
>> "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1144777730.757928.242790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Bob Worthy wrote:
>> > > "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > > news:1144702426.272614.144170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > What do you think about fining the centrals?
>>
>> If they don't have the resources to fine the company, how are they going
>> to
>> fine the CS? Actually, in today's world of third party monitoring, that
>> CS
>> has nothing to do with the end user or the physical system. They also
>> don't
>> have any contractual obligation to the end user or visa versa. The CS
>> actually works for you, the alarm company. They are following procedures
>> and
>> specific instructions that the alarm company has laid out for them.
>> (there
>> are some laws and accepted practices they follow as far as verification
>> calls etc.) Fining them will just increase the flow of paper work as it
>> floats down stream and eventually end up where it belongs anyway, in the
>> end
>> users mail box.<
>
> I was talking more about this Canada deal. All I know about it is what
> Jim posted, and was wondering if you had any knowledge of it.
>
>>
>> Jim mentioned that they do
>> > that somewhere in Canada, and said the rates dropped alot. I googled
>> > for the Irv Fisher post but I couldn't find it.
>>
>> I am not familiar with Canada's situation at all, except some of this
>> started in Toronto serveral years ago.<
>
> How did they enact/enforce this policy? Jim passed on information from
> Irv that says it dropped the rate bigtime. I'd be interested in
> learning more about it.
>
>> > We are lucky to have any communication with town officials outside of
>> > campaign speeches. They prefer to complain than repair.
>>
>> You get out of it what you put into it. I have said, more than once, and
>> possibly here in this group, that if you are in business, you must make
>> politics a part of your business. If you do not,  people outside your
>> business will be making your decisions for you. <
>
> I have no stomach or patience for politicians. There was a funny
> picture taken of the Mayor and you can see me in the background with a
> "what the hell is he babbling about" look on my face.
>
>> >
>> > I refuse business on a regular basis. People with systems that were
>> > installed when Christ was a corporal, and expect us to monitor that are
>> > turned away.
>> > Wackos who want a million motions are sent elsewhere. People who have 6
>> > doors but only want to protect 3 are refused.
>> > I don't need the headaches. You would turn them away too.
>>
>> And I do, but only after investigating their situation. Are they truely
>> interested in security or are they just looking for an insurance break.
>> Then
>> it turns into an upgrade or a waste of my time. Many times this is
>> accomplished right over the phone. <
>
> A perfect example is a couple living in a multi-million dollar home
> looking for ONE fire detector just to get the insurance discount. I
> told them to open the yellow pages and find someone who was just as
> reckless about safety as they were.
>
>> > The problem is we have people who won't say no to them. A few of those
>> > companies are in your state.
>>
>> Authorized dealers selling paper instead of security? <
>
> I am an authorized dealer for BRINKS up here but I'll be damned if
> anyone tries to force me to play the numbers game. BRINKS hasn't put
> the screws to dealers I know when it comes to production. Our average
> system cost is well over $1,000.00. I can't remember the last time we
> did a $99.00 deal. All joking aside I truly hate that shit.
> I won't deny that there are dealers out there who throw in any system
> just for the RMR, but you will find that it's not limited to just
> authorized dealers.
>>
>>  They mail out the alarm system to the
>> > customer and put them online with a central. It doesn't matter where
>> > the customer lives either, as long as there is a mail
>> > box and money they will receive an alarm system, and add to the false
>> > alarm problem.
>> > Shame on the centrals that monitor these people.
>>
>> Who are they? I wonder if they have a license. The gray interpetation
>> that
>> RLB slipped through is being fixed. I hope they have a license or on the
>> other hand, it would be a good test for the new law. Maybe if he
>> witnesses
>> someone else going through it, he won't feel as though he is being picked
>> on.<
>
> Companies like Protect America are mailing alarm systems to customers.
> How many false alarms do you think they account for? Then you have
> these DIY websites selling systems to anyone willing to pay the price.
> bAss isn't the only one selling online, and license or no license the
> monitored DIY system is inexcusable. Does the customer get what they
> pay for? Yes. But we end up paying the price for that.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Very true. Shouldn't we at some point disconnect them?
>>
>> Of course, why allow them to drive up your alarm ratio. Are you
>> downloading
>> your panels or are you actually visiting the site and disconnecting the
>> phone line? <
>
> Mind you I am answering in regards to in house accounts because once
> BRINKS owns them I cannot shut them down, but on in-house accounts we
> shut the panel down via download.
>
>> >
>> > One business- 600+ false alarms. Do the police see that it's only one
>> > business, or do they see 600 false alarms?
>>
>> Depends on how they are administrating their ordinance, if at all. In our
>> city, after the second false alarm they receive a visit from the PD's
>> alarm
>> unit, after the third false alarm there is a $50 fine and they would need
>> to
>> attend a false alarm school, after the forth, it is $100 and after the
>> fifth
>> false alarm in a year and a $200 fine, that customer would have been on
>> *limited* response, meaning the PD would go to holdup and emergency but
>> no
>> burgs until they could prove the system has been repaired or what ever
>> corrective action was necessary. I teach that school on occassion. There
>> is
>> usually about 25-30 people in the classes. It is given quarterly. I find
>> it
>> interesting that an extremely small amount of people, over the years,
>> have
>> blamed the security company for their problem. I really thought it would
>> be
>> "blame the alarm guy". I was armed to hilt with statistics my first
>> couple
>> of classes but it didn't happen. I was suprised. It gave me a different
>> opinion of what was really happening across the board. Most know what has
>> caused their false alarm, accept the ordinance and are willing to correct
>> the problem.<
>
> Very nice having an alarm unit at the local PD. What if the customer
> refuses to attend the school?
>
>
>>
>>  They see 600 and our
>> > industry takes a shot in the chops.
>>
>> Lack of knowledge will do it everytime. I will also tell you that when
>> you
>> have something that you don't want the public to know, you need to find a
>> scapegoat. Politicians don't want to tell their voters that they are
>> broke
>> and cannot afford to provide police services. The alarm response is one
>> of
>> those cost cutting measures hence the 98% false alarm rate being used as
>> a
>> sales tool. In Palm Beach County, FL., PBSO told the commissioners that
>> alarm response was costing them 1.2 million dollars a year. After
>> research,
>> it was proven to the commission that through the registration fees and
>> the
>> false alarm fines, the county was bringing in 1.7 million dollars. No
>> fuzzy
>> math there, pure profit. Their "no response" campaign went right out the
>> window. The front page of their new ordinance, under a new sheriff,
>> reads...Drafted by the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office and the Alarm
>> Association of Florida. Now that is a partnership.<
>
> I believe we have lack of effort/interest here. They like to complain
> but they won't sit down to address the issue.
>
>>
>> > Well we must have rogues galore up here.
>>
>> Let me know if you need a number to SIAC. This is what they do and they
>> will
>> come to you. They work nationally and have been involved in all the big
>> FA
>> locations, Salt Lake, LA, Dallas, etc etc etc. Lost a few but won many
>> many.
>> They are funded by CSAA, ADI, NBFAA (or whatever they are calling
>> themselves
>> today) and work hand and hand with the IACP. They used to go under the
>> name
>> CARE.<
>
> I contacted folks at IQ, the NYBFAA and the RAA. I was hoping to get
> FARA involved as well. If we have an opportunity to get the government
> to discuss alternatives to fines then we should jump at it.
>
>>
>> > Where were my numbers wrong? I said that 99% of all SIGNALS are false
>> > alarms.
>> > I did NOT say that 99% of all alarm systems cause false alarms.
>>
>> That is what I get for skim reading, but I am glad you brought it back up
>> because that is exactly what everyone hears, 99% of all systems false
>> alarm.
>> At least that is what the opponents would have the public believe. <
>
> 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.
>
> 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?  :-)
>>
>> > It doesn't matter if there are 50,000 systems here or 5 what matters is
>> > that 99 out of 100 SIGNALS being sent are false alarms. That's a 99%
>> > false alarm rate.
>>
>> OK, the glass is either half empty or half full. It is and has been
>> argued
>> both ways and it depends on who's camp your in as to which way you are
>> looking at it. Lets go back to the 100 systems and only one is having a
>> problem. Lets say it falses 100 times. One dispatch, the problem was
>> questionable and the other 99 times were false for whatever reason. 89%
>> user
>> error, 7% installation problems, 3% weather related. You are right,
>> 99 % of the alarms generated from this alarm panel were false. Does that
>> mean the city PD should consider a no dispatch policy? There are 100
>> systems, they had 100 dispatches, 99% were false. Bottom line, if they
>> don't
>> have an ordinance and a registration process, they don't know the reality
>> of
>> the situation. When dealing with cities and counties, you must consider
>> *all* involved. In this case, the 99 other systems, that did not have a
>> problem, would suffer if someone pulled a knee jerk reaction to the
>> problem
>> child. <
>
> 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 more accurate we become the faster they will respond. 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.
> Aint I just the big bad boogey man?
>
> 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.
>
>>
>> > I'm sorry to cut this reply short, Bob. I have to run, but I would like
>> > to continue this conversation later. Thanks for responding.
>>
>> 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.
> I hope someone whizzes in your senior center lunch.
>
>>
>> > You're always an interesting read, but you're still not Worthy :-)
>>
>> Trustworthy better fits my style. :o} <
>
> But Frank still won't let you know.
>


I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html