Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e4e3c257b29c13a2c368343719b2060d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bob Worthy said:
>
> >Read my last sentence. ECV reduces **dispatches**, unnessary dispatches.
It
> >does not reduce false alarms, false signals, or what ever they may be
> >called.
>
> It's been my experience that few things piss off the cops (or city
> officials) faster than when the alarm industry representative starts
> drawing a distinction between false alarms and false dispatches.

You are right, but it really depends on the venue. If it is the least bit
adversarial, the cop types will want control immediately. That is their
nature, especially if they think your playing games with them. When there is
a partnership and working toward a resolve, terminology, view points, and
the like are on the table so that everyone is talking the same language.
When you admit that there is a false alarm (signal) problem and that what
they are actually doing is responding unnecessarily, the ice starts to melt.
They totally understand that false alarms are not their problem but the
amount of unnessary dispatces are.When you start talking about ways to cut
down on the amount of dispatches, then they listen. They don't know about,
or do they care about single technology motion detectors vs dual techs. They
are only concerned about the amount of times they are called on to dispatch.
"We went to the same location 20 times in one weekend!" On the other hand,
there was a comment from one of the departments when their city was testing
ECV. There was an immediate drop in the number of unnecessary dispatches
(yah, I play the word game, but that is OK, my city understands the
difference). They also saw the immediate loss of revenue from false alarm
fines. The city manager came over to the PD to find out what was going on.
When looking at the records the amount of fines being issued coincided with
the enactment of ECV. I am not so sure he was happy with the loss of
revenue. Where the PD does not see those funds to off set their cost, the
city misses the fines coming into the general fund. Does the police budget
go down with the elimination of false alarms? No. Does the general fund go
down with the elimination of false alarms? Yes. Don't even try it!! I am not
advocating the existance of false alarms. It was just an observation that
someone, in the city, did notice it.

> look at you like you're retarded, or worse, like you're trying to put
> something over on them.

Lack of amicable communication, or no communication at all?

> I know what you are talking about, but most people don't.

I know, most will just sit and bitch about things  instead of walking into
their local PD or Fire/Rescue and introducing themselves and offer
assistance. In our city, it initially took dealing with the alarm unit
coordinator after introducing myself. He was a little stand offish and there
were only a couple of times he contacted me for info. I didn't really have a
good feel for his interest in working together. I got at call one day from
the new coordinator. He introduced himself to me. He told me that he found
my number in the files and it was noted "Good industry contact". Made me
feel better about the limited contact I had with the first coordinator and
it opened the door to be part of a good program in our city. I am sure there
are others they converse with, but I know that I will be one of them, giving
me an opportunity to help steer the ship.

  I think it's
> counterproductive to play word games with the general public.

Of course it is. They are mostly sheep doing what the city tells them to do
and you can bet the PD is playing word games with them anyway, when it comes
to selling them the PD's wants and wishes. When you wear a badge, selling is
easy.

When the
> public hears the term "false alarms," they think about the number of times
> the alarm industry calls the police.

Yep, that is what they have been told.

> They could care less how many signals
> you received that did not result in a police dispatch.   We should speak
> their language.

Isn't that what this thread is about? Who should pay for false alarms? We
are talking their language, "I don't wanta pay nothin".  I think the industy
has been listening to it for to long. Maybe the answer is to not take any
customer that is not willing to spend the time, along with all potential
users, to become properly educated and is also willing to pay for what it
actually takes to design, install, monitor, and service this pandora's box
of potential false alarms, if it is not properly designed, installed,
monitored, and serviced properly. Unfortunately, we are far past that, from
ever happening industry wide. As long as this industy chooses to deal with
short term numbers rather than long term careers, we that care must continue
to look for a solution that will satisfy everyone, even if it is short term
to give us time to work on the big picture. (Soapbox?) :o}
>