Re: False alarms

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

petem wrote:
> My opinion is plain simple,you have some really good nerv to come here and
> talk about giving fine to installing alarm company. <

Well if it's good nerv to discuss my opinion on false alarms then my
thanks. It beats bad nerv. Bickering about who is to blame isn't going
to reduce false alarms anymore than fining the customer would.
One company in Mount Vernon had 600+ (six hundred) false alarms. At
what point does it become our responsibility to shut the guy off so we
don't allow the customer to drive up the false alarm rate? When the
concept of no response is being toyed with that should be enough of a
warning that the police have had enough. Unless we are all going to
employ armed guards this should be of major concern to us.
The police can say whatever the hell they want about how they respond
like every alarm is a real emergency but that's a crock of crap. Alarm
calls are becoming more and more of a low priority.

>
> What you dont know is that,here we have so much fly by night company that
> there is no way just to know who the heck installed a system.. <

And we have the same here. We have companies MAILING customers alarm
systems.
Maybe fines against the company isn't the answer, I doubt we will ever
know for sure, but fining the end user sure as all shit hasn't worked
yet.

>
> You will need to think also about poeple that badly use there alarm,not
> because they ar mean,but cause the forget,they didnt close the windows of
> the kitchen and at the first good wind gust the pir gave an alarm,now whe=
res
> the alarm company fault,how could they have prevented that alarm? by
> installing contact on every door? <

If the customer had a better understanding about the system they
wouldn't continually make these mistakes. How often do these same
people forget to lock their doors, or put on a seat belt? The NBFAA and
FARA have a pretty decent suggestion that we use here. It's a 7 day no
dispatch policy. For the first 7 days there will be no dispatch on
alarms because the majority of user errors occur right after install.
With a 7 day no dispatch the customer won't fear using their system,
and might become more comfortable learning the features. Unfortunately
not everyone offers that and that contributes to user error.

>
> i f so you are saying that alarm system should only be install on high end
> home where they can afford full perimeter and volumetric protection <

No Pete I am not saying that. I am talking about nimrods who aim motion
detectors at stairways, and at windows. Goofballs who use 30 year old
wiring rather than charge the customer for new wiring. Dingbats who
install single tech motions, and don't caulk behind it, or don't
instruct their clients to vacuum around the motion and smoke detectors
on a monthly basis. Installers who don't teach the customer how to test
the system weekly. Jackasses who sell DIY systems and offer monitoring
without ever inspecting the system.
These fly-by-nighters that you are talking about are the reason we are
all paying the price. A quality install does not necessarily mean a
full perimeter system. It means use quality regardless of the system
size.
I would bet my left nut that Jim (Alarminex) doesn't have a false alarm
rate anywhere near 99%. What makes him different? Quality! Think Jack
Stevens has a rate like that?
Now for every Jack Stevens, and Jim there are HUNDREDS of slimebags who
don't use quality. Bob Campbell always mentions a Canuck company that
offers nothing but garbage. I can't recall the name, but they are not a
small company. Frankie and Mikey always mention them too. They
advertise low rates on the radio. If they were to be fined for every
false alarm how long would they hang around muddying the waters for the
rest of us? Now what company contributes more to the problem? Would it
be that large company or Jack Stevens? Now who ends up paying the
larger price for it? Jack Stevens. Why? Because our industry gets a
black eye from these scumbags and he now becomes guilty by association.
I'm just using Jack and Jim (Roger Grimsby) as two examples of people
we are familiar with.

>
> and what about the business side of the story,commercial account where the
> cleaning team change every damn month and they cant read english..have
> difficulty just to speak english,and plain just dont care about alarms..<

And what about not taking on an account that will cause headaches like
that? Walk away from the deal. There are more than enough commercial
accounts that don't have that baggage. Shudder to think about actually
saying NO to some RMR just because it comes along with umpteen false
alarms per month, right?

>
> what can i do about that? ask my customer to pay me back the fine? they
> first thing that will happen ,they will go to fly by nights connected to
> central station in another juridiction,and voila..case closed,where do you
> will send the fine? <

Again, we should use discretion when signing up a client. If it is
going to be a trouble situation then just walk away. Let someone else
sign them up. Why bother with a headache?


>
> the only way to fix the false alarm issue is to have a way of confirming =
if
> an alarm is real or not,and that is video confirmation,let have the
> integration of video system to alarm system as a big incentive for sale to
> the alarm manufacturer you dont need high end camera and crystal clear vi=
deo
> to realise if there is a break in or not...or if the Johnson forgot to put
> the cat in the basement before leaving for the day.. <

That is one of the ways but how many customers are going to pay for
cameras in each living area, and who is going to pay the increased
monitoring rate? This would eliminate a vast majority of the market.
Joe Blow couldn't afford that, and how many that could are going to let
us start ripping up walls to install cameras?

So again, if imposing a fine on the customer doesn't work, which it
doesn't, and if you disagree with fining the installing company, then
what would be your answer to reducing false alarms OUTSIDE of slowing
down the response time?
Two way voice is nice, but not everyone is going to pay for it, and not
every central offers real two way.
These solutions being employed now are not as affective as they should
be. When we have a 99% false alarm rate that means we are right only 1%
of the time.
If I wanted to be wrong all of the time I'd stay home and listen to my
wife, but I am in an industry that I love, and I HATE the fact we are
nowhere near as efficient as we should be.
We can scream, yell, and trade insults, but at the end of the day the
numbers are still there.

>
>
>
>
> "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> 1144702426.272614.144170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Last week I was asked to address the local Chamber of Commerce
> > regarding false alarms.
> > Here's a brief article on the event.
> >
> > http://www.mvinquirer.com/chamber_meeting_of_april_6.htm
> >
> > What I would like to know is if I am alone in believing that if the
> > alarm company were to be fined we would have a greater control over the
> > amount of false alarms?
> > My belief is, as stated in the interview, that we have the ultimate
> > control over those who are not educated on how their alarm functions,
> > as well as those who have faulty systems, or are just chronic abusers.
> > How many fines would we need to get hit with before we say goodbye to
> > those who abuse their systems? Are we really hooked on that RMR so
> > badly that we will let the customer go wild?
> > How many fines would we need to be hit with before we make sure
> > everything is properly installed, and the customer knows exactly how it
> > works?
> > Fining the customer is a ridiculous solution that many cities employ.
> > Our greatest detractors (the police) would become our biggest advocates
> > if we could lower the current false alarm rate of 90+% to less than
> > 50%. At the rate we are going now the police will soon adopt no
> > response policies so we can't really ignore this.
> > In the end we would garner more business, and have less headaches.
> > I'd welcome your opinions.
> >