Re: False alarms

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
> "Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1144858459.848363.157760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > If you leave it up to the end users to get fined, they'll either pay
> > the fine and keep causing falses. Drop the service. Or move to another
> > alarm dealer and the problem simply is perpetuated. It's a lot easier
> > for the authorities to put the responsibility on the Centrals ..... and
> > it also allows the industry to take care of itself from the top down
> > ...... rather than the bottom up. Everyone always says we should
> > monitor our own industry and that's exactly what this does.
>
> The best laid plans go to hell in a hand basket if everyone is not on board
> to support the program. Someone with their own central may introduce this as
> standard procedure and control the consequences with good performance. Third
> party monitoring centers are not going to except fines for 100 different
> installation companies. They will never support it, the same as the
> companies will not support excepting the fines for the end user. Why is
> everyone trying to reinvent the wheel? There are programs that do work
> without all of this. Programs that the cities and counties are happy with
> because the results are getting better and better as the process takes
> place. If they want to continue to experiment, that is fine, but put a
> proven product in place now. It doesn't cost them anything, the CS's support
> and control it and there is an immediate impact. ECV or Enhanced Call
> Verification.

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. And you're saying that the third party Centrals would
never accept this.  They didn't have a choice .....up there. 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. Fining the Centrals was a good idea from the point of
view of the authorities because they had fewer entitys to deal with,
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. 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. So this ISN'T "untried" it's actually working very well. And
..... Irv does do third party monitoring.

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.

And ..... just as the alarm installers don't want to be the ones to be
fined, you wouldn't expect that the Centrals would either. 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 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?

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? 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.