Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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.

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.

> 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 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.

> 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?

 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.

>
> 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?

>
> 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.

 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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...

> You're always an interesting read, but you're still not Worthy :-)

Trustworthy better fits my style. :o}