Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145297837.185315.267040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for translating it so other old geezers could understand.

> > I just have this "notion" that every alarm installers is saying that
> > most FA are caused by end users because the installers actually
> > 'believe' that their installs, product, quality, training is "the best"
> > ..... when really it's not.

I'll go along with the training part as the #1 problem. Reason I believe
that is that statistics show, the majority of the user problems are at the
keypad and entry/exit zone. This is strictly a training issue, if the user
chooses to be responsible to begin with. With the newer technologies
available and the standards that are now implemented the equipment is pretty
solid. The percentage of equipment related alarms is fairly low without the
inclusion of outside circumstances. Is it installed properly, yes, probably,
maybe, no? They all pertain to even the best of us. What was done properly
yesterday could change overnight making the application  totally wrong
without you even knowing about it(changes at the premise by the customer)
until the system falsed. Of course there are systems out there that will
make the headlines of "What idiot did this", but I am not sure they are the
majority of the problem either. If the problem was more on the central
station or on the installation company, I feel I would hear about it more at
the false alarm schools I teach at our PD. Over the last few years, I have
only heard, from the users attending the school, that they had a problem
with the company or CS on a very few occassions. The biggest one is that the
CS didn't verify the alarm prior to dispatch. We all know what causes that.
The user generally knows what caused their alarm. Again, it is usually their
fault, but, in alot of cases, could have been avoided with training, but
only if they choose to pass on the training to all using the system and be
responsible themselves.

By eliminating them from the
> > "inconvenience" of the fine process, it absolves them of all
> > responsibility ..... in their mind  ....  whether they're doing the
> > right thing ... or not. Every installer that
> > ** IS ** doing the right thing and is ** already ** using quality
> > equipment, methods, procedures and follow up, the fining of dealers
> > will not affect them.

Sure it will. Even the best has a false alarm ratio.

>They're already making the effort.

And that should only mean that they will be paying less often than the guy
that isn't doing the right thing. Lets take two companys, one is a model and
the other is a ....pick one.  With the escalating fine structure in the
ordinance, the good company ends up with 5 dispatches to one location in an
8 hour period of time, one night, due to a let's say a ballon left after the
party. 1= free   2 = $50  3 = $100  4 = $200  5 = $200. That is $550
possible fine. Now this is not very realistic since the problem would
probably get taken care of after the first or possibly the second call, but
it could easily happen to a good company/good client. Worse case scenerio,
should the CS be responsible, they don't necessarily see the alarm history
prior to dispatch, should the alarmco be responsible, after all they do all
the right things and their false alarm ratio is well below 1%. What ever
happens the CS has admin and cost, passes it down to alarmco, who than has
admin and costs to pass it down to end user, who admits fault, so it goes
back up to alarmco and then back up to CS. The bad company does the same
only more of it. I guess these companies would turn a negative into a
possitive by charging more for monitoring due to increase in admin costs.

> it makes sense for them to only have to
> > administrate to the smaller amount of Centrals than thousands of end
> > users.

I am not sure they have authority to collect fines from them. Maybe they do,
I am just not sure.
One of the problem I can see is how would they enforce it. A third party mon
itoring center with 100 dealers owes mega dollars from fines incurred by one
dealer in a two week period. The CS doesn't want to pay for this deadbeats
problems.  Does the PD cut off this CS, which is servicing 99 other dealers,
who are not causing problems, or do they cut off  taking signals from the CS
for just the one deadbeat. Then what do they do with the deadbeats customers
that really were not part of the problem. It seems like it could get pretty
sticky.

I will be back to comment on the rest of this post. I wanta understand more
on these different angles Gotta run.

 If nothing else it shows and effort by the ENTIRE industry to
> > cooperate and gets the ENTIRE industry involved with no absolution of
> > ANYONE. EVERYONE is involved and everyone will have to cooperate .....
> > no one is excused. It's not a blame issue ..... it's getting everyone
> > included in the effort. Centrals, installers, endusers, authorities.
> > Done any other way simply absolves all the others of any blame and, in
> > fact could be an incentive to become even more lax than they already
> > are.
> >
> > I know ** I ** could handle both processes.... being fined direct or
> > through a Central, because my FA are kept minimal. I follow up with the
> > end user on every one. They KNOW ... they're going to get a call from
> > me and we're going to work out a plan to correct the problem. Stop
> > reports on trouble zones, move motion detectors, better control of
> > people or animals. Reminders on how to operate the system. Whatever it
> > takes. End users don't want false alarms either but if there is no
> > incentive from the installer, just like you and me, they're not going
> > to take the time from their busy lives to effect changes. Even with
> > fines, some will simply just pay and continue with their normal
> > routines. If the dealer is getting fined, you can bet it wont. And if
> > the dealer wont .... if his Central monitoring is at risk, ..... that's
> > HIS incentive.
> >
> > >From what I hear from my Centrals, many/most alarm installers don't
> > even ask for or want daly or even weekly reports on the signals from
> > their accounts. What does THAT tell you?  If the installers don't care,
> > why should the end users. So that alone, could be the reason why "most
> > FA come from the end user" that we hear repeatedly .....   .....
> > funnny,  .... but that seem to be coming from alarm installers.
> > DUUUUHHH! How convenient that there's not too much credibility in that
> > "statistic" or if it IS true ..... WHY is it true? What AREN'T they
> > doing to change it? And WHY aren't they?
> >
> >  All they need is an incentive  ($).
>