Re: False alarms

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Everywhere Man wrote:
> coord wrote:
> > "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1144798937.422646.279410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Bob Worthy wrote:
> > >> "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >
> > Toronto Police False Alarm Program...
> >
> > http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communications/alarms.php
> >
> > You can contact Irv Fisher here...
> >
> > http://www.apialarm.com/Frame.asp?PageRequest=Home <
>
> Thank you very much for posting that link. It's a very interesting
> procedure they have, and I can't wait to read the different opinions of
> some of the folks from ASA.
> If I was reading it correctly the Mounties won't come to your igloo for
> a year if your alarm falses 4x or more. They must think it's like the
> Boy Who Cried Polar Bear. :-)


The procedure on that web site explains what the results are but the
significant part is what Irv was doing at his central station to attain
those results.

Number of verification calls, elapesd time between call and dispatch
....... he had it down to a "T" and although it may have rankled a lot
of installers, it seemed like a reasonable compromise to attain the
goals. Although it's true that the Central doesn't have anything to do
with the actual installation or maintenence of an install, if you
really think about it ..... it IS the hub of operations of the
reporting and response function and THAT is where the false alarms can
be best "filtered" through a "go - no go" decision making process. It
doesn't leave it up to "good" or "bad" installing companys or good or
bad clients and cuts down on what the authorities see as an
administative nightmare, if they would have to deal with tens of
thousands of end users  ...... or ...... thousands of alarm companys.
All they deal with is the "hundred" Centrals. If the Centrals don't
manage and control the installers or their dispatches, they get dropped
by the authorites.  This is the incentive to the Centrals to require
certain standards from installers The installers don't have any choice
in how they manage their false alarm rates. The Central will charge
them for the false signals and if they don't pay ......... they're out.
A Central can do that a lot easier than a dealer is willing to do it,
with HIS clients.  And it follows that if a dealer is "Canned" by a
Central and tries to bring his accounts to another, there's going to be
a big question of WHY ...... is it happening and another Central isn't
going to take on a potential problem. Therefore it's a great incentive
for alarm installers to keep their act in order.

The article is written from the point of view of the authorites.
However it's Irv's solution to implmenting it, that's the important
part.

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.