Re: False alarms

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
> "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> 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?
>
> There has been a tremendous amount of work done on this is issue,
> nationally, over the last 15 years. Every possible idea for a fix has been
> investigated. If nothing else has come out of these efforts, the one that
> stands out, is the willingness of public safety to finally partner with the
> industry for a resolve. Although few rogues support no response, there may
> be an equal few that supports the "fining of alarm companies" as a fix all
> solution. It is not. <

What do you think about fining the centrals? 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.

>
> > 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.
>
> That is correct and when there is good communication between the private and
> public sectors, these issues will surface and hopefully get resolved. That
> is the goal. <

We are lucky to have any communication with town officials outside of
campaign speeches. They prefer to complain than repair.

>
> > How many fines would we need to get hit with before we say goodbye to
> > those who abuse their systems?
>
> And when that happens, how many of them will simply pick up the phone and
> call you to activate their alarm system. No body will refuse them. How many
> fines will you be adding to your AP by simply adding a new client. The
> industry doesn't have a list of the "who's who" to refer to when it comes to
> bad customers. <

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.
The problem is we have people who won't say no to them. A few of those
companies are in your state. 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.

>
>  Are we really hooked on that RMR so
> > badly that we will let the customer go wild?
>
> Not at all. It is a proven fact that there is probably close to 10% of your
> client base that is causing your false alarm ratio to increase. If you want
> to know where these people are, look at your ageing receivables. Look at
> your service tickets. You'll find them there. They are usually your biggest
> headache anyway. They are costing you much more money than the little you
> receive from them on the monitoring.<

Very true. Shouldn't we at some point disconnect them?

>
> > 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?
>
> Give yourself and the industry more credit than that. This surely adds to
> the problem but the installation is not a very high percentage when it comes
> to the cause of false alarms. The lack of knowledge is a bigger problem, but
> wouldn't you think that after the first false and a possible warning letter
> from the PD might just make you get some training or at least inquire as to
> what might have happened. Why wait for a second or a tenth. Again, there are
> statistics to back this up. Although there are some companies using the
> lickem and stickem mentality, again it is a proven fact that, on average,
> they don't have any higher percentage rate than anyone else. In fact, a
> couple of the nationals have a F/A percentage rate much less than some
> others. They are slammed more but only because they have so much more
> exposure. You have to look at number of alarms versus number of clients to
> get an acurate picture. <

One business- 600+ false alarms. Do the police see that it's only one
business, or do they see 600 false alarms? They see 600 and our
industry takes a shot in the chops.



>
> > Fining the customer is a ridiculous solution that many cities employ.
>
> Not when it is managed and done correctly and completely. No one is exempt,
> especially the 3 major causes of FA's. Schools, churches, and government
> buildings. There is proof that when an ordinance is administered properly,
> it will drastically reduce false alarms.<

Churches! Add them to the list of business I refuse. Outside of them
having the poorest track record when it comes time to pay they also
want five zillion user codes so Sister Sara and Brother Bob can open
the building on Bingo night.
Did you ever notice how churches claim poverty yet their musical
instruments would make the Rolling Stones drool?

>
> > Our greatest detractors (the police) would become our biggest advocates
>
> Other than a few rogues, public safety will still tell you to get an alarm
> system, they recognize the value and they do work with the industry to come
> to some sort of resolve. Check the IACP, FARA, SIAC and other state and
> local committees that are being formed to partner on these issues.<

Well we must have rogues galore up here.

>
> > if we could lower the current false alarm rate of 90+% to less than
> > 50%.
>
> Where have you been on this issue? These type of calculations are the ones
> used by the rogues I referred to. This is a shell game no one but them can
> win when they are presenting their side of the issue. Let me make it as easy
> and simplified as I can. There are 100 alarm systems installed in a city.
> The police are dispatched to one alarm system and only one, for what ever
> reason, ( user error, installation problem, weather related, cleaning crew,
> etc.). This only happens once throughout the entire year. Would this be
> exceptable? Most would say sure. Guess what? The industry is shown as the
> bad guy because they had a dispatch to a system and it was unnecessary. One
> alarm system, one dispatch, no unlawful act = false alarm. This example
> reflects they responded to false alarms 100% of the time. There is no way of
> getting a true picture as to whether a municipality has a F/A problem by
> simply saying that the industry has a 98% false alarm problem. In my example
> the false alarm ratio in that city is actually .01% annually. If the
> opponents stated to the counsil they had an annual false alarm problem of 1
> % city wide, do you think they could sell a no response policy? No. They
> need to tell them about the 100% figure which does not tell the true story. <

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