Re: False alarms

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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.
>