Re: False alarms

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
> "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.

That's happend to all of us. But as far as quality of equipment goes,
if you ask your distributor which PIR's and other sensors are the most
popular, you'll find it's not by the quality of the device but by the
price that most alarm installers choose their products. I my book, the
difference in the cost of a good product and a cheap one is negligible
in the over all cost of an installation. I learned that too many years
ago to remember.


>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.

I've head that said before about what end users have actually said
about the causes of FA.   However I can't help but think there's a
strong possibility that since the end user is ignorant regarding the
types and application of equipment they therefore might put the blame
on themselves, simply because they don't know that there IS a better
way or a different product or proceedure to help eliminate their misuse
of the system. With lack of follow up by their installers, the
installers never hear of the problems, therefore lose the opportunity
to re-evaluate their installs and miss the opportunity to upgrade. As
you may remember, I put out a quaterly newsletter in which I often
mention new sensors or technology. ie. I started mentioning VoIP long
before it became popular here. I've had relatively few calls to switch
over. Those that do, are required to sign a waiver. But they all
knew/know ahead of time. I always .....always remind them to test their
systems in the newsletter and to call me for instructions if they've
forgotten how. I've never heard of one of my "friendly" competitors
doing anything of the sort.

>
> 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.

But nothing of any consequence that would be objectionable considering
what the results could bring. As I say, I wouldn't mind doing it.

>
> >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.

This is something that would never happen because the Central already
has procedures in place to not allow it to. Same zone, multiple times,
within a given period, doesn't get reported. Alarm company already
knows in advance, under these circumstances, only a given number of
reports will be made ....  That's the (CS) rule, the alarm company and
the end user has to live with it.


> 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.

Hypothetically, they'd lose their accounts due to better prices by
those that did the right thing.

>
> > 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.

To collect fines from the Centrals?   In Toronto, they do.

>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.

That's EXACTLY why the Centrals are in the control. THEY're the ones
who can control just exactly what is reported and what isn't. They make
the rules. They set up the filters. What ever they say goes. It's all
in contract and policy that the alarm company agrees to. All centrals
have the same rules. No choice but to use common sense when reporting
alarms. Statistic can be gathered and response geared to cover the
common causes of FA.  Fining end users or alarm companys, will never
garner the statistics that Centrals can and neither can you expect
hundreds of individual alarm installers to come to a common agreement.
With the responsibility given to the much fewer Centrals, it's more
likely a common denominator could be achieved. Never mind about all
this liability crap that people are constantly refering to that doesn't
exist. If it's part of the agreement and conditions, and in the
contract. That's all that counts.  Some problems exist but the
betterment of the overall FA problem would more than make up for them.

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

Just remember, I'm taking the devils advocate position here. I'm only
speculating on what "could" happen based on the logic of what I
remember Irv talking about.

>
>  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  ($).
> >