Re: the police was dispatched to ... the wrong house

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6awwi.7118$xc5.2336@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46c2702a$0$18780$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:eBbwi.7507$Ns6.1249@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> It has everything to do with being cheap.
> You can't load the lines with as many accounts
> when you receive daily tests and open/close
> signals as when you don't.  If you knew anything
> about running a central station you would know
> that.

Actually I would as I've dealt with all of our receivers which consists of
SurGard 2000's, SGIII's, older MLR-2's Rad 6600's, ITI CS5000's and 4000's
and a couple of old Silent Knights, but it has nothing to do with them
dispatching on the OP's account

> > they did the job they were supposed to do...
>
> They did the bare minimum and that allowed
> a situation which should have been corrected
> to continue until there was a false alarm.  Not
> only that but they are still doing nothing to
> prevent a recurrence.

You don't know that, you have no idea what they did after the dispatch

  This is so typical of a
> certain subset of the industry, including you.
> Do the bare minimum, make excuses, whine
> about costs and liability but above all else,

So says the man who had a central station in his bedroom with no backup, no
UL listing etc

> NEVER fix a problem unless you can find a
> way to extort more money out of the client.

I wouldn't know, why don't you tell us

> > what it would have been like if your central
> > station had handled it..
>
> Every once in a while we would get wrong Caller ID
> data from an account sending in a daily test.  We'd
> call the number on file for the account to find out if
> they had made any changes.

Okay so you can't get a hold of them, then what? That after all is what
happened in the OP's original message

> What we did not do was ignore the problem until a
> false alarm came in.  I leave that sort of malfeasance
> to companies like Monitronics.

The false alarm has already come in, it sounds tho like you'd do nothing