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

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@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...
>>
>> As usual, you miss the point.  It's not your knowledge
>> of receivers that is so obviously lacking.
>
> Your knowledge seems to be lacking on how
> many receivers and line cards the OP's central
> station has...

It's not a matter of how many receivers they have.  The
issue (for them) is how many accounts they can cram
onto any given line, line card or receiver.  With daily
test and open/close signals they need more lines, more
line cards and more receivers for the same number of
accounts.  On a per account basis the cost is small but
with tens of thousands of accounts the added cost is
significant.  Most central stations would rather maximize
profits than optimize service so they don't do it.  I asked
if you do it for all accounts and you (as usual) dodged
the question.  That simply confirms what we already
knew -- your employer is a typical (cheap) central station.

> in fact you don't even know how many accounts
> they service...

Nor do you but see the above paragraph.

> or who the OP's original installer is/was...

The issue here is that neither the central station nor the
installer set the system up properly and provided an
appropriate level of service to detect this common type
of problem before it turned into a false dispatch. Typically,
you tried to blame some imaginary DIYer rather than
admit you're part of the problem.

> you don't know if he's setup to do daily
> test signals...

We know that nothing was done to prevent a false
dispatch.

> you don't know what format he's sending on...

That's irrlevent.  No matter which format is used, Caller
ID and daily test signals, properly processed, could have
prevented the problem.  This clearly was not done since
the CS apparently has no knowledge of where the signal
originated.

> and you don't know for a fact they don't
> deal with Caller ID...

We know that they didn't head this situation off.  We
also know that, properly configured using existing
technology, this problem would have been avoided.  It
wasn't.  Ergo, they did it wrong.

> in other words you only know a few sentences
> from a poster...

I know that this sort of problem is all too common, yet
it can be avoided most of the time.  Unfortunately,
people like you and companies like Monitronics won't
spend the extra dollars to solve the problems.  For your
employer it's all about maximizing gain on RMR.  For
you it makes no difference at all.  You're content to take
your weekly paycheck and contribute nothing of value.

>> You know
>> nothing about *running* a central station.  You're like
>> the telephone company operator who spends her day
>> routing calls but knows nothing about the business
>> of the phone company.
>
> Oh yes, tell us all about your single receiver central
> station run out of your bedroom that wasn't UL listed
> and had no backup site...

You keep saying that as thouogh you actually believe it.

>> u don't know that, you have no idea what they did
after the dispatch
>>
>> Again, you miss the point.  Had they done the right
>> thing they could have helped the installer and the
>> homeowner avoid sending the wrong account in the
>> first place.  I keep explaining how they could have
>> found the error and fixed it before the false signal and
>> you keep babbling about how they handled the alarm
>> signal once it came in.
>
> No you miss the point, they would not have
> fixed the error before the false signal because
> the false signal WAS the error...

Wrong again.  The error was when some fat fingered
"professional" alarm installer programmed some other
system to the OP's account number.  Had he tested
the system upon completion of programming and had
the CS checked Caller ID they would have known right
away there was an error.  The professional alarm
installer and the central station clearly failed to prevent
a very preventable problem.

>> That is so typical of you, Leuck.  Instead of dealing
>> with the facts which show that companies like your
>> employer are negligent you focus on a side point
>> which has nothing to do with the reason they screw
>> up all the time.
>
> You are the one who changed the subject into daily
> test signals and free opening/closings for commercial
> properties not I...

I explained hoe the proper use of daily test, open/close
signals and Caller ID can avert these problems most of
the time.  That's not changing the subject.  It's finding a
solution to the problem.  You're not interested in solving
the problem -- only defending those who, like you, did
nothing to prevent it.

FYI, while I offered monitoring service, I always insisted
that each system be fully tested through to the CS upon
completion.  The first signal was *always* a test signal
which could not be mistaken for an alarm.  Once that
was done and the data was confirmed by the CS, we
would proceed to test the zones, generating alarm, trouble
and, where appropriate, restoral signals.  That is the
best way to prevent this sort of problem.  We did it the
same way for DIY as for professionally installed systems.
It takes a few extra minutes to do it right but it saves a
lot of false dispatches.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>