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

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

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_3Zwi.7935$%t4.211@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.

1. I told you that is up to the dealer, our receivers would have no problems
if EVERY account we have sent daily tests and O/C reports, what you have no
clue about is that 800 costs are insignifigant compared to other expenses,
I've NEVER heard anyone bitch about the cost of phone service, and since
you've never seen our central stations and you don't have a clue what
receivers we have you really can't say we are cheap.

2. As far as the OP's station goes again you know nothing about them and yet
you try deflecting the story by harping on O/C reports and daily test
signals

>
> > in fact you don't even know how many accounts
> > they service...
>
> Nor do you but see the above paragraph.

The above paragraph is meaningless when you don't even know who monitored
him

> > 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.

I don't recall dispatching on the OP's system, perhaps if you keep repeating
it you will soon believe I really did

> > you don't know if he's setup to do daily
> > test signals...
>
> We know that nothing was done to prevent a false
> dispatch.

No we don't know that

> > 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.

No we don't know that either

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

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 have no clue what I do or how Monitronics does business