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

["Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 1. I told you that is up to the dealer...

1. In other words, you DON't do it for all accounts.

> 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...

What *you* have no clue about (among numerous
other things) is that 800 number costs are not the
issue.  Without daily test or O/C reports a single
line can typically handle about 700 accounts.  The
optimum methdo, of course, is to provide two sets
of two lines in hunting.  The first receiver gets the
first call.  If it's busy the call rolls over to a second
line.  This is not to be confused with the 2nd phone
number programmed in the panel.  If both lines on
the first receiver are busy or if something fails, the
panel dials the 2nd receiver. This is also a 2-line
hunting group.

The above goes beyond UL minima but that is
what UL requirements are -- minima.  Done right,
you exceed them.

For a small central station, having 4 lines in 2
hunting groups for just ~1,000 accounts is no
big deal.  In our case, almost all of our clients
were local so we didn't use 800 numbers.

Monitronics claims to have nearly 500,000
monitored accounts.  If they follow minima, they
have over 700 receiver phone numbers (lines).
If they did daily test or O/C on all accounts
they would need at least doubly that.  They
would also need twice as many resceivers, line
cards, etc.  Monitronics would need larger
facilities with more backup power to accomodate
the additional hardware.

> I've NEVER heard anyone bitch about the cost
> of phone service...

Of course not.  By doing the bare minimum they
keep their overhead low and maximize profits.
They have nothing to jiminex about.

> 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...

We know that in order to do it right you would
need to invest in lots more hardware, not to
mention trebling your telco line charges and
quadruping (at least) your 800 number costs.

> 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..

Nonsense.  I explained how using those features
could have avoided the false dispatch.  You
chose to pretend you don't understand whay I
mean rather than *ever* admit error.

>> 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...

I never said that you dispatched ojn this system.  I said
that by refusing to spend the extra money and do the extra
work to prevent this sort of needless false dispatch your
company (and you with them) are part of the problem.  This
isn't an isolated, once-in-a-true-tale-from-Olson rarity.  It is
a recurrent 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.
>
> No we don't know that

You don't know.  Everyone capable of thought does.

>>> 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

It happened.

> You have no clue what I do or how Monitronics
> does business...

I could care less what you do there.  I know a good
deal about your employer and most of it isn't good.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

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