Re: Recomendation for reliable inexpensive monitoring service.

["Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <robertbass1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> The local vs. remote monitoring argument has been going on for decades.
> Local guys with tiny businesses argue that local is better. Companies
> using large, professional monitoring centers argue that their way is
> better.  The reality is that there is no difference at all.  There are
> good and bad local outfits and there are good and bad remote outfits.

I rarely jump into your arguements with Jim, but your own "level of
complexity arguement" used previously in refference to wireless contradicts
this point.

For a local signal to fail to get through through the local service must
fail in some manner.  For a remote signal to fail to get through either the
local service or the remote service can fail.  More possible links to fail
so more chance of a failure.

That being said, phone service, both local and long distance have become so
reliable that its not a huge issue either way.  Still in recent years I have
seen entire local phone exchanges go down, and I have seen all long distance
services to a city fail because somebody cut a cross country fiber optic
line.

I must admit that like with good quality modern wireless installed by
somebody who takes the time to do it right the difference is very very
small, but there is a difference.

Of course the biggest contributor to signal failure is the customer
themselves.  Vaction rated lines, unpaid phone bills, switch to VOIP, or
additon of DSL to the line etc.

--
Sincerly,
The guy who makes the final decision on who we buy from.
Bob La Londe

The Security Consultant
Bob La Londe - Owner
PO BOX 5702
Yuma, Az 85366

(928) 782-9765 ofc
(928) 782-7873 fax

Licensed Contractor
ROC103044 & ROC103047



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com