Re: Recomendation for reliable inexpensive monitoring service.

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

>> 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.

You are entirely correct, Bob.  The difference exists but it is so small as to be negligible.  The same can almost be said about
wireless.  There are differences in performance, reliability, equipment cost and life expectancy of wireless vs. wired systems.
Wired alarms take longer to install and in an existing structure choice of sensor locations may be less flexible.  Other than that
wired has the edge over wireless on all counts.  The largest issue used to be reliability.  Older wireless systems were subject to
all sorts of problems.  Newer, high quality wireless has all but eliminated those issues.  The complexity problem never goes away.
It's a simple principle that the more stuff you need to get a signal from point A to point B, the more likely it is that something
will fail.

The real drawback to wireless alarms is that sooner or later the manufacturer will withdraw support for a given line.  That is
inevitable.  There's no getting around it.  Once it happens, the first component failure can force a complete replacement of the
system.  Also, if the homeowner adds a door or window, parts may be unavailable.  One manufacturer, DSC, decided to replace their
900 mHz wireless alarms with 433 mHz a few years ago.  They were entirely open about the reason for the change.  They could save a
few cents per transmitter.  Try to replace a 900 mHz door transmitter or even a keyfob.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>