Re: Recomendation for reliable inexpensive monitoring service.

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jan 30, 10:20=EF=BF=BDam, "Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralar=
ms>
wrote:
> >> 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 t=
hat their way is better. =A0The reality is that there is no
> >> difference at all. =A0There are good and bad local outfits and there a=
re good and bad remote outfits.
>
> > I rarely jump into your arguements with Jim, but your own "level of com=
plexity arguement" used previously in refference to
> > wireless contradicts this point.
>
> > For a local signal to fail to get through through the local service mus=
t fail in some manner. =A0For a remote signal to fail to get
> > through either the local service or the remote service can fail. =A0Mor=
e possible links to fail so more chance of a failure.
>
> > That being said, phone service, both local and long distance have becom=
e so reliable that its not a huge issue either way. =A0Still
> > 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 s=
omebody 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 the=
mselves. =A0Vaction rated lines, unpaid phone bills, switch
> > to VOIP, or additon of DSL to the line etc.
>
> You are entirely correct, Bob. =A0The difference exists but it is so smal=
l as to be negligible. =A0The same can almost be said about
> wireless. =A0There 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 o=
f sensor locations may be less flexible. =A0Other than that
> wired has the edge over wireless on all counts. =A0The largest issue used=
 to be reliability. =A0Older wireless systems were subject to
> all sorts of problems. =A0Newer, high quality wireless has all but elimin=
ated those issues. =A0The 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 manufact=
urer will withdraw support for a given line. =A0That is
> inevitable. =A0There's no getting around it. =A0Once it happens, the firs=
t component failure can force a complete replacement of the
> system. =A0Also, if the homeowner adds a door or window, parts may be una=
vailable. =A0One manufacturer, DSC, decided to replace their
> 900 mHz wireless alarms with 433 mHz a few years ago. =A0They were entire=
ly open about the reason for the change. =A0They could save a
> few cents per transmitter. =A0Try to replace a 900 mHz door transmitter o=
r even a keyfob.
>
> --
You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Primarily
because you never installed wireless systems and you don't know
anything about the latest technology.

Are there more components in wireless systems?
Why of course there are.
Does that mean that there is more of a chance that something will fail
as compared to a hardwired system?
Yes.
Is the life expectancy of todays components at least 100 times longer
than the expected time an alarm system will be used.
YES!
Therefore the more components / more likely to fail argument for not
using todays wireless systems is invalid. By that theory the control
panels with the thousands of microcircuits, that we use today, should
be failing after a few months of use,as compared to the relay panels
of yesteryear.

As far as manufacturers discontinuing a product, it's true that
eventually a wireless "system" may be discontinued. However, if an
installing company has any real concern for his clients, he'll make
sure that he has a standby reserve of parts and accessories. And as
the usual course for a discontinued product the manufacturer will
maintain repair service for a period of at least a year or more after
the halt of manufacturing the line. It's up to the installing company
to get product repaired while he can and to hold on to equipment that
may be pulled out of existing jobs.

I still maintain a few of the old Ademco 5600 wireless systems I
installed 25 or more years ago, with control panels, transmiters, and
keypads and other components, that I've salvaged from jobs and other
installation companies.

You're wrong.

Try as you may    .... you're still wrong.