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.

Jiminex (who does wireless because he has no idea how to do anything else) dribbled:

> 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.

Actually, I've installed wired and wireless systms for years.  I prefer wired systems because they're more reliable and because I
can hide almost everything.  Wireless systems are more noticeable with plastic boxes at every door and window.  New, recessed
transmitters help somewhat but are largely unusable with most modern windows.

> Are there more components in wireless systems? Why of course there are.

You learned that from me.

> Does that mean that there is more of a chance that something will fail as compared to a hardwired system? Yes.

I see you learned two things.  That is good.  You're making progress.  Why in no time at all we may even have you trained to feed
yourself real food.

> Is the life expectancy of todays components at least 100 times longer than the expected time an alarm system will be used.

Nope.  That's just plain ridiculous.

> Therefore the more components / more likely to fail argument for not using todays wireless systems is invalid.

I probably wouldn't be able to teach this concept to you.  It's a little beyond "See Spot Run 101."

> 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.

I have a little surprise for you, Jimbo.  Anythying else more complex than than the next thing *of otherwise equal quality* is more
likely to fail than the simpler item.  Since most wireless systems are add-ons to hybrid alarms, they are by definition more
complex.  The control panel is the same and has a given possibility of failure on any given day.  The wireless receiver and
transmitters each have a specific probability of failure.  Combining them with the panel *by definition* increases the likelihood of
a failure.

> As far as manufacturers discontinuing a product, it's true that
eventually a wireless "system" may be discontinued.

Even a wireless line thqt works with a continuing line of panels can and will be discontinued at some point.  For example, the
Ademco (now Honeywell) Vista panels used to work with their 5700 series wireless.  They changed to 5800 series and guess what.  The
new panels don't support 5700.  Not only that but the 5700 series components are no longer sold by the manufacturer.  I get calls
every week from homeowners whose older Ademco Vista systems need new or replacment transmitters.  They're just plain JOL.

> 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.

Yeah, sure.  That's why we're constantly fielding calls from end users whose "professionally" installed alarms are now
unserviceable.

> And as the usual course for a discontinued product the manufacturer will maintain repair service for a period of at least a year

A year?!?  Are you nuts?  No need to reply.  We already know.  You put in a new system for Mrs. Jones and a year later she calls
because she's adding a room.  "Sorry, Mrs. Jones.  Jiminex Security will be happy to sell you a whole new system.  Just sign on the
dotted line."  Do your vict.. err, customers wince when you draw their blood for the signature?

> 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.

So you admit you sell used stuff!  You really are a crook, Jiminex.  It's a good thing you post anonymously.  If your victimes saw
this they'd file a class action lawsuit.  They might eve repossess your rowboat.

> I still maintain... [snip bullfrank]