Re: Which system is better?

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 8, 7:27=A0pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 7:13 pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > This is my take on it.
>
> > > In inquires on this subject that I've made in the past, it seems to m=
e
> > > that it's a cyclical catch 22 problem. The objection is, that it
> > > requires more operator time which the central has to devote to each
> > > call .... the increased cost would have to be passed on through the
> > > dealer to the end user which puts the dealer at a disadvantage
> > > compared to the competition. Even if offered as an option, the end
> > > user will go for the less expensive route. The dealers don't offer it
> > > because they know the end user doesn't want to pay for it so the
> > > centrals don't offer it.
>
> > > In my opinion though ..... if the centrals could afford to invest in
> > > the process over a period of time, I think that eventually they could
> > > create another revenue source.
>
> > > This speaks nothing as to the actual value of "listening in"..... "tw=
o
> > > way voice"
>
> > > Would it actually cut down on false alarms? I don't think it would
> > > have a substantial impact but it's just a guess on my part. But you
> > > could say ..... every little bit helps.
>
> > > Would it deter burglaries? I don't think this would be substantial
> > > either. Once the siren goes off, the sound of a voice may make the
> > > intruder move a little faster but ..... depends on the nature of the
> > > intruder and the circumstances of the intrusion.
>
> > > Would it provide a greater "catch" ? Same answer as above.
>
> > RHC: Well, if push comes to shove, I have to admit my view of 2 way
> > voice is coloured by Alarmforce and their idiotic advertising. I can't
> > see how it would involve much cost at the monitoring station end;
> > however, I can see lots of opportunities for confusion unless the
> > operators adhere to strict "rules of engagement", any of which would
> > basically nullify any real or perceived advantage to it. At the alarm
> > system end, companies like DSC sell a small speaker that sits
> > alongside the keypad, and you simply activate it in the programming
> > options. I haven't priced it out recently, but I do seem to remember
> > it was pretty inexpensive.
>
> > I do know that Alarmforce have turned it into what they perceive as a
> > major marketing advantage. And their customers are well sold on his
> > rubbish !! They seem to honestly believe it when he peddles his
> > bulls*it..." if you don't use Alarmforce, you've wasted your money on
> > anything else". But I've also had other people mention the concept
> > right out of the blue as a pretty good idea for an alarm system, so
> > I'd really like to hear from a monitoring station about this.-
>
> The main objection for centrals is that incoming alarm signal lines
> are being tied up with voice traffic. Under normal conditions an alarm
> signal comes in, reports, hangs up ..... next signal comes in,
> reports, hangs up. Voice traffic on these lines means more .... and
> probably many more, incoming lines are required.
>
> "Right out of the blue" it does sound good ........ to the uninformed.
> You could tell the client that you will install a telephone line and a
> handset at every kepad so that when central called they could talk to
> the operator. They'd say no.
> BUT ..... you tell them that when the alarm goes off an operator will
> speak to them out of a little box ...... now THAT"S different.
>
> In my opinion .... when you get right down to the nitty
> gritty ......It's just glitz and easy to sell to the uninformed.
>
> Lookit how far Sonitrol has gone using this idea.

Sonitrol had the right idea but used crap equipment.