Re: Which system is better?

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

tourman wrote:
> On Sep 4, 8:48 am, Frank Olson
> <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Crash Gordon wrote:
>>> we're processing signals within 35-45 seconds...client gets call in under a
>>> minute.
>> API provides the same quick response, as does Counterforce.  I hear good
>> things about Acme and Vancouver Alarms (they're both local ULC Listed
>> stations).
>
> RHC: What about cancel codes for the customer's protection. Do you use
> them?

Yes.  Definitely!


> If so, the operators don't even see the alarm if it's turned off
> by the client within 30 seconds.

We don't use a dialler delay (if that's what you're meaning).  I have
yet to see a client disarm a system within 30 seconds of an alarm, so I
always see the "alarm" and the "cancel code" on our activity reports.
We primarily use API and if they're not "busy", they will follow up on
alarms even if the cancel code's been sent (although they'll prioritize
it "lower".


> The downside of this is the client
> may think his alarm is not working, but it's better than an ADT type
> dialer delay, and better than "instant" response, although clients may
> not think so.

I've encountered that complaint on a few occasions.  It's been pretty
easy for us to address this.  You get your client to perform a "test" on
the system once a week (like the little sticky label on the keypad
says).  :-)


>
> I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this point. Is it better to
> give "instant" response with it's inherent risks for false alarms, or
> build in a dialer delay, or cancel codes to ensure there is more
> protection against false dispatches, but with the inherent "risk" the
> client thinks he's getting poor response from his station.

I suppose that a lot of the answers you'll get will depend on whether
the equipment is being monitored locally or through an "800" line.  We
use a local ULC listed station.

In most (if not all) cases invovling a monitored alarm, the central will
call the premises first (simple verification).  Our procedures regarding
  a fire alarm differ slightly in that the trucks are dispatched first,
then the premises are called.  In a fire, seconds count!  This is
explained to the client when the system is installed.  We have very few
false alarms from monitored fire systems with the exception of the usual
vandals that yank on pull stations.  In buildings that become a problem
with this kind of false alarm, we will install the STI covers which
usually (99% of the time) puts an end to it.  We also provide a "cheat
sheet" (a one page operations guide) that lays out our procedures as
well as crucial phone numbers and instructions on how to add or delete
keyholders.  The last line of the sheet states that the customer should
test his system weekly!

We still differ in philosphy regarding contracts, Bob.  Our clients sign
a three year agreement and most are happy to do so.  Our monitoring
rates are $15.00 per month and haven't changed in over ten years.  Yes,
we have an "escalation clause" (it's a standard contract wording), but
we've never exercised it, nor will we.  The last thing I want is someone
calling me that's paying $38.00 per month when we're writing new
contracts for $15.00. This actually happened to me when I first got into
the industry and was working for Chubb.  I had a long time client call
to inquire what our monitoring rates were.  When I said $25.00 per month
(on residential at the time), he asked why it was he was paying $48.00
per month.  I let my manager deal with him.  I understand the client got
a two year credit on his account.  Did they address this issue with
their other clients who weren't "bright enough" to clue into what they
were doing??  Of course not!!!