Re: Which system is better?

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 4, 9:10=A0am, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 8:48=A0am, Frank Olson
>
> <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Crash Gordon wrote:
> > > we're processing signals within 35-45 seconds...client gets call in u=
nder a
> > > minute.
>
> > API provides the same quick response, as does Counterforce. =A0I hear g=
ood
> > 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? If so, the operators don't even see the alarm if it's turned off
> by the client within 30 seconds. 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'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.

In many areas you have to use dialer delay regardless if you also use
cancel codes