Re: Envisalink monitoring satisfaction?

["Rocky" <gafa@xxxxxxx>]

"G. Morgan"  wrote in message
news:olv6bah3rb7aifrs6mm72cudllo4fum62e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jim Wrote:

>Oh, and one more thing. Take a look at some of the DIY help websites.
>
>By far, the most popular panels ..... by the thousands .....  in the hands
>of DIY'ers on EVERY DIY help web site is ... yep ...... DSC  .... with
>Honeywell a close second.
>
>In return, please tell me how much loyalty do you think they actually
>deserve ?????

>I can't comment on DSC since I have not touched their stuff in 10 years.
>I assume they are worse than ever, they were bad when I quit dealing with
>them so long ago.

>In fairness to Honeywell, at least they take a stance about not helping
>end-users with installation issues.  Its been a while since I've called
>support, but they would always ask my name and company before assisting
>and keep a record of how often I called. You're right about end-user
>installation manuals too - they are not "dumbed-down" for the masses like
>a Home Depot sold DIY system might be.  Alarmnet radios have to be
>programmed with proprietary programmers, or OTA (not something an
>end-user can initiate).

>The problem I see is online outlets selling professional parts to DIY'ers
>*and* offering cheap monitoring.  No competent technician has inspected
>the system, now online, and it's capable of summoning emergency response
>to any location (even an incorrect location if the account number is
>wrong!).  No one checks to make sure the appropriate signal is programmed
>for the device(s).  If a smoke detector trips; it may send a trouble,
>supervisory, or burglary signal.  That's a mistake that could be deadly
>and not caught until its way too late.

>I think there should be a national standard that all local responders
>adopt which states that no emergency response will be summoned unless the
>system has been certified by a competent & licensed company.  That
>certifying company *should* be in a contract with the monitoring company
>to complete the liability chain.  The monitoring company should (shall)
>require the DIY'er to undergo re-certification every time programming
>mode is entered.  I suppose a remote panel connection would be good
>enough for that, after the initial physical inspection.  Also, require
>periodic (annual?) physical inspections for DIY installed & monitored
>systems.

>I guess you've seen the TV commercials for SimpliSafe
>http://simplisafe.com/ .   It shows the DIY'er 'mounting' a PIR by
>placing it on his fireplace mantle!  WTF?  I almost spit out a mouthful
>of coffee when I saw that.

"G. Morgan"
As much as I agree with your assessment of the current situation,
I DO NOT think Fed or Even State involvement will cure the problem.
Not sure how it is in your state/local area, but here in Kentucky  all the
government uses regulations for is revenue collection..
Safety is very low down on their list of concerns.
ie...  they passed a law that restricts Emergency Aid Buttons that are
remotely monitored to just one company..
(unless youâ??re a Hospital and self monitoring your own equipment)
(I'll let you guess who makes most of the money on that little caper ...)
ie...   fire alarm monitoring is only allowed under the NFPA 2002 edition..
No allowance is given for VoIP  or Cellular,  POTS only....
(AT&T  has already told the state PSC regulators they plan to drop POTS in
2014/15)

I guess we're all  just waiting for the "@#$% in a Hand Basket"  to come
swinging by..   ;-)

RTS



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com