Go back and read your 10/29 post: "Name another product that has a 99% + failure rate. It wouldn't be tolerated"
Actually, user error is to blame most of the
Now you are getting on the right track.
Yes, the result is the same and that is why a good working, managable ordinance is important. Put the responsibility where it belongs. If the person needs more training, so be it. It is up to them to make themselves available for further instructions. That is why there is free alarm dispatches in every ordinance I have read. If they continue to use the system without further instruction, knowing that they have screwed up to begin with and being warned about it, I would still put that into the user error category and they deserve the consequences.
No, you said product and/or system failure.
The cause is
No, it isn't. It is very relevent. If an ordinance says it will cut off habitual offenders, that is one thing and probably deservant. However, if you say "no response" is the way to go across the board, then you are hurting the other 96.5% of the users that have no problems. The PD will not respond to their needs if and when something happens. Take my case. I have not had an alarm in three of my locations in nearly 20 years. Do I deserve "no response"?
The $99 burglar alarm killed the idea
Believe it or not the mass marketers false alarm factor is right at the average of .035%. Maybe a little higher in some areas, but still not what you or others would like to believe. Everyone would like to say they are the problem, but actually they are not. It is the $99 or **Free** no likes about them, not their false alarm ratio.