Dailer Delay on Concord 4 Panels

The CPO2 complying ? designed panels have this feature built in to help prevent false alarms supposedly while all they had to do was use the abort cancel feature to know some one is on site. I will not use the features or install panels which use them. far as i know there is no work around for any of them

The CPO2 complying ? designed panels have this feature built in to help prevent false alarms supposedly while all they had to do was use the abort cancel feature to know some one is on site. I will not use the features or install panels which use them. far as i know there is no work around for any of them.

Networx panels have a work around. By removing the "Delay Dialer" function from the zone types used it will dial right away. It is only a matter of time till that gets removed from programming would be my guess.

Have a good day.

Les

This is all finally coming to a head. In the next few years, I've got a feeling that we're going to see much of these so called "false alarm reduction standards" reducing alarm installations to being mearly a "suggestion" that an intrusion "might" have taken place ..... maybe a half hour or so ... ago ..... so when the police get to the call on their list and through with their coffee break maybe they might drive by the place on the way to the fire house.

Equipment is being designed without regard to back up, redundancy or testing capability. Yes, false alarms are a problem but watering down the effectiveness and operability of equipment and being blind to the resultant reduced security is going to make alarm installations appear useless to the end user. Rather than putting design effort into these reduction in security things why aren't manufacturer putting effort into making equipment more redundant, more self checking and testing? Some smoke detectors are getting there with the sensitivity test capability. Why not motion detectors and glass break detectors? Why not some self checking on burg loops with changes in general loop status being reported to a "maintenence list" If some of these items were made manditory in panels and sensors, it would be time, money and money for research better spent than watering down the response time.

Does anyone tell an end user that his audio glass break detector can go bad and sit on the wall for years without him ever knowing it? And that the only way to test it is to call in the alarm company who walks around with a squeek box that is "supposed to" emulate breaking glass to make it seem like the system is being actually tested? Why not a self test function? With no other choice but that it has to be used? Designed into the hardware. NO CHOICE!

Does anyone tell the end user that the new cellular backup radios don't actually transmit anything until the phone line goes down? So that the device never actually gets tested ....... ever, until you lose your phone line and then they'd better hope that it's going to send a signal? How many years from now? That if the radio can't function you never know it .... until it doesn't function? That it doesn't even send a signal on the phone line when it goes down? What the hell is this all about? I thought this was redundancy and backup for cripesake?

Anyone who is using abort cancel ever have a problem telling their customer that when they set off the alarm and reset it quickly, that the central is actually getting the call but they wont call them to verify it, so they may never actually know if the signal is getting there or not? Until someday when the system actually is needed and no one gets the message ...... then they'll know? Oh Oh yes, that's right, you can depend on the customer to periodically stand at the keypad, purposely set it off and wait for central to call .... yeah sure! ...... but ...... what difference does it make? We're all protected by our contracts to not be responsible if the call doesn't get through.

We, who are actually in the field, all know that the only time most people test their system to central, is when they set it off accidentally or due to a false alarm.

The weakest link is the customer. Doesn't it make sense to maintain the level of security, because that's what we sell, because that's what the customer wants? ......And that the manufacturers should be looking at how to make the equipment more reliable, more self testing, more revealing of the system status .and operation ..... so that maintenence and service and instructions and followup can be performed BEFORE a problem occurs. Owning a security system implies some responsibility upon the owners but thats not going to happen unless they are "required" to do what is necessary to operate and maintain their system. We can't "Force" them to do it but if the equipment is designed to check and monitor it's self and it's usage so that the customer has to respond to it, That they don't have a choice but to respond to it or are at least notified of it ................. it will happen.

(Rant mode off)