False alarms

Thirty years ago, most alarm systems were turned on and off with a key, or a knob labeled "OFF" and "ON." That's really all most people needed or wanted. Now, thanks to the miracle of modern digital technology, we have multiple user-programmable codes with varying authority levels, selective zone bypassing, perimeter/interior/instant arming, chime mode, keypad panic buttons, and duress codes. Ain't progress great?

We have succeeded in building systems with features most people don't need and can't understand. Why? Because we could. We hand the user a fifty-page manual and maybe a videotape, and then we act surprised when people don't understand how to use the system.

We have met the enemy, and they is us.

- badenov

I am opposed to fining the alarm company instead of the subscriber, for several reasons.

First, it turns us into the collection agency for the city. The city gets to charge whatever it wants for false alarms, but we become the bad guys because we are the ones who actually collect the money for things like user errors. Let the city collect its own money.

Second, how much extra time do you think you'll be spending on suing your customers for false alarms that are their fault, but they refuse to pay? Meanwhile, we'll have to write the city a check out of our own pocket. Imagine the arguments you'll get into when the roof leaks, or a wild cat gets loose in the warehouse: "Your alarm shouldn't go off when that happens! You pay for it."

Third, subscribers will definitely lie when their money is at stake. Think they'll admit to letting the cat run around the house? Think they'll admit their mother-in-law didn't quite understand how to use the system? They'll say they haven't a clue why the alarm went off, and there must be something wrong with your system.

Unhappy subscribers will already put pressure on their alarm company when those false alarm charges start rolling in. One interesting idea might be to write into the false alarm ordinance that an alarm user has the right to terminate any alarm service contract without penalty if the system causes more than X false alarms in one year that are not the user's fault. There'd still be arguments, but it gives the customer a chance to get out from under a bad situation.

- badenov

Saying 99 out of 100 dispatches are false may be a true statement, but it's meaningless. You have to look at the total number of installed systems to determine whether or not you have a reliability problem.

Suppose there's a total of 100 dispatches in a small town that only has 50 working alarm systems. Reliability problem? Sure. Each system is causing two false alarms.

Suppose there's a total of 100 dispatches in NYC, with hundreds of thousands of alarm systems. Reliability problem? Not at all. The NYPD would be thrilled to death if they only had to chase 100 false alarms a year.

In each example, 99 out of 100 dispatches were false. In the first example, that 99% false alarm rate is a problem. In the second, it's not.

- badenov

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that during the past year, you dispatched on a total of 47 alarms, 44 of which were actual burglaries.

Now, I'm willing to believe that you once flew in a 737 upside down, but this -- this strains my credulity. Unless, of course, you require alarms from three perimeter sensors and five motion detectors before you call the cops.

- badenov

Yep. But please read what I said and don't "focus" on the one part as another individual here tends to do. I said 44 actual burglaries *and verifiable attempts*. You want me to break it down even further?? I'll stop shy of giving you a customer list though!

"Norm is a MUCH MUCH MUCH younger guy than you so he has no excuse".

That's right Tom, make smartass remarks about Bob, just because he's an old man.....a very old man. We should have respect for those older folks.

I'm just pecking away at the keyboard.

Norm Mugford

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?

I think if they fine alarm firms it's a big mistake. First of all, of the 32 years I've been in the security industry, during which I spent

The question is, how will fining the alarm firm solve anything substantial? The only thing it's going to do for reputable alarm firms is cost them lots of money. If fining the end users who case most of these false trips has failed to solve the problem, how is fining alarm firms going to do that? If fining the very people responsible for the operation and maintenance of these problematic systems hasn't solve the problem, how is fining alarm firms who are not there with the user?

In my opinion, the solution is to require the end user to pull a fire alarm permit that requires a maintenance contract between the end user and alarm company. Now, when the municipality records a given number of false alarms from a specific account, they need to investigate the issue to find out if the problem is the end user's desire not to pay the alarm firm to do necessary service or the alarm firm itself because their techs cannot solve the problem. They need to legislate the right to bill the alarm firm direct under the above conditions, not the alarm firm out of the gate.

Most of the time most firms will place that one zone or device on test until they solve the problem while allowing the remainder of the system to remain active. At least this is what I use to do back in the 70s,

The only control the alarm firm will have if the local authority fines the alarm company is to end their recurring revenue quicker than if the end user is fined. I think it's a bad deal for dealers, end users, and the local authorities.

Comments?

Al

Al, this is a huge issue with likely as many variation of answers as their are regulating cities. I certainly don't know the best solution; I can only describe what we do here in Ottawa which doesn't "solve"anything really, but does put the accountability where it belongs...on the party causing the false alarm (end user directly, alarm company indirectly). Perhaps over time, that will help somewhat....

Every false alarm is a $75 ticket issued by the responding officer to the end user. A lot of companies will pay the ticket if the problem is caused by the equipment or wiring. Those who won't quickly "lose" in comparison to other competitors who treat their clients in a more responsible fashion. User caused false alarms are paid by the user. As such, either way the city is "paid" for the misuse of its officers, although they still have the ongoing problem of having to respond and waste their time, but at least it compensates the city.

In purchasing systems, most residential clients hereabouts are concerned about false alarm costs, and reputable alarmco's do what they reasonably can to ensure it doesn't happen....quality installs, quality dual tech motions, cancel codes, thorough training including a detailed explanation of what happens when the alarm trips, thorough calling of the customer call list before dispatching, two week "trial" on all motions when pets are present,etc. Commercial is another ballgame, and somewhat more difficult to handle due to a variety of reasons we all know, including lack of ongoing training of users.

IMO, fining the alarmco puts an unfair cost on companies who then have to act as judge and jury on who is accountable, and then collect the costs (or not as the case may be). It puts them in an unfair "confrontational" situation with their clients. It won't have any affect on the large mass marketers who can afford to swallow the costs and who will likely see this as just another internal cost of doing business, with little outward change affecting the quality of the end users installation (nor can the end user often collect from them....) It might help by putting pressure on some of the bad outfits (who we all know and love), but many of them are here today, gone tomorrow anyway, leaving their messes for others to clean up during "takeovers"....

Video verification would seem to offer some hope but this is far too expensive for residential use. Two way voice is only used by outfits like Alarmforce who market it as if it were ultimate answer to everything, but it offers nothing over a conventional phone call (great marketing ploy however...)

A big danger to the industry of failing to control the false alarm rate is slow, shoddy response by police authorities, which can drastically affect losses during a real break and enter, and strikes at the heart of the reasoning of having the alarm monitored to start with. Perhaps third party response will become the answer prior to police dispatch, although judging from the small size of local response companies, they have a long way to grow to have enough cars on the road to reach the home in any reasonable period of time (chicken and egg scenario.....)

Irv Fisher swears that the Toronto approach helps greatly; however, I know little about it, and he doesn't seem to be around anymore, but that is one other way to do it that all parties seem to find agreeable....

My 2 cents worth....

R.H.Campbell Home Security Metal Products Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Hey I love old folks, Norm. They always leave me cool stuff when they croak. It's like having a high-yield CD that only cost you a few hours of pretending you care about them. I hope Bob leaves me his prized collection of Limited Edition plates from the Franklin Mint (because all old folks in Florida believe those things will increase in value- yes throw away the portfolio I now have the Honeymooners Plate #3129 as a financial safety net) and the 1978 Lincoln Town Car with 12 miles on it and the white landau roof (because all old folks drive gigantic cars). Oh and I want the 6ft plastic sunflower windmill too.

I refuse to comment > "Everywhere Man Wrote:

Everywhere Man wrote:

The procedure on that web site explains what the results are but the significant part is what Irv was doing at his central station to attain those results.

Number of verification calls, elapesd time between call and dispatch ....... he had it down to a "T" and although it may have rankled a lot of installers, it seemed like a reasonable compromise to attain the goals. Although it's true that the Central doesn't have anything to do with the actual installation or maintenence of an install, if you really think about it ..... it IS the hub of operations of the reporting and response function and THAT is where the false alarms can be best "filtered" through a "go - no go" decision making process. It doesn't leave it up to "good" or "bad" installing companys or good or bad clients and cuts down on what the authorities see as an administative nightmare, if they would have to deal with tens of thousands of end users ...... or ...... thousands of alarm companys. All they deal with is the "hundred" Centrals. If the Centrals don't manage and control the installers or their dispatches, they get dropped by the authorites. This is the incentive to the Centrals to require certain standards from installers The installers don't have any choice in how they manage their false alarm rates. The Central will charge them for the false signals and if they don't pay ......... they're out. A Central can do that a lot easier than a dealer is willing to do it, with HIS clients. And it follows that if a dealer is "Canned" by a Central and tries to bring his accounts to another, there's going to be a big question of WHY ...... is it happening and another Central isn't going to take on a potential problem. Therefore it's a great incentive for alarm installers to keep their act in order.

The article is written from the point of view of the authorites. However it's Irv's solution to implmenting it, that's the important part.

If you leave it up to the end users to get fined, they'll either pay the fine and keep causing falses. Drop the service. Or move to another alarm dealer and the problem simply is perpetuated. It's a lot easier for the authorities to put the responsibility on the Centrals ..... and it also allows the industry to take care of itself from the top down ...... rather than the bottom up. Everyone always says we should monitor our own industry and that's exactly what this does.

It works well in every area it is implimented.

What if the customer

There is an incentive built in to attend. They attend after their third alarm and have received a $50 fine. By attending, the $50 fine is waived. If they don't attend they pay the $50 and the next will be $100. Another city, here in Florida, will waive fines equal to the cost of upgrading the system. That is also popular. If someone has $400 in fines pending, the city will waive those if the custmer spends the $400 to upgrade their system.

Those could be the most dangerous type. A quick knee jerk reaction type policy takes no time or effort on their part. The industry needs to stay in their face to get them to the table.

I know you are affiliated with Brinks and they are a big supporter of IQ. In fact they could be the only supporter. IQ is a very weak Board with very little support and funding. I am not bashing the intent of the program, but it is underfunded and is not really going anywhere. Unless things are changing, Brinks in actually the one keeping it alive.

the NYBFAA

To fragmented to be a real force. They can't agree with each other to get anything accomplished. They have a reputation of being not a unified group.

Who are these folks?

I was hoping to get

They are mostly law enforcement folks and work well with the industry but again have very limited funds. They will make phone calls to areas supporting a good ordinance program. Norma Beaubien has been a great contact for the industry, and John Moorehouse, also a FARA board member, is running a program at his Sheriffs office, here is Florida, that I mentioned has had a 78% reduction in F/A since he implimented their ordinance. He sits on our BOD, as the public safety liason, for the AAF as well. He is definiately a good person to talk with.

Enhanced Call Verification is the fastest proven method to reduce dispatches to date. There is absolutely no cost to the muni, no work on their part, simply a reduction in request for dispatch. It is the easiest, fastest way to go for immediately reducing dispatches.

Makes you think they may be getting ready for some sort of policy.

I made it clear to chamber members

That is where ECV comes into play.

Mandatory CPO1 standards.

School for abusers

All recommendations that have been here for some time now. These items should still be supported as methods of false alarm reduction.

People hear what they think they hear, not necessarily what is said. You can correct this by not addressing the senior centers luncheon.

They won't remember yesterday, let alone what they read last week.

Kids!!! Can't teach them anything. And the music they play, my God! And these are going to be the leaders of our country.

The 99% will always be there. You, me or the industry cannot improve that. What you really are referring to and if they are smart, what they really want (but don't know how to say it) is to reduce the amount of dispatches. Enhanced Call Verification will do that. Immediately!!

I don't believe that for a minute. They (the opponents) do not believe alarm response is police work.

You were doing great until the last line.

Not really, I applaud anyone looking for an answer, addressing the concern, and being professional enough to put it out there as a possible resolve. It isn't your fault no one else agrees.

You will have to find me. I'll give you a hint, Frank is my counter guy, Ejad does my installs, I hang out at Sumo wrestling matches watching Norm, and get my Kicks and Giggles from RLB.

No, she said "Jelly". Clean the crap out of your ears.

There goes the seriousness of the thread. That is OK, it was (still is) an important topic.

The best laid plans go to hell in a hand basket if everyone is not on board to support the program. Someone with their own central may introduce this as standard procedure and control the consequences with good performance. Third party monitoring centers are not going to except fines for 100 different installation companies. They will never support it, the same as the companies will not support excepting the fines for the end user. Why is everyone trying to reinvent the wheel? There are programs that do work without all of this. Programs that the cities and counties are happy with because the results are getting better and better as the process takes place. If they want to continue to experiment, that is fine, but put a proven product in place now. It doesn't cost them anything, the CS's support and control it and there is an immediate impact. ECV or Enhanced Call Verification.

Check your e-mail