Power Supply

Yes. In fact, DIY is among the fastest growing aspects of the industry. By doing their own installations, homeowners can avoid paying the $20 to $40 monthly rates alarm companies charge for monitoring. Since most independent alarm companies rely on third party monitoring services (which typically costs the alarm dealer from $2 to $7 a month), those rates are sometimes hard to justify. With monitoring firms offering services direct to the public at rates less than $9 a month, alarm dealers may start to rethink their marketing strategies.

But I digress. The reality is that at present something like 2% of the overall security market is DIY. That's not enough to threaten the livelihoods of most alarm dealers though you'd certainly think it was considering the way some react.

As police and fire departments and the general public become fed up with poor service, sloppy installation practices and the 98% false alarm rate, I expect the DIY market to grow even more. This is not meant to imply that all alarm dealers are incompetent fools (like the Installer Previously Known Milford). There are plenty of good, capable people out there installing for a living. But as long as fast-buck operators like IPKM are around the industry's public image will continue to suffer and people will continue to look for other alternatives.

Companies like mine which cater to the do-it-yourself market will continue to thrive. New state regulations aimed at curtailing alarm company abuses, sloppy workmanship and unreliable systems may topple some of the worst companies in the trade. At the same time, because state regulations largely exempt homeowners and most commercial property owners from licensing when they install their own systems, more and more end users will eventually turn to DIY.

***

I don't think you will thrive too much sporting a BBB track record like this one

NOW 16 and counting

"Robert L Bass" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

the only aspect growing right now is your fat Ass

"Michael Baker" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Which committee? Do you deal with Jeff Collins, Tony Afelbek and Mike Cato?

Evidently they did too.

Agreed, and, as it should be, certain occupancies need a higher standard (level) of protection. No one is challenging that or the AHJ's authority to require it.

Oh may God, I wish that the interpetation of that phrase was exactly what it sounds like. Does that interpet into "every single building in the city/county regardless of occupancy, or whether it previously might not have needed one?" And at the same time ignore all of the old systems that are usually the problem child. I guess they figure it is only "required" on all of the new systems, with the new technology in place.

Well, I wish everyone would agree on that or at least interpet it the same as you do. Down here in south Florida, the AHJ's in 5 counties and 9 cities are putting the onus directly on the alarm contractor. Starting at even pulling the permit.

If all property owner's did the right thing, we

Well, the conversation is past due and is fast heading toward legalities. The cities and counties that have had "policy" set, by their AHJ's, allowing only central station systems be installed, regardless of occupancy and in Jeff Collins (WPB) case, anything over 5,000 square feet must have a central station service system installed, regardless of occupancy, has created some servere problems.

Anyone? Doesn't it say by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory? In Florida, that application process is done through the State Fire Marshalls office, not the local AHJ.

Technically I would say yes, but the application and approval process is extremely expensive making it not very attractive to the average joe. The application is rather extensive and the cost exceeds 50K. If that could change, the public would not have to accept the 3-10% inspection record that UL has admitted to. For public safety and wefare, the public should demand

100% inspections when it comes to life safety. Nothing else is acceptable. It has been admitted to me that some areas of the fire inspection industry are as far behind as 10 years. Let alone the public, is the insurance industry aware of this?

This could be a less expensive method

Depends on how they would structure it and who the pending cost of inspection and a certificate or placard would go to. UL, right now, is cost to the contractor is over 6K, intially, if you pass the first inspection of the four required systems and 2.5K every year after, plus 65+ dollars for every system annually. The cost, even though the fire alarm contractors that are licensed and insured in the State don't like being told they now have to join or pay a membership fee to a private company to do the work they already have the legal right and are licensed to do, isn't really the main issue. The AHJ's decision has now prevented these State licensed contractors from even pulling a permit to install the systems that need to be inspected to become certified. You cannot apply for a permit unless you are a UL/FM listed company. Catch 22. It is a restraint of trade, a violation of state law, and a violation of the uniformed Building Code.

I agree with this and through this process, they should make sure they are not createing a conflict with state law. These particular AHJ's are not interpeting it that way. They are using the code as their authority, regardless of the law, and when told they are in violation of state law, they are using the code as their right to do this. Since when does code trump state law? The state of Flordia has adopted 72 as a whole. Now the locals are further interpeteing the code and eliminateing the other 3 choices. It doesn't help matters when UL is going around doing seminars and pushing central station service as a way to reduce false alarms (BS), which is naturally a concern with the AHJ's, when it is obvious that they (UL) are playing on the AHJ's authority to mandate a policy that will line their (UL) pockets. UL, just recently, gave a seminar to the Internation Association of Electrical Inspectors. The UL instructor told them that an electrician cannot install conduit for a fire alarm system unless they are a UL listed installation company. Bad move. Now, the IBEW and NECA are involved in this situation. For a few rogue fire officials to puff up their chests, there is going to be a bigger problem. The Construction Coalition, the National Home Builder Association and the American Builders (ABC) are starting to ask questions. Mr. Owens from NFPA was involved in a conference call on 2/13/06 about this issue but I don't think he related the topic of the discussion, at that time, to the potential problems some of these interpetations are leading to. Maybe he should revisit it, even if for future discussions.

Where is this please? Since the hurricane tore off the roof at my office and I lost lots of reference material, I only have the next to last version of

72, which I had at home. I will get the new one when it comes out. Is that 2007 or is it 2006.

Don't go away on this one, it is important.

And with that remark, you obviously misunderstood NFPA 72. That is something you would try to get away with and is most likely why you misunderstood F.S. Chapter 489 Part II. Go back are reread 72 and see if you can get it right before you open mouth and insert foot, Robert.

Another mistake by the one and only blunder maker, Robert L Bass. Are you going to come back and say "what I really meant was........." . hey hey hey! Sure you did!

"Michael Baker" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Are you working with either, Mike Cato, Jeff Collins, or Tony Afelbek in your committee?

I am wondering if they didn't as well.

Agreed, and as it should be. There are systems in certain occupancies that do require a higher standard and level of protection. No one is questioning the AHJ's authority to require central station service in these type applications (occupancies).

Where is this language in the code? Does "where required", in your interpretation, equal a total sweep of all new buildings, regardless of occupancy, thoughout a city and/or county, while at the same time ignoring all the old buildings and systems which are usually your problem locations. Does it make sense to mandate this on only new buildings that have the new technology in place? Does mandating a central station service fire system, by square footage of a building, make sense, where prior to January 05 the same building did not even need a fire system?

Is this in the code? If so, where? The reason I asked is because in 5 counties and 9 cities in Florida, the AHJ's have put the onus directly on the alarm contractor.

Agreed and I wish that was the case.

Where is this in the code or can a section of the code be interpreted to mean this? If so, which part may that be? This is an important issue and, if possible, I will need your input in a timely matter. There is a state wide meeting on the 26th and this could clear up a lot of questions and help save a lot of time.

Yes it could depending on the process and who is ultimately responsible? Again, any input as to where this is or may be interpreted in the code will be a major help. Thanks in advance!

Should it not also be reviewed for any conflicts with state law? Doesn't state law trump code? Right now, the policies being put in place are, in direct violation of state law, causing restraint of trade, direct violation of the Florida Uniformed Building Code, and in one case, has created a monopoly, through ordinance, by eliminating competion in making it mandatory that you use UL and not FM. When things of this nature occur, NFPA needs to take a strong look at how the code, their code, is being applied and interpreted, by a few, before there is a legal challenge to the process. I am sure the code would stand on its own merit, however, I am also sure that when a AHJ needs to make a decision, their city/county attorneys may hold them back if they are aware of past/present legal challenges. Their authority may be questioned at every turn at that point. They need the authority in their line of work, but a few rogues could cause a potential problem for them nation wide. National players, ie: NECA and the IBEW, have just taken up an interest in this matter, as they realized it is going to impact their electricians. This happened when a UL rep told the International Association of Electrical Inspectors that electricians *could not* even run conduit for fire alarm systems unless they were a UL listed company. Do you know how that went over with the union? They (UL) may have started a fight, without the AHJ's even realizing it, that will be interesting to see if the AHJ's can win. When one of these developers has every electrician walk of their job or can't get a CO on his 100 million dollar hi-rise, do you think he is going to question the local fire inspector? With their pull, the city/county commission, the mayor, their senators or representatives or even the governor will become involved and that AHJ will find himself scrubbing truck tires until he re--tires.

"where required ..."

Again, I would appreciate the help on the locations of "where required"? My

72 and 101 were destroyed, along with alot of other reference material, during the hurricane. My only copy is the next to last rewrite which I had a home. Any help would be appreciated. Don't take this post as that I am against authority......when it makes sense.

And who else is going to bear the cost, other than the property owner? That's true regardless of the type of fire alarm system.

That's the fatal flaw in NFPA 72: it doesn't specify the type of fire alarm system that is required in a given occupancy. The almighty AHJ gets to fill in the blanks.

The type of fire alarm system should be specified in the building codes, not NFPA 72. This is how you overrule the fire marshals. In other words, a high rise building might be required to have full-blown central station service, while a small industrial building might not. Of course, what do you do in smaller cities where central station service is not available?

Central station service is welfare for the big alarm companies: guaranteed revenue and damned little competition. What I'd like to know is whether "the emperor has no clothes."

Central station fire alarms don't extinguish fires; they only call the fire department. Somebody please show me some proof that central station fire alarms do a better job, or have a lower failure rate, than properly installed and maintained remote station systems. I doubt there is any such proof.

In which case, there's no rational justification for requiring central station service. It's just a feel-good measure. That almighty AHJ can always cover his own ass by claiming he required "the best," whether or not it really is.

UL is not in the business of inspecting fire alarm systems, nor do they claim to be. They are in the business of inspecting fire alarm service companies to see whether those companies can provide an acceptable level of service. UL does not, and will not, assume the responsibility for signing off on every fire alarm system in the country. Think of the potential liability, and think of the number of inspectors that would be required to do it. Then think about your annual UL bill, and how high it would be if they inspected every system. You think UL is expensive now??

It's the alarm company's responsibility to install, monitor, and maintain systems to code. That's where the buck stops, not with UL.

If you want an interesting free-enterprise solution for the inspection problem, try this one on for size: all fire alarm inspections, including the routine ones, would be done by a state-licensed company -- other than the one that installed or monitored the system. The company that does the inspections wouldn't install, monitor, or repair the systems it inspects. Sure, this system can be gamed, but it would be more legitimate than what we have now.

I agree with you. It's kind of like outsourcing licensing to a private company. If the state has issued a license saying that a company is authorized to install fire alarm systems, then how does some piss-ant local inspector get to impose additional requirements? Could he require state-licensed electricians to meet additional licensing requirements or passa special test in order to do electrical work in his jurisdiction? I doubt that would fly in court. Of course, the small alarm companies that are being victimized by this policy don't have the money to fight city hall. Maybe the AAF does.

- badenov

No. I'm on the chapter 5 committee (initiating devices). They may be on the chapter 8 committee (supervising station systems).

When I worked for a living, this was the case as well. I paid for the permits and passed the cost along to the property owner. Similarly, costs associated with central station service were passed along to the the end-user.

NFPA 72-2002 4.5.2.4* Verification of Compliant Installation. Where required, compliance of the completed installation with the requirements of this standard, as implemented via the referring code(s), specifications, and/or other criteria applicable to the specific installation, shall be certified by a qualified and impartial third-party organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

I'm traveling this week, but I've got access to the internet!

Except it costs 6K+ the first year and 2.5K minimum annually inorder to have the right, even though you are already state licensed and insured to install fire systems of any type, just to pull a permit in these city/counties that have mandated total central station service. Oh... but wait, I guess that does give you the opportunity to pass along the $65 certificate fee to the owner.

That is fine. Make a decision, per system, for what ever the circumstance calls for. No problem. Makes sense. Doing it across the board and especially for the reasons they are standing on (reduction of false alarms) doesn't make sense.

In the building code, here in Florida, it states that "no municipality or county can require any additional certification or license over and above what the State of Florida requires under this part." Well, the cities and counties and policies of their AHJ's, when requiring central station service, by default, are requiring state licensed companies to become certified by UL or FM as installation companies inorder to install central station service systems. Otherwise you cannot even apply for a permit.

In other words,

You are making to much sense here!

Why won't it be, unless you are talk very rural where runner service couldn't respond in the 1 to 2 hours?

guaranteed

Not any more. In Dade County, Florida there is 485 licensed fire and electrical contractors that are allowed to do fire under there license category. As of May 5, if they are to stay in the fire business, even if it is just service, they will need to be UL or FM certified installation companies.

I don't know, but he has 14,000 newly found friends.

There is none. Through some pretty heavy meetings with all the powers under one roof, we have asked for any studies on false alarms and/or false alarm reduction to be provide to back their claims. UL says they have them, but no one, including the Florida Fire Chiefs Association, which was represented at these meetings, have seen them. They don't exist as they do on the burg side.

Stop! You continue to make to much sense!

acceptable.

The state already does that. At least the state tests for compentcy, has continueing education requirement, has a regulatory board for disciplinary action, certification requirements for technicians with required background checks every two years, drug testing, continued ed requirements etc. UL requirements are..........sign a contract for an annual fee, acccept a faxed application for a certificate for a fee and stop by to see you annually, but by contract are not obligated to do so. Which would you say is a higher standard?

They definately won't do it, but I have been tell people that they are crazy if they don't start demanding that UL name them as additionally insured. If UL/FM are out there tell you what, when, and how to, they definately have a responsibilty and liability to that system whether they like it or not. They are a private company and are not exempt from anything, anywhere.

Think of the potential

I'll save that story for another time.

Charge the owner under a mandate by the AHJ. The AHJ is requiring it, the owner owns the system, why should the installing alarm company even be involved? The central station is getting their inspections anyway. It is, in reality, double dipping the same account.

Follow the money

Not actually. In todays world, you have an installation company, which might include electrical contractors that don't monitor or service. Then you have installing companies that use a third party monitoring company and it is up to the owner to have a service agreement with a company, which also may be different. If all of these are separate, which could very well happen, UL, under their requirements, would be recieving revenue from 3 different enties on the same account.

Was suggested and defuncted by the AHJ's. Fox watching the hen house scenerio was their reasoning. We saw it as a way for 100% inspections. Now the AHJ's are trying legislatively to take the word "inspections" out of our licensing law. Again, I'll save that for another day.

Illegally and against state law.

The AAF has over 800 member companies. Some are UL/FM companies and some are not. We can't defend it one way or the other without offending the membership. We can fight the restraint of trade issue but that would be an individual case by case and we really can't provide that type of legal support to someone that pays a $300 membership fee. They would join, we would fight their battle and then they would drop out the next year. We have that now with training. They join to get the member rate, get their required education and then don't renew the next year.

"Michael Baker" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Were you a UL or FM certified installation contractor?

Thanks Mike, I was under the impression the code called specifically for a nationally recognized testing laboratory. This sounds like the field is wider and is left open to an AHJs approval. Under this scenerio, an AHJ could require central station service city/county wide on all buildings (which is happening in Florida), and then any retired fire inspector from that city or county could actually become the third party verifier. Sorta like building a guaranteed profit center for retirement. Interesting. Sounds like I have a conspiracy theory, but with the fire marshalls trying legislatively to get rid of the word "inspect" in our state licensing law (possibly to avoid needing a license) and the fact that city/countys are going central station exclusively, it may make sense. Otherwise, why tear down a statute that is meant to set a higher standard? Especially when these guys have their own newgroup that is closed, unless you are approved to have access, and the ones that have gone CSS are all tight. The other possibility is that, since UL and FM had to get a license in Florida because of the law, if UL/FM wanted to use retired fire inspectors for inspections, they would have to hire them as employees. UL's contract says they can use subcontractors. In Florida, those subs would be required to have a license and insurance. Naturally UL would want subs to avoid costs. UL is looking to get exempted, which I don't think will happen, so now we are back to getting rid of the word "inspect". The writing is on the wall. If they have an agenda, put it on the table and lets stop screwing around by hiding behind the code.

Thanks again and I will stay in touch. Others may want to pay more attention to what may lay ahead for their areas. UL reps have told us that this is going national, not only for fire but burg as well. Maybe the industry needs to check their licensing laws to make sure UL/FM might not need to be licensed for their activities. They are a private company just like we are and are not exempt from any state laws. If anyone is interested, I will give you the areas in Florida's law that required them to be licensed.