***************************
finding workers comp
**************************
Ken:
In response to Brian Villaris’s comment about the Hartford’s dropping Workman’s Compensation [April 19 2014 article] for the alarm industry, I challenge his assertion that there is a whole host of other companies willing to write Workman’s Comp for our industry. We recently went looking for insurance directly and through our broker, we reached out to every insurance company we could find including, Travelers, Hanover. Zurich, State Farm, Progressive, Liberty, Nationwide, just to name a few. Not only were we turned down we were told, and that was mind blowing, they did not have a classification that they could base a quote on If my companies experience is any example, especially for smaller companies, then our industry has a major insurance problem. I would like to see our industry fight back and start a coop similar to Security America. I wonder what your readers think
Al Simon
Nortronics Corp
*******************************
comment on fixing false alarms
****************************
Ken:
I have to respond to the “New idea to fix false alarms” from the 04-02-14 newsletter.
I was intrigued by the ASAPer product but I would love more information from Mr. Juhnke regarding what type of testing was done to arrive at the following numbers he cites as fact:
· “90% faster than any other alarm response”
· “…currently resolving up to 40% of alarms before the central station can.”
· “…up to 90% faster contact…”
· “…situation is resolved as a verified false alarm. And all this happens on average before the central station can even call the 1st person…”
I did view the ASAPer website but it is lacking in any real resources to support any of the statements made above. I also question the concept if this product is attempting to fix the root cause of false alarms. In my mind the root cause of a false alarm would be preventing the system from being inadvertently triggered in the first place. It seems to me that the ASAPer product is actually trying to resolve the root cause of false dispatches which I think we can all support. If contacting the person that has the most information on a particular alarm (which I feel is the person that is at the site and tripped the alarm) is the key then I’m curious why the article feels this “…system is faster and more efficient than dumb-phone style two-way messaging” and how two-way messaging “…just makes the problem worse”. We don’t currently use two-way voice but I don’t understand how that could actually “make the problem worse”.
I can definitely see the benefit of being able to contact an entire call list simultaneously before we contact the authorities but I can also envision complaints when every person on a list has to be contacted on every alarm every time.
I also am curious how long an operator would be expected to hold an active alarm after initiating this group message before they would have to move on. I completely agree that our 1st and 2nd calls often go unanswered but there is no guarantee that we will receive a timely response to a group message. Just because the message can be received at the phone quickly doesn’t mean it will be responded to in a timely manner and with any useful information. It seems to me that multiple “I don’t know” responses on the message thread could be considered unnecessary “noise” as well.
Again I think this is an intriguing option but I’m concerned that so many figures were cited as factual in this message and there wasn’t any context to determine if they have been tested in a real world scenario.
Bob Gamble
************************
comment on False Alarms - ECV and Video Verification re article on April 19, 2014
*************************
Mr. Kirschenbaum,
Video verification is one additional means of alarm verification. It is not intended to take the place of ECV and it will never do so. ECV has been the most effective false alarm reduction tool the alarm industry has had. The fact that you have a video clip of someone on the premise does not equate to having a criminal on the premise. Unless the guy is wearing a mask or carrying a sledge hammer, ECV still needs to, and will be, performed. You should be aware of the value of ECV and promote its use rather than take the very parochial (and obviously self-serving) view and promote one of the video products as a successor to EVC. You continue to personally promote individuals and products and companies, much to the chagrin of many of us in the industry, a role that conflicts with that of a legal advisor.
Ron Haner
Alarm Center, Inc.
************************
Response
************************
I am not sure why you think it's "self serving" to promote video. I assure you I don't have any interest in any video company, or alarm company or vendor for that matter. I do promote lots of companies and services, particularly those on The Alarm Exchange [which any legit company can ask to be on]. I am sorry that I have caused anyone to feel chagrin. The definition of chagrin is "a feeling of being frustrated or annoyed because of failure or disappointment"; so again, sorry to disappoint. As you must know I try and circulate almost any comment sent in for circulation uncensored. Figured I am entitled to the same comment rights.
What I wrote was: "...video verification which I believe more and more jurisdictions will accept in place of ECV [multiple telephone calls to premises and subscriber]. Alarm verification has probably been the single most effective way to reduce false alarms. Other false alarm preventative measures, such as better equipment, better installation, more careful monitoring, better central station procedures also contribute to the cause of reducing false alarms."
I don't know if any jurisdiction has approved video confirmation as a means of verification but I wouldn't be surprised. Apparently at least one state in the Northwest has approved video for verification. In any event, I asked Keith Jentoff to respond to your comment. Here is his response:
**************
Ken,
At one level, I do agree with Ron Haner that video verification is not intended to eliminate or replace ECV. That stated, there are certainly instances where the videos do indeed show an obvious crime-in-progress where the police request that we call them immediately instead of making 2 calls first. This proces is being quantified in the PPVAR video verification committee that includes many representatives from Law Enforcement including; Texas Assn. of Police Chiefs,
California Assn. of Police Chiefs, Michigan Assn. of Police Chiefs, Chicago Police Dep.t as well as the Los Angeles Sheriffs Dept. The PPVAR is creating a central station operator training course (and outline for those central stations that create their own training) with sample video files that law enforcement has indicated as obvious crimes-in-progress. The training course/outline includes many actual video files that are categorized as THREAT LEVEL 3 (crime-in-progress), THREAT LEVEL 2 (person present), and THREAT LEVEL 1 (no person present). The video files are an important training element to help remove the subjective decision from the operator. The video clips have also all been reviewed and vetted by Law Enforcement, so it is not just the industry attempting to force the police to take our standard. In addition, as central stations have questions regarding specific video clips and how to categorize them, they can submit them to the committee for review and resolution.
Law Enforcement has actually helped create the new video verification standard - and we plan to have it completed by ESX in June. This is a major milestone for our industry.
Relative to Ron Haner's objection, the typical Threat Level 2 (person present) process in the new PPVAR standard requires the operator to call the responding party and describe what they see before calling 911 dispatch. This is probably the most typical scenario - we see a person present and the responding party has told us that there should not be anybody in the premises. In this case the video and phone calls are synergistic and build upon one another.
Unfortunately, many of the alarm ordinances in the Northwest, including Washington State, do in fact allow for video verification to be used instead of ECV; they considered video a replacement for ECV when they drafted the ordinances.. I think that this is a weaker approach, but this is still the law in much of the Northwest.
Regards,
Keith Jentoft
*********************
another comment on false alarms and ECV
*********************
Ken
Enhanced Call Verification/ ECV, as a part of local, regional or national
legislation, is one of the highest insults and embarrassments to the overall
alarm industry. It says we are too unorganized, or too greedy, or maybe too
stupid, to operate a business within a very mature international industry.
It says we need government intervention and oversight to deliver our basic
products and services. Most responsible security firms have been practicing
a form of ECV for decades as a natural part of their business model, without
government pressures. ECV is a political issue not an operational issue.
We believe that promotion by SIAC for legislated ECV, and for the trojan
horse "Model Ordinance", could be the primary reason for thousands of
municipalities practicing defacto Verified Response/VR (low priority or no
emergency response), which promotes deceptive business practices.
Suggestion .... disband and shutter the Security Industry Alarm Coalition/
SIAC.
Source: Lee Jones
Support Services Group
*************************
comment on interactive systems
*****************************
Ken,
I start every morning reading your newsletter and I appreciate all the information I gain by doing so. I’ve been casually following the alarm.com information since we are not a current alarm.com dealer. Yesterday afternoon I was informed that we are considering becoming an alarm.com dealer so I went back to your newsletters to brush up on the concerns you had with their contract.
I was able to locate comments regarding alarm.com’s contracts in your 02-04-14 newsletter that indicated you would be devoting a separate article on alarm.com but I haven’t been able to find that. Have you released the article yet? I was able to located follow up comments on alarm.com in your 02-21-14, 03-08-14 and 03-21-14 newsletters but nothing that went into great detail about your concerns with alarm.com’s contact. Your 03-21-14 comments seem to indicate that you have issues with the terms but doesn’t explain what your concerns are other than they are non-negotiable and required to be added to our agreements with the subscribers.
If you have released the alarm.com article could you possibly direct me to that or provide me the date of the newsletter it was included in? If you haven’t would you be willing to share your concerns in an upcoming newsletter?
If you run this email in your newsletter please put me in as
anonymous.
**************************
Response
**************************
I decided not to spend time discussing the alarm.com contract terms. Instead I ran an article on April 16 2014 introducing everyone to alternatives to that manufacturer.
***************************
TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR EMAIL Ken@Kirschenbaumesq.com. Most comments and questions get circulated.
**********************************************************************
Speaking Engagements
************************************************
*******************
SentryNet's 19th Annual Dealer Conference. April 23, 2014 at Harrah's in Tunica, MS. register at http://www.sentrycon.us or call Peggy at 800-932-3304 for more information. www.sentrynet.com
**********************
Metropolitan Burglar and Fire Alarm Assoc of New York. May 15, 2014 4:30 PM to 6 PM at Marriot Hotel, Uniondale, NY. Comprehensive analysis and comparison of the Standard Form All in One contracts. All alarm dealers welcome. No charge for attendance. Dinner and MBFAA meeting will follow the seminar. For more info and to RSVP contact Alan Glasser, Executive Director of MBFAA at 718-894-6712 or mbfaa.ny@gmail.com
************************
Northeast Security & Systems Contractors Expo Thursday, May 22, 2014 10 am to 5 PM at Royal Plaza Trade Center, Marlborough, MA. registration https://www.expotracshows.com/neacc/2014/ Presentation on Alarm Law issues and Q&A will be at 2 PM. For more info contact Gary Spaulding, NEACC President
207-384-2420 gary@spauldingsecurity.com
***********************
Alabama Alarm Association. AAA's Fall Meeting and Trade Show - October 21, 2014 from 3 to 5 PM at DoubleTree Hotel 808 South 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35205 for more info contact AAA Executive Director: director@alabamaalarm.org (205) 933-9000
*********************
Electronic Security Summit for 2014. October 22-24, 2014 at the landmark Broadmoor Hotel. Colorado Springs, CO. For more information contact Alexander J. Quirin, CEO & Managing Partner, Advisory Summit Providers, LLC., (786) 999-9738 alex.quirin@aspsummits.com www.aspsummits.com
**********************