******************
comment on licensing in CT
*************
Ken
With regard to the licensing of the "big guys" getting into the business. W-2 paid COMCAST Employees are EXEMPT from the low voltage license laws when it comes to BROADBAND and Digital Phones in Connecticut. They can install alarms as long as they do not cut, strip wires, fish and make connections in a panel.
The COMCAST alarm system is pure plug and play. Take the devices out of the box and mount them on a wall. The panel is PLUGGED into a wall outlet and does everything else by wireless Internet. (Z Wave). On a takeover they are not allowed to open a panel or turn a screwdriver to connect wires without a E-1/E-2--L-5/L-6 or C-5/C-6 license.
Subcontractors must be PROPERLY LICENSED as CONTRACTORS to work legally in Connecticut. Only stands to reason that you can't SUB CONTRACT unless you are a contractor. All technicians employed by the CONTRACTOR must be properly licensed as C or L 6 Journeypersons
To install the alarm system that COMCAST is selling, there is no wiring or work that qualifies as TRADE WORK requiring a license. They stand the console up on a table and plug it in to an outlet. All transmission is wireless to the customers broadband network. As long as they do not run wires, fish walls etc they are covered in Connecticut.In Massachusetts however a SECURITY LICENSE (S) is required to do ANYTHING in security. TO get this S LICENSE you must be a CONTRACTOR, properly licensed in the Commonwealth of Mass. Even if the system is totally lick and stick wireless, and S License is required.
All we have to do is do our job better than the next guy and be aware of any violators.
The state regulators or licensing agency in whatever state the violations is taking place should be made aware of dates times and places.
The best thing we can do is EDUCATE THE CONSUMER in what is out there that you sell and service. Be active in State and National trade associations and PARTICIPATE in activities to educate consumers and authorities.
Joel Kent
FBN Security Co LLC
*************
Response
*************
Connecticut licenses individuals, not companies. As long as the people doing the work have the proper license to perform their jobs the licensing statute is satisfied. Therefore, an unlicensed company can use licensed contractors in Connecticut. In this instance, the term "licensed contractors" refers to the people doing the work, not the company itself. The L5 Licensed Contractor can employ L6 journeymen to do the work. Check the CT license law on my web site at https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-law-issues
***************
new Delaware registration and laws
**************
Ken,
Below is an excerpt from newly enacted law in Delaware Title 24 Chapter 12 Subchapter II “False Alarms” http://delcode.delaware.gov/title24/c012/sc02/index.shtml
In regard to the highlighted language, is there anything (interstate commerce clause possibly?) that would prevent a state from doing this?
Anon
**************
Response
**************
You can read Delaware's law HERE on our Alarm Law by State section of our website. Delaware Standard Form Contracts have been updated to include all the new law requirements.
Those of you who do alarm work in Delaware should be aware that there is a requirement that you have an office in that state. Read the new requirements carefully. These requirements are going to be administered by a third party hired by the state. Is this a new trend? See the next comment.
Is it legal? Yes. It's not likely that these permit, registration and license regulations violate the Federal Interstate Commence Clause [actually that's in the US Constitution], and it's even more unlikely that any alarm company is willing to pay me or anyone else to challenge these kinds of laws. I believe they have been challenged to no avail though I don't recall any specifics.
*****************
more on Delaware
************
The execution of this new regulation has been a mess. We were advised by DE State Police Licensing division that it was in effect immediately (May 18, 2012), even though Cry Wolf, the 3rd party contracted with the state to administer the permitting process, did would not have their registration website ready until mid-June. No answers from anyone on when they were truly going to begin requiring a permit number to dispatch.
Anon
*************
third party administrators
**************
Ken,
I would like to get your views on the liability concerns that companies like ATB introduce. For those not familiar, ATB is a third party billing company that some jurisdictions contract with in order to collect alarm fees for registrations, false alarms, fines, etc.
If ATB sends an alarm company a bill and the alarm company does not pay the bill then ATB will inform the jurisdiction not to respond to ANY alarms from that company. This could mean that one false alarm bill could affect 100, 200, 300+ customers.
In our contracts we have a clause about "not guaranteeing response" etc, which I believe helps us. The challenges I have with ATB and companies like them is the extreme amount of errors, poor customer service, confusing rules, etc.
We just got a bill from ATB with no information other than an amount, a toll free number for response that is not correct, and no other valid responses from our various contact info from this company. So hypothetically what happens if ATB incorrectly bills us, informs a jurisdiction not to respond, a burglary occurs and a lawsuit ensues. Can you foresee the possible liability that ATB, the jurisdiction, and ourselves would have in this situation when it is determined that the reason for "No-response" was a clerical error by ATB who is contracted by the jurisdiction.
Thanks
Leo Taylor
ESI Security
***************
Response
***************
States and other municipalities can impose reasonable [sometimes not so reasonable] laws and regulations regarding licensing, permits, registration, false alarm fines, and contract with non government private companies to provide administrative services. I suppose the impedes for using a third party company to administer the clerical end of these laws is that the municipality thinks the program can be handle either better or cheaper or both by a non governmental agency.
Unless a statute extends governmental immunity to these third party administrators I don't believe they will have any immunity. Thus, they can be sued for their negligence. Causing loss of police or fire protection by mistake may very will result in liability exposure; I don't see why not.
So when you get upset that some company now stands between you and police and fire response, that you have to pay to register, send this company all your subscriber information, pay money for what should be free [or part or your taxes] perhaps you can secretly smile thinking that their day will come, and they won't have a contract [like you better] that contracts away their liability for their own negligence.

***************
Ken
I have to weigh in on this the latest example of the public sector intrusion into an area that they have no expertise, or in my opinion ability to administer.
That being said I will agree to an exception.
Those municipalities working WITH SIAC to administer and manage a workable plan to reduce false alarms, identify abusers, and mitigate the causes of false dispatches are the professional ones who take the problem as seriously as we in the industry do.
SIAC is not anti ordnance or anti fine. SIAC is all for developing a plan that will work for the individual community that is smart enough to ask for help.
Those municipalities that want to farm the work of billing and collecting out are not interested in mitigating the problem, just capitalizing on it. Asses and collect fines for the general fund is all they want to do. Any reduction in false alarm fines would hurt the budget. This is the same scheme of companies that supply RED LIGHT CAMERAS. Giving tickets does not make an intersection safer. If this was such a big safety thing why do the companies LEASE the cameras with a percentage of the revenue collected going to the lessor? If safety were truly the issue and the income dropped below the expected revenue does the leasing company drop the cost? Or does the municipality simply dip into their funds to pay the shortfall??? ( At the taxpayers expense naturally.....)
As for giving out my customer list to a municipality to share with a third party? Credit card processors cannot keep millions of dollars of consumer credit data secure. How will your customers feel knowing that you have given their names, addresses and Phone numbers to yet another data base?
Well I'm off the soapbox for now.
Joel Kent
FBN Security Co LLC
************

*****************************************************************************