Question:

Ken,

Since I see all your emails I thought I would jump in.

We have been assigning our subscribers to "Two Party Notification," meaning
upon Burg. alarm signal, the central station will attempt to contact the
premises, and then the call list, and then contact the police LAST.
As we know, the common industry protocol is to contact the premises first,
and if no code word is validated, the police are called next.
Two party verification helps to reduce false alarms in the event no one at
the premises is available to take the call, yet the subscriber can be
reached on his cellphone or at another number, and he is given the option
of dispatching the police. It's something everyone in this industry should
consider.
It also reduces customer dissatisfaction by not embarrassing them with the
police showing up on a false alarm.

My question is..... is Two Party Notification covered under your existing
monitoring contract?

Anthony Losquadro
Consumers Security Group
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Answer:
    Your verification process raises two potentially conflicting issues,
false alarm reduction and prompt response time.  I am trying to separate my
own conflicting perspectives, counsel to alarm companies, and a consumer
end user of an alarm system.
    I know that false alarm reduction is an important issue around the
country and the industry generally accepts all the police and government
criticisms about how useless alarms are and what a drain on police
resources it is.  Since this wasn't the focus of your question, I will
limit my comments by simply saying that I don't buy into the official
line.  I don't think law enforcement or fire prevention would be possible
in our society without the alarm systems.  Also, I think most false alarms
are caused by user error.  Perhaps alarm companies should be taken to task
for not training end users how to call the central to cancel a false
alarm.  I know that's what I do when I have them.
    Verification cuts down on response time.  On my home alarm I have no
verification and the central is instructed to dispatch first and then call
me.  I should say that I don't live in an area where false alarm penalties
are strictly assessed, so it's not a priority concern of mine.  If my alarm
goes off I want the police called immediately.  If I am home I can always
reach the central before they call the police, and if I miss that call I
can call the police [I know not all police will stop the response once
called, though some don't respond anyway].
    Verification should be something explained to the subscriber, and
specified in the alarm contract.  My monitoring contract specifies that the
proper authority will be called and the subscriber called as well.  The
call process is not more fully set forth in the contract, and I don't know
that it needs to be any more specific.  It also gives the alarm company the
option of not responding if it believes the alarm is not an emergency.  I
can't see how a subscriber who is not home could make the decision not to
have police response if an alarm is received.
    I think your efforts for verification may be better placed by selling
your subscribers more equipment that would aid in the verification process,
such as CCTV with central station monitoring.
    Reducing false alarms is not as important as alarm systems providing
the service for which they are intended, protecting life and property.