*******
see licensing comment below
*****
Question
**********
Hi Ken,
As a manufacturer of video verified alarm systems we receive calls everyday from dealers who complain that their contract central station dispatches on alarm signals when the video does not show a human being. The latest example was a dispatch when the video showed a large dog but NO person. Dealers think it is self-evident NOT to dispatch when the video shows that only an animal is present.
Would the contract between the central station and the dealer allow the dealer to direct the central station to ONLY dispatch when a human being was present in the video? Could the dealer instruct the central station to only dispatch if a person was in the video for a class of alarm systems (such as Videofied)? Does the contract for monitoring between the dealer and the end user need to be modified to accommodate this?
**************
Answer:
********
Central offices should have policies in place how to handle alarms and verification if that is required or custom. Video verification is, in my opinion, more reliable than a phone call and becoming more available and affordable. The Dealer/Installer should have a CCTV Sale or CCTV Lease with the subscriber. Those contracts, which provide for monitoring by the central office [like the Standard Monitoring Contract] provide that the dealer is appointed the subscriber's agent for purposes of dealing with the central office. This permits the central office to accept instruction from the dealer. This is important especially where the central office has entered into a [three party] contract with the subscriber and that contract does not appoint the dealer as subscriber's agent.
For a better answer I turned to Mark Fischer of Nationwide Digital Monitoring to see how his company would handle the issue raised in the question. Here is his answer.
****
Ken:
Nationwide Digital Monitoring was an early adopter of video verification, and we were among the first to support the RSI / Videofied solution. Nationwide's approach to video verification has always been as to use it as a tool to reduce false dispatches and eliminate unnecessary police responses.
The answer to Dennis' question is really four fold. First, there currently is no industry standard for how to handle video verification accounts. There is currently a proposed standard out for comment (viewable at: www.csaaul.org/VideoVerification110609.doc). However even within this standard there is no defined guidelines as how to dispatch an alarm that does not show a person committing what would be considered a dispatchable act.
Second is fear of being wrong and not dispatching when there was an actual incident. One of the great advantages of the Videofied solution is that the cameras and motion detectors are designed as an integrated unit, with overlapping patterns. Simply said the camera and the motion see the same area, so the initiating act is caught on video unlike systems that use independent cameras and motions.
Third is lack of training. Since there is no real standard what do you train your operators to? At Nationwide we have developed a set of video verification procedures, and our full time director of training ensures that each operator is properly schooled in how to evaluate the video and follow our procedures. Procedures can be modified on an account by account basis to meet a particular situation.
Lastly contract language should include the proper disclaimers that if a reasonable determination can be made that an emergency does not exist the central station at its discretion can elect not to dispatch the police or other authorities.
More and more municipalities are requiring Enhanced Call Verification prior to the dispatch of responding agencies to burglar alarms. Because of the high ratio of false dispatches to actual alarms the benefits of burglar alarms to the municipalities is lost in the cost of the unnecessary responses. Video Verification is the one system available to the industry today that really has the ability to virtually eliminate the problem. If a central station is accepting video verification accounts, but just blindly dispatches as they would any other account, what is being accomplished? They are just accepting the accounts for another revenue stream without providing the service in the way it was intended.
There are many contract central stations such as Nationwide that will handle the signals as they are meant to handled. Installers who are installing these types of systems need to do their homework and select a monitoring station that will handle the signals to their specifications. At Nationwide we do just that. Until we as an industry embrace the technologies and methods to reduce the burden we place on police departments, we are going to continue to see more fines, permits, and loss of response.
Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co.
http://www.nationwidedigital.com
Email: mfischer@nwdm.info
**********************
Licensing Gripe - Tenn
****
Dear Ken,
I thoroughly enjoy reading your newsletter and have learned a great deal more about my industry as a result. My question involves a state law which I believe to be discriminatory and leads to an unfair competitive advantage for those that it benefits. To wit, the state of Tennessee requires licensing through the Tennessee Alarm Systems Contractor's Board (A division of the State's Department of Commerce and Insurance). Each company that is so licensed is required to have a licensed Quality Assurance Manager (QA) who has to undergo a written examination for each category of alarm license applied for, and a thorough background check. In addition, every employee working for the alarm company has to be fingerprinted, photo'ed and background checked before they are approved as a licensed alarm company employee. This all represents a substantial investment in time and money.
My problem lies with the exemption of certain trades from having to comply with this act. If you are a licensed Electrical, Mechanical or HVAC contractor, and you derive less than 50% of your income from the installation of fire alarm/ burglar alarm/ CCTV, you are exempt from the licensing requirements mandated by this act. The specific requirements for this exemption are listed at www.TN.gov/commerce (sub heading Boards). The only requirement is that you must submit a letter to the Alarm Systems Contractor's Board stating that you receive less than 50% of your income from said activities. After you are on the approved "exemption" list, you can sell/ install alarms and CCTV to your heart's content.
While I disagree with licensing these companies without ensuring that they are qualified to do so, I have an even bigger issue with the fact that they are not required to register their employees involved in the installation of these systems. What it boils down to is that I am required to expend time, effort and money to register my employees and these "exempt" contractors are not. In addition, an applicant who is turned down for employement as an alarm employee due to criminal activity in their past can be hired the next day by an "exempt" contractor and put right to work installing those very same systems. How can this possibly be fair competition?
Thanks,
Will