September 16, 2011

 

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

**********

comment

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

Dear Ken;

Having been witness to the development of the concept that identified ECV as a solution, and then spending the next 7 years promoting it, I am extremely happy to see these testimonials. This is a train that everyone in the industry needs to be aboard.

Alarm dispatches coming into the local PSAPS represent a large percentage of their total incoming call load. This means that often industry calls are put on hold as non emergency and can remain on hold for a very long time during bust periods. While ECV was developed to specifically address dispatches we have found other worthwhile benefits as well.

Most law enforcement agencies respond to intrusion alarms at a very low priority level. Ultimately these calls can sit in a cue for a very long time during busy periods and these busy times for law enforcement are the same time periods when many alarm calls come in. These are typically the times when alarm owners are most likely to interface with their alarms and are the same as morning and afternoon rush hours. By delaying the dispatch on a low priority call by less than one minute you are actually getting faster response on the remaining calls. In addition, by not tying up the 9-1-1 call takers on so many dispatch requests your call will be taken quicker by the 9-1-1 them resulting in even more time saved thus insuring faster response.

Since ECV, when fully enforced, delivers a 50% reduction in alarm dispatches this should be a no brainer for anyone in our industry. However, and with that said, even in states where ECV is required by law when an agency starts to vigorously enforce the provision (by asking if two calls were made and to what numbers), they see an immediate 20-25% reduction. This means that almost HALF of the industry is not enforcing ECV , even where it is required by statute or ordinance.

When ECV was first proposed the largest companies estimated that ECV would save them millions of calls annually. You ask how is this possible? When a signal comes in and the premise is called to verify and when there is no answer (probably because of call waiting and the alarm system still having the line seized); that's call one. The police are dispatched and that is call two. A call is then made to a second number and they reach someone who then cancels the dispatch it becomes call three. Now a fourth call is required back to law enforcement to cancel the dispatch and that's call four.

Pretty simple math when you think about it.

In the seven years since ECV has been a standard I have yet to talk to any alarm installing company or contract monitoring company that has lost an account solely because of ECV. Plain and simple, customers get it. Other than unknowing alarm dealers, the main people who reject the process are the big box retailers who have a security director. The security directors just want a faster dispatch, even though they won't get it.

Please don't reject ECV without doing your homework. CSAA, who developed and passed the standard, have graciously allowed you to have a free copy. Simply go to www.siacinc.org and look under standards. The official Standard title is actually ANSI/ CSAA CS-V-01_2004.xxx; not ECV. While you are on the SIAC Website there are many other documents that help explain the process.

I am very happy to see these comments in this very valuable forum. The more people talking about this, the better the chance that we will eventually convince then to comply.

Best regards

Ron Walters, Director

SIAC

Security Industry Alarm Coalition

http://siacinc.org/Default.aspx