Question:
******
Ken,
Would this additional signature suggestion also apply to a security system or any other such system that is not being paid for by the party that is using it? An example would be when a son or daughter purchases a system (burglar, CCTV, etc.) for their father or mother as a gift, maybe during the Holidays. I would think dual signatures would be an advantage in this situation as well. Obtaining a signature from the person that ordered the system and another from the user (or authorized agent) makes sense.
Jim Anderson
AUDIO SENTRY CORPORATION
*********
Answer:
*******
In any type of alarm / security contract be certain to get the signature of the one paying you and the ultimate end user. This situation can arise in any type of alarm job, but may be more common with PERS [because the service is ordered by a child for a parent]. Sometimes it's easier to see who needs to sign the contract because one party may only be paying for the installation and then passing the monitoring and service on to another party. We see this with builders who want to pay for the installation but not the monitoring or service, or owners who pay for fire installation but want the tenant to pay for inspection, monitoring and service. Gets tricky when the first party pays for the service and monitoring even though it's for the benefit of the second party.
Rule of thumb - everyone signs a contract.
**********
More on VoIP
*******
Ken
I just found out from another CASIA MEMBER COMPANY that they are involved in a pissing match with COMCAST.
It seems that the COMCAST WEBSITE says that their DIGITAL VOICE (VOIP) over the CABLE is OK for fire communicators. Nothing is farther from the truth. COMCAST employees keep telling them on the phone that the DIGITAL VOICE is approved for Fire. ((This is the same company that says it is OK to use UNLICENSED SUBCONTRACTORS IN CT WITHOUT A CONTRACTORS LICENSE,....These are the people that install the equipment improperly that the CABLE COMPANY gets the blame for.)
NFPA72 REQUIRES FIRE COMMUNICATORS BE CONNECTED TO THE PSTN>
> PUBLIC SWITCHED TELEPHONE NETWORK.< This seems to me to define POTS LINES......
Comcast says it isOK, the dealer says it is not.The dealer cannot convince the customer that he needs a POTS LINE or a UL LISTED PRIMARY COMMUNICATION PATH. (Listed radio repeater, listed GSM etc.))
IP is not approved for solo or primary fire communications that I am aware of at this time.
Customer at this time might be searching for another alarm company that doesn't mind taking the risk or doesn't know....
Joel Kent
FBN Security Co LLC
********
Ken—More on VoIP
The Phone and Cable Co’s are reporting over 50% of the US has switched form Pots Lines to IP (Internet Protocol) / VoIP ,I can see over the next year –well before the FCC POTS lines 2014 sunset--- VoIP will be in over 80% + of US Home’s and Business’s . IP (Internet Protocol) , Radio, Cell /GMS Communications Networks are here to stay , more & new services will connect the Alarm Industry worldwide via the Internet—and video will lead the way. Along with these network communications changes will come revising in Insurance coverage’s providing of All Digital /Electronic Data (monitoring) Liability, Crime, Media, & Assets Protection Coverage’s. These are great times for growth in the Security / Communications Industries, preparing and understanding will effect change in everyone.
Michael J. Kelly
********
Ken:-
In your May 28 newsletter a comment made by I. Hayden of Florida made reference to the phase out of analogue pots lines in 2014.
Has the FCC actually mandated a phase out date or is this a supposition on the part of the writer? It would seem to me to be a rather quick decision on the part of the FCC if this has actually been ruled upon already.
Dave Currie
Damar Security Systems
Sarnia Ontario
************ ANYONE KNOW ANSWER TO THIS ONE????
********
Ken,
Thank you for printing the eight word comment that I sent you; I'd like to elaborate.
I said it sounds like a class action against the VoIP providers because I believe there is gross negligence on the part of the VoIP providers because that they willing know, once the technician enters the home and see's the alarm key pad, that altering the phone service jeopardizes the functionally of the systems ability to communicate. Many systems have smoke or heat detection which implies that the consumer is concerned about life safety.
I think that a claim of gross negligence could be sustained because of the volume of the repeated act, and the willful disregard of the customers expectation of telecommunications services.
Bart Didden
********
Battery replacement comment
*******
Ken
I missed the post on changing batteries every 3 years and someone using a 4amp instead of a 7. Do you have that article somewhere? [most articles are posted on my web site at http://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/emailarticles.htm ]
We never use the Casil or battery that comes in a kit unless it's a DSC, elk battery. Interstate has a 5amp that's the same size as the 4amp. Doing a simple battery calculation will tell you if a small system can get by 12 hours without AC power. Of course, that's a residential not a fire system. Most of them require 60 standby with 15 minutes of A/V.
As for "free batteries" it is on a select basis and is not an advertised policy. Believe you me, we do get the cost of the battery down the line, but thanks for looking out for us.
John Elmore
Security By Elmore Inc.
*******
Lead Paint comments:
********
To Dave Myers:
Drilling hole or scratching material with wire or sharp object does "disturb" the material. Even airflow through plenum space is slowly removing layers of asbestos and lead, spreading it throughout the building. The point is - what amount of this "toxic" material is released. It is unreadable amount compared to your car or truck exhaust - yet you're allowed to drive. Be realistic and stop supporting dumb regulations. There are more important things we need to worry about if we want to be "green".
Dusan
********
“LH” from Arkansas
is missing the boat the key point is protection for KID’S UNDER 6. That 1/64th is enough to do permanent damage to a kid. It’s not there to protect anyone else. “LH” would never have been impacted in his foil days but that 1/64th has caused significant damage to kid’s under 6 and that is why the emphasis on women who are pregnant (the baby, not the woman) and kid’s under 6. Snaking wires as Dave Myers pointed out is actually not the concern of the EPA as the paint is on the outside layers deep on the wall. But pulling on a single piece of molding along an old door to wire is already meeting the 6 sq. ft rule. And don’t forget if you are part of a larger project the whole project impacts if you need to comply and be certified. Otherwise you need to wait until afterward and need to collect proof that the areas you are working on afterward have been done properly. If they aren’t and then you come in and assume….
Jason Etter
AVX Integrated Technologies
********