More things for AMAZON/Ring to think about before becoming a serious player in the Remote-Monitoring segment of the US alarm security industry.
FIRST, identify related “barriers” for AMAZON/Ring (and others)
(DO NOT allow itself, or its monitored alarm citizen customers)
~ to be burdened by local municipal registration/permits/fines/ fees, different for most of the 15,000 municipalities in the US.
~ to participate in “demographic discrimination”, which is quite common among the 15,000 municipalities.
~ to pay for UPR-Unnecessary Police Response, different for most of the 15,000 municipalities and selected citizens.
~ to be dictated by local municipalities as to what equipment /technology/procedures can or cannot be purchased or applied to its private property.
~ to be subjected to unauthorized documentation and sharing of personal and private matters.
~ (others upon request)
NEXT, quickly remove the above listed “barriers” for AMAZON.Ring and monitored citizen customers. This can be done by dissolving the “public/private partnership” and “model ordinance”, crafted by the self-serving alarm associations and the receptive municipalities several decades ago… aka collusion, and other unprofessional or unlawful purposes. Most of the 15,000 municipalities have much of the original language in local alarm ordinance or policy, that require “alarm suppliers” and citizens to participate in registration /fines /fees /permits, all of which restrict mass marketing and mass delivery to the basic public. We believe AMAZON has the muscle to select several high visibility municipalities to deliver their message and quickly establish legal precedent across the industry to quickly and legally deliver their services. We believe they have the legal tools to quickly dissolve nearly all of the restrictive and disruptive legislation. The surviving model legislation/policy, if any, would not, in any way, disrupt 911 rules and protocol or public safety.
About the existing players… Our crystal ball suggests we are seeing the end of the “traditional alarm industry”, and most everything related to it. Licensed remote monitoring firms, like ADT, Monitronics, Lydia/C.O.P.S, EM24, Stanley, (and several thousand more), will quietly re-package/label their monitored customers as “Deterrent Type” or “Defensive Type” (definitions upon request). “Deterrent” customers will receive customer notification only, not public emergency notification. Whereas, “defensive” customers will receive public emergency notification, and customer notification. Estimates suggest 90% of current monitored customers are “deterrent type”, aka the false alarm problem, thus finally halting the 98% UPR- Unnecessary Police Response.
Source: Lee Jones, Support Services Group; LeeSSG@att.net
