Support Services Group | 11/04/17 08:11pm
Thousands of municipalities all across the country have some form of legislation that prohibits the use of “Automatic Voice Dialers” for emergency communication to a public safety agency. Most stakeholders are unaware that this is the silent “mandate” for live interactive voice communication between private monitoring firms and public police response…. the foundation for the remote monitoring segment of the alarm security industry, now 30 Million RR customers.
Excerpts from a Model Ordinance:
AUTOMATIC VOICE DIALER means any electrical, electronic, mechanical, or other device capable of being programmed to send a prerecorded voice message, when activated, over a telephone line, radio or other communication system, to a public safety, public safety or emergency services agency requesting dispatch.
- DUTIES OF THE ALARM USER: …. not use Automatic Voice Dialers.
- DUTIES OF ALARM COMPANY… Each Alarm Installation or Servicing Company shall: not use Automatic Voice Dialers.
Ever wonder about the consequences if such restrictions go away? And the impact on market value of RR-Recurring Revenue; and the business model of the traditional remote monitoring segment of the alarm industry; and related products/services from IPVM members and friends?
Many monitoring firms are delivering about the same questionable results as the “automatic voice dialer”... forcing AHJ to treat/ignore voice calls from monitoring firms same as dialer calls, with little or no priority. Current generations of DIY and MIY technologies, and powerful new players like Google, suggests the outdated restrictions/mandate will go away, giving the customer the option of free monitoring vs fee monitoring. Even several Alarm Associations are promoting the removal of that mandate, in support of their dubious program of ASAP-to-PSAP, which can backfire and expedite the destruction of RR market value.
How should the alarm industry react? Maybe do nothing and watch the carnage? Maybe do something to justify fee monitoring? Maybe do something to justify the fee? Maybe do something to justify privileges related to professional licensing? Maybe accept some accountability? Maybe we will have answers when/if ADT stakeholders exit via their planned IPO?
Observations from Lee Jones; Support Services Group; email@example.com