This IPVM Discussion about San Jose can be an excellent source of funding for this major alarm association, Security Industry Alarm Coalition/ SIAC; although counter-productive to their membership and most of the other Associations membership. We believe San Jose is simply preparing for a transition from police “policy” to municipal “ordinance”. By letting the industry break-down much of the political and citizen resistance by exposing their best (sloppy) performance. Remember, the monitoring segment of the licensed alarm industry has been delivering over 25Million unnecessary requests for police response, to nationwide private alarm customers, every year for several decades, with near total error/false. As much of 18% of local police budgets. Of course police response to the site of alarm customers add much market value. Unsustainable! The dichotomy… SIAC is actually helping many cities craft court tested legislation AGAINST the Association Membership. Including Seattle, Fremont, Fontana, Sandy Springs GA, Detroit, Los Angeles, (hundreds more with slow or no response, not dozens). SIAC forgot to mention that several states have already passed legislation banning/preventing private monitoring firms from even calling the police until performing verification/confirmation. Texas is of the states that passed such legislation following the removal of VR in Dallas….why stop with one community when can do statewide. Another city mentioned by SIAC is Henderson NV… note they substituted B&F Broadcast and File…. worse than VR. Los Angeles the same, went to B&F, now over 40 minute response or not at all, but the customer still pays about $150 just for the first call. Thanks to SIAC. The SIAC “model ordinance” has become a joke among larger munis, as a trojan horse delivering self-serving traps. We believe the template that will gain most traction is SR-Subsidy Recovery, wherein the responsibility will be transferred from the citizen consumer to the monitoring segment of the private security industry… on-demand response will be provided, but all subsidy/fees paid by the monitoring source (major reduction of UPR-Unnecessary Police Response.) After 15 years, Seattle Subsidy Recovery (and others) have been trending templates. Note even Amazon/Ring has a solution to VR Verified Response… private response or just customer notification. Source: Lee Jones; Support Services Group
So I admit I’ve spent the last 30 minutes examining your post, by carefully reading, googling, re-reading and taking a brisk walk while contemplating, and then re-googling and finally rebooting, before making this reply.
My resultant conclusion is that your post betrays a deep and nuanced knowledge of the Byzantine policies and politics of police response to residential alarms, of which I confess I have had little formal training in.
And from the moment I read the opening sentence’s talk of associative “discussion funding” and “trending templates”, I knew I was out of my league.
But although I could not myself fully grasp the meaning of more than a few adjacent words from your post at once, I am quite certain that this is merely due to my own intrusive ignorance. So even if the semantic content hath escaped me, your confidence and emphasis convinces me that your voice is the one that was missing from this discussion, and therefore I shall leave it to you, sir :)
Correction: I added Texas to the short list of statewide legislation that bans alarm companies from calling the police until after interaction with the customer first. The accurate short list = Georgia, Florida, Tennessee (more to come). It does NOT include Texas, however the Texas statewide legislation is similar because it specifically allows ALL Texas municipalities to independently enact near the same legislation as GA,FL,TN. The key word is statewide legislation that offers standardization and guidance to hundreds of municipalities within the State, without alarm association interference. Texas was the first State to adopt such restrictive legislation in 2005. Source: Lee Jones; Support Services Group
Sorry for my confusion. In another post to a different IPVM discussion, I listed Texas same as Georgia, Tennessee, Florida (short list). That was my error.. Texas on different status list but similar, as noted above.
video verification is a great thing, but difficult in that it either requires active monitoring or hoping that someone with access can pull up live feed quick enough to verify or not, and even wake up to the call from central station to make them aware.
Im only saying that 2 trip verification is a great middle ground to help cut down "alot" of false alarms while still allowing for a "passive monitoring" ie. not requiring a home or business owner to act upon an alarm themselves before a dispatch can occur.
In order to make that work, you'd have to mandate that exterior devices be backed by interior devices, which would drive up the price of an awful lot of residential systems. Say goodbye to the volume resi business model...