More On Communication Test Signals / Origin Of ADT Name

August 28, 2013

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

test signals from August 17, 2013 article
*********************
Ken
Thank you for the forum. Many good points!
On the subject of Daily Test Signals may I respectfully suggest that many folk in our industry should wake up and smell the roses.
Test signals on local lines don’t cost anything to receive and process – automation simply auto-logs the signal and the only additional cost is notifying the dealer if there is a fail to test. Test signals on wats lines SHOULD NOT cost more than a penny each - thirty cents a month for a daily test.
The SECURITY RESPONSE CENTER does not charge extra for receiving daily test signals from our dealers! We never have and we never will charge for daily test.
Dealers shouldn’t charge for daily test – they should offer it as a feature/benefit for the customer.
Dave Currie, President
Security Response Center
www.src.net
***************
Response
***************
Dave - but what do you do when you get a test signal or fail to get one; repeatedly?
*************
Dave's response
**************
Ken
Excellent question - if the monitored account belongs to a dealer, we notify the dealer via e-mail with a read receipt. It is important to understand that a dialer that encounters a problem getting a test signal to the station WILL NOT BE ABLE to send an alarm signal either. If the dealer does not correct the problem within seven days there is a second e-mail to the dealer with a read receipt and we advise the dealer that we will not be checking for test signals until they fix the problem and notify us. If the account belongs to our company then technical services investigates and initiates corrective action.
With more and more customers switching to VoIP, or just simply dropping a landline my decision years ago to not charge for test signals has proven to be a wise decision.
Regards.
Dave Currie
*******************
Ken
Excluding commercial Fire alarms which have a mandated 24 hour timer test signal, residential burg and fire and commercial burg already have a mandated monthly test signal requirement. However most Central Stations and Monitoring Stations do not charge extra for a weekly timer test signal. I believe it is in our best interest to program our customers for a weekly test signal. The next question is what do you do if the timer test does not come in. I have my Monitoring Station notify my customer along with me getting an email so it can be followed up on.
I use 2 Central Stations and it is common practice for both to offer a weekly timer test at no additional cost. I am having the Central Station notify my customers when a timer test does not come in. Then If the customer does not test the system or call me, I contact the customer to test the system. If the test goes through fine then I wait to see if the next timer test comes in. If the test does not then I generate a service call.
Bruce Knies
Securi-Com Inc.
****************
Ken
With regards to 24 hour test signals, most monitoring stations do not charge for WEEKLY test signals. This is a no brainier. If your company is in the business of offering"DISCOUNT" monitoring where you try to compete with the Clark Howard doctrine for his listeners listeners when he says DO NOT SIGN A CONTRACT and DO NOT PAY MORE THAN $15 per month, than you should present all the services and get the client to DECLINE services that they do not wish to receive.
Other companies that are concerned with the liability structure their pricing to include the daily test, without the option to decline.
With the frequency of improperly installed 3rd party provider telephone services and customers dropping their wire line phone in favor of CELL ONLY, this would give the monitoring company notice well in advance of a loss that there was no connection to the panel. NFPA72 requires monthly testing of residential fire alarms. Any company that does do daily test is providing SUPERIOR SERVICE that EXCEEDS the code. Remember that CODE COMPLIANCE is the MINIMUM. requirement. What if it was the alarm at your house? Daily test?
Joel Kent
FBN
*****************
Ken,
My firm is a Contract Central Station. My response may be inconsistent with your legal advice. What is it that makes dealers believe a contract for monitoring or installation should in its body address every service that the alarm dealer offers on the system or suggestions that address contingencies for imagined occurrences.
I believe the specifics that the system offers, responses the central station will take providing each service, and suggested options accepted or refused, should be an amendment or attachment referenced in the basic contract. This attached item must have a separate place for signature by the client.
When a dealer starts referencing a system in which they offer tests (daily, weekly or monthly) my assumptions is that it is they are installing systems that make a phone call to report to the central station. This is confirmed when the test is an express concern for an failed phone line.
DEALERS THAT ARE SELLING SYSTEMS TODAY THAT COMMUNICATE BY MAKING A PHONE CALL DO NOT DESERVE THE LABEL, PROFESSIONAL. THESE SYSTEMS THEY INSTALL ARE DOOMED TO FAIL. POTS LINES ARE GOING AWAY. CENTRAL STATIONS ARE EXPERIENCING THESE FAILURES FROM POTS TRANSITION DAILY.
As a Central Station servicing alarm dealers, periodic test are encouraged to the point that we do not charge for monthly test. Many of the more recently offered (in the last 10 years) modes of communication have as an inherent feature that provides communication confirmation separate from a central station monitored test.
I don’t argue the comfort level offered to the client with test more frequent than a monthly test. I question the real value beyond the monthly test (supervised communication excepted). If the dealers respond to the report from the central station in a timely and proper manner, a failed test, the value of the test exists. Too many dealers don’t address failed test with direct and timely notification to the client.
Some will argue the central station should notify the alarm user. As I believe you stated TEST, are in the realm of alarm supervisory conditions. Supervisory messages are best addressed by the dealer who knows the system and the client.
Too often the dealers shirk their responsibility for customer service passing inappropriate duties on the monitoring center. Dealers that do so risk transferring the trust and confidence the customer should have for the dealer, to the central station.
We experience too many subscribers that have lost faith and trust in their dealer. They call the central station seeking guidance to find a dealer who is supportive.
JAMES ESSAM, PRESIDENT
ALARM CENTRAL STATION, INC
BEAVERTON, OREGON
www.alceste.com
*****************
Ken
As David Stillman of Penn security stated, fire alarm systems require the 24 hour auto-test signal for land line systems per NFPA-72 requirements. However, as monitoring technology is moving towards wireless (radio, MESH, cellular, etc.), there are revised requirements based upon the technology utilized. One very important requirement relates to cellular fire alarm systems monitoring, whereas the requirement is a 300 second supervisory testing to verify cellar connection service integrity for fire alarm systems monitoring (for systems solely utilizing cellular and not supported by an alternative land line as a secondary communication link). This means that every 300 seconds the monitoring panel ‘self tests’ and if there is an existing trouble condition on the fire system or a drop out of cellular signal, the central station will report within the 300 seconds a ‘communication failure’, i.e. loss of connection with the cellular communicator. This required programming is most important in that cellular monitoring utilizes a secondary carrier (ex., AT&T) that, depending on the equipment manufacturer and/or carrier, can be a separate charge for the data package selected (some cellular service providers may have a set monthly fee for unlimited data and some charge escalating fees based upon the data package selected/required). We have found in our service area that some fire system monitoring companies have not advised the customer of this requirement and the resulting required data package to meet the requirement. Hence, my recommendation would be to make sure any fire alarm monitoring agreement submitted as providing solely cellular service monitoring notes this requirement and thus, is reflected by the required data package and resulting cost. This addition in the agreement in turn will function as an advisory to the potential customer as to what is mandated by Fire Code and thus, help prevent firms that attempt to undersell a potential account by providing a lower monthly monitoring price as a result of not contracting for the proper data package that allows for the 300 second ‘hand shake’.
Richard Schwank, Vice President, Operations - General Manager
Statcomm Inc.
Mountain View, CA
*************************
Dear Ken:
With regard to the 24 hr test signal question.
Our firm implemented the daily test for every customer about 40 years ago. While not an industry requirement, we found it one of the most useful tools any professional company could have. In that time we have located and prevented what could have been numerous system failures resulting in a loss of life.
Initially lightning strikes on phone lines damaging the RJ jack was by far the most common problem, replaced today by customers changing phone services. We had a period where the new phone provider either miswired the jack or left it disconnected.
Our monitoring price includes the daily test regardless of system size or type. A customer with only two doors contacted can bring you into court for any reason as fast as a customer with a much larger system.
Contacting a customer and telling them their system failed to test provides reassurance to that customer you really do monitor their system, that your company does provide a superior service worthy of what they are charged. It also provides the alarm company customer contact for repairs and system upgrades depending on the extent of system damage.
Last but, not least, no lawsuits = lower alarm company insurance premiums
Respectfully,
John W. Yusza, Jr., President
Monitor Controls, Inc.
Wallingford, CT
www.monitorcontrols.com
*******************
origin of ADT name
*******************
Ken
I've always heard that ADT was an English company and stood for American District Telegraph. Do you know if that is correct?
Really enjoy your updates.
Thanks
John Elmore
*******************
Response
*******************
Can anyone help out with answer to this one?
*******************