Why We Need Customer Lists


The primary reason that any alarm ordinance fails is due to a failure to enforce the ordinance. The number one reason an ordinance is not enforced is because the municipality is unable to get the alarm users registered. For these reasons many new ordinances require that all alarm companies with customers in the jurisdiction provide a list of their customers in a form dictated by the alarm administrator.

Some of these ordinances go one step further and require that a new list be provided on a periodic basis.

Virtually every jurisdiction that has either adopted non-response, or has considered a non-response position, had an ordinance that was passed but was never enforced. It is not unusual for an alarm company, or group of companies, to refuse to provide their customer lists to the alarm administrator. Without this information, how are the police supposed to identify who the alarm owners are?
In these cases, what would be the best way for a jurisdiction to address the registration process?

1. Companies must provide a customer list or be penalized.
2. Companies could optionally be responsible for all registrations and fee collection.
3. The Alarm Administrator simply stops response to any system that is not registered.

Do you have any other ideas on how to address this problem? Let us know by responding to this blog.

About justwrite15

Dave's column has run in multiple small town newspapers across the U.S., in Nebraska, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas,where Dave has been able to entice personal friends and editors to run his social commentary. His column has also been picked up by www.coastalmonroe.com. It has appeared in newspapers since 1998, and began in response to one of the school shootings so depressingly familiar in America. His commentary has morphed into a weekly offering of humor, insights and advice on how to find sanity in an insane world.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Why We Need Customer Lists

  1. Billy says:

    When a response is made, the responding party (Police/Fire/etc) should verify if the alarm is registered. If they are not sure, they should respond. If they find out the alarm is not registered THEN they should fine the owner.
    If the idea is to have people register alarms to TRACK response and curve nuisance alarms, then having a non-registered alarm is really not hurting anyone. Unfortunately, the reason given for registration (the why) does not match HOW it is administered. HOW it is administered often is more in line with a TAX than a simple “community benefit.”
    As incompetent and MANY government agencies have proved to be time and time and time again, why would any company want to provide them with a customer list?

    • SIAC INC says:

      Billy, We do agree with you that law enforcement should respond whether or not a system is registered and subsequently issue a fine if it was not, yet mandated by ordinance. Registration of these systems is important in not only determining who is responsible for the system operation but also in providing law information the information on who should be contacted if an actual crime has taken place. Re: providing of our customer lists, the fact is that these agencies will eventually acquire that information through public sign-up and solicitations to comply with the law. As an industry we advocate being supportive of our law enforcement partners by voluntarily providing this information. Registration fees are a separate issue, however we do believe they are fair in helping the agency recover administrative costs associated with alarm response. It removes the argument often given by non-alarm users that their tax dollars are supplementing a service they do not use. Thank you for taking a moment to post you thoughts on this issue. Stan Martin, Executive Director, SIAC

  2. Billy says:

    >As an industry we advocate being supportive of our law enforcement partners by voluntarily providing this information.
    I agree, as an industry we should support our fire/medical/ and police. This is to OUR benefit.
    But, I do not agree we support them blindly or assume they are run efficiently and always handle things correctly.

    Perhaps you could/should do a survey of central stations and ask, “Has someone from a law enforcement agency ever called one of your customers AFTER you dispatched (even on a duress)” I believe you will find, most central stations have seen this happen. Not often, but it DOES happen. The very people we rely on to protect OUR CUSTOMERS sometimes out of misunderstanding, complacency, or neglect are careless by CALLING OUR CUSTOMER because they have the ability to do so. Thus, potentially putting someone already duress in even more danger.
    Furthermore, I have talked to at least eight officers in multiple cities AFTER an ECV ordinance went into affect. NOT A SINGLE ONE knew the ordinance had gone into affect and not a single one stated they noticed a difference. I do believe their WAS a difference made, it was just not noticed nor was it noticed.
    Good news: One officer, per my request, after discussing ECV with him called back to say, “YES! The nuisance alarms do seem to much less.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s