Re: Need to cut through the BS on Alarm monitoring costs

[blueman <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx>]

nick markowitz <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Feb 1, 5:34Â pm, blueman <NOS...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I am looking for honest, unbiased, unemotional answers to this
>> question. (I know it's Usenet, but one can always hope...)
>>
>> I currently have a fire & burglary monitoring policy with the local
>> dominant alarm company. I own the equipment and I am responsible for
>> service charges to fix the equipment.
>>
>> They charge me $36/month for straight Internet monitoring.
>>
>> National online monitoring companies offer seemingly the same service
>> for $8.95/month. Or 1/4 the cost.
>>
>> My high-priced local company claims:
>> - They are big (20,000 customers) - but the national competitor claims
>> Â  40,000 customers
>>
>> - Their service center is "local" -- but it's really halfway across the
>> Â  state so does that really mean anything in the day of the Internet
>>
>> - They are a "security company" vs. competitors being "monitoring"
>> Â  companies. Though not sure what that means or why I care
>>
>> - They have a 5-star UL-listed center - but the national competitor
>> Â  claims to be UL-listed and it's not clear what 5-stars means and who
>> Â  even grants such certification. Sounds like marketing hype.
>>
>> - They have 30-second average response time -- but competitor claims the
>> Â  same
>>
>> - They say they have a better BBB track record than big national
>> Â  competitors - but the competitor claims an A+ BBB rating which can't
>> Â  be too bad
>>
>> The bottom line is that I can't see one compelling reason to pay 4 times
>> the competitor rate for what seems to be a commodity service.
>>
>> - I live in a very safe, low crime neighborhood.
>>
>> - I primarily pay for the monitoring to get the insurance break.
>>
>> - I don't stay up nights worrying about fires or burglaries and in any
>> Â  case I still have the in-house alarm to warn me of a fire and scare
>> Â  off amateur burgalers.
>>
>> - I am technically adept and have no problem servicing and programming
>> Â  my system
>>
>> Seems like worst case perhaps the response time will be a few seconds
>> longer in some rare cases or maybe there is a small chance they will
>> make a mistake -- but the point is that there are so many other failure
>> points in a security system and we are talking about rare events (fire,
>> burglary) anyway.
>>
>> So, why pay 4 times as much????
>
> Go to that national service and find out the hard way. What they
> promise and what they deliver is another story.
> I have seen national centers take 20 minutes to dispatch a fire
> system . owe did I mention the phone calls in middle of night because
> your system did not test or some other thing that could wait till
> morning  go ahead go to that other service you will gladly pay 10
> times the cost to go back to what you have.

I asked to avoid the emotional marketing hype and hyperbole.
- I highly doubt 20 minutes to dispatch a fire system is the rule or
  even the exception
- I hightly doubt test calls in the middle of the night are a regular
  feature (they staff less overnight and probably have to pay more).
- I highly doubt it would be worth paying 4 times the amount let alone
  10 times for a protection that I barely use (the burgularly part since
  we often don't even arm the system) or the rare case of a fire where
  we are away or don't hear the alarm and need someone else to call for
  us

I would almost guarantee you work for one of those companies trying to
scam users with high fees.

Your response was a waste of bandwidth and exactly what I wanted to
avoid.

I would be happy to entertain fact-based and documented differences in
service levels. But ridiculous generic scare stories without facts or
logical basis are less than worthless...