Subscribe to


CSAA and IAFC do some myth busting

Thursday, February 3, 2011

The Central Station Alarm Association worked with the International Association of Fire Chiefs over the past year as the IAFC came up with some proposed NFPA code changes to combat the problem of frequent false alarms in commercial facilities. Now the two groups are fighting claims they’re “in bed” together and that the proposals are dangerous.

Since the IAFC submitted the proposed changes to NFPA 72 in the fall, there has been “considerable misinformation and distortion of the facts at issue,” according to a statement issued by the CSAA in January. That’s why the CSAA is referring the industry to a fact sheet produced by the IAFC to counteract what that group describes as “myths” regarding the proposals. The groups are also urging a national-level discussion on the issue.

The fact sheet, which can be found at, says that among the untruths are claims that a proposed change for a 90-second verification delay is dangerous and that the IAFC is “in bed” with the CSAA because the alarm industry will gain from the changes.

But the IAFC says the 90-second validation delay, for which an AHJ can opt out if it determines it cannot accept such a wait, actually would add to the safety of the public and responders if implemented properly.

The group says such a change would be identical to existing alarm codes for residential properties, where the IAFC says the majority of fire deaths actually occur because homes generally don’t have the fire protections found in commercial facilities.

Also, the IAFC says, a 90-second notification delay to avoid sending responders out to chase a false commercial fire alarm is safer.

“Abandoning a response area for such a low statistical probability (that a false alarm is a real emergency) while medical and other fire responses require resources at a higher percentage actually results in lower reliability and longer response times to statistically higher risk and demand events,” the IAFC states.

As for being “in bed” together, the IAFC strongly refutes that claim in its fact sheet.

“The IAFC knows that partnering with industry to create knowledgeable and realistic solutions benefits the fire and emergency service,” the group said.

It added: “The goal in our relationship with CSAA is not to build solutions that benefit either them or us, but build a better way of working together for the benefit of the fire and emergency service. Language was carefully crafted to ensure that the proposal offered more flexibility for fire chiefs in determining what is best for their community. There are no requirements in these proposals that would directly benefit central station alarm providers over the fire service.  In fact, the proposals would put additional burden and responsibility on those monitoring and maintaining commercial alarm systems.”

I’ll be talking more to the CSAA about this issue and why it’s so important for the industry, as well as the status of the proposed changes … stay tuned to our web site!



Article 6-E comment deadline is here--get your voice heard!

Thursday, February 3, 2011

I've been doing a lot of coverage of Article 6-E. I first wrote about it last year, when it starting causing a stir among users of the ACCENT listserv. I followed the initital story up with another story and a blog post and an edition of ssnTVnews.

Last time I wrote about 6-E I told you that the NYBFAA was looking for input and would hold a discussion forum at its board of directors meeting on Feb. 10. They asked interested attendees to RSVP and said if you couldn't make it, your voice could still be heard by submitting your opinion in writing by the deadling... which is today.

Dale Eller, executive director of the NYBFAA told me that interest was pretty high so far.

Currently, the NYBFAA is preparing to hear arguments pro- and con- at its Feb. 10 board of directors meeting. Dale said that as of the Feb. 3 deadline for submission of written comments on Article 6-E there were 20 RSVPs to attend the Feb. 10 board of directors meeting and open discussion forum. He also said right now there were a dozen concerned security industry members who had voiced their opinion to him in writing.

“The best thing that has come from this experience is the fact that it got everyone talking about what was best for the industry,” Dale told me. “And how everyone could work together proactively to benefit the consumer, public safety and the dealers and monitoring companies.”

Now, most recently over the weekend, I got another letter to add to the ones I've received from Russ MacDonnell at Rapid Response and John Doyle at Doyle Security. This letter was from Jim McMullen at C.O.P.S. Monitoring. They've got four central stations now, and what that means--especially with their technique of active load sharing--is that if 6-E gets passed, they may have to license every single central station operator in all four centrals in the state of New York. Obviously not something that's that cost effective.

From the lettter:

As a general statement, we believe that the services our industry provides are of principal importance to consumers and C.O.P.S. supports all relevant and meaningful regulatory efforts that effectively protect their best interests. In reading the proposed language in article 6E, it is evident to me that the objectives of the legislative review committee are also of this intent and we appreciate your position.

Our experience with state level licensing has been nothing short of interesting. As a national monitoring company, we have amassed a great deal of knowledge from every state that requires licensing. We have encountered strenuous compliance requirements, testing material devoid of any monitoring-related materials, and mandates that we run criminal background checks for our employees in states 3,000 miles away from their homes. The sum of this experience has helped us realize that, even with good intentions, adopted standards do not necessarily protect the consumer the way they intended - nor in a way that even truly makes sense.

With that being said, it is the position of C.O.P.S. Monitoring that alarm dispatcher licensing should be pursued at the national level and not handled on a state-by-state basis. It is on this front that we plan to focus our greatest resources. I am hopeful that the potential exists to make significant progress on this endeavor in the coming months. We respectfully believe that a national standard for dispatchers that focuses on monitoring-related details would ultimately be in the best interests of all concerned parties – including consumers. We would like to see what unfolds by the end of this year resulting from our national efforts before putting any further energy into pursuing implementation of this particular bill.

CSAA president Ed Bonifas has also said that he feels the best route to take is for the industry to focus its energies on a national bill, rather than fight the battle out state-by-state.

Whatever your opinion, fire off an email to Dale Eller over at NYBFAA and get your voice heard.

UK security industry calling for unification under one leader

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

I'll admit it, when I first saw the headline "Leading security industry bodies call for single industry representative" in my inbox this morning, I was pretty tickled. See I wrote a story a while back examining the notion of a single industry body/person to be a representative to the world and the government.

Upon reading the story, I quickly realized it wasn't what I thought and was focused on the UK security industry. I don't pretend to understand how the industry works across the pond, but I have reached out to someone I know in the UK security industry and am hopeful that she'll be able to explain to me the finer nuances of what's going on over there.

Regardless of not understanding all the particulars, it seems clear that the industry over in the Old World is looking for consensus, unification and a single voice with the aim of promoting "a major uplift in the performance of the private security industry, supported by government through UKTI and other agencies, she stated that the aim should be to ensure that UK expertise and innovative security solutions are marketed more effectively both at home and overseas."

That sounded interesting to me, even if they're not calling for Merlin Guilbeau to be the face of the industry the way I did... So just what is the UKTI?

UKTI, or UK Trade & Investment, is an agency that  "works with UK-based businesses to ensure their success in international markets, and encourage the best overseas companies to look to the UK as their global partner of choice."

Hmmm... Sounds like the UK security industry is trying to become more consolidated, more unified, more focused so that they can expand more effectively and more efficiently--both at home and abroad...

I also wrote stories recently about what the US security industry can learn from the UK and about UK security players moving into the US market...

Puline Norstrom director of worldwide marketing for the UK's AD Group, which owns Dedicated Micros among other security interests, in a May interview with me advised the US video monitoring industry to learn from what they had already done in the UK.

Norstrom said her company, along with the British Security Industry Association had developed a video monitoring standard that could easily cross the Atlantic. “The standard—BS 8418—was originally created by the BSIA and it was written around the code of practice that RemGuard was using. That formed the basis of the document,” Norstrom said. “They took it to the British Standards Institute during which time there was a public consultation and lots of industry input, and after about two years the standard was ratified and published in the UK. The standard has been adopted by the police and they issue a URN—unique reference number for a site that is accredited for 8418. What that gives to the user is a guaranteed first level response.” Norstrom said level one meant police respond immediately. Anything other than level one means the police respond “when they get around to it, or they don’t respond at all.”

Now they've formed a whole UK security industry association called the Security Alliance to try and get things done.

This whole thing might merit some close watching...

Vivint, Verizon and the home automation wars

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

UPDATE: I talked to Sam Lucero, ABI Research practice director, about Vivint's entrance into the home automation market. He actually includes Vivint in the same category as telcos like Verizon Wireless in that it provides managed home automation services and is positioned to take advantage of the mainstreaming of the home automation market. Read my story on the SSN web site.

A new ABI Research report says traditional security companies are facing new competitors, such as telcos like Verizon Wireless, in the home automation market.

The report, released yesterday, bases its analysis on what it describes as three ways to offer home automation. But with the announcement I wrote about today that APX Alarm has rebranded as Vivint to better reflect its expansion into the home automation market, I’m wondering if that company’s approach is a new fourth way to offer such home automation services such as automatic door locks, video surveillance, and lighting and small appliance control.

That's because Vivint says its home automation offering is unique in that it won’t cost homeowners much upfront and the company will service and maintain the systems for customers. "Simple, affordable whole-home automation for the average Joe," is how the company describes its offering.

The company’s announcement comes at virtually the same time as the release of the new ABI report describing home automation systems as traditionally falling into two categories: “the economical do-it-yourself model, and the expensive custom-designed installation.”  Because the first requires a homeowner to have technical expertise and the second alternative is expensive, that limits the market, the report says.

However, the report says, an emerging “third way … promises to fuel tremendous market growth:  home automation as a managed service provided by the homeowner’s cable broadband provider or telco.”

According to a statement from ABI practice director Sam Lucero: “Traditional security firms such as ADT will increasingly be joined in the mainstream by these new providers offering managed home automation services.”

Among a number of newer interactive home security products, ADT introduced its Pulse product last fall, and Honeywell has a Total Connect product.

Earlier this month, Security Systems News wrote about Verizon Wireless launching its new home automation bundle offering at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Also, according to ABI, Comcast currently is conducting a trial of a home automation offering in the Houston, Texas area.

I’ll be talking to Lucero later today about the report and how Vivint’s new offering fits into ABI’s analysis of the market. Does the fact that the company is offering a less expensive home automation alternative to homeowners that comes with Vivint’s technical service and maintenance know-how create “a fourth way” to market home automation? That’s what I would like to know.


See Vivint's new logo

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

This morning's announcement that APX Alarm has changed its name to Vivint follows a big celebration at the Provo, Utah headquarters yesterday, I'm told.

Now, if you're trying to keep a lid on something, telling hundreds of staffers isn't generally the best strategy. It is a good way to get buy-in from employees, however. And if you're asking those employees to go out and bang on doors all day long, their buy-in is key.

When Brink's Home Security changed its name to Broadview in June 2009, and then again when Tyco announced it would purchase Broadview, many Broadview dealers were taken by surprise. And, while they wouldn't say it on the record, several I spoke with didn't like the surprise. Of course, the fact that Brink's and Tyco are public companies makes these kinds of announcements much more complicated. There are many things that a private company like Vivint is free to do that public companies just can't.

My point here, however, is that involving the employees in a major way is just plain smart politics. COO Alex Dunn, who knows a little something about political strategy, having spent some time as an operative in Massachusetts government, told me that employees were actively involved in the rebranding process all along the way.

“Rebranding is as important for our employees as it is for anyone,” he said. “We’ve had a tremendous amount of internal communications and meetings. And the name change itself is not the point, the point is expanding our focus.”

And interestingly, even though they had a big party in Provo yesterday, and staffers have known the new name for weeks, word didn't seem to leak outside of the Utah Valley in a big way anyway. Here's a link to their website, where you can see their new orange logo.

Show some customer love with free classes

Monday, January 31, 2011

A new tip from the Security Industry Alarm Coalition made me think about Valentine’s Day, which is right around the corner. That’s because SIAC’s suggestion—to offer free alarm system classes to customers—is all about getting closer to your customers and the police department, and helping your business to boot.

According to SIAC, offering such classes has a host of benefits.

“Your state or local electronic security association (or your company) can get great visibility from such a program, and build a better relationship with the police department. In the process, you’ll help customers operate their systems more effectively, reduce calls for police dispatch and create a closer relationship with your customers, leading to sales growth,” according to SIAC’s blog on its web site.

If your company or association doesn’t want to take the lead on this, suggest it to your local police department, SIAC suggests.

The group said that the police department in Casa Grande, Ariz. is launching such a free class to the public to reduce the number of false alarms demanding police attention there.

The new class will show what to do if an alarm goes off, and how to obtain an alarm permit, a requirement to operate the system in the city, according to SIAC.

As incentive, the city offers a $50 waiver certificate good for one year toward outstanding cost recovery fees, SIAC said.

“It’s a good plan. Those of us in the electronic security industry should take heed,” SIAC said.

Valentine’s Day is coming up. Maybe it’s time to show a little more love to your customers, local police, and your business, by offering some free alarm know-how.


PrivateBank, Pinnacle and Kratos people

Thursday, January 27, 2011

My inbox this morning included a couple interesting "people moving to new jobs" news items.

First, PrivateBank officially announced today that Jennifer Holloway, formerly in charge of M&A for Protection One, is their new managing director for the Security Industry Group. Before she took the job with PrivateBank, Jennifer provided some great analysis for SSN on several transactions, most recently on the Monitronics sale. She won't be as free to comment on stories now, we know, but look forward to continuing to work with her.

From the release: "We are thrilled that Jennifer has joined our group at The PrivateBank. She brings over 15 years of experience providing financing to the security industry.  She is a perfect fit for our team and will help us better serve our clients,” said Mark Melendes, managing director of the Security Industry Group.

And speaking of PrivateBank, I only learned a couple months ago that Sean Forrest, who formerly was with PrivateBank as a managing director of the Securty Industry Group, moved to Pinnacle Security to become their CFO. That actually happened in the fall. Seems like quite a switch, but working for a security company isn't new for Sean, who worked as CFO for Tim Whall (now CEO of Pro One) when Whall was at HSM. Sean's going to be presenting at the Barnes Buchanan Conference in a couple weeks.

The security industry is a tangled web indeed.

In another, unrelated people move, I saw that  Kratos Defense & Security announced today that Fred Thomas has been promoted to VP of Operations for its Public Safety and Security (PSS) Division. He'll report to Ben Goodwin, president of the Public Safety and Security Division and be responsible for overseeing all operational, programmatic, and customer overall development aspects of the PSS Division. From the release: "Mr. Thomas' promotion supports Kratos' broader corporate strategy to expand its presence in the critical infrastructure, homeland security, surveillance and public safety market, which also included the recent acquisition of Henry Brothers Electronics in December 2010."


$4 million donation will aid fire research

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Ever wonder about the science behind national fire codes? Well, the Fire Protection Research Foundation is vital to that, and a recent $4 million boost to the foundation’s endowment will aid it in its work, according to the head of the foundation.

The National Fire Protection Association yesterday announced it had made the multi-million-dollar addition to the foundation’s endowment. The nonprofit foundation is involved in research that is key to the success of the industry, ranging from determining the best place to install smoke alarms on an uneven ceiling to what the most effective words are to use in a verbal emergency notification system, so that people can easily understand what to do, according to Kathleen Almand, the foundation’s executive director.

The money will further strengthen the ability of the foundation to do such research, she told me.

“It’s wonderful,” Almand said. She said the endowment “enables us to undertake (research) projects in a very efficient and cost-effective manner.”

The foundation’s endowment now stands at $10 million, Almand said. She said the NFPA established a $6 million endowment for the foundation in 2008 on the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the foundation. The independent foundation is an affiliate of the NFPA and, according to that group, “plans, manages and communicates consortium-funded research on a broad range of fire safety issues in collaboration with scientists and laboratories around the world.”

Almand said, “We have a pretty vibrant research program which is designed to improve the national fire alarm code and the sprinkler standard.”  The foundation doesn’t do the research itself but pays research institutions, such as universities, to do the work, Almand said.

She said an example of such research is work done to determine the optimal spacing requirements for installing smoke alarms on a ceiling that isn’t flat, such as a waffle ceiling or one with beams.

Another example, she said, was research done to determine the best sound for a smoke alarm to emit so it can alert high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, those who are hearing-impaired and even people impaired by alcohol. The elderly, for example, can have difficulty hearing the traditional high-pitched smoke alarm sound, Almand said.

She said research on human subjects showed that the optimum sound was “really a mixed-frequency sound that has both low tones and high tones in it, and that has been proven through these studies to be very effective.”

Also, Almand said, there currently is research underway to determine the best words to use in verbal communication emergency alarm systems. “You have words like ‘Get out of the building,’” she said. “What is the best way to say that from a human behavior perspective? … You don’t want to incur panic.” Also, she said, people with disabilities must be considered in such messages. “Can they hear it, can they see it?” she said.

She said, “That’s an emerging topic because fires alarm systems are being used for emergencies other than fire.”

The research, Almand said, “is all designed to make the NFPA codes and standards better.”


'Top Cop' joins Hall of Famer at LifeShield

Monday, January 24, 2011

Football, law enforcement and home security? They all connect at LifeShield Security.

First, LifeShield announced this past summer that it had brought on NFL Hall of Famer Dan Marino as an investor and to help market its product in television commercials. Now, the company announced last week, it has added John Timoney—“America’s Top Cop”—as an advisor to help the company and customers protect against burglars with the aid of Timoney's inside knowledge of criminals’ minds.

Timoney won the “Top Cop” appellation from Esquire Magazine in 2000, and had led police departments in several of the nation’s largest cities, according to the Yardley, Pa.-based LifeShield. He was chief of the Miami Police Department from 2003-2010, formerly was commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department, and also served as the police chief and first deputy police commissioner in New York City, the company said.

Now, Timoney will be chairman of the LifeShield Law Enforcement Advisory Council, and use what the company called his “legal insider information” on fighting crime to help guide product development and educate management and LifeShield customers on how burglars target residences, according to LifeShield, which formerly was InGrid Home Security.

LifeShield is a wireless digital home security system that’s self-installed and professionally monitored.

The company said Timoney was already a LifeShield customer before his appointment.

“I wouldn't support anything if I didn't believe in it, and I wouldn't believe in anything until I've examined it, and I've examined the LifeShield system. I know the people involved in the company, and I use it, so I know the systems are very good,” Timoney said in a statement.

Mike Hagan, CEO of LifeShield, issued a statement saying: “Timoney is precisely the kind of tough-on-crime person we want advising us—and our customers … LifeShield now has a seasoned, nationally-renowned, career police officer helping us and our customers to truly understand the criminal mind which in turn, helps us to improve our product offering and ultimately, the safety of our customers.”


The great New York State legislation debate!

Monday, January 24, 2011

I first wrote about Article 6-E, the proposed NYS legislation that would require licensing of all central station employees involved in the business of monitoring security systems in New York, a few months ago. Article 6-E is intended to be similar to 6-D, which requires licensing of the installers and service techs who actually go into end users' homes... There have been many voices pro and con, and a good debate is brewing... In addition to speaking with me and getting their voice heard, folks have also been sending their comments in to Ken Kirschenbaum's email newsletter. I've correlated some of the response I've seen there below.

Comments on New York's proposed monitoring license

To: Whom It May Concern:

From: Robert Keefe,  All American Monitoring

RE: Article 6E New York State


I have recently read of the New York State article 6E proposal regarding the separate licensing of Central Monitoring Stations and do not profess to know its content.

I also read Russ MacDonnell’s (of Rapid Response Monitoring) comments and do not detract from them.

I have been in this business as both a Monitoring and Installation Company for almost 38 years. I have seen Licensing and Alarm Ordinances come from nowhere to the bureaucratic and financial situation it is today for all of us.  Over the years, questions have been raised as to its purpose from quality of service to money to restraint of competition.

Fortunately, on the latter, while I have heard those voices over the years, always in the end wiser minds prevailed and restraint never materialized for the good of all.

We also are a Wholesale Central Station Monitoring Company for 1450 Alarm Dealers across the United States.  I agree with MacDonnell, that Dealers are very concerned regarding the monitoring of their accounts to the point we receive their visits from all parts of the country as far away as Alaska on a regular basis.  We welcome their visits and these Dealers go back home feeling they and their customers are in good hands.

Both they and us would have it no other way.

On the Licensing side, let me tell you a little bit about us.  We have been a Central Monitoring Station since 1973 and UL Certified since 1981.  We monitor in all of the United States and are licensed in all states where required with many, many municipal licenses as well. Yes, it is very time consuming and expensive, yet every state and municipality feel their purpose is beyond reproach so on it goes.  I’m not sure it stops as it seems to be the system in place and these jurisdictions want to police their area.

I am in continuous continuing education as you might imagine.

Regarding our Central Station Operation, we have two SIA trained Instructor Operators and all Operators are Level 1 or 2, CSAA certified. They are all fingerprinted and checked for criminal history by the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement. They are well paid and our well qualified trained staff are second to none.

Our technology is the latest and greatest. We meet all the qualifications of a CSAA Five Diamond Central Station.  With all that we would seem to be qualified to monitor anywhere which is true except one location, that is NYC Fire Monitoring which seems to be a very closed group, and extremely difficult to become part of, which is where the tone of my letter is going.  New York State will do as New York State will do and as so many others have done including my state of Florida, so I’m not sure I’m in a place to tell them what to do.  On the restraint side, I get even more concerned and I hope there is no consideration there.

As I said, you would think with our qualifications we would be qualified to monitor Fire Alarms in NYC, but it seems very difficult to accomplish, so we are unable to do that while NYC Monitoring Companies with a Florida License are permitted to monitor Fire Alarms in all areas of Florida as far as I am aware.  If there is to be free and open fair trade, the American way, then I guess New York State will not be much different than most which brings me to my final question, regarding New York City.  If New York State implements Central Station Monitoring Licensing and its intent is not to be restrictive as we would all expect, would that then mean we would be qualified for Fire Monitoring in NYC?

While we all understand that AHJ is the final authority, I would hope NYC Fire Monitoring would be an easier task to accomplish then it currently is for well qualified Central Station’s such as we are.  I would appreciate being advised by someone in the know.

Robert makes a good point: In order to be a successful monitoring station and compete in a free market with other businesses, aren't you already doing a pretty good job of vetting your employees? Why go with more licensing?

Joe Hayes of the NYBFAA has some counterpoints:

Regarding the licensing of alarm monitoring firms.

Point #1 Those who work in NY and hold the Article 6D license (Business of Installing, Maintaining and Servicing Security and Fire Alarm Systems) are required to be fingerprinted and to fingerprint our employees, resulting in a background check of the employees. Hopefully, we all comply with that requirement. We then obtain sensitive information from our subscribers (pass codes, open and closing times, vacation schedules, etc,) and give that information to a monitoring station who may or may not (ask them, and trust but verify) fingerprint their employees. Seems that there is a glaring vulnerability that needs to be closed.

Point #2 It wont be long before some enterprising member of our industry decides to open a monitoring station in, say Mumbai or some other third world call center area. How secure would you feel exporting your client's information to an offshore monitoring station? And what about those alarm companies who monitor critical infrastructure (consider sewer plants, water pumping, electrical substation, I could go on)? Would you feel secure in having someone in a time zone 7 hours or so away monitoring those accounts? Or having access to the account information?

Point#3 There are some in our industry who have been very vocal in their opposition to the proposed Article 6E monitoring law. Those of you who have, just be man enough to take the responsibility for opposing this law (and not proposing an alternative or improvement)  when an event happens that gives a black eye to your industry. An event will happen, it's not a case of if, but when. And then, take responsibility for the law that gets rammed down out throats by the "we need to protect the people" political types. It will be worse than anything we, as an industry create. Coming from a law enforcement background, I know it is always better to police yourself than to have "outsider" police your organization.

Point#4 The NYBFAA is holding an open meeting on Feb 10, 2011 in Albany to hear comments from the industry. Your thoughts? Oh, before you comment, I suggest reading the proposed bill on our website.  Thanks

Joseph Hayes, CPP, PSP, CET

President, NY Burglar & Fire Alarm Association (NYBFAA)

Interesting... Joseph argues that it's better to police oneself than to wait for municipalities to be hurt by rogue central stations or operators from Mumbai...

Someone calling himself Portland Paul also comes down in favor of the licensing, saying it won't be that expensive...:

Let me figure out the increased cost of the proposed licensing requirement in New York  that will be passed on to the Rapid Response Dealers based on the cost of a license in my state, which is $310's every two years.  1200 dealers divided by $310.00 equals $3.87 per dealer every two years or $1.94 a year. Hopefully they already have their insurance coverage handled. That shouldn't change whether you are licensed or not. If you are already following good sound business practices, I doubt the law will have you change anything so your cost shouldn't go up to meet the requirements. If your are using good business practices in the security industry, than you are probably overcharging the dealers anyways. I will pay that $1.94 increase in a heart beat to know that I am dealing with a company that is regulated and following the law. Stop whining. Get licensed. You are already doing it other states, so what is the big deal.

Portland Paul

Someone else going by the name Dusan says it's not about the cost, but about the principle...:

To Portland Paul: It is a big deal! It isn't about the fee. It is about government control, extortion, fines and punishment of working people and businesses. When you allow the government to create unreasonable laws, or laws not clearly black&white on LOCAL LEVEL, then every County, every Town will have different laws. You won't be able to know, or follow the laws, you may not even be allowed to work in a ZIP code other than your own, and if you do, you may face fines and imprisonment. You may get busted by cops, locked up, your truck impounded or broken in - because you failed to recognize some local law which was never published and you couldn't even know existed. That's what LOCAL government control will do.


Morgan Hertel over at Mace CSSS comes down against the proposed licensing law:

To all:

Regarding  6E, and state licensing of out of state central stations.

First of all if you don’t post your real name and company on Kens list no one takes you seriously.

1, New York has no money to fund and administer this program, read the papers they are laying off people everywhere.

2, Even if it were passed NYS has no standing outside their borders, no money to travel and prosecute and therefore cannot enforce this, the only people that will get this is the good guys that already have licensing and good employee screening and training, the rest of the companies will not get licensed and no one will care or be able to do anything about it.

3, The ordinance is poorly written in my opinion, having things like 69-EE, Section 5, Page 6 were principals SHALL be held responsible for the actions committed by their operators is a huge mistake, if you have not read the entire thing you need to.

4, To the group that thinks that legislating competition away is the answer, this is a mistake, dealers are very sophisticated today, saying that there is a threat of having central stations in India will take over is a farce, and if you really are concerned next time you call your bank and get an out of the country call center are you going to pull out of the bank, the world is changing but market forces are much better suited to deal with these concerns.

5, Everyone I have spoke with in the monitoring industry is committed to having cleared, smart and trained operators working, but what we don’t need is to license the same person 100’s of times in all the states and communities in North America, what we want is one federal monitoring license.

It only makes sense, the feds have the best resources to background check, they have standing everywhere in the country. We can still register with the states even pay a fee for this for those states looking for revenue.

Having a federal requirement assures everything you want to accomplish in 6e, makes it enforceable and makes it easier for the national monitoring companies.

Morgan Hertel

Vice President and General Manager

Mace CS

What's your opinion? Voice it here, or better yet, go to the NYBFAA meeting on Feb. 10 or at least draft your POV in a letter or email for the NYBFAA. Get educated by reading the proposal and stay informed. Get involved and make a difference now--when your efforts matter--and not after the decisions have been made when there's nothing to be done.