Why millions of home alarm systems are useless…

 

Bad_install_1

The image above summarizes, for me, everything that is wrong with the security industry (click on the image for a bigger version). The installation is absolutely criminal and how any company could charge a dime for monitoring a system like this is beyond my comprehension. In the race to offer the cheapest possible alarm in order to generate a monthly monitoring fee, far too many systems have been installed like this offering a false sense of security to literally millions of Canadians, Americans and other unsuspecting victims.

There are so many things wrong here that it is hard to know where to start. Here is a short list of the 3 most important issues:

1. The keypad is actually the control panel. This particular model is called a Lynx and is manufactured by Honeywell. However, most of the major manufacturers have their own version of an “all-in-one” control panel, siren & keypad (Here is a link to GE’s version). These all-in-one models were designed to simplify installation and are typically part of “free” or low-cost alarm systems. They are all equally useless.

The most important problem with systems like this is the fact that you need to have a delay time in order to open your door and get to the keypad each time you enter your home. So, when a crook breaks in, they also have the same amount of time. If the crook follows the sound of the beeping keypad they will be standing in front of not only the keypad, but the brains of the alarm system. So, rather than punching in a valid code, the crook could simply rip the entire unit off of the wall.

Provided that they rip the panel off of the wall before the alarm sends its first signal, it will never be able to send a signal.

2. If point #1 wasn’t bad enough (or maybe because the installer who put the ’system’ in realized how useless it was going to be) the power supply for the system is located right beside the keypad/control panel. Unplug the transformer (which is just barely able to stay plugged in as it is) and the alarm loses power. This provides a really convenient way for someone to either accidentally or intentionally unplug the system and wait for the back-up battery to die.

3. Even worse, the phone jack has also been located beside the power supply. The phone jack is the alarm systems only connection to the outside world. If it gets unplugged, the system cannot communicate and a crook would not have to go through the hassle of ripping the panel off of the wall.

In this particular install, a crook need not even reach all of the way in after breaking the window to unplug the alarm system because the phone line is less than six inches from the window.

Even if there was a glassbreak sensor installed, the fact that the phone line is so easily accessible would render it useless because it could easily be unplugged before the alarm tripped.

Unfortunately, a system like this one offers absolutely zero security value. It’s only purpose is to allow an alarm company to collect a monthly monitoring fee and hope the client does not figure out how misplaced their trust in the company was.

Hundreds of thousands of systems (actually, probably a lot more) like this have been installed all over North America as part of “free” or low cost alarm systems. Rather than an alarm company having to spend several hours installing seperate keypads, siren and control panel, this set-up allows a company to send out ‘installers’ who literally require no experience whatsoever to simply mount these types of systems. Nice, quick and easy install : no security value.

Lessons?

1. Your control panel needs to be as far away from your keypads as possible. At a minimum, it should take longer to find your control panel than your entry delay time. If possible, the control panel should be hidden.

2. The siren needs to be located away from your control panel so that crooks cannot simply follow the noise of your siren to locate your control panel location.

3. The alarm phone jack, transformer and control panel should not be visible from the outside of your home.

4. If you are willing to spend a monthly monitoring fee, you might as well be willing to spend a little extra up front to ensure that your alarm is actually capable of justifying any monthly expense. Otherwise, forget paying for monitoring and spend that money on better locks, stronger glass and other physical security measures.

The good news?

This particular system is being pulled off the wall and replaced with a proper system by Provident on Monday.

 

Posted October 13th, 2006 by mjagger in Burglary Statistics, Commentary | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 

67 Responses to “Why millions of home alarm systems are useless…”

Dan Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 5:23 am

It doesn’t matter if the Alarm has time to send the signal. If it is ripped off the wall, during the inital delay, that interruption of the alarm will send a signal to command central.

Eric Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 5:53 am

Your points seem spot on to me, and they raise an additional question: what about the external telephone interface? In most residential situations these are positioned for easy access by telco staff — or burglars! This seems just as bad as the obvious placement of the alarm system phone jack inside the house. What can be done to reduce this risk?

JP Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 5:57 am

None of this matters if the alarm system in supervised — i.e. if the phone line itself has monitoring on it, the alarm monitoring company will know if the phone line has been cut or if the power has been removed.

So, if the system is supervised, then it doesn’t matter if all the components are accessible. It’ll still trip the alarm remotely.

James Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 6:21 am

Another strike against – the keypad is right next to a window, so anybody with some time on their hands and a pair of binoculars can watch the disarm code being entered.

mkane Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:20 am

You are absolutely right. We had a spate of break-ins in the neighborhood, everyone had alarms. The thieves simply cut the phone line to the houses; rendering the systems useless. Unless you have an added cell phone system (at 2-3 times the cost) there’s no point in even paying for a regular phone system.

I reached the conclusion that having a home alarm is about as useless as a car alarm, unfortunately.

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:45 am

Actually, if this particular model (or anyone like it) is ripped off of the wall before it has gone into alarm mode, it cannot send a signal because there is no longer a connection for it to do so. That is the problem.

Peeping Tom Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:48 am

Umm … Why just not sit across the street and watch them punch in the code through the window. The technical term for this is the same as it is for watching people put in their pin at an ATM or their password on their computer … “Shoulder Surfing”

erik Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:49 am

While I agree heartily with points 1 and 3, point 2 is, for 99% of alarm systems, inaccurate. Every alarm system I’ve worked with and/or used employs a back-up battery that can run the system for at least 4 hours. I’d guess that the alarm manufacturers do this to help the system last through power outages, but it would also avoid situations like you’re describing, where unplugging the transformer would disable the system.

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:51 am

re: Eric’s comment about external phone interfaces:

You are correct that this is also a major weakness of most alarms. To deal with this risk, you should look into options for physically protecting your phone box and/or installing a cellular back-up system with your alarm. With a cellular back-up, your alarm can send a wireless signal as soon as your lines are cut… ensuring that the central station gets the signal.

Here is a link to a post I wrote a while ago about the cellular issue: http://www.providentsecurity.ca/blog/2006/03/increase_in_pho.html

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 7:57 am

re: erik’s comment about the transformer

You are correct that most systems have the back-up battery. This particular system does as well (although whether it could last for 4 hours is unlikely) … as I pointed out in the post, a crook would still have to wait for the back-up battery to die. My point is that this installation gives a really easy way for someone to even accidentally up-plug, or knock, the transformer putting the system at risk of using up all of the back-up battery.

In this installation, even if that Lynx panel was going to be used, the transformer and phone jack should have at least been installed inside a closet on the other side of the wall or pulled through the wall into the basement. Neither should be visible.

erik Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 8:02 am

mjagger – you’re absolutely right. Fortunately I can sleep sound at night, knowing that the control panel (and transformer and phone drop) for my alarm system at work is locked away behind three doors in my server room. Sure – that’s the place a would-be thief would expect it to be, but I’d behoove them to get into the room before the timeout elapses. ;-)

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 8:08 am

That is the way it should be. Most crooks might know where to look to find the panel (or at least where the typical locations are), but it should always be impossible to get to those locations inside of the delay time. As pointed out in other posts, your delay time should be as short as possible, and you need to five minute proof your most important possessions.

Here is a link to a post about ‘five minute proofing’ http://www.providentsecurity.ca/blog/2006/03/five_minute_pro.html

Dave Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 10:20 am

As a former alarm operator I guess I’ve seen or heard it all. Until now. Let’s be optimistic though. Some alarm installs include the “apparatus” of an alarm system that a person looking to defeat it would be drawn to tamper with. For example, a fake phone line running across the side of a building is deliberately planted to fool slightly more organized burglars into cutting it – thereby triggering an *actual* signal event over the *real* phone line buried underground. Maybe – and this is a big maybe – all this apparatus is a decoy. The owner and/or installer may have agreed this would be the best way to detect an early attempt to beat the system.

Okay, probably not, but I’m throwing that out there.

Nathaneiljla Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 11:01 am

I’m actually in the middle of picking out a system to do myself and I’m considering that same unit. It may not be as secure as a vista-20p, but you can use an external siren with the lynx, hide the unit somewhere and then use additional keypads to arm and disarm the unit….at least that’s my current plan. Point being all in one units aren’t nessecarly pointless if you know how to work around the faults.

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 11:14 am

If you are going to add all of the external devices, then why bother with the Lynx? I would suggest having a Vista 15P panel installed.

Supermike Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 11:28 am

1) I would reason to bet that there are devices you can purchase that simply snap on the phoneline outside the house, causing a fake “I’m OK” signal to go back to the alarm provider.

2) You can throw a ball through a window remotely to see if the house is armed. If you’re caught throwing the ball, claim stupidity, such as working in a field, saw this ball or rock in your way, and threw it, accidentally hitting the window by mistake.

3) Most police officers are already overwhelmed by alarms. One can move in quickly in a distant rural community in a large county with little detection. If you go on a stormy day when alarms are already being tripped by accident, the odds are higher you won’t get noticed.

4) The first thing to go for is the horn, then the power supply. Some houses even have an emergency breaker outside that cuts off all power to the house so that the alarm battery drains fast.

5) Most alarm panels are within 10-15 foot radius of a given door.

rev_matt Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

I will echo the comments about the monitoring center getting a notification even if the crooks cut the phone line and the power to the house. I know because when most of our city lost power and our neighborhood lost phone service during a big storm this summer I got a call in under 5 minutes on my cell phone from my alarm company checking to see if everything was OK.

mjagger Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

re: rev_matt

The reason you got a call was because the power was lost, which generates a signal on some systems. However, had the phone lines gone out first, then the power, the monitoring station would not have known anything.

docatomic Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 8:12 am

I would be strongly tempted to leave this alarm system exactly the way it is. I would then remote the *real* alarm system somewhere else, and strengthen the vestibule greatly – make it auto-locking, and escape-proof. Then, sit back and watch the fun! After all; why not give the cops some extra business, and make them work a bit for their pay? Hey – e-businesses do the same, with “honeypot” systems… let’s deliberately set things up a bit to catch some flies then, shall we? ;-)

Jaimy Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 6:37 pm

The external siren for the Lynx is useless (and needs ac power) and you CANNOT add additional keypads, only additional keyfobs. Go for the V20 rather than the V15.
It’s amusing to read about people doing their own “research” and assuming that they are now well informed. Give me this guy’s info and I’ll leave his house with a couple thousand. Asshole.

rentAroom Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pm

To all you alarm guys. Reading the post, I was thinking, why don’t we just install a pad outside, and have a much shorter, or nil, delay? I get home, punch in my code and then unlock the door? Just a thought, my garage door has an outside pad!

Jkeres Says:
October 18th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

In reply to rentAroom, the exterior keypad isn’t as secure as one inside the house. The components of the alarm system should not be easily accessible, for several reasons. It can be tampered with. It’s exposed to the elements. An overlay or other monitoring device on the panel can be used to capture your code, unless it’s a Hirsch scramblerpad type. By keeping the components within the alarm perimeter, you also increase their security. At the least, it should be locked behind a gate or other perimeter control means. It may be a compromise between security and convenience which decides your configuration.

Paul Crowley Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 10:18 am

Supermike – you can cryptographically authenticate the “I’m OK” signal to defeat your point 1.

Snowflake Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 10:35 am

When I moved into my townhouse complex, a friend who lived in the adjacent complex said “get an alarm”. I poo-pooed the idea, mostly for the reasons given in the above post. They just didn’t seem practical for the location.

A year later, we were broken into. The thieves broke the easiest window to replace. They took the easiest things to pick up (our DVD’s, and my wife’s jewelery). Then they left. According to other residents in my complex, this is exactly the pattern of theft that has been recorded at almost every unit. Everyone (me too) buys an alarm system once they’re broken into.

We can’t prove it, but we’d all bet money that the alarm companies are paying local kids to do the break ins.

mjagger Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 10:44 am

Snowflake: hopefully it isn’t the security company… you might be interested in my post about the typical residential burglary:

http://www.providentsecurity.ca/blog/2006/04/a_typical_resid.html

It describes how virtually every burglary happens and outlines what you can do to help reduce your risk. As most people keep their possessions (the ones that crooks want) in the same places, most bne’s look similar. In Vancouver, the vast majority of burglaries are committed by drug addicts who sell the stolen goods within an hour of stealing them for about 10 cents on the dollar. Occasionally we see kids breaking in, but those break-ins tend to be a little different in that they are looking for snowboards, or other similar higher priced goods that do not need to be sold as quickly as the things taken by drug addicts.

Curt Sampson Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 7:55 pm

If you’re going to pay for monitoring, it would seem to me prudent to spend the extra $40/month or whatever it is that BCTel charges for an “alarm” link that is continuously monitored. (This is basically just straight copper between you and the monitoring company.) Assuming that BCTel still sells these, of course.

Back in the mid-90s I was in an office over a jewelry store on Broadway; we had a standard “dial-out” alarm. Burglars decided to break into the jewelry store one night, and the first thing that they did was cut the telco entrance cable. That completely disabled our alarm, but the jewelry store’s monitoring company knew about the break-in even before the burglars had gotten inside.

solinym Says:
October 21st, 2006 at 1:38 am

The “keypad outside” is feasible if it’s not a keypad, but rather just a (cheap) sensor that talks to a circuit inside. Check out http://www.ibutton.com for some clever little things that can do a full cryptographic handshake – random challenge and crypto authentication. Since the challenge is large enough, and random enough, that it will never repeat, you could even do it wirelessly, like a garage door opener on steroids.

If you’re interested in my progress on this, email me, at gmail.com…

Knight Technician Says:
November 18th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

true there are many identifiable problems with this system pictured, best installations should have the main panel located in a closet, on-top of a cam-lock the installer should use screws to secure the enclosure cover which makes the perp take longer in attempting to disable the system, 2 of the holes provided in the back of the enclosure should be mounted into the stud to make it more difficult to attempt to yank the enclosure from the wall, telco RJ-31-X jack should be inside the enclosure and although it pisses the phone / cable providers off to no end, I always recommend either relocating the MPOE connection or atleast tampering the enclosure cover to make it that much more of an inconvenience for who-ever might be trying to tamper with yer system or lines of communication, also when picking locations for sirens / sounders, make sure to pick a spot AWAY from where the main system / enclosure is at, many installers take the easy way out and place these devices at the panel, which draws the perp right to where they want to be. I always recommend using dual-technology motion sensors as interior devices versus standard infra-red motions that use pulse count settings to avoid potential false alarms

eric Says:
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm

I am a sales rep for ADT. I find it hard to believe that ADT put this system where it is. I think someone put it there to prove a point. If ADT seen this type of work the installer would be fired. If I were the homeowner I would not let this happen. If you tell me the location I will personally look into this. this looks like someone bought it off ebay and installed it themselves, only to find out it cost the same to activate this system as it would to have a new system professionally installed. I explain to the homeowner where everything is going to be installed. I go to the site when possible during the install(sometimes at the homeowners request) I always ask if they want me there. there are also phone tamper devices. if you are concerned about someone ripping this off the wall you can put the keypad in a hidden location because most systems now have key remotes. I know that is the worst install I have ever seen and I don’t believe for one second that this is ADT’s work. ADT is the leading security company. ADT also does quality checks with the customer before the sales or installers get paid. Please let me know where this is at because crap like this makes my job even harder. ADT has a very good reputation. it is a fortune 500 company that is in the pentagon and white house.

mjagger Says:
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:44 pm

Eric… I can assure you that this system was installed and monitored by ADT. Our company replaced the system with a properly installed (and complete) system a couple days after I wrote the post. The owners of the system were not sure whether they bought it directly from ADT or an “Authorized Dealer”… but certainly as far as they were concerned, it was ADT. ADT was monitoring the system when we disconnected it. The system was installed in Vancouver, B.C.

ADT certainly does some things well… one example is their commercial systems that are used in many high security facilities (as you pointed out). However, on the residential side, in my experience, the story is significantly different. The ADT Authorized Dealer program itself has had well documented quality control issues such as this. (Here is a link to a Wall Street Journal article that highlights some of the most extreme cases of misconduct within the program… it was printed in 2002, around the same time that the pictured system was installed).

Either way, as I pointed out in the post, this hardware offers negligible security even when installed correctly. It is a symptom of the free or low cost system program that not only ADT, but many of the national and regional companies push. They are not only bad for the end-user, they are bad for our industry. Sadly, while this installation was particularly egregious, the majority of the 0 down systems offer a similarly pathetic level of security.

You sound like you are a great sales rep for ADT… I wish you all the best. This industry would be alot better with more people who actually took it seriously rather than simply trying to put the smallest/cheapeast alarms in in order to generate a monthly monitoring fee. Good luck.

vaspers the grate Says:
November 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

Mike this is a beautiful and perfect example of Share Economy as I discuss it in my writings: you are giving extremely valuable FREE advice to people.

This FREE expertise helps both your readers and simultaneously promotes your company in a benevolent and non-intrusive manner.

Then, to top it off, you enable comments. You encourage a conversation: critique, correction, praise, flaming, further questions, new observations, anecdotes, etc.

This is what a blog was meant to be.

Thanks and keep thinking of more ways to spread the wealth of your expertise, while politely and altruistically promoting your own company.

:^)

Acer Says:
November 30th, 2006 at 7:24 pm

First off “ADT” don’t sell or install Lynx…or ANY all in one system. Authorized dealers are just that…a separate company who ADT authorized to sell and install. Why not post who the “dealer” was in this instance. ADT has 5 “dealers” in the Vancouver area…way down from the approx 10-12 they had just a year or so ago. Why? Because we fired the other 5-7 that did exaclty what your photo shows…and of course some not so obviously crazy installs. Too many people aren’t willing to spend a whole lot of money on security systems, so a Lynx is what they will get. Remember: you get what you pay for. Pay zero, and you may get a zero system. How anyone would allow this to be installed in his/her house is beyond me, but to blame “ADT” is wrong. Publicize the dealer…my bet is they are long gone by now. Why don’t you let ADT know the address and we can then confirm if this photo is a hoax or not. Bet you you don’t.

mjagger Says:
November 30th, 2006 at 7:54 pm

So, your point is that if this system was installed by someone who was simply “authorized” to sell and install on ADT’s behalf that that would be somehow different than if ADT sent their own employee to do it?

Why would anyone care? If ADT has authorized someone to operate on their behalf and with their brand, they are just as responsible.

An ADT authorized dealer is just that, an “authorized” dealer who as far as the client is concerned may as well be ADT. The logo is the same, the contract is the same… the only difference is that the account is being sold through a third party who has been specifically authorized to sell the product. If someone is choosing to go with an ADT dealer, I would bet that in the vast majority of cases, they did so on their familiarity and trust of the ADT brand, not the dealer…

Trying to determine who would be more or less responsible for this install between a dealer and ADT is pointless. They are both to blame and should be embarrassed.

Regarding the address, why would I try to get ADT to fix it? Our company took over the security at the address after replacing the system with a proper alarm. Problem solved.

Ron Sebek Says:
December 15th, 2006 at 8:34 am

AS I have seen so far in this site,is the sins of sales &
installation.Ihave been in the industry of home security
for 25 yrs.The pitfall is the “free” system,and the fast
ram,jam an installer has to do to make sure he gets to the next job.After all an installer is EXPECTED to do 2
to 3 installs a day for $75-100 per install.
One of my assurities as an owner was to hold back 10%
of every job as a 30 day warranty.This help made sure
the quality was there,as I chose sometimes not to send
the original tech back.I would send a trusted tech to inspect and make sure all issues were resolved with the customer,and listen to his findings.

Ron Sebek Says:
December 15th, 2006 at 8:39 am

One more comment.As long as “free” systems are offered,this will happen.Please know that I am aware
that free does not include monthly contract monitoring.I
am a licensed private alarm contractor in Illinois,in good
standing since 1981.

SamW Says:
December 26th, 2006 at 8:05 am

My house was robbed just right before Christmas while we were on 7-day vacation. The thief(s) just cut the phone line outside of house to break in. It is no brainier act! The police told me the thief(s) may spend half or one hour in the house because it is mess everywhere (I had a big house). You know what? I am not really angry at the thief because they didn’t damage the house except mess, and they may steal a little more than the security company “steal” from us for last 12 years. I am really angry at the security company. Here is what it made me very mad.

The security company phoned us and found out the alarm still on only after the phone company repaired the broken lines two days after robbery. They told me that they wanted to send a police to our house. I said do not bother because the police already came. They insisted me to tell them my security code. I gave it to them. Later they called us again because the system kept sending signal every time we moved or opened the door (the control panel was removed so there is no way to disalarm it. Oh, Siren was cut too. So just signal went out without siren). They asked for the security code again. I was really getting angry and mad. I told them “you guys only monitor false alarm or what. Why didn’t you ask for the security code from the thief two days ago.” They stopped calling me. They couldn’t come to fix the alarm system because it was yesterday, Christmas.

Well, I came here because I am looking for:

1. Any better system that can really secure my house.
2. Any legal advice or lessen we can learn so that millions of people won’t be fooled by this false sense of security.
3. Why people are as stupid and illiterate as we are, including the insurance company (you got some discount if you have a system like mine).

What a Christmas we had this year!

M. Day Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am

Regarding Eric’s 23 November Comment..
Eric,

ADT may have a very good reputation, but hopefully that won’t last long.

We have the exact system pictured in the original post in our home, however our transformer is behind the refrigerator. Our home was broken into recently and the burglar’s ripped the system off of the wall during the delayed entry.

The system was existing in the home when we purchased it in 2004. The previous owners used ADT, so we called the company after we moved in to start the service back up. ADT never sent a representative out to look our system – they did it all over the phone. We told them the location of all or our sensors and the model number on our keypad system. They said we were good-to-go and sent out the guarantee certificates. They never mentioned the phone line issue or offered any additional services.

After the break-in we called and they said it would be $200 to send out a technician. When we asked why they didn’t call the police when they lost communications with our unit they stated that they don’t “continuously monitor” the system as stated in their commercials. ADT is useless and people need to know that when they pay their monthly bills they are just throwing their money away.

Quotulatiousness Says:
February 25th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Home in-security

“Da Wife” sent along a link to this blog posting debunking typical home security installations….

Care Contract Day Home Sample Says:
March 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Care Contract Day Home Sample

The day he doesn\’t respect me, just give me the cheque

Bob Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm

The main control unit absolutely has to be hidden out of sight so that the burglar cannot or destory it. Anyone considering buying a security alarm, should consider a system that send signals to a 24 hour monitoring station using a cellular radio. I have provided a link to an interesting article that describes how in 1974, a small town cop invented an alarm system using a police walkie talkie to catch a group of professional phone line cutting burglars. Criminals were cutting phone lines back then, and they still are today.
http://www.Guardcom.net/about.html

Marc Lebel Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 9:33 am

Hi, I’m a sales rep for Protectron in Montréal . We don’t install this type of all in one system because they are not very safe. I see them all the time when former ADT customers switch over to us. I usually suggest to the customer to reinstall a proper system. Marc Lebel

MAX Says:
November 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

THERE IS NO WAY THAT ADT WOULD HAVE INSTALLED THE ABOVE PICTURED ALARM,I HAVE WORKED FOR ADT
FOR OVER A DECADE AND NEVER SEEN SUCH A SYSTEM
THAT PLUGS IN TO THE WALL NEXT TO KEY BOARD,
BESIDES SOME PEOPLE ARE TOO CHEAP, TO BUY THE CELL BACK UP SYSTEM, WHICH MAKES THEM BE THE
ONE HOUSE THAT CAN BE BROCKEN IN TO EASILY.
AS FAR AS ADT DEALERS ARE CONCERN THERE SOON WILL NOT BE ANY LEFT AS THE CO. IS TRYING HARD
TO REMOVE THEIR DEALER AGREEMENT IF THEY DO A BAD JOB THAT IS WHY WE ARE DOWN FROM 220 DEALERS IN NORTH AMERICA TO JUST 80, AND SOON
TO BE NONE I AM TOLD.
THE QUESTION TO ASK YOUR SELF, WHEN TRYING TO PICK A SECURITY CO. IS, WHY WOULD BANK OF AMERICA
WAL-MART AND DEPARTMENT OF HOME LAND SECURITY
CHOSE ADT!?? HELLO IS THERE ANY BODY HOME.
HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY ROLEX IS NOT THE
SAME PRICE AS TIMEX!!!
YOU WANT CHEAP SECURITY SYSTEM CALL THE REST,
YOU WANT STATE OF THE ART SECURITY SYSTEM AND A CO. WHOM HAS BEEN AROUND FOR OVER 130+ YEARS YOU CALL ADT.
FOR EVERY CUSTOMER THAT IS UNHAPPY WITH ADT,
THERE ARE 99 THAT ARE HAPPY AND HAVE BEEN WITH
ADT FOR OVER A DECADE.
AS THE OLD SAYING IS AROUND MY OFFICE “ADT IS NOT FOR EVERY ONE”

mjagger Says:
November 20th, 2007 at 9:11 am

I couldn’t agree more that ADT is not for everyone.

dan patterson Says:
November 24th, 2007 at 3:03 am

Laffing out loud here! I have been in the “alarm business” since 1973, and have sold/installed thousands of systems. Our company also installs smart home technology, home theater rooms, commercial fire systems, etc. I compete with the zoro down “lickem and stickem companies everyday. On an apples to apples comparison, ADT has never beaten my prices, even when they use the same DSC control panel I offer.
I have seen many ugly systems installed by ADT. Many, period. They have the people fooled into thinking they are the best. I have heard people say,,I love my ADT system,,,,,till one day they have a breakin. In one instance, ADT sold a man cellular backup after the breakin,,,but the technician didnt install it. The man had another breakin afterwards,,,no cell back up,,,,he was, upset? I am glad to see you have this blog going on, as it helps inform people. I presently am promoting the Tattletale alarm system, as it does things no other alarm can do. I had some reservations at first, but i have examined it thoroughly, and find it to be the first perfect alarm. You can see it and some of the sensors at http://homelandsecuritycenters.com
This unit relies on cellular dialing only, and is virtually tamper-proof. With a built in motion sensor, if you pick it up, hit it, or move it, the cellular dialer dials central station in six tenths of a second. There are also several indoor and outdoor sensors one could add. At Homeland Security Centers, we make security simple. Some 80% of all brerakins occur when nobody is at home, so this base unit protects the house nicely. You can aim the unit at the hallway and sleeo behind 1 or more motion sensors. Granted, ideally, you should have all the windows and doors protected, and Tattletale an do that too, in most homes. I feel it is time we join the 21st century and stop relying on phones for alarm monitoring. We have educated the burglars, and now we need to move ahead. The cellular trunk line is secure for monitoring.(At the moment) Keep up the good work, i see many people here have some misconceptions. misconceptions perhaps spread by the lickem and stickem guys.

ADT Customer Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

ADT sucks

Chris Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 am

I am an authorized dealer for the Lynx “lickem n’ stickem” unit.

One of these units, properly installed (and yes, our install guy takes the time to place it correctly), with back up batterys and the cell backup offers pretty much the same level of protection as the “professional” (aka expensive) alarms… but at a much lower cost to the consumer.

In addition, they are getting fire and medical emergency protection… without expensive install and equipment fees. EXACT same level of protection with regards to these two emergency situations.

The reality of the situation is that the technology has caught up, and just like computers, DVD players, high def TVs, etc…, now the everyday joe can afford what used to be too expensive.

Incorrect installations aside, the argument that free units are junk is like saying my free motorolla cellphone is junk because I can’t call from the artic circle like I could with a $3000 satilight phone.

Three million dollar house, yeah, get the best security system money can buy. Everyday Joe, get a free unit with cell backup.

HateCable Says:
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Interesting article about alarms and so are all the comments. Good blog

Community Security The Provident Blog » Blog Archive » Free Home Security can be Expensive Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 2:09 am

[...] benefit for the monitoring that is supposed to happen. As I pointed out in a post last year titled “Why millions of home alarm systems are useless” most of the alarms installed do not offer any real security value [...]

Community Security The Provident Blog » Blog Archive » More than a month off… Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am

[...] Why Millions of Home Alarm Systems are Useless [...]

Community Security The Provident Blog » Blog Archive » Home Security tips on CKNW Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 2:57 am

[...] Why Millions of Home Alarms are Useless [...]

Eft2112 Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Even after reading the entire blog, I am still not convinced a home security system is a necessity for peace of mind. Lesson 4 of the original blog “…spend that money (monthly monitoring fees) on better locks, stronger glass and other physical security measures” seems to be the best advice.

Can you expand on “other security measures”?

Alan Says:
May 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Another great posting Mike, thanks.

I agree whole-heartedly with what you say about these all-in-one systems, generally. However, this is at least one exception… all-in-one systems using Alarm.com technology can be a very effective solution.

Why: when armed, as soon as any sensor is tripped (even if that only causes the system to go into entry delay mode) the unit sends out, via cellular GSM signal to the Alarm.com servers that the sensor has been tripped… and if the Alarm.com servers don’t get a subsequent disarm code within a certain period (a minute or so), it’ll report the alarm to the monitoring station. So an intruder would have to disable the control panel within 5 seconds or so, which is impractical if one is prudent doesn’t put the control panel next to a door or window, and instead uses remote keypads or keyfobs to arm/disarm the system.

So far, Alarm.com service (as far as all-in-one boxes) only works with the Simon III and Simon XT and they no longer sell service directly to consumers… you must go through a dealer (and for that, I highly recommend Frontpoint Security Solutions of McLean, VA).

The technology is pretty slick. I’ve been using it for about 5 months. While probably nothing can match what Provident does in terms of private security guards responding withing 5 minutes, not everyone (including myself) lives in your service area. So this would be an effective and easy solution for them.

Thanks again for all the great content Mike. You provide a great service to the WORLD through this blog.

Mike Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:40 am

I would suggest installing 2 CA-38A jacks (the telephone line interface) a hidden one, an actual connection to the telephone line, and a second jack, in an obvious location where the burglar could see it. In my personal experience, on 3 different occasions, the thief disconnected the dummy jack, and proceeded to ransack the home. The police arrived, and arrested him.

charlie Says:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm

“It doesn’t matter if the Alarm has time to send the signal. If it is ripped off the wall, during the inital delay, that interruption of the alarm will send a signal to command central.”

Tested and failed. Removed power from unit during delay period. No phone call. No police response. I disconnected the phone line during the delay and waited through the alarm on the next try. No police response. No calls with challenge questions on my cell phone.

This system is not an all in one unit. It was installed about 8 months ago by one of the best known companies. The same company that guaranteed they would respond if the phone line was cut or the unit was destroyed during a break in. I intend to ask for a refund. Thank you for the warning.

steve Says:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 am

The lynx is a joke. 99.5% have no phone line supervision. heres how you kill the rest of the vista products. Take an extention cord with you. come through delay door. Locate keypad. take off bracket. locate red and black wires. (POWER) These lead back to control panel. plug em in to 110 v AC. Fry transformer, battery back up and control panel simultaneously. OOPS they all suck.

Why Millions Of Home Alarm Systems Are Useless! | HomeAlarmsPro.com Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

[...] Click here to read the entire article! [...]

Paul Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 7:32 am

The Lynx is a $99.00 install and $32.00 a month system. You get what you pay for.
Check out http://WWW.DMP.COM and look at the XT30/50. I have installed alarm systems for over 14 years and this system is the best bang for the buck. The network communication works flawlessly and transmits with in a second, By the time the keypad shows the alarm central has it. With the built in cell back up (XT50) it is completely redundant.
You will pay a little more but like I said you get what you pay for.

mjagger Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 11:17 am

@Paul … I totally agree that you get what you pay for… but I also think that the way these systems are marketed is very misleading.

ADT Home Security Solutions Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Max you are 100% right! ADT would never install something like that. ADT is dependable, affordable and can solve home security solutions without a doubt. Nice post MAX!

mikehill Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

I’m wondering what the quality of the low cost monitoring companies is. I am spending over $30.00 a month on ADT, but when my alarm went off, it still took the police 4 hours to come to my house to check.
If home alarms are such a low priority to the police, why spend the money on ADT; what is the main difference between ADT’s monitoring and the lower cost companies? Don’t they all just call the police if an alarm goes off?

mjagger Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

@mikehill Irrespective of monitoring cost, unless you have private response that guarantees a response time… all companies are exactly the same. Whether it is ADT, Brinks, HSM or any other ‘low cost’ provider, the issue is the same.

The only reason for having a monitored alarm is to generate an immediate response. The Police in most cities in North America simply CANNOT respond fast enough… so the results are the same no matter who (or what) you pay for monitoring.

I’ve written a number of posts on this topic… most recently here … click here for a video clip where I explain why Police response does not work.

Randy Says:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

most crooks are low lifes looking for a quick score. Sure the “cat burglar” has skills and will be able to defeat almost any sound system. The main effect an alarm has is to detour the criminal from even attempting the break in. Most criminals who break a window or kick a door in and hear the alarm go off will just run away quick. Sure they can ripp the unit off the wall but they still can’t be sure a signal wan’t sent. I have the glass-break feature. It sends a distress signal instantly. Sure the system posted above may not be ideal but should work well enough. I also agree a cellualr unit is the best way to go…

Pinnacle Security Says:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:50 am

Many alarm panel mfg’s have internet transmission modules. DSC, Ademco and now Paradox have modules which can accomodate your needs. There are also several universal versions which can connect to almost any alarm panel on the market.

Judy Says:
July 21st, 2009 at 5:56 am

Great article and advice. I had no idea of what I needed to look for when shopping around for a home alarm system. Thanks.

Russell Standage Says:
July 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm

This blog post is going to help my company in Salt Lake City Utah. We are going to change the way we install our systems from now on by taking some of the approaches you mentioned.
Thanks.

caine Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Thanks for this information. It will help lot of people get what they need and not get ripped off. Thanks!

JRW Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 4:20 am

What would stop a thief from using a cell jammer to defeat the cell phone and cutting the phone line? (Assuming its the right one and not a dummy

Leave a Reply