This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
New terms, definitions and resolutions hope to push the alarm verification movement forward with greater cooperation from all sides.
January 4, 2016
Using audio and video for alarm verification has long been the most effective solution for securing homes and businesses — but it has also been the most misunderstood.
A San Jose, Calif. Police Department policy change, on a questionably fast track by police officials still sending out mixed signals to local alarm companies, ended in the institution of verified alarm response the first of this year.
As you’ve surely noticed if you’ve made it this far into the magazine, this month’s cover story is the SDM 100, an annual ranking by RMR of security companies that “earn their revenues from the sale, installation, service and monitoring of electronic security systems, such as intrusion and fire alarm, access control, video surveillance, and related low-voltage systems.”