In response to "John's" comments: This standard is not going to work any miracles about keyholder information. However, I do appreciate the example you cited about the delayed call from the alarm company. In theory, the alarm company operator may have been inundated with calls and was very busy relaying other alarm calls to 911 PSAPs via telephone. Now folks, wouldn't it be nice for that alarm company operator to simply perform a few keystrokes on their keyboard and route that same information to the CAD system efficiently and quickly and then move on the next call? That's the whole idea folks. You get that call into CAD a whole lot faster without the necessity of the telephone call from the alarm company to the PSAP. Thanks again John. You gave me an example of what I needed to prove the point. Bill

In reference to the comments by "911 Overloaded Employee", please see my answer to "911 Director" to begin with. The alarm companies are still responsible for doing everything that they have been doing. I think you are premature in judging this to be a terrible idea. How many calls have been taken in your center from alarm companies where the street address was transposed and first responders were dispatched to the wrong location. How many calls were coded with the wrong event type and the police were dispatched to a "burglar alarm" when the alarm company told the call-taker is was a "fire alarm". The answers is: it happens every day across the country and this standard can fix the problem. I would like for you and everyone else commenting about this standard to do me and yourself a favor. You cannot comprehend a 38-page standard that has been condensed into a one page article. I would like for everyone to read the standard in detail at this link: http://www.apcointl.org/new/commcenter911/documents/APCO-CSAA-ANS2-101-1web.pdf Next, I want you to read an article I wrote about this new standard that will be published in APCO's March issue of their Public Safety Communications Magazine. The article will be a two-parter, but part one uses real life scenarios that all of you can relate to. Finally keep check on APCO's website. There are FAQs constantly be updated and a fact sheet about this standard will be out within the next few days. Bill

in reference to the comments made by "911 Director", this standard has no affect whatsoever, on what the alarm companies do now. If they are filtering out certain alarms now, they will continue to do so. The State of Virginia requires alarm companies to attempt to verify most alarms before notifying the PSAP and this policy will continue. This standard will not generate any additional volumes of alarms. We have had a false alarm service fee in effect since 1992. There is a current ordinance before City Council now to change the fee structure to higher fees and also require an alarm permit. Bill

In response to "Phonecop", the current delivery is a secure one from the alarm company to Nlets in Phoenix, Arizona. Nlets has a direct pipe to every state. In the case of the Virginia pilot, we had the State Police agree to allow the traffic through to a middleware server in the PSAP that front-ends the CAD System. It is very secure and fast and you don't need access to the Internet. You just need access to your CAD screen. Sorry. As a side note, APCO representatives and members of the Central Station Alarm Association will be meeting with Nlets on March 6th to make a determination if we will continue with this delivery path or not as more alarm companies, PSAPs and CAD providers start to sign up. I'll be sure to post an update based on the outcome of that meeting and we all will have a better idea if we will be sticking with Nlets or going with another transport option. Bill

this sounds good in theory but how about locating keyholders when needed. I know in many instances response times will be faster because sometimes the alarm companies call the bank, business or keyholders before calling us and sometimes alarm companies are short staffed adding to their delay. One night a nursing home called dispatch that they had a fire. We woke up the fire department and the first responding truck was on scene telling us that is was a false alarm before the alarm company called us about the alarm activation.

I dont see how this can work, or why a 911 center would want to do this. Assuming there is a smooth flawless way to get alarm information from the point of origin to the dispatch center (which is currently illegal in Michigan for an alarm to automatically dial and terminate at a 911 center) but just assuming this has been resolved there are still the issue with false alarms. Although I dont know the stats off top of my head our false alarms way out number the legit alarms that are called in by an alarm company, and I suspect there are even more screened by alarm company personell prior to contacting a 911 center. Then there are the issues of home/business owners who want to be contacted prior to the call being dispatched. The next issue is locating keyholders, does this become the centers responsibiliity? I dont think so. Lastly, explain how this saves us (911) any time. There is nothing that automatically generates a call for service in CAD and how would dozens of different alarm companies figured out how to correctly send information to dozens of different CAD systems ? I for one dont want nor will I allow anyone to send anything to my CAD system especially some fly by night alarm company. This is a terrible idea, if there are problems with delays between the time the alarm is activated and the time it is passed on to a 911 center then customers need to address the problem, THE ALARM COMPANY! This isnt a 911 problem this is a customer service problem with in the alarm company field. Dont make it a 911 issue, we have enough on our plates already!

As it is now, the local alarm companys filter out many of the false alarms. If I'm understanding this article correctly, the plan would be to send the alarm directly to the PSAPs bypassing the local alarm firms? To me sounds like we'll be inundating the responders with many more false alarms. I hope Richmand had the foresight to add false alarm fees into their legislation. At least the PSAP can then hire some more dispatchers with that revenue.

It sounds like a good idea, the brass just has to be on board with allowing the dispatchers access to the internet. They seem to think that everyone's playing online instead of working.

Bill again. In response to Jeffrey's question about 911 centers that do not have computers, unfortunately this standard will not work for them. A computer-aided dispatch (CAD) System must be in place so that electronic deliveries of the alarm calls from the alarm companies via computer-to-computer can occur. Bill

Hello everyone. As the SME and APCO's Data Transfer Committe Chair, let me clarify the concerns that all of you have raised. First of all Richmond does not have two 911 centers as one of you mentioned. The pilot project involved two 911 centers: (1) the City of Richmond, and (2) York County, Va. York County is roughly 75 miles from Richmond. The pilot was done as a partnership between the two entities. When I did the interview, I mentioned this but apparently it was misunderstood. Next, during the interview, I said that once the standard is well established among alarm companies, CAD providers and PSAPs, that Richmond "might" consider pursuing an ordinance that would require electronic transmissions from alarm companies. It will take some time to get there, a few years perhaps. But we already have Vector Security on board who was the pilot participant. ADT and Brinks have expressed interest in pursing the standard and account for a large percentage of calls from alarm companies in Richmond. ADT, as you probably know, is probably the largest company and nationwide. Next, did will not do away with alarm monitoring companies. This standard simply replaces the telephone call made by the alarm company operator to the 911 center to report an alarm. Instead of picking up the telephone and calling the 911 center, the alarm company operator simply initiates a keystroke sequence on their workstation, then the server at the alarm company delivers the same data to the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) System at the 911 center. This takes only seconds to complete and removes that 2 1/2 - 3 minutes of processing time that traditionally took place when the alarm company operator spoke with the 911 call-taker to provide the same information verbally. We have removed the mis-communications from this process. The first indication of the new alarm event in the 911 center is when the call-for-service created by the CAD system "pops up" in front of the radio dispatcher's screen for dispatch. The whole call-taking process is bypassed. I offer you testimony that this really does work. We started development in 2004, went live in 2006, and has been a total success. I will check for any new postings regularly as new questions surface. We will posting a FAQ section about this standard on APCO's website. Feel free to e-mail directly if you wish to Bill.Hobgood@richmondgov.com. I hope this clarifies everyones comment and question. Thanks......Bill

are they going to hook into the 911 centers computers and send the call electronically to the dispatch systems? what about 911 centers that do not use computers still? or would there be one computer that would be monitored... if this is the case I don't think it would get monitored like it would suppose to

If I am understanding what I am reading, there would be no need for alarm company call centers, as the alarms would go directly to the affected 911 PSAP center. Is this Correct?

Article said Richmond used 2 911 centers...There is only 1 911 center in the city of Richmond. And further in article it said they were making it a law for all the 911 centers in Richmond.....again they only have one center!

I don't understand how the alarm company can by-pass the 911 calltaker. Who is the alarm company sending the call to so they can bypass the 911 calltaker? If police, fire etc. are being dispatched to the alarm - how are they being dispatched?