It would be no different. If I am asleep then an alarm/siren goes off, or my phone alarms and wakes me (I do have things set to ignore the do not disturb). Even if it was some call center person for the company monitoring things, all they’d do would be to call me and ask me what I want to do, to which I would tell them to hang on while I look at the cams or whatever and figure it out. That’s no different than my phone or siren going off and making me wake up and decide what I want to do about it. Paying someone a salary for that is still pointless. Saves me no time/work at all. If I’m not at my best with my phone alarm telling me there’s a problem, I’d not be at my best with a call center person calling me…in fact, their call might not even get through my do not disturb to be able to ask me if it’s a false alarm or real. My whole point is that either way it will rely 100% on me unless I’m already dead, or the criminals jammed all wireless signals, in which case an automatic alert works just fine and would be more efficient than a call center rep wasting tons of time trying to call me and not being able to know for sure if it’s real or false alert themselves. Either way, they are not needed in any way compared to more effective (and inexpensive) options.
Not exactly:
Google just dropped $450M into a partnership with ADT…that’s hardly exiting the market, just shifting horizontally.
My service calls 911 no matter what if certain conditions happen. Like I enter the duress code. Or someone enters or tries to enter without disarming the system. Or 2 of the 3 ways the system communicates with the central station ( or all 3 ) fail. Or if the system detects shots fired. Or my wife or I say a code phrase in audio monitored areas.
Edit: And several more conditions not covered here.
Actually they are providing services to ADT but they themselves no longer are actively in the security market.
Good practice to weed the garden now and then
So, that would conceivably make Google a ‘Silent partner’?
Those are interesting “use cases” but it still seems like a remnant of a time before smart home monitoring and smart phones. All that the central station got was an alarm, and everything else had to be determined by making a series of phone calls, sending a guard, or calling the cops.
The features you mention might be easily replicated - though perhaps less reliably - with a cell phone and Alexa.
No not at all. If any of the mentioned ( and several other ) conditions occur an automated call to 911 is placed. No human intervention needed. For certain conditions, such as me activating a crash on my end the monitoring company will follow up with a call to provide more information to the responders. Such as did I activate the safe room, did I indicate a hostage situation etc.
This system is not a holdover, it’s brand new, still being developed and used all around the world.
I can also trigger ( if supported in my area ) a call for EMS or Fire or both with no intervention or human interaction.
I wasn’t saying you had an old system; I was saying that the very idea of central monitoring seems like a holdover from an earlier time when equipment was less capable and much less pervasive.
I understood you. But it’s neither an old or outdated concept. Central Monitoring is essential in modern security. More than ever before even.
The lower end systems with what I believe you think of when you think of central monitoring are pretty useless. This is truly a case of you get what you pay for.
The higher end systems provide dedicated security professionals who make excellent salaries with fantastic benefit plans and retirement etc.
The installation team that came to my home was headed by an EE security professional engineer. Not your average “cable guy”. I could opt for direct response which actually responds quicker on average than the police. Their armed response teams are mostly former military or civilian police. I passed on that as the cost is significant.
So when I speak of central monitoring I am not talking about the ADT/CPI model. Which I will agree is a dated approach.
Hey Bruce, by what I read you must live in a neighborhood that is susceptible to crime or perhaps you’ve had past experiences that prompted said installation.
Actually I have been fairly fortunate. I have only ever used the system for medical. But I travel a lot for work. Not so much now but I am away a fair amount. For mine, and my wife and kids peace of mind I invested in a good system. Now I keep that investment to protect what I do have.
I actually live well below my means. To be honest I spend money where it makes sense. I have always been amused at the pretentious real estate purchases a lot of folks make. 5000 square foot house with two rooms furnished the rest mostly empty. Or two (financed) cars in the driveway but sleeping on an air mattress.
Well, I’m really happy to hear that you’re safe and your reasons that you installed a higher in security system certainly makes sense.
Nice chatting with you Bruce I’m sure we will contact each other on the forum from time to time
Hi @Estpaul fyi: In Los Angeles CA it doesn’t matter if it was a local alarm or professionally monitored.
No Permit = $$ Fine + Permit cost + late charge and the fine goes up each PD Dispatch or someone complains. Other city in the county have free permit over 65 yo and no charge for the 1st false alarm.
Lol @rbruceporter saw that Google Error
Google has admitted it made an error when it didn’t disclose that its Nest Secure home security system included an on-device microphone. In a statement given to a spokesperson from the company said, “The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs. That was an error on our part.”
Unfortunately this is an all too common occurrence on Googles part. Hence I do not have any Google software or hardware on my home network. I honestly believe they do things like this knowingly and intentionally. It just happens too frequently to be a mistake.
Will there be some sort of keypad to control the system? I’m assuming that there will be because it is a “Security System”, but just wanted to double check.
Only Google would consider 90% of the users of the feature “a small number”. 
Of course their troubles are just starting.