Debate on monitoring station vs self-monitoring for residential jobs

I had a long talk with a customer last week in Portland who insisted on self-monitoring their new system. They argued it saves $40 a month and gives them full control. But I've always pushed for a central monitoring station because of the 24/7 backup and faster police dispatch. Their main point was about false alarm fees and wanting to screen alerts themselves. I'm starting to wonder if I've been too rigid on this. What do you all lean towards for a standard 3-bedroom home install?

2 comments

2 Comments

jessica_miller1mo ago

Stick with the monitoring station for most homes, it saves you headaches when you're asleep or away.

kelly.daniel1mo ago

The false alarm fee angle is actually where self-monitoring can backfire hard though. If you're screening alerts yourself and you accidentally miss one while you're in a meeting or driving, that false alarm dispatch could still happen and you're still on the hook for the fee. With a monitoring station, they verify first before calling dispatch which cuts down on those fees way more than most people realize. Plus, some cities are starting to require professional monitoring for permit approval, especially in newer neighborhoods out here in the PNW. It's not just about who's watching the system, it's about who's managing the liability chain.