just wondered why jamming detection is off by default for a yale wireless alarm, isnt this something that is required for a wireless system? or is it such a small risk that it isnt worth the extra false alarms?
If jamming wasn't a problem then Yale would not fit jamming detection and then recommend dis-abling it if it gave rise to too many false alarms.
Oh dear, I can't stop laughing, good old Yale admitting their equipment suffers from "jamming", poor things.i asked yale why this is the preffered setting. They said because jamming isnt a problem right now but may be in the future but turning it on may give a rise in false alarms because of interference.
Opinions differ but the facts don't, Never under estimate the crack head's ability.Opinions differ on whether a casual kid crack-head burglar will go to the trouble and complexity of buying and learning to use a jammer
Very sensible adviceIf you are in a house that is likely to attract competent and well-equipped professionals, you should consider a more expensive alarm.
I am not sneering. I am merely pointing out that given the restrictions that apply to the use of licence exempt frequencies and the need to get a reasonable life out of a set of batteries a wireless alarm has to be a compromise between function and cost. The major problem is that the system has to work in a satisfactory way on a wireless channel that is used for many other legal purposes and an increasing number of illegal uses.You will find a few people on here that like to sneer at inexpensive DIY alarms.