The author is the president of a company that has monitored more than 325 offenders using both continuous and random systems during the past 2 years. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering program outcome and matching equipment with offenders, rather than focusing only on sales claims made by manufacturers. Thus, continuous signaling is much closer in cost to random systems than appears from advertising claims, if the total costs of a system and its operation are considered. In addition, findings from a random system cannot be used in court to deal with offenders who violate the conditions under which monitoring was imposed. Further issues that are not serious problems in practice are the level of annoyance caused by random calls and the potential for stigmatization resulting from the visibility of a monitor attached to the body. Finally, the newly developed dual systems have lost the benefits of each system: the simplicity of design, cost benefits, and lack of an attached device that are possible with random systems and the continuous system's lack of an annoyance factor.