Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n56dnWbMCYpSjaPfRVn-vg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>
> You can argue this until you're blue in the face and you'll still be
> completely wrong.

I haven't lived in Edmonton for over 15 years.  It's been quite a while
since I've been "blue in the face"...


>
>> Even Bob Campbell (whom you've indicated
>> you truly respect) restricts access to installer
>> level programming on his monitored accounts.
>
> Not once the monitoring contract is over, he doesn't.  I have no problem
> with companies contractually agreeing with monitored clients to limit
> clients' access while the system is being monitored.

Humbug!!  You clearly indicated differently (and in the same response)!
I'll quote you here since I've snipped your response:
"
> Once you sell someone an alarm system and it has been paid for, you have
> no legal right to impede the buyer's use of that system.  That includes
> his right to full access to all of its features and functions.  You cannot
> take away his access (unlawful conversion) to his own property simply
> because it's convenient to your business model.
"

> Nope.  You're up to your usual tactics, trying to twist the discussion
> away from the facts.


Let's review "the facts", Robert.  Your usual "diatribe" against "most"
alarm companies was what I thought needed some clarification.  I first
stated in this thread:

"Limiting access to installer level programming on a monitored alarm system
is only good business practice and designed to keep a customer from
inadvertently screwing up his alarm system.  Using panel lock-outs is most
often used to restrict other alarm companies from easily taking over
equipment that is either leased or rented and not *owned* by the end user.
But then "tarring all alarm companies with the same brush" is a tactic you
frequently engage in to support your particular DIY "mantra"."

Granted, the topic under discussion at the time was Bob's contention that
locking people out of the alarm systems they've bought and paid for is
"criminal" and "unethical".  I couldn't agree with him (and you) on that
more - as long as the system is *local* (un-monitored).  When the customer
is paying for professional monitoring service he can expect to have his
access to installer level programming restricted for the entire term of that
monitoring agreement.  I understand your particular "business model" doesn't
allow you to do that, but you are unique (as you yourself have often
stated).

As I also mentioned earlier, I haven't come across a locked out panel in
over ten years (in Vancouver) and I seriously doubt that using the firmware
lockout is as common an industry practise as you seem to suggest.  You will
of course point out the ten or so individuals that have posted here over the
years complaining of the practise, and will use that to support your "rant"
against alarm companies.  But please do feel free to do so.  You and "RFI"
aren't all that much different when it comes down to it although Paul is a
good deal more "artistic".  :-))