Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I can't argue with that.  Unlawful conversion
> is "larceny"...

You learned that because I posted it earlier.

> We're not talking about that though...

Yes, we are.  You have no knowledge of US law.

> We're talking about the obligations outlined in a contract for monitoring
> which the client signs
> and agrees to...

Wrong again.  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.

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

> 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.  That is not what we
are discussing.

Continued use of lockout codes *after* the monitoring contract is completed
for the purpose of making it difficult or more costly for the client to
change service providers (or to DIY if he so chooses) is illegal immoral
and, unfortunately, a very common practice in the industry.

> Are you calling him a "thief" as well?

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