Re: Question about Brinks

["mikey" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:roGdnQzVruYbbRbfRVn-qg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To prevent tampering? There are terminals
> > on the jack for that. Inside the panel renders
> > the jack USELESS. Why bother?
>
> If you expose the jack it's more likely someone will tamper with it.
> Tampering the cable doesn't protect against lifting the cover and moving
the
> wires -- thereby defeating the connection without detection.  If you do
this
> for a living for a few years you'll understand why you need to do things
> differently, Mikey.
>
> > Just hardwire to the terminals.
>
> That's a violation of tarriffs.  It's also a good way to prevent the
client
> from calling 911 if the panel happens to fail during a true emergency.  I
> know of a case where that happened.  Never wire a panel to the phone line
> without an RJ31X jack.  The client *must* have a means to disconnect the
> panel from the line.
>
> > That way, if the panel runs away or otherwise seizes the line, the user
> > will
> > have no way to get his line back. If he unplugs an ACCESSIBLE JACK, he
can
> > use the damn phone! The jack must be accessible to the homeowner and
> > everyone in the home should know about it and what it does.
>
> It is accessible if you give the homeowner a key to the panel.  Of course,
> if you're one of those characters who believes it's a sin to allow your
> vict... er, clients to access the panel, I understand what you're up to.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass

Your clients need a key to access their telephone and you have the gall to
suggest
MY clients are victims?