Re: Take Over Practices

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rant "ON"..

Where the hell are the discussions and concerns about the customers rights
in all this !! What right does Brinks have to sell a proprietary panel to a
customer that doesn't allow the customer complete control and freedom of
choice over HIS equipment at the end of the term ? Answer...they don't !!
And in regards to the question of "what company unlocks (fully paid for)
customer owned panels at the end of the term if the client wants to jump
ship", the real question is "what right does any company have to leave a
fully paid for customer owned board in a locked state at the end of the
contract term, whether the client is planning to leave or not" ?
Answer..they don't !! And disabling local programming on a customer owned
system is nothing short of malicious interference when it's done simply
because the client won't resign a contract, or chooses to go somewhere else
! And manufacturers who cater to companies who demand boards with receiver
numbers built in (or as Paradox did some years ago, become automatically
permanent after a week in service) are only adding to the overall problem.

Its the general acceptance and ongoing continuation of highly questionable
internal practices like this that gives our industry a bad name and makes us
all look like scheming money grubbing opportunists....

Rant "OFF".....(aaahhh....that feels better.....:)))

RHC

Someone brought up certain industry practices........

> Yes the panel is proprietary but honestly, when you really think about
> it, it's no different than when companies disable local programming, or
> when receiver numbers are burned into panels. What company unlocks
> panels at the end of the term if a client wants to jump ship? Mark will
> say Monitronics does BUTTTTTTTTTTTT do they do it for free? Nope.
> Why on earth would an installing dealer want to use someone else's
> private labeled equipment? When they do a takeover do they keep the old
> company's yard sign on the lawn? Probably not. So why would anyone want
> to keep the former company's logo anywhere in the protected premises?