Re: Florida Statute According to RLB

["tourman" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank Olson wrote:
> tourman wrote:
>
>
> > RHC: Another analogy is the customer who goes into a car dealership and
> > buys a car. He pays for it and walks out. When it needs service, he
> > finds the hood is completely locked, and he has to go back to the
> > selling dealer even for an oil change. Then once his payments are over,
> > he is still forced to go there whether he wants to or not. I've never
> > seen a dealer do either....
>
> And you never will.  You simply can't "compare" an alarm system to an
> automobile.  That's just plain dumb.

RHC: No its not. The issue is control, and who has a right to it, and
for how long. Car, boat, house, alarm system, it's all the same.
>
> Who still locks boards?  Certainly not anyone that I know (and I know
> and work with quite a few independents and nationals despite what Bass
> is going to say to the contrary).  "Leased" systems or units that are
> under a maintenance agreement should be properly identified.  The fact
> that you're "unlocking" boards that aren't is no skin off my nose.  If
> the equipment "owner" can't take the time to mark (or otherwise
> inscribe) their parts with words like "Property of ABC Alarms"  (or
> similar), then there's no way that it should be up to you to establish
> that material people are sending you is "proprietory".  I would hope
> that if a dealer *is* sending you boards to unlock, that he's also "up
> front" about it.

RHC: Yes, I know when I very early on made the mistake of leasing
boards, I had a sticker on them clearly showing ownership. Other than
one that was stolen (which was locked btw), I never had a problem.
Seems to me, if it's owned by the alarmco, the least they could do is
mark it clearly, and make sure it's outlined in the contract with the
customer.

It seems out East, loads of alarmco's lock their boards. Seems to be
very common in Montreal and Toronto and also in the large cities in the
East. Otherwise, I wouldn't be getting boxes of them in for the
service. Glad to hear the abuse doesn't go out your way...
>
> > Apparently though, there IS a real life issue much the same as this
> > between the large automotive makers and the independant garages with
> > the rights to computer diagnostic information. Automakers don't want
> > the independants to have access to information they must have to
> > properly diagnose and service today's latest high tech cars. That
> > battle is still raging on....May the little guys win....
>
> Bob, the more "high tech" a car becomes the further away it gets from
> being a "weekend project" to change the oil or "tune up".  I just love
> my 68 Buick Skylark.  When you open the hood, you can easily identify
> all the key components and you don't need fancy diagnostic equipment to
> tune it up.  You open the hood on my Navigator and it's chalk full of
> hoses, pipes, and "doo-dads".  Sure, you can still identify the "basic
> engine" under all the "dressing", but you sure as shit can't tune the
> sucker up unless you have a laptop and the proper programs.

RHC: What's your point ! No one has disallowed you access to tune up
information for YOUR car. You can do what the hell you want with it. A
customer who owns a locked board cannot do what he wants with it.
That's the point !