Re: Suggestion for box where alarm monitoring failovers from landline to cell phone - when landline is cut.

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <robertbass1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:z42dnTk0uu97u6XYnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Uh, huh.. Why don't you tell the gentleman
> > the rest of the story, like how he voided his
> > contract...
>
> No, stupid.  He doesn't "void his contract" by providing an alternate
telephone path.  The contract remains inb full force and
> effect.

Perhaps you should mention the small portion of the contract about tampering
with the system, any fool who would add the device you suggest will indeed
void the contract

You seem to have this thing for screwing with phone lines, first it's 3 or 4
relays on a Napco panel and now this... no wonder you got out of the
installation side


>
> > and any liability the alarmco has by
> > interrupting the line between the panel
> > and RJ-31x.
>
> The alarm company's contract limits their liability to about $250, give or
take a McDonald's Happy Meal, no matter what goes wrong
> anyway.

That statement is so untrue and pathetic it's laughable, it's also a good
thing you sold your "small central station".

> Besides, if you knew how these things work you'd realize that the device
doesn't *interrupt* the line between the panel and
> the RJ31X.  The cellular backup unit takes over the connection only when
and if the phone line is out of service.

And perhaps if you knew how things work you too would know, you are
suggesting the customer place an unapproved (by Slomin's) device on the most
critical part of the security system. Slomin's has no way of knowing if this
device is installed correctly or even functions. It is just a flippant
remark on your side, just another day on the web but someone might just get
killed on his end...of course that won't matter to you

I'm sure given the opportunity you will also tell this person to be sure to
take it off and not mention it to the Slomin's tech when something goes
wrong