Re: the police was dispatched to ... the wrong house

["Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I take it that Leuck works at Monitronics?
I have had some dealings with them in a peripheral way. They are certainly
large and departmentalized, so much so that it is sometimes difficult to
deal with one person that gets the whole picture. I don't think Monitronics
supports independent dealers the way other contract central stations do.
There doesn't seem to have been as much thought or effort on Monitronics'
part put into that area of the market as other areas of Monitronics' go to
market strategy. For example when using Monitronics' branded panels, only
their software works for uploading and downloading. Real problems can occur
when other entities (other than the dealer) can fat finger the program, and
you can't go in there and check their work. Not being able to supervise the
work of outfits like Monitronics directly can lead to nightmarish problems.
I can't be too specific, but if Leuck works at Monitronics, trust me, he has
more than a vague idea of what I am saying. In other words, there might be
very concrete recent evidence that screwing the pooch happens to the best of
us, even at Monitronics.

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6awwi.7118$xc5.2336@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46c2702a$0$18780$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:eBbwi.7507$Ns6.1249@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > And unlike a real central station wasn't
> >> > licensed, UL listed and had no backup
> >> > site...
> >>
> >> No central station in CT was licensed.
> >> You're wrong about backup too.  We
> >> weren't UL Listed but then neither were
> >> most central stations.  In fact, the only
> >> UL listed station at the time in greater
> >> Hartford was not UL listed for burglar
> >> alarms -- only for fire.
> >
> > That I suppose says something for the
> > quality of service in CT
>
> It speaks more about your lack of knowledge
> of CT or my business.
>
> >> Now you're actually saying what a good
> >> job these idiots did sending the cops to
> >> the wrong address because they're too
> >> cheap to do daily tests and monitor Caller
> >> ID.  Unbelievable!
> >
> > that has nothing to do with being cheap...
>
> It has everything to do with being cheap.
> You can't load the lines with as many accounts
> when you receive daily tests and open/close
> signals as when you don't.  If you knew anything
> about running a central station you would know
> that.
>
> > they did the job they were supposed to do...
>
> They did the bare minimum and that allowed
> a situation which should have been corrected
> to continue until there was a false alarm.  Not
> only that but they are still doing nothing to
> prevent a recurrence.  This is so typical of a
> certain subset of the industry, including you.
> Do the bare minimum, make excuses, whine
> about costs and liability but above all else,
> NEVER fix a problem unless you can find a
> way to extort more money out of the client.
>
> > and with or without daily tests and caller
> > ID the outcome would have been the same
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> > I can imagine...
>
> That's all you do.  Imagine.  What you don't do is
> look for ways to improve service or help customers
> solve problems.
>
> > what it would have been like if your central
> > station had handled it..
>
> Every once in a while we would get wrong Caller ID
> data from an account sending in a daily test.  We'd
> call the number on file for the account to find out if
> they had made any changes.  Sometimes it was
> due to a change in telco providers.  More often it
> was due to a house being sold without the client
> remembering to notify us.
>
> Because we did daily tests we would almost invariably
> catch the change before there was an alarm signal.
> If it was a changed phone number but the client was
> still there we'd enter the new number on his account.
> If it was a change of owner I'd offer our services to
> the new resident.  If they didn't want monitoring I
> would program the system as a local alarm and then
> give them new codes so they could use the system.
> If they wanted monitoring, I'd stop by with a contract.
>
> What we did not do was ignore the problem until a
> false alarm came in.  I leave that sort of malfeasance
> to companies like Monitronics.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> =============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> 941-925-8650
> 4883 Fallcrest Circle
> Sarasota · Florida · 34233
> http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> =============================>
>