Re: Changes to Canadian monitoring contract law

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

I ask a simply question whether or not anyone has heard about this
here in Canada and you come back with your endless self serving
arguments for the industry status quo, twisting words to suit
yourself. I guess we should be thankful you chose to answer in an
intelligent manner, rather than your usual manner of filling the
newsgroup with hate mongering !

I have no interest in discussing anything with people like you. Nor do
I care what you think. You're a dinosaur! Go away !

RHC


On Aug 31, 1:23 pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:10 pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > True, in that specific situation you mention, such a law would have
> > prevented that consumer from being defrauded.
>
> I don't really think what he said really took place but, we'll see if
> he can actually pull up a reference.
>
> > However, I think the
> > intent of this consumer protection legislation  is more to even things
> > up in the market place for the consumer right across the board.
>
> As I said in my earlier post, it just doesn't seem like a law would be
> passed against a specific industry. It seem to me that precedent being
> set, it would be used against and affect too many other industries.The
> outcry and opposition by politicians funded by trade organizations
> alone, would certainly
> put a stop to such a law.
>
> > It
> > pays to remember that the vast majority of alarm companies are honest
> > and don't engage in fraudulent activities such as you illustrate.
> > However, even the vast majority of good companies engage in needlessly
> > signing clients into long term contracts for all the equity building
> > reasons we all know and love.
>
> Why and how is it that you describe equity building as needless?
>
> > To suggest that this is not a fair thing
> > to do will always generate volumes of criticism as we have seen in the
> > past, and this is understandable given that most companies look no
> > further than their bottom line.
>
> Looking further than the bottom line is an important part of keeping
> a
> business running. If one ONLY looks at the bottom line, then it's
> likely
> that the business will ultimately fail ... or .... at the very least,
> not do as well as it could do by offering beyond the norm service.
> After all, it's the service aspect that small companies offer that
> sets them apart from the bigger companies ( who by the way and as you
> know are the biggest offenders in this area)
>
> Do you imply that those companies who offer long term contracts only
> look at the bottom line? I think you apply your jaded thinking about
> term contracts to those companies and have convinced your
> self that anyone who offers long term contracts do NOT also practice
> going beyond the bottom line. Do you ever consider those companies who
> offer long term contracts and work hard to deserve their customers
> loyalty?
> The companies who go out of their way to anticipate problems, call
> their
> clients back in the middle of the night when problems occur? Call
> clients after false alarms are received? Go on service
> calls at night, on weekends on holidays? Offer lenient or no payments
> when times are bad? Lower payments or none at all to limited income
> seniors? Do all the things and possibly MORE than YOU claim to have an
> exclusive on .....yet also build equity in their business as you are
> not smart enough to do?
>
> >But the government appearing to step
> > in like this is simply saying to the market place that there IS a
> > legitimate place for contracts when you are paying down equipment
> > costs, but that legitimacy stops when you are holding the consumer to
> > a long term contract for nothing more than specific monitoring
> > services, with a guarantee of long term revenues for you, but with
> > little or nothing of gain in it for the consumer.
>
> Do you mean that holding the price of monitoring for a long term is
> not something for the consumer to gain?  Followed by good service and
> adherence to the agreement? Isn't that an advantage?   It seems to
> work for me and 10s of thousand of other alarm companies who've been
> in business for decades. Which, as we all know, that if there were
> only long term contracts with no good service, that these companies
> would cease to exist.
>
>
>
> > One of the other benefits of such legislation is that it will force
> > marginal companies to clean up their act since consumers can cancel
> > anytime they want. Plus, I have no doubt it will drive prices downward
> > quickly which is not good for the industry. However, the days of
> > ridiculous $30 plus monitoring rates that don't involve equipment
> > "write downs" will rapidly disappear......
>
> So you're saying that it's better for alarm companies to eliminate
> their source
> of equity and reduce their income for the benefit of the
> consumer ..... Uh-huh
> Sure ...... that oughta go over big with everyone in this trade .....
>
>  ummm Why I bet you could sell that world wide, to the alarm
> industy ....I'm sure.
>
>
>
> > It will be interesting to see if this catches on. For all I know so
> > far, it is just talk since no one has come back and said that it
> > actually exists here in Canada in any specific province.
>
> Actually .... Bob ..... you're having a dream .......
>
> HEY WAKE UP!
>
>
>
> > RHC