Re: Problem With ADT System - Need Advice

["pyro" <pound.sand@xxxxxxx>]

Hey I can expect these kinds of responses. You can't do what Sonitol does
because your technology is limited and antiquated. I have seen multiple
complaints that's say ADT installed their system and it did not work
properly, so they brought in Bay to Monitor and they did not work out, so
then they brought in Post, same problems. It does not take a rocket
scientist to figure out that it is  not the  "monitoring company" that is at
fault, it is the system / technology.

I got a buddy that works for ADT, I know exactly what they say about the
product. You have to get a competitive edge. A traditional systems ONLY
advantage is that everyone  (or just about everyone) sell the same crap.
Therefore the customer has know where to go and eventually excepts what they
got... OR they switch companies, feel better for a while... and the cycle
starts again.

Hey all system have failure rates. Nobody is perfect. You say you see
Sonitrol Systems in abandon buildings, and you also see ADT, Honeywell, Bay,
Post and a hundred other small and pop shops.

Oh, by the way... who is Robert Bass and why does he or anybody else think
he is so smart? He sounds like the typical old consultant type trying to
hang on the only technology he possess and makes every excuse in the book
for why it dose not work except for the relevant excuse. The technology
never worked well...ever but is was the only available option.

There is a better solution... Sonitrol Security... call for a presentation
and evaluate for yourself


"Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1168453822.760302.160820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> pyro wrote:
>> Want to really fix the on going issue??
>>
>> Drop ADT or any system that is motion detector based. The problem is the
>> technology not the company. Go wih Sonitrol Security. No motion detectors
>> and their system has a variety of other advantages all based on thier
>> technology.
>>
>
>
> You WERE replying on the subject regarding the lowest member of the
> evolutionary scale .... weren't you?
>