Re: Telular Telguard TG-1 & TG-4 Service Pricing

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:

> Florida statute makes no mention of remote
> programming.  It also makes no mention of
> nor does it concern itself with going to a
> website to order services on behalf of an
> end user.

I think that's open to "interpretation" though.



>>And on a side note it's interesting that the
>>closer one gets to the truth concerning
>>you the less words you say in your defense

I've noticed this too.


> I just enjoy watching you idiots try to figure
> out what I mean and what services I offer.
> You've yet to get it right in over eight years.
> All the bullfrank about Florida statutes, even
> one idiot claiming that there's a new law
> written in my name, is just that bull.

Your meaning is rather clear.  Frank's right.  Complaints from people
outside of your State have fallen on deaf ears.  When the complaint
originated with a licensed tradesman *in* Florida, though, some major
changes took place on your website.


>
> I'll give you a hint, moron.  There's a huge
> difference between ordering services which
> the DIYer pays someone else for and
> providing services.

So I'm kinda "fuzzy" about the difference between offering monitoring
services in which you were named the "Dealer" and activating a cellular
communicator which also requires your registration as the "servicing
Dealer".  In an earlier post you'd stated that you couldn't provide "on
site" help to a DIY that purchased product from you and who may just
live "down the road" from you because that would be construed as
"service" (and technically require licensure under Florida's Statutes).
  I don't see the difference between providing this "service" either "in
person" or over the phone.  The Florida Statute is full of such
loopholes though, and I think it's only a matter of time before they're
going to limit your "services" to simple sale of product.




>
> I don't offer monitoring services and I
> don't collect RMR.  What I found over the
> years is that an installing dealer is in a
> better position to collect RMR than an
> online provider.  Too many accounts
> "forget" to pay.  People also move,
> leaving systems reporting and the dealer
> remains responsible to pay for it even after
> the RMR has stopped coming in.

Your "contract" stated that the *homeowner* was responsible.  I could
hardly think any CS would hold their Dealer responsible for the fact
that the customer moved without notice or decided he wasn't going to pay
for the service any longer.


>
> I can make more profitable use of my time
> selling new systems than chasing after
> unpaid monitoring contracts.  So I stopped.

And it was a "coincidence" that at the same time you decided it was time
to quit "chasing after unpaid monitoring contracts", the DBPR was
investigating your operation...  Sure...



>
> I know you idiots like to pretend it had
> something to do with Mugford's pals'
> bogus complaint but that's just bullshit
> and you know it.

No actually, we don't.  We only have your word for it and we all know
"your word" means next to nothing.



> The agent concluded
> that my business was and is fully
> compliant with Florida law and that was
> the end of it.

Yes, yes...  and you have many "friends and neighbours" that happen to
be pilots and engineers that all say you can't roll a Boeing 737.  Just
as I have many acquaintances that are Airline Transport rated pilots and
aircraft engineers that say the exact opposite.  We know all this, Bass.
  It doesn't "prove" anything besides the fact that you like to post
hearsay.  I have a friend that's actually seen the movie I have, and
posted that fact in this Group.  You've called him a "sock puppet" and
even suggested that "he" is "me".  You've also been unable to prove that
too, Bass.


> Had he found otherwise,
> Mugford would have been hopping around
> boasting about it like Jiminex in a new
> rowboat.


I believe Bob Worthy knows what really happened and it appears there was
some disagreement in the Attorney General's Office over the wording of
the Statute.  Hopefully, they're going to be able to amend that section
so that it's less ambiguous and not open to the kind of interpretation
we all know you're capable of.