Re: Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"tourman" <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:30041f61-2fd7-41a4-87ad-3b3466a01963@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jul 30, 1:32 am, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

No one will win ever win an argument when the topic is based on individual
business philosophy. Each person thinks they have a better paperclip. Being
a business owner that does have monitoring agreements I know why it is
important to the future of my company to have them whether I agree with the
philosophy of term agreements or not.

>
>   Consumers have no choice in the matter at this point. They can't
>> insist on no long term contracts if they want monitoring. It's now a
>> basic staple in this industry. You act as if it's a bad thing just
>> because it's in the interest of the alarm company to have long term
>> contracts. In you're world you're asking every dealer to give up the
>> value of his business.
>
> RHC: In most places and locales, a customer will have to search long
> and hard to find a company that offers them more freedom of choice.

Not really. They just have to pay the full value of the installation which
means Manufacturers Recommended Price for the equipment and the prevailing
labor wage for the area in which the installation occured. If this were to
be paid, the installing company would make out better than doing the job at
a competetive installation charge and three years monitoring. At that point
the customer can find monitoring anywhere on the internet month to month.
Problem is no one will pay MRP and prevailing wage. They cannot have it both
ways.


> That in itself is predictable and understandable, given the self
> serving nature of contracts.

Of course it is self serving in a way but agreements are not a one way
street. My agreement outlines my responsibities to the client and by
agreeement if I don't do what is outlined, I am in default. In fact, an
agreement with a client leaves a company open to legal action if they don't
perform. Without an agreement there is no expectation on the company to
perform.

>But it doesn't make it an ideal situation
> for someone shopping for an alarm.

Shopping for anything is not ideal if there is a committment involved. If
you don't want the committment, why make the call in the first place. Hell
getting dog is a committment and more costly than monitoring and for a
longer period of time.

>We have the same predictable
> behaviour up here with a large communication company that wants to
> charge everyone for text messaging (including spam). The consumer
> uproar was so large that the company backed down and established a
> rate structure that was more user friendly.

This is not a fair comparison. They have a base rate and now are charging
for extra little features. Monitoring is monitoring and most companies have
a flat monthly charge. I have heard of some that will charge extra for fire,
which is understandable in some cases. Radios are easily explained as well.
Openings and closings do cost money to supervise. But I have never heard of
companies charging extra for having your chime on or receiving trouble
signals etc.

> I'm not suggesting this
> will happen any time soon with alarm contracts, but the more they are
> abused, the more likely consumers will rise to the occasion.

Did you ever hear of "Be careful of what you wish for"? I know you have
heard of "what ever happened to the good ole days?" Well, one thing is for
sure and that is when the good companies go away because of the changing
times, they are never coming back.

>Locking boards is now illegal in several locales (or about to be), and this
>is
> long overdue.

I do not know of anywhere in the states that it is illegal to lock boards.
After all, the feature is standard with every manufacturer, the use of which
is an industry standard and these panels are all UL approved (or some other
national recognized tesing laboratory) with the feature on board. It would
be a hard sell to disprove or discredit the legitimacy of the feature's use
as intented. With that being said, those that misuse the feature after there
is no further responsibility for the correct function of the system, should
be held accountable if in fact they are proven to be doing so maliciously. I
know you can relate to the fact that guns in the hands of responsible people
don't kill. In the hands of non responsible people they are a problem.
Should guns be illegal?

> However, if a consumer comes to this group and sees that
> there is a possibility that there are companies offering term
> contracts on a monthly basis (and there certainly are in our area),
> then maybe he or she will not just needlessly accept the self serving
> insistence that they lock themselves in to a long term contract that
> does nothing for them.

This has come up in legislation here in Florida and the month to month
agreements only and no auto renewals did not pass. At least last year
anyway. It will probably come up again since it was the bill sponsors mother
that felt she was wronged. Since government cannot tell businesses how to
run, the legislators all got heartburn over this issue when it was brought
to their attention that at the strike of midnight of the expiration date,
that a location would no longer be monitored if payment was not received. At
2:00 AM on that following morning their mother or father pushed their
medical pendant, no one responded and the person died, the son would be
looking for someone to sue. Guess what, there was no contract, it had
expired. Hence, no obligation to respond. The old "check is in the mail"
does weight. Without payment in house, the company does not know the
client's intent on whether to continue or not. Now, remember what I said
about it not being a one way street. Let's be the good guy. Old Tom will
pay, He is alway late. So the good guy continues to monitor after the
contract has expired. Unfortunately, the dispatcher makes a mistake and the
person died anyway. Your insurance company is covering you with the
understanding that there is an agreement, with the language they approved,
in force. In force, not expired. In this case, I hope you have enough room
on your credit card because you are your own. Besides, most monitoring third
monitoring companies will want to have a contract in force anyway. A month
to month would be a paperwork nightmare to control who is in and who isn't.
The other issue that the legislation looked at was that they didn't want to
pass legislation that opened the door to escalating fees. Month to month
agreements equal potential for monthly escalation of fees rather that fixed
amounts agreed to for a longer term. Talk about potential for abuse.

I can see how a small one man show can live off of the month to month
philosophy. Has monthly money coming in, does a few installs, the monthly
bills are getting covered. Great. It is called check book accounting.
However, a company with alot of overhead must have some assurrances and this
is accomplished with guarunteed contracts. In the large scope of things
those are the companies that are more apt to be here for the consumer
tomarrow, next week, next month and next year. I don't have to explain the
life expectance of the small businesses. Most people don't mind paying for
that comfort level.

Bottom line is I don't like committment either, especially at my age, but I
understand and accept it as that is how things get done.