Re: Dear "Well Known National Alarm Company":

["A.J." <j_re_pairman@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KJxjk.40991$nD.1634@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> The ULC certificated system you installed two years ago at this grade
> school was bogus.  The fact that you certified the system was nothing more
> than a money grab.  Here is a list of deficiencies we found (and
> corrected) when we took over the system:
>
> 1.  A plug-in transformer is not allowed.


Correct.


>
> 2.  ULC requires a dedicated circuit for the alarm communicator.  It can't
> be "shared" with a Nortel Networks telephone system or a Telus supplied
> ADSL Modem.
>

Depending on the year it was installed. I believe it 's only until recent
years that a dedicated circuit is required for the communicator.


> 3.  ULC requires that the primary telephone line must be dedicated to the
> fire alarm communicator.  It can not be "shared" with the customer's ADSL
> Modem and most definitely must seize the line ahead of the modem.
>

Dedicated phone line is not required, as far as I know.


> 4.  The Power 832 (your Focus 32) panel must have two 7AH batteries
> connected to the battery harness to meet the requirements of the ULC
> listing.
>

Correct.


> 5.  You can not under any circumstances circumvent the lightning arrestor
> at the DMARC/Protector.
>

Correct, but nothing to do with ULC requirement.


> 6.  All wiring to the communicator cabinet must be either armoured or run
> in conduit.  This includes the wiring to the keypad.
>

Correct.


> 7.  The ULC certificate has space for five scheduled inspections.  The
> certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011.  The first
> "inspection" was signed off one month after installation.  The last one
> was signed off less than two weeks ago.  I hesitate to post what you
> charged the customer for each of these "inspections".  What were you going
> to do "next year"?  Sign off on the back of the certificate??
>

Hmmmm, no idea there.


> 8.  You should teach your technicians to recognize a PROPER ULC
> installation.  The fact that four separate techs signed off on this sham
> just boggles the mind.
>

Agree 100%.


> 9.  The Mircom 1000 has independent outputs for sprinkler supervisory. The
> supervisory and trouble contacts do not activate together
> (simultaneously).  ULC requires that you monitor the supervisory output
> (as does the local authority).  For the last two years a latching tamper
> (generated by someone that's just turned off the water) would never have
> registered with your CS.
>

Correct.


> 10.  If you're going to use a dual line digital communicator, the
> telephone lines must be installed in accordance with NFPA 72.  And you
> definitely cannot run both lines in a single eight conductor CAT3 cable.
> When you have all the lines entering through the same conduit, an
> alternate means of communication must be provided.  Typically this is done
> by either an RF transceiver or ULC listed cellular communicator.
>

I have to disagree with you here. How far are you willing to carry the
different path approach ? As far back as the manhole from the street ? But
pretty soon dual line comm will be history anyway, so no point arguing
further. I am not a big fan of digital communicator only  for fire alarm
system anyway, so the sooner it goes away, the happier I am.



> You've done your customer a huge disservice and grossly overcharged them
> for the last two and a half years.  You should be ashamed!!
>
> PS.  Your equipment has been neatly boxed and is located behind the office
> counter.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
>
> Sincerely
> Frank Olson

That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.