Re: FYI ADT fans

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

RHC: Excellent ! It's about time that someone  brought these
phony"free alarm system" companies up to a minimum standard of
disclosure on the real costs of buying their systems.I know it is the
customer's responsibility to read and understand everything they sign,
but unfortunately most don't. In this market, no one seems to do any
sort of proper shopping research. That is the only reason that
companies like ADT and Alarmforce continue to survive in the "low end
residential market" - the inadequacies of the buying public (I'm
tempted to say the "stupidity" of the buying public but I won't.....)

If they are forced to lay out all the real costs properly, it will go
a long way in leveling the playing field with other more reputable
companies who do tell it like it really is, and then unfortunately
suffer the loss of the sale because of the customers incorrect cost
comparisons of the various systems quoted to him.


On Mar 6, 9:43 am, "RockyTSquirrel" <gafa_usa@/nospam/hotmail.com>
wrote:
> California county sues ADT, may have industry repercussions
> By Martha Entwistle
> MARTINEZ, Calif.-A Contra Costa county district attorney and an industr
> attorney agree that security dealers should keep an eye on a lawsuit filed
> last week, which claims ADT is violating California and federal laws because
> its contracts do not disclose all potential consumer costs.
> Read more.http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/index.php?p=article&id=ss200803ZqDx9d