Re: Computer virus???

[Nick Lawrence <nlaw@xxxxxxx>]

Because Bay Alarm Company (one of the largest dealers anywhere) was
merely one of many dealers which has improperly employed the "local
programming lockout", it is a big problem in the CA marketplace. We know
(as does almost everyone here) of other large US regional dealers doing
the same evil, anti-competitive, anti-consumer acts.

As to their "nefarious agenda", one can surmise the dealer's intent when
it refuses to remove the "local programming lockout" from the
customer-owned panel, at the customer's written request, upon
termination and full payment for the contract term.

Unfortunately, "defaulting the board" (returning all programming options
to factory presets, thus losing zone identities, keypad alpha words,
user arm/disarm codes, bell timeouts, false alarm protections, etc)
means that the system will no longer properly work as a "local", thus
merely adding to the customer's misery, and robbing him of much of what
he paid for. Way to go!

Alas, if only the outgoing dealer would merely remove the "local
programming lockout", the receiver, download and account numbers, test
timer etc, and return the installer code to default, leaving the system
fully operative as a non-reporting "local" system, the whole issue could
be avoided.


Frank Olson wrote:
> Nick Lawrence wrote:
>> Unfortunately, and all too frequently, as most regulars here know, the
>> "local programming lockout" has been used in just that "evil"
>> anti-consumer, anti-competitive manner, by companies employing the
>> same tactics used by Bay Alarm Company, tactics which brought on the
>> litigation.
>>
>> Indeed, it is the capability to "lock out competitors" and to "prevent
>> unfriendly takeovers" that manufacturers claim as a benefit.
>>
>> You are free to call it "evil" or whatever you like, Frank.
>
>
> I'm sure that there are companies out there that don't
> respect the rights of the consumer, but they are rare.

> If one of *my* customers wanted access to installer level
> programming, I wouldn't have a problem with *defaulting* the board and
> turning it over to him/her (as long as their account was current).
> They're also advised that the system will function as a "local" system
> (in other words it would no longer communicate with our CS).