[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Brinks & Broadview Takeovers



On Oct 2, 12:44=A0pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> See replies interspersed below.....
>
> RHC: I have to admit, I am becoming very disillusioned with the
> security
>
> > > industry. With far too many companies, ethics seem to take a distant
> > > back seat to making money at any cost. There are a few industry
> > > "standard" self serving practices that simply are not in the best
> > > interests of consumers....unnecessary and very restrictive long term
> > > contracts being one..... and this business of locking boards being
> > > another. Frankly, there are very few if any legitimate uses for the
> > > lockout feature that many if not most manufacturers put in their
> > > boards (Ademco being the exception, at the keypad programming level
> > > anyway....). I truly believe these companies should be taken to task
> > > for implementing a feature at the request of large companies that onl=
y
> > > works against all other companies, and more often unfortunately, whic=
h
> > > ends up working against the innocent end user.
>
> > Maybe if you had a lot more accounts and caught other companies
> > stealing your accounts you'd understand why that lockout feature is
> > there.
>
> RHC: =A0And it's something that they continue to deliberately do as if
> there> > is a legitimate reason for if . For example, DSC recently implem=
ented
> > > changes that make it impossible with our current methodology to unloc=
k
> > > their 1616 and 1832 =A0boards. An inside source has told me they did
> > > this to ensure that every locked board would result in the sale of a
> > > new board, and we would no longer be able to cut into this sales
> > > stream. It never enters their mind of course that what they are doing
> > > is WRONG; its all about a source of lost revenue to them, and to hell
> > > with the ethics of it !! To me, it's a lot like the tobacco
> > > manufacturers passing all the blame on to the smoking consumer and
> > > washing their hands of any responsibility......
>
> ML: =A0If I recall they did warn people about smoking, you can't outlaw
>
> > stupidity
>
> RHC: No, you sure can't. Up here, the government has mandated that
> tobacco products carry graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking,
> but people still do it in spite of overwhelming proof of the dangers
> of smoking. But my point is, society is changing, and tobacco
> companies are increasingly being held responsible for the bad results
> of their products, and this is not likely to change. At some point,
> all manufacturers have to take some responsibility for the products
> they produce. To them it's likely more about the monies they have to
> pay out, but the end result is they will still take additional
> measures to limit their liability. It ends up at the same place....
>
> RHC: Well, let me tell them if they are reading this, I will turn the
> earth> > upside down to figure out how to crack their boards, to help ens=
ure no
> > > one else can be screwed by this feature !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ML: 1. You seem to blame the manufacturer for something a dealer is
> guilty
>
> > of
>
> > 2. You haven't figured out how to get around the lockout on those
> > boards yet?
>
> RHC: Nope, but we're working on it...as Jim Rojas said, it's just a
> matter of time and procedures. =A0I blame the manufacturers for putting
> in a feature that serves only to provide the big dealers a means of
> protection for panels which they put out in the field.


alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home