Re: DSC 1555MX and PC1616 in alarm

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:52:30 PM UTC-5, tourman wrote:
>=20
> The 1616, 1832 and 1864 series of panels are another matter
> altogether. The bastards at DSC have deliberately engineered things
> such that it is at the moment, impossible to unlock. And the reason
> why they have done that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the
> lockout feature or not; it's simply done for monetary reasons.=20

And you know this how? Which manufacturer told you this?

> For
> every board that Jim or I unlock, that is one less board they
> sell....it's always money before ethics, and especially so for some
> companies like DSC !!!

Lets do the math, you and Jim unlock maybe a few dozen boards a year (okay =
let's say 100 total) and DSC sells several hundred thousand boards a year. =
Considering the low profit margin of an alarm board I somehow seriously dou=
bt they do it for revenue. If I remember there was a time they didn't would=
n't take locked boards at all back in the mid 90's. A company I worked for =
was sending several hundred PC1500 v3 panels monthly at the time.

> A very strong case can be made for eliminating this lockout feature
> altogether from alarm boards since it serves NO legitimate purpose
> today. It was originally brought in to allow the "free system"
> marketeers some freedom from other companies "raiding" their accounts.

And you know THIS how? Which manufacturer said this?

If I recall old FBI and Ademco panels had that feature a long time before t=
he free system guys arrived. Besides that most panels back then were chip-p=
rogrammable with no reason for any lockout feature.

And doesn't Paradox allow locking peripherals to a particular panel?

> More often than not, it simply serves to discourage any new homeowner
> from using the board in "local" mode (minus monitoring), since it
> cannot normally be defaulted without the assistance of the original
> company who in turn won't assist unless the new client signs on to one
> of their atrocious, overpriced contracts.

Actually that isn't true either, in most cases the new company will easily =
replace the panel with a new board or whatever complete system they normall=
y install.

And as far as discouraging the homeowner from using the board in local mode=
 ask any central station how many signals they get from systems they haven'=
t monitored in years, the customer cancels the service but the system conti=
nues to call (and be ignored) by the central station.


> Bottom line, it's like someone selling you a used car with a non
> removeable padlock on the hood...holding you hostage to them for
> service !! It should be illegal frankly, but that's not likely to
> happen with all the other bad things going on in life and business....
>=20
> There is a lesson here for potential buyers of alarm systems though.
> Get it in writing in the contract that the board will remain unlocked
> from the start. Unlocking it at the end of the contract is NOT
> satisfactory, since a lot of smaller companies simply disappear, or
> get sold to another larger conglomerate who may not even know it is
> locked.
>=20
> Either way, as this homeowner is finding out, you're screwed !