Re: DSC 1555MX and PC1616 in alarm

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 19, 10:52=A0pm, mleuck <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 11, 2012 7:52:30 PM UTC-5, tourman wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And you know this how? Which manufacturer told you this?

RHC: Well, with no real value at all, there is no other reason why any
company would take the deliberate action of blocking someone from
entering the back door of the panel other than money !!
Since YOU challenge my assertion, YOU tell us why a manufacturer would
deliberately go out of there way to redesign the board so a few little
guys like Jim and I can't crack the board any longer. They have no
idea (nor do you) how many boards we actually default, so they, like
most large companies today, simply put the bottom line over ethics,
and deliberately re-inforce a software procedure which has no
redeeming value. In all the years I've been in business, I can't think
of a single valid reason for this feature other than to frustrate
someone taking the board over.
>
> > 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 (oka=
y 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 d=
oubt they do it for revenue. If I remember there was a time they didn't wou=
ldn't take locked boards at all back in the mid 90's. A company I worked fo=
r was sending several hundred PC1500 v3 panels monthly at the time.

RHC; I'm sure it had to do with the price of labour for them to unlock
the boards. Plus what do they do with a used board once it's available
for re-use.....same old reasoning, bottom line !! Plus, should our
techniques become known out there in the world, and this activity
become much more active, there goes far more boards than the number
that Jim and I unlock. It's called "knipping it in the bud", all with
a view towards the bottom line. They want to sell new boards, not
allow a feature that keeps older ones working longer......
>
> > 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?

RHC: This is certainly the only reason I can see after 20 years of
being in this business. And no manufacturer is going to come right out
and advertise the availability of a feature which they know deep down
shouldn't even be in their panels.They did it because of a large
demand by these same marketeers !! If YOU think this feature is valid,
YOU tell us why this feature is still used (even actively modified as
with DSC) in these alarm boards ! You're always so quick to challenge
others - now you put up or shut up !!   And when you do, I'll give you
the email address of the detective in Denver who was going to campaign
to make it illegal in Colorado to do this....
>
> If I recall old FBI and Ademco panels had that feature a long time before=
 the free system guys arrived. Besides that most panels back then were chip=
-programmable with no reason for any lockout feature.
>
> And doesn't Paradox allow locking peripherals to a particular panel?

RHC: Yes, but only with one line of boards - the Digiplex. AND, I do
know one installer who wires in the circular loop, with all
addressable components locked as you describe. When approached about
it, he clearly laid out that it was to keep others from taking over
his accounts !! (and screw the customer). After I told him in no
uncertain terms what I thought of his practices, we are no longer on
speaking terms.....
>
> > 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 easil=
y replace the panel with a new board or whatever complete system they norma=
lly install.

RHC: Exactly, and in doing so, the manufacturer sells another
board !!!!

I can't count the number of times this has been the situation...take
off your rose coloured glasses. I've had it happen many, many times
(and know it was for those reasons, by listening over a speaker phone
as the old company tried it's extortion techniques.....)
>
> And as far as discouraging the homeowner from using the board in local mo=
de ask any central station how many signals they get from systems they have=
n't monitored in years, the customer cancels the service but the system con=
tinues to call (and be ignored) by the central station.

RHC: Yes, but this has nothing to do with the discussion here !

> > 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....
>
> > 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.
>
> > Either way, as this homeowner is finding out, you're screwed !

RHC: I would seriously like to hear from those who think this is a
good feature ! Over the years I've brought this up many times, and all
I get is complete silence.
Those of us in the industry that really care about making it better,
have a duty to bring up the nefarious and outright dishonest practices
that we all face. If we don't, who the hell will !! We talk about the
usefulness of a newsgroup, well here you go.....

It sure as hell won't be the large corporations who always put money
first. Companies like ADT who should be the market leader, simply
aren't when it comes to hazy practices that affect our industry
(although in all honesty, I've never found a locked ADT board that
wasn't locked by some some subcontractor unbeknownst to them....).

So, you first Mark....