Re: DSC phone line technical support is terrible

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, tourman wrote:

> RHC: Older products and makes that appear to have sturdier boards
> probably do. But it also means their production lines are antiquated
> and not up to modern standards. Unfortunately, modern standards call
> for "cheaper" components and thinner boards. That doesn't necessarily
> mean they are less reliable, only less costly to build. Such is life
> on every production line in every manufacturing company.
>=20
> I think the determining factor here is how reliable and saleable
> products are, not so much how whether they use thicker boards and
> heftier components etc. In my experience, DSC alarm boards are at
> least as reliable as others of my experience...Paradox, Ademco,
> Caddyx, FBI etc. If they can build them more cheaply, and still
> maintain quality, everyone benefits through less expensive prices. Or
> so the theory goes....

I used to work with the circuit board industry around the Dallas area, toda=
y's circuit boards are far better quality, produce less heat, use less powe=
r and are more reliable than what was around even 10 years ago. As I said e=
arlier when you see a board that is filled with resistors, capacitors, diod=
es and heatsinks that is all added by a human whereas things like current p=
rocessors and other surface components are done by machine. You can see how=
 boards from Ademco, Caddx, DSC and GE have evolved with less discrete comp=
onents

I don't quite know what Jim means by cheap, maybe you can flex the board on=
 a DSC more than he normally uses but even being able to do that without br=
eaking traces=20


On Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC-5, tourman wrote:
> On May 12, 1:48=A0am, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:19:09 PM UTC-4, tourman wrote:
> > > On May 10, 2:28=A0pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:05:33 AM UTC-4, tourman wrote:
> > > > > I hope DSC is listening and getting this message ! Their phone li=
ne
> > > > > support is not adequately manned, with wait times up to hours not
> > > > > minutes. While I realize that a lot of questions are from install=
ers
> > > > > asking questions they should know if they were trained properly, =
or if
> > > > > they would take the time to read the install manuals, that does n=
ot
> > > > > excuse this terrible level of support. As installation companies,=
 we
> > > > > suffer the same thing, with questions from end users who can find=
 the
> > > > > answer on page one of their user manual; however, that is not an
> > > > > excuse. Suck it up as we do, and continue to provide proper suppo=
rt !
> >
> > > > > Please fix the problem or you are going to find a lot of people
> > > > > switching alarm suppliers to manufacturers who do support their
> > > > > customers
> >
> > > > I have never used DSC all through the years. Occasionally, when I r=
un across their equipment I usually pull it out and replace but I do have a=
 few that I've continued to service. The first thing I notice about their e=
quipment is that it is "flimsey" Thin metal, soft plastic, "cardboard" PCB'=
s, components "look" cheap, etc, which translate to me as .... well ....."c=
heap". It's not that their products don't work .... it's just ..... cheap.
> >
> > > > Awhile ago, someone asked me to evaluate their cellular radio. Gett=
ing through to technical support and waiting were a problem but getting the=
ir technical support people to give me answers to directly asked questions =
was even a problem. Me, having a very questioning mind, there were things t=
hat didn't make sense to me about the fucntioning of the device. I'd say th=
at, .... I had to call as many as twenty times and gradually "PULL" the ans=
wers that I needed, out of them. That is .... the answers could have been g=
iven to me at any time during our conversations but I guess that it may hav=
e seemed better to the people I was talking with, to not open up the can of=
 worms of providing me a reason to ask more questions ..... of THEM.
> >
> > > > At the end of it all, my opinion was that each person I spoke with =
knew what the ultimate answers were that I was looking for but rather then =
THEM taking the time to give them to me, they knew that I was going to have=
 to call back again and that I'd probably get someone else who would have t=
o take the time to talk to me. The problem was ..... everyone I spoke to di=
d the same thing.
> >
> > > > In addtion to all of this, the reason I had to call and ask questio=
ns in the first place was because the "manual" that came with the product w=
as a crookedly made photo copy of a hand typed and stapled 12 page manual t=
hat had little more than hookup instructions in it. They utimately had a re=
call of the unit because it was doing periodic checkin's even though it was=
n't able to transmit during an alarm. NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
> >
> > > > There are other products from manufacturers that are out there that=
 I don't use, simply because I'm satisfied with what I'm using. But I don't=
 use DSC on purpose.
> >
> > > RHC: Well.....I can totally agree with you on their tech support. Mos=
t
> > > of the time, and generally speaking, I know as much as, or more than
> > > their technical support phone staff. When I call Paradox tech support
> > > though, those guys are right on the ball, and have the answer in most
> > > cases. When they don't, it's most unusual.
> >
> > > On your comments regarding the cheapness of DSC equipment, I can't sa=
y
> > > I really agree with you. They are no better or worse than most other
> > > panels I deal with. If you compare to older makes of panels, perhaps
> > > your comment applies, but I don't think it's totally fair otherwise.
> > > Their products are simply the result of modern manufacturing
> > > techniques and are used by the vast majority of Canadian alarm
> > > companies.
> >
> > > DSC is not my primary line of panel; it's my secondary one, but
> > > overall, I would rate the equipment as good. I just put up a new
> > > partition on an older version 832 and I must say that was a bit of a
> > > challenge, but I got it. =A0Needless to say, I didn't bother calling =
DSC
> > > tech support for assistance....:((
> >
> > As I say, I don't use anything but Napco, and only occasionally come ac=
ross other mfg's ( mostly Honeywell, in my area). so that's mainly what I'm=
 comparing it to. Napco's thicker metal boxes, sturdier PCB's made of fiber=
glass. The components look "better" than those that I see on DSC. I know lo=
oks don't count with reliability but very seldom do I get a bad product fro=
m Napco. I can scratch the plastic on DSC wireless transmitters with my fin=
gernail. And Napco just last for decades. I don't know about DSC as far as =
reliability but .... as I say ..... it just looks and feels cheap.
> >
> > Maybe I should look at their products like a Timex watch. Costs and loo=
ks cheap .... but just keeps on tickin!
>=20
> RHC: Older products and makes that appear to have sturdier boards
> probably do. But it also means their production lines are antiquated
> and not up to modern standards. Unfortunately, modern standards call
> for "cheaper" components and thinner boards. That doesn't necessarily
> mean they are less reliable, only less costly to build. Such is life
> on every production line in every manufacturing company.
>=20
> I think the determining factor here is how reliable and saleable
> products are, not so much how whether they use thicker boards and
> heftier components etc. In my experience, DSC alarm boards are at
> least as reliable as others of my experience...Paradox, Ademco,
> Caddyx, FBI etc. If they can build them more cheaply, and still
> maintain quality, everyone benefits through less expensive prices. Or
> so the theory goes....