Re: Lying Competition

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, April 7, 2013 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, E DAWSON wrote:
> "tourman" <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:f50ccbbe-5e41-4=
fba-82b0-0a01533fed1f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Monday, March 25, 2013 10:22:2=
1 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote: > Anyone here ever have issues with other alarm co=
mpanies - door knockers or > real companies - trying to steal your clients =
by telling them you're out > of business, etc. > > > > Anything that should=
 or shouldn't be done about them? > > > > - Chris You are quite right ! Som=
etimes it seems as if some of the alarm companies are worse than the low li=
fe we are trying to protect our customers against. Thank goodness they are =
in the minority; however there are enough of them that they can do quite so=
me damage. Up here in Ottawa, I like many companies, do our fair share of t=
akeovers. One of the larger firms up here in Ottawa (Kodiak Alarms for one)=
with about 10,000 customers, seems to be getting away with disreputable pra=
ctices. ALL their alarm boards are locked regardless of who owns them; ALL =
of their boards don't have any kind of auto test programmed in, so they nev=
er know or care whether their client's systems are working or not.With so m=
any customers going VoIP today, this is an invitation to disaster !! I know=
 this through multiple takeovers,as well as talking directly to their insta=
llers. There are so many others that I have comprised a list of installer c=
odes for local companies that lock their boards, and I willingly give it ou=
t to anyone who asks. I figure that's the only ways to beat these lowlife c=
ompanies at their own game. If they don't lock boards, they're not on my li=
st !! Then we have companies like DSC that deliberately encrypt their newes=
t line of boards so they can't be unlocked...!! Door knockers and others of=
 their ilk will always be with us. For many, money is always put before eth=
ics in the way they operate. As long as customers are stupid enough to beli=
eve you can get something for nothing in this business, these guys will con=
tinue to flourish. It's been the same for the 20 or so years I've been in t=
he business. I doubt anything will change any time soon... Hi, I hear and u=
nderstand what your frustration is in regards to disreputable companies. I =
do think differently in regards to locked boards though. The fact that a co=
mpany locks the boards while they are monitoring them, does not translate i=
nto being a disreputable company. We do lock boards when they can be locked=
, while we are monitoring them, to protect ourselves from "disreputable com=
panies" trying to take over any monitored system under a monitoring agreeme=
nt, as well as 'disreputable customers' who are trying to leave un-ashamedl=
y prematurely. One interesting story of note, I will mention now. About a y=
ear ago, we were monitoring a very large alcoholic beverage retail establis=
hment. There was an Ademco 128FB board that had a fire system, burglary, an=
d some access control tied into it. Now when we take over a system, we have=
 to go line-by-line over all the programming and every little device or scr=
ew connection is checked out thoroughly. Yes, it is very time consuming, bu=
t we assume that the last tech wasn't so swift. Most of the time, it proves=
 to be true. When we certify a system, we know that we have done everything=
 possible to make it work right, and we should not have any surprises down =
the line. After having monitored this system about 2 years, I was called fo=
r a service call to address a problem with the wireless door contact on one=
 of the main doors. The 5816 needed replacing in this case. When I tried to=
 get into programming with the installer code for this system, I found that=
 I could not get in. Puzzled, I resorted to the power down mode, since this=
 system could not be locked out. When I got back into programming, I first =
checked the installer code section, and behold, I found that it had been ch=
anged to none other than "ADT's" installer code. Wow, I thought, that's a s=
witch. I checked other parts of the programming and they had perverted that=
 too. Realizing the gravity of the situation, I enlisted the services of a =
real police officer in the employ of the store, to personally witness the c=
hanges in the programming. I got his name, badge number, and cell number; a=
nd he agreed to help me any way he could. After taking up a conversation wi=
th the manager of the store whom I was on good terms with, I was apprised o=
f the fact that there had been 2 technicians for over half a day, that had =
gone thru that system some time ago. It appears that they were taking over =
the system until the time that they informed the owner that he would have t=
o spend $800 on a compatible ADT cellular backup for his system. The owner =
nixed the take-over when he realized all that was involved. Problem was, th=
ose technimorphians had gone thru most of the programming already. By the w=
ay, I don't consider an Uplink cellular backup incompatible with any centra=
l station. The company sent the owner a registered certified-receipt letter=
 the next day, informing him how he had put our company at liability for hi=
s reckless behavior. He was given 5 business days to contact us so that I c=
ould go back out there and reprogram the entire system at his cost this tim=
e. A copy was sent to the Fire Marshall of this large city that he was in, =
as well as the insurance company of record that he was insured with. There =
was a clause that if the company did not hear from him, that they would ass=
ume that he went to another company... and he did. Good riddance! If this s=
ystem could have been locked out, this would never have happened. The abili=
ty to lock a board is to protect the system while you are monitoring it, no=
t to prevent an authorized take-over. Also, if you did lock your boards, it=
 sure would make it a little harder for the company that you mentioned from=
 taking over your panels. By the way, we do send an auto-test on a regular =
basis. You should have a strong clause in your monitoring agreement that th=
oroughly puts the responsibility of overseeing the phone line upon the cust=
omer's shoulders also; that makes them liable if they change to VoIP and th=
eir system won't communicate anymore because the phone line is now back-fed=
 to the mainboard. Since you say that you do have a list of installer codes=
 from the companies that lock their boards, it reasons that you have found =
a way to get into them. It is noble that you are willing to share the infor=
mation to reputable companies that do reputable take-overs. Just make sure =
that the info does not get out to any 'bad' company. I do find that using '=
ONE' installer code company-wide, is a recipe for disaster. Do notice that =
in the paragraphs above I did say "with the installer code for this system"=
 had been changed. If you can find a system to assign, randomly generate, o=
r pull-out-of-a-hat, an installer code for each system that you monitor; yo=
u will more concisely protect your customers' systems from these disreputab=
le companies at large. As far as DSC is concerned, the boards can be gotten=
 for about $40 or so, depending upon your particular supplier. That is not =
that great a cost to be overcome. Keep them around until you eventually fin=
d out the code that some tech put into an un-lockable system by the same co=
mpany. And then again, you can send them to Florida, to get unlocked by Tec=
h-man.com. Or better yet, you could even turn it into a deductible 'busines=
s trip' during the 'warm' months of February/March in Ottawa and bask in th=
e sunlight and beaches of the west coast of Florida. Tell him to take about=
 a week when you drop them off personally, no rush, take your time! From so=
meone whose once lived and worked as far as the 55th parallel, heh!



I agree with you, however, should Robert reply to you, you will soon see th=
at your philosophy and that of the entire alarm installation trade falls on=
 deaf ears.