Re: Envisalink monitoring satisfaction?

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 9:21:45 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
> I'm still waiting for Wade (Elk & Moose Products)  to return with a simpl=
e,=20
> hearty, BA..
> His company made an excellent product back in the 80's,  the Z900  & z110=
0e
>=20
> Of the several hundred customers we've sold to over the last 35+ years NO=
T=20
> one has ever
> wanted a "Do-it-all" control system.   Simple on and off,  that's what th=
ey=20
> all wanted..
> No fancy auto arm auto bypass whole house tie-ins,  none of that "selling=
=20
> point"  crap
> the manufacturers want to push...
>=20
> One of the toughest BA's I ever installed was the MPI-50
> I had several survive Lighting strikes which destroyed every piece of=20
> electronics in the same building.
> To this day  I still have 3 MPI-50's that still work  just like they did =
the=20
> day they were installed..
>=20
> Granted there are some new ideas and equipment that bear including in any=
=20
> system
> but as a whole  the large manufacturers, in my opinion, have dropped the=
=20
> ball..
> Not everyone wants a "Lexus or Lincoln"   some just want a Simple Hearty=
=20
> "get-er-done" system.
>=20
> Now that my two minutes are over  I'll get off the soap box..
>=20
> RTS
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "E DAWSON"  wrote in message news:bc3b$54af2392$4b5b3eda$19579@xxxxxxxxxx=
...
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
>      The trend of companies locking their security systems is
> counter-productive. I attended last year a DSC "NEO" new product
> presentation by one of their regional reps. I lasted about 45 minutes
> waiting steadfastly and impatiently for the coming break. The rep kept go=
ing
> on and on about Alarm.com and how their new NEO products had locked out
> "their" bus- so no one will be able to use it except whom they choose. It
> was reported that negotiations were still underway for them to license th=
eir
> bus to Alarm.com. I was only interested in the specs of the new system. I
> quickly  came to find out that NEO is not backward compatible for anythin=
g;
> not keypads, not wireless, not fobs, not anything. That was a very grave
> error on their part-NUMBER 1. Their bus being locked out so that add-on f=
obs
> cannot be used, nor IPdatatel, nor anything that you can think of that is
> made by other companies. Another very serious error-NUMBER 2. And then, i=
f
> you looked at the pricing for the dealers, it was just about twice the pr=
ice
> of the PC 1616 kits. And that is the last nail in the coffin-NUMBER 3. Oh
> yes, now you can see some lower pricing for their "kits" -they took out t=
he
> keypad in it so that they could sell the kit cheaper. They have now becom=
e a
> joke in the industry. Just lately, I was talking to one supplier. He was =
not
> even aware that the bus was locked out.
>=20
>      This was not a decision made by DSC, this is more of a decision made=
 by
> the parent company TICO. DSC has had good products reasonably priced for
> quite a while. I cannot imagine that after a long track record of good
> accomplishments, that the same folks would suddenly destroy their company=
.
> They have thoroughly painted themselves into a no-return corner. Greed ha=
s a
> way of making you blind, so they say. And the new folks at DSC have just
> proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>=20
>      When DSC does away with their Power-series line and only has NEO to
> sell, we will end our relationship with DSC and go with our second-in-lin=
e
> being Networx. And I believe that there will also be a great rushing
> stampede by very many security companies out the DSC doors also.
>=20
>      Manufacturing companies need to wake up and pay attention! Security
> companies want and need affordable inter-operable products! And, that is
> because the customers-who are the true end-buyer, want their "free" "chea=
p
> to operate" "give me a lot of extras for free" security systems!!!
>=20
>      Wake up and smell the roses manufacturers. Get out of your stale-air=
ed,
> greed-intoxicated, power-hungry cubicles and breath the fresh air of the
> real folks!
>=20
>   e dawson
>=20
> P.S. I don't give a "Wam" that your new wireless can communicate up to on=
e
> mile. Will the moron who thinks that this is important please stand
> up....please!
>=20
>=20
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.


although I agree with you for the most part, unfortunately advertising and =
marketing dictate what the public will want .... and that comes from the na=
tionals and other large companies with the deep pockets. What with the "Int=
ernet of Things", Free Apps for everything, the ability for end users to do=
 their own systems .... I think that the handwriting is on the wall. Not in=
 the very near future, not while I'm still active but the mid to new-comers=
 in this trade are going to eventually be squeezed out of a good portion of=
 what we do now. The "There's an App for Everything" mentality surely leads=
 end-users down the path of DIY, self monitoring or cheap equipment and int=
ernet remote monitoring  .... which will eventually be "good enough". Unles=
s central stations get on the band wagon and begin offering "cloud" storage=
 services, remote control services and such ....  in the future the majorit=
y of their monitoring will only be large commercial burg and fire alarm sys=
tems. Residential will diminish over time. The residential end user will be=
 satisfied with "good enough". That's how this trade has been evolving for =
decades. First there was direct wire and McCollough, then the tape dialer w=
as "good enough". Then the digital dialer a brief respite in the "good enou=
gh" decline. Then came DTMF dialing. How long did it take for that to be tr=
usted over rotary dialing? Then came VoIP. Fire marshals were "NEVER" going=
 to accept that kind of communication .... yeah .... sure" Then came long r=
ange radio.... who was EVER going to trust THAT? Then redundant radio and l=
andline.  Now we've got Cellular or radio and Network monitoring with no re=
dundancy ...... that's acceptable???=20

So now they've jammed down our throats the erroneous concept that it's Ok f=
or some combination of a long range radio, cellular network and land line w=
here only one is used for a primary transmission technology and the "backup=
" technology never gets actually tested until and unless the primary techno=
logy fails. "What do you mean?" they say. "The back up technology sends in =
periodic "supervisory" signals." I say, how do you know it will send in "al=
arm" signals unless it's tested every time an alarm signal is generated? Ho=
w do you know that something hasn't been disconnected at the installation a=
nd the radio isn't just sitting there disconnected for the last 5 years ...=
 since the primary has never failed, and the "backup" is just sending in su=
pervisory signals but not able to send in alarm signals? If you think it ca=
n't happen, Ask DSC about the time their network went down and nobody knew =
about it for weeks and weeks because their network could only receive super=
visory signals but not alarm signals ..... and nobody was notified!!!!=20

Which ... by the way is the main reason I don't and never will ever use DSC=
 anything, ever again. They NEVER tell anyone when a failure occurs. Anothe=
r reason is During Sandy I had a customer who was without power for weeks. =
When they were back up I went back to power up their system and couldn't ge=
t the cellular radio to work. When I called tech support they asked if the =
battery was left connected after it died. I said "of course". The tech had =
the nerve to nonchalantly say, "Oh, that's a problem with those radios, if =
you leave the battery connected and it dies, the cellular radio has to be r=
eplaced. That's a little problem we have with those units."  ..... WHAT!!!!=
!!=20

They just play the numbers. If you have "the" problem .... then you've been=
 notified otherwise  ... why do you need to be informed? Why should they sp=
end all that money replacing or repairing units that dealers never have the=
 problem with?  Recall? WATSA RECALL????

Any way, I think that the "alarm" installation trade as we know it is chang=
ing and if you don't diversify or adopt some of the new technology, (whethe=
r you like it or not) if your mid way or just getting into the trade .... y=
ou're going to be left behind.=20

Do I use some of the above technologies that I've complained about?   Yep, =
Not because I think it's good, or right or secure ... it's just that I know=
 if I hold out, my old fashioned alarm monitoring RMR market is going to sl=
owly diminish. End users are being charmed by the Telephone companies, Best=
 Buy, Cable companies, National alarm companies, DIY self install it by DIY=
 Web Site companies selling Chinese mfg'd systems ....... at $15.00 a month=
.  Pretty soon Google and Apple will be "one upping" each other with their =
version of DIY systems and Apps. Think "DropCam", "Nest" and "SimpleSafe". =
OH and another thing, do you really think that your alarm equipment manufac=
turer of choice "ISN"T" providing their equipment to end users on the Inter=
net ? REALLY?
The only thing separating them from dealing direct with the end user right =
now is that they haven't released a DIY version of the installation instruc=
tions.=20

This is why I say that the alarm equipment manufacturers are doing the wron=
g thing by "forcing" installers pay prices for equipment and services so th=
at we've got to compete with all of the above. If they want to keep their b=
read and butter customers, they should be providing us with equipment and  =
control services that compete with all of the above but at lower pricing ..=
...=20

Makes sense to me.