Re: Envisalink monitoring satisfaction?

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:59:17 PM UTC-5, Jim wrote:
>=20
> although I agree with you for the most part, unfortunately advertising an=
d marketing dictate what the public will want .... and that comes from the =
nationals and other large companies with the deep pockets. What with the "I=
nternet 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-come=
rs 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 lea=
ds end-users down the path of DIY, self monitoring or cheap equipment and i=
nternet remote monitoring  .... which will eventually be "good enough". Unl=
ess central stations get on the band wagon and begin offering "cloud" stora=
ge services, remote control services and such ....  in the future the major=
ity of their monitoring will only be large commercial burg and fire alarm s=
ystems. Residential will diminish over time. The residential end user will =
be satisfied with "good enough". That's how this trade has been evolving fo=
r decades. First there was direct wire and McCollough, then the tape dialer=
 was "good enough". Then the digital dialer a brief respite in the "good en=
ough" decline. Then came DTMF dialing. How long did it take for that to be =
trusted over rotary dialing? Then came VoIP. Fire marshals were "NEVER" goi=
ng to accept that kind of communication .... yeah .... sure" Then came long=
 range radio.... who was EVER going to trust THAT? Then redundant radio and=
 landline.  Now we've got Cellular or radio and Network monitoring with no =
redundancy ...... that's acceptable???=20
>=20
> So now they've jammed down our throats the erroneous concept that it's Ok=
 for some combination of a long range radio, cellular network and land line=
 where only one is used for a primary transmission technology and the "back=
up" technology never gets actually tested until and unless the primary tech=
nology fails. "What do you mean?" they say. "The back up technology sends i=
n periodic "supervisory" signals." I say, how do you know it will send in "=
alarm" signals unless it's tested every time an alarm signal is generated? =
How do you know that something hasn't been disconnected at the installation=
 and 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 =
supervisory signals but not able to send in alarm signals? If you think it =
can't happen, Ask DSC about the time their network went down and nobody kne=
w about it for weeks and weeks because their network could only receive sup=
ervisory signals but not alarm signals ..... and nobody was notified!!!!=20
>=20
> Which ... by the way is the main reason I don't and never will ever use D=
SC anything, ever again. They NEVER tell anyone when a failure occurs. Anot=
her 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 =
get the cellular radio to work. When I called tech support they asked if th=
e battery was left connected after it died. I said "of course". The tech ha=
d the nerve to nonchalantly say, "Oh, that's a problem with those radios, i=
f you leave the battery connected and it dies, the cellular radio has to be=
 replaced. That's a little problem we have with those units."  ..... WHAT!!=
!!!!=20
>=20
> They just play the numbers. If you have "the" problem .... then you've be=
en notified otherwise  ... why do you need to be informed? Why should they =
spend all that money replacing or repairing units that dealers never have t=
he problem with?  Recall? WATSA RECALL????
>=20
> Any way, I think that the "alarm" installation trade as we know it is cha=
nging and if you don't diversify or adopt some of the new technology, (whet=
her you like it or not) if your mid way or just getting into the trade ....=
 you're going to be left behind.=20
>=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 kn=
ow if I hold out, my old fashioned alarm monitoring RMR market is going to =
slowly diminish. End users are being charmed by the Telephone companies, Be=
st Buy, Cable companies, National alarm companies, DIY self install it by D=
IY Web Site companies selling Chinese mfg'd systems ....... at $15.00 a mon=
th.  Pretty soon Google and Apple will be "one upping" each other with thei=
r version of DIY systems and Apps. Think "DropCam", "Nest" and "SimpleSafe"=
. OH and another thing, do you really think that your alarm equipment manuf=
acturer of choice "ISN"T" providing their equipment to end users on the Int=
ernet ? REALLY?
> The only thing separating them from dealing direct with the end user righ=
t now is that they haven't released a DIY version of the installation instr=
uctions.=20
>=20
> This is why I say that the alarm equipment manufacturers are doing the wr=
ong thing by "forcing" installers pay prices for equipment and services so =
that we've got to compete with all of the above. If they want to keep their=
 bread 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
>=20
> Makes sense to me.

Oh, and one more thing. Take a look at some of the DIY help websites.=20

By far, the most popular panels ..... by the thousands .....  in the hands =
of DIY'ers on EVERY DIY help web site is ... yep ...... DSC  .... with Hone=
ywell a close second.=20

In return, please tell me how much loyalty do you think they actually deser=
ve ?????=20