Re: Envisalink monitoring satisfaction?

[ns4wiki@xxxxxxxxx]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:59:17 PM UTC-5, Jim Davis wrote:
> 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 sim=
ple,=20
> > hearty, BA..
> > His company made an excellent product back in the 80's,  the Z900  & z1=
100e
> >=20
> > Of the several hundred customers we've sold to over the last 35+ years =
NOT=20
> > one has ever
> > wanted a "Do-it-all" control system.   Simple on and off,  that's what =
they=20
> > all wanted..
> > No fancy auto arm auto bypass whole house tie-ins,  none of that "selli=
ng=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 di=
d the=20
> > day they were installed..
> >=20
> > Granted there are some new ideas and equipment that bear including in a=
ny=20
> > system
> > but as a whole  the large manufacturers, in my opinion, have dropped th=
e=20
> > ball..
> > Not everyone wants a "Lexus or Lincoln"   some just want a Simple Heart=
y=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@xxxxxxxx=
ET...
> >=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 =
going
> > 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 =
their
> > 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 anyth=
ing;
> > not keypads, not wireless, not fobs, not anything. That was a very grav=
e
> > error on their part-NUMBER 1. Their bus being locked out so that add-on=
 fobs
> > 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,=
 if
> > you looked at the pricing for the dealers, it was just about twice the =
price
> > 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=
 the
> > keypad in it so that they could sell the kit cheaper. They have now bec=
ome a
> > joke in the industry. Just lately, I was talking to one supplier. He wa=
s not
> > even aware that the bus was locked out.
> >=20
> >      This was not a decision made by DSC, this is more of a decision ma=
de by
> > the parent company TICO. DSC has had good products reasonably priced fo=
r
> > quite a while. I cannot imagine that after a long track record of good
> > accomplishments, that the same folks would suddenly destroy their compa=
ny.
> > They have thoroughly painted themselves into a no-return corner. Greed =
has a
> > way of making you blind, so they say. And the new folks at DSC have jus=
t
> > proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> >=20
> >      When DSC does away with their Power-series line and only has NEO t=
o
> > sell, we will end our relationship with DSC and go with our second-in-l=
ine
> > 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! Securit=
y
> > companies want and need affordable inter-operable products! And, that i=
s
> > because the customers-who are the true end-buyer, want their "free" "ch=
eap
> > 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-a=
ired,
> > greed-intoxicated, power-hungry cubicles and breath the fresh air of th=
e
> > real folks!
> >=20
> >   e dawson
> >=20
> > P.S. I don't give a "Wam" that your new wireless can communicate up to =
one
> > 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.
>=20
>=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.

Jim I agree with you. I have experience using both DSC Systems and Honeywel=
l Systems in service over the long term. It could possibly be due to some s=
ort of poor installation (done by an alarm tech since I was actually too yo=
ung at the time to even know about it...but maybe still not likely an insta=
ll problem), I've always had DSC Systems act up and just outright start get=
ting a mind of their own after 5-7 years or so of service. More random stuf=
f just starts happening out of the blue for no apparent reason, the system =
cutting out and sirens going off but a blank keypad (maybe a short somewher=
e), but happens on the DSC panels that have been in every time. The Honeywe=
ll System I had previously (I upgraded it to a Vista 20P 2 years ago) I thi=
nk it was a 16 year old Ademco Vista 15, ran strong for the full 16 years. =
My life was actually saved by a Vista 20P setup (in a house I was renting) =
because of a CO leak (some total goof replaced the water heaters and instal=
led Natural Gas Water Heaters in a house on LP and didn't install the conve=
rsion kit...) the owner had monitored CO detectors and the one time a honey=
well security system went into alarm, it wasn't a false one. Although they =
might be more difficult to set up, I kind of owe my life to them now and (a=
lthough I might be biased) I find their systems superior to DSC Systems. Th=
ey just seem better when it comes to being able to find it on Amazon and wh=
en expanding the capabilities of a system. I find their manuals much better=
 written and easier to follow also. =20


DSC may have the market share but I am a Honeywell Man...for now