Re: MONA T. RONICS

[Jim Davis <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:30:30 AM UTC-4, ED wrote:
> QUOTE #1:  You can believe what you wish that was the intended purpose of=
 locking the phone and account numbers, same reason other companies like P1=
, ADT etc did=20
>       =20
>      1) Well, lets see, I started out in this industry as an ADT installa=
tion manager, and I can tell you that ADT has their own specific installer =
code, but they did not have it 'Chip-Proofed' as Mona has in the past and s=
till presently does. Neither did ADT ever lock their systems in the DSC ins=
talls by enabling the installer lock option. In the old Ademco version, yes=
, the installer code if you defaulted the panel was restored to their speci=
fic installer code, but anyone could get back into the system by powering d=
own and holding * & # together to get into programming. Then, anyone could =
then program their own installer code. There was never any portion of the p=
rogramming that was totally off limits as Mona still presently does and has=
 done thru the use of a special chip because of the torrid relationship wit=
h her Honey. Additionally, the telephone numbers have always been accessibl=
e.=20
>      2) Protection-1 basically used the Ademco panels also, and there was=
 no special 'chip-locked-out-certain-locations' hanky-panky going on.=20
>=20
>      Seems obvious to anyone who has actually tried to takeover a Mona sy=
stem, and there are many out there, that Mona just could not trust her unsu=
specting lovers and actually shackled them with a chip-chastity belt...they=
 were either going to be for her alone or, no one was going to have them!
>=20
>=20
> QUOTE #2:  The installer code was defaulted allowing anyone to monitor th=
e things so have fun walking around in those big boots
>                           AND
>      Those systems can be taken over just like any other system=20
>=20
>=20
>      In the Mona chips, what is the point of the installer code being acc=
essible if the new company taking over the system cannot change the telco n=
umbers? Remember, we are talking about systems that are still going to be u=
sing a telco line, whether it is a POTS line or the simulated type Comcast/=
ATT generated telco lines.
>=20
> QUOTE:  Depends on the panel, with Honeywell no I doubt few companies did=
 at least I never heard of them doing it, GE/ITI/Interlogix yes very possib=
le and it did happen=20
>=20
>      So, here you say/admit that no companies that you know of, were able=
 to takeover a Mona/Honey system...at least you never heard of them doing i=
t. S---o, is this not exactly what I was talking about or did you not under=
stand or grasp what I have been trying to say?=20
>=20
>=20
>      It's not complicated. 'Mona' is very jealous, and imposes a "Chastit=
y-Chip" on all of her customers, and partners with her 'Honey' who basicall=
y racks in double-profits thru the scheme.
>     =20
>=20
>      ...and any other company that behaves in this same specific way with=
 any
>      other manufacturer is equally guilty of jilting millions of consumer=
s and
>      thousands of installation companies.
>=20
>      ...I see a large class-action suit potential here. Some discerning l=
arge
>      legal firm is going to be making a lot of money someday... just sayi=
ng!
>=20
> ... and Mr. Mark Eugene Leuck of Monitronics International Inc., it's no =
wonder that you are trying to defend 'Mona', you've got cookie crumbs all o=
ver your shirt!=20
>=20
>      Have a Happy 57th birthday, I believe, in about a couple of months! =
Are you still in Texas?
>=20
> By the way, the original post read something like this,
>=20
>           "Just curious of what other 'INSTALLERS' think"=20
>=20
>           ...I never asked what 'Mona' collaborators thought of it.=20
>                   I already knew that.
>=20
> To all installers that have had to deal with this 'Mona' company, would y=
ou like to know how to get into any 'Mona' system???
>=20
> Awaiting your replies.
>=20
> PS. I may be slow at times to respond because I am always extremely busy,=
 but I will respond. Goodnight.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I use the dealer code (like most) to keep anyone from messing with the prog=
ram. It is my practice however, to deprogram the system should the account =
leave for any reason. Only time I don't is when they don't pay or if they l=
eave without notice. If possible I try to pick up the new occupants but if =
not, and if convenient and if they allow it, I will default the panel for t=
hem in case they ever want to reactivate it or do a DIY system.=20

I've had a few occasions where the new owners installer will call asking fo=
r the programming code at which point I will make arrangements to download =
the panel if they or the previous owners have left on good terms. Most time=
s I find that other installers will be likewise accommodating when the situ=
ation is reversed. Not always .... but most times.

However, now with cellular ...... that has all become a moot point, so I've=
 not been so diligent lately.

I've had a few times where after a period of time the new owners are not ha=
ppy with their brother in law installer or their alarm company drops out of=
 business or they have an issue with their central station and they remembe=
r the cooperation and feel they want to try someone else ...... I've picked=
 up an account. Not often ..... but it has happened. Off the top of my head=
, there are at least 4 customers that I've picked up that way. One I've had=
 for about 18 - 20 years now.