Re: MONA T. RONICS

[ED <napinc7@xxxxxxxxx>]

QUOTE #1:  You can believe what you wish that was the intended purpose of l=
ocking 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 installati=
on manager, and I can tell you that ADT has their own specific installer co=
de, but they did not have it 'Chip-Proofed' as Mona has in the past and sti=
ll presently does. Neither did ADT ever lock their systems in the DSC insta=
lls by enabling the installer lock option. In the old Ademco version, yes, =
the installer code if you defaulted the panel was restored to their specifi=
c installer code, but anyone could get back into the system by powering dow=
n and holding * & # together to get into programming. Then, anyone could th=
en program their own installer code. There was never any portion of the pro=
gramming that was totally off limits as Mona still presently does and has d=
one thru the use of a special chip because of the torrid relationship with =
her Honey. Additionally, the telephone numbers have always been accessible.=
=20
     2) Protection-1 basically used the Ademco panels also, and there was n=
o special 'chip-locked-out-certain-locations' hanky-panky going on.=20

     Seems obvious to anyone who has actually tried to takeover a Mona syst=
em, and there are many out there, that Mona just could not trust her unsusp=
ecting lovers and actually shackled them with a chip-chastity belt...they w=
ere either going to be for her alone or, no one was going to have them!


QUOTE #2:  The installer code was defaulted allowing anyone to monitor the =
things so have fun walking around in those big boots
                          AND
     Those systems can be taken over just like any other system=20


     In the Mona chips, what is the point of the installer code being acces=
sible if the new company taking over the system cannot change the telco num=
bers? Remember, we are talking about systems that are still going to be usi=
ng a telco line, whether it is a POTS line or the simulated type Comcast/AT=
T generated telco lines.

QUOTE:  Depends on the panel, with Honeywell no I doubt few companies did a=
t least I never heard of them doing it, GE/ITI/Interlogix yes very possible=
 and it did happen=20

     So, here you say/admit that no companies that you know of, were able t=
o takeover a Mona/Honey system...at least you never heard of them doing it.=
 S---o, is this not exactly what I was talking about or did you not underst=
and or grasp what I have been trying to say?=20


     It's not complicated. 'Mona' is very jealous, and imposes a "Chastity-=
Chip" on all of her customers, and partners with her 'Honey' who basically =
racks in double-profits thru the scheme.
    =20

     ...and any other company that behaves in this same specific way with a=
ny
     other manufacturer is equally guilty of jilting millions of consumers =
and
     thousands of installation companies.

     ...I see a large class-action suit potential here. Some discerning lar=
ge
     legal firm is going to be making a lot of money someday... just saying=
!

... and Mr. Mark Eugene Leuck of Monitronics International Inc., it's no wo=
nder that you are trying to defend 'Mona', you've got cookie crumbs all ove=
r your shirt!=20

     Have a Happy 57th birthday, I believe, in about a couple of months! Ar=
e you still in Texas?

By the way, the original post read something like this,

          "Just curious of what other 'INSTALLERS' think"=20

          ...I never asked what 'Mona' collaborators thought of it.=20
                  I already knew that.

To all installers that have had to deal with this 'Mona' company, would you=
 like to know how to get into any 'Mona' system???

Awaiting your replies.

PS. I may be slow at times to respond because I am always extremely busy, b=
ut I will respond. Goodnight.



=20