Re: Old Brinks equipment

[mleuck <m.leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 12:12:24 PM UTC-5, Hogan wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>=20
> Well, if you really believe that to "standardize" programming on a mainbo=
ard, means that only the central station telco is set in stone, go ahead an=
d keep on believing that.

I should keep on believing it I was the one who set the defaults back in 20=
02, so far you've been ignorant on everything. BTW it's the same reason why=
 ADT and Protection One had their own version of stock boards
=20
> To really standardize programming, you would want to set other parts of t=
he board into non-changeable parameters.

Such as?


> It does not say much about that company's technicians, if they just canno=
t be trusted to input the correct telco number. I mean, they did send all t=
he zones to the central station anyway at the install, didn't they? If that=
 company was so concerned with 'standardization', they would have sent a si=
gnal from each zone to the central station. Then, would they not have seen =
that oops, no signals came in so I must have put in the wrong telco or acco=
unt number maybe???

You've never made a mistake programming the receiver or account number? I'v=
e done it, techs are human, they also liked not enabling downloading

> Sorry, it sounds very hollow to hear that all that was "Standardized", wa=
s the central station number.

I doubt you've ever seen it from my side, then you'd know

> And was does that say about those techs who could not be trusted to use t=
he right telco number?=20

When you deal with hundreds of telco numbers it's easy to do although most =
of the issue was incorrectly programming the account number

> I think that it is time to face the truth, as it appears that you have be=
en in denial for quite a while. It's okay if you are not ready, at least ju=
st think about it some. Perhaps in time you will see that it does not ring =
true at all to everyone who has never been associated with Monitronics as l=
ong as you have.

I think it's time for you to face the fact you have no idea what you are ta=
lking about, everything you've said about Monitronics has been flat out wro=
ng so far, it's either been guesses or opinion and not facts

> ADT which is a much bigger company, they trusted their techs to input the=
 right telco since they had very many different numbers. Gee wiz, if I coul=
d not trust a technician to use the right telco, I would not trust that tec=
h to do anything right at all!!! He would be fired, and then, I guess he co=
uld go to work for Monitronics- and I would even give him a recommendation!

I can't speak for ADT however I know many who work there and they have many=
 of the same issues we had, I'm impressed you've never made any mistakes pr=
ogramming a panel
=20
> Also Mark, I do need to address your claim about the location of the info=
rmation. You see, years ago I discovered quite by accident about replacing =
the chip in a Honeywell panel. A customer whom we had for years, needed a s=
ervice call and I had to get into the programming. The particular installer=
 code for his system somehow did not work. I was very puzzled as normal pro=
cedure before exiting programming for us is to do a final check on #88, as =
well as #20 to make sure. This system did not react, I was locked out. For =
some reason that I do not remember, I somehow decided to just switch the ch=
ip instead of changing out the board. I took a new board and carefully remo=
ved the chip, and then inserted it into the locked board. Well, I was then =
able to easily get into power-up, then * and #, and voila, I was into progr=
amming. So, I #20 and found that the installer somehow was corrupted as one=
 of the number was actually a letter. I changed it back to the original cod=
e for that system, powered down, and traded the chip back to the original t=
hat I had just taken out. And of course, everything worked just fine after =
that.

How am I wrong? I stated that replacing the processor (that big square chip=
) makes it into a standard panel, you can do the same thing with the ADT Sa=
fehome 3000 which is a Vista-20P

> So, the installer code is not on the removable chip, but somewhere on the=
 board. That is why over the years, I have retrieved every installer code o=
f every company that had previously monitored those systems. We have a very=
 large list of competitor installer codes. I actually get a thrill when I g=
o for a takeover and the previous company is unknown to me. I do not despai=
r, I just smile and get a chip off of a new board and install it on the exi=
sting system. That new competitor code is recorded and the whole thing migh=
t take 10 minutes. Ahh! Such a good feeling!

I guarantee my list of Installer codes is bigger than yours it, and you hav=
e confirmed how it's not about locking in a customer when all you have to d=
o is replace a chip currently available as a standard part from ADI


> You are aware that your name is plastered all over the internet on Monitr=
onics programming, don't you? That does make you appear to be a Monitronics=
 guy from way back at least to the early 2000s. You should make your reader=
s aware of that fact though.

I've never hidden that fact

> Well, I do hope that you have a good and safe day, sincerely. I am not tr=
ying to marginalize you, it is just that I will not stand for incorrect inf=
ormation. I would rather help folks as that is better. So now, anyone who r=
eads this will know how to get into any Honeywell panel at takeover. We onl=
y lock them out while we are monitoring a system. We will even tell you the=
 code of that system over the phone if we have to, since every one of our s=
ystems has a unique installer code anyway.=20

For someone who will not stand for incorrect information you sure do put a =
lot of it out about Monitronics
>=20
> Hogan