Maker Pro
Maker Pro

cleaner wiring solution needed

F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
When you unlawfully convert anything which belongs to someone else that is
a form of taking and the law considers it theft, or larceny.

I can't argue with that. Unlawful conversion is "larceny". We're not
talking about that though. We're talking about the obligations outlined in
a contract for monitoring which the client signs and agrees to. Even Bob
Campbell (whom you've indicated you truly respect) restricts access to
installer level programming on his monitored accounts. Are you calling him
a "thief" as well?

When you impede the lawful owner from enjoying unrestricted use of his
goods that is unlawful conversion -- larceny.

Nope. It isn't if it's done under a contract both parties (alarm owner and
alarm company) agree to.

Nonsense! When the contract is over and the client owns the alarm system
you have no right to limit anything. You're a thief. Admit it.

And where did I say this?? I've clearly stated that access to installer
level programming on a *monitored* alarm system (one that is still under
contract) should be restricted to qualified personnel. I take it that
because "GM" (and practically every other auto manufacturer) has gone to
computerized technolgy to manage a variety of functions that basically
prohibit most "back yard mechanics" (DIYer's in your lexicon) that own
these vehicles from actually doing any work or adjustments on them, you're
now saying the President of GM is guilty of "larceny"... tsk!!

"Double billing" a customer's credit card
(which you have engaged in only recently)
is a form of "larceny" for instance.

Nope. The client hit [Submit] twice. I didn't double-bill him. He did
it himself.

That's a pretty lame excuse...

Since you not only don't know how to run a website or an alarm company,
it's unlikely you have a clue how credit card processing companies'
servers (not even my server, BTW) function.

Heh... there you go again... saying something about an individual that
you've never met and don't even know. As for "running a website", you still
haven't corrected the encoding on your webpages at bassburglaralarms. The
bogus "you're about to view web pages over a secure connection" message
still comes up. Before you go telling someone he doesn't "know how to run a
website", perhaps you should take the time to look at your own work first.
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert L. Bass said:
Cracker said:
...then why didn't you send him 2 orders?

Hitting [submit] only sends the CC info to the CC processor's server. It
does not create a new order on the store's website.


Uh-huh... that still doesn't explain the "fudged" battery. It's pretty
difficult for any supplier to confuse a 26 AH battery with an 8 AH one...
Yet your guy somehow did...

Or the fact that yet another of your customers couldn't contact you through
the many different "channels" you provide and had to resort to posting
another message in this Newsgroup... Robert, I know of no online dealer
that *doesn't* answer email from their customers and there isn't a single
one that refuses to answer the phone. You have the time to file complaints
against individuals you have specifically "verboten" to contact you (which
tells us that you do, in fact, receive emails), but you don't have (or won't
take) the time to answer *a customers* email! I asked this question earlier
and it bears repeating here... What can "loops" (or any of your customers)
expect in the way of your much vaunted "support" and "installation
expertise" if you won't even answer the phone or your email??

I also find it patently ridiculous that you would tell "loops" to contact
you on a Monday because you're sick with the flu (and can't speak) over a
weekend, but will tell someone that's merely asking a question in another
group to call you on that same Sunday afternoon!

What kind of "show" are you running??

Tsk!!
 
B

birdman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fast Buck Bass wrote:

...then why didn't you send him 2 orders?


Hitting [submit] only sends the CC info to the CC processor's server. It
does not create a new order on the store's website.
how conveeeeenient:)
 
R

Robert L. Bass

Jan 1, 1970
0
I can't argue with that. Unlawful conversion
is "larceny"...

You learned that because I posted it earlier.
We're not talking about that though...

Yes, we are. You have no knowledge of US law.
We're talking about the obligations outlined in a contract for monitoring
which the client signs
and agrees to...

Wrong again. Once you sell someone an alarm system and it has been paid
for, you have no legal right to impede the buyer's use of that system. That
includes his right to full access to all of its features and functions. You
cannot take away his access (unlawful conversion) to his own property simply
because it's convenient to your business model.

You can argue this until you're blue in the face and you'll still be
completely wrong.
Even Bob Campbell (whom you've indicated
you truly respect) restricts access to installer
level programming on his monitored accounts.

Not once the monitoring contract is over, he doesn't. I have no problem
with companies contractually agreeing with monitored clients to limit
clients' access while the system is being monitored. That is not what we
are discussing.

Continued use of lockout codes *after* the monitoring contract is completed
for the purpose of making it difficult or more costly for the client to
change service providers (or to DIY if he so chooses) is illegal immoral
and, unfortunately, a very common practice in the industry.
Are you calling him a "thief" as well?

Nope. You're up to your usual tactics, trying to twist the discussion away
from the facts.
 
R

Robert L. Bass

Jan 1, 1970
0
Uh-huh... that still doesn't explain the "fudged" battery.

The vendor made a mistake.
You have the time to file complaints against individuals you have
specifically
"verboten" to contact you...

Learned your lesson, did you?
 
C

Crash Gordon®

Jan 1, 1970
0
"paid for" being a key phrase here.

If you haven't paid your phone bill the phone company has the right to impede your use of your phone (which you own), so does an alarm company if you haven't paid your monitoring bill in long time, this can apply to many different business models. Of course you have a right not to *enforce* any terms of a contract you enter into.

Locking a panel out of spite or punitive reasons other than terms of contract not being adhere to, is of course not ethical.
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
You can argue this until you're blue in the face and you'll still be
completely wrong.

I haven't lived in Edmonton for over 15 years. It's been quite a while
since I've been "blue in the face"...

Not once the monitoring contract is over, he doesn't. I have no problem
with companies contractually agreeing with monitored clients to limit
clients' access while the system is being monitored.

Humbug!! You clearly indicated differently (and in the same response)!
I'll quote you here since I've snipped your response:
"
Once you sell someone an alarm system and it has been paid for, you have
no legal right to impede the buyer's use of that system. That includes
his right to full access to all of its features and functions. You cannot
take away his access (unlawful conversion) to his own property simply
because it's convenient to your business model. "

Nope. You're up to your usual tactics, trying to twist the discussion
away from the facts.


Let's review "the facts", Robert. Your usual "diatribe" against "most"
alarm companies was what I thought needed some clarification. I first
stated in this thread:

"Limiting access to installer level programming on a monitored alarm system
is only good business practice and designed to keep a customer from
inadvertently screwing up his alarm system. Using panel lock-outs is most
often used to restrict other alarm companies from easily taking over
equipment that is either leased or rented and not *owned* by the end user.
But then "tarring all alarm companies with the same brush" is a tactic you
frequently engage in to support your particular DIY "mantra"."

Granted, the topic under discussion at the time was Bob's contention that
locking people out of the alarm systems they've bought and paid for is
"criminal" and "unethical". I couldn't agree with him (and you) on that
more - as long as the system is *local* (un-monitored). When the customer
is paying for professional monitoring service he can expect to have his
access to installer level programming restricted for the entire term of that
monitoring agreement. I understand your particular "business model" doesn't
allow you to do that, but you are unique (as you yourself have often
stated).

As I also mentioned earlier, I haven't come across a locked out panel in
over ten years (in Vancouver) and I seriously doubt that using the firmware
lockout is as common an industry practise as you seem to suggest. You will
of course point out the ten or so individuals that have posted here over the
years complaining of the practise, and will use that to support your "rant"
against alarm companies. But please do feel free to do so. You and "RFI"
aren't all that much different when it comes down to it although Paul is a
good deal more "artistic". :))
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert L. Bass said:
The vendor made a mistake.


Learned your lesson, did you?


What "lesson"?? Are you even aware of what the abuse department at Shaw
thinks of your complaint (particularly since we've been responding to each
other in a public forum for a number of years)?? I could send you email
copies of each and every response I make to you in this Group and you
wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
"paid for" being a key phrase here.

If you haven't paid your phone bill the phone company has the right to
impede your use of your phone (which you own), so does an alarm company if
you haven't paid your monitoring bill in long time, this can apply to many
different business models. Of course you have a right not to *enforce* any
terms of a contract you enter into.




I disagree with you there, Crash. I would never impede or restrict a
customer's use of his own alarm equipment. You're only asking for trouble
if you do that. If a customer of mine wasn't paying his monitoring or
service bills I'd simply send him a letter of cancellation/termination
notice (as long as *he* owned the equipment). I then remove the account
(communicator) information and default the panel installer code only after
the effective date on the termination notice. If it was leased, I'd arrange
to have the equipment picked up at that time as well. All leased equipment
is "locked out". I never use lock-outs on customer owned equipment, but
each monitored panel has a unique installer code that is only known to our
service techs.
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
red/black for power
yel/green for loops
(that's my standard)

That seems to be a fairly popular method.
 
C

Crash Gordon®

Jan 1, 1970
0
I said you didn't have to enforce anything but you could. If client doesn't answer repeated certified return reciept demands for payment you certainly *could* impede his use of system.

I had a guy once that skirted every attempt to collect, and infact owed me a few bucks on the actual install...he would send me 10 bucks here, a couple of bucks there, this went on for over a year, closer to 2 years by the time I took him to small claims. Sent him to collections...nothing!...I knew he WAS using the system because I had programmed opening closings and daily tests and could prove it. Took him to small claims court and won...got my money + % + expenses. The judge did ask me...why didn't you just turn him off? I shoulda.
 
C

Crash Gordon®

Jan 1, 1970
0
except perhaps for the older ADT wire which had a blue wire instead of green...real purty :)
 
A

Aegis

Jan 1, 1970
0
except perhaps for the older ADT wire which had a blue wire instead of
green...real purty :)

Actually, they are still using that. 16/2+19/2 in one jacket. The 16/2 is
Red/Blk and the 19/2 is Blu/Yel.
 
R

Robert L. Bass

Jan 1, 1970
0
... I could send you email

I don't want to receive e-mail from you about anything. Send it to Cracker
or Jiminex.
 
R

Robert L. Bass

Jan 1, 1970
0
I don't think this is what Bass meant :)

He knew that when he posted the flame.
 
R

Robert L. Bass

Jan 1, 1970
0
Actually, they are still using that.
16/2+19/2 in one jacket. The 16/2 is Red/Blk and the 19/2 is Blu/Yel.

Many years ago ADT used to use multi-conductor "rainbow" wire. They would
run the stuff all around in the basement of a home. Each sensor or key
station was spliced into the cable in a tampered J-box.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
 
F

Frank Olson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert L. Bass said:
I don't want to receive e-mail from you about anything. Send it to
Cracker or Jiminex.


Heh... and I was sittin' here wonderin' who I could send this $10.00 rebate
coupon for harmonica lessons I got.
 
Top