Asial
Hello All...
Time for my monthly Rant...
Just a thought, Tried to cut over a panel the other day, asked the previous control room for codes/input list etc, and they said 'no way would they give it to me, and I would have to contact the owner, and I wont do that for you as your taking over the panel, and who cares as they are no longer our client'
Always assumed that the attitude of this particular control room and firm was poor, this just confirms it. So the poor customer is stuck stairing at my hairy figure for a bit longer while I default the panel, reprogram it, go through the usual crap of setting up codes and other details, and in the end it costs everyone more time and money.
Now my question... The customer, as they own the panel and pay for the programming and upkeep of the equipment, in turn, own the intellectual rights (that isnt spelt right.. I know....) to the programming, as well as all of the equipment on site etc etc, now this firm calls themselves a 'GOLD' ASIAL member, and boasts on there web site that they uphold the values of ASIAL at all times...
Now if I remember correctly, as I dont get involved in the political ass kissing and back room nonscense that is most associations and clubs (aka secret hand shakes) one of the key points in there list of ethical standards to upkeep, was that at all times they are to uphold the higest ethical standards and operate at all times with truth justice and the american... oh ... australian way....
Sorry but if these people actually worked a honest day in there lives, and upheld the ethical values that, in the past, have made this industry great, perhaps they would realise all they are doing is hurting themselves and the industry, that they are trying to mount and use for everything that they can get out of it...
Honestly.... Is it just that I am getting older, or is it that I've seen some of the true face, at a distance, of this industry.... these people really need to wake up to themselves, stop complaining about others, take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror, slap themselves around a little if needed, get there heads screwed on right and start helping the people that need there help...
Co-Operate People...
/end transmission..
ReD
| Look Here -> |
Yeah i agree, the "Installer" code is the property of the customer, the only reason most companies dont tell their customer the installer code is to protect the programming on the initial commissioning of the system, which is fair enough.
When a customer cancels with one control room and is moving to another the "Installer" code should be made known, or changed upon request.
But, it's seen as "bad blood" between companies and no one observes this rule
I think the control room made the right decision, you are requesting infomation about an alarm system, you could have been anyone. If the owner has a current up-to-date account with the control room get him/her to request the info.
Providing installer codes is bullshit too, what if a company uses generic codes for some clients, pay for the previous company to send a tech out and insert the default installer code, leaving all other programing as is.
You are payed to install the system correctly this includes the correct programming.
If the owner wants the install code let them program the panel and take the responsibility.
Have to agree here. It's not reasonable to expect a controlroom operator to provide codes (installer or otherwise) without written authorisation.Originally Posted by balun
Again, it's probably not unreasonable to expect the previous company to ask for a service fee if they have to attend site and default codes. However, I consider it to be a pretty shabby parting shot by the security company to extort one last fee on their way out. If the level of service was adequate in the first place they probably wouldnt lose the client to start with.
IMO all codes and programming are the property of the system owner. If you have a problem with supplying them with your installer code then use a different code that is specific to this client only.
Not sure what you mean by this?? Yes, you are payed to install and program correctly...whats your point?? Why would anybody pay you to install the system but then have to program it themselves??? That's just a dumb thing to say!
I thought it was quite obvious.
If you provide installer codes to clients or anyone else for that matter how can u be sure your programming isn't compromised???? You imagine a client has an alarm and the signal does not go thru to the control room or is not audible.
Are you going to take responsibility when someone has been playing with the programming?
The programming aspect is just as important as the hardware.
This topic has been kicked around for years. Instead of giving all your theories & unfounded beliefs , wouldn't it be better to get those with the say to make a determination ? Lobby the industry bodies to either make a (code of conduct) determination or get them to seek a regulatory determination from the SIR. Failing that let them fund a court case to obtain a precedence. All they seem to do with your money at the moment is fund breakfasts & proffessional speakers.
OK clearer explanation provided. Point taken.
Let me clarify my stance.
I don't as a rule provide the installer code unless I am specifically asked to and in this case (only one so far) the client signs a waiver that states that we are not responsible for anything arising from incorrect programming. (I have one client in particular whose IT guy is based in another state and thinks he knows all about programming a Challenger because its just programming and thats what he does right? and it's on HIS network so of course he needs to have access to it. What the hell..if he wants to play with it and the local managers agrees to allow him to do so..fine..be my guest. This guy generates almost as much work for me as lightning strikes.)
This type of request however is rare. It's a different thing to being asked for install codes when the system has been taken over at the end of a contract or for whatever reason.
IMO, not providing the install code (or at least defaulting it) is just sour grapes and is the kind of "ethical" behaviour usually displayed by incompetants who were unable to satisfactorily service their client.
LOL.. nice one watchdog! ASIAL (or any other industry mouthpiece) actually doing something useful with the money they "raise" from the industry. Don't hold your breath!can't see this changing while we are forced to contribute to their coffers in order to be able to carry on a business.
It's nice to know other ML holders feel the same on being members of approved organisations too. 10yr membership costing thousands of dollars and lucky if I've had $100 worth of actual value back.
REDOZQLD:- I've been rather lucky and only had this happen a handful of times where I've lost clients to the oposition (usually Salt 'N' Pepper Security = SNP). What I do is I let the client ring me to confirm they want to change from my service to the oppositions. I'm happy to had over my codes (which is different for every client), HOWEVER I have the client sign a document stating they wish to do this and then they are charged a fee of $80.00 for it. The client gets a copy to do what ever they want with it. Makes me look good to the client, and makes me look decent to the opposition too. Amazing though those handful of clients have all come back to me within 12mths due to my nice service
It's just a shame other companies don't think outside the square
SCT (16-08-09)
You find that the clients (or old clients) are happy to pay this $80?
So the client has contacted or been contacted by another company, and that company has asked the client to contact you for the codes?
Given that its only a select number of panels that you need the installer code or default the panel, alot yoy can jump in several diff ways or default the installer code only.
Yes
It might not be everyones "cup of tea" but it does work
intelliGEORGE (16-08-09)
Soon as the client sends us something in writing to confirm cancellation of the monitoring we set a date for the installer code to be reset to default. We don't tell client it, just tell them that its the default and if their new company knows anything they will know it :}
Don't charge for this.
Very few of our clients are on contracts, 99% just 3 months advance pay.
Think we have lost about 5 clients in 6years.
Hi everyone
This issue always has and always will be the subject of debate,but at the end of the day the client is leaving for one reason or another. Sometimes due to the service they received and sometimes due to change of management or whatever reason. To be truthful an installer shouldn't make the installer code the same in every panel they install. It's bad practice for one thing, and another it could leave the person or company open to prosecution when something happens and a disgruntled employer leaves and suddenly knows the installer codes to all the companies systems. Make the code a random code in every system and the privacy of the company wont be compromised when suddenly a client requests the installer code.
We issue the installer code whenever a client asks, of course we get them to supply in writing, and if its just cos they think they are entitled to it we then get them to sign a waiver setting out why they shouldn't have it and excluding the company from all problems that could arise from this situation. A lot of times the client then backs down.
We certainly don't issue codes to an installer that phones up who's already onside ready to change the system over. The client should give the company enough notice. We also check that their accounts are in order or request they they bring then up to date prior.
Better to part on good terms. They're going anyway and may remember this last good deed later on.
Paul
Would like to reply to all answers but we all have our views and so do control room operators following their owners instructions BUT
Lets face some facts as follows.
1. Control Room had been notified in writing that their monitoring contract would cease as from the end of the month.
2. The company that owns the control room has enabled remote lock out on ALL panels without written permission from the client (I think that contradicts the relevant standards) then tell the poor tech on site that is changing the panels to another monitoring station that they can not dial into the panels and have no installer codes YET they have maintained these systems for some years.
Once the tech changes the monitoring Phone and ID Number the panel no longer reports the canceled monitoring company and they are therefore unable to be responsible for any errors in what that panel reports as it is no longer monitored by them.
Scary bit is that when you have to default a panel and find out where the zone connections are all sorts of problem prop up like EOL Fitted to inputs with wiring disconnected, EOL Resistor in panels with zone wire twisted to it, sensors with the alarm contact shorted out, but at least the zone list is not incorrect as there are none on site just to ensure anyone from taken the system over (They think)
Anyway the panel and relevant equipment is owned by the client and in most cases panels with 6 or 8 zones are not complicated to program nor is a Tecom or Concept panel for just a straight out intruder alarm system so what is the problem.
The problem seems to be that some people think they are Jesus Christ themselves and no one can touch their systems but in reality they do not own the equipment the client does and they have every right to monitor that sytem to whoever they want.
And finally anyone that locks the panel out from local programming without written permission from the client and this includes downloading are thus in fact dishonest and to me have no ethics whatsoever. So are we in this industry protecting the clients premises against intrusion or are some companies protecting their incompetence. From what I have seen lately the latter seems to apply.
Thank you for your attention
Hi
don't actually think that locking out a panel contradicts any standards. If used correctly, like most programming options, they all can have their uses. I don't believe that an installation company has the right to lock out and then not unlock if the client wishes. I also don't think the installer has to tell the client that he/she is locking out the panel.
An installing company has the right to protect the programming of the alarm panel, certainly during the warranty period. This it to protect everyone concerned. Locking out ensures that the original programming is still in tact and that someone else hasn't come along afterwards and changed something. I think that what is an issue is that whoever designs and sells the alarm panels shouldn't be able to lock out their product so that it has to be returned to them to unlock. There should always be a way back in again, even if it means doing a full default.
The only one I have come across as being un-unlockable is the Ademco Vistas. I have been told by Ademco that if it has been locked out via download & you don't have the code then you throw it in the bin.
Most newer DSC panels for one. Im sure there are others too. Was the same with solutions (bosch) until a way was found to get around it.
I think you are being terribly unfair on ASIAL.
They also fund stickers!
Ahem.
Agreed.Can't see this changing while we are forced to contribute to their coffers in order to be able to carry on a business.
I am a member of a number of professional organisations, both Australian and international. However I am only a member of ASIAL as I regard it as the least-worst, of the "Approved Security Industry Associations", membership of which is a prerequisite of my Master Licence.
That has created a captive market, and I firmly believe that were this requirement lifted, their NSW membership would dry up overnight. On the other hand, were they a more useful organisation, it might be different.
What astonishes me, is that Australia is a signatory to the , Article 20 of which states:
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
And yet, the of the NSW Security Industry Act specifically compels Master Licencees to be a member of an "approved security industry association".
I am not a lawyer, however I understand that years ago, they abolished the mandatory requirement for lawyers to be members of the Law Society. Instead, the Law Society now provides 'free' professional indemnity insurance and various other benefits for its members, and in so doing, have de facto ensured that nearly everyone becomes a member (it works out being very cheap insurance). In contrast, what do people get for their ASIAL membership? Please provide details here, I'd love to hear it, in case I'm being too harsh.
I have no major objection to ASIAL, ISE or BSCAA by the way. Good for them. What I object to, is Master Licencees being forced to be a member of an association. It should be their choice. I can't see any of the "approved security associations" arguing this case though, as it would be potentially devastating for their bottom line.
Last edited by downunderdan; 23-08-09 at 02:29 AM.
Even though the relevant standards contradict all of us or is it just the ones that do not read them
How true. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
A case of you scratch our backs and we will do the same for you in return.
The end users get no value from either organisation, just the pleasure of giving away hard earned money to leaches.
Wouldn't it be good if a certain amount of clients were told as a condition of living in NSW that had to pay me for services whether i performed a good job or not. If they didn't then they could not live in NSW.
A simple case of money with no guarantees of a valued service back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks