************************

COMMENT ON LOCK OUT CODES FROM JUNE 7, 2016
************************
Ken
    WHAT?  So you think that it's alright for an alarm company to be paid to install an alarm system and then hold the alarm system hostage and prevent the person who paid for it from doing what they want with the system???? 
    In spite of the fact that the system may have been installed for the builder it is the home owner who ultimately paid for it. 
    I can understand that the alarm company would not want to reveal it's personal dealer codes but the ethical option is to just leave the panel as a local alarm with the manufacturers default dealer codes or if not .....,. at least have the decency to go to the home and default the panel for use by the alarm company of the homeowners choice ..... at no charge. It isn't the obligation of the homeowner to pay the alarm company for a service call to undo something (the dealer codes) that was done only to protect the dealer in the first place!
    When an alarm company installs an alarm system in new construction there is never any guarantee that the monitoring will be done by the installing company. It is totally unethical to withhold total use of the alarm system from the homeowner.
    And you condone this??????
    And to begin with ...............  Any ethical alarm company would never have to ask this question. 
    With people like this in the industry, it's no wonder our trade is often labeled with a bad reputation. 
Gene
Reliable Alarm
Long Island, NY
**********************
RESPONSE
**********************
    I think you reframe the question in a loaded way.  The alarm system was not installed for the buyer of the home; it was installed by the builder.  The buyer didn't pay for the alarm system.  You don't know what the deal was between the alarm company and the builder.  Maybe the system was put in at or below cost with the promise or expectation that the buyer would pay for monitoring.  Buyers get products all the time that they can use only as delivered without getting source codes to make changes.  Try fighting with Microsoft or Apple.  
    I represent and counsel the alarm industry on the law.  Ethics and morality is another course, as is marketing.  Unless there is legislation requiring that source codes be revealed you don't have to reveal it.  I have counseled consistently that if the subscriber owns the system then at the very least that system has to be left functional with the subscriber able to activate and disarm.
    The Standard Form Agreements clearly provide that programming is Intellectual Property owned by the alarm company.  This is significant, especially in large commercial fire or security systems where programming is a large part of the job.  The Residential All in One does provide that once the subscriber has completed performance of the agreement the alarm company will disclose the passcode or default to manufacturer's code.  But only the subscriber who has completed the contract should expect that, not the buyer of a house who has no relationship with the alarm company.
*************************
ANY SUCCESS WITH MARKETING COMPANIES?
**************************
Ken
    Thank you for all of the information that you provide to the industry on a daily basis. There are several security marketing companies listed on The Alarm Exchange.  I'd like to ask if any of your readers have utilized a security marketing firm and what their opinions are about them.
Matt
**************************
RESPONSE
***************************
    Anyone have any recommendations regarding the marketing companies listed on The Alarm Exchange in the category for Marketing for the Alarm - Security Industry?