*********************
CENTRAL STATION PROGRAMMING; WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE
**********************
Ken,
    My topic relates to programming; who is ultimately responsible.
    I know there are multiple ways security dealers are capable of programming panels.  Of course there is the typical scneario where the trained technician/installer on site completes the programming, tests the panel based on how it should have been programmed and those signals are then checked and confirmed at the central station. There are also some of the larger dealers who have sub-contractors install the system then a project manager will remotely communicate with the panel (with the installing sub-contractor on site) and upload the program into the panel and then follow the same testing of the panel and confirmation of signals received at the central station.
My question really relates to “sub-contracting” the programming, if you will. I understand there are security dealers who may sometimes have too much work for the number of technicians they have and the time frame they are being asked to have the systems installed.  If there was another entity such as the central station or another security dealer offering programming services to set up and program the panels for these dealers to alleviate some of the tasks involved, where does the liability ultimately reside?  Does it still reside with the installing dealer who should test the panel and confirm signals at the central station and has the actual contract with the subscriber or is there now liability issues (outside of the norm) for the central station, should they decide to provide such a service or for a security dealer providing these services?
KC
**************************
RESPONSE
**************************
    Obviously it is essential that the central station have correct information regarding the subscriber and the alarm system.  Not only does the central station need to know the subscriber's name and address, but the type of system, type of alarm, zones, special instructions, permit numbers, etc.  Much of this data is furnished when the account is first set up at the central station for monitoring.  Data entry is done by one of three parties:  installer, central station, subscriber.  Once data entry is complete modification can be made by those granted access, which can include the installer and the subscriber.
    A mistake in data can lead to failure to properly respond to alarm signals.  A fire signal interpreted as a burglary signal, or trouble signal, will be handled much differently than a fire signal.  If the central station operator has the wrong address for the subscriber then that's the information that will be conveyed to first responders.  
    A common mistake is often made at the time the account is set up at the central station.  It's not enough that there be a test signal demonstrating that communication has been established.  Every type of signal from every zone needs to be tested to be sure the central station can identify the precise signal.  A mistake in data entry can be negligence.  Whoever is tasked with that data entry is the one responsible.  So if it's the installer or subscriber doing the data entry the central station will try and disavow any responsibility.  That might not work because unless the entire set up at the central station is automated the central station probably participated in the account set up and should have confirmed test signals.
    Keep in mind that the dealer has agreed to indemnify the central station, so dealers should be careful with account set up.
**********************
FOLLOW UP ON 2G TERMINATION FROM MARCH 4, 2016
**********************
Ken,
    The AT&T 2G zip code shut down list is on the Alarmnet dealer site.
Todd M. Berry, Operations Manager
Mark Electronics Inc
*********************
Ken
    Should be available thru your Cellular provider.  (Connect 24, Alarmnet, etc.)
Erick Toth, Operations Manager
Security Alarm Corp
************************
COMMENT ON DMP
***********************
Ken;
    Your March 31 2016 email proves that everyone in business should review whatever they sign, religiously.  Just as we dealers expect the customers to honor their word and fulfill their contracts with us, we are also expected to do the same.  By following your messages for years I know when to pass and when to sign, when to raise an eyebrow and when to get professional help.  Too often we forget that contracts are crafted by lawyers for a reason other than their fee.  
Al DeMarzo
************************
RESPONSE
***********************
    Surprisingly we have not had much response to the revelation of DMP's dealer indemnity requirement.  Perhaps all the dealers are in shock, or denial.