December 6, 2011
*************
**************
Question
*************
DEAR KEN,
LOVE THE NEWSLETTER.
IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT BOTH TIME/WARNER CABLE & AT&T ARE GEARING UP TO START INSTALLING ALARMS AS THE LATEST THREAT TO OUR INDUSTRY.
IS THERE NOT ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO SUCH AS ANTI-TRUST, MONOPOLIZING, ETC. & WHAT CAN BEEN DONE? THESE COMPANIES HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE & ACCESS TO OUR CUSTOMERS &, AT THE VERY LEAST, IT MIGHT BE BUSINESS/CONTRACT INTERFERENCE
Your Thoughts Are Appreciated,
Dary,
Security Networks
*************
Answer
************
I believe Verizon has entered the security industry. It's a natural for any business that works in homes and commercial premises and operates 24/7 to be enticed by the alarm industry. I think these big operations are in for a rude awaking, which is a perfect way to describe it, because if they think that their [rude] automated answering system that bounces you around until it disconnects or frustrates you enough to hang up, or operators who don't mind putting you on hold for 20 minutes, are going to be tolerated by alarm customers they need to think again because they are not going to cut it in the alarm industry. Big difference between down telephone or TV service and alarm response. I am not going to accept an automated phone when my alarm is activated and I am trying to prevent a false alarm dispatch.
Anti trust isn't going to work because the cable and phone companies don't, theoretically, have a monopoly. But I am not an anti trust attorney. These companies don't really have your customer list and information, they may just have the same customers for different services.
I can understand alarm company owners being frustrated by the prospect of this competition. Perhaps better organized and certainly better funded, except for a handful of alarm companies.
Better pricing and better service is probably going to be the best option to compete.
*************
Line Seizure
************
Ken
Thanks for these newsletters.
I have a question for you that you may have dealt with before and your insight would be appreciated. When installing land line alarm systems, there are times that we are not able to get to the junction box and are unable to get full line seizure over all the phones in the house. When this happens, we explain to the customer how it works and why and they understand. Are there any potential legal issues with not getting line seizure?
Taylor
**************
Answer
**************
Good question, but my answer has to start with a question. Under what circumstances, standard, listing, manufacturer's code, AHJ requirements, type of system, is line seizure required? If required, then there is plenty of potential exposure, and your question really highlights an important issue. You state that you explain how the system works why you can't get line seizure because you can't get to a box, and "they understand".
How do you know they "understand"? Because when there is a loss I don't think are going to remember they "understand". In fact I think the only thing they are going to recall is that you promised the best alarm in the world and it didn't end up preventing the loss; it's your fault. And I seriously doubt your subscriber's insurance company who sues under its subrogation rights is going to "understand".
So the first thing I suggest is that if line seizure is, in your opinion, required for the installation then you need to figure out how to get it, and if you really can't then you need to clearly document is problem and the condition of the system [assuming you can even install and complete the system without the line seizure feature].
You should have line seizure in your Disclaimer Notice as another item of security that the subscriber is not getting, either because they didn't want to pay for it or for some reason it's not feasible to install it.
Keep in mind that failure to comply with statutory code installation requirements can be construed as negligence "per se" [meaning you're negligent, period] and failure to comply with manufacturer's requirements and custom and trade practices in your area or recognized regulatory agencies [even industry self regulating laboratories, such as NFPA, UL and ETL] are strong evidence of your negligence, certainly putting you on the defensive.
So if line seizure is required then install it. If it's recommended then document it's absence in the installation in your contract and Disclaimer Notice.