Notice:  Contract updates and "sale" - LAST DAY - TRUST ME - SALE ENDS TODAY

   The Standard Form Agreements have been updated and it's time for you to update your forms.  Changes were made as recently as third week in December.  Only the All in One forms will be updated at no charge.  If you purchased an All in One on or after June 1, 2014 you are entitled to a FREE UPDATE.  If you purchased an All in One between January 1, 2014 and May 30, 2014 your update is half price.  If you don't have the All in One forms. or if purchased in 2013 or earlier get the most current form before January 8, 2015 and receive $100 off each All in One form and $25 off the Disclaimer Notice.  Call our Contract Administrator Eileen Wagda at 516 747 6700 x 312 to arrange the discounted price.  If ordering for the first time please go to www.alarmcontracts.com to place your order and take the discount when completing the order form.
Another Notice:  I am planning a few webinars that will be announced shortly.  A well known alarm expert will be presenting on a number of liability topics involving design, installation and services, important to alarm company owners, operation managers, technicians, insurance brokers and claims representatives.  Watch for the scheduled announcement.
    Another webinar will present on topic of alarm salesman perception.
    Yet another webinar will be How a small alarm company can get big.  I am looking for a few panelists for this one.  Anyone interested please give me a call.  I promise to do most of the work.
I wish I could agree with what Alan Glasser said [Dec 13 2014 article].  The issue of nys enforcement is a bunch of "Whoo-ee"
Need I say more........
    Yes you need to say more because I don't know what you're talking about.
    As to Mr. Glasser's suggestion that license requirements are to protect the consumer: I suggest that is a false argument. it may have been stated as the reason, but that does not make it truthful. The facts are that licensing serves to decrease competition by placing barriers for companies to surmount in order to do business in a State. To force an individual to go through a process to become a licensed company creates  the barrier. less competition serves the existing companies and hurts the consumer through less competition. Make it difficult for Joe to quit his employment and start his own company, force Joe to remain a wage-slave of Tom. This keeps Tom from having to compete, good for Tom, bad for Joe.
    Background checks: To suggest that felons would be seeking to become alarm companies is non-sensible. Criminals are those who are lazy and will not work, hence they steal.  To suggest that they would now work is to suggest that they will now be willing to work rather than steal. If a man will now work, then he is no longer a criminal, he chooses to do different. Does someone want to argue that the criminal was not punished, if convicted, so paid no consequences? No.  The practical application of background checks is that it removes people from the work force ( less competition) for basis that are unrelated. A man convicted of possessing drugs, felony ( maybe you love victimless crimes, I abhor them) is barred from being an alarm tech, can not allow such a man in someone's home, ( my apologies I though Mr. Glasser could set his own company standards) yes the same man can come into the home to repair the roof?  There is no sensible connection from most convictions to a man's honesty. Criminals are criminals, the fact that they have not been convicted does not an honest man make. Allow the companies,( I am sure that Mr. Glaser could conduct background checks and has the competence to screen prospective employees to whatever standards Mr. Glasser desires. Let Mr. Glasser, and Bruce,  and the consumer to make their own choices, not forced upon us by politicians. I will argue for liberty, with the truth, I challenge all who  wish to argue otherwise.
Bruce Boyer
    RE your reply a few customers. How many are a few and then is it a few to each different competitor who goes after your accounts? Ken, as Tim of Redline Alarm has said it is the vast majority of times the big boys who do operate like this and they should be held accountable. Again you would think that there company would have some sort of legal counsel on hand who would advise them on the why’s of
not being a good idea to put the company in this position. Many of these companies are not even licensed in the states they operate in and then the state depts. who monitor this won’t even go after them because they claim they don’t have the funds to do so. So I ask can it be turn over to the Attorney Generals Office for them to run with the ball?
ANON in Illinois
PS, in case nobody has ever told you how much our industry appreciates all you do for us let me be the 1st. LoL as they say
    You have a bunch of things to consider.  Legality, ethics and economics.  
Ethics:  It is and should be wrong to target and steal competitor's customers.  It's one thing to do massive advertising and another to use questionable tactics to obtain customers.  Ethics and sensibilities are somewhat subjective and leave room for interpretation.
Legality:  You can probably prevail against a competitor who steals your customers under an enforceable contract.  Less likely for those customers who have no contract, expired contract or unenforceable contract. Also, taking over an account is not, per se, actionable.  You have an uphill battle to prove the tortious interference because you have the burden of proof.  In other words, your competitor doesn't have to prove how it ended up with the account until you can prove you have an enforceable contract and come up with some proof as to how you lost the account.  Getting subscribers who you have lost to your competitor may not be your best witnesses.
Economics:  Get ready for a lengthy, time consuming and costly legal process.  Make sure your pockets are deep enough to get involved.  You may not like the picture, but think about the poor young lion who just took down a meaty meal only to be run off by a bigger and stronger lion who now enjoys the feast.  Well you sold the subscriber on an alarm system in the first place, installed it [at a loss probably] and now someone comes along and slaps its sticker over yours and redirects the monitoring.  Who said life's fair.  For the larger and stronger predator a lawsuit from you may be considered the cost of doing business and the cost of defending it a nuisance.  You on the other hand or bleeding from loss of business and legal fees to pursue a questionable recovery.  
    So when do you have to man up and stand up to the predator?  When the stealing becomes too costly to ignore, or when you want to drive home the point that you will not be messed with, no matter the cost.  
    For competitors that are not licensed you can try and get the AHJ motivated to shut them down.  That too is an uphill battle