I'd like to reply to your response from the June 16, 2016 article
    So ..... your saying that  ...  If a builder hires a contractor to install an HVAC/heating system in a home, that the contractor doesn't have to allow any other HVAC contractor that the ultimate homeowner decides to use, to service the system he installed. And, that the contractor, because he installed the system at the builders request, can retain the lockout codes to the HVAC/heating system and can charge the homeowner a fee to change the code to allow the new contractor to have access to service the system.
    If that's so, then it must follow that when a car is manufactured and sent to a car dealer, the dealer can sell an end user a car but the dealer has the right to lock out access to electronic servicing of the car so it can only be serviced by that dealer. But if the end user pays a fee, he can have someone else service it.  As you say, the dealer owns the car that he bought from the manufacturer  ......  so the car belongs to the dealer who can control who the end user uses to service his car .... unless he pays a fee.   
    The alarm system that the alarm dealer installed. (paid for and installed at the request of the builder) is ultimately paid for by the end user. If the builder made a deal with the alarm company that guaranteed that the end user would HAVE to use the alarm company for monitoring, it obviously would have to be in the bill of sale. I've never seen that happen in over 40 years. The motivation that a builder has to put an alarm system in a home has nothing to do with monitoring. Most builders don't have the recurring revenue mentality to even consider it. A builder is using the alarm system as a selling tool to enhance the sale of the home and doesn't give a damn about who ultimately gets the monitoring. OR the end user has requested of the builder that an alarm system be installed during construction. (for his ultimate personal use) The alarm dealer has no right to hold the system for ransom. It belongs to the end user in spite of the fact that the builder paid for it, by virtue of the fact that the alarm system ownership was transferred when the house was sold to the end user. The end user paid for it and deserves every right and access to it. Just because the dealer put his programming in the alarm panel (at no ones request) doesn't mean he has any right to charge the end user to go back and take the dealer code out. 
     IF..... by some rare chance, an alarm company installs alarm systems for a builder and the builder guarantees them the monitoring agreement with the end user, those agreements would be signed at the time of closing. If the builder signed the monitoring agreement at the inception of the job, then the alarm company can and should be billing the builder for monitoring and the end user wouldn't have to  pay for monitoring.... And THAT ain't gonna happen. 
    Alarm companies lock out the panels of their customers that they have under contract so that no one (homeowner or another alarm company) can get into the programming ..... change it ..... and cause the panel to not reliably send signals to central station, causing harm to the end user and a liability to the alarm company. It's done BY the alarm company primarily to protect the alarm company from a lawsuit. As you say, if there is no unresolved issues regarding payments, the equipment belongs to the end user ..... free and clear. 
    This situation has absolutely nothing to do with "source codes". It has to do with ..... If a builder supplies a new alarm system along with a home ....  is an alarm company locking out their panels and refusing to allow the rightful ultimate owners of that alarm panel to do with what ever they choose to do with it ....... the right thing to do?  It doesn't make any difference if the end user never had an agreement with the alarm company, the panel is his!!! He paid for it when he bought the NEW (never used)  house!!!! There may not be any paper work or a contract between the end user and the alarm company but then that says that there never should have been the need for a lock out code to begin with, because the builder never used or was ever going to use the system. 
    I guess I've learned a new lesson in that there is a disparity between alarm industry law and ethics.
Reliable Alarm
Long Island, NY
    Looks like we've hit a raw nerve Gene.  Some of your points are valid, and pursuasive, except for the one our current president likes to use too often, it's "the right thing to do".  Perhaps the "right thing to do" is protect your company, protect your investment in the account, use whatever means are legal to retain the account and realize your anticipated profit.  Perhaps you need to be mindful of the unscrupulous competitors who perfer to find their customers by looking for yard signs and window decals, or working for an alarm company long enough to get the customer list, or beginning acquisition negotiations just long enough to get the customer list.  Lock out codes are just for the honest fully in compliant alarm subscriber who has completed the contract and now wants to move on.  
    The new home owner who purchased the home from the builder has a working local alarm system, just could not go with a different alarm company to monitor the system without incurring an additional expense because the alarm company didn't have codes.  Perhaps the home owner should have addressed the alarm system in the contract with the builder.  Presumably the builder has some suway with the alarm company.  But would your analysis be different if you know that the builder got the alarm company to install the alarm system at or below cost, or for nothing, with the carret and expectation that the alarm company would get the monitoring and other RMR items.  Then the builder didn't follow though to protect the alarm company.  It's not as cut and dry as I think you propose - that codes should be freely given, period.  But others agree with you - see below
    Kudos to Gene from Reliable Alarm; doing business the ethical way, wins in the end, plus you’ll sleep better!!
Danny Harrod, SET, CFPS, Corporate Alarm Manager
Wiginton Fire Systems
    Here's my response to Lockout Codes:
    I happen to agree with Gene from Long Island about not locking a customer out of their own panel if they outright purchased the system (not leased), paid all their bills and fulfilled their term of agreement.  From their standpoint, it seems ludicrous that you could purchase the building, house, etc., and have to throw out the equipment fully installed even though it is rightfully yours because the other company wants you to sign up with their service.  Imagine if other kinds of contractors did the same:

  • Gardeners locking you out of the sprinkler controller
  •  Whole house audio system locking you out of the handheld remote
  • The car manufacturer locking you out of your car when purchased the second time though a third party. 

    We regularly bill clients if they want our tech to show up to do something but probably wouldn’t if we could do it over the phone through remote programing which is 90% of our accounts.  In other words, if you’re not a current paying customer, we would bill you for the on-site service call to unlock it but we would never refuse to assist them.  Bad business, bad karma, waste of time.  It’s amusing that alarm companies even worry about something so mundane and minor instead of focusing their time and efforts on bringing in the new customer since the old one clearly doesn’t want you anyway…  just sayin…
Yours for better security,
Steve Sopkin
Mijac Alarm

                                           PERS: SERIES of 4 WEBINARS 
                              WEBINARS - ALL 4 WEBINARS ARE FREE 

WEBINARS:  PERS:  Personal Emergency Response Service  / Medical Alert:   Everything you need to know and do to get started with PERS or grow your PERS business to a nationwide operation.  Presented by a leading PERS manufacturer, a central station specializing in PERS monitoring, atttoneys who will address licensing and contract issues and telemarketing issues.  Sign up for each webinar separately.  These webinars are FREE.  You need to register in advance to reserve your spot [attendance is limited] and sign in a few minutes before each presentation.
Title:  PERS equipment and systems by Essence-USA, a leading manufacturer of PERS equipment
Date and time:  July  6, 2016  12 noon to 1 PM
Place:  your computer
Register here:  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8091795726955290115
Presented by:  Ritch Haselden, Vice President of Essence-USA.  www.essence-usa.com
Topic:  latest technology in PERS equipment.  Essence, a leading provider of IoT, cloud-based connected living solutions and PERS solutions provides theCare@Home™ Enhanced Telecare Services Platform.  The Care@Home product is An Aging-in-Place product suite that offers a seamless health monitoring experience allowing independence for seniors and peace of mind to their loved ones.
Q&A:  Send your questions in advance to ritchha@essence-usa.com
Title:  How to Select a PERS Monitoring Center
Date and time:  July  20, 2016  12 noon to 1 PM
Place:  your computer
Register here:  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5252919376200633603
Presented by:  Mike Zydor, Managing Director of Affiliated Monitoring www.affiliated.com
Topic:  Selecting the right monitoring center for your PERS business is a key to growth
Q&A:  Send your questions in advance to Mike Zydor at sales@affiliated.com
Title:  Licensing and Contracting for your nationwide PERS operation
Date and time:  July  27, 2016  12 noon to 1 PM
Place:  your computer
Register here:  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5380922320883276803
Presented by:  Licensing by Nicoletta Lakatos, Esq., licensing counsel at Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum; Nationwide PERS Agreement by Jesse Kirschenbaum,Esq., contract counsel at Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum.  Moderator: Ken Kirschenbaum
Topic:  Licensing for nationwide PERS.  Agreement needed for nationwide PERS
Q&A:  Send your questions in advance, for licensing to Nicoletta Lakatos at NLakatos@KirschenbaumEsq.com and for contract questions to Jesse Kirschenbaum at Jesse@KirschenbaumEsq.com
Title:  Telemarketing nationwide 
Date and time:  August 3, 2016  12 noon to 1 PM
Place:  your computer
Register here:  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3591740925073303811
Presented by:  Matthew Pitts, Director of Legal Compliance, Alliance Security, Rhode Island.
Topic:  state telemarketing licensing; Federal and State Do-Not-Call compliance and call scrubbing; current legislation including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Telephone Sales Rule (TSR); vicarious liability and the use of sales affiliates; recent litigation trends. 
Q&A:  Send your questions in advance to mpitts@alliancesecurity.com