Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Brinks Alarms: Beware of the Fuel Surcharge Tax

T

tourman

Yeah, I know. It's always the same with you and your obsession. Poke
and run.
It's just suppose to be acceptable for you to make YOUR remarks and no
one is supposed to respond ..... that about it?

Not gonna happen .........

Talk about someone not being able to see the obvious .............

RHC: The only "obvious" thing is that long term contracts that are not
paying down a reduced system cost are never in the client's best
interest; most definately are in the dealer's best interest; and are
something that consumers should be fighting to get rid of. The
"obvious" is that most in the industry don't see it that way because
it's not in their self interest to do so. The "obvious" is that this
has been kicked to death (by me) and I don't intend to keep this
thread going.

Something else that is "obvious" - nothing will change until consumers
force it to change and nothing you or I say about it will change
anything. So respond all you want, but it isn't going to change
anything either way..... that's why I intend drop the matter.
 
J

Jim

RHC: The only "obvious" thing is that long term contracts that are not
paying down a reduced system cost are never in the client's best
interest; most definately are in the dealer's best interest; and are
something that consumers should be fighting to get rid of. The
"obvious" is that most in the industry don't see it that way because
it's not in their self interest to do so. The "obvious" is that this
has been kicked to death (by me) and I don't intend to keep this
thread going.

Something else that is "obvious" - nothing will change until consumers
force it to change and nothing you or I say about it will change
anything. So respond all you want, but it isn't going to change
anything either way..... that's why I intend drop �the matter.

And that's a good thing.

Consumers have no choice in the matter at this point. They can't
insist on no long term contracts if they want monitoring. It's now a
basic staple in this industry. You act as if it's a bad thing just
because it's in the interest of the alarm company to have long term
contracts. In you're world you're asking every dealer to give up the
value of his business.

After years and years of the alarm trade being in the same category of
every other trade as far as valuation of their business ..... when the
golden egg of monitoring revenue came into existence, the industry
finally turned a corner that made it "different". Now companies could
open up their pricing and didn't have to work from Job to Job, with no
promise of future income, no equity in their business and when wanting
to retire, having to sell their business for peanuts based on that
ever popular "good will" that can never be proved by seller, nor
believed by the buyer. It raised the value of the industry billions of
dollars almost over night. Do you actually think that term contracts
are going to go away? It just aint gonna happen and your harping on it
from A CONSUMERS! point of view here, in this Newsgroup, places you
outside EVER being considered resonable. It was not established from a
consumers point of view, It IS for the alarm dealer! So your logic of
trying to get everyone to look at if from the consumers point of view
is just not going to be a valid platform .... to begin with. And even
more hopeless is your effort to "educate" consumers who come here to
your way of thinking. You're informing them to look for something that
they're not going to find. And in the process, you're maligning the
rest of the people in this group, not even considering all the rest of
the dealers in the trade who legitimately use their contracts to value
their business and DO NOT misuse them. There's just no dealer who's
going to give up his "golden egg" to appease a consumer, as long as
the industry as a whole promotes and bases the value of a company by
the number of contracted accounts. It's a "bandwagon" Robert! And as
long as every company insists on using term contracts, the consumer
doesn't have a choice. YOU can choose not to use them and wave the
flag. But you're a parade of one. Are there companys who mis-use
them, yep, and there will always be things of this sort in every
trade. That's life. That's reality. It is what it is. This is just one
of those cases where the Consumers don't have the choice and you
proposing to them, that they do, leaves them no exactly nowhere.

Let me give you a couple of other trades that beat up the consumer.
Try finding out exactly how much it costs to make a mattress and look
at the price of them and try to get a so called good name mattress, at
a "bargin" price. But you can buy a living room couch and two chairs
for less.

How about a good set of hearing aids?
( I just went through this for my Mom) Look at what goes into them
and look at the retail price and try to get them at a bargin price.
But you can buy a 65 inch HD TV for less. As long as those industries
hold firm (and they will, out of self interest) you, I and everyone
will pay exorbitant prices for items of actual little value. Is it
"right"? No. But I dare you to go to Newsgroups in those trades and
propose that they reduce their profit margin because it will benefit
the consumer .......... as you do here.

Anyway, You say you'll drop the subject and as long as you do drop
it..... things will be just peachy. ( of course I'm presuming that
means you wont mention it again)

Ummmm ... another thing. In your previous post, you accused me of
missing something "obvious". I notice you had nothing to say about
the rest of my comments. Now THAT was obvious.

Oh .... wait ..... I get it. What I wrote is not worthy of
comment ..... isn't that your usual response to a truth you refuse to
acknowledge?

I know, I know. Mommy always said .... "if you can't say something
nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Mommy wasn't always right.

Get over it.
 
T

tourman

Consumers have no choice in the matter at this point. They can't
insist on no long term contracts if they want monitoring. It's now a
basic staple in this industry. You act as if it's a bad thing just
because it's in the interest of the alarm company to have long term
contracts. In you're world you're asking every dealer to give up the
value of his business.

RHC: In most places and locales, a customer will have to search long
and hard to find a company that offers them more freedom of choice.
That in itself is predictable and understandable, given the self
serving nature of contracts. But it doesn't make it an ideal situation
for someone shopping for an alarm. We have the same predictable
behaviour up here with a large communication company that wants to
charge everyone for text messaging (including spam). The consumer
uproar was so large that the company backed down and established a
rate structure that was more user friendly. I'm not suggesting this
will happen any time soon with alarm contracts, but the more they are
abused, the more likely consumers will rise to the occasion. Locking
boards is now illegal in several locales (or about to be), and this is
long overdue. However, if a consumer comes to this group and sees that
there is a possibility that there are companies offering term
contracts on a monthly basis (and there certainly are in our area),
then maybe he or she will not just needlessly accept the self serving
insistence that they lock themselves in to a long term contract that
does nothing for them.

So in that sense, I will continue to mention it on the newsgroup when
it is appropriate and a potential end user comes on. Get over it...
How about a good set of hearing aids?
( I just went through this for my Mom) Look at what goes into them
and look at the retail price and try to get them at a bargin price.
But you can buy a 65 inch HD TV for less. As long as those industries
hold firm (and they will, out of self interest) you, I and everyone
will pay exorbitant prices for items of actual little value. Is it
"right"? No. But I dare you to go to Newsgroups in those trades and
propose that they reduce their profit margin because it will benefit
the consumer .......... as you do here.

RHC: I also have personal experience with buying two hearing aids and
getting screwed to the tune of $5500. In fairness, this is a product
that has required a substantial amount of R&D, and the volumes are not
there to keep pricing down...but ....yes...the same situation applies.
Human nature being what it is, large corporate greed will always
prevail...
Anyway, You say you'll drop the subject and as long as you do drop
it..... things will be just peachy. ( of course I'm presuming that
means you wont mention it again)

RHC: Not a chance !! I'll bring it up when I consider it appropriate
or helpful to a newcomer coming on the newsgroup.
Ummmm ... another thing. In your previous post, you accused me of
missing something "obvious". I notice you had nothing to say about
the rest of my comments. Now THAT was obvious.

RHC: No, I didn't discuss the rest of your post since it doesn't do a
damn bit of good to challenge a bigot, a rascist or an atheist at his
own level. Your crap gives you away in spite of your eloquent attempts
to justify your attitudes. I'm sure many see through you but refuse to
engage you simply to keep peace on the newsgroup. The real truth is I
don't want to know you at any level, or converse with you on any
matter, or have anything to do with people like you. Forget any
differences of opinion on alarm matters.....you disgust me personally
at the most basic level. So it's time to put your posts back into the
toilet where they belong......

"PLONK"
 
T

tourman

Indeed. Whatever fits.

RHC: A little deep for you eh? By that I meant, I don't give a shit
what you think....it's no skin off my nose either way....he's off my
radar !
 
A

alarman

tourman said:
RHC: A little deep for you eh? By that I meant, I don't give a shit
what you think....it's no skin off my nose either way....he's off my
radar !

Deep? You?
No.

Keep trying though.
 
F

Frank Olson

Jim said:
Robert, if you've read my recent posts you'd realize that there's no
"hate" involved and never was. You interpret it that way, that's your
problem. If it truly were hate, I'd have killed him myself. Hate is
blind. The value of my life and well being is supremely more valuable
to me, than his. In view of his illness, it was inevitable that he
would die soon. I didn't make it happen. Wishing is just a way of
expressing a desire. My desire is that he would go away. Wishing he
would die, in my view, was the only way we would be rid of him. Now we
will be. Clean, clear and simple. Am I happy he's going to die? I'll
just say that I'm happy he'll be gone. I'd have been just as happy had
he stopped doing his nasty deeds. His contributions would have been
exemplary. He wouldn't stop voluntarily. Now he has no choice. All the
same result. One way or the other, it makes no difference, the result
will be the same.

He built walls instead of bridges. He placed obstacles instead of
making paths. He destroyed rather than created. His whole existance in
Usenet was wrought with arrogance, sarcasm, venom, contempt, taunting
and no respect for the mores of social intercourse. This is his
legacy. He made his bed and soon he will sleep in it. There can be no
respect (except for your misplaced adoration) for a person of such
rancor. It is obvious to anyone, of any intelligence at all, that
someone of that ilk does not derserve consideration of any sort from
the people he's maligned for years.

He's apologized to me, and that means he deserves my forgiveness.

I think it's interesting that while I agree with everything you've said
(up to this point), I can't help but wonder what *your* "legacy" to the
group will be... "**** off and die?".

Regardless of how he will depart,
the result will be that he will be gone from here and finally there is
hope for this Newsgroup to grow into something that he refused to let
happen.

Personally I think that knife cuts both ways. I think that there's a
lot to be said for "ignoring" someone that posts "garbage". It happens
all the time in may different newsgroups.

I think it rather unique that this group has not progressed because of
him and now .....it will ....... because of him. Isn't that called
Karma?

I don't think "Karma" has anything to do with it. Robert didn't
contract cancer because we didn't agree with the way he participated in
this newsgroup.
 
B

Bob

Frank said:
I don't think "Karma" has anything to do with it. Robert didn't
contract cancer because we didn't agree with the way he participated in
this newsgroup.

so you don't think hatred ate him up inside and caused the cancer? No
of course you don't. Only Robt would come up with something like that
after all that is basically what he spewed about a defenseless group
moderator after he had gone to his final reward.
 
F

Frank Olson

Bob said:
so you don't think hatred ate him up inside and caused the cancer? No
of course you don't. Only Robt would come up with something like that
after all that is basically what he spewed about a defenseless group
moderator after he had gone to his final reward.


Hatred doesn't cause cancer. Exposure to a carcinogen does. You also
have to have a genetic pre-disposition. My wife works in health care
and as a consequence I'm "up" on all the latest research... :)

While I don't agree with the way Robert has behaved in the past, I also
realize that it's "the past". I hope he gets up the nerve to apologize
before it's too late. That would indeed make him the "bigger man".
 
F

Frank Olson

Petem said:
are you talking about a 6500 custom panel?
Yep!!



if so this dinosaurus should be removed.. not repaired!!

I don't agree with you. You don't replace an entire system when one
card blows.
but i can understand you.. this thing is unkillable

Yep. And I'm sure there'll be 6500's still running in 2101. They're
like an original Edison light bulb or is the fact they found one still
running after 100 years just an urban myth?

at one of my old customer place there was one, a waste pipe brock close
to it and all the toilet from the 2nd floor to the 4ft floor dropped
there stuff on a jonction box (not closed of course , been left open by
a edwards guys after a small inspection) let me tell you that it was a
mess..

the customer was a catholic school for girls (where girls sleep there)
and of course didnt had any money to spare on a new panel.. well after a
few day of cleanning all the parts and drying the main box , it started
back.. we got a few card to replace ( bells output) but it was working..
the bell didnt ring when wast water came to it cause it was shorted at
first ..

Yech! The same thing happened to a hotel downtown. Took out the brand
new EST-3 in the lobby. Smelly business! Edwards called it "Eau de Money".
 
B

Bob Worthy

tourman said:
On Jul 30, 1:32 am, Jim <[email protected]> wrote:

No one will win ever win an argument when the topic is based on individual
business philosophy. Each person thinks they have a better paperclip. Being
a business owner that does have monitoring agreements I know why it is
important to the future of my company to have them whether I agree with the
philosophy of term agreements or not.
Consumers have no choice in the matter at this point. They can't

RHC: In most places and locales, a customer will have to search long
and hard to find a company that offers them more freedom of choice.

Not really. They just have to pay the full value of the installation which
means Manufacturers Recommended Price for the equipment and the prevailing
labor wage for the area in which the installation occured. If this were to
be paid, the installing company would make out better than doing the job at
a competetive installation charge and three years monitoring. At that point
the customer can find monitoring anywhere on the internet month to month.
Problem is no one will pay MRP and prevailing wage. They cannot have it both
ways.

That in itself is predictable and understandable, given the self
serving nature of contracts.

Of course it is self serving in a way but agreements are not a one way
street. My agreement outlines my responsibities to the client and by
agreeement if I don't do what is outlined, I am in default. In fact, an
agreement with a client leaves a company open to legal action if they don't
perform. Without an agreement there is no expectation on the company to
perform.
But it doesn't make it an ideal situation
for someone shopping for an alarm.

Shopping for anything is not ideal if there is a committment involved. If
you don't want the committment, why make the call in the first place. Hell
getting dog is a committment and more costly than monitoring and for a
longer period of time.
We have the same predictable
behaviour up here with a large communication company that wants to
charge everyone for text messaging (including spam). The consumer
uproar was so large that the company backed down and established a
rate structure that was more user friendly.

This is not a fair comparison. They have a base rate and now are charging
for extra little features. Monitoring is monitoring and most companies have
a flat monthly charge. I have heard of some that will charge extra for fire,
which is understandable in some cases. Radios are easily explained as well.
Openings and closings do cost money to supervise. But I have never heard of
companies charging extra for having your chime on or receiving trouble
signals etc.
I'm not suggesting this
will happen any time soon with alarm contracts, but the more they are
abused, the more likely consumers will rise to the occasion.

Did you ever hear of "Be careful of what you wish for"? I know you have
heard of "what ever happened to the good ole days?" Well, one thing is for
sure and that is when the good companies go away because of the changing
times, they are never coming back.
Locking boards is now illegal in several locales (or about to be), and this
is
long overdue.

I do not know of anywhere in the states that it is illegal to lock boards.
After all, the feature is standard with every manufacturer, the use of which
is an industry standard and these panels are all UL approved (or some other
national recognized tesing laboratory) with the feature on board. It would
be a hard sell to disprove or discredit the legitimacy of the feature's use
as intented. With that being said, those that misuse the feature after there
is no further responsibility for the correct function of the system, should
be held accountable if in fact they are proven to be doing so maliciously. I
know you can relate to the fact that guns in the hands of responsible people
don't kill. In the hands of non responsible people they are a problem.
Should guns be illegal?
However, if a consumer comes to this group and sees that
there is a possibility that there are companies offering term
contracts on a monthly basis (and there certainly are in our area),
then maybe he or she will not just needlessly accept the self serving
insistence that they lock themselves in to a long term contract that
does nothing for them.

This has come up in legislation here in Florida and the month to month
agreements only and no auto renewals did not pass. At least last year
anyway. It will probably come up again since it was the bill sponsors mother
that felt she was wronged. Since government cannot tell businesses how to
run, the legislators all got heartburn over this issue when it was brought
to their attention that at the strike of midnight of the expiration date,
that a location would no longer be monitored if payment was not received. At
2:00 AM on that following morning their mother or father pushed their
medical pendant, no one responded and the person died, the son would be
looking for someone to sue. Guess what, there was no contract, it had
expired. Hence, no obligation to respond. The old "check is in the mail"
does weight. Without payment in house, the company does not know the
client's intent on whether to continue or not. Now, remember what I said
about it not being a one way street. Let's be the good guy. Old Tom will
pay, He is alway late. So the good guy continues to monitor after the
contract has expired. Unfortunately, the dispatcher makes a mistake and the
person died anyway. Your insurance company is covering you with the
understanding that there is an agreement, with the language they approved,
in force. In force, not expired. In this case, I hope you have enough room
on your credit card because you are your own. Besides, most monitoring third
monitoring companies will want to have a contract in force anyway. A month
to month would be a paperwork nightmare to control who is in and who isn't.
The other issue that the legislation looked at was that they didn't want to
pass legislation that opened the door to escalating fees. Month to month
agreements equal potential for monthly escalation of fees rather that fixed
amounts agreed to for a longer term. Talk about potential for abuse.

I can see how a small one man show can live off of the month to month
philosophy. Has monthly money coming in, does a few installs, the monthly
bills are getting covered. Great. It is called check book accounting.
However, a company with alot of overhead must have some assurrances and this
is accomplished with guarunteed contracts. In the large scope of things
those are the companies that are more apt to be here for the consumer
tomarrow, next week, next month and next year. I don't have to explain the
life expectance of the small businesses. Most people don't mind paying for
that comfort level.

Bottom line is I don't like committment either, especially at my age, but I
understand and accept it as that is how things get done.
 
T

tourman

Not really. They just have to pay the full value of the installation which
means Manufacturers Recommended Price for the equipment and the prevailing
labor wage for the area in which the installation occured. If this were to
be paid, the installing company would make out better than doing the job at
a competetive installation charge and three years monitoring. At that point
the customer can find monitoring anywhere on the internet month to month.
Problem is no one will pay MRP and prevailing wage. They cannot have it both
ways.

RHC: It's interesting that you put it that way, and you are correct. I
have always said, if the consumer is willing to pay fair market price
for equipment and labour, then the monitoring should be without the
need for a long term commitment, since it's then simply a follow on
service that is not being used to finance a low front end price. And
you're right, the only reason I can do that is because that is exactly
how I run the business. As a result, many customers have to be "sold"
not on the equipment, or my company, or me for that matter; they have
to be "sold" on looking at their purchase over the longer term. Some
clients are aghast at my up front prices until they realize that over
a five year term, factoring in all costs, they still come out ahead.
As a result, the only clients I get are ones with decent incomes who
can afford this way of buying, and like the freedom of choice of month
to month term monitoring. It's clearly not for every client, and yes,
it is far more suitable for a small firm with limited overheads than a
large corporation with ongoing fixed costs.

If the truth be known Bob, I live in a government city where the
average annual income is over $60K. I would venture to say that most
of my clients have two incomes totalling well over $125K per year.
They are by nature very mobile either through wanting to upgrade their
existing home, or simply because their job in high tech requires it.
So this is a market niche that likely doesn't exist in most towns and
cities. These customers are very loyal and will stay with me for
monitoring services as long as I maintain high quality standards in
all respects. However, if I fail, or I let my service quality drop, my
name will go out over any number of large corporate evines which could
end up costing me in both reputation and future clients. In turn, I
give them the freedom to choose that is so important to them. They in
turn act as my best salesmen !! It also makes it particularly easy to
fight the "free system" types. These people are very sophisticated
customers and the first lie being thrown their way is a red flag to
chase the salesman away !! Then when I combine my system prices with
the necessary physical work ALWAYS required on any home, it becomes a
"one stop shopping event" and a no brainer of a decision !!
Of course it is self serving in a way but agreements are not a one way
street. My agreement outlines my responsibities to the client and by
agreement if I don't do what is outlined, I am in default. In fact, an
agreement with a client leaves a company open to legal action if they don't
perform. Without an agreement there is no expectation on the company to
perform.

RHC: Agreed ! My responsibilities and the customer responsibilities
are clearly outlined in my contract just as in yours. The ONLY
difference is the term it applies for (one month). Clients know I must
perform or they have the option of giving me the boot ! I likewise
have the option of terminating them with one month's notice -
something I have done for a number of reasons (non payment, switch to
VoIP, too many false alarms etc). My contract is as air tight as any
on the market, but it's term is month to month, that's all.....
This is not a fair comparison. They have a base rate and now are charging
for extra little features. Monitoring is monitoring and most companies have
a flat monthly charge. I have heard of some that will charge extra for fire,
which is understandable in some cases. Radios are easily explained as well.
Openings and closings do cost money to supervise. But I have never heard of
companies charging extra for having your chime on or receiving trouble
signals etc.

RHC: Perhaps that was not the best example to use...
With that being said, those that misuse the feature (lockout) after
there
is no further responsibility for the correct function of the system, should
be held accountable if in fact they are proven to be doing so maliciously. I
know you can relate to the fact that guns in the hands of responsible people
don't kill. In the hands of non responsible people they are a problem.
Should guns be illegal?

RHC: Hah ! You knew that one would get me....:))) The more common
abuse of the feature comes when companies who routinely use this
feature simply die or go away, or do whatever happens to alarmcos when
the run out of steam ! If they use the feature, then they must be
responsible for returning the board to normal at the end of the term.
However, lets not kid ourselves, most alarm companies run a pretty
skinny operation, with no slack to allow them to do this sort of
thing. Nor at the end of their operation, will they likely care to
"make things right" as they sell out or wind the business down. Many
may not even remember that any particular board is locked, since their
installer may have simply done that as a routine move. Sure there are
legitimate uses for the lockout feature, but as often as not, it's the
illegitimate uses that cause problems. So just like a gun owner should
be held responsible for safe use and storage of his firearm, so should
alarmco's be held responsible to free up customer owned equipment that
has no further encumberances on it. (I think that's a fair
comparison...:))
This has come up in legislation here in Florida and the month to month
agreements only and no auto renewals did not pass. At least last year
anyway. It will probably come up again since it was the bill sponsors mother
that felt she was wronged. Since government cannot tell businesses how to
run, the legislators all got heartburn over this issue when it was brought
to their attention that at the strike of midnight of the expiration date,
that a location would no longer be monitored if payment was not received. At
2:00 AM on that following morning their mother or father pushed their
medical pendant, no one responded and the person died, the son would be
looking for someone to sue. Guess what, there was no contract, it had
expired. Hence, no obligation to respond. The old "check is in the mail"
does weight. Without payment in house, the company does not know the
client's intent on whether to continue or not. Now, remember what I said
about it not being a one way street. Let's be the good guy. Old Tom will
pay, He is alway late. So the good guy continues to monitor after the
contract has expired. Unfortunately, the dispatcher makes a mistake and the
person died anyway. Your insurance company is covering you with the
understanding that there is an agreement, with the language they approved,
in force. In force, not expired. In this case, I hope you have enough room
on your credit card because you are your own. Besides, most monitoring third
monitoring companies will want to have a contract in force anyway. A month
to month would be a paperwork nightmare to control who is in and who isn't.
The other issue that the legislation looked at was that they didn't want to
pass legislation that opened the door to escalating fees. Month to month
agreements equal potential for monthly escalation of fees rather that fixed
amounts agreed to for a longer term. Talk about potential for abuse.

RHC: If a contract is unending, and is on a month to month term, it
renews automatically for another month at the end of each month.
Unless the customer advises me that he wishes to terminate, then it
goes on ad infinitum. All billing too is by automatic Pre-authorized
Payment Plan. So things roll along nicely until one of us terminates
the agreement (usually the customer). There is little to no
possibility of a billing default which puts the continuance of his
monitoring into jeopardy. It's all black and white ! He's on the
books or he's not ! I bundle service and a complete warranty in to the
monthly rate AND I give him in his contract a guarantee of no price
rise for a fixed length of time (and if the truth be known, I have no
intention of ever raising it). BUT in order to run this kind of
business this particular way, I have to be quite ruthless on a number
of points. Takeovers are checked thoroughly and only about 7 out of 10
"pass". Installations are done correctly using only the best quality
of contacts and high end motions, and with an absolute minimum of
wireless components (which generate far more trouble calls than they
are worth). I learned long ago to "cherry pick" my installations and
my customers. If I see a potential client who looks like trouble (you
know the kind; we all develop a nose for them), then there is always a
reason why I don't want to quote on the business.

I know that not every company is going to want to be this picky
towards potential business, so certainly couldn't and wouldn't operate
like I do. I often refuse DIY jobs after inspecting them and finding
them so far "overengineered" with five splices where one would do, and
I hand them over to someone else. LIkewise with several companies here
in town that do abominable work (five motions on one loop, with B's
behind the walls somewhere; with too many wires jammed together into a
screw down terminal, using cheap shit motions everywhere etc.....).
That probably makes my approach unique, and as such, it would seem to
fly in the face of conventional alarmco logic......
I can see how a small one man show can live off of the month to month
philosophy. Has monthly money coming in, does a few installs, the monthly
bills are getting covered. Great. It is called check book accounting.
However, a company with alot of overhead must have some assurrances and this
is accomplished with guarunteed contracts. In the large scope of things
those are the companies that are more apt to be here for the consumer
tomarrow, next week, next month and next year. I don't have to explain the
life expectance of the small businesses. Most people don't mind paying for
that comfort level.

RHC: Now THAT is the first intelligent reason I have ever seen
outlined for the value of long term contracts to any company. The
other is equity, but that is far overblown in this business. I would
guess that in this day and age of inflating prices, some long term
assurance their rate will remain stable for a guaranteed period of
time could be very attractive to some clients. Unfortunately, the
ADT's of the world and their "right" to raise prices due to inflation,
make a bit of a mockery of that. However, with so many small company's
coming and going in this business, that guaranteed revenue stream
would certainly allow responsible, long term alarm businesses of any
size to plan ahead, and make longer term commitments needed to keep
their company healthy.

The only downside to my type of operation is maximum size. I cannot
continue to grow much past where I am now at 1000 customers unless I
plan to hire additional staff for service. This has become my "glass
ceiling" . With growth much beyond this point, my costs rise
exponentially. My original plan was not to grow past 500 but once my
son entered the business, we can handle everything with time to spare.
But I don't want to push things by going too much higher..

BTW, thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent response. This is
the kind of discussion this newsgroup should be all about.....
 
J

Jim

BTW, thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent response. This is
the kind of discussion this newsgroup should be all about.....

So what it comes down to is that month to month contracts are kind of
unique to you. You're small, you have additional income to suppliment
your profits from the company and to sustain you in retirement. Your
clients are cherry picked in higher income brackets. You get all your
money up front. You're not interested in building equity in your
business.

Yet you use this group to trash term contracts and the companys who
use them. Companys who depend upon them for various viable business
reasons that you actually agree with but yet you've got the gall to
promote short term contracts to end users EVERYWHERE!

And you don't see anything wrong with that?
 
Top