ADT & Closed Protocol

[Simon Morriss]

I hope some one will be able to help.

I learnt last week that ADT had been taken to court for not disclosing their closed protocol.  The good thing, as I understand is that they lost.

This will have a big impact on the business and I was wondering if anyone had any further information.

Simon

[Gary Howe]

Whilst not defending ADT in any shape or form propriety fire control panel software is common throughout the industry. It's understandble that after investing a considerable amount of money in R & D that you would want to defend the re-occurring revenue (the annual maintenance contract), it's understandable is it not?
Part of the problem is that you have a variety of Tom, Dick's and Harry's working on a variety of addressable control panels, that they do not have any training any knowledge of, although I understand the counter argument, that if given inferior service (which is often the case with large national company's) you are tied into their protocol's and subsequent service contract.

Gary.

[Allen Higginson]

With reference to maintenance of "closed protocol systems" they are all maintainable by third parties. This means that should a device go faulty then it can be replaced with the same type of detector or unit. The situation arises when it is necessary to change the type of detector (for example a heat detector from a smoke due to chenge of use of a room) or if there is a change to be made to the configuration.Granted that there are a lot of engineers maintaining systems there are not familiar with but,in principal,they all work in the same manner and basic fault finding applies to all systems to determine whether fault is internal or external.

[Gary Howe]

Yes, in principal they all work in the same manner, but the regular swapping of service contrcats means that engineers are often working on 'life' safety systems with the incorrect versions of software, s/w is regulary upgraded to cure known 'bugs', these bugs can be quite serious in some cases (i.e in how the system will operate under fire conditions) if the engineer has not got the latest version as he/she is not from the orginal s & c company then he/she can unwittingly be downloading corrupt or faulty software which may seriously impede the operation of the system.

[Simon Morriss]

My point here is that when you continually get poor service, and I'm not looking at ADT, and you have exhausted all avenues for getting their performance back on track you only then have one option left.  

As rightly pointed out these are life safety systems and as a responsible person you need to be sure that the system will function correctly.

Another bit to throw into the pot is the requirement to reduce alarm.  If you maintainer is not helping and you need to change heads what other option do you have.

Simon

[Bill J]

It can make sense to use the original Manufacturer, however there is no excuse for charging a commercially realistic fee to a builder for the installation, but charging 4 times that price for replacement equipment after a 1 year warranty.

Certain companies often sell equipment at cost price for large shell and core installations, and then at an exaggerated profit to the end user, and to those fitting out floors.

It does make good business sense, but I have seen many cases where it means cutting corners or "Skimping" on fire safety.

I even know one building with a "Closed protocol" Analogue addressable all singing and dancing system.

The building also has 18 small conventional systems all linked into one large conventional system, as single zones, which is fitted next to the addressable system, with a single link indicating alarm. All fitted because it is cheaper to install a control panel, 4 detectors, and a link through 6 floors, than it is to install 4 detectors onto the addressable system.

The Sounders are operated by the Addressable system in common partes and in open plan floors, but by the small conventionals where floors have been compartmentalised.

Horrible.

Back onto BikerBoys original comment, does anyone have any information on the ADT cout case?

[Allen Higginson]

My point here is that when you continually get poor service, and I'm not looking at ADT, and you have exhausted all avenues for getting their performance back on track you only then have one option left.  

As rightly pointed out these are life safety systems and as a responsible person you need to be sure that the system will function correctly.

Another bit to throw into the pot is the requirement to reduce alarm.  If you maintainer is not helping and you need to change heads what other option do you have.

Simon

In the event of config. changes being necessary then the maintenance company has to get the installer in to make the changes.The customer can not be expected to pay more for this than it would be to pay as if  the maintenance company was to do it (ie - no mark up on installer rates)..

[Trevor at Millwood]

Surely the point here is freedom of choice. If a client (usually uneducated in these matters) has a closed protocol system installed it should be, legally his property shouldnt it? If so he should have complete domain over it, and not be tied to, possibly, exorbitant servicing costs.
Recently we took over one of these systems, when the client worked out that if nothinbg goes wrong for three years the savings by switching to us will enable him to replace the entire system, (four storey large office block) with an industry standard one.

But as Bill-J says does anyone know the outcome of the ADT case?

[colin todd]

I drive a BMW. Does that mean I am entitled to the source code of the BMW engine management software. I use Windows. Will Willie Gates give me the rights to Windows or will he just let me use it to type inane messages such as this one? Answers on a postcard....

[Chris Houston]

Yes, but other independent garages are able to service your BMW and Windows operates with various other pieces of software (after the courts forced Microsoft to make them more commpatable, instant messaging software being an example.)

My thoughts are that these details should be agreed in the contract and that purchasers should be made aware that only the installers can do certain things.

Imagine, and I'm not saying this happens, a company selling someone a system below cost on the basis that they can rip them off in the future for maintenance contracts.  Reminds me of computer printer manufacturers, who sell printers dirt cheap, but you can only buy ink from them.