Dear "Well Known National Alarm Company":

[Frank Olson]

The ULC certificated system you installed two years ago at this grade
school was bogus. The fact that you certified the system was nothing
more than a money grab. Here is a list of deficiencies we found (and
corrected) when we took over the system:

1. A plug-in transformer is not allowed.

2. ULC requires a dedicated circuit for the alarm communicator. It
can't be "shared" with a Nortel Networks telephone system or a Telus
supplied ADSL Modem.

3. ULC requires that the primary telephone line must be dedicated to
the fire alarm communicator. It can not be "shared" with the customer's
ADSL Modem and most definitely must seize the line ahead of the modem.

4. The Power 832 (your Focus 32) panel must have two 7AH batteries
connected to the battery harness to meet the requirements of the ULC
listing.

5. You can not under any circumstances circumvent the lightning
arrestor at the DMARC/Protector.

6. All wiring to the communicator cabinet must be either armoured or
run in conduit. This includes the wiring to the keypad.

7. The ULC certificate has space for five scheduled inspections. The
certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011. The
first "inspection" was signed off one month after installation. The
last one was signed off less than two weeks ago. I hesitate to post
what you charged the customer for each of these "inspections". What
were you going to do "next year"? Sign off on the back of the certificate??

8. You should teach your technicians to recognize a PROPER ULC
installation. The fact that four separate techs signed off on this sham
just boggles the mind.

9. The Mircom 1000 has independent outputs for sprinkler supervisory.
The supervisory and trouble contacts do not activate together
(simultaneously). ULC requires that you monitor the supervisory output
(as does the local authority). For the last two years a latching tamper
(generated by someone that's just turned off the water) would never have
registered with your CS.

10. If you're going to use a dual line digital communicator, the
telephone lines must be installed in accordance with NFPA 72. And you
definitely cannot run both lines in a single eight conductor CAT3 cable.
When you have all the lines entering through the same conduit, an
alternate means of communication must be provided. Typically this is
done by either an RF transceiver or ULC listed cellular communicator.

You've done your customer a huge disservice and grossly overcharged them
for the last two and a half years. You should be ashamed!!

PS. Your equipment has been neatly boxed and is located behind the
office counter. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Sincerely
Frank Olson

 

[A.J.]

The ULC certificated system you installed two years ago at this grade
school was bogus. The fact that you certified the system was nothing more
than a money grab. Here is a list of deficiencies we found (and
corrected) when we took over the system:

1. A plug-in transformer is not allowed.

Correct.



2. ULC requires a dedicated circuit for the alarm communicator. It can't
be "shared" with a Nortel Networks telephone system or a Telus supplied
ADSL Modem.

Depending on the year it was installed. I believe it 's only until recent
years that a dedicated circuit is required for the communicator.

3. ULC requires that the primary telephone line must be dedicated to the
fire alarm communicator. It can not be "shared" with the customer's ADSL
Modem and most definitely must seize the line ahead of the modem.

Dedicated phone line is not required, as far as I know.

4. The Power 832 (your Focus 32) panel must have two 7AH batteries
connected to the battery harness to meet the requirements of the ULC
listing.

Correct.


5. You can not under any circumstances circumvent the lightning arrestor
at the DMARC/Protector.

Correct, but nothing to do with ULC requirement.

6. All wiring to the communicator cabinet must be either armoured or run
in conduit. This includes the wiring to the keypad.

Correct.


7. The ULC certificate has space for five scheduled inspections. The
certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011. The first
"inspection" was signed off one month after installation. The last one
was signed off less than two weeks ago. I hesitate to post what you
charged the customer for each of these "inspections". What were you going
to do "next year"? Sign off on the back of the certificate??

Hmmmm, no idea there.

8. You should teach your technicians to recognize a PROPER ULC
installation. The fact that four separate techs signed off on this sham
just boggles the mind.

Agree 100%.

9. The Mircom 1000 has independent outputs for sprinkler supervisory. The
supervisory and trouble contacts do not activate together
(simultaneously). ULC requires that you monitor the supervisory output
(as does the local authority). For the last two years a latching tamper
(generated by someone that's just turned off the water) would never have
registered with your CS.

Correct.


10. If you're going to use a dual line digital communicator, the
telephone lines must be installed in accordance with NFPA 72. And you
definitely cannot run both lines in a single eight conductor CAT3 cable.
When you have all the lines entering through the same conduit, an
alternate means of communication must be provided. Typically this is done
by either an RF transceiver or ULC listed cellular communicator.

I have to disagree with you here. How far are you willing to carry the
different path approach ? As far back as the manhole from the street ? But
pretty soon dual line comm will be history anyway, so no point arguing
further. I am not a big fan of digital communicator only for fire alarm
system anyway, so the sooner it goes away, the happier I am.

You've done your customer a huge disservice and grossly overcharged them
for the last two and a half years. You should be ashamed!!

PS. Your equipment has been neatly boxed and is located behind the office
counter. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Sincerely
Frank Olson

That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.

 

[Frank Olson]

Depending on the year it was installed. I believe it 's only until recent
years that a dedicated circuit is required for the communicator.

Did I say 2006??

Dedicated phone line is not required, as far as I know.

For the "primary line" in this jurisdiction it is. ULC "defaults" to
the jurisdiction.

Correct, but nothing to do with ULC requirement.



Hmmmm, no idea there.

The certificate calls for annual inspections.

Agree 100%.



I have to disagree with you here. How far are you willing to carry the
different path approach ?

Considering the occupancy, I'd say as far as is necessary to achieve the
maximum benefit. In this case two separate technologies will be used.
A hard line (POTS) and GSM.

As far back as the manhole from the street ?

Either end of the building/structure.

But
pretty soon dual line comm will be history anyway, so no point arguing
further. I am not a big fan of digital communicator only for fire alarm
system anyway, so the sooner it goes away, the happier I am.

I couldn't agree more.

That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.

Didn't think you did...

 

[Frank Olson]

Considering the occupancy, I'd say as far as is necessary to achieve the
maximum benefit. In this case two separate technologies will be used. A
hard line (POTS) and GSM.



Either end of the building/structure.

Actually this applies to the central station, not the monitored
premises... My bad. Be that as it may, I've always been nervous
employing a dual line communicator. I've seen "hatchet jobs" on more
than one main incoming drop.

 

[Bob]

Actually this applies to the central station, not the monitored
premises... My bad. Be that as it may, I've always been nervous
employing a dual line communicator. I've seen "hatchet jobs" on more
than one main incoming drop.

right, next you'll be saying you flew upside down while selling
insurance.

 

[Frank Olson]

right, next you'll be saying you flew upside down while selling
insurance.

Heh...