If I’m mistaken about Sonitrol, that company could help convince me of that by helping me with my security problem. After all, it would probably have the ability to detect and remove the electronic devices that are impacting my living quarters--if it wanted to do so. And it might profit Sonitrol generally to start thinking about protecting the interests of tenants. That should surely be part of its mission--along with protecting the interests of building owners, businesses, big corporations, and police. If Sonitrol would like to hire me as a consultant, I’d be happy to give them some further ideas along that line.
In previous writings, I’ve also mentioned SBC as having something to do with my situation. Since the electronic traffic going in and out of my apartment must be fairly heavy (in terms of an informational unit such as bytes/sec), my guess is SBC lines from my apartment are the conduit. Asked about that issue, SBC declined comment. If the government is interested, as it should be, in protecting people against abuse similar to what I’ve experienced, that sort of technical detail might be important.
Finally, in the interest of fairness, I should state that my impression of Sonitrol is based primarily on my experiences with Indianapolis franchise. It could be that company operations in other parts of the U.S. are less problematic.
One should hope so.
CONCLUSION OF ARTICLE
As mentioned at the start, I recently received a letter from Indianapolis Mayor, Bart Peterson. It was dated June 27, 2005. That letter wasn’t about the specific matters mentioned here. It said, “Please understand that I am sorry to hear about your difficult situation. …I understand that you may have a limited income.”
The letter also said that the mayor did not have the legal authority to help me out in the matter that had prompted him to write the letter.
Continue