The Internet and strong crypto. make such efforts to hide murders more difficult
That's funny.. I've always figured it was the other way around.
This is like the ultimate conspiracy theory here -- not only is big brother out to get you, but unless you use strong crypto, they'll KILL you!
I fail to see how strong crypto or any of the "privacy movement"'s efforts would do anything at all to save the starving Iraqi children you point out. I say "privacy movement" in quotes because I do not consider the bulk of Slashdot YRO posts (which are largely what makes up this article as well) to be representative of the real thing. You'll rarely see so many conspiracy theories among real privacy advocates. They're smarter than that.
There is no connection. He was trying to say that people are too frequently obsessed with unfounded paranoia than they are with founded issues that actually affect them.
A shooting in your neighborhood is a concrete crime, and a wakeup-call in itself that something might potentially need to be done in your area. The "Big Brother" scare routinely touted on Slashdot is largely paranoid conspiracy theories, frequently with zero basis for fact, and always based on the theoretical.
What does Singapore have to do with the United States? Sure there are other countries out there that have little in the way of civil rights or privacy, but why does that automatically mean the United States is the same way, or in imminent danger of becoming so?
These splits are just so annoying when you're on IRC
Perhaps we should start punishing crimes not only based on the intent, but the cumulative frustration, annoyance and grief it causes.
These kids could qualify for the death penalty, and I know of plenty of people who would (unjokingly) gladly pay for a few minutes alone with these kids in an alley somewhere.
Wasn't there an article a while back about someone that actually did that? Tracked one of these packet kiddies down and assaulted him? I think they got caught though..
Once you run that "smart setup" locally, it can tell it's parent company lots of information about your system
If you really think the installer is doing this, why are you running the software at all? Surely if they're going to be planting evil information sniffing agents into their installation program, why wouldn't they do something more thorough with the application itself?
In the future, it would be nice if Slashdot authors quietly discarded any "revolutionary physics" that have been posted up on web pages for some 2 years yet never mentioned in any scientific journals.
Think about it. Do you really think Slashdot is going to be the place where the Real anti-gravity breakthrough is going to hit first (esp. since this "research" is claimed to have taken place YEARS ago)? How many of these crappy web pages do we have to see posted on Slashdot before we figure out the pattern?
If nothing else, search for the phrase "free energy". That should be an immediate and conclusive clue that this article might not be all it's cracked up to be.
Conversely, I haven't been able to attribute any of the last dozen or more spams I've gotten to an AOL source. Plenty have listed AOL in the headers, or included AOL e-mail addresses, but they were all forged in an effort to put people off of their trail.
Additionally, in the same period of time, I've received probably 8 or 10 e-mails from friends/family that use AOL. I would most certainly raise a stink if my ISP decided to honor ORBS lists and keep me from receiving this e-mail.
IMO, AOL doesn't account for *nearly* the amount of spam as other major ISP's out there, and despite the fact that their abuse address never really replies to my complaints (or if they do, it's usually about a month later), I rarely (if at all that I can remember) get a repeat AOL spammer. I mean I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that I might just be lucky, and that the true majority are getting pummeled with repeated AOL spams from the same people, I'm just not one of those people, and from what I've been reading, lots of others are in the same boat as me.
I've never been particularly impressed with ORBS.. their "rules" about who gets added is entirely to subjective and not nearly objective as it needs to be. MAPS RSS has the same goals (listing open relays), but they're much more responsible about when they list someone. *shrug*.. Just my opinion.
That's NOT what he bought. He (and several other posters) bought the machine WITHOUT INTERNET SERVICE
I'm thinking there might be some confusion about what people thought and what people have actually said.
There've been numerous threads on the i-opener mailing list about similar conversations, and NONE OF THESE PEOPLE were ever granted an i-opener device without ISP service. Everyone was told that the ISP service would be set up anyways, but they were still free to cancel at any time. So either this guy misunderstood what the salesperson was saying, or the salesperson told him something that no salesperson has seemingly told anybody else.
The ISP service has *always* been part of the I-opener "product". If a salesperson told him that they would NOT bill him at all for ISP service, that's a whole other ball game, but I'm tempted to believe that the original poster isn't telling the full story.
The issue is not whether or not the ISP service was part of the contract. ISP service has always been part of the i-opener "product description." The only policy change Netpliance made was when the ISP service would be billed. It used to be billed when the unit was first activated, but that was changed so that billing began 2 days after it was shipped.
This guy's problem is that he ordered the device when policy 1 was in effect, but ended up being subject to policy 2. Neither policy was ever made in writing, but he was still informed by Netpliance over the phone. Netpliance is still arguably in the wrong, but they're certainly not "as wrong" as people seem to be making them out to be.
I just re-read this and I'm thinking there might be some confusion here --
Netpliance didn't *add* the bit about ISP service since he ordered it. It's always been part of the product description. The only thing they changed about the 20th was *when* they started billing for ISP service. They used to bill service starting the moment the unit was connected and started up, which was ideal for people who wanted to buy one and give it to their dad a month later. They changed this policy so that service began 2 days after the i-opener was shipped, and I think this guy was just caught in the "gray zone" of those that may have heard one thing but ended up subject to a slightly different billing policy to begin with.
Admittedly, people in this gray zone that had no intention of using the device when it arrived probably do have cause to complain, but this should be a matter of customer service, refunding the guy his ISP charge since he was led to believe one thing but was actually subject to something different.
Still, this is a matter of what, $10? (pro-rated $22 monthly service?) I mean come on, there are only a handful of people this affects, and it's just $10. Worthy of pursuing a refund, sure, but not worthy of all this horribly negative Slashdot attention. How many Big Bad Companies out there have made $10 billing errors?
There was no change of contract though.. The only thing signed by those that went to the store was the credit card receipt saying they were purchasing an i-opener (implicitly acknowledging the ISP service in the process, since it's part of one package). If he ordered this over the phone, the critical thing to know is what *exactly* was said. He seems to interpret his conversation as an explicit change of the terms of his purchase. Instead of getting an i-opener package with ISP service, he seems to think he got an i-opener device out of it. Whether that was simply a misunderstanding on his part or a correct interpretation of what the salesperson said is the factor that we need to consider.
Based on what I've seen of "pasted" telephone conversations, all Netpliance has said (prior to the 20th or whenever they changed their policy) was that they wouldn't bill for ISP service until the unit was actually connected and used. It's been REPEATED that every time somebody asked to cancel/stop billing entirely at order-time were DENIED, but told that they could cancel at *any* point after the order was processed and shipped. This is why I think we're not getting the full and accurate truth here. He would, in fact, be the ONLY one successful in getting ISP service "cancelled" at order-time. (At least that I know about...)
If Netpliance told him that they wouldn't bill him (or even that they wouldn't bill until the unit was activated), but then turned around and billed him anyways, then I DO AGREE that Netpliance is in the wrong here, but AT MOST they need to just refund the charge (assuming he was stonewalled when he called and asked them to refund it.. he did call and ask first before seeking a legal route, yes?).
It seems that every time we get an article on Slashdot about even a *vague* or relatively small/limited-scope incident like this, we get ALL KINDS of Slashdot kiddies out in force saying we need to just DESTROY this obviously evil corporation, and that just saddens me. There is another side to this story, and it bothers me that people want to take advantage of Netpliance more than they already have.
let alone changing their agreement in mid stride to stop it.
I'm not talking about the number of people that have opted to use the i-opener for "unapproved" purposes (hack up, put Linux/whatever OS on it). I'm talking about the number of people that called Netpliance before Netpliance made their policy change to begin billing upon the 2nd day of shipment, explicitely asked Netpliance to delay or not bill for ISP service entirely, and then had Netpliance begin billing them anyway. Everyone I've heard (on the i-opener mailing list) that asked precisely what this guy asked was told instead that the first month's billing was mandatory, but could be cancelled at any point during the first month of use.
Netpliance responded to people hacking up the devices and not subscribing to ISP service by making ISP service subscriptions compulsory. This, in turn, caused this guy's headaches, not the other way around.
I should naturally expect to be enrolled in the nail of the month club and have it charged to my card?
If you're purchasing a Spacely Hammer Deal, which lists plainly on the card in front of you includes one (1) hammer and one (1) subscription to the Nail of the Month club (with a recurring cost of $5,000/month) for one low hardware cost of $5, then yes, you should expect that.
That's what you bought.
HIS problem is that Netpliance did not (allegedly) honor the special arrangements the salesperson set up for him (to delay billing of the ISP service). In all likelyhood, this occurred because of this:
At the time, ISP service did not begin until after the unit was first connected and used with a telephone line. Upon its initial dial-out, it subscribed the user to the ISP service. The salesperson knew this, and told him it would not be a problem and he would not be billed for ISP service. A policy change at Netpliance moved the "start" date for ISP users to the 2nd day after the order was shipped. This "start date" was not part of any contract.
The fact that they told him one thing and did another is simply POOR BUSINESS, and is in no way illegal or even (in the big picture, seeing how this guy is trying to rip them off just like the rest of us using these i-openers for cheap Linux installations) what I would consider unethical.
He has grounds to write them a letter, ask for a refund, sure, but this is hardly something to get Slashdot kiddies worked up over. They're certainly not "slamming" or "cramming" or whatever the term is. They've stated up front that they bill for ISP service, and in this ONE specific case, they ended up going through with it despite (alleged) special arrangements.
I say "alleged" because I imagine the conversation was more for "confirmation" that their current ISP policy is not to bill immediately, not, as the submitter claims, an explicit assurance by the salesperson that he would not be billed for ISP service *at all*.
The US has no such laws.. though to be honest, that's something I'd like to see.
Here we have to always be careful about reading the fine print for extra charges. Like when you go buy a car you just "know" that you're going to need to add like 7-10k$ to the total price he's giving you, with all the extra options, fees, etc., you think he's already given you, there's still THAT MUCH MORE that will end up going onto your final bill.
So you work there, or have some of their stock. Big Deal.
No, I don't.
I'm actually one of the more spoken people on the i-openers mailing list, and the guy that put together the FAQ for hacking the thing up. I have two of these devices in my home, used as X terminals and one will eventually be an MP3 player in my living room.
http://fastolfe.net/misc/i-opener-faq.html
I am the 'Fastolfe' in 'Fastolfe.Net'.
I think I'm probably one of the most qualified people in this article to comment on what's going on here, since I've been dealing with Netpliance and the i-opener "hacking" community since the beginning.
I have little problem with people wanting to take advantage of the low price to use these things in other ways, PROVIDED they do not attempt to give Netpliance THE SHAFT in the process. If you actually read the mailing list, you'll find that most of us are quite sensitive to Netpliance's predicament, and we ARE quite aware that we are really taking advantage of them here, and I'm quite sick of Linux Slashdot kiddies who think they can force Netpliance (or any other "evil" corporation of the week) to take it up the ass for them. Things like this make me sick.
This is the same problem as the whole Windows Refund Day thing. People are convinced that they are buying a collection of different products, with the expectation that they can break it down any way they want and always have the option of returning/cancelling a portion while keeping the balance.
The "product" here is the I-opener appliance, which, according to product literature, descriptions and the card sitting in front of the thing, includes a $22/month ISP account.
He did NOT buy the device alone. He bought the whole package, which included ISP service, not a standalone device.
He called up Netpliance and asked them if he could post-pone activating his account (waiting to give it to his dad, hack it up, whatever). They said that at the present time, accounts are activated when the unit is first connected to a phone line and used. They changed that policy without warning (without needing a warning), and now the guy's mad because they did what they said they were going to do and charged him service.
If the salesperson came out and explicitely told him that they would make a special effort not to begin service on the account, then Netpliance has clearly gone back on that word, and he has grounds to contest the charges, but this is NOT a matter of Netpliance being an evil company and "slamming" customers without their knowledge.
The problem here is that, if i-opener was going to charge his card for the service, they should have told him.
The problem is that they (allegedly) failed to honor the special agreement that he had been allowed by the sales person. The product purchase includes ISP service. If he explicitely asked that the service not be started, and the sales person agreed to honor that, then I agree he has a right to complain, but IMO this is more of a poor business practice than any illegal "slamming".
I mean think about it, how many people are affected by this? How many people explicitely asked that service not be started when they ordered their i-opener (which, allow me to repeat, according to all the sales information I've seen, INCLUDES ISP SERVICE by its very nature), were granted that, and did not have these arrangements honored?
I'm betting it's just a handful of people, and while I do agree that one is too many, I hardly think this should be the topic of a front-page Slashdot article.
So if you buy something, you should not only look at what you're buying but also at what the seller thinks you should use it for?
No, you should look at the product description and be aware of what you're getting when you order it (from the sales brochure):
What you get with the i-opener:
A simple, fun-to-use Internet appliance for only $99
i-opener's Internet service, browser and email ready out of the box
One email account set-up for you
A monthly fee of $21.95/month*...
To my knowledge, this information has never changed, and I was aware of all of this when I stopped into Circuit City to pick up my two i-openers THREE WEEKS ago (long before they made this policy announcement). I was PERFECTLY aware that I was purchasing a device that had an attached ISP service, and so was this guy. He was simply counting on the fact that reports indicating Netpliance wouldn't start billing until you actually connected the device were indeed accurate. So they changed their policy. I fail to see why this needs to be such a huge blown-up legal matter.
You're not really buying a 'Net device that will hook up with any old ISP, you're buying a Net device that comes *with* an ISP subscription. Their software only deals with the Netpliance ISP (leased lines through various national ISP's).
Of course, once you figure out how to get into the system, you can use native QNX pppd-style tools to dial up to whatever you want, but the vast, VAST majority of Netpliance customers don't know or care to know about this.
This is also why it sells so cheap. 99$ is a small percentage of the device's cost. They intend to make up the rest through ISP subscriptions.
All you need to do is dial the unit up using its native QNX (either to the Netpliance-provided ISP or, if you've wriggled your way into the internals, by using pppd itself with your own ISP), FTP a compressed boot/root filesystem image, and write that image to the raw SanDisk device.
Poof. Instant Linux installation. It's been done with BSD and there are already Linux "distros" (images) available to do the same. Check out their web site and the FAQ.
I don't think they've really done anything wrong here.. He knew there was ISP charges attached to the purchase. He just heard that the ISP charges began when you first connected the unit up, and was a bit miffed when he found out Netpliance changed that unspoken policy.
I know I'll be keeping an eye on that "Dev Corner" part of their site.
He purchased an Internet appliance that comes with its own connectivity arrangement. He knew when he bought it that he was buying an ISP subscription. He's just bitter because the ISP subscription used to begin the moment the device was connected and dialed up. He was counting on the fact that since he was going to scrap the OS first, that he wouldn't even have to begin the ISP service and wouldn't have to pay the charges.
It's silly to make such a fuss over this now. Just cancel the subscription for God's sake. Stop whining because the company carried through with the product's information and started him up on an ISP service that he wasn't going to use. How are they supposed to know that he wasn't buying this for use as they'd intended?
From what I've heard, they haven't made any real changes to the box, either. In essence, all the noise they made about modifying the system to prevent hacks was window dressing to mollify the stockholders.
If this is what you've heard, then you need to select a more authoritative source.
NOBODY has received a unit produced after their "line of no modification." Everything that's been said up until this point about what changes have been made to keep us from hacking these things has been WILD SPECULATION.
The notice has been up on their web page for at least a week (two?) that orders would be automatically billed for service. It sounds like this guy placed the order before such a notice was in place, but he is *not* necessarily a victim here of an evil company.
You are purchasing an Internet appliance, with the expectation that you will plug it in and be connected to a monthly Internet service (with its own fees). THIS IS WHAT YOU BOUGHT. The date the actual monthly ISP service starts shouldn't really matter.
The bottom line is that this guy bought an Internet appliance with the intention of using it in ways the manufacturer didn't intend. It's not their fault they assumed he was a normal customer. If you're going to purchase things and use them in ways the manufacturer didn't intend, you have to expect that there are going to be things attached along with that purchase that you don't necessarily need. Suck it up and cancel the service.
I think Netpliance has been perfectly justified in moving into an automatic billing scheme. It's one thing to take advantage of a loss-leading price like this, and I myself feel a little guilty for participating, but people like this, those that are really TRYING to give Netpliance the shaft here really annoy me.
The NetBSD trick (writing a bootable image, kernel or otherwise directly to the SanDisk) also works with Linux or most any other OS. You just need an image to work from. You could take a root-on-NFS IP auto-discovery kernel and just write it directly to the SanDisk as if you were making a boot floppy and have yourself a working setup.
Slashdot Mirror
The Internet and strong crypto. make such efforts to hide murders more difficult
That's funny.. I've always figured it was the other way around.
This is like the ultimate conspiracy theory here -- not only is big brother out to get you, but unless you use strong crypto, they'll KILL you!
I fail to see how strong crypto or any of the "privacy movement"'s efforts would do anything at all to save the starving Iraqi children you point out. I say "privacy movement" in quotes because I do not consider the bulk of Slashdot YRO posts (which are largely what makes up this article as well) to be representative of the real thing. You'll rarely see so many conspiracy theories among real privacy advocates. They're smarter than that.
What's the connection here?
There is no connection. He was trying to say that people are too frequently obsessed with unfounded paranoia than they are with founded issues that actually affect them.
A shooting in your neighborhood is a concrete crime, and a wakeup-call in itself that something might potentially need to be done in your area. The "Big Brother" scare routinely touted on Slashdot is largely paranoid conspiracy theories, frequently with zero basis for fact, and always based on the theoretical.
What does Singapore have to do with the United States? Sure there are other countries out there that have little in the way of civil rights or privacy, but why does that automatically mean the United States is the same way, or in imminent danger of becoming so?
These splits are just so annoying when you're on IRC
Perhaps we should start punishing crimes not only based on the intent, but the cumulative frustration, annoyance and grief it causes.
These kids could qualify for the death penalty, and I know of plenty of people who would (unjokingly) gladly pay for a few minutes alone with these kids in an alley somewhere.
Wasn't there an article a while back about someone that actually did that? Tracked one of these packet kiddies down and assaulted him? I think they got caught though..
Once you run that "smart setup" locally, it can tell it's parent company lots of information about your system
If you really think the installer is doing this, why are you running the software at all? Surely if they're going to be planting evil information sniffing agents into their installation program, why wouldn't they do something more thorough with the application itself?
In the future, it would be nice if Slashdot authors quietly discarded any "revolutionary physics" that have been posted up on web pages for some 2 years yet never mentioned in any scientific journals.
Think about it. Do you really think Slashdot is going to be the place where the Real anti-gravity breakthrough is going to hit first (esp. since this "research" is claimed to have taken place YEARS ago)? How many of these crappy web pages do we have to see posted on Slashdot before we figure out the pattern?
If nothing else, search for the phrase "free energy". That should be an immediate and conclusive clue that this article might not be all it's cracked up to be.
Conversely, I haven't been able to attribute any of the last dozen or more spams I've gotten to an AOL source. Plenty have listed AOL in the headers, or included AOL e-mail addresses, but they were all forged in an effort to put people off of their trail.
Additionally, in the same period of time, I've received probably 8 or 10 e-mails from friends/family that use AOL. I would most certainly raise a stink if my ISP decided to honor ORBS lists and keep me from receiving this e-mail.
IMO, AOL doesn't account for *nearly* the amount of spam as other major ISP's out there, and despite the fact that their abuse address never really replies to my complaints (or if they do, it's usually about a month later), I rarely (if at all that I can remember) get a repeat AOL spammer. I mean I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that I might just be lucky, and that the true majority are getting pummeled with repeated AOL spams from the same people, I'm just not one of those people, and from what I've been reading, lots of others are in the same boat as me.
I've never been particularly impressed with ORBS.. their "rules" about who gets added is entirely to subjective and not nearly objective as it needs to be. MAPS RSS has the same goals (listing open relays), but they're much more responsible about when they list someone. *shrug*.. Just my opinion.
That's NOT what he bought. He (and several other posters) bought the machine WITHOUT INTERNET SERVICE
I'm thinking there might be some confusion about what people thought and what people have actually said.
There've been numerous threads on the i-opener mailing list about similar conversations, and NONE OF THESE PEOPLE were ever granted an i-opener device without ISP service. Everyone was told that the ISP service would be set up anyways, but they were still free to cancel at any time. So either this guy misunderstood what the salesperson was saying, or the salesperson told him something that no salesperson has seemingly told anybody else.
The ISP service has *always* been part of the I-opener "product". If a salesperson told him that they would NOT bill him at all for ISP service, that's a whole other ball game, but I'm tempted to believe that the original poster isn't telling the full story.
Well, that's probably the issue then.
Well, see, I don't think it is.
The issue is not whether or not the ISP service was part of the contract. ISP service has always been part of the i-opener "product description." The only policy change Netpliance made was when the ISP service would be billed. It used to be billed when the unit was first activated, but that was changed so that billing began 2 days after it was shipped.
This guy's problem is that he ordered the device when policy 1 was in effect, but ended up being subject to policy 2. Neither policy was ever made in writing, but he was still informed by Netpliance over the phone. Netpliance is still arguably in the wrong, but they're certainly not "as wrong" as people seem to be making them out to be.
Netpliance has every right to change their offer
I just re-read this and I'm thinking there might be some confusion here --
Netpliance didn't *add* the bit about ISP service since he ordered it. It's always been part of the product description. The only thing they changed about the 20th was *when* they started billing for ISP service. They used to bill service starting the moment the unit was connected and started up, which was ideal for people who wanted to buy one and give it to their dad a month later. They changed this policy so that service began 2 days after the i-opener was shipped, and I think this guy was just caught in the "gray zone" of those that may have heard one thing but ended up subject to a slightly different billing policy to begin with.
Admittedly, people in this gray zone that had no intention of using the device when it arrived probably do have cause to complain, but this should be a matter of customer service, refunding the guy his ISP charge since he was led to believe one thing but was actually subject to something different.
Still, this is a matter of what, $10? (pro-rated $22 monthly service?) I mean come on, there are only a handful of people this affects, and it's just $10. Worthy of pursuing a refund, sure, but not worthy of all this horribly negative Slashdot attention. How many Big Bad Companies out there have made $10 billing errors?
The simple issue is one of contract.
There was no change of contract though.. The only thing signed by those that went to the store was the credit card receipt saying they were purchasing an i-opener (implicitly acknowledging the ISP service in the process, since it's part of one package). If he ordered this over the phone, the critical thing to know is what *exactly* was said. He seems to interpret his conversation as an explicit change of the terms of his purchase. Instead of getting an i-opener package with ISP service, he seems to think he got an i-opener device out of it. Whether that was simply a misunderstanding on his part or a correct interpretation of what the salesperson said is the factor that we need to consider.
Based on what I've seen of "pasted" telephone conversations, all Netpliance has said (prior to the 20th or whenever they changed their policy) was that they wouldn't bill for ISP service until the unit was actually connected and used. It's been REPEATED that every time somebody asked to cancel/stop billing entirely at order-time were DENIED, but told that they could cancel at *any* point after the order was processed and shipped. This is why I think we're not getting the full and accurate truth here. He would, in fact, be the ONLY one successful in getting ISP service "cancelled" at order-time. (At least that I know about...)
If Netpliance told him that they wouldn't bill him (or even that they wouldn't bill until the unit was activated), but then turned around and billed him anyways, then I DO AGREE that Netpliance is in the wrong here, but AT MOST they need to just refund the charge (assuming he was stonewalled when he called and asked them to refund it.. he did call and ask first before seeking a legal route, yes?).
It seems that every time we get an article on Slashdot about even a *vague* or relatively small/limited-scope incident like this, we get ALL KINDS of Slashdot kiddies out in force saying we need to just DESTROY this obviously evil corporation, and that just saddens me. There is another side to this story, and it bothers me that people want to take advantage of Netpliance more than they already have.
let alone changing their agreement in mid stride to stop it.
I'm not talking about the number of people that have opted to use the i-opener for "unapproved" purposes (hack up, put Linux/whatever OS on it). I'm talking about the number of people that called Netpliance before Netpliance made their policy change to begin billing upon the 2nd day of shipment, explicitely asked Netpliance to delay or not bill for ISP service entirely, and then had Netpliance begin billing them anyway. Everyone I've heard (on the i-opener mailing list) that asked precisely what this guy asked was told instead that the first month's billing was mandatory, but could be cancelled at any point during the first month of use.
Netpliance responded to people hacking up the devices and not subscribing to ISP service by making ISP service subscriptions compulsory. This, in turn, caused this guy's headaches, not the other way around.
I should naturally expect to be enrolled in the nail of the month club and have it charged to my card?
If you're purchasing a Spacely Hammer Deal, which lists plainly on the card in front of you includes one (1) hammer and one (1) subscription to the Nail of the Month club (with a recurring cost of $5,000/month) for one low hardware cost of $5, then yes, you should expect that.
That's what you bought.
HIS problem is that Netpliance did not (allegedly) honor the special arrangements the salesperson set up for him (to delay billing of the ISP service). In all likelyhood, this occurred because of this:
At the time, ISP service did not begin until after the unit was first connected and used with a telephone line. Upon its initial dial-out, it subscribed the user to the ISP service. The salesperson knew this, and told him it would not be a problem and he would not be billed for ISP service. A policy change at Netpliance moved the "start" date for ISP users to the 2nd day after the order was shipped. This "start date" was not part of any contract.
The fact that they told him one thing and did another is simply POOR BUSINESS, and is in no way illegal or even (in the big picture, seeing how this guy is trying to rip them off just like the rest of us using these i-openers for cheap Linux installations) what I would consider unethical.
He has grounds to write them a letter, ask for a refund, sure, but this is hardly something to get Slashdot kiddies worked up over. They're certainly not "slamming" or "cramming" or whatever the term is. They've stated up front that they bill for ISP service, and in this ONE specific case, they ended up going through with it despite (alleged) special arrangements.
I say "alleged" because I imagine the conversation was more for "confirmation" that their current ISP policy is not to bill immediately, not, as the submitter claims, an explicit assurance by the salesperson that he would not be billed for ISP service *at all*.
The US has no such laws.. though to be honest, that's something I'd like to see.
Here we have to always be careful about reading the fine print for extra charges. Like when you go buy a car you just "know" that you're going to need to add like 7-10k$ to the total price he's giving you, with all the extra options, fees, etc., you think he's already given you, there's still THAT MUCH MORE that will end up going onto your final bill.
So you work there, or have some of their stock. Big Deal.
No, I don't.
I'm actually one of the more spoken people on the i-openers mailing list, and the guy that put together the FAQ for hacking the thing up. I have two of these devices in my home, used as X terminals and one will eventually be an MP3 player in my living room.
http://fastolfe.net/misc/i-opener-faq.html
I am the 'Fastolfe' in 'Fastolfe.Net'.
I think I'm probably one of the most qualified people in this article to comment on what's going on here, since I've been dealing with Netpliance and the i-opener "hacking" community since the beginning.
I have little problem with people wanting to take advantage of the low price to use these things in other ways, PROVIDED they do not attempt to give Netpliance THE SHAFT in the process. If you actually read the mailing list, you'll find that most of us are quite sensitive to Netpliance's predicament, and we ARE quite aware that we are really taking advantage of them here, and I'm quite sick of Linux Slashdot kiddies who think they can force Netpliance (or any other "evil" corporation of the week) to take it up the ass for them. Things like this make me sick.
he only agreed to pay for the i-opener device.
This is the same problem as the whole Windows Refund Day thing. People are convinced that they are buying a collection of different products, with the expectation that they can break it down any way they want and always have the option of returning/cancelling a portion while keeping the balance.
The "product" here is the I-opener appliance, which, according to product literature, descriptions and the card sitting in front of the thing, includes a $22/month ISP account.
He did NOT buy the device alone. He bought the whole package, which included ISP service, not a standalone device.
He called up Netpliance and asked them if he could post-pone activating his account (waiting to give it to his dad, hack it up, whatever). They said that at the present time, accounts are activated when the unit is first connected to a phone line and used. They changed that policy without warning (without needing a warning), and now the guy's mad because they did what they said they were going to do and charged him service.
If the salesperson came out and explicitely told him that they would make a special effort not to begin service on the account, then Netpliance has clearly gone back on that word, and he has grounds to contest the charges, but this is NOT a matter of Netpliance being an evil company and "slamming" customers without their knowledge.
The problem here is that, if i-opener was going to charge his card for the service, they should have told him.
The problem is that they (allegedly) failed to honor the special agreement that he had been allowed by the sales person. The product purchase includes ISP service. If he explicitely asked that the service not be started, and the sales person agreed to honor that, then I agree he has a right to complain, but IMO this is more of a poor business practice than any illegal "slamming".
I mean think about it, how many people are affected by this? How many people explicitely asked that service not be started when they ordered their i-opener (which, allow me to repeat, according to all the sales information I've seen, INCLUDES ISP SERVICE by its very nature), were granted that, and did not have these arrangements honored?
I'm betting it's just a handful of people, and while I do agree that one is too many, I hardly think this should be the topic of a front-page Slashdot article.
No, you should look at the product description and be aware of what you're getting when you order it (from the sales brochure):
To my knowledge, this information has never changed, and I was aware of all of this when I stopped into Circuit City to pick up my two i-openers THREE WEEKS ago (long before they made this policy announcement). I was PERFECTLY aware that I was purchasing a device that had an attached ISP service, and so was this guy. He was simply counting on the fact that reports indicating Netpliance wouldn't start billing until you actually connected the device were indeed accurate. So they changed their policy. I fail to see why this needs to be such a huge blown-up legal matter.You're not really buying a 'Net device that will hook up with any old ISP, you're buying a Net device that comes *with* an ISP subscription. Their software only deals with the Netpliance ISP (leased lines through various national ISP's).
Of course, once you figure out how to get into the system, you can use native QNX pppd-style tools to dial up to whatever you want, but the vast, VAST majority of Netpliance customers don't know or care to know about this.
This is also why it sells so cheap. 99$ is a small percentage of the device's cost. They intend to make up the rest through ISP subscriptions.
All you need to do is dial the unit up using its native QNX (either to the Netpliance-provided ISP or, if you've wriggled your way into the internals, by using pppd itself with your own ISP), FTP a compressed boot/root filesystem image, and write that image to the raw SanDisk device.
Poof. Instant Linux installation. It's been done with BSD and there are already Linux "distros" (images) available to do the same. Check out their web site and the FAQ.
I don't think they've really done anything wrong here.. He knew there was ISP charges attached to the purchase. He just heard that the ISP charges began when you first connected the unit up, and was a bit miffed when he found out Netpliance changed that unspoken policy.
I know I'll be keeping an eye on that "Dev Corner" part of their site.
He purchased an Internet appliance that comes with its own connectivity arrangement. He knew when he bought it that he was buying an ISP subscription. He's just bitter because the ISP subscription used to begin the moment the device was connected and dialed up. He was counting on the fact that since he was going to scrap the OS first, that he wouldn't even have to begin the ISP service and wouldn't have to pay the charges.
It's silly to make such a fuss over this now. Just cancel the subscription for God's sake. Stop whining because the company carried through with the product's information and started him up on an ISP service that he wasn't going to use. How are they supposed to know that he wasn't buying this for use as they'd intended?
From what I've heard, they haven't made any real changes to the box, either. In essence, all the noise they made about modifying the system to prevent hacks was window dressing to mollify the stockholders.
If this is what you've heard, then you need to select a more authoritative source.
NOBODY has received a unit produced after their "line of no modification." Everything that's been said up until this point about what changes have been made to keep us from hacking these things has been WILD SPECULATION.
Check out the mailing list set aside for this discussion at http://snoopy.net/mailman/listinfo/iopen er.
The notice has been up on their web page for at least a week (two?) that orders would be automatically billed for service. It sounds like this guy placed the order before such a notice was in place, but he is *not* necessarily a victim here of an evil company.
You are purchasing an Internet appliance, with the expectation that you will plug it in and be connected to a monthly Internet service (with its own fees). THIS IS WHAT YOU BOUGHT. The date the actual monthly ISP service starts shouldn't really matter.
The bottom line is that this guy bought an Internet appliance with the intention of using it in ways the manufacturer didn't intend. It's not their fault they assumed he was a normal customer. If you're going to purchase things and use them in ways the manufacturer didn't intend, you have to expect that there are going to be things attached along with that purchase that you don't necessarily need. Suck it up and cancel the service.
I think Netpliance has been perfectly justified in moving into an automatic billing scheme. It's one thing to take advantage of a loss-leading price like this, and I myself feel a little guilty for participating, but people like this, those that are really TRYING to give Netpliance the shaft here really annoy me.
The NetBSD trick (writing a bootable image, kernel or otherwise directly to the SanDisk) also works with Linux or most any other OS. You just need an image to work from. You could take a root-on-NFS IP auto-discovery kernel and just write it directly to the SanDisk as if you were making a boot floppy and have yourself a working setup.