Um, ya know? If you just followed the link to Iomega's website rather than just breezing through the story before you enunciated profoundly on it, you would know that their page has a direct link to the ACTUAL SETTLEMENT with ACTUAL DETAILS about how to get YOUR REBATE.
Enjoy your REBATE!!! (oh, and there's a bit in there about a 47 million dollar cash payout... so once we're all counted, we can pay for 20 minutes of long distance!!!) WOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!
As a former Winfire subscriber, I can feel the pain of Northpoint subscribers. However, there is an unfortunate chain of events that these ISP failures seem to have in common.
Step One: Company runs out of money and expects suppliers to continue supplying without payment.
Step Two: Company, with even less money, is unable to continue payment for their infastructure.
Step Three: Company goes bankrupt. Network shutdown happens either before this or shortly afterward.
Step Four: Subscribers are left in the dust. Regulatory agencies and upset consumers can stomp their feet all they want. But a sad truth remains.
Who is going to bring the networks back up when they are ordered to? The company has laid off the people who could do such a thing. There's no money to hire consultants to do it. The only option seems to be government bailouts. I find this option to be unlikely to be exercised.
It is my belief that ISP's should be required to carry insurance policies or trusts. Many other industries have this sort of requirement. Although ISP's do not perform the same type of inherently dangerous activities as these other industries, this would be a smart option. Companies who receive large amounts of money from going public or from venture capitalists should be required to take a portion and purchase insurance or set up a trust account for their subscribers. The payout or subsequent income could help keep customers connected while the filthy details of bankrupcy, reorganization, or disbandment are taking place.
This is not the only solution, but it is clear that something must be done. The promise of broadband is a wonderful one, but responsiblity and fair consumer practices must take center stage when a company decides to throw its hat into the fracass.
Just my two cents.
YOu have to wonder.... why wasn't more given to the issue of piracy?
A vicious cycle begins when a product is known to be overpriced... people find other ways of obtaining it.
No matter what kind of copy protection or registration sceme the Microsoft folks could incorporate someone, somewhere, can crack it.
If we have learned anything from Napster, it's that people will not pay too much for something they perceive as being over-priced.
I'm sure there are people of the highest moral values (dare I say priests? nuns?) who use Napster. Not only that, but I'm almost certain that these same people have $400 to $500 software applications that they "obtained" from non-specific sources.
The vicious cycle is this. Having to price an OS that has been accepted by many as the standard at such a ludicrously high-level will just increase piracy. People who would never consider piracy will now turn to it to obtain what they need. As the number of pirated copies grows, less legitamite copies are sold. This translates to reduced revenue, and more price hikes. The vicious cycle then continues, as Microsoft, unable to sell their product, keeps pricing themselves out of the market (anyone remember Apple? With their innovative products and horrid pricing?).
I am not a fan of Microsoft. I was a grudging acceptor of my first PC. However, if the scenario that is painted in this article comes true, then I would make a stand that to keep things humming, Microsoft should be able to continue business as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, ya know? If you just followed the link to Iomega's website rather than just breezing through the story before you enunciated profoundly on it, you would know that their page has a direct link to the ACTUAL SETTLEMENT with ACTUAL DETAILS about how to get YOUR REBATE. Enjoy your REBATE!!! (oh, and there's a bit in there about a 47 million dollar cash payout... so once we're all counted, we can pay for 20 minutes of long distance!!!) WOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!
As a former Winfire subscriber, I can feel the pain of Northpoint subscribers. However, there is an unfortunate chain of events that these ISP failures seem to have in common. Step One: Company runs out of money and expects suppliers to continue supplying without payment. Step Two: Company, with even less money, is unable to continue payment for their infastructure. Step Three: Company goes bankrupt. Network shutdown happens either before this or shortly afterward. Step Four: Subscribers are left in the dust. Regulatory agencies and upset consumers can stomp their feet all they want. But a sad truth remains. Who is going to bring the networks back up when they are ordered to? The company has laid off the people who could do such a thing. There's no money to hire consultants to do it. The only option seems to be government bailouts. I find this option to be unlikely to be exercised. It is my belief that ISP's should be required to carry insurance policies or trusts. Many other industries have this sort of requirement. Although ISP's do not perform the same type of inherently dangerous activities as these other industries, this would be a smart option. Companies who receive large amounts of money from going public or from venture capitalists should be required to take a portion and purchase insurance or set up a trust account for their subscribers. The payout or subsequent income could help keep customers connected while the filthy details of bankrupcy, reorganization, or disbandment are taking place. This is not the only solution, but it is clear that something must be done. The promise of broadband is a wonderful one, but responsiblity and fair consumer practices must take center stage when a company decides to throw its hat into the fracass. Just my two cents.
YOu have to wonder.... why wasn't more given to the issue of piracy? A vicious cycle begins when a product is known to be overpriced... people find other ways of obtaining it. No matter what kind of copy protection or registration sceme the Microsoft folks could incorporate someone, somewhere, can crack it. If we have learned anything from Napster, it's that people will not pay too much for something they perceive as being over-priced. I'm sure there are people of the highest moral values (dare I say priests? nuns?) who use Napster. Not only that, but I'm almost certain that these same people have $400 to $500 software applications that they "obtained" from non-specific sources. The vicious cycle is this. Having to price an OS that has been accepted by many as the standard at such a ludicrously high-level will just increase piracy. People who would never consider piracy will now turn to it to obtain what they need. As the number of pirated copies grows, less legitamite copies are sold. This translates to reduced revenue, and more price hikes. The vicious cycle then continues, as Microsoft, unable to sell their product, keeps pricing themselves out of the market (anyone remember Apple? With their innovative products and horrid pricing?). I am not a fan of Microsoft. I was a grudging acceptor of my first PC. However, if the scenario that is painted in this article comes true, then I would make a stand that to keep things humming, Microsoft should be able to continue business as usual.