Re: INSTEON: Let the recalls begin ...

["BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>> Well, as they say, "You can tell the Pioneers by the arrows in their
>> >
> backs!"  We do seem to be getting our share of arrows but the
>> overall  benefits will probably be worthwhile.
>
> What would those overall benefits be?

The primary benefit is signal reliability. I've been working with X10
stuff for 22 years and know the tricks and tips to signal reliability
but there are areas in my house that are just not supportable with X10 -
even with an XTB and/or repeaters and filters - and, of course, even
when it does work it may change.  Insteon signals are reliable and reach
every square inch of my house.  I think that after I replace the 2414X
with the RoZetta my experience will be much better.
>
>> If I were paying an electrician to change these things I'd be pissed
>> but, as you point out, our time is worth nothing (unless somebody
>> else is willing to pay for it).  Even if I have to replace
>> everything, I can do it all in a day -
>
> But as my econ prof said "Wouldn't you rather be doing something else
> you *wanted* to do that day?"

Sure, but it's an inconvenience rather than a dollar cost. I'm not going
to pass up doing something better to do the job but instead do it when
I'd normally be doing nothing more than staring at the the tube.  It's
not like a plumbing leak that has to be fixed right this minute.

>Lost opportunity costs are hard to
> see, but they're there.  If SmartHome had to pay the full freight of
> the SwitchLinc recall (electricians, lost time, potential home wiring
> damage) their bottom line would be bathed in red ink.  I don't know
> what their warranty says, but I'm betting they went to great pains to
> exclude liability for true recall costs.   The trouble is that in
> some states, you can exclude whatever you want but the courts have
> the final say whether those exclusions are sustainable.  My guess is
> that in consumer-friendly California, Smarthome's at risk.

I think that, like most limited warranties, the remedy is to return the
unit for repair or replacement with no manufacturer liability for
installation, removal or shipping. That will hold up in most states -
even California.
>
> I'll bet someone's already proceeding against them in court for those
> true costs.  (Anyone have Lexis access to see for sure?)  If it's
> like any other industry, they'll settle up with the complaintants
> that have threatened legal action and those consumers will get a much
> better deal than most because I am sure Insteon is desperate to avoid
> a court case over the SwitchLincs.  Why?  Well, if they lose, it
> might set a precedent for them having to pay those true costs for all
> the other Insteon users affected by the flicker problem.
>
> Civil cases often focus on what it makes to make the plaintiff "whole"
> again.  In this case, that might easily include the cost of jacking
> out all the Insteon switches and replacing them with what was there
> before.  It could easily become worse if some former Insteon employee
> releases embarassing documents to the web (as has happened with other
> company's product liability suits) that make their way into
> litigation.

I doubt anybody's going to sue. The damages are just not great enough to
warrant the costs and effort and Smarthome is doing everything they've
promised in their warranty.
>
> I salute you, brave pioneer, but I wouldn't want to BE you! :-)

Oh, it's not so bad being me!
>
> Oh, and the trick to the arrows is to break off the fletching and
> push the arrow THROUGH the wound.