Well, now that the most blatantly obvious and difficult to hide manifestations of Y2K have appeared not to be a serious issue (i.e: planes falling from the sky, nukes launched, grid down, etc), IMO the rest of the drama will largely be played out of the public eye. If there are systemic problems I can assure you that YOU WILL NOT HEAR ABOUT THEM! Every company out there will be covering their collective asses on this, which is just the way we in the corporate world have always done things. Except for the odd employee leak on forums like this, 99% of what occurs (if anything at all...still a big question mark) will be dealt with under cover of PR darkness. The upshot of all this will be (assuming there are difficulties) that we will not know the extent of the damage in specific cases until there has been a substancial economic impact...and probably not even then either. Speaking for myself, I know that if we have any glitches at AT&T because of this and I happen to hear about them, I will likely not be brazen enough to tell the world about them. I kind of like my job and I'd like to keep it for a little while longer. It is not in the nature of anyone, whether as an individual or a collective entity, to trumpet their own shortcomings and lack of responsibility to the world...except on daytime talk shows, of course (but those people are freaks).

My biggest trepidation right now is this: if we do experience difficulties stemming from Y2K and we do not communicate how we corrected them/worked around them in a free and open public forum, we will possibly cause significant damage to the world economy as a whole, and our own comfy little bubble economy here in the states. Now that it appears that the CRISIS has been averted, I think it is quite likely that the cooperation between various companies and industries (sometimes even those in direct competition) that was publicized before the rollover will dissapate and we will be back to business as usual. That could prove fatal. Let's hope not.

So if there is any news, a lot of it will be second or third hand or from sources that are not always 100% reliable, like Drudge. And I think you can rest assured that for every one problem that makes it to the media, there will likely be scores of them that are quitely being dealt with behind closed doors. One does not rattle the nerves of one's shareholders and customers lightly in the Darwinian feeding frenzy that is the current business environment.

That is my current assessment of the situation. If any of you desire to flame me for my (what I think are fairly reasonable) opinions to gratify the call of your Id/Recessive Genes/Need for Attention, then go for it...I DON'T CARE!

Cheers!

John Ludi

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), January 02, 2000

Answers

John; You are correct. We must remember that insurance companies will *not cover y2k problems*. If the fire in the Australian power plant *was* y2k related, it will not be reported as such. Corporate Lawyers are not *resting easy*!

-- bob (bb@myhouse.com), January 02, 2000.

Good post, thanks John.

I believe it goes further.

This is a worldwide media-controlled blitz of happy happy smiley smiley stories.

They were probably written weeks ago.

"One of the reasons I'm so harsh on the media is because I really do feel that they are coconspirators in a Y2K suppression effort that values money and the status quo over human lives. I really do believe that media concentration has led to a deep sickness in the American Republic. These "journalists" are really too comfortable with the power, prestige and perks of being a part of the elite. The media owners are predator corporations that are only interested in screwing workers and maximizing profits. The journalists, even if they wanted to tell the truth, wouldn't be allowed to by their corporate masters. Y2K represents a direct hit on all this corrupt status quo. Instead of questioning and investigating Y2K the media simply fell in line and began parroting the government line.

These journalists are really much too comfortable at the President's picnics and celebrity roasts. The one time a journalist asked a nasty question at a picnic, in other words did his job, that twit Lockhart whined that it wasn't fair. Well, what is a journalist doing hobnobbing with the President anyway? I have a theory that the uglier the news became, the prettier the bearer of it had to become. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley or Edward Murrow weren't the pretty boy anchors of today. Only a thought.

Doug McIntosh Dec 31st 1999"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 02, 2000.

The dollar is the bottom line, whatever it takes, in politics, one would sell his wife to whoredom, slit his mother's throat, lie, steal, whatever it takes for the vote, because put simply, the dollar is the bottom line. The truth of the matter, where the media has done their work so successfully, will come out my friends in court brought about by lawsuits. Insurance will bring it all to light, when corps start trying to collect on "Non-Y2K" failures.

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), January 02, 2000.

Quite right though not a surprise and this has been speculated on the forum for months. In any case, IF an entity's problem can be kept "hidden", I certainly consider it a Y2K victory in each case. While every down has a business impact, a good rule of thumb is that only those that poke above the surface are serious enough to pay attention to. Here's to millions of "hidden" problems!

By that same token, if Y2K impacts smolder and then erupt, it will be because of just that -- they erupt to the surface. That may mean we don't get credible independent info for days, weeks or months but the data will out - if Y2K is heading south.

You're quite right that we will see next to nothing reported from "within", let alone from the press. "Y2K is over".

This is why we will need weeks and then months before deciding how serious Y2K is/will be. Certainly, every week that goes by without insider reports and gossip will be a plus, let alone evidence of visible, evident impact. The latter takes time.

Good post, thanks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 02, 2000.

Hey, wait. That means that insurance companies will be going out of their way to PROVE that failures are Y2K related! (Sorry, "forseeable events")

Wow. There's something to keep a close eye on.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 02, 2000.

Servant, I have been saying that for quite some time, and it will be played against the backdrop of certain companies trying to PROVE that it was y2k-related in order to qualify for the liability limitation protections of the Y2K Act adopted in Washington last July.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.