Y2K Letters to the Editor from Steve Heller

To: World@MSNBC.com
Subject: Your article "Y2K fears overblown?"
From: Steve Heller 
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 05:28:51 -0600

Dear Sir or Madam:

  I thought I'd seen every silly article that could be written about the
Y2K problem, but I guess I was wrong. Your piece entitled, Are Y2K
problems overblown?, by Soledad O'Brien, was the worst I'd seen
for quite awhile on this topic, and that's saying quite a lot. I wonder
if it would've been possible for her to come up with more cliches? She
certainly covered most of the bases: airplanes falling from the sky, the
totally unimportant question of whether VCRs would work, and even the
"all we have to fear is fear itself" refrain.
  But the best part of her article, if that's the right word, is the
total illogic that she displays in her explanation of why this isn't
going to be a big problem. Let's take a look at some of these howlers:

1. "But there are some computer experts who say that fear may be
overblown."

  Yes, there are some. However, there are also quite a few, myself
included, who think that what we have to fear now is complacency, not
fear.

2. "Thanks to corporations and governments spending hundreds of billions
of dollars to fix their Y2K problems, power grids, airline flights and
bank ATMs should all work normally as we enter the the last year of the
millennium."

  Everyone agrees that they SHOULD work. The question, of course, is
whether they will. No matter how much money corporations and governments
spend, they still may not get things fixed in time. The evidence is that
they won't. Also, if the problem is serious enough for them to spend
hundreds of billions of dollars, shouldn't we be concerned about it too?

3. "Lou Marcoccio works for a company called the Gartner Group, which
has more than 500 people surveying 15,000 companies in 87 countries to
gauge the impact of Y2K. He says most of the fixes will work. "We feel
that other than some minor inconveniences, we are going to have pretty
smooth sailing on the issue in the U.S.," Marcoccio said."

  Okay, let's suppose "most" of the fixes will work. That still leaves
room for quite a few that won't. Let's suppose 90% work, and therefore
only 10% of the systems fail on or before January 1, 00. That would be
enough to cause chaos in the economy, at the very least.
  Also, what about outside the US? If you've looked at the labels in any
of the clothing or other objects you purchased recently, you'll probably
notice that it wasn't made in the United States. What happens to our
economy when we can no longer get those objects because of either
manufacturing problems in their country of origin or because of shipping
problems getting them here?

4. "We are 99.9 percent sure that we have an industry-wide program, as
well as a Nasdaq program, that will make us come up with a fair and
orderly market," said Gregor Bailar, a Nasdaq official."

  In other words, they aren't done yet. Obviously, if the program were
already in place, he would be able to say he was 100 percent certain,
not 99.9 percent.

5. "In addition to working on air traffic control computers on
the ground, the Federal Aviation Administration is spending $185 million
to examine and fix 23 million lines of code that run the nation's air
traffic control system."

  I'm not sure what the difference is between working on their air
traffic control computers and fixing the code, unless they're referring
to the fact that their computers are so old that IBM has said that they
cannot possibly be made compliant. According to the government's own
statistics, the FAA is in very serious trouble. The good news is that we
don't have to worry about airplanes falling from the sky, because they
won't be in the sky in the first place. They'll be on the ground waiting
for clearance to take off.

6. "We are very confident the lights will be on come midnight 1999,"
said Michael Spall, a Consolidated Edison spokesman.

  This is the funniest line in the article. When is "midnight 1999"? Is
Mr. Spall an idiot, or should we give credit to Ms. O'Brien? Be that as
it may, I'd like to see some assurances from the Consolidated Edison
company on company letterhead that the lights will be on.

7. "There's also a growing sense of confidence about the nation's
telephone service. Officials at BellSouth say they'll spend more than
a quarter of a billion dollars preparing for Y2K."

  They "will spend" that much? How much have they spent already? Why
aren't they done yet? There isn't much time yet. Also, who has that
"growing sense of confidence", other than an employee of one of the
companies?

8. "Businesses and state governments that have not been proactive
about dealing with the Y2K problem will almost certainly have trouble
taking care of their clients."

  Finally, a correct statement. By the way, how many large businesses or
state governments (and what about Uncle Sam) are finished with their Y2K
work? Answer: 0. What if they aren't ready in time?

9. "Because of this kind of uncertainty, many Americans remain
skeptical."

  As indeed they should be. After all, haven't we seen very recently
that high government officials will lie to protect themselves?

10. "A church in Independence, Mo., is setting up a food pantry and
stockpiling food. Sales of freeze-dried foods at a survival store in
Salt Lake City have increased 12-fold to $4 million, in a month."

  That makes sense, considering the unreliability of previous statements
by business and government officials.

11. "But the real risk, according to the experts, is that needless panic
could cause more trouble than the problem itself."

  There are those "experts" again. Who are they, and what are their
credentials? My resume is available at http://www.koyote.com/users/stheller/shres.htm, 
and my analysis of the problem at http://www.koyote.com/users/stheller/y2k.htm. 
I'll be happy to defend my position that citizens should be preparing for disaster
against the reassurances of any or all of these unnamed "experts".


Steve Heller
steve@steveheller.com

To return to my main page, click here