Last Updated:

February 8, 2004 -- Repaired an HTML tag that was left open.
May 29, 2003 -- Fixed numerous problems from damage by HTML formatting software. Removed Paypal links and references. Added Post Mortem.
June 11, 2002 -- Changed e-mail link to Javascript button to foil spammers' web crawlers. Changed e-mail address.
February 22, 2001 -- Added link to PayPal for those who wish to use it to pay Badflash.com (or anyone else). Minor reformatting.
February 18, 2001 -- Added resignations of executives, layoffs of 76 employees, and Earthlink comments. Reformatted Deathwatch.
February 12, 2001 -- Updated Badflash.com sections. Added Netpliance Deathwatch. Removed piece on hacking of this site.

(Revision History at bottom of this page)

This is the first substantial content update since February of 2001 -- and may be the last given the waning interest in the Netpliance i-opener. Much to my surprise, Netpliance is still not bankrupt (financially, anyway). They changed business focus twice and their name once, but they are still in business and still losing money.

• Not previously noted was an FTC legal action against Netpliance. It cited many of the same illegal and deceptive advertising and billing practices documented on this web page. Netpliance settled, paid a fine of $100,000, agreed to cease deceptive advertising, and to refund monies collected for services not ordered.
  
  
• On February 28 of 2001, Netpliance and EarthLink announced that they had reached an agreement for the sale of Netpliance's i-opener subscriber base to EarthLink.
  
  
• In what appears to be an effort to hide from their reputation and angry customers, Netpliance changed its name to Tippingpoint Technologies and claimed to be focused on selling a Broadband Service Delivery (BSD) platform which would have enabled service providers to distribute multimedia content, applications and services over broadband residential networks. Later, they decided that they were experts in Internet security. If you have questions about your Netpliance i-opener or believe that you are owed a refund under the terms of the settlement described above, you may want to contact TippingPoint Technologies.
  
  

It has been many months (over six, in fact) since I have added any content to this web site. As you are probably all aware, Netpliance is apparently in its death throes. In July of 2000, I wrote: "It is my guess that the end is near for Netpliance." At that time, the price of their stock was at $7 per share. On Friday, Feb. 11, 2001, it was trading at 28 cents per share. The intervening months have not been good to Netpliance:

• August 28, 2000: Netpliance announces that they are changing the price of the i-opener yet again. After announcing in the previous month that the price would quadruple to $399, Netpliance shaved off $100, bringing the price to merely triple what it had been a couple of months earlier.
  
  
• November 10, 2000: Netpliance reported that they were firing 93 employees -- 38 percent of their staff -- and would cease selling the i-opener. According to Netpliance had struck deals with AT&T and Earthlink. An Earthlink spokesperson later stated that Earthlink never had a definitive deal with Netpliance and had no plans to offer the i-opener in the foreseeable future (Where is the SEC on this one? This looks like a blatant attempt at manipulating their stock price with false press releases.). At the time, Netpliance reported having 27,000 i-openers in inventory and was unsure if they would ever be able to sell them. Here's a thought: Sell them for $99 to the same hobbyists that wanted to buy them the first time. Netpliance would be better off losing $300 per unit than $400.
  
  
• December 22: A buyout group led by executives at Netpliance made a bid Friday to take the troubled Internet appliance maker private. The group offered 65 cents a share, dramatically below Netpliance's 52-week high of $26.12.
  
  
• December 26, 2000: Donald Semone, a Netpliance shareholder, filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking an injunction to stop Netpliance executives from proceeding with a management-led buyout. A similar suit was filed later that day in the same court. Shareholders payed up to $18 per share at the IPO. This money went, in part, to pay handsome salaries to executives at Netpliance. These executives, through poor management, drove the price of the stock into the ground and then offered the shareholders 10 cents on the dollar? Who could have predicted that the shareholders would resent that?
  
  
• January 17, 2001: Because shares of the Austin, Texas-based company had been trading below $1 for the past 30 days, Nasdaq told the company it has until April 17 to improve its share price or face delisting. Once delisted, Netpliance could continue to trade as a penny stock on the over-the-counter bulletin board.
  
  
• January 22, 2001: The investor group led by Netpliance's CEO withdrew its offer to take the Internet appliance company private. The group, which controlled a majority of Netpliance's shares, sent the company a letter announcing the withdrawal. The investment group gave no reason for its withdrawal in the letter.
  
  
• January 31, 2001: Netpliance ceases sales of the i-opener.
  
  
• February 1, 2001: Netpliance confirms the resignations of its Chief Operating Officer, Valerie Walden, and Vice President and a co-founder Kenneth Kalinoski.
  
  
• February 2, 2001: Netpliance announces the resignation of co-founder and President Kent Savage along with layoffs of another 76 employees -- 54 percent of the remaining workforce. According to Netpliance, Kent Savage will leave Netpliance on March 15, 2001 but will remain on the Board of Directors. While Kent Savage is apparently still enjoying great personal wealth, the 76 laid-off ex-employees will probably be at the unemployment office -- after Kent Savage drove Netpliance to the brink of bankruptcy and cost them their jobs.

In addition to the public news, I have gotten e-mails from Netpliance customers. It appears that the sole printer designed for use with the i-opener -- the Canon BJC-2115 -- has been discontinued. Customers who now need a printer find that Netpliance has no printers and no intention of getting any more to satisfy customer demand.

Another customer, in a rural area, was relying on Netpliance's toll-free service that they promised to those without a local dial-up. After months of using his i-opener, distributing his e-mail address, and getting proficient and reliant on the Internet, Netpliance sent him an e-mail that said, in effect, find a local ISP and keep paying us (at a reduced rate), return your i-opener for a refund, or use it as a doorstop until we get a local dial-up in your area (which may never happen). Here is the text of that e-mail:

Dear i-opener Member,

This letter is to inform you of an important change in our terms of service. Effective October 1, 2000, Netpliance will no longer be able to offer toll free Internet access. According to our records, your i-opener has been set to dial a toll free Internet access number and Netpliance does not currently have a local number in your area. We regret the inconvenience, and are proposing three options for you. Please select one of the three options below to assist you with this transition:

Option A:
Netpliance is announcing a new Internet Service Provider program. This program allows you to choose your own Internet Service Provider (ISP) while continuing to take advantage of all the many features of the i-opener. This new program is available to you at a special rate of $9.95 per month and further we will provide this new service free of charge through December 31, 2000. This special rate for i-opener features does not include what your new ISP may charge you per month. We will assist you in the process of determining if your ISP of choice will work with the i-opener. Every Internet Service Provider is different so we cannot guarantee this option will be available.

Option B:
Return your i-opener to Netpliance for a full refund on the price you paid for the i-opener, including shipping.

Option C:
Cancel your monthly service until we are able to provide local service in your area in the future. You will no longer be billed the i-opener monthly service fee of $21.95. We will correspond with you to provide updates on our progress with finding a local Internet service provider.

Here is what you need to do:

1. Reply to this e-mail (choice@iopener.net) on or before September 30, 2000 with your decision on one of the options above.
    Example: We have selected Option B.

2. We will email you within 72 hours of receiving your selection to confirm your choice.

3. If we do not hear from you by September 30, 2000 we will automatically implement Option C.

Please e-mail us at choice@iopener.net if you have any questions prior to making your Option selection.

Sincerely,
the people at Netpliance

It's that kind of callous attitude towards the customer, combined with a refusal to honor their commitments, that both explains much of Netpliance's failure while making many feel that they deserve to fail.

Netpliance released two shocking bits of news this month (July 2000):

1. They have raised the price of the i-opener from $99 to $399.

2. Orders placed on or after July 1 would not be delivered before October 1.

The shipping delay was quietly hidden on the "Frequently Asked Questions" portion of the Netpliance i-opener web page.

Although Netpliance will addminor upgrades to the i-opener unit and service -- which include improved chat capability and the ability to have up to four email accounts, industry analysts remain baffled. Analyst Richard Doherty of the Envisioneering Group described the shipping delay as "bizarre" and said that the new offer "not a compelling offer versus the original" according to CNET News.com articles.

In a market becoming crowded with big-name competitors like Intel and Microsoft (in collaboration with eMachines), a $400 Internet appliance that marries you to a $21.95/month ISP is no bargain. What if you are unhappy with the ISP? Tough. They are the only game in town as far as your i-opener is concerned. What if they boot you for some purported violation of their terms of service? Too bad. You have a $400 paperweight.

The average consumer is going to write-off the i-opener in the blink of an eye. I went to Circuit City's web site today and found a Compaq K6/2 500mhz PC for $49.99 after rebates (Compuserve, Compaq, Circuit City). Now, let's see how that compares to a $399 i-opener:

On the one hand, the consumer gets a real PC with monitor, printer, industry-standard operating system and applications, and upgradability as the market changes. With the i-opener, they pay $350 more and wait months for delivery. They get no printer, a tiny screen, and no upgrade path. They cannot write a letter, balance their budget, or install software titles that suit their interests. Their children cannot do reports for school or play games on the i-opener.

All of us computer geeks can argue about the flaws in the Windows 98 operating system or that the i-opener is not as threatened by viruses, but the average computer neophyte knows that Microsoft is the standard and maybe that Compaq and Compuserve are big names, too. They know that they can read the screen on the Compaq (many older people cannot read the i-opener screen) and print anything that interests them.

It is my guess that the end is near for Netpliance. They spent so much time and budget trying to thwart "hackers", while angering their retailers, that they now appear to be in serious financial trouble. Their underhanded tactics, retroactive product changes, and deceiptful business practices (see other articles on this web page) have come back to haunt them. Their stock price that was over $26 at the time of their IPO has now collapsed to about $7. Now they have quadrupled the price of their only product and are promising delivery three or more months in the future. That sounds like desperation and financial trouble to me.

As many of you noticed about this web page, it hasn't been updated much lately and I have been slow with answers to e-mail about the i-opener. I feel that I owe people an explanation. After some of the ugliness that took place in another i-opener forum, I was left with a sour taste in my mouth about the whole i-opener scene. I finally got my i-opener back together recently, but I am not spending a lot of time doing things with it (no, I don't want to sell it). Because of the i-opener, I met some really super people and am grateful that I had that opportunity. On the other hand, I exchanged messages with some other people whose pictures I'd like to see on the side of milk cartons.

Work and other interests are taking much of my time. I am currently enjoying a new job programming an embedded system that is part of a satellite. My portion of the task is to control the S-Band and X-Band high-speed data transponders (I say "HA!" to those people that said I was no rocket scientist). I am also enjoying the weather and having fun on my Suzuki Bandit 1200S motorcycle.

I have just completed testing of a new BIOS flash chip for Jack Rowland to meet the demand by the i-opener community. This new chip is an Atmel 49F020 and it works like a charm. While it is not supported in Award's AWDFLASH v7.61, it is supported in in the public domain BIOS flashing utility Uniflash v1.17b (click here to download). To find out more, go to http://www.badflash.com/iopener.html

Update: Jack Rowland has come to the rescue again! Flashing a new BIOS in my MSI motherboard (K7T Pro2-A) failed, leaving me with a dead system. In no time at all, Jack had a chip in the mail (Priority Mail, in fact), programmed with the proper BIOS. I don't care what kind of motherboard you have or what type of small-volume PROM/Flash programming you need, you should visit http://www.badflash.com. If you rely on your system, you should buy a spare, preprogrammed BIOS chip from Badflash.com before you even consider flashing your BIOS. By the way, almost two weeks have passed since I e-mailed MSI (MicroStar) about the problem and they have yet to even respond.

I recently purchased a non-working i-opener for parts and experimentation. The BIOS chip socket had been damaged beyond repair by the previous owner's attempts to remove the epoxy (though they had done a commendable job of removing the BIOS chip without damaging it). I decided to experiment with removal of the socket for the benefit of others who find themselves with a damaged BIOS socket. I am happy to report that it was easy.

Tools needed:

Soldering iron with fine tip Tweezers Solder wick (for removal of excess solder) Diagonal cutters (as used for cutting wire) Soldering flux solvent

Overview and Procedure:

	The BIOS socket is a 32-contact PLCC (Plastic Leaded Chip Carrier) with the leads soldered on the inside of the socket. In order to remove it, the BIOS chip must first be removed from the socket. The photo shown is from my original i-opener (pre-epoxy model).
	To remove the socket, the flat plastic plate must be removed from the interior floor of the socket. It is attached at each point denoted by a red dot. This is most easily done by cutting the socket into pieces using the diagonal cutters. The cuts should be made to the walls of the socket at each corner and in the middle of each side. This minimizes the number of pins to desolder at one time. After sectioning the socket, remove the plate, breaking each attachment point denoted by the red dots.
	Holding each section of the socket with the tweezers, heat the solder joints until they release. There should be no more than 4-5 leads per piece for easy removal. Some leads can be removed individually. After removal of the pieces use solder wick to clean off the excess solder. Using the soldering iron, remove the epoxy, being careful to avoid damage to R252 (located above the socket). The epoxy should come off in a powdery form. At the end of the procedure, use flux solvent to clean the board.

Notes and Cautions:

• If you are not experienced at soldering, do not attempt this. It is not tough, but it requires some skill.
• Do not pull or tug at the socket or epoxy. Doing so may damage traces on the motherboard.
• You must use a small tipped soldering iron. Do not attempt this with a common, 1/8" or larger chisel-tip.
• Insure that you have good ventilation and lighting.
• A magnifying light is a big help.
• DigiKey sells 32 contact PLCC sockets.
  

Prefect is at is again, this time offering a new serial port design with all control lines implemented. The good news is that it takes only a single IC and one capacitor to do the whole job. When Prefect gave me the original schematic, I casually mentioned that I was thinking of using the Maxim MAX235 IC to do a "full" serial port with all control lines. In no time at all, Prefect had a complete, professional, and polished schematic. Not only that, he identified a second part which could drop right in -- the MAX205. Either part should work with no changes and the price is identical. I believe that the MAX235 is intended for new designs while the MAX205 is an older (but still current) part. For this project either part should work great but, if they are both available, I'd go for the newer MAX235.

Prefect has continued making improvements and additions to his section and even stroked my ego with a credit for the hard drive bracket design (thanks, Prefect).

You can add me to the distinguished list of people who flashed a new, custom BIOS -- only to render their i-opener dead. I got overly ambitious and decided that I was not only going to kill the splash screen (using Award's CBROM 1.30) but that I was also going to make all kinds of option changes with Award's MODBIN 4.50.60. Of course, I wanted a custom message to replace the not-for-sale message. Then I thought, why have a floppy setup item when there are no floppies? Let's default to having the USB keyboard support on. The list went on. Like the weasel at work, the Award BIOS utilities were as friendly as could be to my face while putting a knife in my back. I flashed the new BIOS back using AWDFLASH 7.58. And that's all she wrote...

Fortunately, I know just the guy to make it right again: Jack Rowland of BadFlash.com. According to Jack, he has been swamped with orders from the i-opener community since I mentioned his services (in e-mail at that) on April 5. Word gets around fast! Jack is offering both the original chip and one that cannot be reflashed by the machine (for those who worry about viruses or who don't want Netpliance making changes to their BIOS).

If you are even thinking about customizing your BIOS, visit the BadFlash.Com web site and buy a spare so that, if things go wrong, you aren't sitting around with a dead i-opener (like I am). If you would want the BIOS that you saw on the demo at Circuit City rather than the new buggy one that will not even boot your IDE drive, Jack can help you out. It's just a shame that you have to spend your own money to fix BIOS bugs that Netpliance purposely introduced.

Prefect has supplied a superb hardware hacking section, complete with photos and HTML that I only hesitated to put up here because it makes my page look amateurish by comparison! In his section, you will see a...

• ...new super-flexible ribbon construction method.
• ...version of my hard drive mounting plate with an innovative new mounting method.
• ...hard drive activity LED that shows through the telephone off-hook LED lens.
• ...slimmer and cheaper than Lasagna fan cooling solution.
• ...schematic for a second serial port with handshaking lines.

Thank you Prefect!

I have seen several different methods of mounting the hard disk drive and I did not like them for three reasons...

1. RF Interference

Most of them involved removing the RF shield or cutting it at least partially away. I want the full RF shield. It serves a useful purpose and I neither want to interfere with my own radio/television reception nor with my neighbor's. When PCs are running in the 200mhz range, they can emit a huge amount of RF noise. Running them with no shield is just a bad idea.

2. Physical Stresses

The RF shield holds the plates to which the tilt mechanism attaches to the i-opener main unit. While it is possible to drill out the rivets that attach the plate, I am concerned that the overall strength of the main unit is compromised when this is done. If you operate the tilt mechanism of an i-opener with no unit attached, the force needed to move it might surprise you.

3. Repairs -- Warranty and Otherwise

Modifications to the unit which cannot be undone effectively prevent the owner from obtaining service on the unit. I do not wish to give up my ability to have my i-opener repaired (let's hope it never needs service). I wanted a method of modifying the i-opener that would allow me to return it to its "as new" condition should the need for service arise.

My solution was to construct a bracket out of aluminum to hold the disk drive. This bracket is attached to the four heatsink mounting posts using 2.5mm x 12mm screws and four nylon spacers approximately .25" in height. Note that these are a just a bit long and I will probably shorten them to about .2" to avoid having the RF shield touch the screw heads.

Click any image below to view a larger version. When you have finished viewing the larger version, click your browser's [back] button to return to this page.

Notes:

I do not have blueprints or measurements for the bracket or the mounting holes. I created the bracket to the same dimensions as the heatsink and drilled it using the heatsink and my hard disk drive as a guide.

To cut the sheet aluminum, I first used a hacksaw. In order to get neater cuts, I switched over to my scroll saw and used a standard wood-cutting blade. It worked great, cutting neatly and quickly.

The drive shown in the photos is a 9.5mm Toshiba MK-6414MAP. This drive holds 6.4GB and supports UDMA-66 transfer mode. Its 1MB cache is considerably larger than that found on many laptop drives.

The mounting points of the drive I use are at the extreme corners. Other drives have mounting points further in from the ends. Select your drive before drilling the bracket as it may not have the same mounting holes as some other drive that you might have used for a pattern.

You will note that there is no heatsink attached to the CPU. At the time the photos were taken, I was awaiting delivery of a Tenmax Lasagna CPU Cooler.

It would probably be possible to mount a 12.5mm drive using a bracket similar to this one. The only change needed would be to cut the notch for the motherboard IDE connector somewhat less deep. This would allow the drive to be mounted closer to the IDE connector to clear the CMOS battery.

The i-opener is a perfect example of just how much heatsink you can put into a system and still have poor cooling. The main problem with the heatsink in the i-opener is that the fins are oriented the wrong way. Since hot air rises, you want a passive heatsink oriented so that there are channels through which the hot air can rise through convection, causing a constant air flow. The i-opener, with its horizontal fins, creates no such channels. Couple that with a shield that has limited ventilation and it's easy to see why the machine runs hot. To add insult to injury, when the screen is tilted up for viewing, the fins are oriented so that the hot air tends to stay at the CPU side of them.

An untested, but probably sound, theory to improve the cooling with the stock heat sink is to cut grooves perpendicular to the ones that now exist. This would allow the hot air easier escape paths. If you are interested in this, don't worry about removing metal. Heatsinks work based on surface area, not quantity of metal. So long as you keep the width of the grooves less than or equal to the thickness of the fins, your total radiating area will not decrease.

Do not cut away the heat sink to make room for a hard disk. At least one user who did this found out that Netpliance did not provide more heatsink than was required. His i-opener started crashing.

Active Cooling Systems

There is a low-profile fan/heatsink sold by Tennmax called the Lasagna cooler. I received an e-mail from Vincent Tzeng, the General Manager of TennMax United and he informs me that their is now a model specific to the i-opener: The Lasagna iOp Cooler comes with a 5 Volt DC ball-bearing fan, Socket 7 clips, and a 2 mm pitch power connector.At only 10mm tall, it is only about 1mm taller than the stock heatsink.

I purchased one of the older coolers prior to their inclusion of the 2mm pitch power connector but, otherwise, the unit was identical. I replaced the power connector with a couple of 2mm pitch header connectors (one for +5v and one for GND).

If you have one of the older units with the .1" (2.54mm) spacing female connector, the connector is way too big for use on the header pins of serial port 2, which are 2mm spacing and much smaller in thickness. If you have jury-rigged the thing into place, do yourself a favor and come up with a better solution before the fan connector loses contact and your CPU cooks.

I had to make a small notch in one "leg" of my hard drive mount in order to accomodate the clip that holds the Lasagna cooler to the CPU socket. This was done in a matter of a couple of minutes with a file.

The Lasagna fan is well-constructed and practically silent with the case and shield off, but once they are on, it's annoyingly loud. TennMax has obtained an i-opener and has confirmed my suspicion that the shield is the cause of the noise. TennMax's recommendation is that the RF shield be cut to expose the Lasagna cooler for reasons of cooling, noise, and fan longevity. As much as I want to keep the RF shield intact, I may have to break down and open it up around the Lasagna Cooler. Mr. Tzeng does not feel that it will pose an RF problem, but I must admit that I will probably ground the Lasagna cooler for better RF shielding.

If you want a solid solution to cooling your i-opener, the Lasagna fan is an excellent choice. If you are putting in a higher-wattage CPU (like a Pentium), there is no other choice that I would be comfortable recommending.

WARNING! If you follow this procedure, the stock i-opener operating sofware will be permanently erased. If you do not know what this means or do not wish to permanently lose access to the i-opener Internet services do not perform this procedure.

Why Would I Want To Do This?

After reading several stories of people who had various functions of the i-opener disabled after booting the i-opener software in the SanDisk, I got a bit concerned. I decided to forget about the warranty and service issues and get that software out of there and replace it. I decided to go with a console-mode Win98SE boot. For all intents and purposes, Windows 98 in console mode is DOS with support for FAT32. This would allow me to access my FAT32 C: drive in case problems prevented my "normal" copy Windows 98 from booting.

Where's My Floppy?

Windows kept insisting that there was a floppy drive attached that needed formatting. Initially, I had suspected that this was the SanDisk. I was wrong. Despite there being no floppy controller or drive, Windows just can't seem to let go of the notion that it has a floppy. I finally relented and told it to go ahead and format. The only choice it offered me was a 180KB floppy and, upon commencing the format, it immediately reported an error. So much for that. Fortunately, no harm was done.

Prepare The SanDisk From Console Mode

After erasing the partitions using fdisk in a command prompt window, I created a new primary FAT16 partition that used the whole SanDisk. As per the on-screen prompts, I restarted Windows 98 in preparation for formatting. When the i-opener came back up, no partitions were defined -- but the old ones were gone. So, again I created the DOS partition, restarted, and again found nothing there. At this point I restarted in MS-DOS mode and performed the same operation. No problems encountered. I restarted again, formatted the drive and transferring the system files with the format d: /s command. All was well and I could access the drive and system files with no problem.

Lazy SanDisk!

After doing a control-alt-del reboot, I went into the BIOS and set the boot sequence for D,A,SCSI -- the only option that booted from D: (the SanDisk) first. Well, I got the dreaded message telling me to insert a bootable disk. For the umpteenth time in my life, I realized that the partition on the drive from which I wanted to boot was not active (I guess that's how it got to be FAT -- bad joke, I know). I reset the boot order and rebooted from the C: drive.

Freeware To The Rescue!

Since Windows provides no way to make any partition active that is not on the C: or A: drives, I downloaded a freeware utility called the Ranish Partition Manager. It's a very useful hard drive partitioning utility with a lot of capability. In understands FAT16, FAT32, Linux, BeOS, and more. It is one of those utilities which claims to be in a constant beta mode, but I have never experienced a problem with it. I recreated the partition using Ranish Partition Manager and formatted from within the application.

After exiting to Windows, I got into command mode and made the disk bootable with a sys d: command. After this, I copied all of the files from the Windows 98 installation CD /tools/oldmsdos/ directory (I had copied this image to my hard drive to install Windows 98SE) to a /DOS directory on D: -- the SanDisk. After that, I copied all of the files from /Windows/command to this directory also, allowing them to overwrite when they wanted to do so.

The Moment of Truth

I again reset the boot order to D,A,SCSI and rebooted. It worked! I had access to the SanDisk as C: and the hard drive as D:. Everything ran and worked immediately and it was fast.

Conclusion

I have no regrets about erasing the i-opener QNX OS and applications. I now have something much more useful and less dangerous. Hopefully, I can start adding support for additional utilities, maybe a GUI, protocol stack, browser, and lord knows what else. Obviously, the limited number of writes that the SanDisk can endure will be a major consideration, but, with care, it should be possible to come up with something very useful.

The i-opener includes two LEDs mounted over top of the screen. The left hand LED illuminates when there is unread e-mail while the right hand LED indicates that the modem is using the phone line. After installing DOS or Windows, the LEDs remain off. Thanks to information posted by "Roastbeef" (hey, I don't make these things up) on an i-opener discussion forum, I was able to code some simple programs to control these LEDs. I wrote six programs in all:

lft_on.com - Turns on the left hand LED
lft_off.com - Turns off the left hand LED
lft_togl.com - Toggles the left hand LED
rt_on.com - Turns on the right hand LED
rt_off.com - Turns off the right hand LED
rt_togl.com - Toggles the right hand LED

Because I wrote them in assembly rather than C, each program is a .COM file that is 9 bytes long. The full source is included in the .ZIP file. Since the .ZIP file is 3K long, it will take just a moment to download if you click here.

As always, comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. Just use the e-mail link at the top of this web page.

Do you value your privacy? If so, Circuit City may not be your best choice for your next consumer electronics purchase. Many Circuit City customers who purchased i-openers were surprised to receive letters from Netpliance (see below). These letters start off "Dear Circuit City Customer, We are writing on behalf of Circuit City...". Apparently, Circuit City has revealed the names and addresses of many, if not all, i-opener purchasers to Netpliance.

While the privacy implications of this are very disturbing, the content of the letter is also cause for concern:

• According to the letter, you will be billed approximately two days after the purchase of the product for the Netpliance "i-opener service account" -- despite the fact that you have not authorized such a charge nor have you entered into a contract with Netpliance.
• In contradiction to the above, the Terms of Sale state that if you "fail to activate the account within 30 days of purchase or cancel before 90 days after the purchase date, Netpliance is authorized to charge [your] credit card a $499 fee..."
• The act of opening the box is supposed to represent full consent to the Terms of Sale included in the letter -- despite the fact that many purchasers (inncluding the author) received the document days or weeks after receiving the i-openers.
• The document is written as a "negative option". In other words, they will ship you a "new model" unless you cancel the order. In order for a vendor to make a substitution, they must have your permission. They cannot make the substitution unless you allow it.

I called Anne Bacon at Netpliance and she assures me that Netpliance does not have the credit card information for the purchases but would not reveal how Netpliance obtained the names and addresses of Circuit City customers. She did say that, if you already received your unit, you can disregard the letter.

If you receive a letter like this, you should consider composing letters of protest to Circuit City, Netpliance, your credit card company (if applicable), the Federal Trade Commission, and the Attorney Generals for Texas and your home state. This is a serious breach of your privacy and your rights as a consumer. You should not tolerate it.

Netpliance has been playing loose and fast with the term "new model" in the last few weeks. When they want to force someone into accepting the new restrictive i-opener Agreement: Terms and Conditions of Sale, the current product is a new model, but when asked whether today's i-opener is any different than the one sold a month ago, it is the same model. One customer sent an e-mail inquiry to Netpliance on April 10 asking:

Does Netpliance consider the i-opener being sold today to be a different model than what was being sold a month ago?"

The answer returned from Matt Harmon in I-Opener Sales was :

No, It's the same model.  Thanks.

Netpliance's Kim Perrier answered he same question with these three words:

No. same unit.

If it is not a new model, then the whole effort to pressure customers into accepting the restrictive agreement was based on fraudulently claiming that the old model had been discontinued.

If it is a new model, one of my readers has a very good point. DL wrote:

If the "new" iopener is really a "new" model then Netpliance has never, ever sold them for $199 yet they are still claiming (on their home page) that they are selling for $99 with a "regular price" of $199.

DL is right and clever to point that out. Netpliance has been claiming all along that the regular price for the device is $199. According to the Federal Trade Commission's FTC GUIDES AGAINST DECEPTIVE PRICING, an advertisement cannot list a former price unless it is an "actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time." Since they claim that the new model was introduced on or after March 20, it was never offered for sale at $199.

So, what is it Netpliance? Is it the same model that's been offered all along (in which case you illegally pressured customers into either accepting the Terms and Conditions of Sale or cancelling their orders)? Or is it the same model, meaning that you violated the FTC rules that prohibit deceptive pricing?

On April 2, 2000, a pull-out ad appeared in the Washington Post for the i-opener. The ad mentioned nothing about the shipping & handling charges, the new Terms & Conditions, or any restrictions on the purchaser's use of the device. To see the entire scanned ad and read more, click here.

Today, I received a copy of an internal Netpliance memo entitled Scripting for Backordered customers. I have done some investigation and have found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the document.

You will note that Kristi Copeland, the apparent author of the document, refers to "letters and email that [Netpliance is] sending to all the suspect hacker customers." I have called Netpliance's media contact phone number and was put through to a voice mailbox. I have asked for an explanation of how Netpliance determines who is a "suspect hacker customer" and whether this memo means that Netpliance is singling out customers to strong-arm into accepting restrictive terms and conditions not present at the time of the initial sale. It appears to me that it does. I am awaiting a return phone call.

If you get an e-mail or letter worded as described below, it appears that you can safely assume that you are suspect according to Netpliance. If that happens, ask why you are being singled out for this treatment when others whom Netpliance does not suspect of being hackers are not receiving similar e-mails and letters.

Update: I spoke with David Young from Netpliance (one of the recipients of the memo shown above). Here are some important points from our conversation:

• Mr. Young insisted that all customers with backorders would be receiving letters and e-mails worded as described above and that no customers are being singled out. He had no explanation for why the memo indicated that only "suspect hacker customers" would receive that treatment.
  
• He said that all customers would all be supplied the "new model" of i-opener. I stated that it was the same model with pins cut and epoxy on it. He remained insistent that it was a new model but when I asked him for the new model number, he was unable to tell me what it was. In fact, he said that there was not a model number. When I pointed out that the "old" one I have says that it is a model NP1000 (see back of unit) he said that he did not know if that had changed. If it has not changed, then it is, according to their own labelling, the same model.

If you have been forced to agree to the new terms and conditions in order to receive your "new model" of i-opener, make certain that what you receive is not a model NP1000, which was supposedly replaced by the new model.

• Mr. Young stated that the full terms and conditions of the sale were that buyers had to use the service for "3 months" and that, after that, they were free to cancel and would be allowed to keep the units.
  
• I pointed out to Mr. Young that his version of the terms and conditions was drastically different than the one shown on the web page. After I read some of the passages from the web page to him, he said that he would "speak to the legal department" about it.

While Mr. Young was pleasant, professional, and generous with his time, we did not see eye-to-eye. I still contend that people who ordered before March 22, 2000 should be provided the unmodified units they ordered and not be bullied into accepting terms and conditions that were not in place at the time of their original order.

Today (March 31, 2000), Netpliance fired off yet another salvo in its war on hardware hackers. They have now posted a document on their web page entitled i-opener Agreement (Terms and Conditions of Sale). The basic terms seem pretty reasonable: You agree to begin use of their service within 30 days of delivery and to use it for a minimum of 90 consecutive days. If you used the unit for 90 days and cancelled, they would still be in the red, but Netpliance is probably betting that most people will like the service and keep using it.

Read a few paragraphs deeper and you will find that the agreement has some very disconcerting clauses:

IF YOU DO NOT PURCHASE THE SERVICE OR IF THE SERVICE IS CANCELLED DURING THE FIRST 90 DAYS (EITHER BY YOU OR BY NETPLIANCE), THEN YOU WILL BE IN MATERIAL BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT

So, if Netpliancecancels your service, you are in breach of contract. That's a dangerous thing with which to agree.

YOU AGREE NETPLIANCE'S DAMAGES WILL BE DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE AND AGREE TO PAY NETPLIANCE, AS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF ITS DAMAGES AND IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER AMOUNTS OWING, A TERMINATION FEE FOR EACH DEVICE EQUAL TO $499 ("TERMINATION FEE"). NETPLIANCE WILL BILL YOUR CREDIT CARD FOR THE TERMINATION FEE OR, IF A CREDIT CARD IS UNAVAILABLE, NETPLIANCE WILL INVOICE YOU FOR THE TERMINATION FEE AND SUCH FEE WILL BE DUE FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE INVOICE."

In other words, if Netpliance wants $499 from you, all they have to do is cancel your service. You have already given them permission to bill your credit card and, failing that, bill you directly.

Netpliance may terminate or suspend your account for late payment, returned checks, declined credit cards or other non-payment at any time. You will still be responsible for the monthly charge if your account is suspended. Netpliance may charge a fee to reactivate suspended service. You agree to pay expenses (including attorneys' fees and collection agency fees) arising from Netpliance's efforts to collect any unpaid balance from you or otherwise enforce this Agreement.

Now it gets even uglier. Theoretically, you could order an i-opener with full intent of using it and pay $99 + $40 shipping + $66 for three months of service. Before the 90 days is up, Netpliance can terminate your service and you will be in breach of contract (see above). They would then bill you $499. If you get your credit card company to refuse the charge, they can get a collection agency to come after you at your expense. Since collection agencies typically take about 50% of the amount collected, you will owe about $250 more. If they get an attorney to write you a threatening letter, they might be able to charge you another $300 or so. Suddenly, your $99 computer has cost you over $1,250!

You may be thinking that they would never terminate you. Well, if you violate their terms and conditions, they have the right to terminate your service. Violations include all of the usual ones like spamming and launching denial of service attacks. Other Things you can't do include:

• Disassemble, reverse engineer, modify, adapt, or otherwise alter the Device.
• Unauthorized dissemination of trade secrets.

So, if you own an i-opener and exchange information about hacking it, you are in violation of the agreement and they can cancel your service and charge you $499. Better not post anything using your real name if you agreed to that clause.

Your Service may be disconnected or suspended or your Device may be disabled without warning if Netpliance suspects it would prevent or interrupt a violation of this policy.

The highlighting was mine. Read that one carefully! If Netpliance suspects that you might violate the policy, they can disable your i-opener. In other words, they could cause it to flash a bad BIOS, wipe the contents of the NVRAM, or do anything else they wanted to insure that your i-opener was disabled. If your i-opener calls in after you cancel the service, you may be looking at an expensive doorstop. Visit the i-opener hacker sites and suddenly you wake up to find your i-opener dead, your account suspended, and maybe a $499 charge on your credit card.

If you pay by credit card you authorize Netpliance to charge your credit card account number for any Service charges. This authorization will remain valid until terminated by you in writing or until your Service is properly terminated."

If you ordered prior to this notice being posted or you ordered through a retail store, send e-mail to customercare@iopener.net and tell them that you will not be held to the agreement that is now being shown.

I don't think I am being an alarmist. I don't believe a company writes a contract giving them permission to do things that they have no intention of doing. This is not boilerplate contract stuff. Hours were spent crafting and analyzing each and every term and sentence.

According to a Slashdot article, Netpliance admits to billing people for ISP service despite having told these same people that they would not be billed. I have seen companies at the brink of bankruptcy do desperate things to cover their payroll and bills. IIf Netpliance ever gets in that position, cancelling service and charging credit cards $499 per cancellation is one easy way to generate a lot of revenue fast. Would they? I do not know, but I would think twice before buying an i-opener now -- even if I wanted to use it as Netpliance intended.

On April 8, 2000, I received what appeared to be a copy of an internal Netpliance memo. This memo was later proven to be a hoax. I stated that it came from an anonymous source and that I could not verify its authenticity. You are big boys and girls and I think you can be trusted to make your own determinations. I am dissapointed that someone would attempt to make me look bad at the expense of Netpliance, its employees, and the readers of this web page.

August 18, 2000 at 11:00AM -- Added "Script Kiddies" Modify This Site.
July 16, 2000 at 10:00AM -- Added Netpliance Quadruples Price Whild Predicting Shipping Delay of Months.
July 16, 2000 at 9:45AM -- Fixed typo and edited Regarding Updates To This Web Page. Removed Jack Rowland's e-mail address.
May 13, 2000 at 6:00PM -- Added Regarding Updates To This Web Page. Removed older material about i-Hacker BBS problems.
April 28, 2000 at 9:37PM -- Added special offer from Jack Rowland at BadFlash.com
April 22, 2000 at 9:17PM -- Added Regarding Recent Events On Ken Segler's i-Hacker BBS, reordered to put legal section at bottom.
April 22, 2000 at 10:19AM -- Added info about new BIOS chip and Removing a Damaged BIOS Chip Socket
April 17, 2000 at 7:44PM -- Added Netpliance Sends Letters To Circuit City Customers
April 17, 2000 at 9:36PM -- Updated article mentioned above.
April 15, 2000 at 6:10AM -- Updated Cooling the I-opener with complete rewrite of Lasagna Cooler section
April 11, 2000 at 1:47PM -- Removed Mr. Harmon's e-mail address and phone number from his answer. Added Kim Perrier's answer, which was just forwarded to me.
April 11, 2000 at 9:17AM -- Added New Model? Even Netpliance Does Not Think So
April 11, 2000 at 4:04AM -- Update to Prefect's hardware hacking section. Added BadFlash.com info. Minor tweaks.
April 9, 2000 at 9:40PM -- Added content from Prefect. Redid hoax section.
April 8, 2000 at 11:29PM -- Added section showing the Netpliance memo of 04/07 was a hoax.
April 8, 2000 at 4:44AM -- Added alleged memo from Ann Bacon regarding lawsuits
April 8, 2000 at 1:02AM -- Added section on 4/2 Netpliance ad from The Washington Post
April 6, 2000 at 1:03PM -- Updated the newsflash section to summarize my conversation with David Young
April 5, 2000 at 7:06PM - Added Newsflash: Internal Netpliance Memo Refers to "suspect hacker customers"
April 3, 2000 at 1:35AM - Fixed counter to work with Netscape. Added graphic and enhanced appearance.
April 2, 2000 at 4:08PM - Added Controlling the LEDs
April 2, 2000 at 3:46AM - Added Using The SanDisk 16MB Solid State Disk Drive With Windows 98SE, updated formatting to improve readability
April 1, 2000 at 2:40AM - Added a little more information about the Lasagna Cooler
March 31, 2000 at 10:21PM - Added Editorial: Netpliance Legal Notice du Jour
March 31, 2000 at 6:45PM - Added comments about Lasagna Cooler

You are solely responsible for determining the suitability, safety, and legal ramifications of any modifications described in this document. This document may contain errors and omissions and the author will not be held responsible for personal injury or damage to property that may occur if you attempt any of the procedures described herein.

Copyright ©; 2003 by Fred Maxwell. All Rights Reserved. Redistribution of this document, in whole or in part, in any form, is expressly forbidden. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.