Replies

This whole thing is a TOTAL EMBARRASSMENT for Texas. First of all, pulling a gun on someone that is not breaking the law is simply WRONG and is very risky. What if he had his own gun, for example? This lady likely will get arrested and jailed, and should.

Having said that, like most others here, I LOVE HER!!! She will be taking the arrows for millions of us who don’t want a criminal record attached to our names. Believe me, I DEFINITELY do not want a “Smart Meter”, and when the guy came (and I was home) I asked if I had a choice - he said no - and that was as far as I went.

Now, what is the RIGHT answer. Well, in a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING state, the state government would have examined just what these meters are and what risks they pose (such as virtually telling anyone accessing their data when the homeowners are at work or are on vacation). Then, in a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING state, a means would have been created to allow concerned people to opt out. In other words, this lady would have paid, maybe $10 a month more for power, and would NOT have had to draw on the poor installer.

But we’re talking Texas here. We have a TOTAL LOSER as a governor, and the VERY LAST thing that he’s concerned about is the privacy of Texans (heck, he’s trying to impose a GPS vehicle tracking system on us, for tolling). So no hope there. In addition, he has his share of bitches in the state legislature, with Dewhurst just finding out now that his chances of making it to the US Senate basically died with his sucking up.

It is really sad that California, of all states, has done more to protect homeowner privacy than Texas. For in California, people can opt-out (and they don’t need a gun to do it), just by asking and paying a fee for the guy to come by and read the meter.

Then, in a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING state, a means would have been created to allow concerned people to opt out. In other words, this lady would have paid, maybe $10 a month more for power, and would NOT have had to draw on the poor installer.

Bzzzt! (Thanks for playing!) She just wanted to maintain the status quo ante; she owed them no new money. THEY'RE the ones who wanted to alter the terms of service -- THEY should have offered to pay HER $10 a month to accept the damn thing.

“Having said that, like most others here, I LOVE HER!!! She will be taking the arrows for millions of us who don’t want a criminal record attached to our names.”

I agree. It’s just time someone stood up to them.
I think this sort of action will be happening more and more in other areas of unnecessary intrusion.

Not good enough. The guy ALWAYS had to come out and read the meter, the cost is already built into today's rates (not to say that it would still be built in five years from now after three more rounds of rate hearings). If they want to save themselves money and just accidentally spy on you, and the only alternative to them spying on you is to reimburse them for the money they would have saved, then let them come up with a meter that can be PROVEN to be incapable of doing nothing more than totalizing usage and reporting one monthly total. THEN it would be OK to force people to take them or pay the meter reader, and not before. The utility is the one that tried to tie the semi-legitimate cost issue to the outrageously ILlegitimate spyware issue, the other party shouldn't be the one to suffer from the linkage of the two. Let the utility expend the cost and effort to separate the two issues and defend them separately.