In the Interests of a Free Market, TeleHub Landowners should NOT be Compensated

Though some large landowners, such as Anshe, may lose money on telehub land, LL should not compensate them at all.

They took the risk, they took the profits, now they must take the losses.

If we compensate them, it will set a bad precedent and force LL to consider compensating ANYONE who loses money due to changes in LL programming or policy.

Thank you.

Too late.

The telehub land owners have already been compensated -- by the higher rents they've been able to charge to content creators and such.

But I agree - NO additional compensation!!

Have to say its sets a weird precident, as it was never sold as hub land, will they start compensating tree/plant makers when sl introduces speedtree etc.

Although i think its such an issue in that it may need some form of generosity, and increased dwell is really only tied to if these places can still attract visitors after p2p is introduced.

Agreed. P2P is not a new thing; everyone should have expected it could return.

If your are fimular with traffic bonuses then you sould know that "Compensation" Will never add up to much. Rembering the feeding frenzy that went on in the auctions and the amazing price that was paid for some of this land. "High rents" and traffic bonuses will never compensate for this.

I really don't see how for example removing telehub and at same time making those areas double prim would be "compensation" or would set any "precendent". It would simply be balancing one negative change by Lindens (as far as land owners are concern) with one positive change by Lindens. One other word for this is: "fairness".

How is it fair to give only one set of landowners more prims?

I think the word you are looking for is "Risk".

You took the risk of investing in telehub land in the hopes of reaping an inordinate reward. It didnt pan out. Deal with it.

Should we compensate the wireline telephone companies because wireless and VOIP is putting them out of business? I don't think so.

Of course it would be compensation - why do it otherwise?

Is there a need for such compensation? That's the question. There's no negative charge, you've not been penalised for anything, you've just paid over the odds for something that now is less valuable. Isn't that part of the nature of speculation? All the ads here have a warning - "investments can go down as well as up".

If both parties weren't such farking morons, the virtual world provider would have given the major complaintant some kickback and told the party of the second part to just shut the hell up.

You know it is bad when you are advocating bribery as the optimal solution between competing interests.