Subject: RE: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:42:08 +0000

>We don't have that many ports, but you're basically correct.  The thing
>that *really* makes them bad though is that it doesn't distinguish
>between *types* of ports.  For example, a *majority* of our ports are
>still quad cards, which are no longer supported, but we still have to
>pay for them as if they were.  :/

Jeff,

Quads are still supported with contracts, at least in a troubleshooting and
hardware replacement sense until December 1 2003.  Your contract reseller
should be allowing you to get replacement on them.  If they are not allowing
you coverage on them, you should not pay for those ports.  I can only speak
for my company and when we sell a contract if the customer is not covered on
EOL cards he/she is not charged for EOL cards in their contract.

Christopher Quinn
Solunet Technical Support

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [USR-TC] Software Agreement- RE

Also sprach Todd Bertolozzi
>Now....from my understanding, and this is a MAJOR point the 3com
>contracts work a bit differently then what is being presented on this
>list.  Please....someone tell me I'm wrong, but unless they changed
>their policies without me knowing I believe the contracts cost a little
>more then what you all are thinking:

>The price of the contract is determined based on the total number of
>ports terminating on 3com gear in your WHOLE network. Now...I don't
>know about everyone else on this list but just a rough guess of the
>number of ports we have would be around 40,000 ports on 3com gear.

>So....40,000 / 48 ports = 833.33 x 2600 = $2,166,666.00

We don't have that many ports, but you're basically correct.  The thing
that *really* makes them bad though is that it doesn't distinguish
between *types* of ports.  For example, a *majority* of our ports are
still quad cards, which are no longer supported, but we still have to
pay for them as if they were.  :/
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

_______________________________________________
USR-TC mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:44:03 +0000

Also sprach [email-masked]
>Quads are still supported with contracts, at least in a troubleshooting
>and hardware replacement sense until December 1 2003.  Your contract
>reseller should be allowing you to get replacement on them.  If they
>are not allowing you coverage on them, you should not pay for those
>ports.  I can only speak for my company and when we sell a contract if
>the customer is not covered on EOL cards he/she is not charged for EOL
>cards in their contract.

OK...then we're playing semantic games with the term "support" then.

Regardless...I have to pay the same amount for quad ports that I do for
DSP ports, while the level of coverage on them is *clearly* inferior.

This has been my beef with 3Com support all along...inability to get
different levels of coverage on different cards.  I've said, for 4
years, that fixing this one thing would probably be enough to get IgLou
to pay for support contracts, and even potentially *not* make the move
away from TC gear.  No consideration of this has ever even been
*considered* by 3Com.

Like I've said before...if Al Huefner were working for me...he'd be on
the street without a job.  He's a moron of the greatest magnitude as far
as I'm concerned.  These are his policies that he instituted,
ultimately, he's to blame for the unhappiness of the vast number of 3Com
customers that are on this list.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456