Subject: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

From: Robbie Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:01:41 +0000

I am currently using pm3's and due to their untimely EOL I am considering a
Total Control 1000.  How do you like yours?  Is it stable? Do users get good
connect rates/ have trouble connecting/disconnecting?

Thanks for you time

-
 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
 with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

---

From: Seth Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:10:48 +0000

We've been satisfied with ours.  We've found it to be stable.  We're under a
support contract and have found the technical support to usually be very
good to outstanding.

I would like to see more documentation.  We're considering attending one of
the multi-day training sessions.

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:54 PM
Subject: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

-

---

From: Charles Kimes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:30:50 +0000

We are satisfied with ours as well...We have been using our original TC 
purchased in 1997 as well as another in 1999 and no major problems, using 
both Netserver and ARC.  I would like to warn you in advance, though, that 
unless you are willing to purchase an overpriced service contract, 3Com's 
software upgrade policies are totally asinine.  Free for a short period if 
you purchase the chassis, but that's it.

> > connect rates/ have trouble connecting/disconnecting?

Charles Kimes, Administrator
EagleNet DataCommunications, Inc.
St. Marys, GA
[email-masked]
www.kingsbay.net
(912) 882-8406

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:43:55 +0000

We have generally been satisfied with ours, but just cannot afford the
support. It looks like we are going to be getting rid of most of our modems
and outsourcing the dialup. We will likely retain 48 ports to use locally
for hard cases. The cost of purchasing the service from someone else vs.
paying through the nose for software upgrades is just too high. We keep
loking for a better alternative to this plan but so far nothing has
materialized. When we used tech support it was generally helpful, but too
slow to be worth the money. We have not required telephone or email tech
support for many months now. That does say a lot about the stability of the
product. It does work, and work well.

Mark Thornton
San Marcos Internet, Inc.
512-393-5300

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

-

---

From: Robbie Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:26:17 +0000

I was quoted $1400 a year, does that sound right?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Charles Kimes
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

At 01:00 PM 5/8/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > I am currently using pm3's and due to their untimely EOL I am
considering
>a

-

-

---

From: Seth Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:53:55 +0000

That sounds about right for a 24 hour tech support/hotswap/software policy
for a TC 1000 with 2 DSP cards.  Note that the price goes by $350 per
HyperDSP card in the chassis and you do not have the option to pick and
choose which cards are covered and which are not.  It's an all-or-nothing
deal.  With that structure the cost could get to be quite a bit if you had
alot of cards.  I've heard that some of the bigger ISPs negotiate the price
down.

I'd be interested in getting feedback from anyone who has attended the 3Com
classes on the TC Chassis/HyperArc/HyperDSP cards.  I think they're 3 days
classes in Chicago and cost about $2,500.

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

> >We've been satisfied with ours.  We've found it to be stable.  We're
under
> > > Total Control 1000.  How do you like yours?  Is it stable? Do users
get
> >good

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:54:37 +0000

For how many ports?

Mark Thornton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

under
get

-

---

From: Robbie Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:04:05 +0000

That was one dual span 96 card for 9x5xwhatever

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mark Thornton
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 5:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

For how many ports?

Mark Thornton

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

under
get

-

-

---

From: Seth Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:50:49 +0000

We purchased our TC1000 through Source Technologies and the price included a
full support contract for 1 year.  CommWorks (3Com) has announced that
companies other than 3Com (e.g., Source Technologies) will be able to
provide 24x7 technical support.  Perhaps the cost of support will go down
once it's offered by multiple companies.

Seth

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

under
get

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:43:03 +0000

Also sprach Seth Jacobs
>We purchased our TC1000 through Source Technologies and the price
>included a full support contract for 1 year.  CommWorks (3Com) has
>announced that companies other than 3Com (e.g., Source Technologies)
>will be able to provide 24x7 technical support.  Perhaps the cost of
>support will go down once it's offered by multiple companies.

Where did you see this announcement?

-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mike Wilker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:31:17 +0000

We run over 1200 ports on 9 chassis and have been very satisfied with our
Total Controls.  We've acquired ISPs running both PM3s and Ciscos for dialup
and have transitioned to TCs whenever possible.

Mike Wilker
Director of Network Operations
Tiger Communications
   DBA Local Link USA, Globaleyes Comm, Protocom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: (usr-tc) Total Control Opinions

Thanks for you time

-

-

---

From: Baron Fujimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 05:49:03 +0000

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jeff Mcadams wrote:

: Also sprach Seth Jacobs
: >We purchased our TC1000 through Source Technologies and the price
: >included a full support contract for 1 year.  CommWorks (3Com) has
: >announced that companies other than 3Com (e.g., Source Technologies)
: >will be able to provide 24x7 technical support.  Perhaps the cost of
: >support will go down once it's offered by multiple companies.
:
: Where did you see this announcement?

Here's a copy of the announcement we received via email:

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 11:26:22 +0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: URGENT - Action Required regarding 3Com Total Control service
    contract

Since the announcement of CommWorks Corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of
3Com Corporation in December, 2000, our service organization has been hard at
work to ensure that we continue to provide the highest quality services to our
customers.  As the result of an extensive review process and suggestions from
our customers, we have implemented a number of significant enhancements.  Some
of the most recent changes include:

* Renaming our service organization to "CommWorks Professional Services" to
better reflect our business and capabilities

* Enhancing our professional services portfolio to include a wider array of
robust professional service offerings

* Intensive training and reorganization of our technical support center to
provide a higher level of expertise and more personalized support

* Redesigned our online support tools and software library to improve the ease
of use and quality of information provided

As the next phase in our continuous improvement initiative, CommWorks
Professional Services is pleased to announce our new Service Channel Affiliate
Program.

Under this new program, we have carefully selected several companies who are
committed to providing exceptional support services to become CommWorks Service
Channel Affiliates (SCAs).  Effective May 1, 2001, we will begin transitioning
the delivery of our support services to our SCAs.  Please contact one of our
SCAs for renewal of your support services contract.

In order to qualify for the program, each Service Channel Affiliate must meet
training standards and adhere to strict program requirements to ensure that you
receive the highest quality services possible. The SCA of your choice is
looking forward to delivering the high quality services you expect from your
service affiliate.

After you have renewed your service with an SCA, please visit our website at
http://carrier.cso.mw.3com.com/contract/index.cfm?word=TXDEDXVKMLGVTPLQQBRX to
notify us of your selection.

Service Channel Affiliates:

Source Technology
CommWorks Select Service Channel Affiliate
1380A Main Street
Waltham, MA  02451
(888) 765-5758
[email-masked]
http://www.source-t.com

Solunet
CommWorks Select Service Channel Affiliate
1571 Robert J. Conlan Blvd., Suite 110
Palm Bay, FL  32905
(800) 795-2814
[email-masked]
http://www.solunet.com

CCS Broadband Technologies, Inc
CommWorks Service Channel Affiliate
5950 Live Oak Parkway, Suite 130
Norcross, GA  30043
(770) 417-1777
[email-masked]
http://www.ccstech.com

NET Source
CommWorks Service Channel Affiliate
10488 W. Centennial Road
Littleton, CO  80127
(888) 653-1326
[email-masked]
http://www.rasservice.com

Sorensen's Computer Connection, Inc.
CommWorks Service Channel Affiliate
653 Oak Road
Harlan, IA  51537
(888) 464-4425
[email-masked]
http://www.netscci.com

CommNet Plus
CommWorks Service Channel Affiliate
6602 E. 75th St., Suite 115
Indianapolis, IN  46250
(800) 845-2981
[email-masked]
http://www.commnet.com

CommWorks Professional Services is dedicated to continuously improving our
service offerings and delivery mechanisms.  If you have any questions about
this announcement or have suggestions for further improvements, please feel
free to contact us toll-free at (866) 977-3266 or send an email to
[email-masked].

Sincerely,

CommWorks Professional Services

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 01:38:40 +0000

I never got this direct from 3Com either, but...  wow, this might actually
get me interested in support contracts for the first time.  If I could get
software-only support from Source Technology at a reasonable price, I
probably would...

Mike Andrews * [email-masked] * [email-masked] * http://www.bit0.com
VP, sysadmin, & network guy, Digital Crescent Inc, Frankfort KY
Internet access for Frankfort, Lexington, Louisville and surrounding counties
www.fark.com: If it's not news, it's Fark.  (Or something like that.)

-

---

From: Wayne Barber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:47:33 +0000

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I would test different settings 
on the TC Hub to see if I could increase the likelihood of PC-Tel 
modems making good connections. Previously, the only way to 
reliable make them connect was to turn off v.90 via the n0s37=12 init 
string.

My initial assumptions were questioned when I brought the computer 
into the office. See, we are the local phone company as well as an 
ISP. When I used the internal modem line to connect, the PC-Tel 
modem worked perfectly every time: 50k connections, never got 
dropped and good throughput. My new assumption was that it could 
be a combination of the rural phone lines and the PC-Tel modem. 
Perhaps it needed a stronger signal from the 3com modems.

Yesterday afternoon, I got my chance to test things out. Using two 
phone lines from home (a major concession to work from home), I 
dialed in from a PC using a Lucent modem and used TCM to monitor 
my connections when I dialed in from my laptop with the PC-Tel 
modem. I tried varying transmit levels from -0 db to -20 db with no 
effect. I tried some other settings that I wasn't sure would make a 
difference or not, and they didn't.

I then tried attacking the problem from the PC-Tel end. I used the init 
strings I found at http://www.808hi.com/56k to try limiting the speed 
of my connection. The init string is: n0s37=14s34=X where X can be 
anything from 0 to 21. The higher the number, the higher the connect 
speed. The full list can be found at 
http://www.808hi.com/56k/x2-linklimit.htm.

What I found is that I could connect fairly reliably where X=7, for a 
speed of 37333bps. When X=8 (38666bps), I could sometimes 
connect but other times no data would come back to me. At higher 
speeds, such as 44kbps and above, the TC unit would report the 
connection status would remain at Link Negotiation and no data 
would get passed. Between 42.66k and 38.66k, the status would be 
OnlineAnswer but most times no data would come back from the TC 
hub. At those times, Radius indicated that I had authenticated 
correctly. So data was traveling from my modem into the TC Hub.

So the answer I have so far is that, over the regular phone lines with 
a PC-Tel modem, if I limit the connect speed to 37,333bps, I can get 
a reliable connection. Over this same line, I regularly connect via my 
Lucent modem at 48-50kbps.

The init string is: n0s37=14s34=7
n0s37=14 sets the modem to v.90 only (no K56flex)
s34=7 sets the connect speed at 37,333bps

It will be interesting to try this with customers and see if any can use 
better connect speeds.

Thanks for reading this far. I'll now open the floor for 
comments/questions. If anyone has recommendations for other 
settings that might make a difference, let me know.

Wayne Barber
Coastal Telco Services

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:47:29 +0000

Also sprach Mike Andrews
>I never got this direct from 3Com either, but...  wow, this might
>actually get me interested in support contracts for the first time.  If
>I could get software-only support from Source Technology at a
>reasonable price, I probably would...

Yeah...we might be able to get support contracts for a reasonable price
now...unless the VARs are saddled with the same policies and Terms and
Conditions that Al Huefner stupidly has imposed on us for 3 years now.
I'll be getting in touch with CommNet Plus to find out what their
situation is with this (been busy so haven't had a chance to yet).

Oh...and this makes me look like a prophet!  Check out the
attachment...some of you on this list may remember this exchange.  There
are several things in here that make me sound prophetic I think.  :)

Let's see, we have:

3Com management not paying attention to the usr-tc list and the issues
that are raised there, until it becomes a crisis situation...check.

Adding layers of beaurocracy when the beaurocracy is half the problem
and they should be *removing* them...check.

Inadequate access to software updates...check.

Lack of communication to customers from 3Com management...check.

Premature EOL'ing of a product and woefully inadequate upgrade path for
customers...check (was NETServer -> HiPer Arc, now quads to DSPs).

Incredibly screwed up support contract Terms and Conditions and policies
after years of complaints from people on this list...check.

Stock price virtually in the gutter...check.

I'll say it again...Al Huefner needs to be fired and the support
contract situation needs to be *TOTALLY* rethought from the ground up,
and this time actually take into consideration the thoughts of your
customers...here's a radical thought...maybe you could even *ASK* them
what they think!  Oh, that's right, that would actually involved the
abililty of 3Com upper management to *COMMUNICATE*, and we all know
*that's* not going to happen.  :/

To this day, I *STILL* haven't *EVER* received *ANY* communications from
*ANYONE* at 3Com other than Tom Goodman and George Ebert regarding any
of the issues raised here or in direct email in the past several weeks.

Bruce, Irfan, Al...if you don't have the guts to get in touch with me
yourselves...at least have a secretary or something give me a call.
Right now, all you've done is confirmed that you really don't care about
your customers.  Maybe I should start CC'ing brokerage houses...I'm sure
it would help your stock price oh so much for them to find out about how
much customer dissatisfaction there is among customers of this gear.

I'll assume that if I don't hear from at least one of you or your
offices that you really don't care about us as customers and I'll let
the usr-tc list know that and start looking at alternative vendors of
Access Server gear.  God knows, even with the new trade-up programs, its
still almost about the same amount of money for me to totally replace my
TC gear with Patton gear, and that's even with fudging on the trade-up
program by doing more than 10 sets of quads.

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 12 13:12:31 1999
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:12:31 -0400
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7i
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1144
Lines: 27

Thus spake Todd Keister
>     ER or Engineering Release Code is only available by calling to
>Tech Support, and then WE (Tech Support) must get permission to release
>the code.  

Good grief, its getting worse.  What's next?  Are we going to have to
get a note from our mother's to use ER code?  Blech.

>This is done so that we can document the use of these special codes to
>see if the fix the specific issue they are supposed address, and also
>to see if the new fix for one issue causes issues with any other
>processes in the code or product.

Is it at all possible that 3Com could ever *eliminate* beaurocracy in
their processes rather than constantly adding layer upon layer of it?

>     I hope this helps.

Unfortunately, no, I doubt it really does.  :/

Does anyone in upper management at 3Com listen to what we're saying?  I
sometimes get the distinct impression that they really don't give a crap
what we feel.  I guess that is progress though...we do have *some*
people at 3Com listening to us now...even if they aren't the people
making decisions on most of these things.

Jeff "getting frustrated with 3Com idiocy again" McAdams

>From [email-masked] Tue Oct 12 14:01:35 1999
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:01:35 -0400
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Bcc: Dean Brooks <[email-masked]>, Dannie Gregoire <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.7i
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Status: RO
Content-Length: 6147
Lines: 104

Thus spake Todd Keister
>     I think you have missed the point.   We don't just want to "Throw
>Code" at given issues.  It may seem like extra steps, and sometimes it
>is laborious to follow these procedures, but in business, law, and
>especially in science, if you don't have clearly documented data
>trails, and reproducible results - then you have not accomplished a
>darn thing.

No...I didn't miss the point...I understand where you're coming
from...*however*.  This seems (from my perspective at least) to be a
reaction to as you put it "release[ing] code 'willy nilly'".  IMO, the
fix isn't to put yet another layer of beaurocracy down to track it, the
real fix is to have tech support be good enough at what they do, and
enough information available to them (I think this second part is the
killer) that they can more intelligently use ER code releases as
trouble-shooting tools.  This is, as you say, intended to provide a fix
for those that need it, and feedback on those fixes before they're put
into an SR, but putting yet another layer of beaurocracy on this just
puts that much more difficulty on us, the customers actually *using*
this equipment and code, from being able to make the most from it.

Basically, 3Com just added yet one more layer between us, the customers,
and the development process of the code, yet one more layer that
insulates our feedback from the actual people making decisions about
the development of the product(s).

Please don't get me wrong, Todd...I'm certainly not trying to take a
shot at you, or any other tech support folks.  I'm taking a shot at 3Com
overall, who's (corporate) reaction to things seems to be to add more
beaurocracy to things where there are problems in an effort to fix
them...when...at the core, at least a major component of the problems are
that there's entirely too much beaurocracy already, and customers are
already entirely too isolated from the development effort.

>     I hope this clarifies my prior statements, and I hope this helps
>to clarify what could on the surface seem to be another "Stupid Policy"
>that is actually just a part of the Scientific Method.

Oh, I'm very clear on 3Com's thinking here...some of it even makes
sense...that doesn't mean its not "another 'Stupid Policy'" though.  ;)

My other question still stands though...and this may be one that you,
Todd, may not be able to answer, and I can understand that...but does
upper management at 3Com really take us seriously?  We (the users of tc
equipment on this list) have constently, over the years, alerted 3Com to
problem after problem, most of which were ignored until they reached
epic proportions, resulted in various people threatening lawsuits,
resulted in cascades of complaints from the users both on this list and
in the totalservice fora.  These problems are, almost invariably, not
acted upon until it reached a crisis situation at 3Com and consequently
took much greater effort to fix than it would have if addressed when it
was first mentioned on the list.

I will say that 3Com has seemed to become more responsive to actual
implementation problems...ie, actually fixing bugs in code...while at
the same time making it, in many cases, actually harder for the customer
to get ahold of the code that makes the fixes.  Security issues are
still dealt with in much too slow of a manner.  I reported "Yet
Another(tm)" SNMP bug in the Total Control platform almost 3 weeks ago
now (not yet made public...will be soon), and still haven't gotten any
feedback about it.  3 weeks is *way* too long for a bug like this to
exist in a known state.  There should be an SR release for security
issues made immediately...take the last released code...start from that
base, and develop a fix for the security hole independently of your
other fixes...3Com seems to have a *very* lax attitude concerning
security fixes.

We've been complaining about support contracts for years now...any
progress there?  None that I've heard of...indeed, this too has gone in
the wrong direction.  Used to be that you had to have equal support
coverage on each card in a chassis, then you had to have it on each
chassis in a location, now you have to have it on all your chassis in
all your locations.  This should be going the other direction!  There
are easily accessible serial numbers on each card (shoot, you can even
pull them up in a nice clean spreadsheet format via TCM!), why not have
support contracts be done on a per-card basis?  Again...we here at IgLou
specifically have been asking for exactly this for over a year, and the
only response we have gotten from *anyone* (other than our sales rep,
who agrees with us) has been a call to give us the pricing as it
currently exists, they were *totally* unwilling to even *consider* that
their support contract structure was sub-optimal.

3Com has *YET* to deal with the NETServer to HiPer Arc upgrade issue.
They still are foisting essentially a Bait and Switch tactic on their
long-time customers that have NETServer cards.  3Com has known about
issues in the NETServer code base and refuses to take necessary and
available steps to fix them (either replace the cards with Arcs, or
back-port Pilgrim to the older cards, either would be an acceptable
solution, 3Com refuses to do either), and now I've heard reports that
3Com tech support folks either don't know about this situation (broken
MPIP in NETServers specifically) or don't acknowledge it as a known
problem.  Yeesh.  I answered a post in the totalservice *.totalcontrol
newsgroup just the other day telling someone that they were SOL
regarding this issue because 3Com refused to stand by their product.

These are the types of things that illustrate what I'm talking
about...3Com would rather add more beaurocracy and hierarchy to things
to try to fix it rather than step back, realize that the beaurocracy and
hierarchy is largely what's standing in their way from figuring out what
the real fixes are.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

---

From: Dave Lajoie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:52:31 +0000

Question = if you had a support contract that was expiring _today_ and you
were thinking you should download updates from totalservice.3com.com
before you got shut off tomorrow what would be the most important files
you would choose to get?

Dave Lajoie
Remote Access Systems Administrator
North Country Internet Access
E-Mail: [email-masked]

-