Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:16:10 +0000

At 09:15 PM 10/15/99 -0400, Lon R. Stockton, Jr. wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
>
>> I have no regrets..  x2 was a big deal in our area (we certainly helped)
>> and being the first 56k provider in our area was a big win for us.
>> USR made that happen..  I liked USR..  It's 3com that I feel ill about.
>
>Agreed here too. Getting my TC rack was a big win for us, and having it
>still is. We were first with x2, first with v.90, and our v.90 *still*
>walks all over my competitions' PM-based dialup pools. And we're still
>the only provider in town doing ISDN, which is the best thing you can
>get here aside from a dedicated line. (and we're served by Sprint, who
>has some really good ISDN BRI pricing...only about $5 more than two
>regular phone lines and flat-rate to boot...not to mention that inbound
>PRIs are about 1/2 the cost of CT1's).

Same here.  That's pretty much exactly how we feel about it.  However
we occationally find a user with a good sportster/3com modem who can't
get v.90 on our TCS but can on our TNT (eval) and more importantly,
can with our competitors.  Users won't stay with 28.8 when they can
get 48k elsewhere..  If there were no modem code issues, I'd be more
than happy to send the eval back.  Instead, I'll probably get an invoice...

>
>> Do we use 3com switches or routers?  no we use cisco, foundry, etc..
>
>I'm actually a fan of their switches. But one doesn't have the same
>problems...either a ethernet switch works or it doesn't. If it's

Well back when we started, we bought a superstack and it worked of course
but when I found out it was half-duplex on all 10T ports, we sent it back
and opted for a catalyst..  But nowadays I'm sure things are different.
We outgrew the catalyst and now have a fastiron and we love it..

I realize that switches don't call for much support, but we did have
some issues with the catalyst.  Ciscos support as amazing and they
even called back again just to make sure we were happy.  3com on the
otherhand wanted to charge us for support on a 1 day old switch!
I just wanted to double check to see that their was no fdx on
the ports before sending it back.  They could have cared less whether
I returned it or not..  So I did!  

Allen

-
 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: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:52:02 +0000

Again yes there is a problem with V90 on 3com. Ascend units will do V90 with
a client 3com modem in cases where 3com TC won't... this is DEFINITELY a
problem that has been addressed but not resolved. You would think this would
concern 3com more than it does... just like all the complaints about support
on this list.

Oh well when everyone is switching to a different platform they may care but
it will be too late.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Allen

-

-

---

From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 02:54:26 +0000

>concern 3com more than it does... just like all the complaints about support

Agreed.  I am certainly willing to replicate the problem for 3com and
arrange a meeting between a 3com engineer, a specific customer, and
ourselves..  They can watch the customer dial in a 3com chassis and
the TNT and pull all the stats they wish from both chassis as well as
the customers modem..  The data should be there to analzye if they
cared to do so.  I'll even swap spans and show them how the problem
follows the chassis and not the PRI's..

Unless they know what the problem already is and *can't* do anything
about it (like netserver UDP lag).

>Oh well when everyone is switching to a different platform they may care but

But that's not going to happen because of our investment in 3com gear.
Although I've done it once, most ISP's can't sell 100% of their modems
and just switch to a different platform.  We might merge in another
platform into our network to keep the problem users from quitting but
weve also noticed their are cases where the 3com performs better..
(i.e. the reverse is true).  I guess you can't win em all..

Allen

-

---

From: Greg Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 03:19:25 +0000

The anomaly is that the clients are 3Com modems in all our cases.  I've
lost a couple dozen customers that I am aware of and 3Com remains silent on
the issue.  If they are investigating it, I would like to know about it.
Perhaps they can fix it, perhaps they can't but it sure would be nice to
know SOME status.

>follows the chassis and not the PRI's..

Thanks,

Greg Coffey, Visionary Communications  V 307-234-5443  F 307-234-5446 
=====================================================================
100 N. Center St., Casper, WY  82601     WWW.VCN.COM         

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:44:54 +0000

Greg Coffey wrote:
"The anomaly is that the clients are 3Com modems in all our cases.  I've
lost a couple dozen customers that I am aware of and 3Com remains silent on
the issue.  If they are investigating it, I would like to know about it.
Perhaps they can fix it, perhaps they can't but it sure would be nice to
know SOME status."

Problem is 3com knows about it... and they know what is causing it. However
they have thus far refused to resolve it.

Anyone having these problems needs to contact George Ebert immediately at
[email-masked]

Let him know you are having the 3com V90 problems and you want it resolved.
I think they believe it is a rare scenerio not effecting very many people.
We told them it was more widespread than they knew... and that if 3com
client modems connect to Ascends they should darn well connect to a 3com TC.
No ifs ands or buts.

Ed

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 19:04:40 +0000

Thus spake Ed
>they have thus far refused to resolve it.

Can you share with us what's causing it (assuming you know of course)?
I'm only just now beginning to really dig into real modem
functionality...I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:10:29 +0000

Jeff McAdams wrote:
"Can you share with us what's causing it (assuming you know of course)? I'm
only just now beginning to really dig into real modem functionality...I'd be
interested in hearing the explanation."

Why certainly...will tell you what we know thus far.

Depending on the signal level differences (i.e. if the dB down at a certain
frequency was at a certain value it would train based on that criteria). Our
understanding is that they just tuned the algorithms to attempt V90
connections under conditions that they didn't necessarily feel were the best
conditions for V90, for the sake of allowing a V90 connection. They would
measure the signal rolloff at certain frequency levels and if the rollover
was more than a certain value it would not attempt to negotiate V90.

If you were to use a 3com Sportster and dial up to the Ascend unit plugged
into the same PRI, it would show a hotter signal at crucial frequencies -- I
believe 3com may also have experimented with modifying the signal levels on
the DSP modems themselves as well. However still no solution... and the
Ascend DOES negotiates V90 in more situations.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

Thus spake Ed

-

-

---

From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:17:44 +0000

Ed writes...
> . . .

If modem X connects at an unreliable V.90 speed to an Ascend, and 
connects at a reliable v.34 rate to a 3com, that's a problem?

-- 
Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:33:34 +0000

I hear a lot of complaints about 3COM on this list. Is the general idea that
3COM should not be used? I used PM3s, with a lot of connection issues, but
little management headaches. I have considered CISCO (even tried one out),
but have heard the nightmare stories about connection issues. Is there a
feeling that the Ascend is better? Hmmm. Why don't I dump my 3COM and go
back to LT. I got excellent support there. I have never even been able to
get 3COM to give me the TC Software, and I paid for the support contract.
They tell me I have to prove I have a support contract every time I call. Do
they just SUCK? That is the feeling I am getting from this list. Is that
what you guys mean to say: "Run from 3COM, they SUCK!"

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ed
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 4:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Allen

-

-

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:33:49 +0000

The problem is that the connection is just as stable on Ascend v90 as 3com
v34. So YES it is a PROBLEM.

We have tested extensively with both Ascend and 3com TC... again it IS a
known problem and 3com acknowledged it.

(People have to get out of the mindset that 3com is ultimately superior...
they do have flaws) We believe it to until recently...

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

Ed writes...

--
Aaron Nabil

-

-

---

From: Greg Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:24:01 +0000

I've never had a customer call the v90 connection "unreliable" to the
competition's Ascends.  The feedback that I've got from customers is that
they get better throughput and are not dissatified with the connects to the
Ascends.  They are using USR modems to dial and they connect consistently
with Ascends at v90 rates, usually 40something.  They never connect at v90
to our TC racks from the same location, using the same PC, software, phone
lines, config, etc.  I don't know the exact cause, they seem to be on the
fringe of the v90 availability area.  3Com described it to me as a "bug" in
the Ascend server firmware.  All I know is that it has cost me customers in
the past and continues to be an issue that I have no answer for when it
comes up.  I have gone to great lengths to explain to them what I have
learned many months ago from 3Com but I don't think they believe me.  Would
you believe that 3Com/USR modems connect better to the competition than
their own racks?  Thankfully, it is a somewhat rare occurance and I only
have to explain once or twice a month.  I really don't know for sure to
what extent it really occurs.  I do know that I have lost customers over
this and it continues to be an issue.  I am getting tired of no news to
update the situation though.  I'm also afraid that it will harm our
reputation if this continues as is.  Word of mouth is still our best
marketing and this will grow in significance with time.  

Thanks,

-

---

From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:00:52 +0000

Greg Coffey writes...
>competition's Ascends.

Why would a "customer" being describing to you the nature of connection
to your competition's equipment?

I have _own_ both Max's and Hiperdsps.  

>Would you believe that 3Com/USR modems connect better to the competition than
>have to explain once or twice a month.

So the occurance of people getting solid v.34 connections on a 3com 
instead of unstable v.90 connections on Ascend is a "rare occurance", but you
are expecting some flood of reports, from your customers, about calling
into your _competitors_ equipment, to judge if the Ascend connections
are stable or not?

If you are going to pursue this rather dubious argument, why not just
say what you really want?  You want 3com chassis to _connect_ at some
outrageously high rate, say, 53k, and then silently fall back to a slower
speed since it's unlikely the customer will notice the fallback.

Hey 3com, how about that?   Make all v.90 connections, regardless of quality,
always "CONNECT 53000" and then fall back to 40k or V.34 later?  Please
make sure it's an option that can be disabled, I'd don't need any more
"mysterious disconnects" or "neglible throughput" trouble calls than I
already get.

-- 
Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: Greg Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 22:49:33 +0000

If it comes down to significantly degrading other connections to our system
in order to enhance some on the fringe to get them v90, no, I don't want
that.  I would like to hear it from someone at 3Com that this is the
current thinking on the matter.  

Thanks,

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:18:42 +0000

So this scenerio, where modem X connects to Ascend, and only v.34 to 3com,
the modem does not retrain down to lower levels, it doesn't exhibate any
indications of  a "problematic" v90 connection?

> connects at a reliable v.34 rate to a 3com, that's a problem?

-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Feeny (BF304)     [email-masked]   
318-222-2638 x 109	http://www.shreve.net/~signal      
Network Administrator   ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881) 	      

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:22:24 +0000

I wonder how much of it is pschological vs. real.  For example, ever post
to your customers about how you made an upgrade to something like your
mail server, and then they start calling tech support and say things like
"ever since you all upgraded the server, I can't connect fast".  I often
thought, if you told the customers all of them, that you were upgrading
your modem code tonight, and wanted their feedback the following day,and
you really didn't touch anything, I am betting 25% would say they connect
faster, 25% would say they connect slower, and 50% would notice no
change.........i'm telling you I believe in this :)

Its like those customers who's modems report the DTE speed of 115,200, and
when you fix them up, it only reports say 28800, yet they swear the
connection is not as fast anymore.

Well if a customer visually sees a v90 connect, and its a terrible
connection, would they claim that connection was faster than a really
solid v.34 connect?

What I am getting at, is raw data and numbers are the best, rather than
the more subjective data of customers opinions about their connections.

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 23:26:23 +0000

I think (and perhaps someone can refresh my memory) that 3com actually
responded to this ascend phenomenon, and said that its actually more or
less a bug in the ascend code, and not a problem in the 3com code, in that
the ascend picks piss poor connections to negotiate v90 with.  But I would
be interested in knowing the stability of the connection, the number of
retrains, and the ongoing average xmit/rcv rates of such a connection, raw
thruput tests would be cool too.  I don't know if anyone has done this.

I would imagine, actually hope, that 3com's tests labs, have done many
tests against their own stuff and against competitors.  I would think they
would not make a policy of releasing such data, unless of course 3com was
best in every case, which I doubt it was, but certainly coudln't have done
too poor.

Brian

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:13:33 +0000

Less than 1 in 50 customers know the difference between a connection that
says 56K and only downloads 2-3K, and a good strong 34K connection
delivering a 5-6K download speed. I actually still get better connections
through v34 on 60% of my customers. But, they insist on V.90. Do they know
better? No. Does it really matter? No. You have to sell what they want. That
is why Ascend connects to crappy connections. That's what the customers
want. My question is will 3COM out perform the others where the customer
looks. That is really all that matters. If they think the competition is
better - they are, cause they now have your money to grow.

As for relying on customers' comments to make Network Decisions... does
anyone really do that? I know my customers don't know the difference. I rely
on data that makes sense. I know I told no one when I first switched to 3COM
and yet, I did get positive feedback immediately.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 2:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

-

-

---

From: Richard Lorbieski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:18:25 +0000

COMPLETELY UNTRUE!

If you are an ISP in Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, or California, I
encourage you to gut whatever terminal servers you are using and go with
3Com. In fact I'll sell you one! If you don't want my Hiper DSP chassis,
buy a quad modem setup.

Don't listen to anything posted on this list - it's a pack of lies. With
3Com, you will be a class all to yourself, you will set a new standard.

With 3Com, your staff's morale will change for the better. My staff now
gladly helps non-3Com chassis users. Friday, we had 4 calls waiting -
one was a lady who trying to do a floppy installation of Netscape 4.7 on
her 4 meg RAM 286 with Windows 3.1, the other callers where customers
having trouble getting on one of our 3Com chassis. I never witnessed
such devotion in my staff to help one person. I mean all of my staff
pleaded if they could help this lady. Before we used 3Com, they wouldn't
touch this lady's problem with a ten foot pole. Thanks 3Com!   

Your local government will thank you for creating more jobs because of
the tech staff you'll need to handle the growing customer "feedback". I
kid you not! Your customers will show their gratitude that you went with
3Com! 

You will learn the meaning of customer interaction, and I guarantee you
will get to know every customer not only by their first name, but their
modem type. 

Also, tell you high end customers buy only 3Com "Office Connect" ISDN
modems/routers. I assure you that your customer's employees will be
happy to know that their jobs will be secure and they'll be in high
demand. They'll thank you for the sudden boost in OT pay too.

Other 3Com advantages:

* You'll know your service contract number better than your birthday,
phone number, or wedding anniversary.
* It's the only support vendor that you have programmed in your speed
dial.
* You'll master the music on hold options.
* 3Com is the only company that uses revisions number on new software
releases that are lower than the previous software release.
* Tamper proof. Because of so many revisions within revisions, a hacker
would have no frickin idea what revision are using - neither will your
admins.

Trust me! Go with 3Com. Let 3Com take you "down" to a new dimension!

Richard Lorbieski

PS.
This message is not a flame against any 3Com employee. Most of them are
extremely talented and qualified people. I especially appreciate the
3Com employees that contribute their time on this list. It's 3Com upper
management, bureaucracy, and policies that I have a problem with.

-

---

From: "Lon R. Stockton, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:42:02 +0000

> the more subjective data of customers opinions about their connections.

No doubt about that; I've seen the stuff you mentioned happening...one
can't really read *too* much into customer complaints (or praises) except
a feeling of customer satisfaction. But if a customer is unsatisfied for
the wrong (or misunderstood) reasons, the question is where you want to
stand on it.

For example...I had a 3rd party actively test us vs. our competition WRT
dialup connect speeds/xfer rates. The downside is that they found that
for most client-side modems, our initial connect speed was lower than
the competition. Funny thing was, in many cases, the competition's higher
initial speed would get retrained down....while ours either remained the
same or retrained up.

The other huge point that was found was that we had faster overall xfer
rates, even with our lower connect speeds. This point was pursued further,
and it was found that a 33.6k connection thru us gave faster xfer rates
than our competitors' 43-46k rates!  Rather interesting what a solid
connection with no retransmits can do up against a shaky, albeit faster,
connection with a bunch of retransmits.

The above results made me feel good, but there's still the question of
what to do about it. The only thing the average customer sees is the
initial connect speed, and in the majority of cases, it's quite useless
to start telling them about retraining, retransmits, and how the real
measure is xfer rate anyway. Most just think you're shooting them a load
of bull, trying to swamp them with computer-talk to cover yourself.

Me, I give it a shot anyway...if they understand, great, if not, oh well,
they're not really my target customer anyway. That may sound like the
age-old 'sour grapes' attitude, but know that I'm not in biz to get the
biggest part of the market...I'm here to skim the cream and garner the
best customers. When you're targeting power-users and businesses, you
wind up with people who understand more of the details.

But much harder if your target is the average joe, my guess would be to
switch to whatever platform gave you the highest initial connect so that
all the ones who guage everything by their initial speed will be happy.
Or plunge into the murky deep and switch their connect speed reporting
to the DTE rate so they can be amazed at your super 115k connects. (:

But as your message said, it's hard to trust customer appraisals of your
speeds. If you want to know the scoop, get a 3rd party who a) knows what
they're doing, and b) has no interest in the outcome to run tests and
report back.

PS. No probs here with 3com client modem connections that I can tell.
But then again, I don't have any Ascends to compare to. This is with
the following:

   HARC:  h/w ver. 1.0.0   s/w ver. 4.0.30
   HDSP:  h/w ver. 0.49.0  s/w ver. 1.2.5

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:56:57 +0000

What you can count on is Churn. If customers leave you - you can see the
difference. I have lost fewer customers with connection issues with 3COM
than Livingston (with the PM3 that is). I have never had a connection issue
with the PM2e30 (analog). It is 100%!

So, what should I use when my 3COM contract runs out? Any sugestions? I
guess everyone considers 3COM a loser when it comes to support. Yet, the
largest ISPs use it. Why? M$pring, MCI, etc.

Why?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lon R. Stockton,
Jr.
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 3:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

-

-

---

From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:01:09 +0000

At 05:02 PM 10/17/99 -0700, Jason A. Nunnelley wrote:
>delivering a 5-6K download speed.

I disagree.  first, I've never seen a v.34 connection sustain 5-6K on
a binary transfer.  ascii maybe.. but even if it did, that's totally
dependant on compression algorithms and the character of the data.  It
has nothing to do with the actual number of bits xfered.. 

Next, a v.90 connection by definition has to yield better than 2-3kps
(actual bits) downstream..

Last, even lusers can read dialog boxes when they download a windows
upgrade, ftp a file, or read binary newsgroups..  You underestimate
your customers ability to make an observation or judgement..

Furthermore, I'm not willing to lose 1 in 50 customers..  that's
2% of our customer base..

>anyone really do that?

absolutely..  otherwise I might chose 1200 baud modems to save money.. ;)

>I know my customers don't know the difference.

<sigh>

>I rely
>on data that makes sense.

and what *data* is that?

>I know I told no one when I first switched to 3COM

But I thought that customers don't know the difference?  And
that it doesn't matter what customers feedback is because
the comments don't impact network decision making..

Allen

-

---

From: "Lon R. Stockton, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:21:30 +0000

On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Jason A. Nunnelley wrote:

> difference.

Yep, that's why I target power-users and businesses. They understand
the myriad issues of the speed thing and are willing to look deeper than
that initial connect into what they're actually getting. My churn rate
is less than 0.5%, despite the fact that I'm more expensive ($25/mo for
limited-150hour vs competitions <$20 unlimited). Our largest reason for
account termination is 'moving out of area'; we only lose about 1 customer
every three months to our competition. Conversely, we gain about 5-10 per
month from them...always their best customers too...skimmin' the cream,
as it were. Lower tech support costs because our customers generally
have more, umm, intelligence.  [on the other hand, when they're power
users and businesses, especially when they're paying higher prices, when
they do have a problem you gotta jump on it quick, and you can't bullshit
your way through *anything*.  The other thing is that you'll *never* have
the biggest slice of the market...just the best slice.]

BTW, for anyone interested, a good way to get more accurate stats on
where your customers are going when they leave you is to provide free
email forwarding for customers who terminate. We give any customer who
terminates (for any reason) free email forwarding to their new address
for a month. Of course, to activate it, they have to give us their new
address. (:  Doesn't make it 100% perfect, of course, but will cut through
the ones who say 'terminating because we don't need internet/our computer

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:24:03 +0000

OK, ouch! You made good points off a reaction note, not a well thought out
explanation of procedural decision making. Let me clarify: Often a customer
response is reactionary and not factual. EX: you get a call from a customer
telling you that your upgrade has screwed up their connection. Now, you
suck! It turns out that they couldn't get their modem to say 56K, and they
think that makes the difference. So, without doing in depth research as to
the real data speed they connect at (looking at the data transfer rate or
connection rate by polling the modems), you assume this one comment means
you have a bad deal. Or, perhaps it is several calls. We got a rash of
K-Flex callers right after setting up the 3COM. So, we assumed there was a
3COM issue. In a way there was. We had a truckload of people that old techs
had helped get K-Flex working. Guess what!? It did not work all that hot
with the 3COM. Upgrades to v.90 - no more trouble. Now, if I see a chunk
leaving me (more than before) with 3COM - screw 3COM. I am loyal to whomever
get's me paid. I totally agree that 2% loss of customers is unacceptable.
They know that when they can't download ICQ in under 30 minutes, you have a
speed issue. And, of course I listen to my customers. It is not my sole and
only mode of information gathering. The fact is: most of my customers own
3COM or USR modems. They connect Much Better to 3COM than LT (Livingston).
As a matter of fact, I can't get certain modems to connect to Livingston at
all (without an overhall of the factory drivers).

So, good point! I was being general and assuming. I really do listen to my
customers (why I have v.90 - good point). I also know that 2% loss is way to
much. And, I also understand that most customers recognize a serious drop in
quality connections. However, I really meant to comment more on the
knee-jerk reactions to a hand full of customer complaints and the idea that
they understand a few data bit per second change in speed. They just want to
connect every time without a connection issue.

I am seeing a bunch of drops. Now, that is what concerns me! When I see 5%
drops, I get to wondering if I am about to lose 5% of my customer base due
to 3COM. You don't see this stuff on Livingston's groups. There is not a
constant impaling of the programmers and support crew. Why?! Because they do
a great job - that's why. I am seriously thinking about dumping 3COM. So,
make a public or private suggestion based on numbers. Who should I trade in
for? I do not want to ride a sinking ship to loser-ville.

BTW, once I get my DNA results to get technical support from 3COM, I rather
like their tech support. I just prefer the response LT support gives you.
They don't have to complete a ID Proofing contest before sharing important
information or software.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Allen Marsalis
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 3:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

<sigh>

and what *data* is that?

Allen

>> >>client modems connect to Ascends they should darn well connect to a
3com
>TC.

-

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:10:33 +0000

Aaron-

Since you own both, and seem to be in the upper percentile of technically
savy telecom people on this list, have YOU personally been able to gather
any significant data showing that the Ascend offers a greater percentage of
your customers a "better" connection than on the Hiper?

(By better, it may even mean a "subjective" quality of the connection, where
the connect speed to both NAS's is the same, but the connection throughput
is better, or just "seems and feels" faster to the end user)

-Scot

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:16:29 +0000

I have only been a 3COM customer for a few months, and I do not regret my
decision, YET. Many on this list have been jilted by 3COM for a long time.
It will take a lot to win these folks back. I was previously using a
Microcom modem platform, and my end user connect issues have virtually been
eliminated. But I am small, and new to 3COM, so my voice has little weight
on this subject. And I cannot compare 3COM to Ascend or LT NAS's.

I was thinking -- while the DSP and Hiper code controls almost all of the
cards' functions, is it possible that the physical hardware on the DSP cards
is playing a role in these problems? My cards are all less than 3 months
old, and I've NEVER experienced the modem-pair hanging problem that plagues
many here. I also have very, very few connect issues. Could it be the
HARDWARE revisions on the DSP cards are also effecting performance and
stability?

Just a thought...

-Scot

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jason A. Nunnelley
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 4:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Jason

-----Original Message-----

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Allen

-

-

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:32:54 +0000

It would seem that admitting this (on 3COM's part) would be financially
impossible. There would be an outcry for replacement cards, especially those
who are under support and guaranteed contracts. You do have a good point.
Mine have never had the hanging issues at all. However, I have seen the lost
connection issues. I am personally concerned about that. I also do not
upgrade my code until I see how it effects everyone else first. My rule is:
I can keep them with OK services. I can't with experimenting with services
that don't work at all. BTW, my actual connected users get OK service from
the 3COM chasis. However, I do know about the support failures. Coming from
LT, with ausome support, I am missing them already. Fortunite for me, LT
owns my support contract through my retailer.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Scot Desort
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 5:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Just a thought...

-Scot

-----Original Message-----

Jason

-----Original Message-----

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Marsalis <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Allen

-

-

-

-

-

---

From: Luke Gain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:02:21 +0000

I also suspect that the hanging modem issue is related to hardware.

recently I have been watching this very closly. Every time a dsp hangs
it is the same ones. SRO the dsps and the replacement ones do not exhibit
the problem. I don't think it is revision related as I have had failures on
both .49 and .53

Anyone else see this, or is it just a concidence? (My sample size is fairly
small ~200 DSP with 5 that exhibited the modem hanging problem)

Along these lines, what do people use to stress-test/burn in their chassis
before they deploy them?

-Luke

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:25:15 +0000

Again, since I am small, and new to TC, I can't give any statistically
relevant data regarding connect issues, but so far, the only significant
issues I have with client modems are (in order)
1. HCF
2. Old Lucent Winmodems (pre 5.x code)

Sportster & WinSportster work like champs. I go out of my way to ask
Sportster customers what their connect rates are, and providing they are on
the latest code, v90 is established almost 100% of the time and at rates of
45K or better. But this is only representative of those who I've come across
in our database where we know exactly what modem they are using, and I've
taken the time to call them. But they are geographically dispersed
throughout our service area.

This may not hold true over time as we expand, but for now, I cannot say
that we have a connect rate issue that is troubling me in any way. Something
deep down inside tells me it's more of a hardware revision problem, than DSP
code revision problems. If you read many of the posts from users who are
having these problems widepsread, most of them have been with USR/3COM for
many years. I venture to guess that many of their cards have been in service
for some time now, thus the older hardware revisions. I may be completely
off here, but even if I'm not, there very well be no way for 3COM to
financially or legally solve the problem, other than sitting back and
waiting for all of the older cards to be phased out of service to be
replaced with the new cards. By then, it may be too late.

-Scot

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 10:26 PM

Jason

-

---

From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:26:05 +0000

Scot Desort writes...
>your customers a "better" connection than on the Hiper?

Unfortunatly in our network we have a number of problems that prevent
us from comparing the two with any statistical rigor.  First is the lack 
of (or I don't know how to get at them) the same connection quality indicators
on the Maxes that we have on the USR's (block error rate, retrains, etc).  Second
is that our Maxes are on phone numbers that we have allowed our customers
to self-select in using.  Most are probably Macs, people with rockwell
modems, and we've our CLEC has has some inter-office trunking issues
that cause people to use the Maxes (they are still on the ILEC).

We do have some maxes on our CLEC, it might be fun sometime to set up
a peecee to continuously make test calls to the USR's and Maxes, record 
the results (by dumping the modem registers) and compare the two.  I wonder if 
anyone has a program to do this?

>is better, or just "seems and feels" faster to the end user)

The few tests we've made have the 3com's handily beating the Ascends in
throughput (FTP of a random-data file) for the same current connection 
rate.  But for some reason the 3com's have some problems in MPP performance
that makes the Ascends faster, the last time we tested (at least 6 months
ago).

-- 
Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:03:28 +0000

We also own both and have definitely seen more frequent V90 connects using
Ascend. This was not always the case... however now it definitely is.

As stated again and again 3com has acknowledged the fact that Ascend's
connect in cases where the 3com TC will not. There is an open issue on it
and they had attempted to resolve it however it seems they have put on a
back burner because it's not an easy fix. One high level Tech on this sort
of situation is not going to resolve it and it seems this is what they want
to commit since a ton of Customers aren't complaining. The reason people
aren't complaining is because most ISP's do not have both Ascend and 3com to
compare back to back... if more did I am sure they would be scared.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

Aaron-

-Scot

-----Original Message-----

-

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:07:53 +0000

> > the more subjective data of customers opinions about their connections.
<much deleted>

They have those java applets on the web where you can hit a submit and it
tests the speed of your connection (thruput), but even those are flawed:

1. caches can play tricks with these things
2. it tests your connectivity into wherever the file is being downloaded
more than testing your modems thruput.

Brian

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:11:25 +0000

> largest ISPs use it. Why? M$pring, MCI, etc.

In its heyday, one could say the AOL(ans), mindspring, earthlink(?) used
TC's........but companies do switch sometimes, and alot now run Ascend
gear.  worldcom i know is ascend, and I believe AOL is moving in more
ascend.  AOL always had ascend to do their kflex stuff.

But this is a good point, who are the large guys and what are they using
today?  Can anyone help fill in the chart?

AOL			3com/ascend (percentages?)
splitrock(prodigy)	Bay
Worldcom(uunet)		Ascend
Mindspring		3com
Cybergate		3com

anyone know abou the other big players?

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:14:32 +0000

Yes I would be very interested in Aaron's comments on Ascend vs. 3com, he
is very telco savvy and it would seem that if their was a problem, he
probably would have seen it.

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:15:36 +0000

So, if I understand you correctly: Your experience says Ascend is just a
better web browsing customer Access Server. And, you can't really get a good
data spread due to the local line issues being a tad different. I wonder,
why would the PPP be slower on the 3COM?

Any ideas 3COM guys?

Jason

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 6:23 PM

Scot Desort writes...

Unfortunatly in our network we have a number of problems that prevent
us from comparing the two with any statistical rigor.  First is the lack
of (or I don't know how to get at them) the same connection quality
indicators
on the Maxes that we have on the USR's (block error rate, retrains, etc).
Second
is that our Maxes are on phone numbers that we have allowed our customers
to self-select in using.  Most are probably Macs, people with rockwell
modems, and we've our CLEC has has some inter-office trunking issues
that cause people to use the Maxes (they are still on the ILEC).

We do have some maxes on our CLEC, it might be fun sometime to set up
a peecee to continuously make test calls to the USR's and Maxes, record
the results (by dumping the modem registers) and compare the two.  I wonder
if
anyone has a program to do this?

--
Aaron Nabil

-

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:18:08 +0000

At 09:45 AM 10/18/99 -0400, Paul Farber wrote:
>BINGO!  We have a winner.
>
>I have had a lot of good experiences with making a "Connection Page" that
>shows connection speeds lifted from the NMC card.  Most people hit that
>page after they log in and see what the DSP's say they are getting.
>Ususally they are happy to see that they are "in the green" even though
>the band is from 37K to 53K.

Care to share your mrtg.cfg entry for this?  :)

-- 
Kirk Mitchell-General Manager        [email-masked]
Keystone Connect                     Unlock Your World
Altoona, PA   814-941-5000      http://www.keyconn.net

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:19:23 +0000

I too have had the same experience with the 3COM. I am disatisfied with the
company's attitude toward customers. It seems to have an "avoid them or bill
them" philosophy. I did not buy the 3COM for the support, although it is
important. LT has the best support because they have their goals set right.
They want everyone using a LT Product to get good support. They are not
concerned about contracts, etc. You would think the price we pay for support
would give us incredible support. I have yet to even get the latest codes
directly from 3COM for the hassle I have to go through. I had an LT Support
guy help me with mine. But, the 3COM seems to be a better box than the PM3.
And, I have not personally tried the ASCEND products for Access Servers,
only routers. I know that pre-LT involvement, ASCEND was harder to get
support from than 3COM. So, I was never excited about looking that way.
Maybe I should try them out for a month.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 6:21 PM

-Scot

-----Original Message-----

Jason

-

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:21:51 +0000

This table is from 808hi.com. Don't know how up-to-date it is, but here it
is anyway:

24-Seven Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex **
AltaVista Free Access+ V.90, K56Flex Bay Networks
America On-Line V.90, K56Flex Ascend
AT&T Worldnet Access Numbers V.90 3Com
BellSouth.net V.90 Cisco
Cable & Wireless   **
Compuserve very limited 56k availability   **
Concentric Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex Bay Networks
CWIA Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex **
Dotnow.com+ V.90,K56Flex Bay Networks
Earthlink Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex Ascend
Erol's Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex **
FreeI.net V.90 **
GridNet (WorldCom) V.90, x2 3Com
GTE Internet Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex Ascend
IBM Global Network Access Numbers V.90, x2 3Com
MCI WorldCom V.90
Microsoft MSN V.90, K56Flex Ascend
Mindspring Access Numbers V.90, x2 3Com
Netcom Access Numbers V.90 **
Netzero V.90, K56Flex **
NTR.net Access Numbers V.90 **
Pacific Bell Internet K56Flex **
Prodigy Internet+ V.90, x2 Bay Networks
Sprynet Access Numbers V.90 **
Toast.net Access Numbers V.90 **
UUNet Access Numbers V.90, K56Flex Ascend

+ - AltaVista Free Access and Dotnow allow you to set up a free access
account; Along with Prodigy, the same access #s, provided by Splitrock are
used. Users may experience busies, network bottlenecks/failures, and
interoperability problems with any of these services.
* - Not all providers have 56k access on all numbers
** - Not known; If you know, please let me know!

-Scot

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 10:07 PM

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:48:03 +0000

> anyone know abou the other big players?

AT&T (former IBM Global Network) uses 3Com and is migrating their entire
Worldnet dialup to 3Com from what I have been told by AT&T. AT&T said they
did extensive research after buying the IBM Global Network and determined
that the 3Com NAS was superior on first time connections and overall
throughput.

Voyager switched from Cisco AS5248's to TC chassis (old Quads and new
HiPers) in their Detroit POP since their IPO.

Concentric uses Bay 5399, but Nortel is a major stockholder.

Ziplink uses the Bay 5399, and again Nortel is a major stockholder.

AOL no longer runs their network - they use WorldCom managed modem ports
which run on Lucent Max TNT.

Level3 uses Lucent Max TNT for their managed modem pools.

FlashNet uses Lucent Max.

Ameritech.net used to use 3Com, haven't seen one of their pops in a long
time.

MegaPop uses Lucent Max.

BTW: The Bay is the worse NAS on the market, IMHO. If you want to talk about
connection problems, buy a 5399.

-Ron
GLISnet, Inc.
+1 810/939.9885

-

---

From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:58:34 +0000

Jason A. Nunnelley writes...
>better web browsing customer Access Server.

I didn't say that.

>And, you can't really get a good
>data spread due to the local line issues being a tad different.

I said that I couldn't draw statically valid conclusions because I
couldn't get useful data on connection quality from the Ascends, that
our customers had already self-selected between Ascends and 3coms
based on their own subjective interpretations of which one "worked
better", and that they were on different LECs.

As for the local lines being a "tad" different, they are much, 
much more than a "tad" different.

>I wonder, why would the PPP be slower on the 3COM?

Is PPP slower on your 3com chassis?  PPP is faster on my 3com than 
my maxen.

-- 
Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:14:25 +0000

OK, this means: "I can't tell anything useful as a comparison between the 2,
due to the conditions of my use." I understand that now. I thought you were
saying there were documented or data-supported PPP diferences between the 2.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 7:56 PM

I didn't say that.

--
Aaron Nabil

-

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:22:59 +0000

>HARDWARE revisions on the DSP cards are also effecting performance and

That's a possibility I would have liked to investigate, but wasn't able to.
The last card I got was a newer hardware version than my others, however it
was DOA. The replacement I got was the same hardware version as my others.

-

---

From: Aaron Nabil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:30:26 +0000

>due to the conditions of my use." I understand that now.

I didn't say that either.  Why the desire to put words in my 
mouth?  Everyone here can read what I wrote directly, they don't need
it paraphrased.

The question was if I had "...significant data showing that the Ascend 
offers a greater percentage of your customers a "better" connection 
than on the Hiper?", to which I was trying to explain why I neither had
nor could I collect such data with any degree of confidence.

>I thought you were saying there were documented or data-supported PPP 
>diferences between the 2.

When I measured PPP performance, the 3com's were faster.  When I 
measured MPP performance, the 3com were slower.  

-- 
Aaron Nabil

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:41:01 +0000

At 07:26 PM 10/17/99 -0700, Jason A. Nunnelley wrote:
>impossible.

Far cheaper than loosing a bunch of customers, I'd bet. Actually, were they
to announce that early DSPs were bad and ship out free replacements, they'd
likely sell enough product to new customers to cover the replacement costs.
A move like that could lock in tons of business from companies that like
3Com equipment, but are hesitant to buy because of their support reputation.

-

---

From: Sheldon Koehler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:42:37 +0000

I have not had the hanging modems with my cards yet, and I hope I don't.
Since 3Com loves to screw with numbers, what is the newer DSP hardware
version? 0.53.0 or 0.49.0?

----- Original Message -----
From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 8:16 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:57:04 +0000

>version? 0.53.0 or 0.49.0?

0.53.0 is newer, they don't appear to have the "number backwards if
released on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or before noon Friday" fetish that the
software guys do  :)

-

---

From: Richard Lorbieski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 06:51:17 +0000

We had the "hanging" modem problem last year. If a modem hung, the last
caller was a MAC user. I , and I mean "I" worked around the problem by
switching from PRI to CT1 and kept 2 of the PRIs for ISDN. I rarely get
a hung modem.

Anyway that was about 3 PM3's, 1 Bay 5399 with 3 blades ago, PM25 and  a
PM2e30 ago.

I still have a 3Com in operation with 6 DSP cards, but we will replace
it in January. 

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:22 +0000

Thus spake Jason A. Nunnelley
>who are under support and guaranteed contracts. 

In MegaZone's absence, I'll point out that Livingston did exactly
this...actually...they went one step farther.  Livingston had been
shipping modems saying they would be upgradeable to v.90 when v.90 was
designed.  They weren't.  Livingston replaced any and all of the old
modem cards free of charge with the new ones that were capable of v.90.

3Com doesn't even, apparently, have the willingness (almost said "guts")
to replace cards when the *current* functionality is broken.  This is,
at least, borderline illegal.  As another example of this, harken back
to ye ol' days of NETServers and broken MPIP (many of you will remember
all of this) and 3Com, to this day, refuses to make this situation
right.

Again...I truly believe its beaurocracy getting in the way here.  The
people that are in the position to make the decision to "do the right
thing," are so *totally* insulated from the customers by layer upon
layer of beaurocracy, that they don't even *realize* how their decisions
for 3Com are royally screwing over their customer base...and may even be
illegal!
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:20:45 +0000

Thus spake K Mitchell
>>It would seem that admitting this (on 3COM's part) would be
>>financially impossible.

>Far cheaper than loosing a bunch of customers, I'd bet. Actually, were
>they to announce that early DSPs were bad and ship out free
>replacements, they'd likely sell enough product to new customers to
>cover the replacement costs.  A move like that could lock in tons of
>business from companies that like 3Com equipment, but are hesitant to
>buy because of their support reputation.

Agreed...3Com needs to do some *serious* work on their support
reputation.  While its never been good, and *some* issues with support
have been worked on (hold times for tech support are down, for sure) but
the quality of tech support is still pitiful, and the *overall* support
issues (and this isn't just restricted to tech support...its having to
do with 3Com's overall customer service attitudes) still really sucks
swamp water.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:35:34 +0000

Customers don't care!  I have fixed many a problem by turning off v.90 in
off brand modems.  But try and explain your reasoning to joe blow and his
new computer.

Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:40:59 +0000

BINGO!  We have a winner.

Kinda like stroking thier ego.

Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:46:47 +0000

The ONLY reason Hold times are down is because everyone has stopped calling.
They get the 3rd degree about a support contract everytime and then even if
they have a contract they ask if it's the right chassis for the contract and
drill them if they are sure they don't have 20 chassis' and a contract for
5.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Thus spake K Mitchell

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:20:12 +0000

I have given up on 3COM support myself. I am scared to call for the hassle I
will go through proving I have the right to call them. I agree. This is a
company who's goal#1 is to NOT support you. If you get through the DNS tests
to prove you deserve help, then the techs have done OK with my needs. I
still ahven't figured out how to get software from the company directly
without wasting a day proving who I am and what my contract says.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:41 AM

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Thus spake K Mitchell

-

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:23:12 +0000

That sounds cool. What script do you run for that?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

BINGO!  We have a winner.

Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

> > >>client modems connect to Ascends they should darn well connect to a
3com TC.

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:26:20 +0000

You guys don't know big business if you think a company would consider
giving away cards cause the one's they sold went bad. Don't know about the
side-gas tanks in the small trucks (un-named car company that preferred
paying off litigations one by one than admit and fix) or the typical medical
industry reaction when they catch a bad procedure or drug. 3COM faces far
too many problems, as any big business admitting to any wrong doing or
mistake. Let the customers deal with it, solve the problem in new releases
of the product, and wait to let it go away. That's how big business handles
stuff like that. Seriously! Even if they were a nice company, they aren't
small business minded like an ISP. Screw the customers we have - they are
stuck. Get the new fish! It would cost me a fortune to switch to another
brand (although I keep saying the hardware is pretty good by my experience).
I can't really do it now. I miss my PM3, but I have to keep my 3COM and
think (maybe influenced by reality not allowing any real choice) that it is
a better choice despite support problems. I just do not call support when I
have problems. I ask you guys, or people like you. My contract was a waste
of money. I do not think I'll make that mistake again. Of course, if
revision releases rely on it - he he, I guess once again I have no choice.

After all, this is not a bad box to own. And, I do not have any hardware
issues with hanging modems, never seen it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jeff Mcadams
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:09 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Thus spake K Mitchell

-

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:32:25 +0000

Thus spake Ed
>The ONLY reason Hold times are down is because everyone has stopped
>calling.  They get the 3rd degree about a support contract everytime
>and then even if they have a contract they ask if it's the right
>chassis for the contract and drill them if they are sure they don't
>have 20 chassis' and a contract for 5.

Yeah, that and they pulled in a bunch of people with virtually no
training or experience for first level tech support, I think so they
could at least have someone answer the phone.

If they're going to take this route...do what Livingston used to
do...have someone (more likely multiple someone's), *not* a tech support
person, answer the phone, take some information about the nature of the
problem and the urgency, and then do tech support on a callback basis.
Livingston did this for quite some time, and while non-urgent callbacks
could take up to 2 weeks to occur, urgent problems were handled
promptly, efficiently, and by an engineer that was well versed in the
equipment.  I would certainly not be averse to such a model of tech
support.  While I would *prefer* to have prompt, efficient, quality
handling of *all* tech support inquiries, I have to acknowledge that the
realities of the technical job market could preclude that possibility.

Regardless...I agree with you, Ed, here, in that the constant abuse that
customers receive concerning their support contracts is a significant
factor as well.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:34:57 +0000

>My contract was a waste of money. I do not think I'll make that mistake
>again. Of course, if revision releases rely on it - he he, I guess once
>again I have no choice.

Well...as was discussed before...there are other ways around getting the
releases...and they're becoming more and more common.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:39:40 +0000

I must agree once again: I miss working with Livingston. They
undersand and have in their business plan - good tech support
and upgrades. They are most concerned with supporting and making
sure that their product works. Whereas I think the #1 goal of
3COM is to avoid these things at all costs. Then again, how is
their stock doing? That's really all that matters.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 6:07 AM

-

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:13:31 +0000

>Then again, how is their stock doing? That's really all that matters.

Ooh...good question...and one I bet 3Com really doesn't want asked...

After a quick perusal of 3Com's stock history on yahoo (symbol: COMS).
Their current stock price is approximately 30.  Going back on their 5
year chart, COMS stock first hit the 30 mark (split adjusted) around
April or May of 1995!  Given that I had to go to the 5 year chart to be
able to see back that far, the chart was course grained enough that I'd
guesstimate the margin for error being a couple of months either way.

This all means...if you had purchased 3Com stock in early to mid 1995,
you would be breaking even at this point (3Com doesn't issue dividends,
so you can't even count on dividends for gains here)
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:39:57 +0000

It's a perl script.  Not to accurate (3Com's off by one snmp errors) and
my inability to write good perl code).

Give me an address and I send it to you.

Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:54:51 +0000

Thus spake [email-masked]
>my inability to write good perl code).

Upgrade to the 6.x.x version of NMC code and these are all taken care
of.  :)

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to do this yet, but I have checked
it out, and that version of code does indeed fix the problem.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:58:09 +0000

>Give me an address and I send it to you.

[email-masked]

Thanks,

-

---

From: Eric Billeter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:12:57 +0000

I also would appreciate a copy 

Thanks
Eric Billeter                   
Internet Engineer
Cable One, Inc.

[email-masked]
602-364-6462

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of K Mitchell
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 3com V90 Problems

[email-masked]

Thanks,

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:13:24 +0000

Uh Oh!

So, is this a company that is not concerned with growth or stock
value? What motivates the management here then? Is it squeezing the
customer for every penny they can get and keeping costs low as they
can for management paychecks? Ouhhhhhhh, that's a coctail for failure.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 8:07 AM

-

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:24:03 +0000

>From a Person who actually relied on LT, due to weaker skills (I have
to say 3COM imrpoves your problems solving skills - again they have
good stuff, just tough to get support) I really appreciated LT support.
I much prefered it the way they handled things. But, again they did not
discourage people from calling in the first place. They support all the
equipment they sell - period. I am thinking about selling LT equipment,
I am sounding like a salesman already.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 7:29 AM

Thus spake Ed

-

-

---

From: CyberPort Montana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:33:14 +0000

Actually you would be losing money.  Not only have you lost the use of the
money for 4+ years (time value), the actual value of the money has gone
down (inflation).

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:41:35 +0000

Thus spake CyberPort Montana
>money for 4+ years (time value), the actual value of the money has gone

Well, yeah...true...I really didn't feel like digging out my Econ 101
and 102 though.  :)

-

---

From: Mike McHenry <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:14:44 +0000

Out comes the calculator... :)

$5000 invested into 3com at it's lowest price point in 1995 (before the 2:1
split) would have bought you about 113 shares (44.375/share). You would be
holding 226 shares today because there was one 2:1 split at the end of 1995.
At today's market price of 27-11/16 your shares would be worth $6328.
Assuming you bought the shares in January of 1995 that would leave you with
a 5.07% return per year. That should be enough to cover inflation over that
time period but only by a few percentage points.

$5000 invested into Cisco at it's lowest price point in 1995 (before the 2:1
and 3:2 splits) would have bought you about 154 shares (32.50/share). You
would be holding 1386 shares today because there have been two 2:1 splits
and 2 3:2 splits since then. At today's market price of 65-7/8 your shares
would be worth about $92,000. Assuming you bought the shares in January of
1995 that would leave you with a 84.38% return per year.

I think my math is correct, but you get the picture in any case :)

Mike McHenry
 Systems Administrator
 MinnNet Communications, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:37 PM

-

-

---

From: das <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:07:55 +0000

I would like a copy as well, please.
[email-masked]

das

-- 
____________________________________________
Alex Substanley       Global OnLine Japan
  		      Engineering Department
Das Man               TEL: 81-3-5334-1700
Systems Engineer      FAX: 81-3-5334-1711
  The Highest Quality Service, Bar None
____________________________________________

-

---

From: Kevin Benton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:50:16 +0000

> change.........i'm telling you I believe in this :)

Duh!  That's why telco's don't tell you when they're doing major local
switch changes like they did to us at one of our pops and that in the
process, they wound up changing options at the same time which were not
certified with our system on initial installation.  It took us more than a
month to get them to admit they lied to us and changed options without
telling us which impacted our ability to handle calls properly.  If they
tell people things are going to be changed, you can bet that anyone who
suspects the telco will be reminded to call them and gripe about something
even if it's not related to the change.

Kevin

> > Greg Coffey, Visionary Communications  V 307-234-5443  F 307-234-5446 

E-Mail:  [email-masked]
Web:     http://users.sota-oh.com/~s1kevin/
Unsolicited advertisements processing fee: $50 subject to change without notice

-

---

From: Kevin Benton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:33:05 +0000

> HARDWARE revisions on the DSP cards are also effecting performance and

Who ever said secretaries don't ask good technical questions once in a
while?!?  Oh, come on, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a
while...  :) j/k :) Good idea, Scot.

Kevin

-

---

From: Kevin Benton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 20:54:21 +0000

> Maybe I should try them out for a month.

Okay, time for someone to come up to bat for 3Com.  There's one thing I
can say that I'm very happy about with 3Com - even though the NetServer
has been disco'd, they still support it (albeit minimally), and getting to
talk to a good support person is sometimes difficult, I have never had a
problem getting support for product which we've had problems with from
3Com.  I've also never seen 3Com completely discontinue a platform without
already having something existing in place to replace it.  Granted, the
HARC was not a 100% feature replacement for the NetServer card, but at
least it still worked with *all* the old equipment.  Some of the software
issues were not quite complete when the NetServer manufacturing was
discontinued, but the OS was fairly stable and worked enough that we are
still using them in some of our smallest digital locations.  Let's face
it, USR (now 3Com) did a good job getting themselves into the chassis
market by borrowing the wheel from someone else while they invented their
own better version.  Lucent has all but shot themselves in the foot by
killing PM2's and PM3's completely.  Based on that fact, we have made a
firm decision that we will *not* be buying any Lucent equipment so we
don't get shot in the foot by Lucent's knee jerk decisions.

In business, growth or death is inevitable.  If you're not doing one,
you're doing the other.  There is no such thing as stagnant business.
3Com has chosen to grow.  The problem with growing is that sometimes it
means getting rid of excess weight.  The NetServer was never intended to
be a long-term solution for TC platforms.

I don't know much about Lucent PM's except that due to their own handling
of their own product, we have made a decision not to buy Lucent because
they are building product which is not forward compatible.

Kevin Benton
SOTA Technologies

E-Mail:  [email-masked]

-

---

From: "Jason A. Nunnelley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:29:46 +0000

Kevin,
	I don't think we disagree on anything here. This is why I still have 3COM.
It would be nice if they would borrow a little Livingston mentality toward
support.
Hmmm, maybe support isn't valuable when the product works. The problem is,
the 3COM
stuff is MORE complicated than Livingston stuff - not simpler. I just like
the idea
that a company wants to give upgrades and support information to anyone
using the
product. That makes sense. Raise the proce an extra grand or 2, and make it
simpler
to use for my understanding of the systems. And, don't give me the third
degree each
and every time I call for help. I have received much more help from Solunet
than
3COM - yet I paid 3COM for support. Does that make sense?
	Other than that - I like my 3COM box fine.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kevin Benton
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 11:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Kevin Benton
SOTA Technologies

E-Mail:  [email-masked]
Web:     http://users.sota-oh.com/~s1kevin/
Unsolicited advertisements processing fee: $50 subject to change without
notice

-

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 03:22:13 +0000

I don't think 3com needs anyone to "BAT" for them... (from what I've seen
they all get enough batting practice on all the trade in equipment)

Sorry but 3com has MANY issues and they need resolved, not complimented on
what they do OK on. I don't know about you but we purchased our equipment
and therefore have the right to b**** when things are not working properly
or they have issues. Also if we don't talk about these issues why would 3com
go above and beyond to fix them?... not to mention vent our frustrations to
others that are experiencing the same and possibly run across a resolution.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Benton <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Kevin Benton
SOTA Technologies

E-Mail:  [email-masked]

-

-

---

From: Rick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 04:24:29 +0000

I would have to agree with Allen when it comes to the quality of support
between 3com and ANYONE. We currently maintain maintenance agreements with many
vendors (including cisco and lucent..aka ascend) and it is always refreshing to
have to deal with both cisco and lucent of 3com engineers. Both cisco and
lucent are very willing to upgrade any firmware revision that has KNOWN bugs.
If 3com would start to comprehend this subject I think it would help with their
stock....., I mean image...

:>

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rick Allan / [email-masked] | Connect to a Backbone not a Wishbone
Head of Network Engineering    |    Monmouth Internet Corporation
732-842-5366=====extension 102 |      http://www.monmouth.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-

---

From: Dick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:15:04 +0000

I hate to say this but perception is reality.

Telling a customer that the competition's equipment is lying to them
doesn't sound all that sincere, even if it is.  The customer, a 60 year
old grandfather of 6, isn't interested in you rhetoric (as they see it).

They are mad that your connections are 33.6 when the competition is 40+.

We do loose customers over this and that sucks because not only do we have
better (more reliable connects and no busy signals, ever) we have more
bandwidth and a faster overall network than the competition.  However as
the connect rate is lower we suck, as they see it.

Please read the above to mean that if the competition uses what I would
call 'an aggressive V90 connect' then that is what I need.  Hell I have
tossed around the joke of fixing the windows dialer to report 2 rates
higher than the actual rate.  Boy would my customers be happy!  They would
all believe it was FAST and 'perception is reality'

> > Greg Coffey, Visionary Communications  V 307-234-5443  F 307-234-5446 

Richard B. Stuplich                                Nobody will be free until
CTO, DataWave Technologies                           nerd persecution ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DataWave, Wausau's first local ISP to have a direct connection to the
Midwest NAP, 2 full T1s, high-speed terminal servers, wireless connections,
Frame Relay, ISDN, x2, k56Flex, v.90/PCM and all digital modem connections. 

Experience the integrity, innovation and dedication of DataWave 715-843-7823
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-