Subject: (usr-tc) V92/V44

From: Alan Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:33:28 +0000

TO ALL:

Anyone know if USR will be doing V.92/V.44 if so will It be a download to
my TC boxes?

Thanks

Alan

-
 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: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 02:12:14 +0000

Will 3COM release TC v92/v44 code?  I'm convinced - no.

Check the archives regarding lack of response from 3COM management over
the years.  Speaks for it's self.

---
Andy Dalrymple
XMission Telecom Manager					(8/14/00)

-

---

From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:40:41 +0000

I'd have to disagree.  Not that I have any higher opinion of the 3COM
management...

3COM just started running a promotion for Quad->HiperDSP tradeins.  If the
pattern holds from past promotions (netserver->hiperarc), we'll soon see the
end-of-life/support for quads.

My guess is v.44/92 will be available for HiperDSP's only, and then only
with a service contract.

Everyone paid up on their support contracts?

Randy
InfoWest, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andy
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 6:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V92/V44
>
>
>

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:51:27 +0000

I still wouldn't mind seeing a NMC to HiPer NMC tradein promo...

What's the details of the latest Quad->DSP tradein?  A while back, they
did a two-for-one tradein (trade in 12 Quads, get four DSP's instead of
two, maybe an ARC thrown in also), then cut it back to a one-for-one.  We
still have 12 Quads left, which I *might* consider trading in at this
point...  the DSP's are finally almost close enough to the stability of
the Quads.

Mike Andrews (MA12) * [email-masked] * http://www.bit0.com/
VP, sysadmin, & network guy, Digital Crescent Inc, Frankfort KY
Dialup/ADSL/ISDN/T1 Internet access for Frankfort KY and surrounding counties
www.fark.com: If it's not news, it's Fark.  (Or something like that.)

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:02:25 +0000

Also sprach Randy Cosby

>3COM just started running a promotion for Quad->HiperDSP tradeins.  If
>the pattern holds from past promotions (netserver->hiperarc), we'll
>soon see the end-of-life/support for quads.

>My guess is v.44/92 will be available for HiperDSP's only, and then
>only with a service contract.

>Everyone paid up on their support contracts?

HAHA!  I've pretty much given up, at this point, getting 3Com to be
reasonable about their support contracts.  I really and truly thought
there were some people in power there that had some functional neurons
given their support contracts, but apparently that's not the case.  Tom
Goodman has been going around and around on my behalf trying to get a
support contract setup...he says that about every month or so, they come
back to him with the same questions he's answered 5 or 6 times
before.

Of course, I'll go ahead and repeat my assertion (on the off chance that
a neuron might actually catch it this time) that the support contracts
should be based on the serial number of the cards being covered.  The
whole idea of "all equipment has to be covered equally" needs to be well
and truly scrapped.  Let me mention this...I'd rather not have to muck
with serial numbers, but I suggest serial numbers as I believe that's
the way to protect 3Com from abuse, while at the same time providing
decent support for customers, so 3Com...if I were just out for myself on
this, I'd just say "let my buy support on what I want to cover and you
just accept that".  I'm willing to give you serial numbers because I
know that protects you.

I'll go ahead and re-mention (again, for the benefit of 3Com folks) that
being as anal as you all are about software upgrades is a *really* good
way to piss off your customer base (as if we weren't all pissed off at
you already).  Cisco gives you access to the software if you have even a
single support contract for a single piece of equipment...while this
does open people up to getting support on a minimal piece of equipment
and getting code for all their equipment, even the high-end stuff, this
doesn't happen all that often.  Besides...if you call and ask nicely,
usually Cisco TAC will give you the code you need anyway...they're more
concerned about selling their equipment and keeping their customers
happy than about gouging them for all the revenue they can.

I've certainly found, over the past...however many years its been now,
several for sure...that it really would be nice to have access to 3Com
tech support.  I've certainly complained enough about being shut out of
communication with 3Com due to not having support that I understand
this.  The thing that gets me is that 3Com *still* seems to not want
communication with their customer base.  3Com's response to problems is
*still* add more layers of beaurocracy to insulate them from their
customer base rather than trying to strip them away to get good feedback
and input from their customer base.  Unless and until 3Com realizes and
takes to heart this problem...the support contract issue will never
really be resolved.

Oh, and btw...after a posting a couple of weeks ago...I tried to get in
contact with one of the techs I had worked with on here a lot...and that
many of you know as well (Mike Wronski)...my email bounced back to me
with a "User not listed in public Name & Address Book" message.  I'm
*hoping* this was just a glitch, or a typo or something on my part and
not some new effort by 3Com to prevent direct communication with techs
because we don't have support contracts.  This, of course, assumes that
Wronski and others (couldn't find Krish's address on the usr-tc list
subscribers either, but didn't try to email him) are still employed at
3Com...twould be a shame for 3Com if they weren't.

Hopefully I'll get some sort of response from this, but I'm not holding
my breath.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:20:38 +0000

I can't imagine why I would want to trade in modems that work for modems
that don't. I already lose enough customers to the other guys because of
compatability issue. If we had it to do over again I wouldn't buy 3Com, and
the only 3Com product I will ever buy again is to support our existing
installation. Any significant increase in ports will be done with another
vendor. And they can pry the last quad out of by cold, stiff hands after I
am dead. I regret having made the trade-in in the past. Someone is going to
have to convince me that the new dsp code really works, then someone else is
going to have to give me the code to even begin to change my mind. I will
not deal with 3Com directly ever again. I can get that kind of abuse without
paying for it locally.

BTW, I think it is a farce to even believe that 3Com is lurking on this list
anymore. The company sucks, fully intends to go bankrupt, and take all of us
with them. Customer service is of no interest to them at all, nor is
providing products that solve our problems. They are too busy renaming
product lines and building cable system headends into the TCH box to be
bothered with anything we need. Why didn't they develop a DSL termination
module. That could have extended the TCH with their existing customer base,
but no, they go after a new customer base and abandon the dialup servers. I
had to get DSL aggregation from another vendor, not because it was better
but because I had no choice. That is stupid, but then it fits with a company
that intends to lose money.

p.s. If this is the one time a 3Com executinve is reading this list, please
don't call unless you are going to offer a reasonable support plan to me and
everyone else on this list. I don't want to talk out my frustration as
though that is going to fix anything. And I don't want to know you are
thinking about me and taking my concerns seriously. Show me the support
contract that in any way matches my Cisco contract and I will give you a
credit card number and get this show going. Otherwise, go to the corner and
amuse yourself.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) V92/V44

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:35:58 +0000

Also sprach Mark Thornton
>BTW, I think it is a farce to even believe that 3Com is lurking on this
>list anymore. 

Well...I don't know if they pay attention to the list or not, but there
are a significant number of 3Com addresses subscribed to it...a few I
recognize...many I don't.

>They are too busy renaming product lines and building cable system
>headends into the TCH box to be bothered with anything we need. 

I don't mind them building a cable head-end system into the box...its
not a bad technical solution...just not one that *I* need.  I do see
where it would be a good decision for them to make.

>Why didn't they develop a DSL termination module. 

Of course, they did at one point, then canned it...and now they have a
partnership with copper mountain to get DSLAM capabilities in the box
again.  Could be nice...I probably won't be finding out though.  The
other area that I think it would behoove them to pursue with regards to
DSL is the RedBack type of niche.  Basically doing the access server
portion of it without necessarily including the DSLAM portion.  The Arc
is a quite capable router, but 3Com doesn't seem to really want to put
the effort into really developing it fully for the type of edge
functionality that it would/could be *really* awesome for.  Ideally, I
see an awesome possibility in that you could put the DSLAM card(s) in
the chassis and connect them directly across the backplane to the Arc,
or let the Arc terminate frame or ATM PVC's from DSLAMs on the other
side of a frame or ATM cloud (since this is how many pure ISPs access
DSL connections right now).  The Arc already has the ability to support
frame and ATM pvc's...it just doesn't have the features to make it
easily manageable.  Better DHCP support (make the limited DHCP support
that's there functional would be a start), better routing support (OSPF
needs to be made more solid, better redistribution support, better
control of advertisements and filtering, etc.), better manageability
features (the SNMP support is good...but there's so much there that its
hard to cross-reference values and do more intricate control of the
system via SNMP...maybe some greater information about what's available
in the SNMP MIBs on the thing and good strategies to use it rather than
just letting us flouder on our own figuring it out).

>p.s. If this is the one time a 3Com executinve is reading this list,
>please don't call unless you are going to offer a reasonable support
>plan to me and everyone else on this list. 

Amen...use the serial numbers that I know you all already have in a
database...drop the insane rules about having to cover all products at
an even level...make it easier to get access to software (why not give
it away?  its not of any use unless someone has already *purchased* the
hardware).  I know my thoughts about support contracts are on record
many times over...both in the list archives, and with *many*
conversations I've had with various people at 3Com, from sales reps, to
tech support to SE's to VP's.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:50:25 +0000

Here's an idea for some upwardly mobile person at 3Com with balls (virtual
of course, male or female will do)... why not create a software support
contract and sell it from your division. You gets lots of hits, and fair
amount of money and no support headaches. At this point all we want is
access to the code, not your deadheads or bad hod music. If you start
generating revenue with no visible increase in expenses you will look like
gold to the bean counters (assuming of course my comments about
intentionally losing money are completely off-base) and you will likely be
promoted and showered with stock options (ouch) and generally be a hero.
You'll likely get fan mail from this list and be revered as a god by some.
Not a bad turn of events for no investment, don't you think?

Mark Thornton

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:27:39 +0000

Bitching about 3Com and support contracts aside, it's a bit annoying that
nobody answered the original question about v.92...  Of course until v.92
client modems actually appear on the market, it doesn't really make a damn
bit of difference -- I don't see that *any* vendor is in any huge hurry at
all to deploy it.

Actually v.59 is what I'm really interested in, though I've yet to find
*any* documentation on it anywhere, even on the ITU's site...

Source Technology gave me the info on the Quad->DSP tradein program too.  
$50 per port credit.  Trade in 12 Quads and get $2400, which doesn't even
buy you one DSP much less the equivalent two.  "A bit disappointing" would
be my usual understated way of putting it...
Makes me almost wish I'd traded in all my Quads (instead of just half of
them) when I had the chance.

-

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:42:19 +0000

> *any* documentation on it anywhere, even on the ITU's site...

What is V59 ?

I would like to see V18 deployed; would allow convential modems to
communicate with several TTY/TDD protocols.  I'm not deaf, but it's been a
pet peeve of mine from the mid-80's that modem makers didn't incorporate
TTY.

---

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:44:36 +0000

Also sprach Andy
>> Actually v.59 is what I'm really interested in, though I've yet to
>> find *any* documentation on it anywhere, even on the ITU's site...

>What is V59 ?

Ability to retrieve performance data from the modem at the other end of
the modem connection.  Think: SNMP for modems.  :)

>communicate with several TTY/TDD protocols.  I'm not deaf, but it's
>been a pet peeve of mine from the mid-80's that modem makers didn't
>incorporate TTY.

I must agree...this has been truly annoying.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Andy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:01:35 +0000

> the modem connection.  Think: SNMP for modems.  :)

Better than sex!  [for a geek]

We thought about serial sessions where customers could choose Link
Performance from a menu.  It would pull SNMP from our side and report
back; better than nothing, but then - we didn't do it either.  :)

-