Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:06:03 +0000

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

-
 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: Todd Keister <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:06:04 +0000

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.
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.

     If you wish to contact us, we're here 24x7.

     3Com Tech Support   (800) 231-8770       (please note that after hours
support does require an after hours contract).

     I hope this helps.

     Todd      ;-}

Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]> on 10/12/99 11:35:09 AM

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>

To:   usr-tc Mailing List <[email-masked]>
cc:    (Todd Keister/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code

> Is anyone using HDM 2.0.60.0 code.  It is an Engineering Release which
> implements a DSP reset whenever the DSP goes idle on both ports.  It is
> a temporary fix to the hanging pair of modems problem, but I just wanted
> some feedback, if any was available, before we put it on any of our
> production modems.

Is this code posted someplace, or is it available only by calling their
tech support department?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Curtis V. Shambeau  |  [email-masked]  |  Senior Vice President  |
|   ExecPC, Inc. - A Voyager.net company - NASDAQ Symbol:  VOYN     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:56:09 +0000

One of the few pleasures in life is telling the salesbot on the phone
that I will NOT be renewing my support contract.

For the amount it would cost to cover 2 chassis and a dozen DSP's, ARC's
and NMC's they need to do alot better than they are now.

They released NFAS code and OSPF beta code... whipee.  Make the damned
thing connect more reliabily and then worry about networking code (ala
OSPF).  

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

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:05:32 +0000

-> One of the few pleasures in life is telling the salesbot on the phone that I
-> will NOT be renewing my support contract.
->
-> For the amount it would cost to cover 2 chassis and a dozen DSP's, ARC's and
-> NMC's they need to do alot better than they are now.
->
-> They released NFAS code and OSPF beta code... whipee.  Make the damned thing
-> connect more reliabily and then worry about networking code (ala OSPF).

I too boycotted renewing my maintenance contract for almost a year
for many of the same reasons you and others have expressed.  I just
downloaded all of the TC 3.6 stuff but am gunshy about upgrading the
Hiperarc and DSP code. I got burned already on the 4.1.56-6 code that
killed my webramps.  I was actually on Ramp Networks website tonight and
they have an engineering note specifically for TC w/HiPerArcs.  They
pretty much pointed the gun straight at 3Com.   Back to the original
point of your message I wonder how many of us have witheld revenue from
3Com over the maintenance contract issues  ?  I will say the
process for purchasing the maintenance contract and getting it
active was much much better this time (albeit I couldn't active
it via the website due to some cgi problem) but the ole reliable
fax machine came through with flying colors.

Jeff Binkley
ASA Network Computing

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:54:31 +0000

> fax machine came through with flying colors.

We have.  I would be very happy to pay 3Com a fair price for maintenence
contracts.  We almost had a deal cinched and at the last minute they
changed the price, and we never went with it.

Once you are a certain size, and you have certain momentum, you are
*always* buying dsp's every few weeks.  So technically, if you just keep
registering those numbers on totalservice, you will always be covered
under 90 days support.

This is bad for 3com though, so they really should fix the contract
situation, so we can get real contracts.  I just want software, I am not
interested in there tech support.  I have been working on TC hubs for
years, setup dozens and dozens of them, and done just about everything
worth doing on them.  But I get subjected to calling into an 800 number,
at 11pm, so that some guy who sounds half asleep can call me back with a
piss poor (tired?) attitude, who probably has been working there like a
few weeks, or months, and doesn't have anywhere near the experience I do
on these hubs.  "Did you try rebooting the chassis?"...........

I feel I am in a constant battle with 3com, just to get code I have
legitimate access too etc.

I mean, if you buy a chassis that has TCS 3.5 on it, and you bought a
support contract with TCS 3.5..........shouldn't your account still let
you download the TCS 3.5 code forever?  I mean, its not like they are
giving you something you didn't already have........you paid for it, its
not a newer version, its the version that was on the damn thing when you
bought it!

I can log into Cisco, and download any code on that site, no questions
asked..........I can do that with a $250 2501 service contract.  Do I
screw Cisco? Hell no, because the contracts for *all* the stuff I have is
just as good of a deal as the pricing on the 2501 contracts.

You can bet that when people like myself need support contracts, its not
because we don't know how to use the equipment, its because the stuff
isn't working, we need fixes, we need to let 3com know it doesn't work.

>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

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

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:13:45 +0000

I did just buy 4 DPS's and they did come with newer code than I had been
running... I haven't upgraded from 1.x to the 2.x simply because it really
didn't fix anything.. just added some features that I don't need.

I recall the DSP contract at $250 per DSP.. that's a dozen cards that need
covered (gotta have support for them all now).  Seeing that I have called
3Com ZERO times this year (other than warranty repair) and the code I am
running now seems to be OK it's a hard sell to pull almost $3K from me for
support.

I was 2 seconds from ordering my first Ascend box.... I will now go back
and kick myself in the rear for buying DPS's.

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

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:44:26 +0000

> I recall the DSP contract at $250 per DSP.. that's a dozen cards that need

if someone has the "software only support" numbers for all the cards (nmc,
arcs, dsp's) it would be cool to post that.

Brian

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:26:08 +0000

I think Brian is on the right track here. Perhaps 3COM can split their
service contracts into 2 categories - firmware download only, and full
support with download and telephone support.

Those of us new to the platform (myself included) might benefit from the
convenience of knowing that phone support is available 24x7 when you're
staring at a box not taking calls at 2AM. But once you get the hang of TC
and know how to troubleshoot these things on your own (or at least with the
added help of those on this list), you can drop the tel support, and just
pay for code updates.

Does any of this matter to those on this list that are complaining about
3COM's lack of timely response to code issues? Probably not. Should 3COM
redirect it's efforts to resolving these issues? Yep. Should they perhaps
head-up a small team (1 person) to field code enhancement and bug fix
requests, both from an email/web input area on the 3COM ISP pages, but also
through monitoring of this list and the totalcontol newsgroups? Absolutely.
3COM may already be doing this "behind the scenes", quietly tracking and
logging this stuff, but it's apparent that the people who need to know the
most that it's being done and being worked on, the ISP customers, don't know
that someone has acknowledged the problem and it has been placed into an
engineering queue.

I think that things like this would greatly improve 3COM's image among it's
ISP customers, and even more so if they acted expediently on these issues
that trouble so many on this list. Give the telephone support staff access
to the database created as a result of these pages (hell, give us access to
these pages as well, even WITHOUT a contract). Tie the ER/SR releases to the
database, so it's easier to identify which bug is fixed with which release.
And most importantly, allowing us to view this database to obtain the status
of a confirmed bug and it's up-to-date progress in getting resolved would be
of tremendous benefit. To know that someone is actually WORKING on Jeff's
SNMP issue by simply searching the database is comforting (knowing that it
will be fixed QUICKLY is even better). Some of this status information may
already be in the 3KB, but a dedicated database for TC code issues and
status reports would be really great.

Scot
NJAccess

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:14:04 +0000

Thus spake Scot Desort
>support with download and telephone support.

They already have a software only support contract...its just as
ridiculous as the rest of them.

>Does any of this matter to those on this list that are complaining
>about 3COM's lack of timely response to code issues? Probably not.
>Should 3COM redirect it's efforts to resolving these issues? Yep.
>Should they perhaps head-up a small team (1 person) to field code
>enhancement and bug fix requests, both from an email/web input area on
>the 3COM ISP pages, but also through monitoring of this list and the
>totalcontol newsgroups? Absolutely.  3COM may already be doing this
>"behind the scenes", quietly tracking and logging this stuff, but it's
>apparent that the people who need to know the most that it's being done
>and being worked on, the ISP customers, don't know that someone has
>acknowledged the problem and it has been placed into an engineering
>queue.

>I think that things like this would greatly improve 3COM's image among
>it's ISP customers, and even more so if they acted expediently on these
>issues that trouble so many on this list. Give the telephone support
>staff access to the database created as a result of these pages (hell,
>give us access to these pages as well, even WITHOUT a contract). Tie
>the ER/SR releases to the database, so it's easier to identify which
>bug is fixed with which release.  And most importantly, allowing us to
>view this database to obtain the status of a confirmed bug and it's
>up-to-date progress in getting resolved would be of tremendous benefit.
>To know that someone is actually WORKING on Jeff's SNMP issue by simply
>searching the database is comforting (knowing that it will be fixed
>QUICKLY is even better). Some of this status information may already be
>in the 3KB, but a dedicated database for TC code issues and status
>reports would be really great.

I think Scot (it is just 1 "t" right?) has some very good points here
that go hand in hand with my thoughts about beaurocracy (note the
Subject: change :).  3Com does definitely work in a very behind the
scenes, closed development environment.  Don't worry 3Com, I'm not going
to suggest you Open Source the Pilgrim code, however, perhaps 3Com could
take some cues from the Open Source movement.  By putting more layers of
beaurocracy between the actual users and developers, there's just that
much more insulation that filters out valid feedback.  I reported that
SNMP bug nearly 3 weeks ago and I have received *no* communication
regarding it whatsoever.  I've been holding off reporting it publicly
waiting for 3Com to get a fix out for it, but I haven't a clue if that's
forthcoming anytime soon or not.  The last time I reported a 3Com bug it
slipped through the cracks and made it through a whole new major release
without getting fixed.  Better communication between the developers and
customers would fix this...if I knew that 3Com kept up good
communication with someone who reported a problem regarding that problem
and I weren't getting feedback about a problem I reported, then I'd know
to call again and try again, or know to go forward with a public posting
since it would seem that 3Com hasn't deemed it worthy to fix.  However,
given 3Com's unbelievably closed development environment, I haven't a
clue if this thing is sitting in some engineer's queue somewhere to be
fixed or not.  (Even if it is in a queue somewhere, for a security bug
like this, even that's unacceptable).

3Com needs to seriously open up to their customers here...remove many
layers of beaurocracy (these two statements amount to the same thing),
and get them more involved...maybe even make the engineering mailing
lists and stuff publically available...get the customers in on the
actual development process.  Maybe making them publically available
would be a bad idea (would end up with too much noise), but perhaps
invite specific customers to join in?  There are certainly a few people
on this list that could give you some good feedback.  I know...this is a
pretty radical idea...maybe it doesn't need to go this far, but just
something that one of my co-workers and I were discussing the other day.
Regardless of how its done, 3Com *definitely* needs to open up to their
customers more.  When, in the course of 2-3 days on a mailing list, 4 or
5 *MAJOR* issues can be mentioned that are still unaddressed after about
a year for each...something needs to be done.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:19:21 +0000

Unless I am mistaken they do offer software only contracts.  I've seen 
them on Tech Data's price listing.  They are generally less than half of 
the full service contracts.

Jeff Binkley
ASA Network Computing

U>I think Brian is on the right track here. Perhaps 3COM can split their
U>service contracts into 2 categories - firmware download only, and full
U>support with download and telephone support.

U>Those of us new to the platform (myself included) might benefit from
U>the convenience of knowing that phone support is available 24x7 when
U>you're staring at a box not taking calls at 2AM. But once you get the
U>hang of TC and know how to troubleshoot these things on your own (or
U>at least with the added help of those on this list), you can drop the
U>tel support, and just pay for code updates.

U>Does any of this matter to those on this list that are complaining
U>about 3COM's lack of timely response to code issues? Probably not.
U>Should 3COM redirect it's efforts to resolving these issues? Yep.
U>Should they perhaps head-up a small team (1 person) to field code
U>enhancement and bug fix requests, both from an email/web input area on
U>the 3COM ISP pages, but also through monitoring of this list and the
U>totalcontol newsgroups? Absolutely. 3COM may already be doing this
U>"behind the scenes", quietly tracking and logging this stuff, but it's
U>apparent that the people who need to know the most that it's being
U>done and being worked on, the ISP customers, don't know that someone
U>has acknowledged the problem and it has been placed into an
U>engineering queue.

U>I think that things like this would greatly improve 3COM's image among
U>it's ISP customers, and even more so if they acted expediently on
U>these issues that trouble so many on this list. Give the telephone
U>support staff access to the database created as a result of these
U>pages (hell, give us access to these pages as well, even WITHOUT a
U>contract). Tie the ER/SR releases to the database, so it's easier to
U>identify which bug is fixed with which release. And most importantly,
U>of allowing us to view this database to obtain the status a confirmed
U>of bug and it's up-to-date progress in getting resolved would be
U>tremendous benefit. To know that someone is actually WORKING on Jeff's
U>SNMP issue by simply searching the database is comforting (knowing 
that 
U>it will be fixed QUICKLY is even better). Some of this status
U>information may already be in the 3KB, but a dedicated database for TC
U>code issues and status reports would be really great.

U>Scot
U>NJAccess

CMPQwk 1.42 9999

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:26:42 +0000

If you call tech support at 2AM you are wasting your time.  Heck even if
you call at 11am you are wasting your time.  The support is just not
there.  I would find youself a good VAR (like source technology) that has
in house tech support for 3Com and use them first.

I guess that's the jist of most of the complaints.  I think 3Com is
realizing this but in an effort to keep revenue up they don't improve
support to meet the bottom line.... they just redo the contracts for
support and charge you more to make up for the people who have dropped
thier program.

How can other MAJOR access manufacturers get away with relaesing free code
for updates and 3Com cannot?  If 2.0.6 has a bug in it.. I shouldn't have
to pay for 2.0.7 that fixes the bug they sold me in the first place.
Thier almost as bad as Microsoft when it comes to licensing.

I remember about 2 years ago someone wrote an open letter to 3Com/USR
about the Total Control chassis and put it on the web... 3Com did respond
but it was a standard "we are continuing to make improvements" letter.

It sad that the customer base has to get just short of a revolt in order
to get even that kind of form letter response.

I am getting tired of 3Com, it's lack of interest in supporting it's users
and a support program that just plain is not worth it.

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

-

---

From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:00:42 +0000

> ridiculous as the rest of them.

Geez, didn't realize that. So I guess the pricing is not attractive? We all
want free, but if it were only a nominal charge, that might have helped ;-(

> I think Scot (it is just 1 "t" right?) has some very good points here

Yep, 1 't'. Thanks for noticing :-)

> Better communication between the developers and

Exactly. Not knowing what's being done only adds to the frustration and
resentment.

> a year for each...something needs to be done.

Hopefully something will change soon. It's a shame that something as basic
as the lack of close interaction with the user base is keeping the TC
product line from truly standing out in the NAS arena. 3COM, as you've
stated in the past many times, really has something special on their hands,
and the TC platform can do so much more. But until these basic code issues
and responsiveness to the needs of the users is addressed, the platform may
become doomed before it matures.

-Scot
NJAccess

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:19:46 +0000

"the platform may become doomed before it matures."

It has had years to mature... I believe it was actually further along and
more mature when USR had it. I mean OSPF is just now being released. Other
platforms have had OSPF for over 2 years. From what I understand before 3com
took over many things were slated to be done but dropped.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Scot Desort <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Beaurocracy issues ;)

-Scot
NJAccess

-

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:25:07 +0000

Thus spake Scot Desort

>want free, but if it were only a nominal charge, that might have helped ;-(

Yah...its still done on a $x/48-port chassis basis, which, for software
only, makes even less sense.  :/  And because 3Com is so concerned about
someone buying support on one chassis and having 10 that they don't have
support on, they still require you, with the software-only, to buy
support on *all* of your equipment equally.  *blam*, it was dead before
it even got out of the starting blocks for us.  And, of course, when we
called to complain about it, we got a call from the head of support
contracts who's point in calling was to explain to us what options were
available...again, he was totally unwilling to give any thought to the
idea that maybe, just maybe, there was a better way to do
things...totally blew off our concerns.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:29:20 +0000

Thus spake Ed

>took over many things were slated to be done but dropped.

In all fairness...OSPF was on the engineering todo list for quite some
time at USR before they got bought by 3Com...the word I received was
that the engineers kept pulling it off because "it was too hard".  I
suspect 3Com had enough resources to put OSPF in the thing when USR just
didn't have enough resources (read, number of engineers) to do that and
still keep the rest of the development up on the platform.

Having said that though...I agree...I do think the maturity of the TC
platform is behind what it could be...it is maturing...but I think it
could do so at a much faster pace.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:29:41 +0000

> the full service contracts.

They are still pricey.  And on top of the price, we started getting
harrassing phone calls from some lackey in the 'service contract'
department saying:

-rude 3Com lady: "Are you SUUUURE that you only have X chassis?"

-me: "Yes.  That's why I bought X contracts."

-rude 3Com lady: "Well you HAVE to buy a contract for each chassis"

-me: "Yes."

-rude 3Com lady: "You're SUUURE you only have X chassis?"

-me: "Tell you what.  Put me down for one, I'm selling the rest of this
crap off."

I didn't even buy direct from 3Com, but via a reseller.  They apparently
have the time and money to put losers like this on the phone to harass
customers about the number of contracts they have versus the number of
chassis they've purchased in the last 3 years.  What a waste.  What
arrogance.

I'll mention also that I have contracts (24x7x4) on our high-end Cisco
routers that cost LESS than putting full support with no
"spare-in-the-air" support on all our TCH stuff.  And I've been told by
numerous Cisco employees; support, sales, engineering that they let people
slide on most support/software issues.  They frown on 'version jumping'
where you go and thieve say IOS w/Firewall support when you bought basic
IP, but I've had so many instances where I've received support/software on
equipment with no contract.  I've even told the guy on the phone "I have
no contract" and the basic response is "We want you to be happy.  Your
hardware fried?  We'll send you new...  You need IOS 12.x to fix this bug?
Here it is."

Why can't 3Com adopt at least some of this attitude?  It's not like
Pilgrim is feature-packed like IOS, we're all just looking for solid
connects and standard routing features...

Charles

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:44:16 +0000

Jeff McAdams wrote:
"we got a call from the head of support contracts who's point in calling was
to explain to us what options were available...again, he was totally
unwilling to give any thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe, there was
a better way to do things...totally blew off our concerns."

Oh you got one of those calls too? ;-)

I told him 3com was only trying to make a Profit on Support... I told him I
always considered Support an Expense and then prodeceed to explain to him
how much I cared for his call.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Beaurocracy issues ;)

Thus spake Scot Desort

-

-

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:53:04 +0000

I got one of them last week!  I tried to just cover a chassis that I
wanted to test out the "newer" features with.  Like OSPF, tunneling, etc.
They said you need all your chassis covered and you cannot get just the
support you *WANT*.

Even though I just purchased 4 DPS's and have 90 days free support.. they
(the nice 3com lady said that they don't do just certain cards.. and that
she would need to see an inventory of all the cards I owned).

I think not.

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

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:01:00 +0000

Charles you are correct and have hit it on the nose.

We also have Cisco and they have helped us greatly when we had no contract.
After they assisted us several times without a hassle I asked them what
would contracts cost and they told me... get this... we purchased them
because of their attitude toward us. They are more than helpful and I
believe this is the basic concept behind their enormous success... "Proud to
own a CISCO". It is almost like gold.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) RE: (USR-TC) 2.0.60 HDM C

-me: "Yes."

Charles

-

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:06:20 +0000

Thus spake Ed

>Oh you got one of those calls too? ;-)

Well...this was after complaining to high heaven to our sales rep who
forwarded our complaints on to this guy...then he didn't even call to
try to address our complaints...just to tell us what was available in
support contracts.  We already bloody knew what was available as far as
support contracts were concerned...that's why we were complaining!  :)

>I told him 3com was only trying to make a Profit on Support... 

I was basically told, at one point, that 3Com didn't want to do anything
that wasn't "revenue positive."  You can imagine the response that
brought.

>I told him I always considered Support an Expense and then prodeceed to
>explain to him how much I cared for his call.

Heh...yeah...my co-admin took the call here...he let the guy know, in no
uncertain terms, what we thought of the call and the support contract
situation in general...like I said...he totally blew us off...we were
never contacted again about that subject.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-

---

From: Frank Angel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:09:16 +0000

They may not be listening to you guys, but they are sure interested in
feedback for presales!

https://rap.prognostics.com/svy/3comPresales/2855-1.asp?doc_num=3comsales

|-----Original Message-----
|From: [email-masked]
|[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ed
|Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:40 PM
|To: [email-masked]
|Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Beaurocracy issues ;)
|
|
|Jeff McAdams wrote:
|"we got a call from the head of support contracts who's point
|in calling was
|to explain to us what options were available...again, he was totally
|unwilling to give any thought to the idea that maybe, just
|maybe, there was
|a better way to do things...totally blew off our concerns."
|
|Oh you got one of those calls too? ;-)
|
|I told him 3com was only trying to make a Profit on Support...
|I told him I
|always considered Support an Expense and then prodeceed to
|explain to him
|how much I cared for his call.
|
|
|Ed
|
|----- Original Message -----
|From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
|To: <[email-masked]>
|Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:21 PM
|Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Beaurocracy issues ;)
|
|
|Thus spake Scot Desort
|>Jeff Mcadams wrote:
|>> They already have a software only support contract...its just as
|>> ridiculous as the rest of them.
|
|>Geez, didn't realize that. So I guess the pricing is not
|attractive? We all
|>want free, but if it were only a nominal charge, that might
|have helped ;-(
|
|Yah...its still done on a $x/48-port chassis basis, which, for software
|only, makes even less sense.  :/  And because 3Com is so
|concerned about
|someone buying support on one chassis and having 10 that they
|don't have
|support on, they still require you, with the software-only, to buy
|support on *all* of your equipment equally.  *blam*, it was dead before
|it even got out of the starting blocks for us.  And, of course, when we
|called to complain about it, we got a call from the head of support
|contracts who's point in calling was to explain to us what options were
|available...again, he was totally unwilling to give any thought to the
|idea that maybe, just maybe, there was a better way to do
|things...totally blew off our concerns.
|--
|Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
|Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
|IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456
|
|-
| 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.
|
|
|
|-
| 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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:23:02 +0000

Jeff McAdams wrote:
"Well...this was after complaining to high heaven to our sales rep who
forwarded our complaints on to this guy..."

Yes thats what happened to us... we complained and this guy called to let us
know our options.

Funny how everyone feels the same way and 3com continues to push this. If we
all switched platforms I am sure they would begin to listen to the few
customers that remain. Many companies out there would gladly take our stuff
on trade on a port for port program.

I just keep hoping 3com will wake up and listen... my patience is running
thin though as I am sure are others.

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) Beaurocracy issues ;)

Thus spake Ed

-

-

---

From: Randy Cosby <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:11:18 +0000

Stockholders can get results.

Has anyone mentioned any of these concerns on any of the 3COM stock
discussion forums, on RagingBull.com for example?

Randy

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jeff Mcadams
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:02 AM

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:25:59 +0000

> support with download and telephone support.

O, they *do* offer software download only support.........its just that I
am not entirely happy with that pricing either.

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:34:42 +0000

> Thier almost as bad as Microsoft when it comes to licensing.

yep, they should release bug fix code which adds no new features, so that
people can have it for free if they have paid for the code that has bugs
in it.  Instead they fix some bugs, add new features, and then call it a
major release and want more money.

> but it was a standard "we are continuing to make improvements" letter.

That was the Total Control Unresolved Issues letter.  It was signed off on
by dozens of technical leads/sysadmins and CEO's of places using Total
Control.  I believe 3com did listen to alot of that letter and make
improvments, they did listen.  I don't think we should have to goto that
sort of extent, but if it works, perhaps its time for a second
revision.......not to blast them, just to put our thoughts together, and
that way they can get an idea of what we feel is important.

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:52:25 +0000

> things...totally blew off our concerns.

They don't want to budge.  They lose money over this.

If you make a good product, one that doesn't have problems, that is how
you keep support down.  Good documentation, good code, good compatibility.

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:55:10 +0000

I had the same shit happen.  She couldn't get it thru her head that we had
SOLD half the stuff they had us listed down for.  We SOLD it because it
was quad modem technology and its a good thing too, because we would be
screwed had we not sold, and 3com doesn't make a support contract to fix
you if you got a quad chassis.......not good enough anyways, its all
EOL'ed.

It took I want to say 18+ months of negotiations between our 3com rep, us,
and 3com support contract people.  To this day we have not been able to
get contracts because we can't come to an agreement on how the stuff
should be priced.

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 05:59:53 +0000

> she would need to see an inventory of all the cards I owned).

They don't want to come to an agreement.  So you are forced into the back
alley 3com warez scene (which by the way is quite happening *jk*), and
using 90 day support.  I don't want to live from 90 days to 90 days at a
time.  I can do it though, all you have to do is add roughly 48 ports
every 3 months.......but i would rather have a good solid software
contract.......

-

---

From: "Lon R. Stockton, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:24:20 +0000

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Brian wrote:

> alley 3com warez scene (which by the way is quite happening *jk*)

I keep looking for alt.binaries.warez.3com, but never see it. (:

-

---

From: Sheldon Koehler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 03:51:48 +0000

Maybe we should all gang up at ISPCon and do a mass movement from the 3Com
booth over to the Cisco booth and see if 3Com notices then...

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) RE: (USR-TC) 2.0.60 HDM C

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 04:08:20 +0000

Sounds like a Great Idea!

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) RE: (USR-TC) 2.0.60 HDM C

-

-

---

From: Richard Lorbieski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 04:49:19 +0000

Sorry, but only people with service contracts can visit the 3Com booth.

-- 

Richard Lorbieski - [email-masked]
Chief Technical Officer - Senior System Administrator
Alpha1 Internet  http://www.alpha1.net
409.731.8236  - 877.4.alpha1 (877.425.7421)

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:08:26 +0000

I cannot believe how many people keep coming out of the woodwork that feel
the same way about 3com's support issues. Seems like everyone is disgruntled
about it. When you speak to 3com they tell you people are happy and like the
changes being made and you are the only one complaining. What a smoke
screen.

I believe 3com Executives and Stockholders should actually read this list
sometime...

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Lorbieski <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) RE: (USR-TC) 2.0.60 HDM C

Sheldon Koehler wrote:
> > > > them on Tech Data's price listing.  They are generally less than
half
> of
> > > IP, but I've had so many instances where I've received
support/software
> on
> > > > U>enhancement and bug fix requests, both from an email/web input
area
> on
> > > > U>information may already be in the 3KB, but a dedicated database
for
> TC

--

-

-

---

From: Marshall Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:17:21 +0000

Great Idea !!

Why don't we all have a mass (OPEN) meeting with 3com at ISPCon.  The other
vendors will send people in as well and will get plenty of ammo for their
executives that actually listen to their customer's complaints.  If 3com changes
everything that night with a big announcement (hint hint) about cost effective
hardware/technical support and software only support, then everyone, except the
snoops from other companies, will be happy!

A win-win for everyone if 3C want's our continued business.  Buy customer's
happiness through goodwill instead of ball parks.

Marshall Morgan
President

Internet Doorway, Inc (aka NETDOOR)
http://www.netdoor.com

601.969.1434 x28 | 800.952.1570 x28 | 601.969.3629 x28 | Fax 601.969.3838

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Richard Lorbieski
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:41 PM

-

---

From: Ed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:07:52 +0000

Marshall wrote:
"Buy customer's happiness through goodwill instead of ball parks"

Thats a good one ;-)

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: Marshall Morgan <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 2:10 AM
Subject: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

Great Idea !!

Why don't we all have a mass (OPEN) meeting with 3com at ISPCon.  The other
vendors will send people in as well and will get plenty of ammo for their
executives that actually listen to their customer's complaints.  If 3com
changes
everything that night with a big announcement (hint hint) about cost
effective
hardware/technical support and software only support, then everyone, except
the
snoops from other companies, will be happy!

Marshall Morgan
President

-

-

---

From: Brian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:39:43 +0000

Alot of times its just customer reps there though.........they should send
more execs and engineers to those things.

-

---

From: andrew <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 18:47:22 +0000

> am not entirely happy with that pricing either.

I love the hardware, but I'm not entirely happy with their software. A
version of arc code that fixes one problem breaks 3 other things! I think
3com should make *all* their releases Beta, not just ERs. Because we seem
to be the Beta testers even with their production level code. Has 3com
considered a code freeze, so they can fix the problems in their existing
code and not keep adding broken features to already broken code? Maybe
3com should do what Linux kernel developers do; have one version of
code-base that is stable, and yet another version for those individuals
who want to "live on the edge" with new features, but most importantly, 
keep working on and improving *both* versions at the same time.

I know it's not easy 3com, and I understand that everyone wants new
features right away. However, what makes me mad is the fact that 3com
charges *us* to fix *their* mistakes. I understand small bugs, everything
has small bugs, but *major* problems such as security flaws or bugs that
effect the basic functionality of their products should be fixed free of
charge. And when we do buy service contracts with software support, we
should be able to at least access the code and security updates
we had access to during our contracts after it expires on us. Because
after all, we did pay for it. Either that or I'll just have to start
mirroring.

Even Micro$oft offers free updates without a "service contract" for most
of their products when it comes to security issues; however, *like*
3com, Microsoft never seems to find all the bugs. ;) I know things
will get better, because 3com has very smart people and they are
listening, right? I hope 3com does the right thing and develops
a more "customer friendly" approach when it comes to software updates and
support. 

-
	andrew

-

---

From: Greg Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:34:28 +0000

Great idea.  Set up a date and time.  I doubt that it will do much good 
though.  We rant and rave about every 4 months regarding the same topics 
and 3Com remains silent.  I also liked the suggestion about discussing this 
in some public stock trading forums.  Perhaps if some of the 3Com moguls 
notice a drop in the stock prices/net worth, they might be inclined to 
investigate the cause.

>booth over to the Cisco booth and see if 3Com notices then...

Thanks, Greg Coffey                     <[email-masked]>
Visionary Communications V 307-234-5443 F 307-234-5446
100 N. Center, Casper, WY  82601         www.vcn.com

-

---

From: Russ Miescke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:49:21 +0000

Does 2.0.60 break any other things?  I am having a tough time with this
hanging DSP problem.  I am getting 2.0.60 sent to me, but am interested to
see what it breaks if anything.
Russ Miescke
Power Web Connect
----- Original Message -----
From: andrew <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: (usr-tc) 2.0.60 HDM Code

-

---

From: Richard Lorbieski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:09:08 +0000

Speaking of ball parks... What if 3Com really managed 3Com Park?

It should go like this:

Three friends and myself went to a baseball game at 3Com park. The
ticket prices were not only based on seating location, but also on your
size. So my ticket was 25.34, and my friends paid 12.56, 17.45, and
21.92 (plus tax).

Concessions:

They ONLY served hots dogs, fries and Pepsi. 

Beer was available but only if you had a beer drinking permit for $5.00.
However, since I was with my 3 friends (2 of them don't drink beer), I
had to purchase a permit for all of us ($20 total).

They had two kinds of beer - 3Com and 3Com Lite. 3Com Lite was brewed
several years ago by a company call Livingston and it had a bitter after
taste but I learned about this AFTER I bought my 3Com Lite. I went back
to the counter wanting to get a fresher beer or at least get my money
back. I was told by the manager that they are phasing out 3Com Lite and
my only option was I could buy 2 regular 3Com beers and then trade in my
3Com Lite and get the third 3Com beer for free.

Restrooms:

Restrooms were opened to the general public ONLY between innings. If you
needed to use the restroom during the game, you had to purchase a
restroom contract, however, if the game goes into extra innings, you
would have to pay extra. 

I had to go really bad during the third inning, so I purchased a
contract for $5. However, since I was with my 3 friends, I had to pay
$20.

Well, by the time I got my restroom contract, it was the end of the
third inning.
So I had to wait in line with everyone else even though I had a special
contract.

Once I made it through the restroom door, there was yet another door
with another 3Com rep.in front of it. This time I had to show receipts
for my food/drink I purchased at the game, otherwise I would have to pay
another special disposal fee.

I finally got to the toilet stall but notice there was shredded
newspaper instead of toilet paper. I asked what happened to the toilet
paper. I was told 3Com sells single ply non-perferated toilet paper at
the counter at the back of the restroom. "Single ply?", I said. "Yeah,
we are working on a 2 ply perferated paper and should have it available
next week.", the 3Com rep blurted. Moreover, since I had a restroom
contract, I could trade in my single ply for the 2 ply when it became
available!

The rolls were $2 dollars each, but since I was with my 3 friends, I had
to purchase 4 rolls. 

After I relieved myself, I went to wash my hands. Instead of paper
towels, there was shredded newspaper. I went back to the restroom
counter and asked about the towels. Great news! 3Com just released their
50 pack paper towels. I can get them for $3 dollars a pack, but guess
what, I had to purchase 4 packs. I thought, screwed the towels, I'll use
toilet paper. Wrong! Someone beside me was being ejected from the
primises for drying his hands with toilet paper. I learned later his
restroom contract was canceled. Anyway, I paid for the paper towels...   

Just before I exited the restroom, I was reminded that the toilet paper
and paper towels could only be used at this restroom and if I went to a
different restroom, I would have to pay again. Oh yeah, the restroom
contract is only good for THAT restroom!

It was the start of the 6th inning. I decided to make another trip to
the restroom. I had all my paperwork in order this time so it wasn't a
long wait. But I was detained because it was less than 30 minutes since
my last restroom visit. I was pulled over to the side and questioned by
2 other 3Com ushers. I was asked repeatedly if I was sure I'm going to
the restroom because the result of the 3Com food. They suspected that it
must be something other than their food or maybe I was ill.

So, I was examined by a 3Com doctor, but before he would EVEN talk to
me. I had to present him with my restroom contract and food receipts. He
determined there was nothing wrong on their end and I must purchase the
special desposal fee for $10 (but paid $40 because of my buddies). 

Now I had everything in order.

Just before I got to the urinal, I was grabbed by a 3Com usher. He told
me that I can only use the same toilet I used on my first visit and was
not allowed to use any of the other urinals or toilets. I had to wait 5
more minutes because "my stall" was used by another person - and he
didn't have a contract!

FINAL INSULT:

The game went into extra innings so we had to cough up $10 each plus $20
more for my other friends - even though they left early because of an
emergency.

You may think this is silly. But this is how I feel 3Com treats Total
Control Chassis owners.

-- 

-

---

From: Greg Coffey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:41:08 +0000

Great analogy, if only someone from 3Com gave a damn!!  This should be on 
every bulletin board in every 3Com building.

-

---

From: "Lon R. Stockton, Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:20:43 +0000

> You may think this is silly. But this is how I feel 3Com treats Total

I've mentioned my theory of 3com's attitude on here before, but maybe
time to do so again, working it into your analogy....

You see, this 3com Park ballfield really isn't designed for individual
fans....a guy bringing a couple friends to the game is just rif-raf;
troublesome whiners who always complain about dirty seats and always
having to scrape their change up to buy a hot dog. At 3com Park, there's
a new business model, y'see. There's a lot of BigTime companies who have
vast amounts of money to toss around....companies who are quite used to
(and even expect) expensive service contracts. And these companies aren't
interested in four seats at a ball game, they are interested in buying
blocks of seats for the entire season. Sometimes as much as a third of
the entire stadium. And that's the market 3com Park wants to go for;
it's more profitable than the pesky individual fans and their buds who
got them to where they are now, whos' money built the new ballpark.

In other words, it's my theory that 3com is now more interested in big
telcos. Integrating the TC and phone switches and stuff like putting
ADSL and traditional dialup in the CO. $Billions is an understatement
for their target here....imagine TC racks in every telco CO everywhere,
all bought and owned by companies who are quite used to paying way too
much for eqipment and service contracts, companies who have entire
departments to keep all the proper paperwork straight. Companies who
don't whine when charged $10 to go to the bathroom because they can
just file for a rate increase to cover the operating costs.

So you can see the rapid loss of interest in ISPs who "only" have a
few hundred TC racks...or especially those piddling little guys who
only have a couple. If you can play ball by the BigTime rules, fine,
you'll be put up with and used to beta test all the hardware they
want to sell to the BigBoyz....if not, oh well, c'est la vie. Moot
point really, because if they hit the target of selling to the telcos,
most of those "small" players will be going out of business anyway.

Not surprising, really....I mean, consider how much NorTel would care
about you if you wanted only one DMS-10 (or just one barebones DMS100).
Or how much Boeing would cater to your wishes because you own just one
or two of their airplanes.

[rant]

But it is sad. Unlike the other two examples, it's a case of turning
their backs on the market that put them where they are today. NorTel
didn't start by targeting the hobbiest market, USR did. That they are
even a player now is directly due to the small BBS market and later the
ISP market. I can easily remember a time, not *that* many years ago,
when even a single-line BBS operator could call USR, identify himself as
a sysop, and get a direct line to engineering. You could report a bug
in your 14.4k Courier, and not only would they burn a new ROM for you
and fedex it to you (even if it was alpha or beta code), but you'd be
sincerely *thanked* for finding it for 'em and testing out the new
ROM that you'd get the next day. It was this level of support which
garnered them the BBS market, and then the consumer market (who needed
the same kind of modem that their favorite BBS used). The BBS operators
also started spec'ing USR stuff at their workplace, and then a good
number of BBS sysops started ISPs, continuing the trend. At the time,
a rack full of dual 28.8k Couriers was deserving of the pure lust it
inspired in the hearts of people involved with dialup.

Once upon a time, us "small time" operators were USR's favorite children.
3com came in and pointed out that we've got red hair, freckles, and were
actually a product of a previous marriage. Currently, I don't know of
any other company that has made me feel so unwanted; it's like they're
actively trying to chase me away.

My only wish is that I didn't pick up on this earlier....like when I
was at the 3com booth at a convention, looking to purchase, and it was
hinted that I was too small to talk to, and was directly told that I
needed to go to a resellers booth for info. [funny thing was...the
reseller they told me to go to told me I didn't want 3com, that I should
buy Ascend]. Another funny thing is that the folks at the Nortel booth
chatted with me for a good while about telco switches...and I told them
directly at the beginning that I was small fry and had no immediate
need to buy, and probably never would be able to.

The only saving grace is that at least in my case, I love my HARC and
HDSPs....I'm running old code, but they still kick serious ass in my
case. In the past year, one HDSP rebooted itself for no apparent reason,
one modem hung up and needed a reset, and one HDSP suddenly decided that
the D-channel was down (but a reboot fixed that...the D-channel was fine).
The old code I'm running has problems with some old Rockwell stuff and
other crappy no-name modems, but it doesn't have a lot of the problems
I hear about on the list nowadays.

The other saving grace is this mailing list, and the handful of 3com
people that populate it. I actually hesitate in bashing 3com on here
because the 3com people that actually see it aren't the problem, and
they're more deserving of praise rather than seeing stuff that'll just
alienate them more and make 'em think I'm an ingrate. My biggest worry
at the moment is that someday, some 3com exec will learn that support
is being doled out on this list for *shudder* FREE, and order the other
3com employees to not participate here (or require a service contract
to subscribe to the list where they do participate).

The thing is, it's not like my desires here are out of touch with
reality. I want a *reasonably priced* service contract that gives me
access to the code and spare-in-the-air replacement. I want the
requirement that all chassis' I own be covered to be dropped (I own
a spare, it's sitting in my closet...I resent having to actively cover
it, especially since it's only there because 'spare-in-the-air' is about
24-48 hours too late for me). And by "reasonably priced", I *don't* mean
20 friggin percent of the purchase price per annum, either. I may even
be tempted to buy support, if said support was better than my part-time
theatre-major can deliver....even she can tell me to try rebooting the
chassis. Give me a test or something, and give me direct access to
support commensurate with my score.  75%, direct to level 2, 100% direct
to eng. or somesuch. Leave your level 1 tech support in place for people
like my so-called competition, who retired from the National Guard and
started an ISP on a whim with no prior computer or networking experience.

[/rant]

Thanks, listpeople, I feel much better now. (:

Lon Stockton

-

---

From: K Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 04:31:57 +0000

>size. So my ticket was 25.34, and my friends paid 12.56, 17.45, and
[snip]
>more for my other friends - even though they left early because of an

Yes, but who won the game??  ;o)

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

-

---

From: Alex Bernal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 20:20:39 +0000

I agree with you.

Alexander

----- Original Message -----
From: Lon R. Stockton, Jr. <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) ISPCon/3Com Open Meeting

-

---

From: "D. Randy Cosby" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:10:25 +0000

AMEN!

-

---

From: Sheldon Koehler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:18:30 +0000

I have never been happy with the service contracts and I plan on voicing it
at ISPCon in two weeks. I am also going to talk with Cisco again. As a USR
user for over 13 years, I wanted to remain loyal as in the past I felt I was
treated very well. But not since the 3Com takeover.

My current contract expires in February 2000 and at this time, I will not
renew if I have to purchase contracts on all of my quad chassis as well as
my DSP ones. I do not like being forced to buy a contract on anything, let
alone a product that is acknowledged EOL by the company.

I am going to talk to my stock broker tomorrow about how to let stock
holders know how we feel...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 8:03 PM
Subject: (usr-tc) 3com Support Woes

> > > > hardware fried?  We'll send you new...  You need IOS 12.x to fix
this
> > bug?
> > > > > U>service contracts into 2 categories - firmware download only,
and
> > full
> > > > > U>you're staring at a box not taking calls at 2AM. But once you
get
> > > > > U>at least with the added help of those on this list), you can
drop
> > > > > U>"behind the scenes", quietly tracking and logging this stuff,
but
> > it's
> > > > > U>contract). Tie the ER/SR releases to the database, so it's
easier
> to

-