Subject: RE: (usr-tc) v.92 for quads update

From: "Mark E. Levy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 04:39:37 +0000

With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products? How long
should any manufacturer support old products? At what price? How much would
those of you who don't have support contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the
quads? Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup
the development cost, it doesn't make sense to invest in the upgrade.

Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with Win2K?
How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have enough
memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support V.92.

I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but it's
simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to support old
equipment ad infinitum.

Let's get real. 3Com is not doing anything different from most any other
manufacturer in this business. Any box you buy will be obsolete in just a
few years, and it's hard to move forward if you carry too much baggage from
the past around with you.

Mark Levy
FSInet

> From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Yeah...and EOL'ing the quads was a collosally bad mistake.  
> They need to
> be "unEOL'ed".  They pulled this same exact crap two years 
> ago with the
> NETServer to HiPer Arc transition and EOL'ing of the NETServer, two
> years before that, it was the dual modem cards.  What's it going to be
> two years from now?  Either we need to get 3Com/CommWorks to realize
> that installed customer base is important, or they're going 
> to loose us
> as a customer.
> 
> I know Paul, they've already lost you, and I *certainly* 
> don't fault you
> for that decision, and I'm almost there myself, but I'm trying for one
> last ditch effort here.
> 
> 3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what sort of installed 
> base in still
> out there for thier equipment.  I bet Al and Irfan barely remember the
> dual modem cards (if they remember them at all)...I still have several
> in production use sitting at the bottom of a rack, never being noticed
> or messed with at all until we start getting busy signals on that hunt
> group and we go and physically reseat them to reset them.
> 
> 3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what their issues are with support
> contracts.
> 
> 
> 
> OK...screw it...I'm gonna tell this, its been two years.  Two 
> years ago,
> with the NETServer being EOL'ed, and the transition to HiPer Arcs, I
> raised about the same issues that I'm raising here, with 
> about the same
> response initially.  After screaming and yelling about the 
> situation for
> a couple of weeks (I think it was) I was contacted about getting
> NETServers swapped for HiPer Arcs...this was the doing of the 
> sales side
> of things within 3Com at the time...this wasn't a deal that 3Com as a
> whole corporate body was doing...this was a special deal that 
> the sales
> folks there made with IgLou because we made the ultimatum, "Either you
> resolve this issue to our satisfaction, or you loose us as a 
> customer."
> They resolved it.  They did a 1 for 1 trade of HiPer Arcs for
> NETServers, at no cost to IgLou.  The deal, however, was that 
> I couldn't
> tell anyone how this came about because it was a special deal 
> they were
> doing for me and they couldn't have everyone coming to them demanding
> the same thing.
> 
> So, for those of you that remember the NETServer to HiPer Arc 
> thing, if
> any of you wondered why I suddenly went silent on that issue 
> (or nearly
> so anyway), that's why.
> 
> So...what was the result of that...I got my HiPer Arcs, and I 
> no longer
> suffered from Quake Lag or multi-chassis multi-link MPIP 
> instabilities.
> However, 3Com continued in their ways and didn't learn 
> anything from the
> situation, and here we are, 2 years later is *exactly* the same
> situation, just with a different card and 3Com is making the same
> *exact* mistake.  3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the 
> importance
> of installed base.  3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the
> importance (or economics, apparently!) of reasonable availability of
> support contracts.
> 
> Well...here we are again...and here's the situation again.  
> 3Com either
> resolves this situation to my satisfaction, or they loose me as a
> customer, period.  Its the same ultimatum as two years ago with
> NETServers.  This time, however, there will be no silencing of me with
> the deal.  Whatever deal I get better be one that 3Com/CommWorks is
> willing for everyone to know about, because I will not be 
> silent on it.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Lance Eves <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 05:39:37 +0000

I would have to agree with Mark on this.  Cisco has EOL'd products that
still do the job that they were originally installed to do, but was not cost
effective to update to handle the advances in technology.  Lucent has done
the same.  Technology changes daily and it becomes more difficult to support
the older hardware and make it work with the changes in technology.

I have a variety of equipment, both older and new.  I also accept that as
technology changes and advances, I either adapt and change with it or fall
behind.  I budget every year for additional hardware to upgrade what might
be EOL'd just to try to stay not so far behind.  It's a sad fact that in the
IT sector, things change daily and equipment becomes "obsolete" faster than
I wear out a pair of shoes.  I've been pleased with the 3Com products that I
have.  The 2 times that I've needed support from 3Com, I received the
assistance that I needed.  I'm not saying that I didn't tell them what the
problem was and how I expected it to be taken care of, but it was taken care
of.  I have a service contract as a necessary evil, just like I have auto
insurance.  I also have the same on my Cisco equipment and can't say that
their support was better or worse.  The reason that I have the service
contract on my 3Com and Cisco equipment is for the software.  The prices for
the contracts were fairly comparable and is viewed as something needed to
maintain the equipment.

I have some quads out there, both analog and digital.  They're still in use
because they are cheap, paid for and do the job that I need them to.  When
they stop doing the job, they'll be unplugged and replaced with equipment
that will someday make a good quality anchor for my boat.

Lance Eves
Kanokla Communications

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mark E. Levy
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: (usr-tc) v.92 for quads update
>
>

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 16:37:31 +0000

Mind you, I've got thousands of ports of Quad-Card chassis out in the
network, but I'm forced to agree.  The whole computer industry is about
upgrades and changes.  It's been that way since the early IBM XT, and it
will be that way for a LONG time to come.

ALL things in your network should be seen as a 4-5 year investment.  Beyond
that is just not being realistic.  I'm not just talking modem chassis, I'm
talking everything from wiring to servers to storage to you-name-it.
Everything at an ISP needs upgrades to stay current, and to stay strong.
Those who don't upgrade sell their ISP to somebody that will - I know.
Voyager bought probably 35 ISP's in the past, and just about every one of
them needed major upgrades, which is why they got out.

I'm not thrilled with the fact that quad cards are EOL.  I didn't get any
fantastic deal on Netserver -> ARC upgrades, but I did it anyway.  You know
what... it probably paid for itself many times over in space savings and
administration costs.

Quad cards were great in their day, and they are still good for small POPs,
but IMO, I can't blame 3COM for ending development on them.

I'll also say again that I doubt there is enough memory in the Quad cards
to support another upgrade, given that they pulled things out of the code
just to get v92 and X2 working.

It *would* be nice if 3COM would just answer the question of "WHY"

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Curtis V. Shambeau  |  [email-masked] |  Sr Vice President |
|  CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office    |
|    "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others"      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

---

From: Joe Rinehart <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:04:30 +0000

> but IMO, I can't blame 3COM for ending development on them.

I just got a deal from another ISP on a TC1000 loaded with quad cards and I jumped
on it for the one community we must use trunk lines because PRI's aren't available
there. It's seems such a waste to use an expensive Hiper DSP card on non-PRI
circuits.

I also have a support contract with both 3COM and Cisco and even telephoned 3COM
to ask a techie's opinion as if I should even get this unit and if it could be
added to my contract! No problem, now less than a month later, I'm finding out
that I won't be able to upgrade it beyond v.90. Oh well, back to focusing on PRI
circuits and I guess, we'll just have to let those small communities suffer with
inferior phone service and remote access equpment :^(

I discovered the Quad cards a great 3COM recipe for rural access. Now, we'll have
no choice but to find other options for our rural communities....

Best 'net regards,
Joe

--
Joe Rinehart, Operations Designer Config.Com, Inc.
124 North Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266
T: 330.297.9595 F:330.296.4005 H:330.298.4396
http://joerinehart.com/ mailto:[email-masked]
finger:[email-masked]

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:29:36 +0000

Also sprach Mark E. Levy
>With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products?

For a product that has no real inherent flaws?  A *heck* of a lot longer
than 4 years!  You do realize that Cisco still *SELLS* their 2500
routers, right?  They are, what, 10 years old now?  They haven't even
reached End Of Sales on those, let along End Of Life.  Sure...they don't
support the latest and greatest, because of technical reasons.  If there
is a technical reason that the quads can't support v.92...then I'll be
satisified.  I seriously doubt that to be the case though.

>How long should any manufacturer support old products?

Cisco seems to EOL products at least 3 years after EOS.  Sometimes
longer.

>At what price? How much would those of you who don't have support
>contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the quads?

I would be more than happy to pay for support contracts from 3Com that
would include v.92 upgrades for quads.  I don't particularly want to
support the quads at the same level as DSPs and Arcs, that's goofy.  But
then, that's also one of the major problems with 3Com/CommWorks support
contract policies...you can't cover different equipment at different
levels.  If the pricing and policies were reasonable, IgLou would most
likely get 8x5xnbd support on quads, dual-pri cards, and the base
chassis, with 24x7x4hour support on DSPs and Arcs.  Instead, with
3Com/CommWorks policies, if we want to cover Arcs with 24x7x4hour
support, we have to cover our quads with the same.  Even though
3Com/CommWorks has EOL'ed them!  We have to pay for them anyway!

>Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup

And what I'm saying is that if 3Com/CommWorks doesn't start supporting
their old equipment better, then they won't be selling any of their new
equipment.  I am *NOT* going to go through this same thing 2 years from
now with...say...DSPs.

>Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with

*Please* don't tell me you're holding up M$ as a paragon of reasonable
service and support.

>How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have
>enough memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support
>V.92.

Then why on God's green earth hasn't 3Com/CommWorks *said* this.  If
this is truly the case, then I'm going to be a lot less vehement about
this situation.

What was it...3 years ago when we presented the Top 10 Gripe list to
3Com?  What was the core of a lot of those issues?  3Com *SUCKS* at
communicating with its customers.  Gee...looks like that hasn't changed
at all.

>I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but
>it's simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to
>support old equipment ad infinitum.

And you'll notice that I'm not demanding support for the dual cards
(even if they are newer than Cisco 2500's), which, again I'll point out,
I still have in service.

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:35:40 +0000

Also sprach Lance Eves
>still do the job that they were originally installed to do, but was not
>cost effective to update to handle the advances in technology.  Lucent
>has done the same.  Technology changes daily and it becomes more
>difficult to support the older hardware and make it work with the
>changes in technology.

As I pointed out in my previous message...Cisco still *sells* the 2500
routers, and they even run CEF now!  There is no way on earth that you
can compare 3Com/CommWorks support of old equipment with Cisco.  Cisco
is orders of magnitude ahead of 3Com/CommWorks on this count.

>The 2 times that I've needed support from 3Com, I received the
>assistance that I needed.

When you can afford the extortionate rates for support these days from
3Com (or during your 90 days of free support when you buy new equipment)
you can get great help from 3Com.  That's largely thanks to the likes of
Mike Wronski, Krish, Chuck Stace, Dominic Ciresi, and others (Hi guys!).
These guys are great at supporting the product, I have the utmost
respect for them.

I have absolutely zero respect for Al Huefner who seems to be doing his
best to run 3Com/CommWorks into the ground by totally screwing their
customers with support contracts.  I'll say it again...Al is, in my
estimation, personally responsible  for the loss of the bulk of the
Total Control customers that 3Com/Commworks has lost over the past
couple of years.  If I were his boss, I would have fired him long ago!

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:42:35 +0000

Also sprach Curt Shambeau
>ALL things in your network should be seen as a 4-5 year investment.

I'm glad you agree with me Curt.  I bought some of my quads about 2
years ago.

>I'll also say again that I doubt there is enough memory in the Quad
>cards to support another upgrade, given that they pulled things out of
>the code just to get v92 and X2 working.

They didn't pull anything out of the quads to get v.90 and x2 working.
I don't say that this *isn't* the problem with v.92, but I'm *extremely*
skeptical of it.  Shoot...I'd say pull x2 out if you need to make room
for v.92.  x2 never worked very well anyway.

>It *would* be nice if 3COM would just answer the question of "WHY"

Amen there.

-

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 05:21:35 +0000

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Curt Shambeau wrote:

> that is just not being realistic.

What if the 4-5 year old equipment (actually my quads are more like 3.5
years old) does a better job than the brand new stuff.  I still have a
hunt dedicated to quads for a mess of mac customers, and other Rockwell
oddities that just cannot connect to DSP cards.  Period.

I appreciate the new form factor of the DSP cards, but I'm still not
convinced that they actually perform better than the older product...

Charles

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:38:20 +0000

> is orders of magnitude ahead of 3Com/CommWorks on this count.

Yeah... so???  That's a router.  How much has v.35 interfaces changed over
the last 10 years.  How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last
10 years?

Now, take the proper comparison (not one that just fits your cause), such
as the Cisco 5200, which will not support v.92, and we have a real life
comparison of a like product.  A comparison of a technology that changes
every year.

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:49:26 +0000

>Yeah... so???  That's a router.  How much has v.35 interfaces changed
>over the last 10 years.  How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the
>last 10 years?

You're saying router technology hasn't changed much over the past 10
years?  What color is the sky in your world?  ;)

>Now, take the proper comparison (not one that just fits your cause),
>such as the Cisco 5200, which will not support v.92, and we have a real
>life comparison of a like product.  A comparison of a technology that
>changes every year.

OK...its not a direct comparison...but its still good.  Cisco 2500's
don't/can't support the latest and greatest stuff due to technological
limitations.  But you'll notice that Cisco didn't just drop the product
on the floor.

If this'd been 3Com/CommWorks, they'd probably disavow any knowledge of
the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the
technology allows.

-

---

From: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:17:31 +0000

> years?  What color is the sky in your world?  ;)

Ummm.... Today it's kinda blue-grey.   8*)    Geez, we even had some snow
flurries today... Cold nasty day.  Anyway...

The thought I was trying to get across is that the interfaces available to
that router support technologies that have not changed in a LONG time.  T1
lines have not changed, 10Base-T ethernet hasn't changed, v.35 serial
interfaces have not changed, ISDN BRI hasn't changed.   I'm not saying
routers have not changed... I'm saying that routers *IN THIS CLASS* haven't
changed too much.

> the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the

Can't deny that.  I'm guessing when the 26xx series came out, 3COM would
have dropped the 25xx.  Do I think that is a bad thing?  Not really.
I still use 2500's in our network, although most have been replaced with
2600's.  I still use quad modems in our network, but most have been
replaced with HDM's.

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:21:35 +0000

> the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the

How about the Livingston PM3?  There are quite a few of those out there
and Lucent stopped software development for that product, which means no
V.92. I'd have to say there's as many small ISP's with 3Com gear as
PM3's.

Also, don't you think those people who spent hundreds of thousands on
Cisco AS5800's aren't bitching that they will never get V.92 without
spending and additional hundreds of thousands on new modems?

We all made choices, when 3Com offered to take my Quads when I was
purchasing new ports, I boxed them up and mailed them back faster than
you can say "problem avoided." Now let's see what they do with V.92 in
terms of cost.

-Ron
GLISnet, Inc.
810/786.0454

-

---

From: Jim Tarvid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:36:06 +0000

> the last 10 years.  How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last
Is 3com stuff carrier grade equipment? If so, my phone companies are running switches more than 5 years old.

I don't think we have to support 300 and 1200 baud modems anymore and
LCP could be a lot leaner.

As for v.92, I would settle for faster connections and live without the
fancy voice features.

Releasing code for EOL-ed boxes would be a stroke of genius.  If you are
depending on "trade secrets" from five years ago in this business, you
are in trouble. If you are relying on 5 year old open standards you are
probably on the right track.

Jim Tarvid

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:50:23 +0000

Also sprach Ronald Kushner
>and Lucent stopped software development for that product, which means
>no V.92. I'd have to say there's as many small ISP's with 3Com gear as
>PM3's.

Yup, and I just got off the phone with Tom Goodman who told me that he
talked to a large number of people that were out to get Lucent's blood
for that move.

Part of the problem here is that the Total Control stuff...including the
quads...were *always* sold with the idea of being software upgradeable
to the latest and greatest.  Now we're finding that it "software
upgradeable, unless its inconvenient for 3Com/CommWorks to do so."

>you can say "problem avoided." Now let's see what they do with V.92 in

Yup, and I took advantage of that deal as much as I could, but for those
of us that already had a large installed base of equipment, we didn't
have enough equipment purchases during that time period to upgrade all
of our equipment.

-

---

From: Jeff Mcadams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:55:32 +0000

Also sprach Jim Tarvid
>> over the last 10 years.  How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over
>> the last 10 years?

>Is 3com stuff carrier grade equipment? 

That's what they claim.  The Total Control was part of the Carrier Group
within 3Com before CommWorks was spun off.

>If so, my phone companies are running switches more than 5 years old.

Shoot...BellSouth is running swithes that are 20 years old in some
cases.

>LCP could be a lot leaner.

x2 could certainly be ditched as far as I'm concerned assuming this is a
memory constraint.

>As for v.92, I would settle for faster connections and live without the

Yup, and I certainly won't complain if v.59 is not ever available for
quads.  I'd love to have it, but v.92 is the only "must-have" upgrade
really needed.

>Releasing code for EOL-ed boxes would be a stroke of genius.  If you
>are depending on "trade secrets" from five years ago in this business,
>you are in trouble. If you are relying on 5 year old open standards you
>are probably on the right track.

The problem with open sourcing here is that there are patent issues with
just about any modem code.  Reading the linmodems list and web site, any
modem faster than...I think they said 9600baud...has patent constraints
on it.

Like the comparison with the cisco 2500 though, just because a piece of
equipment can't do all of the latest and greatest doesn't mean it has to
be EOL'ed.  *This*, with the possible exception of support issues, is
probably the A#1 thing that 3Com/CommWorks needs to learn.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: [email-masked]
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456

-