Our competitor just recently switched over to PM3s and they lost a ton of
business because of so many people not being able to connect with the new
modems. Of course when they tried to signup with us, they had the same
problems. Our other competitors running Total Control or Accend NASes have a
much higher success of working with various modems.
I guess I might have made that out to sound worst than it really is. For
most of our users, everything is fine and we get better connect speeds than
our non-PM3 competitors. But I would say we lose about 10% of new sign-ups
because of modem problems and another 10% have them, but stick with us for
one reason or another.
I'm not saying that the modem code is totally useless, but I just don't
think it can handle bad phone lines or bad modems as well as the
competitors. It is no secret that the PM3s have flakey code, lots of people
at ISPF were joking about it, so I would suggest that Lucent start working
on this problem if only for PRs sake.
Troy Harris
Digitaldune Networks
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Slagle <raistlin@tacorp.net>
To: <portmaster-users@livingston.com>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 1999 11:01 AM
Subject: (PM) Modem Code
> This is my take on the whole thing.. The fact that it works for MOST
> people shows to me that the code obviously works. If the code was bad or
> at fault here, we would ALL be having problems, therefore I can conclude
> this is not the sole cause here.
>
> Most of us have a technical background, very related to scientific. Take
> a look at this in that light. You say your compeitor gets clean connects
> on his equipment. Has it occured to you that it is possible his line it
> set up different, or his copper segment is cleaner?
>
> Frankly, I don't buy it. I've browsed the mailing archives and seen the
> same gripes from the other NAS vendors lists. Someone on the USR list
> actually went as far as to recommend turning v.90 and k56 off alltogether
> on Rockwell HCF, and LT Winmodems.
>
> We have had our fair share of modem issues, and they HAVE gotten a little
> better and worse with the various releases. Like someone said before,
> there are 10000 modem manufactures and 4 NAS vendors. It seems to me that
> you see the performance of X modem brands go up, and X modem brands go
> down with each release.
>
> Every problem we have expiereinced has been solveable with a little bit of
> homework on the tech's end, and an init string or driver update. If it's
> a big problem, setup a server the user can dial into with hyperterm, TAG
> or Telegard on an old DOS machine, and hang a modem from it and put the
> latest firmware on it to download.
>
> You people with E1 timing issues and that, I am not directing this at you,
> that is a known issue, and it does need resolved, but I do not buy the
> whole "Lucent's modem code is the cause of ALL my problems" theory.
>
> Please, kill the whining thread. Maybe someone should email lucent and
> request a portmaster-whiners mailing list.
>
> Jason
>
> ---
> Jason Slagle
> Network Administrator - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio
> - raistlin@tacorp.net - jslagle@toledolink.com - WHOIS JS10172
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>