-troy
sig = ["Troy Harris", "Digitaldune Networks"]
----------------------------------------------------
Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th
U.S. Congress this letter can not be considered spam
----------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, FamilyNet Tech Support wrote:
> We have problems with the PM3 and older modems too. One customer was using
> an older USR Sportster 28.8 and can connect only 1 out of 12 times (but
> "ALWAYS" connects to MSN -- I can't tell you how many times he has told us
> that :-). Some people have problems connecting the first try (it usually
> works if they try again). The most stable modems with the PM3 tend to be
> based on Rockwell chipsets (don't have many lucent chipset modems
> available..but they may be better :-), but only the newer versions (with the
> correct v.90 code). We did notice an improvement in customer complaints
> when we switched to ComOs 3.8.2, but problem reports still keep coming in.
> I think that maybe we should find the best modem (v.90) and bulk-order a
> case of them and give them away to our customers when they complain. Humm..
> but then there is the installation support calls that you would have to
> take... any guesses on when 3.9 is due out? <gr>
>
> Jason A. Cox
> Family Net, Inc. - jason@familynet.net
> (918) 663-7134 - FAX (918) 663-7136
> 7935 East 57th Street - Tulsa, OK 74145
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Troy Harris <tharris@digitaldune.net>
> To: <portmaster-users@livingston.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: (PM) Modem Code
>
>
> > I disagree. From my point of view, something is seriously wrong with the
> PM3
> > modem code. I'm sure it works fine for MOST people, but in our town it is
> a
> > different story. We see massive modem problems with our PM3s. You say it
> > might be that we just have bad copper? Well, we recently moved our offices
> > to a new part of town and our PRIs go through a totally different CO
> now...
> > Still the same problems.
> >
> > 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
>
>
> -
> 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/>