RE: (PM) Modem Code (fwd)

James Courtier-Dutton (dutton@livingston-ent.co.uk)
Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:51:13 +0100

Hello Derric
I think you a probably right here, although I personally have never seen any
connect problems, from reading this list, I get the impression that things
could be improved.
As most of you know by now, there is currently a Closed Beta dealing
specifically with possible modem issues. I suggest that if you are willing
to do the extra work and provide debug information for Lucent, that you send
a request to Mercedes,"mck@livingston.com" for including yourself in the
Closed beta. Please note that if the PM modem code problem is widespread,
they probably have more than enough customers working with Mercedes on the
closed beta program. If they already think they have enough, you will not be
included.
Lucent customers who just want a fix should not sent any email to Mercedes,
as your email will just get ignored. Once they do get some significantly
better modem code which is stable, they will release it to everyone.
I would like to stress that Modem code is a very important issue with
Lucent, and all possible effort is being put in to release it ASAP.
Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com
> [mailto:owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com]On Behalf Of Derric Scott
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 03:32
> To: portmaster-users@livingston.com
> Subject: Re: (PM) Modem Code (fwd)
>
>
>
> Hello:
>
> > 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
>
> I've been using Portmasters forever and love the product. However I
> think it is very clear that it has serious shortcomings in the modem
> code in certain areas and needs improvement. It is also clear that
> Lucent has very little interest in trying to find some of these
> shortcomings and fix them (even when WE'VE already found them and can
> repeat them).
>
> The poor phone line connection problems are proveable time and again.
> The main shortcoming area is on poor lines. I have numerous repeatable
> customers (former customers) who CAN NEVER GET A CONNECTION AT ALL TO A
> PM3 - I mean it will warble on and on and on. The same customer can
> switch over to MindSpring and GET A STABLE CONNECITON. Over and over,
> numerous customers. Now, these customers only get a 19200 or 21600
> connection with MindSpring BUT IT IS ***STABLE***. That's all the
> customer or I am asking for - a stable connection on poor lines - I
> don't care at what speed! Also, FYI, these same customers can connect
> solidly to an external Courier here, no problem. It is clearly the
> PM3's modem code. Again note, I'm talking specifically about STABILITY
> at LOW speeds on POOR lines here, not statistics about high speed
> connections, etc. - we get plenty of those like everyone else.
> I'm talking
> about debugging a very specific area of modem code that definitely
> needs work.
>
> We are PRI, co-located (0 local loop), no errors, etc etc etc.
> It is not our setup (the vast majority have no problem connecting).
>
> I've talked to Lucent Tech support and, basically, they dialed in from
> CA and got 50000 and said that there was obviously no problem - missing
> the whole point (THEY ARE NOT ON A POOR LINE!).... and again, the point
> is that Portmasters have real problems negotiating a stable connection,
> or a connection at all, FOR POOR LINES!
>
> I've told Lucent that I have customers with repeatable problems
> standing by
> to help debug and improve the code, but there is little interest, since
> it connects on medium to good lines well with most modems I guess.
>
> Sure, for 60% of the problem customers we can spend time on the phone and
> get them to plug in a modem init string and get the speed down and make it
> connect. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that the modem should
> negotiate a STABLE, LOWER connect speed. The other vendors (especially
> USR) do it with no problem. Lucent should spend some time in this area
> of code (I suspect that their time is spent trying to make the top end
> go even faster rather than get the poor line connections stable).
>
> Finally, then, there's the 40% of the problem customers who can't ever
> connect at all no matter what modem string is used. We just lose these
> guys even tho' many of them almost beg us to fix the problem so they can
> stay! That really hurts!
>
> We're currently pursuing adding a separate modem pool, perhaps with
> Couriers or perhaps an alternate NAS for these customers. This is a
> REAL PAIN since we're already paying for modem equipment, phone service
> , etc etc etc. AND THE PM3 SHOULD DO THIS FOR US! But for us (and MOST on
> this list), providing quality service for everyone and keeping every
> customer is important.
>
> Sorry for the long post.
>
> Derric
>
>
> --
> Derric Scott Idea-Works, LLC / Scott.Net. P. O.
> Box 361353
> dtscott@idea-works.net (205)987-5889
> Birmingham, AL 35236
> -
> 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/>