Re: (PM) USR TC (dont wait)

Adam Greene (maillist@webjogger.net)
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:30:17 -0400

We purchased a Cisco AS5200 to complement our PM3 (having been scared =
away from the USR-TC). We have been very happy with having another type =
of NAS we can refer customers to. Even though some people have problems =
with both NAS's, it still takes quite a load off to not have to look for =
modem upgrades for as many customers. However, the reduced technical =
support hours are balanced by a slight increase in administration time =
required to maintain two different types of NAS's. I think that's where =
Cisco really excels, though -- I have been very happy with their =
technical support.

Adam
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Seraphin <nicks@homer.eaglequest.com>
To: Jay Teutenberg <jay@advertisnet.com>
Cc: portmaster-users@livingston.com <portmaster-users@livingston.com>
Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: (PM) USR TC (dont wait)

On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Jay Teutenberg wrote:

>=20
> I have been running pm3's (solely) for about a year now, and even=20
> though several people have put down the USR Total Control for having=20
> equal problems, I recently broke down and bought one. I shouldnt=20
> have waited so long. So far, ALL our users who were experiencing=20
> disconnects and negotiation problems, have changed to the TC,
> and ALL their problems of this type are solved.

Sounds *exactly* like us. We bought and installed our first USR TC unit
last week. We had 3 pm3's... and the USR's were a lifesaver. It's
amazing we lasted so long without buying the USR box. (Well, 3com, but
you know what I mean).

>=20
> In my opinion, anyone running large pools of PM3's without
> running an alternative term server is making a serious mistake.=20
> I wish I had made the USR TC my second term server.

I agree.

> The configuration of it wasnt the nightmare everyone tried to
> scare me into believing. If its slightly more expensive, thats ok,
> I figure it just got several hundred complaining users off my=20
> back. We were in serious danger of becoming known as the ISP with the
> most disconnects/negotiation problems. We were the only ISP
> in our area running pm3's.

Exactly the same here, except that other ISP's in our area use PM3's =
too.
However, most of the PM3 ISP's also have other boxes they use as well.

The configuration was a lot easier than everyone said. Scare tactics I
guess. Anyway, it was pretty simple.. and it solved our problems so =
far.
We've been *slowly* migrating customers to it... the ones that are =
having
problems with the PM3's... and a very large percentage (not all) are
extremely happy with the USR box. These same users CANNOT use the PM3's
no matter what they try to do.

I like the PM3's... and I wish I could rely on them as my single
solution... but I can't. The USR/3com box is the miracle I've been
waiting for. I'm so glad I gave in and bought it.

If you can afford to have more than 1 modem pool... I highly recommend =
you
do it.

-- Nick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Nick Seraphin nick@eaglequest.com
President http://www.eaglequest.com/
EagleQuest, Inc. (248) 650-4700
Internet Access Services Rochester, Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----

-
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/>