Every Remote Access product on the market has severe flaws and while I
think the PM-3 is among the better of the group, the PM-4 is still
absolute garbage IMHO. Manufactuers of this equipment knowingly and
intentionally ripped off the public and have not made a concerted effort
to fix the problems... Worse yet we are seeing $19.95 modems flooding
the market everywhere, these modems are garbage... No support from the
manufactuers, and to make matters worse the Tech Support costs fall
through to the ISP.... To the level of making it impossible to run a
business where we deal with the real issues of networking.
I may end up sending all my customers to buy LT win-modems, and sending
them to Lucent to figure out why they cannot get 56k Connects. If the
solution is Lucent on both ends, then it should be up to Lucent to fix
it.... Or maybe we should blame the PTSN which is no doubt part of the
problem as well...
I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE PUBLIC AT LARGE SUE'S THE BELLS AND THE
MANUFACTUERS OF THIS CRAP FOR FALSE ADVERTISING... THE PUBLIC WILL
EVENTUALLY GET IT... AND THEY WILL BE PISSED.
I AM TIRED OF CLEANING UP THE MESS CREATED BY YOU, TAKE SOME
RESPONSIBILITY.
ANOTHER PISSED OFF ISP... BTW 3.8.2 SUCKS, I TOO HAVE BACKED OUT.
Network One
Shawn Ring wrote:
>
> I would have to agree with Tim below. We have POP sites in Alabama,
> Atlanta, Phoenix, Idaho and Oregon. All running PM3s and a combination of
> PRI and CT1s. I am having connection issues across the board. My member
> base is constantly saying that since we have moved to digital our service
> has come to be unreliable. I have been a staunch supporter of
> Livingston/Lucent Portmasters. Primarily the PM2E and PM25. The PM3,
> though the interfaces is a continued managing success, the code is scary.
> We just sent our PM4 back, and purchased 6 more PM3s. I now currently have
> 23 PM3s in my network. I am starting to waiver on my allegiance.
>
> I can't have both boxes out at every site. It would be a capital
> intensive nightmare. I have to have a solution that is close as possible,
> if that means going with a different box so be it. If I cant make a $1 to
> buy equipment..who cares about the equipment you can't buy!
>
> Notice though, I am still using my PM3s. I started loving Portmasters...I
> hope I don't end up hating em going out. I would like to know what Lucent
> is planning on doing. I can wait for a sooner then later solution, not
> silence. Tech support is starting to get to a ridiculous member/tech ratio!
> I can't count how many people who say, "I can connect to so and so...why
> not you?!?!?!?"
>
> Don't tell me its my telco, I am running both PRI and CT1s. USWest, ICI,
> Bell South, ELI, GST, GTE, and Nextlink to name a few. I have been over
> the telco reasonings over and over again.
>
> Shawn
>
> >Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:04:29 -0600
> >From: Tim Tsai <tim@futuresouth.com>
> >To: Tony Harris <tony@elroynet.com>,
> > PortMaster Users <portmaster-users@livingston.com>
> >Subject: Re: (PM) looking for opinions - PM3 (fwd)
> >X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
> >Sender: owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com
> >Reply-To: Tim Tsai <tim@futuresouth.com>
> >
> > I have managed USR TC's before and I absolutely hated it. However from
> >the customer's perspective the modem code is what they encounter first
> >and a clean connect *might* be worth the additional hassle of dealing
> >with USR both product and company wise. Personally I'd rather Lucent
> >improve the PM3.
> >
> > Also we have POP's all over the place and it's not practical to have
> >both PM3 and USR in all the POP's.
> >
>
> -
> 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/>