Randy
==========================
Randy Sigler - Tech Support
Ziggycom Online
502.365.1300 - Phone
502.388.1385 - Pager
-------------------------------
* Ziggycom is YOUR Home Town ISP ! *
Ziggycom is dedicated to giving you....
helpful,friendly,personal service for your
online experience! We DO INTERNET!
* Online experience since 1985 *
http://www.ziggycom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Baird <bairdc@xpressweb.com>
To: <portmaster-users@livingston.com>; <portmaster-modems@livingston.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 1:37 PM
Subject: (PM) Lucent support & modem problems
> I think it's time I chimed in here. I was *extremely* impressed with
> Lucent's attentiveness during the betas. Lucent practically bent over
> backwards to fix some of the modem issues that our users were having.
> We also found an excellent balance with what is now 3.8.2c2.
>
> This brings me to my point: If you're having trouble with a particular
> modem, by all means *report it to support*!!!!! After upgrading to
> 3.8.2, our Cirrus Logic users suddenly could not connect. They worked
> fine with 3.8, but 3.8.2 killed them. I immediately downgraded back to
> 3.8, and e-mailed support. Within a few days, a Lucent engineer was in
> my PM3 running traces.
>
> When Lucent started the beta program, they e-mailed me and asked if I
> wanted to participate. I obviously told them yes! Participating in the
> beta was *a lot* of work--I was constantly asked for trace after trace
> from various modems we were having trouble with, but look at the
> results: *All* of the modem issues that we reported are fixed in
> 3.8.2c2. It makes me wonder if those who are always complaining about
> modem code on the lists have ever informed support about their
> problems. If they participated in the beta, did they give feedback? I
> know that I was told, not long after the beta started, that Lucent had
> cut some of their initial beta sites from the beta program because they
> weren't providing any feedback. We were one of the sites they kept
> because we provided constant feedback on how things were working with
> each new beta revision. We supplied them with traces each time they
> asked for them (I'd say I ran close to 50 traces on various modems
> during the beta). It was time consuming, but guess what!?!?! My modem
> issues are *fixed*. Maybe if more people had reported their problems to
> support, and participated in the beta, and given feedback, more problems
> would be fixed! Maybe there are too many people out there who think that
> Lucent can wave a magic wand and automatically fix all the modem
> problems in ComOS. They need feedback from users through proper support
> channels!
>
> One of the things that frustrate me the most in the ISP business is the
> number of people who go around telling others that they're having such
> and such a problem with their account with us, and that we suck because
> we never fix it. In most cases, these users have *never* previously
> called our support lines to let us know there was a problem. I mean
> really, how can we fix a problem that we don't know about! By the same
> token, how can Lucent fix ComOS without feedback on what's happening???
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that every PM3 owner who has
> complained on the list about 3.8.2 should have participated in the
> beta. If you are one of those, and you didn't participate in the beta,
> why? Is it because you didn't report the issue to Lucent??? I ended up
> in the beta for one reason: I reported problems with Cirrus Logic based
> modems to support. I can only assume that anyone who reported specific
> modem problems to support would have also ended up in the beta. Am I
> wrong?
>
> Obviously, there are a few exceptions to this. For example, the
> European users who are having E1 problems, etc. I can't really speak
> for them because from what I understand, their support process is
> different from that used here in the states. So there may be problems
> or breakdowns there--I don't know. Also, I know that there are some
> people who have stated that they have reported trouble to support
> without any response. If this is the case, then it's wrong. Lucent
> needs to be attentive to the needs of all its customers. Maybe my
> experience was the exception rather than the norm, but I don't think
> so. Anyway, my intent here is not to offend anyone, but to say that I
> think Lucent is doing a great job! Sure there are problems, but they're
> working on it, and from what I've experienced, they're more than willing
> to fix those problems if they have people who are willing to report them
> as well as troubleshoot and help isolate them.
>
> I hope I haven't violated my NDA in talking a little about the beta.
> I'm assuming that since the beta is over, it's okay to talk about it.
> If not, sorry, Lucent!
>
> Okay, I'll climb off my soapbox now... :-)
>
> Craig
> Xpressweb Internet Services
> bairdc@xpressweb.com
> http://www.xpressweb.com
> -
> 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/>