long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :) We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of: a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up). We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999. We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost: 50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble) 40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes 10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000 Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action. Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote: "When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free." This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable. On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also: 1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations. The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business. Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl. ============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
You are correct... it is not an option as I stated to give away Modems to customers to solve this problem. 3com has confirmed there are issues with the current V90 in their chassis'. We raised their attention to this issue and they are currently working on the code for connection issues such as the ones mentioned. We have an Ascend MAX that we acquired from an aqcuistition and this is how we came to find out that 3com wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. We kinda have a feeling of betrayal... told for years that 3com was the absolute best in 56K/V90 and other connections and then all of a sudden find out that the wool was pulled over our eyes. At least they could have continued to improve their server V90 code... instead of denying there were any issues with the V90 or blaming it solely on the client side. People have been telling us for months that they dialup AOsmell, Earthstink, or Mindsling and connect at 53,333 and can't understand why they have such problems with our system... well now we know... those guys use Ascend! For now we will stick with 3com... however everyday that goes by it becomes more difficult to justify... Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :) We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of: a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up). We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999. We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost: 50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble) 40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes 10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000 Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action. Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote: "When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free." This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable. On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also: 1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations. The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business. Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl. ============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
I always thought that AOL was 3COM's biggest NAS account. JJ Ed wrote:
You are correct... it is not an option as I stated to give away Modems to customers to solve this problem.
3com has confirmed there are issues with the current V90 in their chassis'. We raised their attention to this issue and they are currently working on the code for connection issues such as the ones mentioned.
We have an Ascend MAX that we acquired from an aqcuistition and this is how we came to find out that 3com wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. We kinda have a feeling of betrayal... told for years that 3com was the absolute best in 56K/V90 and other connections and then all of a sudden find out that the wool was pulled over our eyes. At least they could have continued to improve their server V90 code... instead of denying there were any issues with the V90 or blaming it solely on the client side. People have been telling us for months that they dialup AOsmell, Earthstink, or Mindsling and connect at 53,333 and can't understand why they have such problems with our system... well now we know... those guys use Ascend!
For now we will stick with 3com... however everyday that goes by it becomes more difficult to justify...
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :)
We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of:
a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up).
We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999.
We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost:
50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble)
40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes
10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000
Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action.
Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote:
"When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free."
This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable.
On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also:
1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations.
The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business.
Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl.
============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Yes they probably are considering AOL's size but AOL also uses third party POP's to my knowledge and in our area it is Ascend because it has Ascends pre-tone. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Johnson <jim@perigee.net> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 11:10 AM Subject: Re: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends I always thought that AOL was 3COM's biggest NAS account. JJ Ed wrote:
You are correct... it is not an option as I stated to give away Modems to customers to solve this problem.
3com has confirmed there are issues with the current V90 in their
chassis'.
We raised their attention to this issue and they are currently working on the code for connection issues such as the ones mentioned.
We have an Ascend MAX that we acquired from an aqcuistition and this is how we came to find out that 3com wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. We kinda have a feeling of betrayal... told for years that 3com was the absolute best in 56K/V90 and other connections and then all of a sudden find out that the wool was pulled over our eyes. At least they could have continued to improve their server V90 code... instead of denying there were any issues with the V90 or blaming it solely on the client side. People have been telling us for months that they dialup AOsmell, Earthstink, or Mindsling and connect at 53,333 and can't understand why they have such problems with our system... well now we know... those guys use Ascend!
For now we will stick with 3com... however everyday that goes by it becomes more difficult to justify...
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :)
We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of:
a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up).
We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999.
We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost:
50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble)
40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes
10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000
Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action.
Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote:
"When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free."
This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable.
On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also:
1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations.
The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business.
Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl.
============================================================================
Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Ed wrote:
You are correct... it is not an option as I stated to give away Modems to customers to solve this problem.
3com has confirmed there are issues with the current V90 in their chassis'. We raised their attention to this issue and they are currently working on the code for connection issues such as the ones mentioned.
Did I miss a post regarding this, or did you learn this through private conversation? I feel an official response is called for at this time. An appropriate response from 3COM on this, could delay or event prevent our multi-vendor deployment if a timely solution is in the works. --jeff ============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Yes you must have...I started the whole discussion "3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends" weeks ago. We had to prove to 3com that V90 wasn't working properly on their systems. They are now actively pursuing a resolution to the issue. We can only HOPE it blows Ascends doors off....best of both worlds is our hope. Wouldn't it be amazing if all the 3com ISP's started connecting better than all the Ascend ISP's? I would image that this would incourage other ISP's to switch to 3com and thus 3com would benefit... wonder why they didn't think of that? ;-) Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 11:37 AM Subject: Re: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Ed wrote:
You are correct... it is not an option as I stated to give away Modems to customers to solve this problem.
3com has confirmed there are issues with the current V90 in their chassis'. We raised their attention to this issue and they are currently working on the code for connection issues such as the ones mentioned.
Did I miss a post regarding this, or did you learn this through private conversation? I feel an official response is called for at this time. An appropriate response from 3COM on this, could delay or event prevent our multi-vendor deployment if a timely solution is in the works. --jeff ============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Ed wrote:
People have been telling us for months that they dialup AOsmell, Earthstink, or Mindsling and connect at 53,333 and can't understand why they have such problems with our system... well now we know... those guys use Ascend!
As for AOL, I understood they were USR, but they actually just signed a big deal with Cisco. The last article I saw about Mindspring in one of those trade rags showed their CTO standing in front of huge banks of USR stuff... The only one I know is mostly Ascend is Earthlink. RCN is an Ascend shop as well... Keep in mind most of those problems can also be attributed to your lines. Our CLEC is currently in the process of retesting all of their trunks out to the tandems and end-offices as they've found the ILEC is misconfiguring lots of them. Symptoms are very similar, but the standout is if you see more errors in one direction; there's a 80-some percent chance there's a line coding mismatche somewhere. Charles
For now we will stick with 3com... however everyday that goes by it becomes more difficult to justify...
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :)
We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of:
a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up).
We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999.
We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost:
50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble)
40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes
10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000
Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action.
Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote:
"When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free."
This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable.
On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also:
1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations.
The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business.
Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl.
============================================================================ Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Man trust me... I know the difference. I am speaking of proven facts not Hypotheses. 3com has definitely got an issue. And they are working on it. Please don't stand up and speak about line issues when we know it's not line issues... We ran test after test and even sat the Ascends right beside the 3com's... unplugged the T1 from the 3com and put it in the Ascend and what do you know the person connected at V90 speeds (NOT KFLEX OR X2) everytime. The 3com would hit V90 about every 10th try if they were lucky. Also there was no stability issues with the Ascends where as the 3com had some. We tested with 3com Sportsters, Supra's, and generic modems. Connected fine with Ascend and faltered with 3com. And all this was confirmed by 3com... AOL, Earthlink and Mindspring ALL use Ascend in our area. Ascend has a distinct pre-tone... I know they are Ascends. These guys don't run their own POPs in most cases and whore out the business through third party POP vendors... that could be using anything. So what do you say now Mr. Sprickman? Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 2:22 PM Subject: Re: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Ed wrote:
People have been telling us for months that they dialup AOsmell, Earthstink, or Mindsling and connect at 53,333 and can't understand why they have such problems with our system... well now we know... those guys use Ascend!
As for AOL, I understood they were USR, but they actually just signed a big deal with Cisco. The last article I saw about Mindspring in one of those trade rags showed their CTO standing in front of huge banks of USR stuff... The only one I know is mostly Ascend is Earthlink. RCN is an Ascend shop as well... Keep in mind most of those problems can also be attributed to your lines. Our CLEC is currently in the process of retesting all of their trunks out to the tandems and end-offices as they've found the ILEC is misconfiguring lots of them. Symptoms are very similar, but the standout is if you see more errors in one direction; there's a 80-some percent chance there's a line coding mismatche somewhere. Charles
For now we will stick with 3com... however everyday that goes by it becomes more difficult to justify...
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Lynch <jeff@mercury.jorsm.com> To: <usr-tc@lists.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 10:26 AM Subject: long -- Re: (usr-tc) 3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascends
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Allen Marsalis wrote:
At 01:24 AM 8/10/99 -0400, Ed wrote:
3com not doing V.90 as well as Ascend's.....
We have tested and found it to be true that Ascend's authenticate and work at V.90 speeds much more often than 3com. It even happens when using a 3com/USR modem. It takes certain a certain situation for this to happen but it does happen...
Just wondered if others out there have noticed it or had their competitors using Ascend's have customers that say "Well I get 56K speeds on so and so Internet Service, why not yours?"
We have been 100% USR/3COM for 3 years and we recently received a Max TNT for eval to address the above problem.. Both chassis will be at the same NOC. 2 new PRI's for the TNT should be up this week.. I'll keep you posted as to the results and try to provide some statistical data..
Sorry for the length here, but I think it's a good read, eventhough I did write it myself :)
We did some churn analysis for customers that are no longer active or no longer customers. We looked at at customers lost since March 1999 because of:
a) reported problems connecting, staying connected, or poor performance b) unexplained non-payers/dead-beats c) customers cancelled but did not give a reason (and did not return our calls when we tried to followed up).
We had 103 total cancellations for these reasons since March 1999.
We had enough data to determine that 57% of these 103 had problems were directly attributable to connection quality. Of these 59 (103*0.57) customers lost:
50% of them had not established a connection in 1999 (many of them reported this trouble)
40% had a large number of <1 minute connections, and showed a pattern of having to redial when they did stay on longer than a few minutes
10% had connect speeds that varied more than a few "rungs" between 2400-52000
Let's see...If we had an alternate modem pool with a different NAS type, we might have saved these 59 customers. That's about $1000/month at an average revenue of $17/customer/month. We are still likely to continue loosing more if we don't take action.
Alternatively Scot Desort <scot@njaccess.net>, wrote:
"When all else fails, pull $35 out of petty cash and send the customer a Paradise Winmodem (LT chipset, PCI), for free. These things are GREAT, will save you hours of tech support headaches, and inevitably win you over a customer that, in the long run, is worth a lot more than the $35 you spent on the modem. We even offer to install it for free if they bring the box in. Let's remember that the goal is to KEEP the customer a PAYING customer. And nothing makes them more warm and fuzzy then getting something for free."
This is interesting. Upgrading these customer's modems would have cost us $2065 in hardware and perhaps $400-500 in labor estimated to retain the $1000/month in revenue if this actually fixed the problem. I can see several problems though. You could get a considerable number of calls from unhappy customers like "my friend got a free modem now he gets 52K but I only get 42K or 28.8K. I want one too." The customer's computer needs to be sufficiently powered to run with a winmodem. How much time is spent explaining that only certain customers qualify and how exactly are those qualifications set? This also doesn't account for telco line issues. Many customers now can't even tell you what kind of modem they have or what processor they have, others may guess or argue that their's _should_ qualify for the free upgrade. For the program to not piss off any other customers, it needs to be made available to everyone. Otherwise trouble seems inevitable.
On the other hand, although it takes some capital (not much with eq leasing and zero install PRIs) and increases network complexity a little, it's not that big of a deal for a reasonably clued provider to add another NAS and move PRIs over to them in a separate hunt or just install a couple new PRIs and gradually grow the alternate modem pool. But really doesn't add much cost to the operation in the long run and the customers are retained as well. Also:
1) it's available to everyone, 2) it only takes a minute to help them change phone numbers 3) and in most cases, if this doesn't solve the problem, they're not likely to be satisfied with anyone else and helps prove the problem is theirs, motivating them to follow your recommedations.
The main thing that tweaks me is having to take this action in the first place. Not to mention that we've got 7 or 8 hdsps from quad trades and arc upgrades and such that we are paying for but won't be using this year now, depending on the demand for the alternate pool. Cost of doing business.
Time to get a MAX on eval and give it a whirl.
============================================================================
Jeffrey A. Lynch | JORSM Internet, Regional Internet Services email: jeff@jorsm.com | 7 Area Codes in Chicagoland and NW Indiana Voice: (219)322-2180 | 100Mbps+ Connectivity, 56K-DS3, V.90, ISDN Autoresponse: info@jorsm.com | Quality Service, Affordable Prices http://www.jorsm.com | Serving Gov, Biz, Indivds Since 1995
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
participants (4)
-
Charles Sprickman -
Ed -
Jeff Lynch -
Jim Johnson