>My user got an Answer from Supra/Diamond. > >The answer is: "Rockwell released beta firmware for their 56K modems in >a "beta" chipset. Lot's of modem manufacturer's used this beta firmware >to get modems to market. Rockwell is now telling us that we have to recall >all of these modems and switch to "RAM Based" modems instead of "ROM Based" >modems. The "RAM Based" modem is out for Windows, but is not out yet for >the Macintosh [this user is a Macintosh user]." > >My user's response is that he's returning the modem where he got it and is >suggesting that people NOT buy the Diamond modems since the majority of the >modems on the shelves will be this "Beta firmware" modem. This sounds like great fun and games. Open the weapons locker and break out the riot gear boys, it is time for another seige! Let's try to track the sequence of events: a) An end-user hears about "56K" from any one of a number of possible sources, and decides to spend his money to "upgrade" to 56K. a1) If he buys an X2 modem from USR, he is limited to 33.6Kbps simply because USR took so long to buy a vowel on the subject of standards. (Unless, of course we go out and get some USR racks as an "interim solution" for a subset of of out customers, which would be rewarding USR for their high-handed tactics.) a2) If he buys a K56Flex modem, he must try to find out what the REV of the modem is to insure that it is not "Rockwell beta code/hardware". Since the sales channels can be assume to be loaded with "beta modems", he may have a hard time finding anything that is known to be "production firmware/hardware". a2a) There is no easy way to do this, since it appears that different modem makers are using their own hardware/firmware rev numbers. a2b) Given Mr. Pickering's findings ["Rockwell is now telling us that we have to recall all of these modems and switch to 'RAM Based' modems instead of 'ROM Based' modems."], it seems that the customer must go through an RMA with the modem vendor. The historical track-record of modem makers in this area is not good, and there are known cases where the modem maker has blamed the ISP, thus trashing the credibility of the ISP, who is working hard, spending money, and honestly trying to HELP the customer use the vendor's modem. a2c) If he is lucky, the modem maker does not require swapping the modem, has a flash-rom upgrade, and he can upgrade himself (or burn up our 800-number while our tech support staff talks him though the process). a2d) There will be some recalcitrant modem makers, and ISPs will be forced to "suggest" or "not suggest" certain brands, thus putting ISPs in an adversarial position with modem makers. b) Once he gets the proper modem with the proper firmware, he can then get some results. If he connects at less than 56000 (a certainty), he will call my 800-number tech support line, and start burning up our money on the issue. c) If I give the COMPLETE information to my tech support people, and instruct them to explain the complete facts about "56K modems" to my customers, they will think that we are liars. (The essential facts here are that "your mileage may vary", and the term "56K modem" is a misnomer that borders on fraud.) Given the fact that most of our customers do not have engineering degrees, the mere attempt to tell the truth to our customers opens up a can of worms not seen since Frank Herbert's book "Dune". Some number of users will get disgusted (with us) about this, and we will lose their business to someone else who tells the customer less than the unvarnished truth. d) Once the user is made to understand that his telco line quality can impact his performance, he might call his telco, who will deny any responsibility to provide any line quality above that required to recreate the immortal words of Alexander G. Bell. This is in spite of the fact that many dial-up users have extra lines that were ordered to specifically support a modem. e) Once a motivated, well-financed, and hardworking user wades through all the issues, the best he can expect is a LESS than 56000 connect. Once again, he will likely blame us for this "problem". The facts of the matter indicate that if we are not VERY careful about how we talk about this new facility, we could be indicted by the Federal Trade Commission for fraud and misrepresentation. (Hard to imagine? Look no further than poor old AOL, who had many Attorneys General calling them criminals for daring to have customer demand in excess of their capacity.) I expect that pointing to the FCC regs in regard to 53K vs 56K will not be an adequate defense. e1) We can't say "56K", because there is a zero percent chance of a 56000 rate. Perhaps "53K" might be a more appropriate name. e2) We can't say "higher performance", since the only users to whom we can ASSURE higher performance are the users who stick with 28.8kbps or 33.6kbps modems, and take advantage of the higher net throughput at the lower speeds. e3) We can't claim any specific performance improvement AT ALL, since we have no way of assuring any specific customer that he will gain any specific performance improvement. e4) Our customers will be confused by conflicting claims and poorly researched press articles into thinking all sorts of things, and expect us to deliver whatever others promise. e5) We certainly can't charge extra for "56K" service, even though the cost to support such service (both in terms of infrastructure and raw tech-support time and effort) is much higher for any ISP who attempts to offer 56K service. (Those ISPs who were foolish enough to not invest in PRIs, excess bandwidth capacity and so on long ago now have to "upgrade" simply to attempt to offer 56K service.) f) If the user is very sophisticated, he might notice the "throughput degradation" discussed in a prior thread on this e-mail list. He will blame... guess who? Correct! Us! Gosh Ascend, it looks like the K56Flex group has some PR work to do, now that USR is at last making nice noises, and we can expect everything to interoperate "real soon now". My fellow ISPs and I can make web pages until we are blue in the face to explain all this, but it looks like we need to ask that each and every modem maker create web and ftp-based resources to allow flash rom upgrades, and track their firmware revisions against the Rockwell/Lucent revisions. Ascend and the other RAS vendors who support K56Flex need to track/document THEIR revisions too, as well as insure that they keep track of reported problems with specific brands of modems that should otherwise "work". A centralized "K56Flex" resource WebPage sounds like a real good idea, but this set of resources must be oriented towards the end user/customer rather than the engineer/ISP, and must be kept up-to-date by a staff that is willing to try to keep up with nearly every action of all the players. The ISPs cannot be expected to keep up themselves. This is NOT "28.8kbps all over again". There is no sense of DejaVu here. Any sense of DejaVu felt by the reader should be replaced by a sense of impending DOOM. This is worse, much worse. God, how I love this business! Where else can I find an "improvement" that is a lose-lose-lose proposition? I expect that the "K56Flex" industry standard spec should be modified to include something like the following: 10.1.7.16 A group of peasants, marching upon the offices of the ISP, armed with pitchforks, torches, and blunt instruments, is known to be a feature of early revisions of all "56K" modems. Efforts will be made to provide all ISPs with hunchbacked assistants, who will entertain the crowds of angry users by juggling dozens of phones in midair, being polite to each and every caller, but making obscene gestures as he hangs up each telephone. It is a shock to realize that even Kurt Loder of MTV News has somehow become a respectable journalist, while I am as lunatic fringe as ever. james fischer jfischer@supercollider.com ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.shore.net/~dreaming/ascend-faq">http://www.shore.net/~dreaming/ascend-faq</A>> or <<A HREF="ftp://ftp.shore.net/members/dreaming/ascend-faq.txt">ftp://ftp.shore.net/members/dreaming/ascend-faq.txt</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05423.html">(ASCEND) DHCP, BootP relay, NT and Windows 95 clients</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05421.html">Re: (ASCEND) Pipeline 25 ISDN 'Speach call'</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05420.html">Re: (ASCEND) Ascend_Event_Request</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg05423.html">(ASCEND) DHCP, BootP relay, NT and Windows 95 clients</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="mail139.html#05426"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd38.html#05426"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>