Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!ssbn!bill From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Interesting ISC Support Policy Message-ID: <1588@ssbn.WLK.COM> Date: 29 Jun 90 13:21:08 GMT References: <106@thor> <493@litle.litle.com> <1990Jun27.221731.7809@bbt.se> <1990Jun28.132734.19603@nstar.uucp> Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) Distribution: na Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX Lines: 72 In article <1990Jun28.132734.19603@nstar.uucp> larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder) writes: >pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) writes: > >>Well, then the trick is obviosly to buy on a "new" company name, >>or just simply buy it on a new employees name, each time. > >Or say you are someone else when calling in for support. >-- > Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA Or choose a vendor with support prices/policies more in keeping with your need for support. At this point ESIX is looking more and more interesting based on what I read in this news group. It appears that they have a bona-fide interest in identifying and solving problems, they seem to follow up. I should add that I'm completely ignorant of their product/services other than what I read here. I'm sure I'll become "enlightened" :-) I have had first hand experience with Digital Reasearch (yeah, back that far!), Microport, AT&T, SCO, and ISC. The "couple of hundred a year" to DRI was far in a way the best I've seen until they stopped supporting anything for any amount of money. Microport would, after the dozen "it's a hardware problem" recordings, hunker down and try to find the problem, sometimes they did. SCO has the most amazing bureaucracy I've ever seen. I was dutifully called back three times over ten working days by the same wrong-analyst-for-the-problem. I never got the right-analyst-for-the-problem, I ran out of time. AT&T is a complete "no go" unless you produce an AT&T hardware serial number. I don't care what the warranty says, it's not what they actually do. The subject is Interactive, I just wanted to sketch in some background and admit my ignorance of Everex. When Interactive tech support was free, it was nearly worth that. There was no way to track a problem or a call, so you got to start all over again every time you dialed; yes it's plugged in, yes it's powered up, repeat system contents, etc. Further, until recently they had no native English speaking support reps. I'm very sympathetic to the communication difficulties encountered speaking in a second language but doing technical telephone support isn't where that problem gets solved. It's awkward and embarrassing to ask for (and answer) the third repeat of "megabyte". Far in a way the best ISC support I've gotten has been in this news group. In fairness, much of it has come from the contributions of ISC employees. So now we're supposed to pay for support. There's nothing wrong with that if there is a product to deliver and if it can be cost justified. SCO has a support product to deliver but I can't cost justify it. If hands-on-phone experience is any measure (mine), ISC doesn't have a product. Maybe they have done a complete overhaul, restructure, restaff, remanage, but if they are just starting to charge for what I've seen it ain't worth it. Spending time waiting for someone to find the manual page I have in front of me when I call isn't my idea of support. Paying to be eligible to spend that time is absurd. Paying (IMHO) a lot to be eligible to spend that time is a condition that can probably be treated with appropriate psychiatric care. Shucking usenet oysters in pursuit of a pearl is, for me, costworthy. From time to time I can even help someone else, that's neat. Ponying up money for something that wasn't cost effective when it was free requires some pretty heavy explanation. I don't want glossy sales sheets, I want facts. I want to know that it won't take four calls repeating the fundamentals every time to find out that nobody has ever heard of that before. I want to be able to hear and understand "megabyte" when it's uttered. I want to know that the problem has been referred to the appropriate developer, and I'd be delighted to be offered a workaround, I'd pay for that. Thus far I've seen no evidence that Interactive is selling anything like that, they've just started charging for something that wasn't cost effective when it was free... It's really tough to get people to pay for something that used to be free. HBO pointed that out when they started scrambling their satellite signal. Along that line, however, HBO found out that if you offer value, people will pay. If Interactive can/does/will offer value, I'll pay. In the meantime I'll keep shucking usenet oysters 'cause that's where I find the pearls. Sorry you had to shuck this oyster... -- Bill Kennedy usenet {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill