Accessing Cisco's Restricted Content

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by JohnNews, Nov 4, 2003.

  1. JohnNews

    JohnNews Guest

    Folks:


    I just bought a NEW Catalyst 3550 Switch from Ebay. Previously, I also used
    Ebay to purchase USED routers.
    I am wondering if these purchases will allow me to access some of Cisco's
    more restricted content ?



    Thanks,
    John.
    JohnNews, Nov 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <gbDpb.98342$HS4.820894@attbi_s01>,
    JohnNews <> wrote:
    :I just bought a NEW Catalyst 3550 Switch from Ebay. Previously, I also used
    :Ebay to purchase USED routers.
    :I am wondering if these purchases will allow me to access some of Cisco's
    :more restricted content ?

    If you bought the device from an authorized vendor, then they should
    register the device for you (or you should receive paperwork allowing
    you to register it yourself.) If I remember correctly, that should allow
    you access to CCO during the warrantee period (which might only be
    a few months.)
    --
    And the wind keeps blowing the angel / Backwards into the future /
    And this wind, this wind / Is called / Progress.
    -- Laurie Anderson
    Walter Roberson, Nov 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnNews

    Scooby Guest

    About a year ago, I bought a Pix and did not have any support contracts. It
    did not have the latest firmware on it, so I called Cisco. They gave me a
    very hard time about not having a Smartnet contract on it. Finally, after
    tossing the Nortel name around a few times, they helped me out.

    The bottom line is that Cisco is VERY pushy when it comes to support
    contracts. You may have to push back and tell them this is still under
    warranty and you want the upgrades. I don't think that will allow you to
    the CCO restricted info, but you should be able to get firmware upgrades.

    That said, NEW to you may not mean new to them. Just because nobody has
    turned it on, doesn't mean that Cisco knows that. I'm not sure if there is
    a certain period of time after manufacture date that they will honor the
    argument that it is new. People could just buy stuff in January, have a
    problem in July, then call and say it is new.

    Good Luck,

    Jim


    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bo77mr$jo6$...
    > In article <gbDpb.98342$HS4.820894@attbi_s01>,
    > JohnNews <> wrote:
    > :I just bought a NEW Catalyst 3550 Switch from Ebay. Previously, I also

    used
    > :Ebay to purchase USED routers.
    > :I am wondering if these purchases will allow me to access some of Cisco's
    > :more restricted content ?
    >
    > If you bought the device from an authorized vendor, then they should
    > register the device for you (or you should receive paperwork allowing
    > you to register it yourself.) If I remember correctly, that should allow
    > you access to CCO during the warrantee period (which might only be
    > a few months.)
    > --
    > And the wind keeps blowing the angel / Backwards into the future /
    > And this wind, this wind / Is called / Progress.
    > -- Laurie Anderson
    Scooby, Nov 4, 2003
    #3
  4. JohnNews

    Jimmy Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:14:25 -0500, "Scooby"
    <> wrote:

    >The bottom line is that Cisco is VERY pushy when it comes to support
    >contracts.


    Personally, I find it unreasonable that a company can sell a device
    with firmware bugs and then require you to buy a support contract to
    obtain a correction for those bugs. Restrictive policies like this
    have hurt other company's bottom lines in the past - you'd think
    they'd learn from the mistakes of others.
    Jimmy, Nov 4, 2003
    #4
  5. JohnNews

    Grey Guest

    Not to sound like an expert on this issue, but I've called Cisco about a
    piece of equipment being sold on Ebay, which was ostensibly under Cisco
    warranty. I was told that Cisco warranty isn't transferable from one
    individual/company to another one. Only Cisco authorized resellers are given
    the authority to transfer Cisco service contracts. Without a service
    contract, you are not eligible for any support whether it be hardware or
    software.

    All equipment sold on the secondary market is considered to be
    "gray-market" [sic] equipment. Therefore, as long as the equipment belongs
    to the original customer who bought it from an authorized reseller, the
    equipment is under warranty. As soon as the sale has been finalized, the
    equipment is no longer under Cisco warranty or service contract. What it
    means is that some sellers on Ebay claim that the equipment is "new" and
    "under Cisco warranty", which may be true as long as no one has purchased
    it. But the sale will immediately cancel both the warranty and the service
    contract. I guess what Cisco wants you to do is to sell the used equipment
    back to the authorized reseller and let them make a profit both buying and
    selling used Cisco equipment. By the way, Cisco is officially involved in
    selling refurbished/used equipment now.

    Another point is that the IOS is only licensed to one owner. Every time
    Cisco equipment changes hands, the IOS/Firmware has to be purchased again.
    In fact, there's a way to transfer "gray-market" equipment into the "white"
    domain. One has to approach an authorized Cisco reseller and have the
    equipment certified as "working" and also purchase a license for the
    IOS/firmware. Then you will get a service contract and the remainder of the
    warranty back. The problem is that this process will cost you a lot, and
    therefore, most people who trade Cisco gear on Ebay will not go this route.
    Another problem is that if your "gray-market" equipment breaks down, there's
    no easy way to have it repaired, Cisco controls all its repairs and does
    them "in-house". Companies that advertise that they do Cisco gear repairs,
    most likely use parts pulled from other broken equipment. These companies
    charge through the roof for the repairs. Just a power receptacle assembly on
    a 1700 series router was quoted me at $400.

    Cisco will not repair your "gray-market" equipment because in order to have
    it repaired, you need a service contract. In order to have a service
    contract, you have to have your equipment certified as "working". Since it's
    broken, you can't have it certified as "working", and therefore, it will not
    be repaired by Cisco.

    The bottom line is that Cisco doesn't want you to buy their equipment on
    Ebay or in any place other than an authorized Cisco reseller.

    Grey

    "Scooby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > About a year ago, I bought a Pix and did not have any support contracts.

    It
    > did not have the latest firmware on it, so I called Cisco. They gave me a
    > very hard time about not having a Smartnet contract on it. Finally, after
    > tossing the Nortel name around a few times, they helped me out.
    >
    > The bottom line is that Cisco is VERY pushy when it comes to support
    > contracts. You may have to push back and tell them this is still under
    > warranty and you want the upgrades. I don't think that will allow you to
    > the CCO restricted info, but you should be able to get firmware upgrades.
    >
    > That said, NEW to you may not mean new to them. Just because nobody has
    > turned it on, doesn't mean that Cisco knows that. I'm not sure if there

    is
    > a certain period of time after manufacture date that they will honor the
    > argument that it is new. People could just buy stuff in January, have a
    > problem in July, then call and say it is new.
    >
    > Good Luck,
    >
    > Jim
    >
    >
    > "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    > news:bo77mr$jo6$...
    > > In article <gbDpb.98342$HS4.820894@attbi_s01>,
    > > JohnNews <> wrote:
    > > :I just bought a NEW Catalyst 3550 Switch from Ebay. Previously, I also

    > used
    > > :Ebay to purchase USED routers.
    > > :I am wondering if these purchases will allow me to access some of

    Cisco's
    > > :more restricted content ?
    > >
    > > If you bought the device from an authorized vendor, then they should
    > > register the device for you (or you should receive paperwork allowing
    > > you to register it yourself.) If I remember correctly, that should allow
    > > you access to CCO during the warrantee period (which might only be
    > > a few months.)
    > > --
    > > And the wind keeps blowing the angel / Backwards into the future /
    > > And this wind, this wind / Is called / Progress.
    > > -- Laurie Anderson

    >
    >
    >
    Grey, Nov 4, 2003
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Jimmy <> wrote:
    :personally, I find it unreasonable that a company can sell a device
    :with firmware bugs and then require you to buy a support contract to
    :eek:btain a correction for those bugs.

    When the bugs affect the security of the device, Cisco makes the
    corrected version available for free. To obtain the corrected version,
    you contact the TAC and cite the appropriate Field Notice. The
    Field Notices can be found in the public (non-contract) section
    of cisco.com .
    --
    Rome was built one paycheck at a time. -- Walter Roberson
    Walter Roberson, Nov 4, 2003
    #6
  7. JohnNews

    Scooby Guest

    Yea, but when Cisco advertises that certain features are part of the IOS and
    bugs prevent you from using those features, isn't it reasonable to expect to
    have them fixed for free? It might seem like false advertising otherwise.


    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bo8moc$a3d$...
    > In article <>,
    > Jimmy <> wrote:
    > :personally, I find it unreasonable that a company can sell a device
    > :with firmware bugs and then require you to buy a support contract to
    > :eek:btain a correction for those bugs.
    >
    > When the bugs affect the security of the device, Cisco makes the
    > corrected version available for free. To obtain the corrected version,
    > you contact the TAC and cite the appropriate Field Notice. The
    > Field Notices can be found in the public (non-contract) section
    > of cisco.com .
    > --
    > Rome was built one paycheck at a time. -- Walter Roberson
    Scooby, Nov 4, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <1067968239.822178@rh9cache>,
    Scooby <> wrote:
    :Yea, but when Cisco advertises that certain features are part of the IOS and
    :bugs prevent you from using those features, isn't it reasonable to expect to
    :have them fixed for free? It might seem like false advertising otherwise.

    The situation differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but
    roughly speaking, merchants are bound only by what is in the
    sales literature for a product, and not even by what is on the data sheets
    unless the data sheets are distributed as part of the sales literature.

    Even on the sales literature, they only have to live up to what
    is "true in a sense". For example, if it says "up to 3 trillion
    packets per second" and there is even *one* circumstance under which
    it can handle that, then even if you can't -usefully- get more
    than 3 -total- packets per second, the literature is considered correct.

    Depending on the local laws, it isn't even always the case that
    everything promised in the sales literature has to work, if the
    part that doesn't work is not considered to be an important component.
    If, for example, the PIX literature advertised, "Now, it whistles too!"
    but you couldn't get it to whistle, not many courts would deem it
    a significant problem.

    Even when it comes down to features that you relied on being present
    (e.g., suppose you bought the PIX because it was the only one that
    advertised 802.1X support, and then you found 802.1X was not present),
    the consumer is considered to be have a duty to verify. If there is
    a feature that is particularily important to you, then you are best
    protected by asking *specifically* about that feature with the
    sales rep, and getting that feature written in as part of the
    contract or receipt. If your receipt says, "Cisco PIX firewall
    with 802.1Q VLAN support" and your firewall is a PIX 501 that doesn't
    support 802.1Q, then you have a persuable case that you would not
    likely have if the sales literature -implied- that 802.1Q was available
    on all PIX models.
    --
    Contents: 100% recycled post-consumer statements.
    Walter Roberson, Nov 4, 2003
    #8
  9. JohnNews

    Scooby Guest

    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bo8t6j$cuo$...
    > In article <1067968239.822178@rh9cache>,
    > Scooby <> wrote:
    > :Yea, but when Cisco advertises that certain features are part of the IOS

    and
    > :bugs prevent you from using those features, isn't it reasonable to expect

    to
    > :have them fixed for free? It might seem like false advertising

    otherwise.
    >
    > The situation differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but
    > roughly speaking, merchants are bound only by what is in the
    > sales literature for a product, and not even by what is on the data sheets
    > unless the data sheets are distributed as part of the sales literature.
    >
    > Even on the sales literature, they only have to live up to what
    > is "true in a sense". For example, if it says "up to 3 trillion
    > packets per second" and there is even *one* circumstance under which
    > it can handle that, then even if you can't -usefully- get more
    > than 3 -total- packets per second, the literature is considered correct.
    >
    > Depending on the local laws, it isn't even always the case that
    > everything promised in the sales literature has to work, if the
    > part that doesn't work is not considered to be an important component.
    > If, for example, the PIX literature advertised, "Now, it whistles too!"
    > but you couldn't get it to whistle, not many courts would deem it
    > a significant problem.
    >
    > Even when it comes down to features that you relied on being present
    > (e.g., suppose you bought the PIX because it was the only one that
    > advertised 802.1X support, and then you found 802.1X was not present),
    > the consumer is considered to be have a duty to verify. If there is
    > a feature that is particularily important to you, then you are best
    > protected by asking *specifically* about that feature with the
    > sales rep, and getting that feature written in as part of the
    > contract or receipt. If your receipt says, "Cisco PIX firewall
    > with 802.1Q VLAN support" and your firewall is a PIX 501 that doesn't
    > support 802.1Q, then you have a persuable case that you would not
    > likely have if the sales literature -implied- that 802.1Q was available
    > on all PIX models.
    > --
    > Contents: 100% recycled post-consumer statements.


    Ah, but I think we are mixing apples with Oranges here. First, forget the
    courts... Don't you think they should have the moral obligation to fix the
    bugs for free? Yea, where is the morality in corporate America?

    I think the examples you gave tended to lean towards a misunderstanding or
    misinterpretation. How about this for an example... The Cisco routers are
    supposed to natively support 802.1Q in the IOS. Let's say you bought one of
    them near the first implementation of such. After owning the item for 6
    months, you decide to implement it, only to find out there are some serious
    bugs in the version that you bought, but have been addressed in the next
    minor release. Don't you think you should get the fixes for free? You paid
    for a feature, but you can't use it. Or, you paid for a high priced vpn
    license for some of your routers. Once again, you discover there are bugs
    that cause the vpn to crash and hang due to some anomoly. But, this is
    discovered after standard warranty. Free fix? I think so.

    Heck, even the evil empire of Microsoft gives free bug fixes.
    Scooby, Nov 4, 2003
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    Scooby <> wrote:
    :Ah, but I think we are mixing apples with Oranges here. First, forget the
    :courts... Don't you think they should have the moral obligation to fix the
    :bugs for free? Yea, where is the morality in corporate America?

    Seeing as you asked... No, I don't think they have a moral obligation
    to fix the bugs for free.

    Part of my job is software development. My last major project was
    about 200,000 lines, with only me to work on it (along with all my
    other duties). I documented every bug I found, and fixed what I could
    in the time I had, but at times I had to just stop and release anyhow,
    knowing there were bugs. If we were responsible for fixing all the
    bugs for free, I would -still- be at it, years later.

    In some cases, fixing the bugs would have required a major re-write --
    such as taking the code and reimplimenting in a different language
    with a different graphics package.

    In some cases, fixing the bugs would have required new discoveries
    in science and mathematics. Just because you know of a case that is
    demonstrably not correct doesn't mean that you have any reasonable
    way of fixing the problem.

    When I write software, I do the best I reasonably can, and I am unusually
    thorough -- but if I sell the result to someone, I do not thereby
    become that person's programming slave, pawning my last router to
    get enough money to live by while I fix bugs for free.

    If you want free bug fixes in perpetuity, then be prepared to pay
    a hundred thousand or a million dollars per copy per title. If you want
    inexpensive software, then be prepared to live with some bugs that aren't
    fixed for free.
    --
    Is "meme" descriptive or perscriptive? Does the knowledge that
    memes exist not subtly encourage the creation of more memes?
    -- A Child's Garden Of Memes
    Walter Roberson, Nov 4, 2003
    #10
  11. JohnNews

    Scooby Guest

    Walter,

    I have spent a better part of my career doing programming as well. The
    point here is that they ARE fixing the bugs, and then wanting you to pay for
    them directly or through service contracts. Many software companies out
    there will give you free updates (not upgrades - there is a difference) when
    you purchase their product. Or at least give people a reasonable period of
    time that they can download new firmware after an order. You can't believe
    the fight I had with Cisco just trying to get the latest firmware for a
    brand new Pix that I had just purchased.

    Sonicwall has a nice model now. Get a product, register it live on their
    web page and it will tell you all your licenses and terms, you can download
    firmware and vpn clients (with appropriate license), even call their support
    line. They even send you polite (but, somewhat nagging) reminders when your
    warranty is about to run out so you can renew, unlike the strong-arm
    technique by Cisco. They don't void all warranty and software licenses when
    you transfer the product (which is a totally absurd practice). It is a very
    simple and nice process. Cisco could learn from that.

    I'm not asking that they have a special for free, non-profit department that
    fixes bugs for the sake of past clients. But, since they are continuously
    developing their product and fixing bugs, give the people that have paid a
    premium for their equipment the product they though they were getting in the
    first place. I wouldn't call Cisco's software (or any part of their
    solution) inexpesive. So, I don't think we, as customers should be prepared
    to live with a few bugs. We are supposedly buying the best, or so my sales
    rep would have me think, so treat us like we've paid for the best.

    Basically, take good care of your customers and they'll be here tomorrow.

    Jim



    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bo93jf$fm0$...
    > In article <>,
    > Scooby <> wrote:
    > :Ah, but I think we are mixing apples with Oranges here. First, forget

    the
    > :courts... Don't you think they should have the moral obligation to fix

    the
    > :bugs for free? Yea, where is the morality in corporate America?
    >
    > Seeing as you asked... No, I don't think they have a moral obligation
    > to fix the bugs for free.
    >
    > Part of my job is software development. My last major project was
    > about 200,000 lines, with only me to work on it (along with all my
    > other duties). I documented every bug I found, and fixed what I could
    > in the time I had, but at times I had to just stop and release anyhow,
    > knowing there were bugs. If we were responsible for fixing all the
    > bugs for free, I would -still- be at it, years later.
    >
    > In some cases, fixing the bugs would have required a major re-write --
    > such as taking the code and reimplimenting in a different language
    > with a different graphics package.
    >
    > In some cases, fixing the bugs would have required new discoveries
    > in science and mathematics. Just because you know of a case that is
    > demonstrably not correct doesn't mean that you have any reasonable
    > way of fixing the problem.
    >
    > When I write software, I do the best I reasonably can, and I am unusually
    > thorough -- but if I sell the result to someone, I do not thereby
    > become that person's programming slave, pawning my last router to
    > get enough money to live by while I fix bugs for free.
    >
    > If you want free bug fixes in perpetuity, then be prepared to pay
    > a hundred thousand or a million dollars per copy per title. If you want
    > inexpensive software, then be prepared to live with some bugs that aren't
    > fixed for free.
    > --
    > Is "meme" descriptive or perscriptive? Does the knowledge that
    > memes exist not subtly encourage the creation of more memes?
    > -- A Child's Garden Of Memes
    Scooby, Nov 4, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <5WVpb.9536$>,
    Scooby <> wrote:
    :I'm not asking that they have a special for free, non-profit department that
    :fixes bugs for the sake of past clients. But, since they are continuously
    :developing their product and fixing bugs, give the people that have paid a
    :premium for their equipment the product they though they were getting in the
    :first place.

    Your earlier premise was "Product doesn't work exactly as advertised;
    customer is entitled to a free fix, even if it's a feature that they
    didn't even -try- to use for the first year." You did not constrain it
    to "If the company happens to have a fixed version", and even now you
    do not want to put any time limit on it.

    If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you feel that
    you should get free updates, for life, if the update resolves any
    problem that was originally present in any software version that you
    originally purchased, or had under support. (Or is it only for problems
    with any advertised feature?)


    : I wouldn't call Cisco's software (or any part of their
    :solution) inexpesive. So, I don't think we, as customers should be prepared
    :to live with a few bugs. We are supposedly buying the best, or so my sales
    :rep would have me think, so treat us like we've paid for the best.

    Cisco is not operating any differently than other software+hardware
    companies I deal with. Buy a product, limited-time warrantee
    of free service, pay for support after that. The fact that software
    has bugs is well accepted in the marketplace.

    Don't expect a perfect product: expect a flawed product, and during the
    warrantee period test the heck out of any feature that is important to
    you. This is standard contract law: in any potential disagreement
    with the other party of a contract, you have an obligation to
    act to mitigate the damages the other party is inflicting on you through
    weakness or non-conformance on their side. If you wait a year to
    even -try- a feature that you could reasonably have tried during the
    warrantee period, you haven't acted to mitigate the potential damages
    to you (i.e., requirement to pay for an update or new support contract
    to get the fix). Take responsibility for your own inactivity instead
    of expecting the other party to cover for you.
    --
    vi -- think of it as practice for the ROGUE Olympics!
    Walter Roberson, Nov 5, 2003
    #12
  13. JohnNews

    Jimmy Guest

    On 5 Nov 2003 00:00:49 GMT, -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    Roberson) wrote:

    >Cisco is not operating any differently than other software+hardware
    >companies I deal with. Buy a product, limited-time warrantee
    >of free service, pay for support after that.


    I might disagree with that. Most (not all) companies make firmware
    upgrades and bug fixes available for the life of the product so long
    as they can be applied without hardware changes. I can't see much
    benefit to the company in _not_ providing those updates except that
    they _might_ force some customers into buying new hardware in order to
    get the updates. Many will just get aggravated and buy elsewhere
    because of the restriction - or at least review what's available in
    the market and possibly find another vendor. I don't think it's to
    Cisco's advantage to do this and I think that's been proved in the
    marketplace before. MHO.

    >The fact that software has bugs is well accepted in the marketplace.


    Well, actually, there is/are an implied warranty of merchantability
    and some UCC issues. However, most _software_ companies get around
    that by selling you a *license* to *use* the software, not the
    software itself. Most of the implied warranty and UCC laws predate
    software and thus can be bypassed in this manner by software houses.
    Jimmy, Nov 5, 2003
    #13
  14. JohnNews

    Jimmy Guest

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:41:05 GMT, "Scooby"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Basically, take good care of your customers and they'll be here tomorrow.


    Sums up my view well. Or, "don't give your customers a reason to
    go looking elsewhere".
    Jimmy, Nov 5, 2003
    #14
  15. JohnNews

    Jimmy Guest

    On 4 Nov 2003 20:53:03 GMT, -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    Roberson) wrote:

    >When I write software, I do the best I reasonably can, and I am unusually
    >thorough -- but if I sell the result to someone, I do not thereby
    >become that person's programming slave, pawning my last router to
    >get enough money to live by while I fix bugs for free.


    No, but if you have already written bug fixes to cover problems
    customers have, it does not cost you any more to provide them.
    Jimmy, Nov 5, 2003
    #15
  16. JohnNews

    Jimmy Guest

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:30:55 -0500, "Scooby"
    <> wrote:

    >Heck, even the evil empire of Microsoft gives free bug fixes.


    Sort of. They stop doing updates after a few years to force you to
    upgrade. They also tend to leave in bugs and just fix them via the
    next (new) product. Heck, Windows 2003 server is a Service Pack
    for Windows 2000 but they are charging $1500 and calling it a
    new product.
    Jimmy, Nov 5, 2003
    #16
  17. JohnNews

    Bernie Guest

    On 5 Nov 2003 00:00:49 GMT, -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    Roberson) wrote:

    >In article <5WVpb.9536$>,
    >Scooby <> wrote:
    >:I'm not asking that they have a special for free, non-profit department that
    >:fixes bugs for the sake of past clients. But, since they are continuously
    >:developing their product and fixing bugs, give the people that have paid a
    >:premium for their equipment the product they though they were getting in the
    >:first place.
    >
    >Your earlier premise was "Product doesn't work exactly as advertised;
    >customer is entitled to a free fix, even if it's a feature that they
    >didn't even -try- to use for the first year." You did not constrain it
    >to "If the company happens to have a fixed version", and even now you
    >do not want to put any time limit on it.


    Walter, surely putting words in his mouth or extrapolating his
    suggestion ad infinitum is not a fair statement of his position. Even
    if the "fix" was released during the warranty period, he shouldn't be
    able to get it after the fact? I really don't think the point was
    that Cisco should give away software for eternity. In fact, Scooby
    stated that he wasn't asking for upgrades. And since you develop
    software you are aware that maintenance on old (major) versions gets
    discontinued after a period of time. He stated he is requesting the
    patches that were already produced by Cisco. So put it together and
    obviously he isn't asking for eternal patches to his current version.
    And he did clarify that he isn't asking for a special department to
    cater to all past customers. So I am struggling to understand how you
    are twisting his words this way. It isn't even a plausible
    interpretation of his request given the things that have been said by
    Scooby in the thread.

    >If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you feel that
    >you should get free updates, for life, if the update resolves any
    >problem that was originally present in any software version that you
    >originally purchased, or had under support. (Or is it only for problems
    >with any advertised feature?)
    >
    >
    >: I wouldn't call Cisco's software (or any part of their
    >:solution) inexpesive. So, I don't think we, as customers should be prepared
    >:to live with a few bugs. We are supposedly buying the best, or so my sales
    >:rep would have me think, so treat us like we've paid for the best.
    >
    >Cisco is not operating any differently than other software+hardware
    >companies I deal with. Buy a product, limited-time warrantee
    >of free service, pay for support after that. The fact that software
    >has bugs is well accepted in the marketplace.


    Maybe you don't deal with that many software/hardware companies.
    Scooby gave you a few examples. If I buy a MS product, I can still
    download the service packs even if I have previously used up my free
    tech support that came with the product. Or if I have a premier
    support contract and don't renew it, I can still download the service
    packs later. At some point MS stops releasing service packs and
    hotfixes, and if I have a bug, I have to pay to upgrade to potentially
    fix it. Any reasonable person is fine with that structure.

    There is such a thing as being customer oriented and making the
    customer feel like they are getting a fair deal. If a customer feels
    screwed by the company, then either the customer is unreasonable or
    the company *is* screwing him. I haven't gotten the impression that
    Scooby is being unreasonable. I know you will disagree with that, but
    perhaps you are reading more into his post than I am. And what makes
    me think he is being reasonable here is that he isn't asking for
    anything that will cost Cisco another dollar to provide. If he asked
    for the same exact code yesterday it is free, today it suddenly costs.
    If he were asking for a live body onsite, sure that is unreasonable.
    Yeah you could say that it is lost revenue, but I hardly think Cisco
    makes a ton of money on selling patches to people like Scooby
    Upgrades yes, patches no.

    Of course, I think the proper response is that it is Cisco's game and
    you play it by their rules or you don't. If they sell patches, and
    you don't like that, then your next purchase should be a wiser one.
    Vote with your money if you think you are getting screwed.

    >Don't expect a perfect product: expect a flawed product, and during the
    >warrantee period test the heck out of any feature that is important to
    >you.


    Unless Scooby is completely ignorant, he is aware that no software is
    perfect, nor ever will be perfect Are you subtly accusing him of
    being dumb as a stump? Or are you stretching his position a bit to be
    a more convenient straw man to attack?

    >This is standard contract law: in any potential disagreement
    >with the other party of a contract, you have an obligation to
    >act to mitigate the damages the other party is inflicting on you through
    >weakness or non-conformance on their side. If you wait a year to
    >even -try- a feature that you could reasonably have tried


    Now you know that trying things in production network is not a good
    way to perform your job, right? Some customers don't have the luxury
    of just experimenting with every feature of the box because they
    didn't buy a bunch of spares for a side lab. And no one should ever
    be trying to turn on features just to unearth latent flaws in gear
    that is in a production environment (unless you are trying to find
    security flaws). That is a way to ensure getting fired.

    >during the
    >warrantee period, you haven't acted to mitigate the potential damages
    >to you (i.e., requirement to pay for an update or new support contract
    >to get the fix).


    So if the vendor essentially confessed to the potential damages by
    fixing the flaw during the warrantee period, can you not request that
    fix later? And along the lines of customer satisfaction, falling back
    to legalese is not likely to make the customer not feel screwed. So
    if it is an unreasonable request, sure you cover your bases legally.
    If it is reasonable, then you make the customer feel railroaded as
    well as screwed.

    >Take responsibility for your own inactivity instead
    >of expecting the other party to cover for you.


    I don't think Scooby was asking for anyone to cover for him.

    --Bernie
    Bernie, Nov 5, 2003
    #17
  18. JohnNews

    Bernie Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:16:11 GMT, Jimmy <> wrote:

    >On 5 Nov 2003 00:00:49 GMT, -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
    >Roberson) wrote:
    >
    >>Cisco is not operating any differently than other software+hardware
    >>companies I deal with. Buy a product, limited-time warrantee
    >>of free service, pay for support after that.

    >
    >I might disagree with that. Most (not all) companies make firmware
    >upgrades and bug fixes available for the life of the product so long
    >as they can be applied without hardware changes.


    Exactly. I can provide some additional examples. I had a Yamaha CD
    burner that I paid about $235 for. Now they released maybe one
    firmware update afterwards, but I can see the history of updates
    preceding when I bought the product, so I know they took the time to
    fix most of the major bugs. A couple of years later my burner died,
    or so I thought. I downloaded the firmware and reflashed it and the
    thing worked again. It seems the firmware got corrupted somehow.
    Sure they could have charged me the cost of a new burner to just
    download the old firmware, but they didn't. And when the old one
    eventually did die, I bought another Yamaha.

    I also just downloaded a new (to me) BIOS for my motherboard which is
    now over four years old. Basically the newer BIOS was required to
    support a CPU that I just upgraded to (even though it is still very
    old). But I would never have upgraded the BIOS before because I
    didn't need it to support my old CPU. Since by all indications
    flashing a BIOS is risky and could cost me money to replace the chip
    if it fails I would never have flashed it prior "just to test it out
    in the future event that I might upgrade CPUs". So I did the sensible
    thing in not flashing the BIOS when I didn't need to, and yet the
    newer BIOS was still available for download years later when I
    actually did need it. Guess what? I will look to give my repeat
    business to Tyan when I need another motherboard.

    To sum up, I didn't ask either to support me. I didn't incur any cost
    to them. But they allowed me to download old firmware, and that is a
    very fair deal. Sure they didn't have to provide it. No one is
    saying they have to.

    But the point is that truthfully, most hardware/software vendors do
    allow you to take advantage of patch releases almost indefinitely
    after the product has been discontinued (note carefully I am not
    claiming they continue to fix code, just that the old fixes are still
    available). I have run across few if any, that sell patches after the
    fact. So no, if the reports are true, Cisco isn't behaving according
    to standard protocol. Note, they don't have to if they don't want to,
    but the argument that Cisco is doing what everyone else is doing is
    just utterly false.

    >I can't see much
    >benefit to the company in _not_ providing those updates except that
    >they _might_ force some customers into buying new hardware in order to
    >get the updates. Many will just get aggravated and buy elsewhere
    >because of the restriction - or at least review what's available in
    >the market and possibly find another vendor. I don't think it's to
    >Cisco's advantage to do this and I think that's been proved in the
    >marketplace before. MHO.


    The only reason they are doing it is because they think they can
    without repercussion. Maybe they are right.

    >>The fact that software has bugs is well accepted in the marketplace.

    >
    >Well, actually, there is/are an implied warranty of merchantability
    >and some UCC issues. However, most _software_ companies get around
    >that by selling you a *license* to *use* the software, not the
    >software itself. Most of the implied warranty and UCC laws predate
    >software and thus can be bypassed in this manner by software houses.



    --Bernie
    Bernie, Nov 5, 2003
    #18
  19. JohnNews

    Not Me Guest

    >>>Cisco is not operating any differently than other software+hardware
    >>>companies I deal with. Buy a product, limited-time warrantee
    >>>of free service, pay for support after that.


    Oddly, a colleague of mine had to get support from Cisco only this week.

    The router was out of warranty and had no support contract, so we expected
    to part with some $$$. Nope, Cisco refused any and all support until we
    had a contract. Asked if we could pay to have our issue looked at - NO -
    contract was the only way.

    We're actually exploring whether that's even legal in this country.
    Not Me, Nov 5, 2003
    #19
  20. JohnNews

    Bernie Guest

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:20:25 GMT, Jimmy <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:30:55 -0500, "Scooby"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Heck, even the evil empire of Microsoft gives free bug fixes.

    >
    >Sort of. They stop doing updates after a few years to force you to
    >upgrade. They also tend to leave in bugs and just fix them via the
    >next (new) product. Heck, Windows 2003 server is a Service Pack
    >for Windows 2000 but they are charging $1500 and calling it a
    >new product.


    But at least you got at least four service packs plus more hotfixes
    during that time frame. And maybe you will get some more still down
    the road. So at least when you get to take advantage of three years of
    patches, you don't resent so much having to pay to upgrade to the next
    version to get some additional fixes. And if you choose to not
    upgrade, you can still download the old service packs available for
    your platform for an additional period of time.


    --Bernie
    Bernie, Nov 5, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. King of Red Lions

    restricted sites

    King of Red Lions, Feb 7, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    5,503
    icedogo
    Dec 7, 2007
  2. BG
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,005
    Jyri Korhonen
    Nov 5, 2004
  3. JJonson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,636
    JJonson
    May 23, 2005
  4. Mark  Phillips

    Blocked Content _this content not availabe at this time?

    Mark Phillips, Dec 10, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    434
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    Dec 11, 2006
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,651
    alexd
    Feb 25, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page