[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       portmaster-users
Subject:    Re: (PM) Using PM2'sy
From:       jp () pour ! midcoast ! com
Date:       2002-05-23 15:10:28
[Download RAW message or body]

We have some analog lines on pm2s in different locations along with our 
pm3s, but are slowly getting rid of them. PM2's hooked up to USR MP16s.
They work well, but CT1s have become less expensive than analog lines at 
these locations and digital equipment is easier to trouble shoot / manage 
when nobody is physically there.

Most of our customers can dial two hunt groups, one is the pm3's, the
other is something different. One location has the cyclades pr4000,
another location has a couple of patton's. I'm still convinced that no one
modem server brand will ever handle all customer modems to my
satisfaction, but it's not a big problem for me.

> The same ISP that I mentioned earlier is still running a PM2 with a mix of
> Courier v.Everything and Supra modems.  Their reasoning runs a little like
> this:
> 
> They know that the PM3's have problems with a number of client modems on the
> market (or vice-versa, however you want to view it), so they maintain a bank
> of POTS lines and analog modems through the PM2 for customers who have
> troubles with the PM3's.
> 
> I was just wondering what other ISP's are doing in this situation.  I know
> many ISP's are phasing the PM3's out altogether to get greater port density
> and (perhaps?) better all-round modem interoperability.  Anyone else keeping
> the PM2's and POTS lines just to support customers with odd modems?
> Needless to say, the POTS lines are a lot more expensive and maintaining a
> bank of old analog modems isn't all that desirable any more.
> 
> Jim
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
List archive: <URL:http://www.portmasters.com/archives/>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]