Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Need Netgear 6200 or Equiv
29 views
Skip to first unread message
David Kaye
Nov 28, 2016, 12:45:57 AM11/28/16
to
Okay, I have a customer whose ancient Alcatel 1000ADSL modem went out. AT&T
says that I should replace it with a Netgear 6200. Fine. Only trouble is
that I can't find one. I'd like to buy a new 6200 locally, but can't find
it.
The Netgear DM200 is SUPPOSED to work with AT&T's POTS ADSL, but it doesn't.
AT&T can't see it. It's even written on the box and documentation tha the
DM200 works, but it's not on AT&T's list.
The folks at Best Buy are astonished that the DM200 is not compatible. So
am I. Best Buy has nothing else. Everything else is either for Uverse or
cable TV, not for AT&T's ADSL.
Can anyone tell me what other modems are compatible with the 6200 or the
Alcatel 1000ADSL? I'd hate to buy another modem and have it not work,
either. And where am I going to get the 6200?
Of course, AT&T doesn't want to hassle with POTS ADSL any longer. The only
thing they'll do from their end is replace the POTS service with fiber. My
customer doesn't want to wait a week to get fiber. She wanted her service
fixed today. Now I have until Wednesday.
Ideas anyone?
says that I should replace it with a Netgear 6200. Fine. Only trouble is
that I can't find one. I'd like to buy a new 6200 locally, but can't find
it.
The Netgear DM200 is SUPPOSED to work with AT&T's POTS ADSL, but it doesn't.
AT&T can't see it. It's even written on the box and documentation tha the
DM200 works, but it's not on AT&T's list.
The folks at Best Buy are astonished that the DM200 is not compatible. So
am I. Best Buy has nothing else. Everything else is either for Uverse or
cable TV, not for AT&T's ADSL.
Can anyone tell me what other modems are compatible with the 6200 or the
Alcatel 1000ADSL? I'd hate to buy another modem and have it not work,
either. And where am I going to get the 6200?
Of course, AT&T doesn't want to hassle with POTS ADSL any longer. The only
thing they'll do from their end is replace the POTS service with fiber. My
customer doesn't want to wait a week to get fiber. She wanted her service
fixed today. Now I have until Wednesday.
Ideas anyone?
Jeff Liebermann
Nov 28, 2016, 12:34:11 PM11/28/16
to
On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:45:58 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Okay, I have a customer whose ancient Alcatel 1000ADSL modem went out. AT&T
>says that I should replace it with a Netgear 6200.
Huh? Do you mean a Netgear R6200? That's a wireless router with no
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Okay, I have a customer whose ancient Alcatel 1000ADSL modem went out. AT&T
>says that I should replace it with a Netgear 6200.
sign of a DSL modem inside.
>The Netgear DM200 is SUPPOSED to work with AT&T's POTS ADSL, but it doesn't.
>AT&T can't see it. It's even written on the box and documentation tha the
>DM200 works, but it's not on AT&T's list.
with AT&T DSL. However, way back in the stone age of DSL (about
1999), AT&T was provisioning their original Alcatel 1000 modems with
non-standard VPI/VCI settings. Later modems were suppose to scan all
the possible VPI/VCI settings to find the one that worked. I've seen
it fail. Default is now 8/35 but the old Alcatel might be something
different. If you can get it back to working, dive in with a web
browser and write down the settings.
<https://zoomtel.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212404803-What-are-the-VPI-VCI-and-Encapsulation-settings-for-my-local-U-S-DSL-Provider->
This might also help:
<http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/22005/~/how-to-manually-configure-the-adsl-settings-on-a-netgear-dsl-gateway-with-smart>
which is a nice way of Netgear admitting that the automatic settings
don't always work.
My guess(tm) is that in the process of "helping" you replace the
modem, AT&T tweaked the provisioning. Just a guess. Have them read
off to you what the VPI/VCI should be according to their settings and
try setting it up manually.
It's also helpful to look at the diagnostic log, and see where things
started to fail.
Incidentally, I stock used Netgear DM111PSPv2 modems. The power
supplies burn out after about 5 years, but are otherwise quite
reliable.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
David Kaye
Nov 28, 2016, 5:14:18 PM11/28/16
to
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
> Huh? Do you mean a Netgear R6200? That's a wireless router with no
> sign of a DSL modem inside.
Nope. This is confusing, I know. It's simply the "Netgear 6200", a modem
with no router. It was in common use for years with AT&T. Here's a link to
AT&T's page that describes and shows it:
https://www.att.com/accessories/specialty-items/netgear-dsl-modem-model-6200.html
> The DM200 does VDSL, VDSL2, ADSL2+, etc and is allegedly compatible
> with AT&T DSL.
Allegedly, but not. It's funny, the old Alcatel can be seen at AT&T's end
but not at the computer end. The DM200 can be seen at the computer's end
but not at AT&T's end. In fact, the tech asked me, "Are you sure it's
connected?" She then told me that the DM200 is not on her list of
compatible modems. She recommended the Netgear or Westel 6200, apparently
the exact same product. Another option was the Netgear 7550 modem/router.
Can't find that, either.
> If you can get it back to working, dive in with a web
> browser and write down the settings.
That's the problem; the Alcatel does not respond at all to the computer.
> It's also helpful to look at the diagnostic log, and see where things
> started to fail.
Zilch, but the computer was looking at the modem through a router, and as
far as the computer was concerned everything was okay (except no internet).
So, the logs show nothing.
> Incidentally, I stock used Netgear DM111PSPv2 modems. The power
> supplies burn out after about 5 years, but are otherwise quite
> reliable.
I'll phone AT&T and ask if that's on their list of modems for this POTS
service. Sheesh...what a hassle.
Thanks for your help.
> Huh? Do you mean a Netgear R6200? That's a wireless router with no
> sign of a DSL modem inside.
with no router. It was in common use for years with AT&T. Here's a link to
AT&T's page that describes and shows it:
https://www.att.com/accessories/specialty-items/netgear-dsl-modem-model-6200.html
> The DM200 does VDSL, VDSL2, ADSL2+, etc and is allegedly compatible
> with AT&T DSL.
but not at the computer end. The DM200 can be seen at the computer's end
but not at AT&T's end. In fact, the tech asked me, "Are you sure it's
connected?" She then told me that the DM200 is not on her list of
compatible modems. She recommended the Netgear or Westel 6200, apparently
the exact same product. Another option was the Netgear 7550 modem/router.
Can't find that, either.
> If you can get it back to working, dive in with a web
> browser and write down the settings.
> It's also helpful to look at the diagnostic log, and see where things
> started to fail.
far as the computer was concerned everything was okay (except no internet).
So, the logs show nothing.
> Incidentally, I stock used Netgear DM111PSPv2 modems. The power
> supplies burn out after about 5 years, but are otherwise quite
> reliable.
service. Sheesh...what a hassle.
Thanks for your help.
David Kaye
Nov 28, 2016, 11:10:52 PM11/28/16
to
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
> Incidentally, I stock used Netgear DM111PSPv2 modems. The power
> supplies burn out after about 5 years, but are otherwise quite
> reliable.
It turns out that Central Computer has the NetGear DM111PSP, so I'm going to
drop by there and pick up one. If this doesn't work then I'm going to tell
my customer, sorry you're SOL, go with Comcast. I hate AT&T with a passion
anyway...
> Incidentally, I stock used Netgear DM111PSPv2 modems. The power
> supplies burn out after about 5 years, but are otherwise quite
> reliable.
drop by there and pick up one. If this doesn't work then I'm going to tell
my customer, sorry you're SOL, go with Comcast. I hate AT&T with a passion
anyway...
Jeff Liebermann
Nov 28, 2016, 11:15:06 PM11/28/16
to
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:14:20 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Huh? Do you mean a Netgear R6200? That's a wireless router with no
>> sign of a DSL modem inside.
>
>Nope. This is confusing, I know. It's simply the "Netgear 6200", a modem
>with no router. It was in common use for years with AT&T. Here's a link to
>AT&T's page that describes and shows it:
>https://www.att.com/accessories/specialty-items/netgear-dsl-modem-model-6200.html
Strange. I've never seen that model. Googling for it finds only that
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Huh? Do you mean a Netgear R6200? That's a wireless router with no
>> sign of a DSL modem inside.
>
>Nope. This is confusing, I know. It's simply the "Netgear 6200", a modem
>with no router. It was in common use for years with AT&T. Here's a link to
>AT&T's page that describes and shows it:
>https://www.att.com/accessories/specialty-items/netgear-dsl-modem-model-6200.html
link.
>> The DM200 does VDSL, VDSL2, ADSL2+, etc and is allegedly compatible
>> with AT&T DSL.
>
>Allegedly, but not. It's funny, the old Alcatel can be seen at AT&T's end
>but not at the computer end. The DM200 can be seen at the computer's end
>but not at AT&T's end.
making this mistake a few times, is that the cable, modem jack, or
both are wired for Line 2 instead of the usual Line 1.
>In fact, the tech asked me, "Are you sure it's
>connected?" She then told me that the DM200 is not on her list of
>compatible modems.
date in the user manual). I would not expect AT&T to have "approved"
it quite yet.
>She recommended the Netgear or Westel 6200, apparently
>the exact same product.
<http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=westell+6100>
I probably have one, but the last time I tried it on an AT&T DSL line,
it didn't connect. Not recommended.
>Another option was the Netgear 7550 modem/router.
>Can't find that, either.
them.
<https://www.att.com/accessories/specialty-items/netgear-dsl-gateway-model-7550.html>
Well, I found one. Looks new but my tag says untested.
Also, search eBay for GADSL.
<http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=gadsl>
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sss?sort=rel&query=netgear%207550>
Unless you're driving through Santa Cruz, there's no way I can get it
to you by Weds. I'll throw it in my car just in case you're
desperate. If I snail mail it, next week at best.
>That's the problem; the Alcatel does not respond at all to the computer.
>I'll phone AT&T and ask if that's on their list of modems for this POTS
>service. Sheesh...what a hassle.
Jeff Liebermann
Nov 29, 2016, 12:45:02 AM11/29/16
to
firmware. For some reason long forgotten, I've avoided the v1
version. As I vaguely recall, v1 sorta works on long drops (over 3
miles) but the v2 version works better. I had a few where I needed to
squeeze all the performance out of the modem and found the v2 version
to be the best.
I hope it works for you.
David Kaye
Nov 29, 2016, 6:05:01 AM11/29/16
to
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
> Strange. I've never seen that model. Googling for it finds only that
> link.
Googling also finds links to pages where it used to be listed. :)
> Are you getting a carrier light on the modem? My guess, based upon
> making this mistake a few times, is that the cable, modem jack, or
> both are wired for Line 2 instead of the usual Line 1.
The jack has worked successfully for the 10 years I've been supporting this
customer. It only quit when I plugged in her computer after doing some work
on it. Again, with the Alcatel, AT&T can see it but the computer can't.
With the DM200, the computer can see it but AT&T can't.
> Unless you're driving through Santa Cruz, there's no way I can get it
> to you by Weds. I'll throw it in my car just in case you're
> desperate. If I snail mail it, next week at best.
Thanks, but I'll just buy locally. Much as I like visiting Santa Cruz, I
don't have the time this week. If the DM111PSP doesn't work, I'll just
recommend she get Comcast, which I'd been recommending for years.
> Strange. I've never seen that model. Googling for it finds only that
> link.
> Are you getting a carrier light on the modem? My guess, based upon
> making this mistake a few times, is that the cable, modem jack, or
> both are wired for Line 2 instead of the usual Line 1.
customer. It only quit when I plugged in her computer after doing some work
on it. Again, with the Alcatel, AT&T can see it but the computer can't.
With the DM200, the computer can see it but AT&T can't.
> Unless you're driving through Santa Cruz, there's no way I can get it
> to you by Weds. I'll throw it in my car just in case you're
> desperate. If I snail mail it, next week at best.
don't have the time this week. If the DM111PSP doesn't work, I'll just
recommend she get Comcast, which I'd been recommending for years.
Jeff Liebermann
Nov 29, 2016, 12:38:53 PM11/29/16
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:05:08 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Strange. I've never seen that model. Googling for it finds only that
>> link.
>
>Googling also finds links to pages where it used to be listed. :)
>
>
>> Are you getting a carrier light on the modem? My guess, based upon
>> making this mistake a few times, is that the cable, modem jack, or
>> both are wired for Line 2 instead of the usual Line 1.
>
>The jack has worked successfully for the 10 years I've been supporting this
>customer. It only quit when I plugged in her computer after doing some work
>on it. Again, with the Alcatel, AT&T can see it but the computer can't.
>With the DM200, the computer can see it but AT&T can't.
As I vaguely recall, the Alcatel 1000 modem used the pins for Line 2.
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> Strange. I've never seen that model. Googling for it finds only that
>> link.
>
>Googling also finds links to pages where it used to be listed. :)
>
>
>> Are you getting a carrier light on the modem? My guess, based upon
>> making this mistake a few times, is that the cable, modem jack, or
>> both are wired for Line 2 instead of the usual Line 1.
>
>The jack has worked successfully for the 10 years I've been supporting this
>customer. It only quit when I plugged in her computer after doing some work
>on it. Again, with the Alcatel, AT&T can see it but the computer can't.
>With the DM200, the computer can see it but AT&T can't.
Plug an ordinary POTS phone into the end of the cord where the modem
plugs in. If you don't get dialtone, it's wired for Line 2.
Manual
<http://www.abusar.org.br/manuais/manual%20alcatel%20A1000.pdf>
Near the bottom of the document are the pinouts. It shows that the
phone line is connected to Pin 2 and 5 on the 6 pin RJ14 connector.
That's Line 2. If you unplug the flat cable from the wall jack, my
guess(tm) is that you have one end wired for Line 1 and the other end
for Line 2. (Note: This is also a problem for early Cayman DSL
routers).
>Thanks, but I'll just buy locally. Much as I like visiting Santa Cruz, I
>don't have the time this week. If the DM111PSP doesn't work, I'll just
>recommend she get Comcast, which I'd been recommending for years.
David Kaye
Nov 30, 2016, 9:27:10 PM11/30/16
to
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
> As I vaguely recall, the Alcatel 1000 modem used the pins for Line 2.
> Plug an ordinary POTS phone into the end of the cord where the modem
> plugs in. If you don't get dialtone, it's wired for Line 2.
>
> Manual
> <http://www.abusar.org.br/manuais/manual%20alcatel%20A1000.pdf>
Yup, sure enough it says RJ14, which is the two-pair setup (3 and 4 for line
1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I understand what was going on. The
Alcatel 1000ADSL was plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged
into the "phone" jack. All along I had assumed that both were on the center
pair (RJ11) and the difference was a frequency splitter. But this doesn't
explain why I got battery on the phone jack but not on the data jack. I
just figured that a filter was passing only the data and not the POTS
battery. Instead, the jack itself had split connections. I got down on the
floor behind the desk and unscrewed the cover of the jack and it was very
confusing. All connections were punched down inside the little box and it
looked very complicated.
I tested the "phone" jack with the Alcatel and the new Netgear DM111 and
neither of them would connect even though my tester showed battery (polarity
reversed, though it shouldn't matter). I tried to explain what was going
on, but the inability to get data over the conventional "phone" jack was
mystifying as I didn't see a filter anywhere in the office unless it was
hidden in the phone jack.
My client came back into the office, saw me sprawled out on the floor and
said, "Okay, that's it. I'm going to subscribe to Comcast. This is too
confusing." So, she's ordering Comcast. Three more days, and now I have to
return yet another modem, the 111. Central Computer charges a restocking
fee, but maybe they'll waive it. Or I might hang onto it in case I get
another DSL customer with a problem, but nearly everyone has migrated to
cable broadband...
I made two visits about this aspect and I doubt I can rightfully charge for
my time. Funny that the AT&T folks didn't have any info on the uniqueness
of the connection or any info on how to fix things.
> As I vaguely recall, the Alcatel 1000 modem used the pins for Line 2.
> Plug an ordinary POTS phone into the end of the cord where the modem
> plugs in. If you don't get dialtone, it's wired for Line 2.
>
> Manual
> <http://www.abusar.org.br/manuais/manual%20alcatel%20A1000.pdf>
1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I understand what was going on. The
Alcatel 1000ADSL was plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged
into the "phone" jack. All along I had assumed that both were on the center
pair (RJ11) and the difference was a frequency splitter. But this doesn't
explain why I got battery on the phone jack but not on the data jack. I
just figured that a filter was passing only the data and not the POTS
battery. Instead, the jack itself had split connections. I got down on the
floor behind the desk and unscrewed the cover of the jack and it was very
confusing. All connections were punched down inside the little box and it
looked very complicated.
I tested the "phone" jack with the Alcatel and the new Netgear DM111 and
neither of them would connect even though my tester showed battery (polarity
reversed, though it shouldn't matter). I tried to explain what was going
on, but the inability to get data over the conventional "phone" jack was
mystifying as I didn't see a filter anywhere in the office unless it was
hidden in the phone jack.
My client came back into the office, saw me sprawled out on the floor and
said, "Okay, that's it. I'm going to subscribe to Comcast. This is too
confusing." So, she's ordering Comcast. Three more days, and now I have to
return yet another modem, the 111. Central Computer charges a restocking
fee, but maybe they'll waive it. Or I might hang onto it in case I get
another DSL customer with a problem, but nearly everyone has migrated to
cable broadband...
I made two visits about this aspect and I doubt I can rightfully charge for
my time. Funny that the AT&T folks didn't have any info on the uniqueness
of the connection or any info on how to fix things.
Rob Warnock
Dec 1, 2016, 5:30:51 AM12/1/16
to
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
+---------------
Depending on your DSL provider, that used to be a very common
method of provisioning. For example, my original bonded-ISDN
service from AT&T [paid by my PPoE] was done with a separate
"dry pair" [no battery] to the CO, with a separate POTS line,
and two-line inside jacks like those you describe. That continued
when I was switched to Rhythms by said PPoE, then later to
paying for my own SDSL from Speakeasy [now merged with Covad
and Megapath into Megapath]. *All* of these used a separate
dry pair to the CO for the DSL, and thus had no need for filters.
Not until I switched to Sonic's "Fusion" service did I share
my POTS line with the DSL [ADSL2+], and thus need filters.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403
+---------------
| Yup, sure enough it says RJ14, which is the two-pair setup
| (3 and 4 for line 1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I
| understand what was going on. The Alcatel 1000ADSL was
| plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged into
| the "phone" jack.
...
| (3 and 4 for line 1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I
| understand what was going on. The Alcatel 1000ADSL was
| plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged into
| the "phone" jack.
| Funny that the AT&T folks didn't have any info on the
| uniqueness of the connection or any info on how to
| fix things.
+---------------
| uniqueness of the connection or any info on how to
| fix things.
Depending on your DSL provider, that used to be a very common
method of provisioning. For example, my original bonded-ISDN
service from AT&T [paid by my PPoE] was done with a separate
"dry pair" [no battery] to the CO, with a separate POTS line,
and two-line inside jacks like those you describe. That continued
when I was switched to Rhythms by said PPoE, then later to
paying for my own SDSL from Speakeasy [now merged with Covad
and Megapath into Megapath]. *All* of these used a separate
dry pair to the CO for the DSL, and thus had no need for filters.
Not until I switched to Sonic's "Fusion" service did I share
my POTS line with the DSL [ADSL2+], and thus need filters.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403
Jeff Liebermann
Dec 1, 2016, 12:41:10 PM12/1/16
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:27:33 -0800, "David Kaye"
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> As I vaguely recall, the Alcatel 1000 modem used the pins for Line 2.
>> Plug an ordinary POTS phone into the end of the cord where the modem
>> plugs in. If you don't get dialtone, it's wired for Line 2.
>>
>> Manual
>> <http://www.abusar.org.br/manuais/manual%20alcatel%20A1000.pdf>
>
>Yup, sure enough it says RJ14, which is the two-pair setup (3 and 4 for line
>1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I understand what was going on. The
>Alcatel 1000ADSL was plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged
>into the "phone" jack.
Maybe. As I vaguely recall, both jacks have L1 (voice) connected
<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@cruzio.com> wrote
>
>> As I vaguely recall, the Alcatel 1000 modem used the pins for Line 2.
>> Plug an ordinary POTS phone into the end of the cord where the modem
>> plugs in. If you don't get dialtone, it's wired for Line 2.
>>
>> Manual
>> <http://www.abusar.org.br/manuais/manual%20alcatel%20A1000.pdf>
>
>Yup, sure enough it says RJ14, which is the two-pair setup (3 and 4 for line
>1 and 2 and 5 for line 2). So, now I understand what was going on. The
>Alcatel 1000ADSL was plugged into the "data" jack and a phone was plugged
>into the "phone" jack.
together, but L2 (data) only goes to the data jack. Swapping
connections won't work.
>All along I had assumed that both were on the center
>pair (RJ11) and the difference was a frequency splitter.
the common practice was to install a whole house DSL splitter, usually
made by Siecor, at the MPOE (minimum point of entry), and run a
dedicated pair from the splitter to the modem data port.
>But this doesn't
>explain why I got battery on the phone jack but not on the data jack.
they were wired is faulty). I don't have an Alcatel 1000 handy to
check and the manual isn't very helpful.
>I
>just figured that a filter was passing only the data and not the POTS
>battery. Instead, the jack itself had split connections. I got down on the
>floor behind the desk and unscrewed the cover of the jack and it was very
>confusing. All connections were punched down inside the little box and it
>looked very complicated.
>
>I tested the "phone" jack with the Alcatel and the new Netgear DM111 and
>neither of them would connect even though my tester showed battery (polarity
>reversed, though it shouldn't matter). I tried to explain what was going
>on, but the inability to get data over the conventional "phone" jack was
>mystifying as I didn't see a filter anywhere in the office unless it was
>hidden in the phone jack.
has the DSL signal on L2. The DM111 is looking for data on L1. I'm
lazy and carry a few L1 to L2 adapters for such problems.
>My client came back into the office, saw me sprawled out on the floor and
>said, "Okay, that's it. I'm going to subscribe to Comcast. This is too
>confusing." So, she's ordering Comcast. Three more days, and now I have to
>return yet another modem, the 111. Central Computer charges a restocking
>fee, but maybe they'll waive it. Or I might hang onto it in case I get
>another DSL customer with a problem, but nearly everyone has migrated to
>cable broadband...
>I made two visits about this aspect and I doubt I can rightfully charge for
>my time.
effectively gets billed twice and usually doesn't like it. From her
point of view, you FAILED to get her DSL working, and therefore she
should not be paying for the labor involved. (No play, no pay). I
usually have to settle for half my hourly rate, or less.
>Funny that the AT&T folks didn't have any info on the uniqueness
>of the connection or any info on how to fix things.
Alcatel 1000 modem looks like. It was a piece of junk when it was
introduced and gave me quite a few headaches. The various wiring and
provisioning standards hadn't been ossified at the time and things
were changing. The Alcatel 1000 was no better than a prototype. I'm
really surprised that your customer still had one in operation. If
you called AT&T DSL support in the distant past, they would usually
refuse to support the Alcatel 1000 and demand that the customer get a
new modem. The problem was that they couldn't do remote diagnostics
with the Alcatel 1000 and some of the other early modems.
0 new messages