RE: Qwest Support

["internetguy205 () hotmail com" <internetguy205 () hotmail com>]

WOW.

After going through the string of emails on this subject,  it really amazes me that someone would bash someone else in 
regards to getting correct support.  This appeared to be a legitimate need for support, & Regardless of the nature of 
the problem, as Mr. Urban suggests, quite correctly, this gentleman Mr. Dills could not get support when he required 
it, & was shuffled around.

In fact, someone suggested that he would have had" greater  sympathy " for this gentleman if he was really down.  & if 
it had of been a legitimate routing problem, it would have been " more interesting ".

Now, we all can understand with the state of the industry, that support response times & support in general might just 
be a bit stretched these days.  But no sympathy, or would have had greater sympathy, come on.

Infact, reading further emails, it appears that this gentleman, Mr. Dills DID have a routing issue.  & once he lit into 
his provider, via NANOG, they did not like the exposure & quickly gave him some assistance.

Now, NANOG is really not the place to b****, but if it works...

Greater sympathy.... ??  More interesting if it was a routing problem... When it appears it was...


Wonder if they treat their customers like that at Sockeye Networks.


A customer is a customer, plain & simple.  Dont tell him you will call him back in 30 minutes then shuffle him off.  
For a day.


Regards.






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Urban [mailto:urban () cs umbc edu]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: Daniel Golding; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: RE: Qwest Support
>
>
>
> You totally missed the point.  Had this been a real emergency, he
> would be
> unable to get resolution since Qwest was unable to dredge up a
> clue within
> their customer support machine.
>
> Greg U