🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4550@xanth.cs.odu.edu> hogan@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Emmett Hogan) writes:
>
>                   ANCHOR 2400 baud Modem 
>
This reminds me very little of the flame that I tried to post
about a month ago but I believe failed to be distributed.....
I have no idea if this has anything to do with $129 Anchor 2400
baud modems, though. Here was my posting:

-----------------------------------------



What would you do if you were a manufacturer of modems, and you found
out you just shipped a lot of bad ones?

I don't know if Anchor Automation is the only mfgr.  affected by
whatever the "chipset defect" is that prevents the AT&C1 command from
working in the 2400E external modem I got, but what burns me is how
they treat folks victimized by this defect.  To wit:

I ordered from a mail order house, and got my modem within a week.  It
seemed to communicate fine, but the damn Carrier Detect line never went
off, no matter what the state of the carrier was.  And the AT&C1
command did not help. I really need the CD line to work, since I have the
MR. MOX that powers-up my PC based on the CD signal, so I can call in
if I want.  So, after spending a few hours trying everything I could
think of, I decided to call them up and ask.  Not as easy as it should
have been, *all* the Anchor literature is devoid of a phone number!  I
think they do not want people to call!  Especially with *problems*.

Anyway, I knew where Chatsworth CA was, so information got me the
number.  On my second call I talked to a human being, and, yes, she
knew about the &C1 not working, that happens sometimes, she says.  All
she can do, she says, is "let you send it to us with $5.00, and we will
fix it." Hmmm, why do I need to send $5.00 because I got a defective
product?  I *really* think they should pay shipping *both* ways, but I
could let that go.  But this $5.00 is just too much.  So I say "But this
is a BRAND NEW modem!", and she says "Well you could return it to the
store you got it from", and I can't argue with that.  But I *did* ask,
"And if they send me another one, will it have this problem too?".
She says "No", so I asked for her name (Desiree) and said thank you.

Packaged up the modem and sent it back to the Mail Order house,
with a letter describing my interaction with Desiree.

Today (2/24/88), I get a call from the M.O. house saying, "gosh, Anchor
is having a problem with these modems and the &C1 command, they have
told us it is a chip problem.  We would like to substitute a different
brand of modem".  Well, all right.

I can't fault the M.O. house for anything they have done
(that I know of, unless they still shipped Anchor 2400E's
after Anchor told them about the defect, but I'll never know).

But, I think Anchor is the real jerk in this situation, and by
being a jerk they have wasted *MY* time and money, and the
M.O. house's time and money.  If, in this case of a "we know we 
shipped modems with this defect", Anchor would have accepted
my modem back for repair *without* the $5.00 "gipping" charge,
then the modem would have stayed sold as far as the M.O. house
was concerned, and I would have been happy (eventually).  And
I would own an Anchor modem, instead of a substitute.

The thing is, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIX IT ANYWAY, and routing
it back through the M.O. house is just a chicken-s**t attitude,
reflecting a disregard for end-users (me) and retailers (the
M.O. house).

I liked my first Anchor modem (a 1200 baud), but now I never
want to see one again!

Anyone have related comments?

- Jay Bowden



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Bowden, EE/Consultant; see also Bowden Engineering
Currently contracted at Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest, akgua, decvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!jcb