Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Hi Does anyone have a copy of this dossier - i cannot find it in the Internet anymore. http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 Best regards Ulrich -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Judah Scott Sent: 2. oktober 2009 01:39 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? If you consider support contracts as insurance then it sounds crazy to pay for the years you were not insured. An example is fire insurance: If you buy fire insurance 10 years after a home is built, State Farm isn't going to charge you for the first 10 years. A quick inspection to verify that all hardware is working may be required just to make sure there is no pre-contract damage. -J Scott On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Adam Armstrong li...@memetic.org wrote: e ninja wrote: Nick, * inline...* On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote: On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do to the price of software if vendors were made liable? * So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? When was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start? Software is always new because it can't break from over-use.* *Do Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? * I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. Worse still, open source would be killed by it. * The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open source software is free.* In the UK we have laws stating that products should be fit for the purpose they're sold for (IANAL, though). Perhaps if it was tested in court properly, it would mean bug fixes which would prevent the use of the software safely would have to be provided free? I do, however, suspect that EULAs try to strip away as much legal protection as possible from the customer. I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything or contribute anything to open source software. * N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not liable for the product.* 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counse Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. * I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software. Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.* Think of hardware support as insurance. The cost of providing the service when it finally breaks is spread across the entire lifetime of the contract. If someone has a device unsupported for 5 years, takes out support and it dies 2 years later, the supplier has lost the vast majority of the money they'd have used to pay for the replacement. Now, I don't think this should be the case for simple software upgrades, but I can see why it's the case for hardware replacement contracts. (And I can see why recert exists). adam. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
e ninja wrote: Nick, * inline...* On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote: On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do to the price of software if vendors were made liable? * So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? When was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start? Software is always new because it can't break from over-use.* *Do Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? * I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. Worse still, open source would be killed by it. * The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open source software is free.* In the UK we have laws stating that products should be fit for the purpose they're sold for (IANAL, though). Perhaps if it was tested in court properly, it would mean bug fixes which would prevent the use of the software safely would have to be provided free? I do, however, suspect that EULAs try to strip away as much legal protection as possible from the customer. I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything or contribute anything to open source software. * N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not liable for the product.* 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counse Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. * I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software. Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.* Think of hardware support as insurance. The cost of providing the service when it finally breaks is spread across the entire lifetime of the contract. If someone has a device unsupported for 5 years, takes out support and it dies 2 years later, the supplier has lost the vast majority of the money they'd have used to pay for the replacement. Now, I don't think this should be the case for simple software upgrades, but I can see why it's the case for hardware replacement contracts. (And I can see why recert exists). adam. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
If you consider support contracts as insurance then it sounds crazy to pay for the years you were not insured. An example is fire insurance: If you buy fire insurance 10 years after a home is built, State Farm isn't going to charge you for the first 10 years. A quick inspection to verify that all hardware is working may be required just to make sure there is no pre-contract damage. -J Scott On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Adam Armstrong li...@memetic.org wrote: e ninja wrote: Nick, * inline...* On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote: On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do to the price of software if vendors were made liable? * So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? When was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start? Software is always new because it can't break from over-use.* *Do Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? * I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. Worse still, open source would be killed by it. * The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open source software is free.* In the UK we have laws stating that products should be fit for the purpose they're sold for (IANAL, though). Perhaps if it was tested in court properly, it would mean bug fixes which would prevent the use of the software safely would have to be provided free? I do, however, suspect that EULAs try to strip away as much legal protection as possible from the customer. I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything or contribute anything to open source software. * N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not liable for the product.* 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counse Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. * I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software. Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.* Think of hardware support as insurance. The cost of providing the service when it finally breaks is spread across the entire lifetime of the contract. If someone has a device unsupported for 5 years, takes out support and it dies 2 years later, the supplier has lost the vast majority of the money they'd have used to pay for the replacement. Now, I don't think this should be the case for simple software upgrades, but I can see why it's the case for hardware replacement contracts. (And I can see why recert exists). adam. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Nick, * inline...* On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote: On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do to the price of software if vendors were made liable? * So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? When was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start? Software is always new because it can't break from over-use.* *Do Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? * I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. Worse still, open source would be killed by it. * The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open source software is free.* I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything or contribute anything to open source software. * N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not liable for the product.* 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counsel Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. * I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software. Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.* I'm not a lawyer. Are you?* * * Does your CFO know you need a lawyer to know when you're been ripped off?* Eninja ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Garry wrote: Richey wrote: is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Apart from the fact that I've had several occasions where there weren't any complaints about getting SMARTnet for older gear (and the serial was sent in when ordering, so $C knew it was older and off of SN for a while) - If what you're after is the IOS update, and you're being quotet for the time in between, why not go software-only SMARTnet? It even contains config/TAC support (if ever required), full access to the download area, and it's something like half of the regular SNT ... plus, there's no logical reason to require a re-cert, as your hardware itself isn't covered ... Is this really available? I was asking a SmartNet rep about this once and was led to believe this isn't an option. Maybe it wasn't then and is now? Maybe they were pulling my leg? Steve -- -- Steven Saner ssa...@pantheranet.com ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Re Steven, ssa...@pantheranet.com (Steven Saner) wrote: for the time in between, why not go software-only SMARTnet? It even contains config/TAC support (if ever required), full access to the download area, and it's something like half of the regular SNT ... plus, there's no logical reason to require a re-cert, as your hardware itself isn't covered ... Is this really available? I was asking a SmartNet rep about this once and was led to believe this isn't an option. Maybe it wasn't then and is now? Maybe they were pulling my leg? As usual, with our last Cisco order I though asking can't hurt and did. This is the first time our distributor offered us such a thing and at a very good price (even if you have to buy three contracts for a smallish ASR1002). So yes, it seems to exist. Elmar. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:56:26AM -0500, Steven Saner wrote: Is this really available? I was asking a SmartNet rep about this once and was led to believe this isn't an option. Maybe it wasn't then and is now? Maybe they were pulling my leg? It does exist, CON-SW-..., but not listed in the GPL. When poking your sales rep enough, they admit. :) For pricing, see SP-SW-..., it's all the same as CON- (at least for all products I checked, being various Catalyst and ASR1K parts). In fact, the SP-SW- contract line brought me to CON-SW- when we asked for SP-SW- offer and got told that SP- ain't sold in Europe, but there is equivalent CON-SW- too... :) Best regards, Daniel ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Steven Saner wrote: Is this really available? I was asking a SmartNet rep about this once and was led to believe this isn't an option. Maybe it wasn't then and is now? Maybe they were pulling my leg? 'SASU' - Software Application Support plus Upgrades But last time I priced it up I got the same price for that as 8x5xNBD hardware support, which was disappointing. OP could go to a third party for support rather than Cisco, which should reduce the cost yet still allow legitimate access to newer IOS. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Steven Saner wrote: Is this really available? I was asking a SmartNet rep about this once and was led to believe this isn't an option. Maybe it wasn't then and is now? Maybe they were pulling my leg? Sure. For a 7206VXR the part number is SP-SW-7206VXRN. However I don't generally recommend people buy it. The software-only version doesn't come with any sort of hardware replacement. For a wee bit more you can get the RTF SmartNet (SP-RR-7206VXRN). That's Return To Factory 10-day turn around service. That's what you should get if you're implementing a sparing strategy. List on the SP-SW for a 7206VXR is $2688. List on the SP-RR is only $2895. So for a 7.7% increase in costs you can get a hardware replacement option. 8x5xNBD adds another $400 to the cost. 24x7x4 is nearly double the SP-SW option. The only time SP-SW makes sense is if you have an extremely large network and decent sparing strategy, where having a 1% hardware failure rate and eating the cost of the failed router (to replace it with a spare) costs you less than SP-RR coverage on all devices. It's also good if you have a huge inventory of spares for a given model to back you up in case the covered unit shoots craps on you. Personally I've taken my SP down the path of buying RTF coverage for everything that has a backup (hot or cold) and then putting either 8x5xNBD (AR1) or 24x7x4 (AR3) on the devices that I don't have a good backup for. The money saved was put towards buying more spares. The collection of spares also gives me a lab to work in. With those spares I can have a failed device replaced in an hour or two vs a minimum of 4 hours plus however long it takes for TAC to decide that a RMA is needed. Justin ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Hi, On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 09:29:54AM -0500, Justin Shore wrote: Sure. For a 7206VXR the part number is SP-SW-7206VXRN. However I don't generally recommend people buy it. The software-only version doesn't come with any sort of hardware replacement. For a wee bit more you can get the RTF SmartNet (SP-RR-7206VXRN). That's Return To Factory 10-day How do people get these part numbers? For our smartnet contracts, getting the right numbers for various 6500+sup720 combinations seems to be nearly impossible. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpOJZuAFl9Lw.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Richey, No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counsel Bad things will continue to happen until good people take action. See what happened when people protested about the inefficient download tool? It got fixed. Furthermore, there are alternatives to manufacturer network maintenance services - a google search will reveal options. We live in a free world, let's start acting as such. Eninja :) On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Richey myli...@battleop.com wrote: One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Gert Doering wrote: How do people get these part numbers? For our smartnet contracts, getting the right numbers for various 6500+sup720 combinations seems to be nearly impossible. Gert, Two ways that I can think of. The first is from the Global Price List on cisco.com: https://tools.cisco.com/qtc/pricing/MainServlet Or by way of the Dynamic Config Tool when you build a quote: https://apps.cisco.com/qtc/config/jsp/configureHome.jsp I'm assuming that all registered users have access to that information. My CCO has several entitlements added to it so it's possible that other CCOs can't access the same data. Your AM should be able to get the GPL added to your CCO though. Justin ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: No it is not right. 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for bug fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do to the price of software if vendors were made liable? I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. Worse still, open source would be killed by it. I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything or contribute anything to open source software. 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is extortionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion- a criminal act - seek legal counsel Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, that the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
It's not unusual practice in the industry, but usually Cisco will require a recertification fee instead. They will send someone out to make sure the equipment is still working etc... It's usually about 2-3 x the cost of an annual contract. You might see if they will do a recert instead. Otherwise, maybe your customer will learn about being pennywise and pound foolish :) Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:55 PM To: 'Cisco-NSP Mailing List' Subject: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Look for a PSIRT issue against the image and get a 'free' upgrade? - Jared On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Matthew Huff wrote: It's not unusual practice in the industry, but usually Cisco will require a recertification fee instead. They will send someone out to make sure the equipment is still working etc... It's usually about 2-3 x the cost of an annual contract. You might see if they will do a recert instead. Otherwise, maybe your customer will learn about being pennywise and pound foolish :) Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:55 PM To: 'Cisco-NSP Mailing List' Subject: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
I think Cisco is smoking crack here and not that good quality East Oakland stovetop crack but that San Francisco twice cut Tenderloin shwag. Consider that you can buy used hardware from a reputable reseller and resmartnet the gear for very reasonable rates certainly far less than 5X. (generally 1X in my experience) so I don't see how you'd get charged 5 times for your own gear and the normal street rate for gear off Ebay or your friendly near by used reseller. I'd say some haggling is in order. - Original Message - From: Richey myli...@battleop.com To: 'Cisco-NSP Mailing List' cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Replace (upgrade?) the hardware and get a new contract? Then you have a spare too. -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:11 PM To: Matthew Huff Cc: 'Cisco-NSP Mailing List' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? Look for a PSIRT issue against the image and get a 'free' upgrade? - Jared On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Matthew Huff wrote: It's not unusual practice in the industry, but usually Cisco will require a recertification fee instead. They will send someone out to make sure the equipment is still working etc... It's usually about 2-3 x the cost of an annual contract. You might see if they will do a recert instead. Otherwise, maybe your customer will learn about being pennywise and pound foolish :) Matthew Huff | One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp- boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Richey Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:55 PM To: 'Cisco-NSP Mailing List' Subject: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Richey ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Richey wrote: One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? I once added smartnet to a 2811 over a year after purchasing it without. I didn't have to pay a recert or for the uncovered time. -- Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us Roller Network LLC ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Why don't you tell them that they couldn't sell you at 1x price for the last 5 years, what makes them think you are going to pay 5x that price. It's simple economics you obviously value the service at 1/5 the price ... On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote: Richey wrote: One of my customers called me today to ask me if this sounds right. I don't much about smartnet but I told him I knew where to ask about this.He said they let their initial smartnet contract expire about 5 years ago because they never used the support and management couldn't justify the cost.Now they need a newer image because the current one they are using is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? I once added smartnet to a 2811 over a year after purchasing it without. I didn't have to pay a recert or for the uncovered time. -- Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us Roller Network LLC ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing?
Richey wrote: is buggy for whatever it is they are trying to do. They contacted their rep and the rep said Cisco wants them to pay for the last 5 years of smartnet plus however many going forward in order to get the image. They were quoted over $25k just to upgrade an image. The part that sounds fishy is being forced to pay for 5 years of smartnet. Does this sound right? Apart from the fact that I've had several occasions where there weren't any complaints about getting SMARTnet for older gear (and the serial was sent in when ordering, so $C knew it was older and off of SN for a while) - If what you're after is the IOS update, and you're being quotet for the time in between, why not go software-only SMARTnet? It even contains config/TAC support (if ever required), full access to the download area, and it's something like half of the regular SNT ... plus, there's no logical reason to require a re-cert, as your hardware itself isn't covered ... -garry ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
