Re: HELP w/ IBM bureaucracy

Dale,

  We have worked through this for one of our customers. It IS fixable.

  Contact me Privately and I'll try to help you out.

  - Larry

ps: For the record this is, Um, Well, .... searching for the right word
here that won't offend the obscenity filters... ah, OK I'll just say
"Pathetic".

D.BALE@handleman.com wrote:
> 
> I've got a situation that's starting to rear it's REALLY ugly head.  This
> situation occurred prior to my arrival here and the principal player in our
> organization with which this situation occurred is long gone.  As you read
> this, please note that I AM NOT JOKING!  Everything I present below is
> "factual" as has been told to me by IBM.
> 
> We have two AS/400s (both 9406-510's running V3R7) at two of our branches
> whose serial numbers begin with '44'.  According to IBM, '44' indicates that
> the box was manufactured outside the U.S. and a serial number beginning with
> '10' indicates that the box was manufactured inside the U.S.
> 
> The problem is that IBM's records show these two systems as beginning with
> '10' with the correct last 5 digits of the serial number.  This apparently was
> not a problem with all of our previous dealings with IBM since I was told
> that, normally, IBM only refers to the last 5 digits of the serial number,
> ignoring the first 2 digits.
> 
> Several weeks ago, with my new responsibilities to manage all of our AS/400's,
> I attempted to use SNDPTFORD to order SF98370 (PSP).  The system dialed up
> IBM, connected, but was returned a message from the IBM connection that "
> Service requester not registered with IBM Service." (CPF8C3B).  After various
> calls to our marketing rep, the branch's C.E., and several other IBM'ers
> patched through on conference calls, over several weeks, this is what I'm
> being told:
> 
> Basically, IBM is, for reasons unknown to me or anyone at IBM that I've talked
> to, unable to change their systems to show that the serial numbers on the two
> affected boxes are, in fact, 44* boxes, and not 10*.  What they *are*
> supposedly able to do is to "flip a bit" that stays "on" for a period of time
> (have not been told how long a period of time that is) that will allow me to
> use IBM to order cume PTFs and MF PTFs (we do not have a software contract
> with them, and I am unable to find paperwork that would tell me whether we
> have any with a BP from whom we may have obtained the system from   man, this
> s*cks!).  Also, there is a unexplainable delay for when the "bit" is turned
> on; I was told I'd have to wait SIX weeks for the "bit" to be turned on!!!
> 
> Upgrading the OS on these boxes supposedly wouldn't solve the problem either,
> even with the subscription service, since IBM will still see our boxes as 44*
> instead of 10*.  If I were to attempt an upgrade to V4Rwhatever, I would have
> to make absolutely certain that I had a wide enough window for the "bit" to
> remain turned on, or else I'd have to wait another SIX weeks to turn it back
> on.
> 
> It gets better.  Last week I politely complained to our marketing rep that
> this was causing undue hardship on our company and wanted someone, anyone, at
> IBM to fix this problem once and for all.  It was then that she told me that
> we wouldn't want to do that because if we do, all future software orders for
> these two boxes would have to be handled from overseas, which she strongly
> suggested that I would not want to do.  Even if it could be done that way, she
> said, doing so would cause us to lose the ability to transfer our licenses
> over to any new AS/400 we would replace the existing AS/400s with (something
> that will probably happen within the next two years).
> 
> Again, and in the words of Dave Barry, I am not making any of this up!  This
> whole issue has the potential to explode to the point where my company
> discards the AS/400s with a more generic solution at the branches.  In fact, I
> have already been called upon by my managers, as part of their new due
> diligence responsibility, to make the case for replacing the AS/400s we have
> with new iSeries boxes instead of a more generic server.  I have made what I
> believe is a compelling case with them to stay on the iSeries architecture,
> but IBM certainly isn't making my job any easier.
> 
> Has ANYONE had to deal with this type of problem before?
> 
> PLEASE, try to keep to the topic with useful dialog!  With that in mind, all
> thoughtful replies are solicited and deeply appreciated!
> 
> Dan Bale
> IT - AS/400
> Handleman Company
> 248-362-4400  Ext. 4952
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---

-- 
Larry Bolhuis           | Cogito ergo mercari iSeries 
Arbor Solutions, Inc.   |
(616) 451-2500          |               (I think, therefore I buy iSeries.)
(616) 451-2571 -fax     |
lbolhuis@arbsol.com     |        #3  1951-2001
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---