<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Perhaps there is a middle ground like with health insurance? Time
limits for certain claims? <br>
<br>
The main complaint seems to be buying second hand gear, perhaps
providing a bill of sale and a statement saying the hardware is
'currently' working and operational, and a first 1-3 months no RMA
or something similar kind of policy to protect against immediate
fraud I think would be reasonable - this way the second hand kit
gets access to software and TAC while not being at a huge risk of
customer turning around and expecting RMA's day 1, and protecting
against some long-con which seems obviously fraudulent.<br>
<br>
But this is all just speculation - current policy is current policy
and if enforced, is gonna suck for Peter's customer.<br>
<br>
On 26/04/18 15:58, Scott Howard wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACnPsNXmHBpbYvZcpWAs8GG47GMRMgJT2F_womTQ9a0sRYrvaQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">While you're at it, you might as well cancel your
house and contents insurance.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the building burns down, just call up and start a new
policy and then submit your claim.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm sure they'll be ok with that, right?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Scott</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Karl
Auer <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:kauer@biplane.com.au" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kauer@biplane.com.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed,
2018-04-25 at 00:07 +0000, Nikolas Geyer wrote:<br>
> Yes, it’s pretty standard. It’s to stop people running
hardware<br>
> without a maintenance contract and only buying one when
they need to<br>
> do, for example, a RMA.<br>
<br>
Sorry, why is that a problem? If they pay the support fee,
they should<br>
get the benefits. If they are not using the benefits, why
should they<br>
pay the fee? On the flip side, they may not have paid
support for ten<br>
years, but they also have not been costing the vendor
anything.<br>
<br>
I see no problem with someone waiting until it is needed
before paying<br>
the support fee.<br>
<br>
Am I missing something? What *is* the "vendor side of the
problem"?<br>
<br>
Regards, K.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<wbr>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<wbr>~~~~~~~~~~~<br>
Karl Auer (<a href="mailto:kauer@biplane.com.au"
moz-do-not-send="true">kauer@biplane.com.au</a>)<br>
<a href="http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.biplane.com.au/<wbr>kauer</a><br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/kauer389" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://twitter.com/kauer389</a><br>
<br>
GPG fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4
9B0B 1D75<br>
Old fingerprint: A52E F6B9 708B 51C4 85E6 1634 0571 ADF9
3C1C 6A3A<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.ausnog.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>