iCore Networks

Dear *** ***,
Per our discussion, attached please find iCore Network’s direct response to Complaint ID # *** by ** *** Please confirm receipt and note that iCore is submitting this response solely through you and not via other electronic
methods
Thank you,
Chester W***
For iCore Networks, Inc
See Attachment

Our organization has been called, visited and harassed by several representatives of ICORE for well over a yearWe have never shown any interest in their product and have consistently told them we are not interested and asked them to stop calling and coming by our officeThey have aggressively verbally confronted and questioned numerous staff members in the office regarding our lack of interest in their products during unsolicited and unwelcome in person drop by product marketing visits to our office.Salespersons have done this on at least three separate occasions and have aggressively worked to intimidate staff of our organization to discuss their products In addition, they have hit us with waves of phone marketing campaigns to our offices over the last monthsWe have explicitly asked them to leave us alone and expressed we are NOT interested in their products or business, and received in response an argumentative and aggressive sales pitchHighly inappropriate and highly unwelcome

See Attachment
Idenia Campbell
To Chester W[redacted] You have been granted permission to send response 10 days...
Jul 30 (8 days ago)
[redacted]
AttachmentsAug 1 (6 days ago)
to me 
Dea[redacted]...

[redacted]
 
Per our discussion, attached please find iCore Network’s response to Complaint ID # [redacted].  Please confirm receipt and note that iCore is submitting this response solely through you and not via other electronic methods.
 
Thank you,
 
Chester W[redacted]
 
 
From: [redacted] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Chester W[redacted]
Subject: Complaint ID # [redacted]

I. INTRODUCTIONiCore Networks, Inc. (“iCore”), is a leading provider of advanced application services focused on businesses’ communication needs using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Internet, and data technologies. The company’s customer base consists principally of small and medium-size businesses located throughout the United States and internationally. The Complainant in this matter, [redacted], Inc. (“[redacted]”), is a current iCore customer and has contracted for voice (telephone) and cloud (network, email and storage) services. [redacted] asserts multiple allegations in the instant Revdex.com Complaint (the “Complaint”), which pertain almost exclusively to its service installation and cloud services. iCore is disappointed that [redacted] is in any way dissatisfied with its service and will continue to take the necessary steps to address the company’s concerns.
Here, the allegations asserted by [redacted] are not accurate and incorrectly describe the service they received from iCore. The alleged problems asserted by [redacted] concern 1) faults with their service installation, 2) the handling of service repair issues following a power outage that took their entire system down, and 3) a dispute over whether or not their service with iCore included backing up all their data – which iCore contends it does not. iCore maintains that these allegations are misplaced and arise from Complainant’s misunderstanding of its service agreement and the Universal Terms and Conditions (“Universal Terms”), which govern their service order. It is also important to note at the outset, that the Complainant is only requesting relief with regard to its cloud services. In fact, the Complaint does not allege any current operating issues with [redacted]’ voice service, which is the largest part of their order.
II. DISCUSSIONComplainant’s allegations againstiCore include that:1) iCore’s service install went poorly which caused its entire network to go down, including all their computers and printers, for 2 days;2) [redacted] had a power failure on July 2nd, caused by a lightning strike near their location which took out their local servers and remote desktop connections. The Complainant purportedly consulted iCore about repairing the damage and were allegedly advised that the repair was a billable event at $200.00 an hour. In addition, iCore allegedly provided no assurances that they could get [redacted]’ local servers back up. They went to another vendor for the repair, which was their choice, and did not involve iCore. iCore was never retained to repair the Complainant’s local servers and certainly did not cause the problem (i.e., the lightning strike). (With regard to this item, iCore is unclear of exactly what [redacted] contends iCore allegedly did wrong); and,3) On July 3rd, [redacted] allegedly asked iCore to get Complainant’s “backup data ready,” and were told that iCore did not backup any data. [redacted] contends they were to receive this service and allegedly had been paying for it. According to [redacted], that purportedly was “the last straw” and precipitated the instant Revdex.com complaint.
Each of Complainant’s contentions is factually inaccurate and untrue.
A. [redacted]’s Cloud Service Installation Went Well, And They Admit It[redacted] confirmed their satisfaction with the service installation in writing via email dated June 17, 2014, from [redacted] (“[redacted]”), the technical point of contact for the entire installation. After the service install was completed, iCore directly asked [redacted] what his company thought of the cloud services install and what could be improved upon. [redacted], who personally oversaw the install from start to finish, stated in pertinent part:Thank you for reaching out to us. Here is the feedback that I have concerning the cloud end of the installation. Chuck' worked great with us on the email migration and sending out regular updates on the progress of what was being done and what still needed to be performed. Chuck was very quick to respond and assist when issues came up as we began to load the new email ... Overall the cloud side of the iCore install was very smooth and fast (emphasis added).
This email does not mention any of the criticisms about the install alleged by [redacted] in the Complaint. It contradicts the Complaint and compliments iCore’s service install.B. Certain Problems Occurred During The Voice And Data Installation As A Result Of [redacted]’s Refusal To Secure Essential Equipment Or ComplyWith Specific Installation Instructions Regarding Updating Unmanaged Equipment IP Addresses 4%
Complainant alleges that: “. . . the installation had major problems because iCore changed all of the settings of our IP addresses which made all of our equipment and computers and printers unworkable for two days.” That is not accurate and fails to explain exactly what occurred. The Complainant caused problems with their install by 1) refusing to update their IP addresses for certain network equipment, and 2) refusing to purchase certain equipment that iCore informed them was essential for their service to operate properly.“Chuck” refers to iCore's employee Charles M[redacted], a cloud engineer who principally interfaced with [redacted] on their account.
1) The IP Address Change IssueBefore every new service install, iCore reviews the installation process with the customer and provides written instructions with specific information which explains the customer’s obligations. iCore followed that process, and gave [redacted] a 15-page comprehensive Project Installation Plan, supplemented with multiple instructions sent via emails and multiple conference calls from iCore engineers and project managers.Page 12 of the Project Installation Plan, item 8, states that the Complainant was responsible for all unmanaged equipment, specifically printers, and LAN management. (See Exhibit “A” – Project Installation Plan P.12, Item 8). Prior to the service installation and cutover, iCore reviewed the Complainant’s obligations with them and directly told them that they were responsible for updating the IP addresses on their printers. The Complainant was also provided with the new IP addresses for their equipment. They acknowledged and confirmed that they understood these obligations. Prior to the cutover, [redacted] never stated that they would not update their IP addresses. When the new circuits and routers were connected to [redacted]’s network, it automatically changed Complainant’s IP addresses (as everyone was advised in advance would occur). At that critical point, Complainant refused to update their IP addresses with the new IP addresses that iCore had previously provided and insisted that iCore perform this task.”iCore was not contractually obligated to perform this task and had not planned complete it. Rather, the Complainant had been notified in advance that they were responsible for updating the IP addresses on their unmanaged equipment. iCore stepped in and updated Complainant's IP addresses for them. Complainant wrongly concludes that iCore nonetheless became responsible for updating their IP addresses when the circuit cutover caused them to change. This is incorrect because Complainant’s obligation to update the IP addresses was not based on who caused them to change, but was determined based on Complainant’s unmanaged equipment and LAN management responsibilities. iCore was never confused about this process; it is standard, and iCore set it up this way from the start. iCore had to make last minute emergency arrangements to go to [redacted]’s facility and to perform this task during the installation.
*iCore would not have set-up the installation the way it did if we had known in advance that the Complainant was not going to update the IP addresses of its unmanaged equipment. Rather, iCore would have assigned a field engineer to perform that task. That engineer would have been prepped in advance with detailed information about Complainant’s network and unmanaged equipment. Because Complainant breached its obligation during the installation process, iCore was forced to immediately assign a field engineer, who did not have the benefit of weeks of preparation on this account to complete this task.iCore also disputes Complainant’s contention that all of their equipment was down for 2 days. By their own admissions, this problem was limited only to certain equipment, not all equipment as they allege now, and the system was only partially down for 8 hours not 2 days.
2) Complainant Reiected iCore's Switch RecommendationComplainant’s existing network did not have the proper switch to support their service with iCore because it was unable to effectively support both voice and data traffic. iCore identified this problem during the project planning stage, and recommended specific Cisco switches as alternatives to address this issue. Complainant rejected the switches proposed by iCore and decided to use their existing switch, even though Complainant had been advised the existing switch would adversely affect voice quality and data transmission.” iCore installed its service with the customer’s existing switch, and as predicted the voice quality was altered and data transmission interrupted. This was not a mistake by iCore, but a choice by Complainant to utilize their switch.Thereafter, Complainant acknowledged they needed the new switch. They ordered the Cisco switch originally recommended by iCore (Cisco model 2960). iCore installed it and Complainant’s voice and data issues were immediately resolved. Owner John Pohlhaus confirmed that the new switch corrected the problems and stated in an email to iCore: “Thank you very much everyone. The phones are working well.”In sum, the customer did not have a working switch that could support the voice install and they lacked IT expertise on network issues. They initially refused to buy a Cisco switch recommended by iCore that could support both voice and data (until after the install when it was clear their switch was inadequate). The information provided to iCore by [redacted] that their existing switch could support vlans and the phones were not correct. iCore installed the new switch, which fixed the problem. This service problem was avoidable and iCore was on top of it from outset; only to have our solution rejected.C. iCore Was Never Engaged By The Complainant To Facilitate Any Repair To Its Network.After The Power Outage Caused By A Lightning Strike.On July 2nd, [redacted] had a power failure on July 2nd caused by a lightning strike near their location. This took out their local servers and remote desktop connections. The Complainant purportedly consulted iCore about repairing damage to their network and equipment, and were allegedly advised that the repair was a billable event at $200.00 an hour. Complainant alleges that iCore provided no assurances that they could get [redacted]’s local servers back up and that they preferred to retain a local vendor. Accordingly, Complainant states that they engaged another vendor for the repair service. It is unclear exactly what the Complainant contends iCore did wrong in this instance. iCore was never allowed the opportunity to make the repairs to their network and equipment. iCore will not speculate as to the reasons the Complainant believes that iCore did something wrong in this instance. However, it is unrefuted that iCore was would have provided the service to restore the Complainant’s network, if retained to do the work.
D. Complainant Did Not Purchase Backup Data Service From iCore And They Were Never Charged For It.Complainant contends they ordered cloud backup service from iCore. On July 3, 2014, Complainant alleges that they asked iCore to get their “backup data ready,” and were purportedly told that iCore never backed up any of their data. Complainant further contends that they had been paying for backup service. To the contrary, Complainant never ordered “backup” service, was not charged for it, and did not pay for it. After placing their original order, Complainant added as a service, 1.5 TB cold storage. This archival service was available to the Complainant to store data throughout the service term. However, this storage system is not an automatic process. Rather the customer must provide data that they want to archive to iCore for us to store it. Complainant never provided any such data to iCore for cold storage. Accordingly, the Complainant was advised that their data had not been backed up to cold storage because iCore never received any data from them to store.Notwithstanding the foregoing, iCore did provide a “short term” active backup service to the Complainant which automatically backed up their data for two weeks. That feature was included in their standard service. However, the cold storage service was not ordered or setup to utilize an active backup storage protocol. This was explained to the Complainant. The Complainant ordered “cold storage.” That archival storage service was available to them throughout the service term. (See Exhibit “B”, CSO Cold Storage order). Once Complainant’s misunderstanding became known to iCore, iCore installed an active backup system, [redacted] Robocopy, for the Complainant. This service, which—includes—an additional-monthly—fee, was added as an accommodation without any additional charge.E. Complainant Seeks To Early Terminate Their Cloud Services. In Violation Of Their Agreement With iCore.If [redacted] decides to unilaterally terminate iCore’s cloud service prior to the expiration of the Term Commitment set forth in the Customer Service Order Agreement, [redacted] will be subject to Section 3(b) of the Universal Terms. Section 3(b) of the Universal Terms states, in relevant part, the following:If this Agreement is terminated by Customer prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Renewal Term and such termination is not due to iCore’s breach as set forth in Section 3(c) or if iCore terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 2(b) or 3(c) due to Customer’s breach, Customer shall pay to iCore an early termination charge, which Customer agrees is reasonable, equal to all non-recurring and monthlyrecurring charges set forth in the Customer Service Order Agreement which would otherwise be due through the end of the Initial Term or Renewal Term in effect at the time, including all applicable taxes and fees. The parties agree that the precise damages resulting from an early termination by Customer or termination by iCore due to Customer’s breach are difficult to ascertain and the early termination charge set forth in this Section 3(b) is a reasonable estimate of anticipated actual damages a penalty. The early termination charge shall be due and payable within ten (10) days of the effective date of termination (emphasis added).While iCore hopes that [redacted] will comply with the Universal Terms and continue to subscribe to iCore’s services at its location until the end of the current term, [redacted] will be in breach of the Agreement, and shall be liable for paying the early termination charges described in Section 3(b) of the Universal Terms. It is pursuant to the above clause that iCore sent [redacted] an ETL notice in response to their unilateral attempt to early terminate their cloud services.III. CONCLUSION AND RESOLUTIONiCore remains absolutely willing and available to help [redacted] resolve any service complaints. Nevertheless, iCore is steadfast that [redacted]’s service issues arose due to their refusal to comply with their contractual obligations and initial refusal to purchase essential equipment. In sum, the service issues that Complainant raises herein were avoidable if they met their obligation to update their IP addresses, and purchased the recommended switch. Complainant overlooks that iCore did update the IP addresses but had to do so under emergency circumstances that Complainant created -- which made it more difficult. Complainant wrongly concludes that iCore had done something wrong and was inexpert during the installation. As stated above, Complainant was informed in advance, in writing and verbally that their IP addresses would change with the new circuit and routers. Complainant was also notified in advance that they were responsible to update their unmanaged equipment. Complainant unequivocally acknowledged this task. For all the above reasons, iCore maintains that the Complainant is without grounds to early terminate their cloud service. iCore remains determined to achieve a prompt and amicable resolution of this matter. However, as stated above, both parties executed a binding Agreement which includes a specific term commitment and associated early termination charges.

Stay away! These people lie from the second they walk in your front door. We have been having issues with them for 3 years! They do not provide the services they offer. They ignore any complaints they deem unworthy. They do not offer credits or repayment for time lost when the service goes down. (And it WILL go down) Our phones and internet have gone down 35 times! For a sales business this is a disaster! Not only do they not fix the actual problem but they wont let you out of the contract once you figure out what they are either!

Our organization has been called, visited and harassed by several representatives of ICORE for well over a year. We have never shown any interest in their product and have consistently told them we are not interested and asked them to stop calling and coming by our office. They have aggressively verbally confronted and questioned numerous staff members in the office regarding our lack of interest in their products during unsolicited and unwelcome in person drop by product marketing visits to our office.Salespersons have done this on at least three separate occasions and have aggressively worked to intimidate staff of our organization to discuss their products. In addition, they have hit us with waves of phone marketing campaigns to our offices over the last 18 months. We have explicitly asked them to leave us alone and expressed we are NOT interested in their products or business, and received in response an argumentative and aggressive sales pitch. Highly inappropriate and highly unwelcome.