Conference 7.286::dcu

Well, as one who has never used any home banking or financial package
before, I tried out PC Branch without any pre-conceived biases this 
evening.

I LIKE IT!!!!

I'm a fairly heavy user of Easy-Touch, and this is going to be A LOT more fun!

Transferring funds by dragging cells in a spreadsheet is wicked awesome, if
you ask me!

Getting the acct summary spreadsheet upon connection is a great feature.

And pulling up acct history is quick and painless.

I'll be using this QUITE frequently!

And, I was pleased to see that there's also a menu driven component to the
system for the terminal/emulator user.

:^)

As Larry Seiler always says - Enjoy!

 I installed it tonight and seem to be running into a few connection problems,
 likely attributed to my modem.



 Jim

 I keep getting error messages and am unable to get past logging in.  I get
 a "can't find subscript" and a couple other messages saying it can't find
 this or that.



 Jim

 I tried it this morning and really like the new-found convenience.  This,
 plus the updated web site, screams "this ain't my father's DCU anymore!"

 Now, for an encore...

 One nit though.  On my home Starion, it was tough to view the text on the
 icons "Select an account ..."   Actually, the text was not visible on the 
 buttons.

- Jim

Have any Macintosh users tried it yet?

/john

>Have any Macintosh users tried it yet?

I don't know. However the documentation that came with the kit indicates
that non-MSWindows users connect through terminal emulation (VT100) mode
and work through a menu driven interface. I may try to connect that way
later today just to see how it looks.

    Well, I field tested (sort of) and the new "official" PC Branch is a
    lot better and nizer looking.
    
    
    Problems tho:
    
    1) Got a LOT of array subscript errors (had to click ok to continue)
       after it took two tries to connect.
    
    2) Could log in my account, but could not log in my wife's
       (100-<badge> ).  She was able to use Easy Touch, so the
       PIN was ok.
    
    I'll be calling the help line later to try to work this out.
    

One thing I have noticed is that you must set the modem speed in the settings
dialog no higher than 9600, even though the DCU modem will answer at 14400.
I have no idea why this should be.

Export to a QIF file produces a fairly useless file, as values are not in
their proper fields.  I reported this during the field test - it hasn't
changed.

				Steve

I set my modem at 38.4K.  When connected, it said:  "Connected at 
38400", even though I have no idea what the actual speed was.

The whole process was very smooth and easy, and it took me just a few 
minutes to set up and get connected.  The thing that I liked was a 
more detailed description of entries made with a check card -- it 
listed all the names of the vendors, not just addresses that I 
sometimes get on the regular monthly statements (most notorious in 
this respect is Stop & Shop), and the fact that I can check the 
statement at any time.

The thing that I did not like was the lack of the check list in the 
numerical order, that always located at the end of the regular 
monthly statement.  This numerical order list makes the 
reconciliation easier.

Leo

    Re .5, yes - i did try the field test software.  I was not impressed.
    
    --svb

I'm a big fan of this software so far, but have seen several problems.

The most painful is I keep losing connections.   Every time I add a vendor,
I get kicked out.

Of course, I'm probably the only one trying this under window's 95 ?    

It works to some degree and I plan to test out more at home later.   I did
manage to get in a bill payment for my next cable bill, it's scheduled out at 
2/11 even though I entered it today.   I guess from the docuementation, that is
the date it is expected to be at the vendor and the date DCU will deduct it 
from my account ?

I like what I see so far with this, I'm also a heavy user of the touch tone.

Dave

 I'm having difficulties similar to .7  Jack Delbalso was kind enough
 to suggest a couple things, which I'll try when I arrive home, and
 I called the help line and was told "someone will call you back".
 I assume they meant today, but perhaps not.



 Jim

Re:  .11

>Of course, I'm probably the only one trying this under window's 95 ? 
   
No, I do run it under Win95, and it works fine.

Leo

 Re:  .13

Leo, 

I had a modem problem, things are working just fine now.   So far I have
noticed only 2 problems.   If you use the down arrow to go from a full screen
to a partial (not "iconize"), there is an error message about the toolbar
refresh not working properly, but you can muddle on without any problems.

Only other thing, I don't know why it came up with 2/11 as the payment date
yesterday and expected to arrive at the vendor 6 business days later, 2/17.

Have you made any payments yet ?   I was expecting the bill payments to 
be batched and sent out like the next business day, and then arrive by 6
business days later.   This timing if it stays the same seems quite slow to 
pay some of my bills, like cable, which is due like 5 days after I get it !!

I also just noticed in the help on line that we get this free for 3 months,
then it costs 3 bucks per month after that deducted from checking, that's 
not too bad I guess.

Dave

    Yes I use it on Windows 95 and it works fine.  But the accuracy of the
    information is to be questioned.  Friday evening I loaded the software
    and gave it a test run.  Seems nice smooth and SIMPLE!!  
    	I checked history of my checking account back to 12/20/95 and
    downloaed the file.  I then tried to balance my check book and came up
    with a $50 dollar error and could not find the cause.  On Monday
    evening I downloaded the same history file and low and behold the
    balance on every line item was $50 different then Fridays report.
    
    	Example
    Fridays Data (After 8PM)
    	DATE	Description	Amouunt		Balance
    	01/01/96  Check#123	-19.00		350.02
    
    Mondays Data (Around 7:30PM)
    	DATE	Description	Amouunt		Balance
    	01/01/96  Check#123	-19.00		400.02
    
    I called the service center and explained the situation.  They told me
    that any information accessed between 8PM and 1PM could be wrong.
    I asked how could this be with respect to previous transactions that
    have cleared and balance information that is over a month old.  All
    they said was Yes this is possible, and we suggest that you do not use
    the system for that kind of information during these times frames.
    
    Soooo
    
    Be Careful...
    
    Les
    
    Anyone else have this happen??

Let me remind you all that you must report your bugs and problems to DCU via
the Info Center, or your branch manager, or some other DCU employee, in order
for you to get your questions answered, or your problems solved.

You can also use e-mail to [email protected].  This includes actual bugs, problems
you personally are having, and general comments like .15 had, that updates are
being done from 8 to 11 pm, when he is using the system.

You can also fill out a "How are we doing?" card, available from your branch, or
from the Info center, or from me through interoffice mail.

Elaine

RE: .10

You said you tried the Mac version, but weren't impressed.  Would you care to
elaborate?

Elaine

>     I called the service center and explained the situation.  They told me
>     that any information accessed between 8PM and 1PM could be wrong.

    If the info reported may be wrong, then shut the system off during
    those hours! Although, I'd complain about that too, this is
    probably the prime time for PC branch access.

    I read the "documentation" and can understand that TRANSACTIONS
    (transfer of money between accounts) done during those hours will
    not be reported, BUT HISTORY AND BALANCE information (not being
    correct)?

>    All they said was Yes this is possible, and we suggest that you do not use
>    the system for that kind of information during these times frames.
    
    Well then what kinda of transactions can we do during those hours?
    Balance inquires are the only thing left. Will those be correct?

    Charly

 re .16



 I called the info center and explained my problem to the person
 answering the phone.  She transferred me to her supervisor, to whom
 I explained the problem.  She told me that "someone in the Dataprocessing
 center" would be calling me back.  This was at about 1PM yesterday.  I'm
 awaiting that call (had no time to make another call today).




Jim

    Re .17, i would not call it the Mac version.  It's more like there is a
    PC Windows (sorta) version and there is one for the rest of us 8^). 
    
    The charater-cell terminal interface (for the rest of us) does not do
    anything (or very little) for the Mac users who hope to use Quicken to
    track and reconcile his/her account data.  Down loading the data was
    impractical and impossible to work with.  I did give up after two tries
    when the session just sat there with no visible data movement.
    
    There are also too many cryptic abbreviations in the displayed data via
    the CCT interface.  These were only some of the highlights that i'd
    recall off-hand.
    
    If this were to be a free service, i may think about using it.  I'd not
    pay to suffer through it 8^).
    
    --svb
    
    PS: BTW the gag-order that came out during the FT turned me off very
    	much as well 8^).

RE: .20

>> If this were to be a free service, i may think about using it.

PC Branch is a free service.  The only charges will be if you opt for Bill
Payer.

Elaine

    Re .21, OK then i may think about using it 8^).
    
    --svb

>PC Branch is a free service.  The only charges will be if you opt for Bill
>Payer.
>
>Elaine

Elaine, I left my doc at home so I cannot reference it, but I recall a 
$3/month charge after the 1st three months.  Wasn't that for the use of 
the PC Branch service, or was this charge only if using the Bill Payer 
service?

BTW, can I assume the Bill Payer service is limited to only those that 
are listed within the program or can you add anyone to be paid (eg. can 
I add a local utility or company to be paid automatically?)

-Andy

ps. I've only used it once but, thus far, I like it.

>Elaine, I left my doc at home so I cannot reference it, but I recall a 
>$3/month charge after the 1st three months.  Wasn't that for the use of 
>the PC Branch service, or was this charge only if using the Bill Payer 
>service?

I'm not Elaine, nor do I play her on television, but the charge after the first
quarter of use is for Bill Payer only. The use of PC Branch is free of charge.

re: .23

If you want to pay someone not listed, you can request that they be added to the
vendor list.  It's in the document, right in the centerfold (!).

Elaine

It doesn't look like anyone's doing any
sanity checking on the vendor list.  I find
different vendors with the same mail address.
Multiple entries for the same vendor with the only
difference being one digit in the zip code, etc.

I was glad to see that many of the local vendors
here in Georgia were already on the list.  I had
this fear that I would find only GMA addresses
in there!

mark

    where'd ya'll get a copy of this?
    
    I've seen nothing about this, except in this notesfile.
    
    --Bert

Info about PC Branch is in the branches, and on the Web page.  You can request 
your copy in either of these places, or call the Info Center.

Elaine

    
    How about encryption?  Does this program use any?
    
    I suspect where I dial into is not directly on some network backbone
    and is relatively safe from someone seeing my account data and passwords.
    But what if my modem signal gets intercepted somehow.  I would think a
    raw modem signal is easily decoded.
    
    Rich
    
    
    

    
    Where you dial into is a set of modems tied directly to a physically secure
    node at DCU on which the PC Branch server software resides.
    
    I don't believe the transmissions over the phone between your PC and
    the PC Branch server are encrypted.
    
    (PC Branch security was reviewed recently at a Supervisory Committee
    meeting.)
    

I think the risk of your modem line being tapped is low enough as to not
be worth worrying about.

				Steve

    When you use PC Branch, you are using a direct-dial line to the DCU.
    Snooping your modem signal requires either a wiretap or else illicit
    behavior by a DCU employee, a phone company employee, or someone 
    physically present in your house.  These risks seem low to me.
    
    Network communications (such as the web) require encryption to be
    secure, because the information passes through routers and across
    broadcast networks.  For example, anyone who has some basic ethernet 
    knowledge could collect the passwords of people who log in across 
    their branch of the net, from the privacy of their own workstation.  
    
    One of the fun things about being on the SC is that when I have a
    question about a safety or security issue, I can find out the answer, 
    direct from the people who know.  Board members have the same kind 
    of enjoyment.  I encourage everyone who is interested in the inner 
    workings of the DCU to consider running for the Board and volunteering
    for the SC, when next there are vacancies.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

>    When you use PC Branch, you are using a direct-dial line to the DCU.

    How many modems/lines are we set up for?

    And/or if you can't (for what ever reason) answer that question,
    is there a plan in place to monitor capacity issues and to add
    lines/hardware if needed?

    Charly

    
    
    
    RE .32 etc...
    
    >>When you use PC Branch, you are using a direct-dial line to the DCU.
    >>Snooping your modem signal requires either a wiretap or else illicit
    >>behavior by a DCU employee, a phone company employee, or someone
    >>physically present in your house.
    
    True enough, I would be much more concerned if I lived in an apartment
    where all the phone lines go to a centeral wire location panel, then to
    the street.  (I don`t live in an apt.)
    
    >>These risks seem low to me.
    
    	All it takes is once....
    
    R.M.
    
    Mmmm... now I wonder about using DCU Touchtone calling.  It would be *EASY*
    		to decode touch tone.....
    
    
    

    re .33:  The number of modem lines is a convenience issue, rather 
    than a safety/security issue, so it's not an SC concern.  However, 
    I got the impression that this is indeed an issue that management 
    knows to watch.  
    
    re .34:  Risks are relative.  Someone whose goal was to steal money
    from you could probably find an easier way than snooping your phone
    line in order to access your DCU account.  Remember, the only ways 
    that they can get money out of your account via PC Branch is to use 
    the bill payer to send money to one of the specified vendors or to
    transfer money to some account that you have approved for transfers
    -- and you must make a voice call to get PC Branch set up to transfer
    money to anyone else's account.

    Protection against fraud is sort of like keeping the charge-offs low.
    The only way to have zero fraud is to have no assets.  So the trick
    is to establish procedures that make it very hard to successfully
    commit fraud, without making it too hard to conduct ordinary business.
    It's a balancing act, which is one reason the SC must stay awake.

    	Regards,
    	Larry

>    	All it takes is once....

Thanks to Larry for the details in .-1 relative to what the most dangerous
aspects of PC Branch might be. I hadn't looked into Bill Payer deeply enough 
to understand what the potential "destinations" of transfers might be, but
had assumed that it had already been sufficiently researched to make it
a low risk area for theft. That's one of the things I've always admired
about withdrawals via Easytouch - no way to do much more than have it end up
in my mailbox at home. I'm satisfied with that - even if someone does grab my 
PIN with a tap on my line - at least then I know somebody's messing around.

BTW, I'd also like to mention that I was extremely pleased to find that my
Easytouch PIN was sufficient to use PC Branch. Never having had an ATM card
with DCU, I wasn't aware of the fact that a common PIN could be used for
multiple access techniques. To be truthful, one reason I'd always shyed
awy from ATM cards was my dislike of the need to have multiple PINs, which
I thought was a requirement. The fact that my DCU PIN has been stable for
as many years as Easytouch has been around is a big plus for me.

Now, if I could only get the darn voicemail system at DIGITAL to stop requiring
me to change my password every few months ...

OK, so if all you need is your Easy Touch PIN, and if the software for using
the thing from non-PCs is just terminal emulation, how about posting terminal
emulation access instructions here.

/john

    All you need to do is to dial the PC Branch 800 number and
    login with your account number and PIN.
    
    The program is menu drive.  
    
    I will send you 800 number off line.
    
    Gim
    

>    True enough, I would be much more concerned if I lived in an apartment
>    where all the phone lines go to a centeral wire location panel, then to
>    the street.  (I don`t live in an apt.)
    
    There are so many easier ways to steal money from you that I personally
    wouldn't even think twice about that.   
    
    VISA and DISCOVER sends you credit cards thru the mail.   All I have to
    do is go thru mailboxes periodically (I can do that by "delivering"
    something so as not to seem suspicious) looking for that.  I think
    I'd be a lot harder to catch doing that.
    
    Also, my understanding that your loss from most kinds of fraud is
    pretty much limited to being "inconvenienced".   A good question to
    ask is are you liable for invalid charges run up against your DCU
    accounts.   I don't know the answer to that.
    
	db    
    
    p.s. I wonder if any of these online banking systems are taking
         advantage of "caller ID" to record where the call was made from.
         I think that would help in numerous kinds of fraud.

>    p.s. I wonder if any of these online banking systems are taking
>         advantage of "caller ID" to record where the call was made from.
>         I think that would help in numerous kinds of fraud.

As of now, it appears that caller-ID isn't too useful outside of (and,
to a degree, even within) your own area code. At least that's what Nynex
keeps telling me when I complain about 90% of my calls being logged as
"out of area". Their claim is that transmission of ID packets between
areas isn't widespread.

>As of now, it appears that caller-ID isn't too useful outside of (and,
>to a degree, even within) your own area code. At least that's what Nynex
>keeps telling me when I complain about 90% of my calls being logged as
>"out of area". Their claim is that transmission of ID packets between
>areas isn't widespread.

Probably 95% of all my calls (either in or out of state) are logged on
my unit.  I was told the other 5% may be due to cell-phones or, perhaps,
calls from California which has been allowed a grace period before being
mandated to transmit caller-id info.

-Andy

7-Feb, p. B1: Glitches short-circuit miracle of paying bills on-line

						Trace

As of Jan 15th, transmission of Caller-Id was required to occur on all
calls handled by all telephone companies within the U.S., where technically
feasible, and all places where it was not currently technically feasible
are required to be fixed by 1 Jan 1997.

Of course, you can still block it.

And there are lines that really don't have a caller ID (certain PBX trunks).

/john

Then I guess it's time for me to call Nynex to get a more uptodate excuse
as to why I continue to get "out of area" on most of my calls.

You do have to register before it will let you in.

I was unable to log in until I called and asked to have it turned on.

From my VT320 emulator (VTSTAR, a _perfect_ VT320), I had to tell it
that I wanted +--------+ borders; it seemed unable to make the line
borders appear correctly, displaying ���������� instead.

The terminal interface does seem kind of clunky.

/john

  Register?  Hmm..is that why I can't seem to get in?



  Haven't had time to call the help line again.



 Jim

Re: .45

> From my VT320 emulator (VTSTAR, a _perfect_ VT320), I had to tell it
> that I wanted +--------+ borders; it seemed unable to make the line
> borders appear correctly, displaying ���������� instead.

I logged in from a PC running ProComm Plus for Windows 
ProComm's VT320 emulator.  The +----+ displayed fine.

My colleague logged in from a real VT510 and the borders were fine.

Gim

    A couple of questions regarding the Bill Payer feature and the
    scheduling involved.

    If, for example, I have a cable bill due on the 15th of the month,

    Writing and mailing a check, I would...

    - on the 10th, write the check and drop it in the mail
    - it arrives at the cable office around the 15th and the cable
      company notes that my bill has been paid.
    - The cable company now processes the check and makes their deposit.
    - around the 17th or 18th DCU will deduct the funds from my
      account. 

    I have retained ownership and interest bearing use of my money for
    over a week in this senario.

    Using Bill Payer...

    - on the 10th, I do the on line transaction to pay the cable bill.
    - on the 10th, DCU deducts the funds from my account? Is this true?
    - by the 15th, DCU/ Bill Payer have some how sent some money to
      my cable company with a note to credit my account. I don't know
      what the process is here? Are these electronic transactions, or
      is an acutal check cut and send for my payment?

    In this case, I lost ownership and interest bearing use of my
    money on the 10th. Who was using it in the mean time?

    Is this how the processes work?

    Charly

Pretty much, yes, except that in many cases DCU will electronically transfer 
the funds to the cable company on the day you designate, so there is no "float".
Ideally, you could take advantage of this by having the payment sent later
than you would have to by mail, letting you get the extra use of the money.
In reality, how well this works depends on how quickly the payee processes
the payment.

Bill Payer makes no sense for me - you would have to mail out at least ten
payments each month for it to be worthwhile, and I don't.  For people with
LOTS of bills, it might be more reasonable.

				Steve

The +------+ (border type 2) displays fine, but I would prefer to have the
real lines and borders (border type 1).

VTSTAR displays line drawing correctly with proper ANSI applications; I
think this application must be making an assumption that isn't valid
about what the alternate character set is, rather than sending the
correct ANSI sequence to designate it.

/john

    
    Yes, I'm having the same border problem with KEAterm. I set my type to
    VT100 and it simply doesn't work. However, the setting work fine with
    OpenVMS.

re: .50

The line drawing stuff doesn't work correctly with a DECterm, either.

-Hal

>Bill Payer makes no sense for me - you would have to mail out at least ten
>payments each month for it to be worthwhile, and I don't. 
    
    Steve, sounds to me like your counting the cost of postage but not
    the cost of the check.   What are you paying for per check these days?
    
    I also find it faster and more convenient than doing bills "by hand".
    
    	db

What notification, if any, is there that Bill Payer actually transferred 
the funds successfully?  Is there any lag or process the time the funds
are deducted from the share account and the time they are deposited to 
payee's account?

-Andy

I just called DCU, which I encourage everyone to do who has questions.

The first date on Bill Payer is the day the money is deducted from your account.
The second date is the day your vendor should get the payment.  Wherever
possible, the payments are done by EFT.  Those have shorted lead-times.  The
longer lead times are because Bill Payer has to cut a check to mail to the
vendor.

Elaine

Re: .53

My standard checks cost about 2-1/2 cents apiece.  I'd need to mail out
9 or more checks a month for it to be cost-effective.  If I use my
"Quicken" checks, at 14 cents apiece, the crossover is 7 - still more than
I do in a month.

I am also not yet convinced that this system works reliably.  There are too
many opportunities for finger-pointing and it's not worth the hassle to me.

Please don't get me wrong - I am not saying it's a bad idea for everyone.
If you mail out 15-20 bills a month to vendors which can accept EFT with the 
same (or better) processing latency as mailed-in payments, then it's quite 
reasonable.  It's just not for me at this time.

I have read that the cost for processing paper checks is 50 cents
to a dollar each.  If so, and if EFT provides cost savings for financial
institutions and vendors, then it would be reasonable for either or both
to provide incentives encouraging customers to use EFT.  That hasn't happened
yet - recent articles note that the use of paper checks is increasing.  I do
use my DCU card as a debit card when buying groceries (if the store accepts
Visa, I use it in that mode) - it doesn't cost me extra to do that and
saves me time.

				Steve

>I have read that the cost for processing paper checks is 50 cents
>to a dollar each.

Holy Smokes!

Is that the overall cost, Steve, or the cost to the payer's financial
institution?

I think that's the overall handling cost once the check is deposited by
the payee.  It involves processing by the payee's bank, the Federal Reserve
System, transport of the cancelled checks back to the payer's bank, and
handling there.  Check truncation (not returning checks to the user), as
DCU does, saves a bit of money, but the piece of paper still has to make its
way to DCU.  The Fed has tried to encourage national check truncation, so
they don't have to fly the checks everywhere, but there is incredible
consumer resistance (a cancelled check is a proof of payment and, if you
look to see who signed it, you may be able to detect fraud.)  The Fed wants
to guarantee copies of up to 36 checks a year (I think that was it) for free
to offset this (DCU will provide some number of copies per month at no charge.)

Then of course there's the cost to the payee to process the payment - it
involves at least some manual work. EFT has the potential to save a lot of
money, but so far it hasn't happened.

					Steve

Are there any plans for providing a "real" Mac version
of this software instead of just a menu-based system?
If so, when can we expect it to be available?

thanks,
- Tom

    
    On monday night I did a transfer between accounts.
    Of course, no warm and fuzzies that the monies had moved.
    It was a large sum to cover my new car purchase.
    Today I called easytouch.  The money did not get transfered!  yikes!
    Luckly, the check had not been processed {I hope!}
    
    something was broke.   I didn't worry too much [sure] that I didn't see
    the xfer happen.  DCU HAS GOT TO FIX NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE XFER
    HAPPEN!!!!!
    BOD MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE THIS!  I DO HAVE A CALL IN TO HQS.
    This could kill this project alone, especially if there are times that
    an xfer doesn't complete like Monday night.
    
    the system can not have a blind time of 8PM to midnight as they
    currently advertise.  THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE USE THE SYSTEM OR SHOULD BE
    EXPECTED TO USE THE SYSTEM.
    this feedback was also given during field test.
    ed
    

    Last night I used Billpayer for the first time (February 13th).  It
    wouldn't let me specify a pay date earlier than February 20th, with the
    money arriving at the vendor by February 26th.  I can understand the
    possible lag between the pay date and the arrival date at the vendor,
    but why can't I specify a pay date less than a week away?
    
    Steve
    

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" 14-FEB-1996 18:08:11.60
To:	rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso
CC:	[email protected]
Subj:	PC Branch Update


Bob and Jack,

Could you please post this in the appropriate note?

Thanks,
Phil

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

I just spoke with Tom Ryan, V.P. of Operations and he
has informed me that as of 2/14/96, (about 4pm) DCU's
PC Branch has been sent to 5,540 members.  Of those,
1,715 members have dialed into DCU and have used it.

DCU currently has 24 lines installed.  Given PC Branch's
rapid acceptance by so many of it's members, DCU 
management will be watching this very closely to make
sure sufficient capacity exists to handle the demand.

He also mentioned that a FAQ (frequently asked questions)
message is being put together and will be sent to all PC
Branch users in the near future.

Enjoy! (1)
Phil


(1)  Used without Larry Seiler's prior consent or approval.


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA16014; Wed, 14 Feb 96 17:52:21 -050
% Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA27619; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:47:21 -050
% Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA04515; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:46:08 -0500
% Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:46:08 -0500
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: rowlet::ainsley, molar::delbalso
% Cc: [email protected]
% Subject: PC Branch Update

    There have been several horrow stories about bill paying when the
    intended recipient is not an EFT recipient.  For example if you are
    paying xyz and the payer sends them a check, many of the recipient
    companies are not set up to match this to your account without
    returning the appropriate portion of the bill with the check.
    
    When this happens - you own the problem - not the bill paying service,
    not the financial institution and not the company that you have tried
    to pay.  
    
    I would have to have some record of my initiating the payment and
    someone in the rest of the chain owning the problem.  Since there is a
    charge for the service, should there not be some obligation to make it
    work properly.
    
    This information was in an article that I read in a Florida paper
    (which was probably syndicated) giving an indication that they did not
    think that the service was ready for prime time yet.
    
    I also sent mail suggesting that they install some local numbers since
    Acton, Bolton, Concord, Harvard, Hudson, Marlboro and Sudbury are all
    only a local call away and the WATS service could end up costing a
    bundle that didn't need to be spent.

    How far back can I download my account history? From experience it
    seems to be 1/1/95. That's it?
    
    Thans
    Guenther

    
    re: .64
    
    	I hope they intend to increase disk storage space so this can
    	be kept to up for a year. I'd have to see us be limited for a
    	few pennies of disk space (which get cheaper every day). 
    
    

This is just an assumption, but it would appear to me that the capability 
to send in a mortgage payment and specify that extra money be applied to 
principal or escrow (etc.) does not exist ?   I have not seen any ability 
to do that or attache a note or explanation with any payment.  

Has anyone seen this before I ask the question to the normal hotline ?

Thanks,

Dave

You're talking about using the bill payer, right?  It appears that you can't
have any significant "memo", at least on CheckFree and Intuit, and I assume DCU
is the same.  However, it matters not, especially if you have electronic payment
with your mortgage servicer.  If you give them extra money it *has* to go on the
principle (and does, at least with the Shawmut-serviced DCU mortgage I have).

Note that the one time this did not work was when I was hand-writing a check. 
Apparently when they encoded the check with the amount, they looked at the stub
showing the "official" payment amount, not the actual amount of the check or the
hand-writing on the stub and they encoded the smaller amount on the check.  So
the check got posted for less than it was actually written for!

That can't happen with electronic payment.

However, for checks that are sent as paper, I really miss the memo.  In fact, we
are dropping Intuit payment service for that very reason.  Small merchants want
more than just the account number to match up your check with their billing
records.  They really want the stub, or at least the invoice number.

Burns

Has anyone had trouble connecting to PC Branch with their modem?  Mine (a Supra
28.8 external) tends to connect, immediately show a receive error, and then go
into a retrain session for awhile, and during that time, something times out.

I have not heard others complain about this, so I suspect it is my phone
line/modem, but I just thought I would check.  Of course I don't have trouble
with connections to anywhere else.)

Burns

    
    
    
    I never saw a 'receive error' but I did have trouble connecting
    until I set baud rate on the setup screen to 9600?
    
    I never could get it to connect right at 19200 or 38400. I'd see the 
    modem connected, I get a 'modem reports' message that the modem thinks 
    it connected at 14400 and then it would hang there until it timed out.
                                                       
    --bert

re:<<< Note 975.67 by skylab.zko.dec.com::FISHER "Minister of Acronyms, Holder of Past Knowledge, DNRC" >>>

> You're talking about using the bill payer, right?


I'm not the original noter, nor do I portray him on television, but I
was under the impression that he was _NOT_ talking about bill payer,
but, rather, a funds transfer from a share account to a DCU mortgage
balance as a payment. I based this conclusion on the previous discussions 
we've had in here about the difficulty of making "extra-principle" payments
on DCU mortgages.

re .70:  Oops (and he quickly backs out of the conversation)

Then again, I could be wrong, Burns.

:^)

�Has anyone had trouble connecting to PC Branch with their modem?  Mine (a Supra
�28.8 external) tends to connect, immediately show a receive error, and then go
�into a retrain session for awhile, and during that time, something times out.

Burns, are you using Windows 95 (aka Bob Pro)?  This software has some
serious problems under Windows 95.  I've found that if you enable sounds,
it stack overflows on you and then exits.  Each subsequent attempted connection
fails.  I have to reboot before I can make another connection (well, there's
probably a workaround, but I haven't figured it out yet).  I sent mail
detailing the problem.  The response was "PC Branch is not supported under
Windows 95".  Once I turned off sounds, I haven't had a recurrence of the
problem (note that "turning off sounds" includes modifying the digital.ini
file in your %SystemRoot% directory to completely remove them - just pushing
the "disable" button doesn't do it).

j.

    
    I'm running it right out of the box on windows 95, no diddling required.
    
    The baud rate problem is the only thing I've encountered.
    

    
    You MUST set the speed to no greater than 9600 baud. I had this problem
    and once I did this, it worked. This is what the DCU help line
    recommended.

    The 9600 baud rate thing came up during field test.  I'm surprised it
    wasn't fixed.
    
    I've been running the field test version on Windows 95 with no problem.
    The company that wrote the software may not have tested it under 
    Windows 95, but I know a couple of people in the FT who run Windows 95
    and never heard about any problems specific to Windows 95.
    
    	db

I am using W95 and have not noticed any stack problems.  I'm pretty sure that
the serial port is set for 9600 baud also.  Maybe I should try even lower.  I've
had this problem since sometime during field test, but I was only able to try it
during the hours that they are down, so I did not have a very good feeling about
whether the problem was real.

Burns

>    You MUST set the speed to no greater than 9600 baud. I had this problem
>    and once I did this, it worked. This is what the DCU help line
>    recommended.

Would it be more appropriate to say "you must set the speed to 9600 IF you
experience this problem"?

I originally installed mine at 19.2 (I've a 14.4 modem) and it hasn't
given me any problems at all.

I run at 38400 on Windows 95 without any problems whatsoever (at least now
that I don't use any sounds other than the startup sound).

j.

I also cannot use PC Branch at baud rates higher than 9600.  You set this
in the PC Branch configuration menus.  Other than that it works ok on W95
for me.

				Steve

Re: .75

>You MUST set the speed to no greater than 9600 baud. I had this problem
>and once I did this, it worked. This is what the DCU help line 
>recommended.

Not exactly right:

I need to repeat what I wrote earlier:  I run it from Windows-95, right out 
from the box, and I set the modem at 38400.  Sometimes it comes up with a 
message:  "Connected at 38400", sometimes with "Connected at 19200".

Leo

    
    Well, what I meant to say was that in te general setup, you must set
    the baud rate no higher than 9600 baud. Is this what you thought I
    said?

    I have a Supra 14.4 external modem, which displays the current baud
    rate at which it is running. Like others here I found I had to
    configure PC Branch for 9600. Last nite is saw it connect at 9600 and
    then negotiate up to 14.4. I was pleasantly surprised!

	Paul

Re:  -.2

It is in the general setup I that set the speed for 38K.  When 
connected, it reported that the connection was at 38K.  I have a 
14.4K modem!

Leo

    this might all be due to the way the modem reports "speed" on
    connection; depending on how you have it set up, it might report the
    modem-modem speed, or it might report the computer-computer speed.
    
    A further complication arises with "speed buffering"; if speed
    buffering (in the modem) is on, the modem talks to the computer ar a
    constant rate regardless of the modem-modem speed; if speed buffering
    is off, the computer has to adjust its speed to match the modem-modem
    speed (well, at least that's the rough view of how it works..)
    
    ...tom

    Do we have some word that there are plans to make downloaded QIF file 
    unuseable for Quicken?
    
    Guenther

    don't hold your breath for the quicken qif [real one].
    there's a lot of work to do to make it happen, and it isn't just with
    pc branch.
    
    on another note, there's another improvement that they could make.
    I had to reinstall pc branch over itself tonight...long story,
    something
    about updating to WFW 3.11 from 3.1, it was not smooth.
    Anyways, PC branch does not look to see if it's installing over itself.
    so it clobbers the setup files.  Some applications if installing
    overthemselves give one of two chooses; warning if installing overthem
    selves, keeping init values, or just plain keeping init values.
    I'd report the problem to DCu except I still have a call into Michelle
    from last week when I was hit with the more serious problem.  HQ is
    silent.

Re: .86

The QIF files are already unusable with Quicken! :-)

It should not be difficult to write a small program that "filters" the
QIF output of PC Branch into something reasonable (moving the check numbers,
mixed case, etc.)  The CompuServe VISA card offers a free "Conductor"
utility which provides nice QIF files from the online statements.
Ideally, I'd want to have a program that looks at what transactions are 
already in Quicken and merges in the QIF file (doing intelligent matches of
transaction dates, amounts, check numbers, payees, etc.)

			Steve

    
    for those who do transfer from one DCU account to another:
    
    the suffix you put for the 'remote' account (the one you didn't dial
    into but are transferring funds to) should be prefixed with an 'S' 
    for share accounts or 'L' for loan accounts.
    
    didn't see this in the documenation ANYWHERE.  Had to call the info
    line to find out.
    
    example:
    
    transfer from account: 1234567- checking
    transfer to account:  1001234567 
    
    on the popup screen asking for account suffix, and amount to transfer
    you must put:
    
    S1 - savings
    S51 - checking (S5 if it's not a 'piggyback' account number starting with
    		    prefix 100)
    LX - if there were a loan associated, x being the loan number.
    
    
    just fyi....

Also FYI,

Now on PC Branch, in the News and Info section, there is an FAQ list (Frequently
Asked Questions).  This question happens to be one of them!

Elaine

For whatever shortcomings it might have, I think DCU management made
exactly the right decisions in choosing PC Branch for its home computer
banking solution. It seems to be by far the best/most equitable solution
for the entire user base in that it provides for some level of use by
all members with access to a home computing platform, does not require
the member to lay out any additional money to acquire companion software
(e.g. I don't have, and don't care to obtain Quicken or MS Money), doesn't
cost the user anything to obtain, is cost effective for DCU to distribute,
and doesn't cost the member anything to use.

    For what it is worth, I loaded and used PC Branch this weekend. Thought
    it was pretty good. Two nits and a comment: N1) The history summary is
    displayed in "reverse" date order (latest date at the top, oldest date
    at the bottom, where it leaves you after requesting it) the printout is
    in the "normal" date order (latest at bottom and oldest at top). N2) I
    have more than one modem, Automatic Setup is not smart enough to be
    told to ignore the first modem found and go use another. It did do
    exactly what it said it would (find first modem and find the top speed,
    limited to 9600 baud). Manual setup seemed to work fine. C1) I was
    surprised to see a timer pop up on the screen. We are apparantly
    limited to so many (30?) minutes per connect session. I noticed that
    disconnecting and reconnecting seemed to reset this.
    
    Carl

[From VNS, 29-Feb-1996]

 Technology - Glitches short-circuit miracle of paying bills on-line
	{The Wall Street Journal, 7-Feb-96, p. B1}
   Lynne Loustalot thought paying bills on-line sounded terrific.  Instead of
 scrawling out checks and licking envelopes, and stamps, she could zap
 electronic payments with a few clicks of her PC.
   Then the lights went out.
   One a recent Monday, she returned home to find the power had been shut off.
 The utility said she hadn't paid her bill but her Quicken software claimed
 she had.  It turns out her home PC in Suisun City, Calif., sent a pay order to
 Intuit Inc.'s computers in Downers Grove, Ill.,which wired instructions to a
 plant in Logan, Utah, which simply printed out a check and mailed it to the
 utility in San Francisco - where it was shunted aside for lacking a payment
 stub.
   Ms. Loustalot, a police technician, has returned to writing her own checks
 for timely payments.  She uses the on-line service less - and only because her
 bank provides it free.  "If I was paying for this," she says, "I'd absolutely
 stop right now."
   The wizard of electronic banking is hiding behind a curtain - and those who
 pull it back are apt to find him hunched over a checkbook, pen in hand, while
 his computer gathers dust in the corner.  High-tech payments are getting
 bogged down in a system that isn't ready to receive them.  And such failings
 in PC banking underscore the obstacles to the growth of commerce on the
 Internet.
   Banks and personal-finance software companies hail the wonder of electronic
 payment.  "With Pay On-Line, bill paying couldn't be simpler.  And you'll
 never have another late bill," promises a brochure for Chase Manhattan Corp.
    But Jim Bruene, editor of Online Banking Report, a newsletter, thinks the
 current state of electronic banking isn't so wondrous.  "People expect it to
 be faster and more accurate," he says, "but it's put together with chewing gum
 and bailing wire behind the scenes."
   Few banks can offer on-line transactions, and few merchants have installed
 the gear to receive true electronic payments.  It's a you-go-first problem:
 Merchants won't put in on-line systems until more customers use them - and
 more customers won't use them until more merchants are on-line.  Only about
 two million people use on-line banking.
   "We'd deliver everything electronically if we could," says Mark. A. Johnson,
 executive VP at CheckFree Corp., an on-line bill-payment company.  "But it's
 really a chicken-and-egg game.  To really move the merchants, you need to show
 them volume."
   CheckFree has offered on-line bill paying since 1988, and it handles bills
 for 250,000 customers who use Quicken, Meca Software LLC's Managing Your Money
 and other products.  Yet fewer than 500 merchants can get CheckFree payments
 electronically.  For 1.5 million others, CheckFree prints out checks
 accounting for nearly 2/3 of the two million transactions it handles each
 month.
   Intuit launched a rival payment service for users of its Quicken software
 last fall, and the start has been rocky.  On-line bulletin boards are rife
 with complaints about late payments from users, many of them former CheckFree
 customers who had been promised faster service.
   And though Intuit boasts such partners as Chemical Banking Corp., Wells
 Fargo & Co., And Microsoft Corp's Money software, the system can zap
 electronic funds to only a dozen merchants.  In all other cases, as they say,
 the check is in the mail.
   Intuit says that's by design: It tried electronic payments for a wider
 selection of merchants but found the flaws so  serious it switched to
 dispatching checks by overnight express.  Fewer than 1% of the transactions
 Intuit handles generate a complaint, the company maintains.
   "One hundred percent of payments are ORIGINATED [italics - TT]
 electronically," Steve Pelletier, Intuit's general manager of automated
 financial services, says defensively.
   Proponents say the on-line approach is valuable regardless of how truly
 electronic it is (or isn't).  Banks trim costs a bit by forgoing "face time"
 with customers.  Users save a little time, require fewer checkbooks and save
 money on stamps.
   When payments go awry, though, on-line paying wastes just as much time - if
 not more - as paying by personal check.  To track down a late credit card
 payment made from his Citibank account through the Intuit system, Mitchell
 Matorin had to work the phones: two calls to his credit card company, three to
 Citibank, two more to Intuit.
   He was amazed, he says, to learn that what he thought was an entirely
 electronic transaction actually involved a check sent by overnight express.
 "It's one thing if you send out buggy software," says Mr. Matorin, a lawyer in
 Arlington, Va.  "It's another thing to be messing with people's mortgage
 payments and credit ratings."
   For all-electronic commerce to take over the marketplace, one problem that
 must be addressed is the incompatibility of rival payment services;a merchant
 must now use a different setup to receive electronic payments from each
 service.  The Internet plausibly could solve these problems by setting up a
 single standard for electronic banking that everyone, including banks,
 merchants and customers, would follow.
   "Five years from now, your financial institution will have an electronic
 interface for all your financial assets," says Michael McChesney, chief
 executive of Five Paces Inc., the Atlanta company that helped create Security
 First Network Bank, touted as the first Internet-based bank.
   Security First Network's customers can manage their accounts over the World
 Wide Web.  As yet, however, fewer than a thousand customers have signed up,
 and the process is decidely low-tech: You fill out a form on-line, but then
 you must also print it out, sign it and mail it with your initial deposit
 check.
   To catch on in any big way, Internet-based schemes will have to overcome
 security fears.  CheckFree relies on its own private computer network instead
 of the global Internet.  Security systems on the quasi-public Internet, by
 contrast, are "reasonable, but not unstoppable," says CheckFree's Mr. Johnson.
   For now, most on-line banking devotees tend to be technology-savvy folks.
 Michael Bryan, a software consultant in San Jose, Calif., says he will press
 forward with on-line banking and bill paying, despite some of the bugs he has
 encountered.  He adds: "But I'd say, in the current state, Joe Average
 wouldn't be too keen on it."

Re: -.1

I can testify to it:  Four missing payments over the last three 
months, and Intuit was helpless to find them.  Today I am cancelling 
it.

A friend of mine has been using Checkfree for years, and so far no 
problem.  I decided to give it a try.

Leo

PC Branch was down all weekend - and is still down, according to the
Information Center.  Isn't technology grand?

				Steve

???

I accessed it both Saturday and Sunday.

    
    I tried a number of times around 9:00 PM Sunday; no luck.
    
    I'm starting a log. My rough estimate is that PC Branch is unavailable
    a third of the times I try to use it.
    

I tried about four different times during the afternoon and evening on
Sunday.  No answer.  The Information Desk person told me it had been down
all weekend.

I also had gotten into a state where the software wouldn't find my modem,
even though it had done so just a moment earlier.  I had to reinstall the
software to get it working again.

				Steve

    re .98:
    
    I found that when the modem reset itself after failing three times to
    raise a carrier, and then I tried again to connect, the software seemed
    to hang after asking me for a PIN and init'ing the modem. I was able to
    recover by exiting and restarting PC Branch.
    

I had the same problems as you, Steve.  Even worse, all my stored passwords
were gone for ALL my dial-up networking.  Can't imaging how PC Branch caused
that, but it's the only thing I was running during that time.

j.

    I can't seem to connect this weekend either. Is anyone else having
    connection problems this weekend?

    Eric

I had no problems at 9 this AM and no problems again just now.
-Jack

I was unable to connect all weekend.

			Steve

Strangely enough, I was able to connect when I tried it Sunday night.

Burns

    
    I connected on the weekend, no problem. However, I'm looking to see
    whether I have the same problems as other people.
    
    1. Sometimes when I log in, not all of the choices are availabe. For
    example, MAIL doesn't appear, BIL PAYER doesn't appear. However, if I
    log out and log back in, they are there! Does anyone else see this?
    
    2. Sometimes the info in my vendor list is scrambled. Again, I log out
    and in, and it's OK.
    
    3. What has been your experience in getting new vendors added?
    
    	o Have you gotten a vendor added and gotten mail to tell you that
    	it happened?
    
    	o What has been your experience in requesting new account masks?
    
    4. Have you ever paid a bill where the payment is in the past and
    therefore can't remove the payment?
    
    

    
    I got in Sunday evening around 19:30. Moved some funds from my account
    to my wife's. Got a non-intuitive error message on the transfer,
    something like "no history...", but the amount was debited from my
    balance.
    

I finally got in Sunday night after much trying.  I also got errors when
trying to get my account histories.  Forget what they were, but everything
seemed OK and my accounts balanced.

The uptime for this has been pretty horrible.  I'm using it less and less.
Even used my monthly statement to balance my checking last month instead
of downloading it.

j.

My naturally inquisitive engineering instincts cause me to wonder what
it is that's making it so difficult for some people, while it remains
totally painless for others of us.

Could people who are having trouble indicate the OS and version they're
running, as well as the modem type and speed?

-Jack

For me, when I have a problem it's generally that PC Branch doesn't answer
the phone.  If it does answer, I get in ok.

					Steve

I'm running Windows 95 (with service pack 1), which I'm told is unsupported
and shouldn't work.  Usually it doesn't answer the phone, so that's not a
problem on my end.  When it does, sometimes I get disconnected before the
handshake is done.  If it works, I get spurious errors.  Sometimes it
works just fine.

I didn't have a single problem with the beta test version.

j.

I'm using it on Windows-95 (service pack 1).  When the phone answers,
there's no problem.  I've had no problems with connections (when the phone
does answer), although the line quality does seem to be extremely variable;
some days, it connects at 9600, others at 2400.

When the phone doesn't answer, I have to exit and restart to get it to try
to dial again (this is after it failed the first three attempts).  For some
reason, pressing the Connect button twice in one session makes WINPB just
go out to lunch.

I'm also using W95.  About 1/2 the time it does not answer.

The other half of the time it answers, but shortly after transferring a few
bytes, my modem (a Supra 28.8 external) gets a receive error and then goes into
a retrain sequence.  After retrain is over, about 95% of the time it hangs; the
other 5% it works fine.  This is true even if I go to 9600 baud.  If I go to
2400 baud, even when it answers the modems generally don't manage to establish a
connection at all.

Burns

As a few replies earlier already stated, I have to confirm:  I run PC 
Brunch since day one from under Windows-95 (16MB RAM) with a 28.8K 
modem.  So far I have not had a single problem (except that sometimes 
the number does not answer).  When it does answer (which is most of 
the time), the message I always see is that it is connected at 38.4K. 
Very often I have a bunch of other programs running together with PCB 
at the same time (e.g., Quicken, Word, CD Player, and a couple of 
games).  That makes me think that the problem is not PC Brunch in 
itself, and suggest to check your computers first.

Leo

� That makes me think that the problem is not PC Brunch in 
� itself, and suggest to check your computers first.

It's not my PC.

    
    386 with 8meg running Windows 3.1, 2.4k modem.
    
    About a third of the time I try PC Branch I experience problems. By
    rough guess, 2/3 of those are no-answer; the rest are usually message
    of the type "Host coundn't do mumbly-fratz", which would lead one to
    believe that the problems are in the host|PC-Branch-server domain.
    
    I almost always experience these problems between 9-11 PM, or any time
    over the weekend.
    

    I'm not claiming to be a PC expert, but I really doubt that any of
    these problems are with "the PC", or using Windows 95, or anything
    like that.
    
    I'm not sure that I've heard a single problem description that is
    not "typical" of the generic brand of problems you get from using
    modems of varying manufacturers.
    
    I (used to) run PC Branch on a Windows 95 system and have no 
    "connection" problems (other than "no answer") at all with my US
    Robotics 28.8 Vi modem using ANY kind of dial-up service.  I haven't
    been using PC Branch for awhile though.  I need to be able connect 
    reliably to pay my bills on time.  There are just too many times
    when I can't get thru.
    
    Having had problem-after-problem with off-brand modems, I have now
    sworn to use only USR and Hayes.  The way I figure it, if some service
    has a problem with those brands it will be way too big a problem for
    them to ignore - I think those two companies combine for something like
    80% of the market.
    
    	db
    
    

My modem is a USR Sportster V.34 - I can't successfully connect with PC Branch
at baud rates exceeding 9600.  The modem will connect at 14.4, but the
PC Branch software won't communicate.  I note that the instructions say
9600 baud and the automated setup also stops at 9600.

The baud rate isn't important to me - it isn't a limiting factor.  My biggest
annoyance is the number of times I call and the system just doesn't answer.

				Steve

Now that we have discussed the workings of the software well enough, 
let me ask you a different question:

Has anybody used the bill paying service?  How reliable is it?  Is it 
worth the trouble?

Since last November I tried to use Intuit bill paying service, built 
into Quicken.  After one missing check, and three checks that came 
very late (e.g., a check to NYNEX written Feb 25, had a date on it 
March 1, received by NYNEX on March 18!), I cancelled it.  Am I 
to expect the same problems with PC Brunch/DCU?

Leo

I've been using the bill payer server since December.... the payees
I've setup since day one are working okay; its the payees that
I've requested that I have a problem with. I've had 3 of them on-request
since beginning  of January. I've mentioned it via PC-branch MAIL,
with some promise to look at it. But I've not heard one word since; either
to my MAIL nor from the software with any indication that the payees
were accepted or rejected.

I'm in the process of switching to the Baybank system this week. You
can setup the billpayer option to be free if you have any large
Baybank loans (which I have). Their system came online this week, and
they are shipping floppy software now. You can get a demo of the
system from the baybank WWW page.

The system allows 800 payees stored per account; can pay in groups of 
6 at once. Can make periodic payments indefinitely, up to a certain $ 
amount, or up to a certain number of payments. You can setup transfers
for a future date, schedule on-going periodic transfers. These are all features
pcbranch lacks. [on the other hand, pcbranch has 1 year of data, whereas
baybank has only 30 days]. I'll see soon if the quicken import process
is any cleaner.

I've used the bill payer for 1.5 billing cycles now.  I've made payments
twice on most of my accounts, and have seen the statements following the
first batch reflect that the payees have received (and acknowledged) the
payments.

Of course, that just says it can work and isn't 100% broken.  Only time
will really tell.

    Most of my venders were not listed.  I attempted to list them, but have
    been waiting for a very long time.  I can see why they give you the
    first three months free.  It takes that long to list the venders!
    no brainer, I'm dropping this fast.
    ed
    

    I use the HyperTerminal to connect to DCU's number. I download data in
    coma-limited format using XMODEM. Strange enough I get some garbage
    in about 1% of the records. Another download attempt gives the same
    result. I doubt that this garbage comes from the transfer...XMODEM is
    pretty reliable. Seems to me that the DCU server program sends garbage
    out. 
    
    I never tried the Windows version but the terminal emulation access is
    really low-tech and buggy. Have to wonder...if they couldn't get the
    easy part to work how good can the Windows version be?
    
    Including the fact that the statement information I can receive is
    badly formatted I have to conclude this was a job not well done.
    
    Guenther

    I met with Tom Ryan, VP of Operations. The delay in getting new payees
    up was the overwhelming new use of PC Branch. Since introduction, there
    have been over 3,000 requests for new payees.  He has been trying to
    ensure that new payees are up in about 30 days.
    
    
    Gim
    
    

If you are having trouble with PC Branch, and you suspect it is your
modem causing it, feel free to call the Info Center, or send mail.
They have a list of modem strings for different modems, and in all
likelihood, this will solve your problem.

Elaine

Does anyone respond to mail sent to DCU?  I've never gotten a reply.

			Steve

I've gotten several replies to direct questions sent in the mail
in PC Branch.  I don't think there is yet a means to reply to 
straight Internet mail, however.

Elaine

Great - so if I can't connect to PC Branch, I can't send mail!  (The Info
Center people are pleasant but don't seem to pass on complaints.)

					Steve

So call the Info Center and say you are having trouble with PC Branch,
and ask to speak to the support person for PC Branch.

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" 23-MAR-1996 13:29:15.55
To:	rowlet::ainsley, wldbil::kilgore, molar::delbalso
CC:	[email protected]
Subj:	Setting up modem command string for PC branch

I thought you may want to post this in the DCU notesfile.

I have been having a lot of trouble connecting into PC branch.
The symptom was that my PC would connect and receive back a
message:

CONNECT at 9600

it would then say

CONNECTION QUALITY POOR

it would then retry at 4800 baud and that would usually fail too.
Then it would make a final attempt at 2400 baud and this would
usually work.

After studying my modem book in detail I discovered the reason
for the above behaviour. My modem was not set up to try V42
or MNP mode but only standard mode. Unfortunately the command
string PC branch is configured with does not force the modem into
the mode where V42 or MNP mode is allowed.

To fix this with my modem I needed to prefix the modem
setup string in the PC branch setup with the string

&F2

On my modem this restores factory default settings enabling
V.42bis and MNP Class 5 operation using hardware flow control
(RTS/CTS). If for some reason your modem doesn't like this
try prefixing the setup string with

\N6

instead. This is the direct command to enable V.42bis or MNP
mode.

After I did the above (in my case &F2) when I connect I get a
report that I am now usinng V.42/bis mode at 9600 baud. So
far it has connected successfully every time. I guess the straight
9600 baud connection (ie without the V.42 addition) didn't give
a high enough connect quality for my modem.

So in summary the default setup command for PC branch is

ATE0V1M1\r

Try changing this to:

AT&F2E0V1M1\r

or to:

AT\N6E0V1M1\r

or if that doesn't work refer to your modem instructions and find
out how to enable V.42/bis or MNP Class 5 modes.

Regards,

Dave Garrod

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA11618; Sat, 23 Mar 96 13:22:22 -050
% Received: from emout09.mx.aol.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA12136; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:22:11 -050
% Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19862; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:21:11 -0500
% Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:21:11 -0500
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: rowlet::ainsley, wldbil::kilgore, molar::delbalso
% Cc: [email protected]
% Subject: Setting up modem command string for PC branch

As someone who spent more hours than he cares to think about supporting
customers trying to connect modems to systems, beware that one modem's 
commands are not another's ... even though they may advertise themselves as
Hayes compatible.

The Hayes compatible command set sometimes seems to stop at AT!

So, bottom line from Dave Garrod's message is check that with YOUR modem
the Error correction and compression settings are enabled. 

Your commands may vary!  (I have to use %C3 and %K5!)

Stuart

    	I am having serious problems with DCU PC Branch. The first month i
    had two late charges because of a DCU 10day payment time, not the 6-7
    days they told me. Then the second month I have 4 late notices from
    people I pay. When I inquired they (DCU) told me they sent the payments
    to a 3rd party company, and didn't notice for 13 days the were not
    actually paid, and resubmitted them then, 2 weeks later. DCU then told
    me its not their policy or procedure to call all those effected by this
    13 day error, and were waiting for DCU customers to call.. I told
    them that that was absolutly ridiculous. They should be telling all
    effected members as soon as its noticed, and they should verify all
    payments until this process is stablized. 
    	They do agree to pay all late fees, but It took talking to the VP
    to get a letter sent to me explaining the error, that I'll send to
    all my angree creditors. I also now have to pay to get a copy of my
    credit report, (DCU will not pay for it) to verify this has not harmed
    my credit..
    
    	My suggestion for all DCU Brach users is to WAIT!!!! until
    they (DCU) iron all the bugs in theyre process out...
    
    One unhappy, disappointed DCU member...
                                 
    

-.1 is the reason I decided to sign up with CheckFree, the company 
that has been in this business for years.  I believe that $3 a month 
over the DCU rate is worth it.  I tried Intuit bill paying services, 
but both them and me made a few errors and eventually I cancelled it. 
I did not want to sign up with the DCU, another start-up in this 
area, until they establish themselves.

Leo

    Re: .131 (MPGS::TUCKER)
    
    FWIW, assuming you are in Massachusetts (MPGS:: is at SHR)...you are
    entitled by law to one free credit report each year from each company
    that maintains a credit history on you.  No need for either you or DCU
    to pay.
    
    I've had bank errors before (never with DCU), and each time there was a
    problem, the bank would write a letter to the creditor or payee telling
    them that the error was the fault of the bank, and that it should in no
    way reflect negatively on my credit or account.  I hope DCU is doing
    the same thing for you.
    
    --Pat

    I just had the opportunity to compare PC Branch with Baybank
    HomeLink.... and have cancelled my PC Branch Bill Payer as a result.
    
    There are some things that each package does better than the other:
    
    Baybank has no payee registration delay. You can use them immediately.
    The date to make the payment is more straight-forward: you can always
    use the next day (which I believe means next business day in practice).
    Transaction numbers seem to be account-specific (a 6 digit number)
    rather than what appears to be a system-wide 10-alphanumeric billpayer
    transaction ID. There is no 30-minute timeout; although there is a 5
    minute of inactivity hangup.
    
    On the other hand: homelink still has some hokey non-windows like
    feel to it... its designed after the existing ATM screens where you
    enter selection numbers to move from menu to menu. Its not graphic like
    PC-Branch. You cannot change the window size. It sort of feels like a
    DOS application that was slightly revamped to work in windows. You can
    only get account info for the past 30 days, as opposed to the 12 mos in
    PC Branch.
    
    And the piece-de-resistance for cancelling PC Branch bill payer: while
    sending a MAIL message to Administrator detailing why I was cancelling,
    the system out-of-the-blue hung up the phone on me, and I presume the
    message did not go thru (could it possibly detect a negatively-worded
    mail message and decide to drop me based on that??). I believe that if
    you send a MAIL message beyond a certain size, some program bugs rear
    their heads and give up.

Does anyone read that administrator mail?  I've only gotten 2 responses, once
when I actually gave them a fix for a bug I found, and once telling me that
PC Branch wasn't supported on Windows 95.

I've been getting an error EACH and EVERY time I try and get history from
either my checking or savings account, and the history is just plain wrong.
I've reported it THREE times and haven't even gotten an acknowledgement.

Is it just a black hole?

j.

    RE: .135
    
    I've sent 6 mail messages to the PC branch administrator over the past
    2 months, and have gotten exactly 2 replies.
    
    Bottom line: PC branch customer service SUCKS.
    

    
    re: last 2
    
    Yes, I agree. I've just sent a memo to the Board about exactly these
    issues and maybe you should also?

Has anyone contacted DCU's infocenter regarding this?

I guess since most of you have been complaining about PC branch I feel I
need to jump in and tell my story! Well I am very happy camper. Thats not 
to say the software quality of the product is good.. Its just that as a
version one product it does satisfy my needs reasonably well. 

When I had problem's I sent mail and they fixed my problem I got mail back!
I once paid bill when I did not have sufficient funds.. And I got mail telling 
me so.. I requested on payee that was not on the list they satisfied that 
request with in two weeks. I have been transferring all my account information
by simple control-c control-v logic (cut the info from history sheet and 
paste it ) in to excel spread sheet.. It works like a charm!

Occasionally I get booted, kicked out.. But then again this is a network 
connection over public telephone lines. I reconnect and I get in. Occasionally
the information like billing history croaks  but then again I get this
information often enough that it does not matter if I miss a few times.

Over all I am very happy and I love the fact that it is so cheep.

Just hope that V2.0 of PC Branch is around the corner :-)

Anil Navkal

I sent one mail message, got one reply the next day.

I logged on this morning and saw a notice that the billpayer free period
has been extended through August 31 (I think) in response to the problems
they have had getting new payees online.

				Steve

    I had a pleasant suprise....I actually got mail that one of the Vendors
    I requested 7 weeks ago had been set up.  When I tried to use it is
    when I found out that the account mask and the actual number of digits
    allowed in the account field didn't match.  
    
    I still have 3 outstanding vendors to be setup that were submitted 7
    weeks ago.  Hopefully this will all get squared away shortly.  

    
    Don't count on it...

    Has anyone seen the error "Communications Error, Interface Not
    Available"?
    
    I have installed the software on a win95 machine with a USR 28.8
    internal.  I explicitly set the comm speed in the setup to 9600.  I can
    connect fine, and it pops up the welcome message and my acct balances,
    but when I try to pull up a history or news stuff, it stays on the
    "Retrieving User Info" for a while (the progress bar does not fill in
    at all), and then pops up that message.
    
    I tried setting the comm speed to 57600, 9600, 2400, all same results. 
    I tried adding &F1 (hardware flow control factory defaults) to the
    modem string, same results.
    
    I tried both Saturday evening, and just now (approx 12:45 on Monday),
    same results.
    
    
    Any ideas?
    
    Has anyone else ever seen this error?
    
    thanks,
    Kevin
    
    P.S.  I can connect elsewhere with this computer/modem no problem.

Yes - this seems to be a problem at the other end.  I got through later this
weekend without problems.

			Steve

DCU was without power Monday morning.  This may have had something
to do with the problems you experienced.  Specific modem communication
problems should be addressed to the Information Center, though.

Elaine

Yes I too encounter this problem quite often. However after a couple of retires
the problem seem to go away.

Most likely it is a software bug at the server end. I guess I should be sending
this problem report to DCU through the DCU mail channel right?

Anil

    If you are trying to transfer money from your savings account to
    another account, and keep getting an error 1051 from PC Branch.....
    
    You know you are using the right suffix, etc.
    
    Its the 'taking care of everybodies business, but it's own' Federal
    Govmint regulations on electronic transfers.
    
    I've hit 6 transfers out of my savings account and now for the rest
    of the month have to go PERSONALLY to a branch office to transfer money
    out of my savings.  For god knows what reason checking accounts
    are exempt from this rule.  
    
    I can't even express how frustrated stuff like this makes me feel...
    

This limit sounds like regulation D at work. Basically the gov't
wants savings accounts to be savings account.  Otherwise you could
keep everything in savings and make transfers to checking when
needed.

See note 696.16 for more details.

Gim

    
    I'm moving all my savings money into a 2nd checking account thats
    never really got checks getting written out of it, but will have
    unlimited access via PC branch.
    
    $5 is left in my primary savings account.
    
    Regulation D sucks for electronic banking.
    
    
    
    

    don't blame reg d.  I've read it.  DCU has hid behind goverment
    suggestions before, like the times they impletmented the holding on
    checks.  They claim gove reg, when in reality it was a guideline.
    
    \I'm not a banking person, nor do I play one on TV.  But, I belive reg
    D is open to interpitation.  What you want is how you read it.
    
    ed

    re: .150
    
    Well Ed, I've had accounts at 3 different financial institutions in the
    past 5 years and they've all interpreted the rule the same way.  It
    seems to me that if another interpretation was valid, some financial
    institution would take advantage of it and use it to steal other
    financial institutions customers.
    
    Bob

    I have 14.4 Internal Zoom VFP V.32bis.  I am using it fine under Win95
    to come in ZK 28.8 modem pool without any problems.
    
    PC Branch could not connect to the 1-800- number.  I tried many
    different combination of the modem string and the baud rate but no luck.  I
    can hear the modem going into ``wrong handshake''.  Interestingly, I
    can go into Win95 Dial-Up adapter and issue the ATDT1-800- command in
    the "Display terminal window before dialing" and it will connect fine
    at 14.4K.  I even get all those vt100 escape characters on the screen!
    
    This tells me that PCBranch is setting my modem into some really
    bizzarre mode.
    
    Anybody who got this working under Win95 with Internal Zoom 14.4 VFP
    V3.2bis modem?
    
    Thanks,
    - Vikas
               

    Try it at 9600 baud.  Even though it connects ok at higher rates, the
    PC Branch software itself seems unhappy for many people at rates
    over 9600.
    
    					Steve

    Try this modem command line, it works for me
    
    DTR OFF;WAIT1.5;DTR ON;SEND"ATZ\rRAT&F&C&D2&Q5S37=9n0\r"
    
    The info center gave it to me, I only added the ATZ\r
    
    Betsy
    

    DTR OFF;WAIT1.5;DTR ON;SEND"ATZ\rRAT&F&C&D2&Q5S37=9n0\r"
                                     ^ what's that R doing there?

    OOPS, It was lack of caffeine this morning it should be:
    
    DTR OFF;WAIT1.5;DTR ON;SEND"ATZ\rAT&F&C&D2&Q5S37=9n0\r"

    Hi, I get errors trying to set up the software once it's installed.
    The errors are described in the attached mail that I sent to
    [email protected] (and btw I never got an answer or acknowledgement).
    
    I've tried re-installing, and I've even obtained a new kit and
    re-instaled that.  It must be something about my system I guess.
    Does anyone have any hints on what I could do to make the software
    work?
    
From:	STUDIO::CROWLEY "Dave Crowley  09-Mar-1996 1622"  9-MAR-1996 16:31:52.87
To:	RYN::"[email protected]"
CC:	CROWLEY                      
Subj:	Errors trying to setup PC Branch

Hi,
I get numerous errors when I try to 'setup' PCbranch.  The first error I
get says,

	Error! (Ver 1.18v1 Rev: DIGITAL 02 UID:)    

	An Error Was Detected in the Program!
	Error: 'Invalid file format' in Procedure 'MDI.bas -
	FormLoad'.
	Press OK to attempt to continue

If I click on OK, I just get more errors. The others are the same 'invalid file
format' error, called from different procedures.  Nothing except error
messages ever appears.

I just installed PC Branch today, for the first time.  I'm running Windows95 on
a 66mhz 486.  My system is pretty vanilla, I can't think of anything that
could cause this.

I have tried reinstalling twice.  I'm accepting the default directory during
the installation; the install seems to go fine: it copies files, then asks if
I'd like a program group, then exits.

Any suggestions?
				Dave Crowley
				[email protected]
				dtn 297-4384
    

Have you checked your system for viruses lately?

			Steve

re: .157

This sounds like a perfect case for phoning the Info Center.
They can tell help you with your problem, and you can also report
to them that the published e-mail address does not work.

Elaine

    Let me first state that I called this in to the "infor center "
    already.  I find the system to be highly unreliable getting a failure
    to connect rate of approx 15% with ring no answer.   After getting into
    the system It often dropps me or gives me aan error message that the
    interface is not available.  This usually happens when trying to get
    history information.  Today, it also happened while trying to send mail
    confirming my call to the info center.
    
    The one time that I was able to get the history, it showed that one
    check had been debited twice.  The info center informed me that this
    was a "glitch" in the computer and that it had been reported to them
    before.  I asked him to report it to the people responsible for getting
    it fixed and that this was unacceptable.  He said that he would report
    it.
    
    I am in the process of having my direct deposits changed to DCU because
    of the free checks and increased use of the ATM but am having serious
    second thoughts about the wisdom of doing this.
    
    Regards, Al

    re: .160
    
    >I am in the process of having my direct deposits changed to DCU because
    >of the free checks and increased use of the ATM but am having serious
    >second thoughts about the wisdom of doing this.
    
    It appears that all the problems concern the PC Branch software and not
    the DCU account processing software.  I don't see any reason to change
    your mind unless you need to depend upon the PC Branch software
    immediately.
    
    Bob
    

>     I am in the process of having my direct deposits changed to DCU because
>     of the free checks and increased use of the ATM but am having serious
>     second thoughts about the wisdom of doing this.

I wouldn't be concerned over this.  Everything that I've seen at the
Credit Union shows that in the event of a problem, the credit union is
doing what's right for the customer.

Also, the BOD and the Supervisory Committee regularly read this
conference. You can be assured that major snafus would get our
attention.


Gim

I had problems doing a transfer to my wife's account - I sent mail via
PC Branch but got no reply.  Finally I called the info center and learned
that I need to put an S before the share account suffix (or L for loans).
This is actually mentioned in the notice published earlier this month, but
it had slipped my mind when I went to do a transfer for the first time.

I was annoyed that the mail was ignored.

				Steve

    
    Yes, I feel the same way about ignored mail. I sent multiple mail
    messages to the Board of Directors suggesting and then arguing for the
    employment of temporary help to log, track and follow-up on each and
    every mail message since the system does not keep a copy of the message
    you send. Weeks later you get back a message which says something and
    you forgot what you asked. I asked them to put the question I asked in
    the reply, but that also has fallen on deaf ears. 
    
    I suggested the temporary help so the staff could get their arms around
    what they admit was (and maybe still is) UNMANAGEABLE influx of
    information surrounding the new PC Branch system. Their only response
    was to make it free until August. They have not addressed the endemic
    problem of lack of response to mail messages, the duplicate vendors due
    to simple addressing errors, the inability to let you know the status
    of the processing of new vendors (I still have at least 3 which are
    over 12 weeks old). I'm in the process of creating a letter to fax to
    DCU listing these vendors I still haven't gotten. I had a vendor I was
    waiting for weeks and I came to find out that it was simply spelled
    wrong and was already there for weeks.
    
    Whew, I guess I just vented, but DCU's concept of customer service and
    mine are very different. They may consider themselves a model, but
    unless they can service really difficult and demanding customers (like
    me, I'm a pain in the a** for good customer service), it's still second
    rate. However, compared to other banks I've dealt with, their second
    rate is superior to the third and fourth rate banks I've dealt with, so
    that's why I stay. I want them to improve and one way to do it is for
    me to indentify their shortcomings and make it better for everyone
    else.

I typically do not have problems with using PC Branch except when I 
get a no answer or busy signal, which is quite often (I was not able 
to log in since Thursday, now it is Saturday afternoon).  For this 
reason I use it only for the information purposes:  did the check 
clear?  -- was the deposit made? -- etc.  The inablility of DCU to 
make a reliable connection and realible bill payment made me sign up 
with CheckFree, a company that has been in the bill payment business 
since around '87-'88.  I have absolutely no problems with them -- I 
do not have to wait until they "process" a new vendor.  Any vendor, 
even an odd-ball one, has been accepted immediately.  They charge $6 
a month, and I believe that the extra 3 bucks over what I would pay 
to DCU, is worth it.

I also tried Intuit Bill Paying Services, but they just started, and 
have too many problems, like DCU.

I have no connection with CheckFree (pun intended) except being a 
satisfied customer.

Leo

    Hopefully Checkfree has reduced their prices in response to all this
    competition?
    
    There were LOTS of things I didn't like about Checkfree's pricing
    structure when I last looked.
    
    Mainly I didn't like the fact that payments were "sold" in groups.
    
    The first 20 was something like $6 and then each group of 10 thereafter
    was like $3.
    
    What I didn't like was the fact that my 21 check of the month could
    end up costing me $3.   
    
    I didn't want to keep track of "how many checks I wrote this month"
    and so basically I just said "forget it".
    
    Obviously the $3/month for Billpayer is a fabulous price, but I had
    a bunch of problems with it and don't trust it yet.
    
    	db

For anyone interested in the Homelink offered
by Baybank:

I've been getting good use of a quicken download
feature that they have:

Every new payee that is downloaded is placed into
a bbhl.ini file in the windows directory in the
form:

	BOSTON EDISON =

From time to time, you can edit the entry placing
any quicken import info after the '='... thus

	BOSTON EDISON = LUtilities:Electric

Each field has a code, and you can place multiple
fields... even specifying a replacment payee if you want
(note: guessing the category field starts with L).

With this feature as well as using bill payer
more often, you can whittle down the number of
post-download tweaks required to reconcile each
download.

Homelink can be setup without any monthly charge
if you have a baybank loan, or link enough accounts
to meet some large minimum.

Re: -.2

>    Hopefully Checkfree has reduced their prices in response to all this
>    competition?
    
It has.  It used to be $10 a month, now they are down to $6, the same as 
Intuit's Bill Paying service.

>    Mainly I didn't like the fact that payments were "sold" in groups.
>    
>    The first 20 was something like $6 and then each group of 10 thereafter
>    was like $3.

I never exceed 20 payments, so I never even looked into this.
    

>    Obviously the $3/month for Billpayer is a fabulous price, but I had
>    a bunch of problems with it and don't trust it yet.

Exactly my point:  You get what you pay for.  As far as I am concerned, the 
$3 extra for a reliable service is well worth it.

Leo

    I tried every possible combination of the connect string from Win95 but
    still no connection.
    
    Any chance of a software update with Win95 interface or at least the
    ability to hook in the dial-in adapter?
    
    - Vikas

Not the place to ask.  Please call DCU's Info Center.

Elaine

    info center? sure.  what an oxymoron.
    
    Vikas, exactly what doesn't work.  I have 3 win-95 systems that run pc
    branch.  except for a primitive display, everything works fine.
    ed
    

Works for me too on W95.

		Steve

    Never connects to the remote modem.  I am using ZoomFAX 14.4
    
    I can dial the DCU 1-800 number using ATDT from the dial-up adapter
    fine and get connected at 14.4K and see the output including all the
    VT100 escape sequences.
    
    - Vikas

    I again had diffficulty in connecting to PCBranch today and once
    connected was unable to use it as it would not provide history and
    provided errrors messages and would not send mail again with error
    messages.
    
    I spoke with the infor desk who transferred me to the "supervisor" who
    was somewhat knowledgeable and said that she would go into the system
    and look at the error log and call me back which was done.
    
    She was unable to see any error messages which I pointed out was a
    major problem in and of itself.  She was concerned that I had not
    reported any problem in the past, which I pointed out was false and
    that I had reported problems to the "info desk" in the past. 
    Apparently they had neglected to pass this information on as they had
    promised.
    
    I would ask that anyone experiencing problems with PCBRANCH report the
    problem through the "info desk" and get and record the name of the
    person taking the information.  
    
    They have promised to refer this to the vender and to get back to me
    with the information but no date/time has been promised.
    
    The DCU is a great institution in many respects but there are two bad
    apples in the barrel - PCBRANCH and the "info desk"

We, the board, will be with DCU mgmt tomorrow. I
have made a note of this and will let the operations
people know about the problems.


Gim

    Gim and Elaine.
    Thanks for the quick response.  You two in particular deserve a lot of
    the credits for the improvements that have happened already and will
    continue to happen.  
    you have my vote for as long as you choose to stay on the board.
    
    Regards

    Gim, as you probably noticed in my comments, I have gave up on the info
    center.  So it backs up what the previous noter has said.  they are a 
    problem.  And so is the voice mail that NO ONE returns calls.  I'd 
    suggest that managment rip out the voice mail and replace it with
    humans.  And perhaps the info center can adapt what Disney does, as 
    Disney treats it's customers as Guests with a capital G.
    I see this [positive treatment] at higher levels, such as Tom Ryan.
    Why this doesn't filter down, I don't know.
    ed
    

    Another credit union that I use has recently announced that members can
    do everything with their accounts through the CU web site that we can
    do with the touchtone phone system, with one exception:  We can't
    request a withdrawal from our account to be mailed to us.  I can get a
    complete up-to-the-minute statement for any of my accounts, including
    loans, can transfer money between accounts, including loan payments.
    Bill paying on the net is not offered, but they do have a bill paying
    service through some 3rd party provider that I do not use.
    
    What did I have to do to get access to this?  Nothing.  It's available
    off their homepage and my password for the SHTML server was set to my
    ATM password and when I logged on for the first time, I was offered the
    choice of changing my web access password.
    
    There is also a stock tracking feature that allows me to enter
    information about my stock portfollio and track it.  I do have to tell
    it to update the price of my stock (15 minute delayed), so I don't get
    automatic notification of major price changes, or any other fancy
    features, but the price is certainly right.
    
    The downside?  It's being run by a 3rd party that does NOT have an 800
    number for support.  It's a long distance call that you pay for. 
    Fortunately, it has been so easy to use that I've never needed to call.
    Also, being SHTML-based, I believe that it is unusable through the
    Digital firewall.  Someone who is more knowledgeable in this area can
    correct me if I'm wrong about this.
    
    Kinda makes me wonder why DCU bothered with PC Branch other than for
    the bill paying option.
    
    Bob

>    Gim and Elaine. Thanks for the quick response.  You two in
>    particular deserve a lot of the credits for the improvements that
>    have happened already and will continue to happen.   

    And what about the other 5 directors? Has it been that long since
    the insurrection the we've forgotten what has happened and how we
    got here today?

    Or is it that Gim and Elaine are the only "notes accessible" board
    members? Remember that THE MAJORITY of DCU members AND the DCU
    Board of Directors do not have Notes file access. Elaine also just
    announced that she'll be joining the "elite" non-Digital crowd as
    well.

    Remember that all of the Board of Directors are accessible via
    E-Mail, see note 5.last for current address information. I'm sure
    that they would all welcome our comments, suggestions and praise.

    Charly

RE  .174 and .177:

The board met with DCU mgmt team and discussed, among other topics, the
Infocenter and PC Branch support/access.  The board and DCU mgmt are
fully aware of the problems with Infocenter and PC Branch uptime.

The Infocenter problem is NOT one of staff competence but one of
changing job content.  Where in the past, telephone operators dealt with
just account issues, they now need to be literate with PC terms, modems,
written responses and of course email.  Using email (written
communications) as the medium for dealing with customers requires a
different skill set. 

Many members who work at Digital are fairly comfortable with email 
and are PC literate but  many Infocenter specialists are not.  
Carlo and his staff are working on changing info center to better 
meet the needs of the membership in this regard.
     
The DCU is working on improving PC Branch uptime.  The majority of the
board feel PC Branch uptime can be improved.  Many changes have taken
place or will take place.  They include upgrades of the host software
and special procedures to ensure that the system is available during
evening hours and weekends, periods of time when the membership is most
likely to use it. In addition, a new telephone system is being installed.

Carlo is also working plan to allow electronic communications with him.
By that, I mean something more than just an email acccount that gets a
standard canned reply.  That plan will be announced in the July issue of
network news.


Gim

Over the pass few weeks, NYNEX has experienced problems
with 800 number access.  This problem is known to NYNEX.

I have personally been unable to access Benefits Express from
my Acton exchange as well as access to PC Branch.

At work in SHR, I have had, periodically, problems accessing the
800 PC Branch line (phone line problem - not PC Branch problem).

Gim

    I just got a clarification from the info center.
    
    PC Branch advertises that you can do transfers to other member's
    accounts.   However, when you use the software, there's nothing
    obvious about how to do that, nor do I recall seeing anything in
    the instruction booklet.
    
    You have to call the info center to "enable" that feature, and...
    you can only enable it for specific accounts.
    
    I often find myself transferring into other member's accounts, but it's
    not always the same members.   The PC Branch feature is really intended
    for transfer between family members accounts.
    
    	db

    Well the problems with PC Branch continue at least as far as I am
    concerned.  Getting Phone calls returned and getting correct
    information is also difficult to impossible.
    
    As of my latest call with the DCU, yesterday (iniated by me as they had
    not provided me with followup information in over a week.  When I asked
    them about why they were using modems that connect at 14400, I was
    informed that the modems did not work at 14400 and that the connect
    14400 response that I got was from my modem and that it was incorrectly
    reporting this information.   THIS IS CLEARLY WRONG.  I modified the
    init string on my modem in terminal emulation mode at 9600 and
    emulating a VT100 and still had problems.
    
    I worked with them over a week ago and sent them an error log (actualy
    delivered it to them) which they were to send to the vender and have
    recieved a request to identify the modem and speed which I did last
    Monday and have heard nothing from this.
    
    They have hired a new person to deal with these issues who is a PC
    "GURU" and he is the one who gave me the missinformation on the Modem.
    
    I am going to try to contact Tom Ryan as he seems at least willing to
    work issues.  One of the problems is that they continue to refer to the
    problems that I am experiencing as "your problem".  Until they
    recognize this as their problem, this will not be resolved.

    I believe they might have be correct when they say the connect at 14400
    comes from your modem.  That is a responce stream that comes from a
    Hayes compatable modem.
    
    Perhaps we as a group here [I know that may not be the correct method]
    can get you rolling down the right path.
    PC Branch software DOES work.  I have no problems connecting in, I use
    three different systems with three differnt modems.
    So, if you're willing, start at the begining with symptoms, and let's
    have a stab at it.
    ed
    

    First let me state that the modem is used with both 9600 and 14400
    service providers and I can hear the handshake go on and it reports the
    correct connect speed. It also correctly reports 2400 baud connect.
    
    I have also connected in terminal mode at 9600 by setting register
    s37=9 which forces the modem to only connect at 9600.  The problems
    also occur here.
    
    Basicaly the problems are that after logging in the information for the
    account balances come up properly.  When I request history it indicates
    that it is getting the information but the panel never fills up and
    then the error message comes back that "communications error -that
    interface is not available"
    
    Today, I logged in at 9600 using the terminal emulation mode and it
    worked flawlessly.  I tried it a few minutes later and got to the
    history request when it failed with no response.  One thing that I did
    notice this time was there was no response to any keyboard input and
    the time had been corrupted (overwritten with trash) and no longer was
    updated.  It looked as if the modem connection had failed BUT my modem
    tries to re-establish contact and goes into the audio on mode and you
    can hear the attempt.  This did not happen but without an external
    modem and no light to see not sure what exactly happened. The modem
    will give a NO CARRIER message when or if carrier is lost.  This
    happened quite a bit when I was using INFOPATH provider so I know it
    works.
    
    When the problem happens while using PCBranch software the only
    commands that are responded to seem to be local.  for example if you
    ack the error message and try something else like mail,  you will get a
    similar error message.  Disconnect and exit will work.  usually you can
    get the account balances back by clicking on them - so that information
    may already be downloaded onto my system.
    
     

    more information.
    the modem, let's just look at ONE.  What kind is it, is it internal or 
    external?
    What does the modem init string look like, and the rest of the modem
    strings.
    did you let PC branch automatically generate these, or did you supply
    or modify what PC branch defaults were?
    can you give all the settings listed on the settings page of PC branch?
    
    since you did indicate multiple modems, is this only on one system?
    if so, how did you switch?  PC branch is not very good at
    de-installation, reinstallation nor mucking with the settings.
    the way I finally got around changing modems was to do a change
    settings and then search my disk for files modified by the change
    settings, then DELETE that file and all of PC branch, then reinstall.
    Like I said before, mom and pop software, but it can be hacked to work.
    
    at this point, I wish a director or two would chime in with a progress
    report on when we can expect some real pc banking software or when pop
    is going to get time to modify the software.  ;-)
    ed
    

I have also had very similar, and consistent problems.   I've been meaning
to send to DCU but haven't found that round tuit that I needed.  Maybe
I just found it...I will send this to the Info Center.

I run PC Branch on 2 machines;

	 a Starion 940 with a TeleCommander 28.8 modem at home
	 a CT475 HiNote Ultra with an AT&T Paradyne 14.4 PCMCIA modem.

Both machines run Windows 95.  Both can connect reliably to several other
dial-up services, mostly RAS to my machines here at work.

Until recently, both machines were configured with the PC Branch "Auto Setup"
modem initialization string (I added S41=3 on the HiNote to force connect
at 9600 this week.  This seems to have marginally helped).

The Starion ALWAYS connects without problem.  The HiNote almost always has
problems connecting.  I have seen all previously reported problems, the 2
most frequent being;

	- modem reports connect at 14000 and then just times out waiting
	  for a response.

	- modem connects, steps down to 9600 or 4800, gets response from
	  host, and dies somewhere in the login sequence.  I am getting
	  some type of error message but it always is immediately overwritten
	  by the "Resetting modem message".  I've never been able to catch
	  the message.

However, I have been able to connect and successfully use PC Branch from this
HiNote configuration, usually if I try dialing 4-5 times.  That tells me
it is not necessarily a configuration problem on my side.  It appears that
it may be dependent on which line/modem in the hunt chain you connect on.

The only other variable I can think of is that I am usually using the Starion
from home late at night (after 9:00 EDT).  The HiNote is most often used
during the day from work (I have seen the problems from home on the HiNote).

Clearly, PC Branch has some work to do on their communications modules.
I can ALWAYS connect, without problem, to BBS's, RAS lines, LAT lines,
etc. from both these machines.  I can also connect to and use PC Branch
with the existing configurations, albeit not reliably.  This indicates to
me that the problems are on the PC Branch side.  My experience with similar
software for the CSC's also indicates that it is most likely a
line/modem/setup/error-recovery problem with their hunt chains.

							Mark

    to help out, Mark, you are going to have to separate the smoke from the
    fire.  Since your desktop DOES work, don't talk about it.  Since your
    laptop has problems, describe it a bit more.
    internal/external modem?  what is it?  how is it described in setup?
    
    with so many pieces of junk modems on the market, that sometimes work
    and if lucky, contect to similiar junk modems ok, there is no way
    DCU should be trying to take on these modems with autosetup, and to
    their defence, they can never be able to test all the various setups.
    
    what this means to someone with a {insert your favorite description,
    i.e cheap/junk/nonstandard} modem, YOU must provide the best modem
    init string possible.
    This may very possibly involve a call to the manufacturer.  I had to
    do this with my Epsom laptop.  It turns out that the modem on that
    was made by one manufacturer, but the setup for the modem of another
    vender works better for it.  Only Epsom could tell what to use unless
    I wanted to try 6 zillion combinations.
    
    the modem intit string tells the modem how to respond to the incoming
    protocol stream.  most likely in the failing cases here, we're getting
    overruns/parity errors and the modem hasn't been instructed on how to
    handle them.
    oh, BTW, one usefull modem init command  to add is M0    this tells the
    modem not to broadcast the dial tone/modem conversations at startup.
    very nice thing to do if you are calling from work.
    
    perhaps a companion project DCU might have thought about is finding
    a vender that would give a discount on modems, then providing a deal
    if you get PC branch, a savings on a REAL modem.
    
    enough, Steve  jump in here and save me!

Re: .188 thanks for the help.

His point is well taken.  I have a Ultra CT475 running Windows 3.11 with a
Megahertz 28K PCMICA modem.  I did change the intialization string
to ATZ which resets the modem to its default setting and have had
no problems connecting.

I have cross posted .187 in the Modem conference. Perhaps someone
there can help.

Gim

>    with so many pieces of junk modems on the market, that sometimes work
>    and if lucky, contect to similiar junk modems ok, there is no way
>    DCU should be trying to take on these modems with autosetup, and to
>    their defence, they can never be able to test all the various setups.
    
    This is certainly true.
    
    I've gone thru a number of those "junk modems" and have concluded that
    it is not reasonable to expect any service provider to be able to
    ascertain and diagnose problems.
    
    My first 28.8K modem was a "Cardinal".   Not exactly an off-brand, but
    not really one of the popular brands either.
    
    I had problems connecting to AOL with that.  You would not believe the
    effort AOL made to solve the problem.  They even had me communicating
    with them via a cellular phone while we tried things out.  They brought
    in their corporate modem experts and... ultimately... gave up and
    offered me a complete refund of any monies I had spent on AOL.
    
    For an aggressive company like AOL to just "give up" on a new
    subscriber tells me that there are times when things just can't be
    resolved.
    
    I ended up buying a US Robotics and haven't had a problem with ANYTHING
    ever since.  
    
    From now on, I buy well-known modem brands or I buy nothing at all.
    
    This was the recommendation I had got from at least 3 friends who are
    in the PC support biz and I wish I had listened a long time ago.

    When I was in DECgenisys developement, I sat near our tech support
    person.  99% of his calls were modem related.  DECgenisys was a dial-up
    client/server system for our business partners.  They called an 800
    number and connected to the servers.  The modems on the server end were
    the same ones used by the Electronic Connection folks.  There were a
    lot of times when new users were able to connect to other services,
    i.e. AOL, Compuserve, etc., but couldn't connect to our server. 
    Usually a different modem init string was required.  It's amazing how
    many 'Hayes compatible' modems, aren't.
    
    Perhaps this is one of the reasons that my primary CU only offers
    internet access to my accounts and not modem access, it puts the modem
    monkey on the internet provider's backs.
    
    Bob

    for anyone who does not have a modem already, or is thinking of
    upgrading US robotics is the route to go.  Of course the disclaimer
    I don't own stock in them, I don't even own one [yet], but the
    direction seems to be is going toward them.  and when one USR talks
    to another USR, they can talk at much higher rates due to propritory
    protocol.
    I was able to make Cardinal work.  Revel modem came up and running
    with no problems.  The junk modem in my laptop was a big problem in the
    begining.
    
    the ATZ or ATZ&F0 *may* set to factory defaults, BUT, you may not
    want factory defaults!
    
    the other variable in the picture is how 'other' software mucks with
    the modem.  if that init string isn't right, that modem is operating
    in wacko land [don't you like it when I talk technical]  you use
    an unregister TCPman and then PC branch, no way.
    as the previous reply indicated Hayes compatible is not Hayes
    compliant.
    what is going to have to happen is you have to take a good init string
    say something a USR gives, translate it into modem set up parameters,
    then take those setup parameters and the manual that came with your
    modem and translate them into [your]modem init string.
    kinda like disassembling code.  external modems get a bit more tricky.
    
    ed
    

I have also had a lot of trouble connecting with a Supra 28.8 External (with
16550 UARTs).  I called DCU and they gave me an init string which made no
difference at all.  I have not yet tried to call back or check with Supra.

The symptoms are that it dials, answers, negotiates, and then starts to exchange
data, but nearly immediately I get a receive error and the two modems go into a
retrain session which lasts 10-20 seconds.  It appears that by the time it comes
out of retrain, the software has timed out because they never exchange data
again.

This happens maybe 90% of the time.  When it does work, they manage to talk
after the retrain.  Maybe once in a great while it connects successfully without
a retrain.

I have tried a number of different speeds.  As I recall, this happens with 9600
and 4800.  At 2400, they don't successfully negotiate and I end up with a
monotone beep.

BTW, it works fine with a terminal emulator...

Burns

    Burns,
    
    for your external modem, when you set the speed back, I bet you only
    set it in the pc branch setup.   Try going back and setting the
    port speed back.  The pc branch software speed [I believe] is only
    talking modulation speed, whereas the serial port is talking a more
    basic speed.  and while you are there make sure you have hardware
    flow control enabled. [under advanced]
    since you have a 16550 uart, and if W95, make sure you enable the 
    fifo buffering.
    anyone with a USR external should make sure the settings use
    non-standard HST modulation setting [not default standard modulation].
    
    ed
    

>    to help out, Mark, you are going to have to separate the smoke from the
>    fire.  Since your desktop DOES work, don't talk about it.  Since your
>    laptop has problems, describe it a bit more.
>    internal/external modem?  what is it?  how is it described in setup?

I agree Ed. I have not done the exhaustive analysis of the symptoms well
enough to clear the smoke.  However...

	As I stated in the earlier note, it is an AT&T Paradyne "KeepInTouch"
	PCMCIA data/fax modem.  As far as I know, a fairly reliable, well 
	respected modem.   I have not had ANY problems with it or with 
	connecting to any other of a variety of services.

	As I also stated, I was using the default string created via
	auto setup - DTR OFF; WAIT 1.5; DTR ON; SEND "ATE0V1M1\r"
	Baud Rate is set at 9600 with auto fallback checked.  Although
	this never seems to affect anything.  No matter what baud rate
	I selected here, it would still connect and try 14.4, then
	step down.  I fixed that by changing the string to

		DTR OFF; WAIT 1.5; DTR ON; SEND "ATS41=3E0V1M1\r"

	where S41=3 forces this modem to use 9600.

I have also seen the problems I have described on the Starion system, but
only once or twice.

If it is a problem with my setup, why is it that I can connect and maintain
a connection for up to 20 minutes without a problem one day, then have 2-3
days in a row where I consistently must re-dial several times before getting
in (if I get in at all)?

					Mark

I have a US Robotics Sportster V.34.  If I configure PC Branch to connect at
any speed higher than 9600, it will sometimes connect (as far as the modem
is concerned), but PC Branch will not log in.  If I set it to the recommended
9600 baud, it works fine (when PC Branch answers the phone at all, that is.)

I see no real need for higher speeds, given the amount of data being
transmitted.

			Steve

re: .157

The question posed in this note was never answered.  I've installed PC 
Branch on 2 systems and seen this same error.

>        Error! (Ver 1.18v1 Rev: DIGITAL 02 UID:)    
>
>        An Error Was Detected in the Program!
>        Error: 'Invalid file format' in Procedure 'MDI.bas -
>        FormLoad'.
>        Press OK to attempt to continue

I have a call into the Info Center and Steve is supposed to call me back, 
but does anyone have a quick fix for this that can be posted here to save 
some of us time and phone calls??

Is this when getting a history from a checking account?  If so, the response
I got was that it was a known bug that was harmless.

				Steve

Nope.  Read 157 again.  It occurs when you click on Setup, you get several 
of these message windows, one after another, then nothing happens.  You 
never get to the setup form.  The only thing that you can do is disconnect.

    I worked with the info center person today and they had redone my
    account last Thursday.  I had failures on Thursday night and also this
    morning.  They gave me a local number to dial to get around the
    posssibility of the 800 problem.  Twice it failed and twice it worked
    for over 20 min.   They asked me to visit the branch in Acton and try
    it from there.  I figured that it would never fail in their office but
    it did.  one difference was that once I got the communications error
    interface not available (verified by the Branch Manager), I was able to
    get history and send mail which had never been the case before.  Looks
    like we are making some progress.   

Re: .197

I have had this problem with PC Branch since I started using it. I reported it
three times but have never received a response. I suspected a font size problem
since, in addition to the error message, the "ABOUT" icon is missing from the
top of the screen. I found that if I go into the Windows Control Panel and tell
Windows to use a smaller font the PC Branch error goes away and the "ABOUT" icon
comes back. My particular video controller came with a "SET RES" utility that
allows me to select between a small and a large font. Since the font selection
is not dynamic you can't set it temporarily, run PC Branch, then reset it. You
must restart Windows after changing the font. Since I find it difficult to use
Windows on my system with the smaller font I run with the larger font and live
with the PC Branch error.

    I was told yesterday that the forms error was a "known bug" but did not
    cause any problems.  After the length of time that this product has
    been in use, it would appear that a responsible vender would have fixed
    this bug (along with the others as well).

>			After the length of time that this product has
>    been in use, it would appear that a responsible vender would have fixed
>    this bug (along with the others as well).

Just out of curiosity, what is a "reasonable length of time" within which
a vendor should be responsible for providing a bug-fix-update for free-ware?

We paid $0 out of our pockets for the use of this software.

Why do we feel compelled to expect service at a level as if we'd paid
sagans of dollars for it?

My expectation is that the software author will provide an update within some
"reasonable" timeframe (6-9 mos, in my guesstimation). And if it's again at no
cost, I don't really have many complaints.

Hell - I've got MicroSoft (and other) software running here at home that I 
paid BIG bucks for, that I'll _NEVER_ get bug fixes for without shelling out 
BIG bucks for upgrades.

I'm reminded of the old saw - Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

    >  We paid $0 out of our pockets for the use of this software.
    
    "We" are the DCU, and I don't think it was free to the DCU, nor is
    the support free.  
    
    Regarding Microsoft softawre -- I wouldn't want to hold them up as an 
    example of how bug fixes *ought* to be done!
    
    Typically, bugs get triaged into three categories: "emergeny -- fix now",
    "get this into a scheduled upgrade", or "we'll think about it".  It
    would be interesting to know which category the PC branch vender
    has assigned to the various problems that have been reported.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    reminds me of people thing Goals 2000 money if free or any goverment
    money is free.  I'm willing to bet WE paid through our nose for this
    'software'.  WE knew it was lacking when it was officially deployed.
    now it is up to US to make the best out of a bad situation.
    I'd really like to see the software mature.  I wish part of the WE
    would clue us ikn on the timetable.
    Perhaps its me, but I don't remember seeing any significant [or any!]
    discussion in the BOD minutes regarding PC BRANCH.  I have to wonder
    if the board is giving this matter ANY thought?
    
    ed
    

I certainly don't know the particulars of what the DEFCU may have invested 
in this, but the fact remains that interest on my loans wasn't increased,
interest on my balances wasn't decreased, and I wasn't assessed any charges
for the use of this software. From a user standpoint, it's free - and I
for one can't get too excited over delays in receiving fixes. (Then again,
I'm not experiencing any problems with my usage. :^)
 

    Jack, the interest on your loans hasn't decreased, nor the interest on 
    your savings hasn't increased.  the glass is half full.
    these people, even thought the quality may be an issue, are not
    giving it away.  I can only assume the cost is coming from dcu.
    ed
    

    I think that the idea that this is freeware is absurd.  You did not pay
    out of you pocket for any of the capital costs of the DCU or for their
    salaries but you must understand that those costs are either increasing
    your loan costs or decreasing your interest.  
    
    Money has to be spent to do business and there is no argument with
    that.
    
    Ont the other hand , we have a right to expect that the persons with 
    whome we have trusted our money, will properly manage it and get the
    value that they have paid for.  
    
    If there were infrequent error messages that did not impact the
    useability, OK , but to have the application virtualy useless and to
    have to force some attention from the DCU to resolve the issues makes
    it a big issue with me.  

>		we have a right to expect that the persons with 
>    whome we have trusted our money, will properly manage it and get the
>    value that they have paid for.  

And how is it that we know that that is not the case?

Tell me, how much did DEFCU lay out to arrange for the availability
of this software  for us?

    re .205:
    
    > I'm willing to bet WE paid through our nose for this 'software'
    
    I don't know the details, but I think you'd lose that bet.  Of course,
    it all depends what one calls paying through the nose.
    
    > Perhaps its me, but I don't remember seeing any significant [or any!]
    > discussion in the BOD minutes regarding PC BRANCH.  I have to wonder
    > if the board is giving this matter ANY thought?
      
    I don't recall how much was in the minutes, but the Board is certainly
    not ignoring PC Branch.  I encourage you to write to Board members
    with any specific questions you have about what the Board is doing.
    
    Keep in mind, however, that the Board's job is policy rather than
    operations.  The best way to deal with operational issues is to
    contact a DCU manager, e.g. Carlo.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    re: .209
    You might ask the cost of the SW to the BOD or to the Predident of the
    DCU.  
    The DCU has recently hired a full time support person with technical
    skills to support this product and they have been having delays in
    getting vendors added which is probably also a personpower issue.
    Gim has mentioned the reskilling of the People in the Infocenter which
    is certainly not without cost. 
    The West coast vendor is supposed to be providing support which has to
    be costing.
    I suspect that the cost is non-trivial and would be well spent if the
    product worked reliably.
    I also suspect that the modem issue is a red herring as it is easy to
    place blame in that area without having to provide proof because
    "everybody knows" that modems are flakey.  As their request I went to
    the NAGOG Branch  and used their equipment and experienced the problem
    with the Branch manager as a witness.  Kinda places the ball back in
    their court as everthing in use was provided by them from end to end.
    
    

    Larry, I agree that the board should not be micro-managing, rather
    policy making.  However, when something is broken, when something
    started out broken, then I'd EXPECT the boad to keep their finger on
    the pulse of the project.  THAT INVOLVES TALKING ABOUT IT.  IT INVOLVES
    GETTING STATUS ON IT.  IT INVOVLES TALKING ABOUT IT.  
    Did I miss something in the minutes?  It doesn't mean they have to do
    something directly about it if they are sure that the right steps are
    in place.
    
    for those want to be directors, How do you stand on PC Branch?
    I've got three household ballots yet to be mailed.
    ed
    
    

>    the pulse of the project.  THAT INVOLVES TALKING ABOUT IT.  IT INVOLVES
>    GETTING STATUS ON IT.  IT INVOVLES TALKING ABOUT IT.  

    Gee Ed, calm down. 

>    Did I miss something in the minutes?  It doesn't mean they have to do

    No, but I'm missing something in a note that you wrote earlier.
    Could you please translate the first "sentence" of your previous
    note?

    Charly

================================================================================
Note 975.205                   PC Branch Software                     205 of 212
HYLNDR::BADGER "Can DO!"                             12 lines  12-JUN-1996 08:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    reminds me of people thing Goals 2000 money if free or any goverment
    money is free.  I'm willing to bet WE paid through our nose for this
    'software'.  WE knew it was lacking when it was officially deployed.
    now it is up to US to make the best out of a bad situation.
    I'd really like to see the software mature.  I wish part of the WE
    would clue us ikn on the timetable.
    Perhaps its me, but I don't remember seeing any significant [or any!]
    discussion in the BOD minutes regarding PC BRANCH.  I have to wonder
    if the board is giving this matter ANY thought?
    
    ed
    

    ok, I'm calm.
    the reference in the first sentence the word 'thing' should have been
    'thinking'.
    it pertains to people who believe things are free because they
    don't directly pay for them.  The federal money grabs [like goals 2000]
    in the belief that money you get from the federal goverment is somehow
    'free'.

>    the reference in the first sentence the word 'thing' should have been
>    'thinking'.
>    it pertains to people who believe things are free because they
>    don't directly pay for them.  The federal money grabs [like goals 2000]

    Oh! Like the guy back in note 983.* that was excited about
    collecting money (both HE AND HIS wife) and free eats for
    attending a focus group meeting even though he didn't fit the
    profile that they were looking for.

    And, then he wanted a Tee Shirt too!

    BiG ;-)

    Charly

    re: .212
    
    >for those want to be directors, How do you stand on PC Branch?
    
    I'll tell you the same thing I told someone who sent me e-mail
    directly;  I think there needs to be a review of the entire situation
    with a report made available to all the members, including a plan to
    resolve the issues.  I make the above statement knowing full well that
    if elected, I could end up on the sharp end of the stick.
    
    >I've got three household ballots yet to be mailed.
    
    You owe it to yourself and your fellow members to vote for the
    candidates that you feel will be the best directors of the CU.  As
    several of the candidates do not have access to this conference, you
    could be doing yourself a great injustice should you base your vote
    mainly upon a response to this issue.
    
    Bob
    

>    You might ask the cost of the SW to the BOD or to the Predident of the
>    DCU.  

I could, except for the fact that the answer isn't all that important to me.
I'm not experiencing any difficulties with PCBranch.

I raised the question since there seem to be two schools of thought on the
matter.

Those experiencing problems have the feeling that we're "not getting what
we paid for". That, perhaps, we paid "through the nose" for software that
isn't worth it.

I, on the other hand, feel that perhaps we're getting exactly what we paid
for. That a relatively unknown software vendor that's trying to get on
their feet with some exposure may have cut a deal with the DEFCU to supply,
at very little cost, a package which would minimally meet some requirements,
although not necessarily with the best quality product.

If I'm correct (and I don't know that I am), I can't necessarily fault
either the BoD or DCU mgmt. They may well have made a very appropriate
decision in getting a quick/cheap solution for the first go-round.

Until we know the answer to "what the investment was", we can't correctly
gauge whether or not we're really getting our money's worth.

    I recently sent a message to Carlo.  The Internet web page makes
    a blantant lie about the ability of PCBANCH to be able to download
    data from your account to Quicken.
    While this may be true, it is a kinda a white lie.  You can't *use* the
    data that you download into Quicken.
    Perhaps managment and BOD still don't understand this issue?  It would
    be nice if they issued a statement, or publicly talked about it.
    ed
    

I spent a lot of time on the phone to Tom Ryan of DCU on the general subject
of PC Branch and the Quicken issue in particular.  He told me that DCU was
considering a linkup with MS Money, as it was cheap, but I told him it would
be a false economy as Quicken is what most people use.  Intuit is dropping the
cost of using their software, so that may be in the future.  He invited
people to write him with comments and suggestions at [email protected] (this
is a general DCU address - note that it's for Tom Ryan and he'll get it.)

				Steve

	Does MS-Money output better QIF files than PC Branch? If they
	went with MS-Money and provided a free copy, would that suffice
	for most folks?

	I'm on the fence at this point. Anything that makes it easier than
	PC Branch would be nice, but I understand the needs of those with
	400 years of Quicken data. :)

							mike

    I'm open minded, but it sounds like another buy any color, as long as
    its black scheme.
    I really haven't heard anyone here speak of ms money.  I do have my
    free copy, but continued with Quicken as I liked it better.
    
    Steve, did Tom address the problems they implied they had with their
    basic package/data base?  If they don't fix that, MS money isn't the
    answer either.
    
    ed
    

    Here's my two cents on PC Branch.   I hope no one at DCU regards this
    as anything other than constructive criticism.   I think they made some
    good choices (which I acknowledge herein) and some bad ones (just 
    like I do).
    
    In my humble opinion:
    
    1) It is probably a great thing for people who want to do "EasyTouch"
       from their PC instead of their phone
    
    2) It's not a big help for users of ANY personal finance software due
       to "the bug which never gets fixed" in QIF files.
    
    3) It was released before it was ready.   
    
       At the end of field test I had yet to make ONE successful BillPayer 
       transaction and the errors incurred cost on my part which DCU offered 
       to reimburse during FT but, as I understand, won't reimburse when 
       it happens now.
    
       There were also enough other problems (like unreliable account
       balances, significant "availability" problems, etc.) such that
       I ended up not trusting it.   I still don't.
    
    4) A large concensus of the FT people thought it wasn't ready, and this
       was ignored.
    
    5) I looked into the Intuit stuff.  It has the severe disadvantage that
       it is not an open interface and thus is useless to people who don't
       run Quicken.   Given that, I believe the DCU was CORRECT in NOT
       choosing Intuit as the first foray into online banking.
    
       I have also sent mail to Intuit telling them that I believe this is
       a mistake on their part, and that because of it, I could not
       recommend the Intuit stuff to my bank as their "only" online access
       and wasn't sure any bank could afford to buy and run two (or more)
       essentially redundent packages.    Thus, the non-open policy ruled
       themselves right out of consideration.   
    
       I suggested to them that they open their interface up AND/OR provide
       a "free" front-end (ala PC Branch although obviously/hopefully much
       better designed).
    
       They initially seemed very resistent, but when I referred to
       examples of people giving away front-ends and making money on
       servers, they seemed willing to think about it.   They seemed scared
       at the prospect of some OTHER company "winning" that server market
       and Quicken having to support the MS Money server by virtue of that
       fact.
    
       My take on this is that this particular server market is still
       very much up for grabs and Intuit doesn't seem to have used its
       considerable leverage to any advantage.  Surprisingly few banks
       around here are offering it.  Maybe this will change with their
       price reduction.
    
    6) I rarely use PC Branch
    
       The lack of interface with Quicken essentially means it has very
       little added value (for me) over an ATM or EasyTouch for what I do.
       I also don't trust it.
    
       I would use the Intuit stuff and am considering switching my
       accounts to Bank of Boston which supports Intuit.
    
    7) IMHO, the PC Branch interface is reflective of remarkably shoddy
       software/PC/UI engineering.   That contributes to my distrust of it.
       I don't think the people who make it know very much about Windows
       standards/programming.
       

    BTW, I hope NO ONE is paying a cent for MS Money.
    
    It's usually easily gotten for free: downloading from Internet, signing up
    with banks that provide the online service (Fleet bank for example),
    etc.
    
    Microsoft tried to almost give it away to Novell, and is now basically
    giving it away.   And this is why MS Money could well win the online
    banking server business.  Essentially they are following the Netscape
    model of giving the client away for free, creating the demand, and
    making money on the server.
    
    Intuit is most definitely taking a very different approach (make money
    on the server and the client and don't allow any other companies to
    build clients) and considering how much they dominate the personal
    finance market and how badly they are doing in the online-banking
    server area, I'd say that strategy is failing.
    
    	db

re: 222

>    6) I rarely use PC Branch
>   
>       The lack of interface with Quicken essentially means it has very
>       little added value (for me) over an ATM or EasyTouch for what I do.
>       I also don't trust it.
    
While I agree with most of your note, I must say that I find that
PC Branch as an Easytouch substitute is a *big* improvement for me.
The two things I disliked the most about Easytouch were that it only would
tell me the last deposit made, and it didn't tell me anything about
the "pseudo-Visa" (DCU check card) withdrawals.  PC Branch takes care
of both of these problems.

I no longer have to balance my bank statement at the end of the month,
as I can keep track of everything on an ongoing basis.  More importantly,
if I manage to lose a ATM or pseudo-VISA receipt before recording it in
my checkbook register I'll find out about it in a few days (I check PC
Branch regularly) instead of at the end of the month or when a check
bounces.

On the whole I'm very happy with PC Branch, although I don't use the
Billpayer stuff (I'd consider using it if I trusted it, but it's not 
important enough for me right now to mess with).  I also don't use
either Quicken or MS Money and would be annoyed if I had to buy either
to do online banking with DCU.

-Hal

re: .200

Allen,
What laptop, Operating system and Modem are you using? 


re: .218

Ed, 
The VISA QIF file is quite useable. I just used it to update my
Quicken files.  

The check numbers in the description field for checks does pose a
problem though. I worked around this with quick emacs macro.
It would be nice if CFI fixed this one.  DCU is well aware of this
problem.


re: .222, .224 and others - thanks for the feedback. I will see
that the DCU gets it.


FYI - there will be a power shutdown at PKO 3 this weekend
that will impact the phone lines to the credit union - except
for PC Branch. These lines are external 800 lines and are not tied
into the DTN.

Gim

    re .225
    I am not using a laptop.  I am using a DECpc 466/DX2 MT with Windows
    3.1 and a Cardinal MVP144DSP Dumbed down to 9.6 to use PC Branch.
    
    At the Branch office, It was a Digital Desktop that I am pretty sure
    was running Windows 3.1 but don't know what Modem.  knowing the prices
    that DCU gets for DEC equipment , I am pretty sure that the Modem was
    Digital as well.  
    
    The point of going to the Branch was to use a completely different set
    of equipment to rule out the possibility that it was related to my
    system and SW.  When the failure occured, it points away from the
    originating system/modem.  
    
    Yesterday afternoon, DCU placed a "trap" on their system/application
    and had me dial in and experience a failure.  This took about seven
    minutes to get the error "communications error - interface not
    available".  They have printed the trap information which they said was
    approx 1/2" thick and have FEDex'd it to the Vendor on the West coast.
    
    Hopefully this will allow them to find and fix the problem.  
    

    
    Well, I have to admit after a bumpy start, I find PC Bank to be very
    adequate for my needs. I've put every one of my vendors on-line,
    schedule my payments by hand with the PC Interface and enter my entries
    to Quicken by hand. I haven't had this much control over my money in
    years. With Quicken, I can determine on a weekly basis how much money I
    need to have in my checking account and transfer the rest to my money
    market until I need it. I just set up an account for my daughter so I
    can pay her allowance, pay her for attending counselor training at her
    camp so she gets the sense of a real job by being paid. I'm a co-owner
    on her account and she'll get a DCU card so she can spend her money
    from her "credit card", make up to 8 withdrawals for free from most any
    cash machine and manage her money electronically using PC Bank and
    Quicken. 
    
    So, although some people are having problems, some severe, I wanted to
    put in a positive note.
    
    I'm looking forward to establishing accounts to pay other bills with
    and having PC Bank allow me to put an invoice # on them. This will make
    it even easier to pay my bills and track each one electronically via PC
    Bank and Quicken. Hopefully, this will make it to the next release. 

    Re .227
    It would meet my needs as well and would make the DCU a real
    alternative as a Primary Banking - If it worked for me as it does for
    you.   This is the reason that I have been pushing as hard to get them
    to get the disconnect problem I am having fixed.  
    
    I have started to investigate alternatives after I have just gone
    through transferring all of my direct deposits to the DCU.
    
    Al

Re: .221

If I recall, Tom said that they had communicated all the reported problems
to the vendor.

				Steve

    Tom Ryan called me up and gave me some details.  He gave me the cost 
    of the software/hardware.  Unfortunately, not for public disclosure.
    If you have a burning interest, I suggest calling Tom.
    I can only say, we got what we paid for.
    
    CFI has a web site at http://www.cfipro.com/
    
    one look there and all your questions regarding why pc branch does not
    follow standards.  I would guess they created their own web site.
    
    i give up.
    

    Ed,
    
    I don't quite understand what you mean about following standards on
    CFI's Web Site ... sure they attempt to use JavaScript which my
    Mosaic browser (and most others) barf all over and they point you to
    Netscape 1.22 (fat lot of good that is)!
    
    I've seen far worse web sites from supposedly far larger corporations
    ... like the ones that give you two lines of info with tons of graphics
    per page so takes forever and longer to load!
    
    Stuart

Tom, here are my comments on CFI's home page:

The page gave me the overall 'feeling' that the PC Branch software gave
me - novice.

1. They appear to be totally clueless that there are multiple browsers.
	LYNX - they fail to provide ALT text for graphics.
	MOSAIC - they use JAVA code on main page.  Fails on many browsers,
	earlier Netscape versions.

2. They use bitmap graphics.  Unfortunately, they don't have a default
   goto location.  Causes "Mapping Server Error" error messages to occur.
   I can't even figure out why they use bitmap graphics.

3. GIFs-  they fail to provide size data.  This causes longer load-before-read
   times.  they fail to provide ALTs for text to be read instead of picture.

4. BLINK  One of the 'unoffical' good citizen rules is to NEVER use BLINK.
   It's annoying, and anyone who has been on the web long, knows better.
   It is like if I were to type this note in all capital letters.

5. Use of RED.  The use of red text is an annoyance.  

6. Use of the term "click here".  You can't do that on all browsers.
   web page design 101 will tell you not to use this term!

7. Reference to Netscape 1.2 or 2.0   believe it or not, if they were going
   to suggest that someone download Netscape, it should be 3.0.

8. Novice HTML coding practices, for instance, the use of <b></b> to bold
   areas of text  there are multiple occurrences of this being used in 
   contiguous text, example <b>T</b><b>h</b><b>i</b><b>s</b>  if they
   were to bold the word "this".  The problem with inserting this extra
   coding is that it takes longer to load and it eats up internet bandwidth.

9. mis-spelt words such as stakeholder {shareholder?} 
   or "straightforwardness"(sic)

I could be over reacting, but the page, along with the PC Branch software,
seems to demonstrate their ability to adhere to reasonable standards,
understand technology, and test their product.

ed

>The page gave me the overall 'feeling' that the PC Branch software gave
>me - novice.

I don't claim to be even a novice at writing html, so I am probably not
qualified to comment, but I will anyway.

>8. Novice HTML coding practices, for instance, the use of <b></b> to bold
>   areas of text  there are multiple occurrences of this being used in 
>   contiguous text, example <b>T</b><b>h</b><b>i</b><b>s</b>  if they
>   were to bold the word "this".  The problem with inserting this extra
>   coding is that it takes longer to load and it eats up internet bandwidth.

This is not something a novice would do - but it is something that a (poor)
tool might do. Hence I conclude that the page was generated by a tool.

If this is true, most of the other objections can probably be attributed to
the same problem.

Frankly, I don't fault someone because they put up a web page without
becoming an expert. Their business is not developing web pages - it is
developing banking software. I *do* fault them for developing novice banking
software!

	Paul

    I can blame a little on [poor] tools. Others, I can blame on CFI.
    They should be responsible for the appearance they give.  If there are
    bugs on the wrapper, can you trust the contents?


    I don't care what they have for a web page.  I care about PC Branch.

    However, I was drawing the similarity between the sloppy web page and
    what we have with PC Branch.  I detect a quality trend.
    ed

    I've been using PC branchs billpayer service to pay my bills since 
    it was released in March. I've only got about 4-5 monthly bills 
    including my mortgage.  I paid my mortgage at the beginning of June,
    the money came out of my accout and I thought all was fine.  I get
    a call from the mortgage company during the 3rd week in June asking
    where my June mortgage was.  After 3 calls to DCU, none of which were
    returned until I called Tom Ryan,  I finally got a return call from 
    Vendor Payment Services who handle the payments from DCU.  They put 
    a stop payment on the original check and reissued a new check.  I 
    called the mortgage company last week to check on the balance in 
    my escrow account and was told that the payment VPS had issued had 
    been returned for non-sufficent funds.  In the mean time, I get a bill
    from a credit card company that I paid $100 to during June, and it
    showed that I'd only paid $10!!!  Apparently there were some errors in
    the checks that were issued and the decimal point was put in the wrong
    place on a number of checks!!  I just paid my July mortgage payment,
    which was credited to June since they haven't received the June payment
    and in 6 more days, my July payment will be late.  I just got off the
    phone with VPS and told them to either wire the money to my mortgage
    company or back to my DCU account today!  Needless to say, I'm not too
    happy with this new service.
    
    Linda  

    I'm suprised that you had to do the leg work!!!!
    Why wouldn't DCU step in and back up it's member?
    
    Insuffienct funds from a check from the people who are paying a 
    bill.  I sniff something really bad here.
    Folks [he's gonna sound like Phil now]
    something is terribly wrong with this vender and DCU chooses to 
    stand by them.
    
    	- late getting venders put on list
        - confussing list of venders with near addresses
        - late payments
        - incorrect payments
        - insuffiecent funds!
    what will it take for DCU to wake up, another Barnstable CU?
    
    
    Hello! BOD! where are you?
    Hello, supervisory committee, what's up?
    This may be micro-managing, but if the 'old BOD' did a little
    micro managing, we wouldn't be out that 18Million.
    
    oh, btw, billpayer has been going since December, hasn't it?
    
    
    I've also addressed this lack of return calls with Tom and sent an
    unanswered note to Carlo on unanswered phone calls.
    ed
    
    ed
    

    It's actually even worse than this.  A few months ago, there was an
    incident where all Billpayer payments for a certain date were "lost"
    (i.e. never paid).  DCU discovered this a couple of weeks later, and
    sent out the payments at that time.  
    
    Guess what they did?
    
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    
    Instead of contacting all the folks whose bills were paid weeks late, and
    informing them of the problem, DCU waited until people called to
    complain, and only then informed them of the problem.  I wonder how
    many people got late charges or bad credit reports because of this?
     

    A few months ago, a mortgage payment made through billpayer was
    credited to my loan weeks after the payment date.  I wanted to find out
    whether this was a problem with the bill paying service or the mortgage
    company, so I contacted DCU to find out when the payment check was
    actually cashed.  Sounds like a simple enough request, right?
    
    It took DCU *THREE MONTHS* to get this information.
    
    

    
    Complaints are valid. However, what really concerns me is that DCU may
    not be doing the right thing. Have you contacted all the appropriate
    people including the president of DCU to make sure he understands the
    problem?

    During field test I tried making transactions twice.
    
    The first time they failed and while I was notified reasonably quickly
    (I think it was about 3 days), I ended up paying a late fine.
    
    The second time, I got a message from the system that my transactions
    had failed and I quickly wrote checks and sent them out.   Only THIS
    time, the transactions had NOT failed and thus I ended up making
    double payments and a cash flow problem.
    
    I appreciate the efforts of the DCU to be at the forefront of online
    banking, but that doesn't change the fact that I can NOT recommend
    BillPayer to anyone, at least not for important payments like
    mortgages, creditors, etc.  I've decided not use it at all.
    
    	db

    When I got home last night, I had messages on my machine from DCU
    saying the problem had been straightened out, and one from VPS saying
    the same thing.  They were sending my payment via FEDEX yesterday
    to the bank and my account would be credited by 5 pm tonight.  If at
    5:01 this hasn't happened, I will be back on the phone and a lot less
    pleasant than I've been!!
    
    The things that really concern me are:
    
    -DCU's lack of concern with my problem.  I called there 3 days in a row
    and asked for a return phone call from the person who was investigting
    the situation.  One time the person who answered the phone said the
    only thing they'd tell me when they called me back was that it would
    take 2 WEEKS to investigate.  I said that I didn't care, I wanted to 
    speak to SOMEONE so I'd know this was being worked.  They finally 
    called back after I called Tom Ryan.  
    
    -VPS reissued the payment at 10 times what I actually owed, misplaced
    decimal point on my mortgage, and 10 times less than what I'd paid
    to the credit card company.  No one contacted me to say this error had
    been made, had I not been paying attention, my credit card would have
    gotten $10 instead of the $100 that had been taken out of my account.
    Where was that other $90 for the last month?  
    
    -I feel that when I call DCU with a problem that I should be able
    to expect a call back within 24 hours with status.  It seems customer
    satisfaction isn't real high on their list of priorities and I don't
    believe I should have to call Tom Ryan every time I have an issue.
    
    -My credit rating....which was perfect, I've never had a late or missed
    payment.  I plan to call DCU today and get a letter stating this wasn't
    my fault for future reference, I just know this is going to come back
    to haunt me even though they keep telling me my credit is fine!!
    
    I had been thinking lately how far DCU had come in the last year, 
    but this mess really makes me think twice.
    
    Linda  

Re: .235

> I called the mortgage company last week to check on the balance in my
> escrow account and was told that the payment VPS had issued had been
> returned for non-sufficent funds.  

The non-payment of checks (if it did occur for insufficent funds vs some
other reason) is unacceptable to me.  When I saw this note earlier in
the week, I made sure that the credit union was aware of the problem if
they weren't already.   I just got off the phone with Carlo Cestra and 
he has staff looking into this and the other problems 
mentioned in the note.          

Gim

    
    Did anyone else get nailed by their paychecks not being credited to
    their accounts before PC Bank did its run on Thurday July 11? I like
    the fact I  don't get charged for Insufficient Funds, but I'm annoyed
    at the fact that the transactions simply isn't scheduled for the next
    day when there are insufficient funds. 
    
    I was promised an explanation for why this happened, but like other
    people who were promised explanations, I've yet to receive mine. In
    addition, the fact that DCU does not have a log system to give me a
    problem log number, allows them to conveniently forget about taking
    action on problems. I've said this before and I've said it to board
    members via mail that this is poor customer service.

    Here's an update to the PC banker problem:
    
    VPS sent the mortgage payment to the mortgage company last monday
    via FEDEX.  It was signed for on Tuesday but wasn't credited to my
    account as of Friday afternoon so Ernie Chevrette from DCU had the
    wired to my account at Chase on Friday so I wouldn't get a late
    charge if it arrived after the 15th of the month.
    
    I've had several conversations with Ernie and Tom Ryan at DCU over
    the last week.  They've both been very helpful and have gone out of
    their way to keep me updated.  I also spoke to Carlos after I sent
    him a copy of the notes I had posted in here, and he thanked me 
    for sending him the information.  He said that unless he hears
    directly from members he doesn't know when something is wrong 
    because he can't read this file.  
    
    I think billpayer is a great system, but until that 3rd party is
    somehow eliminated and the payments go directly to companies I
    don't think I'll take the chance and use this again.  
    
    Linda  

Here is additional information on the problems posted in note .235.


On the returned check:

When the second check was issued to the mortgage company, a
stop payment was issued on the first check.  In the meanwhile, the first
check to the mortgage company was found (by the mortgage company).
When they tried to cash it, it was return.  The telephone
operator who answered Linda's call just assumed that it was for
insufficent fund and told Linda that. Hence the misunderstanding.  

The check WAS NOT returned for insufficent funds.

>     In the mean time, I get a bill
>     from a credit card company that I paid $100 to during June, and it
>     showed that I'd only paid $10!!!  Apparently there were some errors in
>     the checks that were issued and the decimal point was put in the wrong
>     place on a number of checks!!  

The problem here was in the encoding of the check.  The check was issued
for the correct amount.  But when the check was encoded (the small
numbers posted on the bottom of the check), the processing operator
keyed in the decimal at the wrong place. 

Gim

This points out a major shortcoming in so-called "electronic bill payment" -
the fact that the vast majority of payees are NOT equipped to efficiently
handle payments received in a non-standard manner.  There are too many
opportunities for human error.  I would not enable electronic payment to a
vendor unless THEY assured me that they were capable of handling such
payments as efficiently as they do those mailed in the normal manner.

				Steve

    
    heck, at least you can get the blasted software to work!!! Mine keeps
    failing every time i try to connect. The error message I get says
    something like "Carrier terminated no timeout" or some such message.
    It says to increase the timeout or lower the baud rate. I do both,
    still won't work. Do I have a bad copy or is it not recognizing my
    internal modem?
    
    Mark

You should call the info center and ask the PC specialist
for help. 

Alternatively, if you could post your PC configurations,
Operating system and modem type, perhaps some one in this
conference could help.

I'm using PC Branch on a laptop with WFWg 3.11 and a 
desktop pc running W95 with no problems.

Gim

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I was having a lot of trouble
getting a connection with my Supra modem.  It would go into a "retrain" session
after answering and invariably the s/w would timeout before the modem was ready
to talk.  The latest firmware upgrade from Supra fixed the problem; I connect to
DCU quickly and easily now.

Burns

    I had problems when the call waiting box (*70) was checked on the modem
    setup page.
    
    Guenther

Yes, it fails miserably if you have it checked and don't have call waiting.  But
that is not PC Branch's fault.  That's the way the phone system works.  When you
dial *70 to turn off call waiting, you get an error signal if you don't have it.

Burns

I just upgraded from a Hayes 14.4 to a US Robotics Sportster 28.8
modem.

What was a reliable connnection with the Hayes became unreliable.
PC Branch complained about:

CONNECTION QUALITY POOR,
Host not responding, etc...

In short, PC Branch would not see any data from the host.
It turns out that some Sportsters have a defective chip - which USR 
recognizes. Modem is in for repairs. I would not have guess that
USR would have such problems.


Gim

Very old Sportsters, bought in late 1994, perhaps.  Nothing more recent should
have problems.  I've been using mine with PC Branch for a long time.

(Doesn't this belong in some other topic?)

			Steve

I did a ATI7 which shows the Sportster configuration.
The date of the firmware was 3/4/96. The modem 
was purchased last week.

Like you Steve, I thought this stuff would be old hat for
USR by now. Unfortunately bugs still show up.

Gim

    28.8 is still not exactly a standard, so some may play better together
    than others.  14.4 is still the highest speed with a positive guarentee
    that it will play with others.  
    
    You could probably get another Sportster or another brand and have a
    50/50 chance of working okay.  
    
    
    Dave

>    28.8 is still not exactly a standard

What's V.34 then?  I thought it was fully adopted in June 1994 by Study
Group 14 of the ITU-T.

And I also thought that V.34 (Revision) (31.2 and 33.6) was adopted this
past March.

So what do you mean by "not exactly a standard"?

/john

    v.34 and 28.8 are not the same, and the implementation of the one on
    the other does not always mean they are compatable.  If you want to try 
    just get 10 and connect up and try to see if they play together.
    
    Chances are that of the 10, 8 will be 100 percent, 1 will be somewhat
    less, and one will be a lot less.  
    
    If -< I think you're mistaken >- try it, then you can do it again, I
    will eat crow if I am wrong, are you prepared to do likewise?
    
    Dave
    
    
    

As I said, I use my Sportster V.34 internal modem with PC Branch all the time,
and it works fine.  You have to tell PC Branch to use 9600 baud, like it says
in the instructions - faster speeds will connect, but won't work reliably.

				Steve

re: .258

>As I said, I use my Sportster V.34 internal modem with PC Branch all the time,
>and it works fine.  You have to tell PC Branch to use 9600 baud, like it says
>in the instructions - faster speeds will connect, but won't work reliably.

Steve:

Your Sportster might indeed be fine, but there have been other USR modems
that have had problems.  A rather large range of serial numbers of the
USR modem cards delivered with the Sales Workbench laptops (they might have
been Couriers, not Sportsters, I forget) didn't work correctly.  USR
replaced mine with a Courier V.Everything which has worked just fine.

-Hal Laurent

A quick check of the comp.dcom.modems shows a rather
large number of complaints on the Sportster.  The modem
I purchased a week ago was mfg in March and hence had the
problem. As I said, USR immediately fessed up to the problem
and promised to repair and turnaround the modem in 24 hours.

Attached is a typical complaint:


Article 152325 of comp.dcom.modems:
From: [email protected] (Bcouture)
Subject: Re: USrobotics Sportster 33, 6 has confirmed hardware bug.
	Read this for details.
Date: 14 Aug 1996 06:09:45 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 107
References: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <1996Aug17.0502520110.85.190@UPPSSNEWSPUB05>

>PLEASE CROSSPOST THIS TO ANY NEWSGROUP THAT DEALS WITH MODEMS

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>I'm posting this information far and wide because it is the right
>thing to do.  Sportster 33,6 modems with a revision date of January
>11th until May of 1996,  are defective.  

>They pause for 20 seconds or so depending upon the communication
>program you are using.  This has been confirmed by me with a
>conversation I had last week with USR support.  

>I have been shipped 8 modems with a revision date of May 18, 1996
>which are the modems that are fixed.  I am a reseller, and had many
>customers that were sold defective modems.  I now have to go out and
>replace the defective modems at my cost.

>You can check the revision date on your modem, by issuing the command
>ATi7 in any terminal program.

>If you use windows 95, check in the control pane/modems and run the
>modem diagnostics.  Then scroll through the information until you get
>to the ATi7 information.  

>I originally spoke with Lisa McMurray who was the front line technical
>support person.  She was pleasant, but not forthcoming in admitting
>that the problem even existed.  

>I then spoke with Jerry Berkowitz who is her supervisor.  He said that
>the technical reps are aware of the problem.  What he didn't say, and
>what I suspect, is that the reps were probably told not to divulge the
>error unless they were sure you had one of the affected modems.

>The call center manager is Bill Popp.  I never spoke with him, but I'm
>told by Jerry Berkowitz, that it was Bill Popp who approved USR
>sending me 8 modems.

>Originally they wanted to send me two at a time.  I would have to go
>out, replace two modems, and then send them back to USR.  Then USR
>would ship me 2 more.

>I told them that was bullshit.  I would send every modem back to
>TechData the distributor I bought them from, and tell them to replace
>them with another brand.

>Needless to say, I got my 8 modems. 

>The rom chips on the sportsters are soldered onto the board.  USr
>claims that some boards are not soldered, and those will have to be
>sent back to usrobotics for replacement.  If you chip is removable,
>they will send you a new rom chip free of charge.

>I found the error to be most prominent while using Pcanywhere for
>windows ver 2.0.  I was calling a bbs.  While inputting my
>information, it would lock up for 20 seconds or so.  It was very
>noticeable.  If you are on the internet, it may do the same thing, but
>you won't notice it as readily since we all blame the net for slowness
>and a burp occasionally.

>Please take this information for what it is worth.  I have referenced
>the people I spoke with at Usrobotics, and I am clearsigning this post
>with PGP.

>Howard L. Bloom
>Computer Consultant

>P.S.  I do not know if this afflicts the external version of the modem
>with dates between 1/11 and 5/18, but I suspect it is the same board
>inside the external box.

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 4.0 Business Edition

>iQEVAwUBMg7mJcdkzYGunyULAQF3kQf/UaPumjJJ7JnWtSatzOtocgcnjSdbdBmB
>7Yx5PzKdN6Zlh6CfZZJD8onzjBJC2rakPAitx+yt1MeusMZIvuro8LPSD1FTLa04
>lPd6ColGdIMLUUkH0tvCHDDOyMp9Dcsa4MAUeXdCD0xciMn/PIJalMUBqfp58Hmh
>QOalWCyvBM6bPiwnec1eEYi3QYLXxuV4P7TKwz8Iw9J2cyYlWysRP8OzXTwhGmhM
>K/uLNhMwpBVHWdoWKgASAL6C7o5dJim3w97a15E1T3/dc7gMIxnWTy3wy3AABBLl
>fHp0gLHzqZdiv3YxdoZboK0ziU8OK2wCLBHU1IwK8/r0fbjfuZrDaA==
>=ZwBw
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>Feel free to crosspost this.

>    v.34 and 28.8 are not the same

With what authority do you speak?

V.34 is the official 28.8 standard.  There were a few 28.8 attempts around
before the standard was issued.

And then there's broken hardware and buggy firmware.

/john

     -< Who are you and where are you getting this false/misleading info >-
    
    >    v.34 and 28.8 are not the same
    
    With what authority do you speak?
    
    V.34 is the official 28.8 standard.  There were a few 28.8 attempts
    around
    before the standard was issued.
    
    John,
    
    Indeed with what athority do you Speak?  I speak from my own
    experience.
    
    read the entire note that someone entered 975.260 on the modems from
    US Robotics.
    
    I guess that I am not the only one to experience problems at 28.8, 
    THANK YOU very much.
    
    Dave

Your own experience may lead you to believe that V.34 is not the 28.8
standard, but the records of Study Group 14 of ITU-T say otherwise.

The existence of a clear standard - V.34 - correctly implemented in modems
such as the U.S. Robotics Courier and the Supra 28.8 is a fact.  V.34 is
the standard for 28.8 used in any modem sold within the past two years.

The fact that some modems, such as the U.S. Robotics Sportster, have not
correctly implemented the standard or have had hardware problems does not
change the fact that the standard has been adopted for over two years and
was being tested for quite some time before that.

Your statement that V.34 and 28.8 are not the same thing is at best misleading
and at worst incorrect.  The reason that it is not out-and-out incorrect is
that many 28.8 modems are capable of negotiating a VFC connection to try to
talk to older pre-V.34 modems.

Just about every more than two year old modem from a reputable manufacturer
was designed to be able to accept an upgrade from VFC to V.34.

All current 28.8 modems and almost all ancient 28.8 modems are now operating
at V.34; VFC is not something one should expect to encounter.

/john

    John your statement is equivalent to saying that DECstd XXX is a VAX or
    that xyz is an ALPHA...
    
    It is the standard that they are susposed to be using V.34 is the
    standard implementatin of 28.8, however that is like the Vax standard,
    loosely adhered to, and subject to the engineer who designs the unit. 
    
    Some are very close, others are less close.  
    
    Dave

Additional information. 

USR 28.8  Modems with the following serial numbers will not work with
PC Branch:

	00083901 and 00083902 and 00084001 and 00084002. It also occurs on
	the Vi modems with a chip dated 10/18/95 and later. 

Details are attached.

Gim


from http://www.carabelli.com/dentist/lore/usrincident.html 

            Please hit RELOAD to make sure you see the changes.

                               USR Incident

       The latest news is at the bottom. Please read the disclaimer.
                  [Image] Personal experiences page HERE!.

DISCLAIMER: I, Kenneth Chen, do not take responsibility for anything you do
in relation to what you read on your screen. This web page was created to
let the public know what modems cause problems, and what I did about them,
and what you can temporarily do. Do NOT use me as a backup, or someone who
will confirm your complaints to USR, as I will refuse to do so. If you are
uncertain, uncomfortable, or unwilling to accept this, please do not read
any further. Click here to go somewhere more appropriate.

[Image] The Problem

The USR Sportsters have been known for their high reliability and great
connect rates with all types of modems. They still are. Until this year
came rolling around. Well, that was last year's modem. This year the modems
I've seen have all sorts of problems. The greatest problem? A serious
pausing bug that occurs during terminal operations which require keyboard
interaction. In other words, if you call a local bulletin board with one of
these modems, chances are this bug is in your modem, and you will
indefinitely experience this annoying problem. The other possible problem
is a very flaky connect to any bbs, and probably ISPs' as well. The new
modems lack the 80186 CPU for functions, so they had to reclock the ROM to
92mhz from 20.16mhz to allocate time for all the functions it had to
perform in the small time. This seems to be the main cause of the problem -
an unstable ROM chip. The old ones don't need such high speed because they
still have the 80186.

[Image] The Affected Modems

                       What are the affected modems?
                         How do you recognize them?

The affected modems are pretty easy to spot. When you go shopping for an
external, if you look at the box flap with the serial number, you'll see
00083900, 00083901, or 00083902 as the first couple digits of your modem's
serial number. (a full serial number may look something like:
0008390112345678 - a total of 16 digits) That '1' or '2' at the end of the
first 8 digits signifies a revision of the Sportster, a revision that is
not for the better. If the modem has a 10/18/95 ROM or later, you've got a
problem modem. (type ati7 to find out what is your ROM date). The affected
modems have chips from 10/18/95 - 3/4/96. You will notice during connects
to a local bulletin board, you may experience pauses for about 30 seconds
to anywhere up to 3 minutes. If you keep typing, apparently you clear out
the buffer, and everything you've typed in that time comes spewing out like
you fired it out of a chaingun. (sorry...I was playing Duke3D Deathmatch
for a couple hours today) The internals are either the 84001 or the 84002.
The 83900 is flawless, besides it's fact that its only 28.8. You can get an
upgrade chip to push it up to 33.6 if your heart so desires. Call
USR:1-847-982-5151 for the upgrade chip. That number is also the technical
support line. Or you can e-mail technical support at: [email protected]. The
Vi model, (Voice Mail) also uses the same ROM chips as the Sportsters, so
they are plagued by this problem as well. Their serial number may be
different, but look inside for the chip date.

In summary:

The new generation of Sportster and Sportster Vi's may have a 'pausing'
bug. Two steps to identifying if your modem has the bug.

1) Your modem serial number (for the Sportster) starts with 00083901,
00083902, 00084001, or 00084002. I'm sorry, but I don't have any serials
for the Vi model, so please go to step 2.
2) Your modem's ROM date is from 10/18/95-3/4/96. Type ati7 to find out
your ROM date. This is the same for both the original and the Vi.

[Image] What to do?

For the time being, you can easily bypass this problem just by disabling
data compression by typing AT&F1&K0&W. The only string that really makes a
difference is the '&K0' part. That's what disables data compression. 'AT&F1
merely loads the hardware handshaking template from NVRAM, and the '&W'
statement will write your new settings to NVRAM, so everytime you type
'ATZ' it'll load the hardware handshaking template WITH your new turned-off
data compression.

The only drawback for turning off data compression is when you transfer
text. Normally on a 28.8 connect, text transfers at about 5000cps. When you
turn it off, it'll transfer at the normal 3000cps. Not that big of a
difference, but if you do text transfers a lot you may not want to do so.
Transfer speeds of compressed files (.ZIPs, .ARJs) will not be affected by
turning data compression off.

In summary:
Temporarily you can type AT&F1&K0&W to fix the problem. Now that USR has a
bug fix, this should no longer be needed once you order the chip.

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

                              Now - My Story

[Image] A little background

I purchased one of those USR Sportsters at Fry's Electronics in San Jose. I
returned a Voice model, in exchange for this new regular Sportster. I was
happy to have purchased it, as it worked rather well with my ISP. Then I
called Lost in Nowhere, my bulletin board that I co-op with a friend. It
caused major problems. We have FIDONet message bases, so I was going
through my selected conferences and replying to mail. I noticed that there
would be some really annoying pauses. So I reset the modem, and hope for
the best. It continued. I did not know what the problem was until I started
reading the posts in comp.dcom.modems, part of UseNet. Then I called USR
tech support in search of answers.

[Image] So What I Did...

I called tech support and was put on hold for a little while. Then I got a
nice man to talk to. This was only tech level 1, so he wasn't really
knowledgable about the modems, but did know what was going on. After what I
told him, he knew that I wanted to swap this modem away. He read his
guidelines, and pointed out that there was no swapping policy on the
guidelines for my series of modems. (00083901...) He said, however, he'd
try to get the supervisor to waive that. And he did. The supervisor sent me
the 00083900 series modem, the ones with the 80186 chip still in it. It's
working fine now, and I'm expecting a 33.6 chip to arrive within the next
couple days.

When there is something wrong, in your com-puter, who you gonna blame? USR!
                                   .....
                 Ok, I admit. It's a terribly corny joke.

 Here's a little message from a person in the newsgroups who just received
                             his 5/17/96 chip.

Just received the 5/17/96 bug chip fix. To give people a time line info:

7/31/96 Sent SRO request to [email protected] 8/1/96 Received automated
response that they got sro 8/12/96 Received Email that SRO was being
processed 8/15/96 Received chip in mail (with a chip puller)

Some quick notes:

1) The BUSY SIGNAL ERROR IS STILL BROKEN (if get a busy signal, then try a
redial, you would get a "No Dial Tone" error)

2) I don't notice any pausing (but I had the 10/13/95 chip and didn't
notice it with that too)

3) ati11 works (although I don't know what screen means)

Here are some ati reports

ati7

Configuration Profile...

Product type US/Canada Internal

Options V32bis,V.FC,V.34+

Fax Options Class 1/Class 2.0

Clock Freq 92.0Mhz

Eprom 256k

Ram 64k

EPROM date 5/17/96

DSP date 5/17/96

EPROM rev 2.32

DSP rev 2.32

John Durso

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

Ok...it seems as if I've been confusing some of you. Let me make it clear.
REAL CLEAR. The pausing bug only occurs on modems with these serial number
heading: 00083901 and 00083902 and 00084001 and 00084002. It also occurs on
the Vi modems with a chip dated 10/18/95 and later. The chips used in the
above series can also be used on the Vi modem. The chips affected are from
10/18/95 to 3/4/96 and perhaps a little later, like 3/20/96. Please call
USR at 1-847-982-5151 for an updated chip. I think the new date is sometime
in May, and from what I read in the newsgroups, it should be 5/17/96.

Now, the 8/29/95 chip is the 33.6 upgrade chip for those users without
33.6. There is only one modem that USR has made without this capability,
it's the original Sportster series. The serial numbers are: 00083900 and
00084000. These two modems do not have the pausing bug, and the new 33.6
upgrade (8/29/95) does not have the pausing bug either. This chip will cost
about 25 dollars if you call USR for the upgrade. This chip will not work
on the above mentioned modems with the pausing bug. And the chip update for
those pausing bug modems will not work with this series modem. Get it? If
you don't, click that little 'MAIL' graphic down there and send me a
message. I love getting e-mail. 8-)

Hey if you're interested in what some one else has to say, check out this
web page written about the USR Sportsters!! Lowell Steele's USR web site.

I would like to post some of your experiences. Please submit entries to me
Please include your full name, your city and your state. I will post all
entries that I deem appropriate.

                          This page is constantly

                            [under-construction]

               ...No...really. I update it like twice a day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of page.

                       Last updated: August 16, 1996

                             Best viewed with:

                           [Netscape] [Explorer]

(c) Copyrighted 1996 by Kenneth Chen.
Send mail to Kenneth - Suggestions, comments, etc, are all welcome!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since June 24, 1996, the Web Counter reports that [Image]answer-less USR
customers came to this page.

                                 [Image]

re .264

Dave -

A failure of a modem to correctly implement the standard doesn't mean
(as you stated earlier) that V.34 isn't a standard.

Modem standards are nothing like the VAX standard.

They specifically require interoperability, and where a product doesn't
implement it _exactly_ (or well enough that it talks to all other
implementations) that product is in error.

/john

I am trying to set up electronic bill pay, and I have several vendors where 
my account number does not fit the account mask.  Is there some process to 
check into this?

					Greg

    Simply send mail and ask for the mask, it takes about a week.

    cancelling bill payer isn't all that easy, should you just give up
    on DCU being able to provide services.
    I sent off a note to DCU saving that I didn't want it anymore.  They
    send back email saying that I must delete each vender in my list to
    cancel the service.
    so if you initially played with bill payer, have a few venders sitting
    in a list, but never used them, now is a good time to get rid of them,
    least you be charged.
    
    the other thing this brings up is PC Branch's inability to handle email
    effectively.  I sent this notice out a long time ago, never seem to
    have heard from DCU.  so I went back into the mail service to check my
    message, and there was DCU's responce.  I would have *thought* that if
    there was email waiting for me, that PC Branch would have somehow told
    me to go to the mail service to read it!  What shitty software.
    When are our directors going to represent us and do something about
    PC Branch?
    
    ed
    

The last time I got an e-mail response through PC Branch, it did inform me.

			Steve

Re: .269

Ed:

Sorry that you're again having PC Branch problems.  Have you conveyed any of
these problems to the CEO via email?  I would encourage you to pass along
problem reports, comments, etc. to Carlo directly.  If you encounter a problem
and can't get a good resolution, he can oftentimes get the right people 
focused on solving your problem.  I've sent several member complaints to him
for assistance, and they've all been resolved quickly.

His email address is [email protected].  His address has been up and running for
a few months now, and he reports that he receives hardly any email from 
members.  He's got a PC on his desk, and he handles his own correspondence
directly, so I know that he'll see your comments.

As for your comments:

>   What shitty software.
>   When are our directors going to represent us and do something about
>   PC Branch?

Management continues to address outstanding issues with the PC Branch software
by either working with the member, the vendor, or with CFI/VPS.  With that 
said, it's worth pointing out that we're seeing successful connect rates (that
is, the line rings, PC Branch software picks up, and a session follows) of 
over 99% (we can track "ring no answer" and compare it to "ring answer"), and 
members are successfully paying thousands of bills every month, worth millions
of dollars.  The system is not perfect, but we do have a very high transaction
success rate and very high successful connect rate.  

Finally, management continues to be concerned about the customer service area,
and continues to make changes and modifications to our procedures to try to
do better.  This is an on-going process which has already yielded results and
will most likely continue to be effective.

Chris Gillett

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Chris, thanks for the responce,
    
    What we have is a glorified easytouch.  What we don't have is on line 
    banking.
    It is funny the parameters you've used to measure success.
    I've talked directly with CFI.  They use similiar parameters.  They
    *think* they have a great web site as it gets a lot of hits.  What they
    fail to realize is that the hits come from interest in the topics, not
    perhaps because CFI delivers on what they promise.
    
    and no, I was not notified that I had mail.  it was just setting there.
    I would have thought there would be a better manner of cancelling
    the bill payer, but if it were neccessary for me to do something, then
    someone should have made sure I got the message.

>     What we have is a glorified easytouch.  What we don't have is on line 
>    banking.

I would disagree with the notion that we don't have on-line banking.  Between
the PC Branch software, and the web page, I can do a great majority of the
transactions that I would had to stop by a branch (or an ATM machine) to do.
And if I define "on-line banking" in a fairly liberal fashion to include 
world-wide ATM access, EasyTouch, and Loan Line 24, there is very little I 
cannot do electronically.

Perhaps the definition of "on-line banking" is a little fuzzy here.  With
PC Branch and the web page you can do a variety of financial calulations, 
apply for a loan, transfer money, review statements, track credit card
transactions, and pay bills.  That seems fairly comprehensive to me.  What
on-line services are you comparing against?

>    It is funny the parameters you've used to measure success.
>    I've talked directly with CFI.  They use similiar parameters.  They
>    *think* they have a great web site as it gets a lot of hits.  What they
>    fail to realize is that the hits come from interest in the topics, not
>    perhaps because CFI delivers on what they promise.
 
I thought we were discussing PC Branch?  I disagree with the notion that a lot
of web page hits is indicative of a good web page.  On the other hand, I can
look at the number of transactions attempted and compare that to the number
of transactions which were successful and develop notions about the quality
of my ability to deliver that transaction.  What is true about PC Branch is
that availability of the service is good (translation:  the probability that
you will get a carrier and be able to do transactions at any given time is
quite high).  Second, we can look at the number of bills paid, and compare 
that to the number of attempted payments and develop reliability information
about the billpayer.  Finally, we can look at overall member complaints and
develop a model about how happy members are based on their tendency to complain
and/or discontinue a given service.  

It's important also to separate serious problems from not-so-serious problems.
For example, a problem with the look of a graphics image on a web page is
not a serious problem, and won't get top priority in getting fixed.  On the
other hand, a problem with dial-in lines to PC Branch not working is indeed
serious.  We've worked very hard with CFI/VPS to resolve the issues with 
accessibility of PC Branch and had good success.  On the other hand, are we
being good stewards with member's money if we hire a professional graphics
artist to make our web-presence prettier?  Interesting aside, DCU was the 3rd
credit union ever to have a web page.

It's also important when looking at infrastructure costs associated with 
providing a given service.  DCU uses Re:member data processing software,
which runs on a network of Digital hardware (surprise surprise).  There are
a variety (at least a dozen I'm aware of) DP packages out there for credit
unions.  And there are probably a dozen more 3rd party providers who sell
on-line banking software, teller software, and other front-office or back-office
services to use with the DP systems.   DCU chose a solid piece of on-line
banking software that would work with our existing DP systems.  Changing DP
systems so that we could be compatible with an on-line banking system  that
had a prettier user interface would require an investment of literally millions
of dollars. I'm not sure that such a change would be prudent or wise,
especially considering that we're not close to exceeding our present system's
capabilities.  We work actively with CFI/VPS on PC Branch issues.  We work 
with other credit unions who use PC Branch (including a credit union in 
California that has Microsoft employees on its Board).  It is my expectation
that, moving forward, product quality and service quality will continue to
expand and mature.  What we chose was a service that would play well with our 
existing infrastructure, and allow us to provide good quality, low-cost service
to our members.  Would you prefer to pay fees for a service with better
graphics or a better interface? 

Note that I'm not discounting the importance of stuff like the interface
look-and-feel, or problems like the Quicken bug.  What I am saying is that
we are addressing these issues, as are other credit unions, with CFI/VPS.
I have good confidence that these issues will be addressed in
future releases.  What we are trying to do is provide good service now that gets
incrementally better in the future.  This strategy seems better to me than
not offering a good service now and waiting while all our members take their
business to one of the Boston-area commercial banks.
   
>    and no, I was not notified that I had mail.  it was just setting there.
>    I would have thought there would be a better manner of cancelling
>    the bill payer, but if it were neccessary for me to do something, then
>    someone should have made sure I got the message.

Yes, but my original question was:  did you send a complaint via email (not
PC Branch email, but via the internet) to the CEO?  The bottom line is that 
while some directors have access to the notes conference, not all do and not
all of us are able to read the conference regularly.  Complaints made here
may not be addressed at all if a couple of us are on vacation.  Management
has absolutely no ability to read the conference at all, and extracting stuff 
from the conference would constitute a violation of Digital company policy
anyway.

If you are dissatisfied with the response you get from the information center,
or if you don't get an answer to a question, or if you are just unhappy about
something, there is an easy way to get heard by management at the very highest
level.  Send email to the CEO, Carlo Cestra, at [email protected].  I know for
an absolute fact that he wants to hear about things both good and bad.   The 
guy has a PC on his desk, and I've sat in his office talking with him while
he checks email.  DCU's domain for email is serviced by Ultranet in Marlboro,
and Carlo uses Eudora to read his email.  He *wants* to receive comments
and suggestions from people. 

Management at DCU is committed to delivery of high quality member service.  I
understand this from my near-daily interactions with members of the senior
management team.  Please let them know when things aren't to your liking.  It
will not only benefit you, but if/when problems are discovered and corrected
it can benefit ALL members.

Chris Gillett

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    RE: .273
    
    Chris,
    
    It sounds to me like you're taking a lot of time, and going into
    excruciating detail, telling us all why we're actually wrong when we
    say that we aren't satisfied with PC-Branch.
    
    None of these details matter.
    
    The only thing that matters is that we, as consumers/users, have a
    perception that PC-Branch and Billpayer basically suck.  It doesn't
    really matter whether this perception is true or not - we're still
    unhappy consumers.
    
    Instead of wasting a lot of time trying to defend DCU and change our
    perception, why don't you JUST FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM!

>it's worth pointing out that we're seeing successful connect rates (that
>is, the line rings, PC Branch software picks up, and a session follows) of 
>over 99% (we can track "ring no answer" and compare it to "ring answer")

Chris, 

When you say "PC Branch software picks up, and a session follows", could
you elaborate?  99% of the time I have problems connecting (which is about
50% of the time), it is not a failure to obtain carrier.  I continually
get carrier, then the login message, then a disconnect.  It is not a problem
with my password or my setup as I do get in the other 50% of the time.
Would these "connects" be counted as successful connects? 

And I have sent a note on this to the DCU.  The response was that I should
change my modem settings.  The new settings didn't change anything.  And
again I would suggest that since I do get in the other 50% of the time, 
it is not a problem with my settings.

While I agree that the interface and features could be a LOT more current, 
overall I am happy with the ability to use PC Branch and I do so quite often.
I just wish it wasn't so painful to connect all the time.

						Mark

    I've used PC Branch since it 1st came out. It has connected 100% of the
    time, and never have had a problem with the Bill Payer. Instead of
    spending so much time bashing the PC Branch software and DCU, maybe
    look into what your using for a system to connect with. Maybe the
    problem is on your end. 
    
    Jack

    re: .272   
    
    Ed,
    
    I thought PC Branch was decent.  It gets the job done for me.
    What exactly would you have looked for in an 'online banking'
    package? 
    
    The only thing I've found lacking in PC Branch is it's incompatibility
    with my pc financial software (quicken in my case).  That's
    understandable given the range of financial software out there and lack
    of database standard.  If I had what I wished for, I'd be able to
    hit an icon in quicken, connect to the bank, and when I make transactions
    IN quicken it's actually remotely moving funds (or whatever).  Keep
    dreaming.
    
    As for connection problems.....I've use four different brands of
    internal and external 14.4 and 28.8 modems and it's always conencted solid
    the first time.  I use it about 5 times a week and in the last 4 months
    there's been one Sunday afternoon where the login failed.  IT worked
    fine about 4 hours later when I retried.
    
    --bert

re:  .275 (statistics)

With regard to the stats, I believe what is being tracked is two pieces of
information:  number of calls and number of calls unanswered.  I *think* that
this is also compared with number of sessions run on the PC Branch host a 
well.  The phone system can tell how many times a call was made and was 
answered.  

I don't know everything about how the measurements are taken; I don't do them
myself.  I had asked one of the VPs to provide some tracking data on this
for review, and I've been using his numbers.

Sorry that you are continuing to have difficulties.  I would suggest that you
try to contact DCU again either electronically or by phone and ask for 
additional help beyond the modem string issue.  Perhaps you should also write
this down and zip it off to [email protected].  DCU needs to resolve problems
like this.

re:  .274 (stop wasting time and FIX IT!)

What I was trying to convey in my past notes were a couple things:

    (1)  We (DCU staff and management) *are* working to resolve issues and
         problems with the system when it can be established that there
         are (soft|hard)ware problems.  I'm not sure if this has been made
         clear yet, but DCU does not own the source code to this system,
         and we don't have an engineering staff of our own to work on it.
         We work with CFI/VPS who does own the code and does do the 
         engineering.  My expectation is that reported bugs will be resolved
         in future releases.  My understanding is that the next release of
         PC Branch is in beta test now, although I do not know when the 
         software will be released.

    (2)  We (again, staff and management) *are* working on procedures designed
         to make DCU more responsive to member problems, and to allow us to
         better track problems and make sure they are solved.

    (3)  I'm interested in hearing more from members about what their 
         definition of "on-line banking" versus what the industry thinks
         "on-line banking" is.  I do not want to argue perceptions, but
         rather to hear from Ed and others what they think on-line banking
         includes beyond the services that PC Branch and DCU's other
         electronic delivery systems already provide.   Information like
         this is useful in strategic planning, and is helpful to me as 
         director in understanding member needs.

I'm sorry if you think this discussion is a waste of your time.  I do not
believe that you are wrong to be dissatisfied:  "the customer is always right"
 
translates readily to "the member is always right" and until all our members
are happy the work is not done.  And I do not mean to "defend" DCU by telling
you that you are wrong.  I do believe that DCU is working very hard to improve
the quality of all our delivery systems, and that they are working to improve
member satisfaction by being more responsive to questions and problems.  I 
had hoped that adding some additional information and detail to the discussion
might be helpful.  Perhaps I was wrong.

Chris Gillett

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    > When you say "PC Branch software picks up, and a session follows",
    > could you elaborate?  99% of the time I have problems connecting (which
    > is about 50% of the time), it is not a failure to obtain carrier.  I
    > continually get carrier, then the login message, then a disconnect.  
    
    I had similar problems back when I was still using PC Branch.
    
    I also seem to recall a lot of notes here and during the PC Branch
    field test complaining about connection.   The metric may be wrong.
    
    I've come to distrust such metrics.   I bought a Gateway 2000 PC
    a few years ago and every attempt to obtain technical support involved
    at least an hour wait on the phone.
    
    It wasn't til I had a lawyer threatened them with breach of contract
    (the lawyer argued that I had made a "reasonable effort" to obtain
    support but did not get it) that THEY finally called me.
    
    Then, I got an issue of their newsletter where the president proudly
    proclaimed that they had heard all the complaints about their tech
    support and had taken action and that now the "average time spent on
    hold" had been reduced to 6 minutes.
    
    Well, the next time a problem I came up I tried calling support.  While
    I have no reason to doubt the claim about the average hold time, it
    became readily apparant to me how they had achieved that:  reduce
    the size of the "on-hold" queue and give busy signals when the queue
    is full.
    
    So while it was true that the "on hold" time was reduced, it was now
    even harder to get thru due to busy signals!
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  Ironically, I must admit that I did find that change an
          "improvement" although obviously far from ideal.  It now meant
    	  that I didn't have to walk around the house with the phone
          next to my ear for an hour until someone answered.
    
    	  The phone company now provides a way to have THEM ring your
    	  phone when a busy number becomes free.  So I would just dial
     	  the Gateway number, activiate the "redial" feature and just
    	  wait for the phone to ring.

    I am glad that you participate with us, Chris, and don't consider it
    a waste.  That said, there is volumns written in the field test
    evaluations and in this notefile that define what a lot of us consider
    on line banking.
    You mention the web site and calculations,  I took out a car loan last
    spring, the loan calculator was WRONG.  Cost me an extra $10 a week
    from what the web site said.  The story I got was sorry, we at DCU use
    a different means to calculate our loans, ignor the calculator we
    provide at [DCU's] web site.  so much for trust!
    
    the connection factor is also misleading.
    I have few problems when the darn machine answers the phone!  How do
    they count the times when a member dials, but gets no answer.  I'm VERY
    interested in your answer to that question.
    
    my references to how pretty CFI's web site along with other technical
    faults I passed on, were just a comparision on how baddly CFI follows
    known standards.  If they screw up in their advertisments, can we
    expect any better of their product?
    
    ed
    

I don't remember if I said this before here, but someone commented that failures
to login successfully may be the member's modem's problem and not DCUs.  I have
to admit that this is true, much as I thought it sounded like hokum before.

I have a Supra FaxModem 288 and I had *terrible* problems connecting.  PCB would
answer and I would get the initial login message, but then we would go into a
retrain session (I could only tell this because I have an external modem with a
display) which would not finish before the system timed out.  I got the new
modem init string from DCU to no avail.  Finally I gave up using PCB.

Then a few weeks ago Supra announced a flash rom upgrade to allow 33.6 KBaud
connections.  I got the upgrade and it must have had some other fixes because
voila!  I had no trouble at all connecting to PCB.

Burns

    RE: .278
    
    Well since Chris asked for specifics, here's a good example of the
    frustrations we're all experiencing using PC Branch:
    
    Last night, I tried to call in to PC branch to delete all my billpayer
    vendors.  I called in, got connected, password authenticated, then
    PC-Branch hung while loading account images (problem number 1).  I
    exited the system, and reconnected (error-free this time), and started
    deleting vendors.  Note that there's no simple way to cancel billpayer
    or delete all your vendors: you have to go in and delete each one
    separately.  Successfully deleted most of them, but then got a
    "cannot delete vendor" error on one vendor (problem number 2).  I then
    tried to send mail to PC-Branch asking them to delete the vendor for
    me, only to discover a stupid 10 line (or so) limit on mail messages
    (problem number 3).
    
    This is typical of my experiences with PC-Branch - trying to call in to
    perform an operation that should take 5 minutes, and wasting half an
    hour due to all the bugs and lousy user interface.
                 

    I have the new Beta version and have not had any problems maintaining
    connect with the  application since that time.  I still have the old
    version and have has two failures using it during this same time.
    
    The failure to connect at any given time can be from many causes
    ranging from modem set up to bad lines and bad modem at DCU.  
    I have not noticed any difference between 9.6 and 14.4 connection and
    think that is a red herring.  
    
    I think that the DCU had two problems under their control.  The Ring
    No Answer (RNA) was most likely caused by modem set up problems on the
    part of the DCU.  When they indicated that if they thought that the
    14.4 connects were a problem , I suggested that they should set the
    modems to only answer at 9.6 and there was total lack of comprehension
    on the part of the DCU person.  This was the "support person" before
    the  current individual was hired.  
    
    The second problem was the stall/whatever that occured after getting
    connecting to their system where I would get error messages and be
    unable to use history or the mail.  This problem seems to be resolved
    with the latest Beta SW. 
    
    They originaly said that it had to be my equipment so I made
    arrangement to go to their office (Acton) and use their equipment and
    got the same failure of being unable to get history etc.  After this
    they were musch more willing to help.
    
    My problems are solved and for that I am happy but having to educate
    the provider and convincing them that a problem exists is unacceptable
    and I am being told is being addressed.
    
    I still do not have the confidence to use billpayer.  I woud really
    like to see DCU agree that any failures caused by commission or
    omission by DCU or whoever they contract with and that the DCU would
    work the issue.
    
    When they work the Quicken issue, this will satisfy 95% of my needs
    which would be great.  Until then, the statement format will be
    satisfactory.
    
    Regards

Re: .275

> When you say "PC Branch software picks up, and a session follows", could
> you elaborate?  99% of the time I have problems connecting (which is about
> 50% of the time), it is not a failure to obtain carrier.  I continually
> get carrier, then the login message, then a disconnect.  It is not a problem
> with my password or my setup as I do get in the other 50% of the time.
> Would these "connects" be counted as successful connects? 

What modem do you have?  My US Robotics had this exact problem until
they upgraded the firmware.  Do a ATI7 on the modem. If it's a USR and
the firmware is earlier than 5/96, you've got a bum modem.


Re: .280

>     You mention the web site and calculations,  I took out a car loan last
>     spring, the loan calculator was WRONG.  Cost me an extra $10 a week
>     from what the web site said.  The story I got was sorry, we at DCU use
>     a different means to calculate our loans, ignor the calculator we
>     provide at [DCU's] web site.  so much for trust!

As you know result of the $10 per week is that you pay off the car loan
sooner.  If this is still bothering you, I'm sure the info center can
have the car loan adjusted. In the end, you get the payment you need
and the credit  union gets more interest (i.e. keeps you loan for
a longer period of time). In this case everyone wins. 

Re: .281

> I have a Supra FaxModem 288 and I had *terrible* problems connecting.
> PCB would answer and I would get the initial login message, but then we
> would go into a retrain session (I could only tell this because I have
> an external modem with a display) which would not finish before the
> system timed out.  I got the new modem init string from DCU to no avail.
> Finally I gave up using PCB.
> 
> Then a few weeks ago Supra announced a flash rom upgrade to allow 33.6 KBaud
> connections.  I got the upgrade and it must have had some other fixes because
> voila!  I had no trouble at all connecting to PCB.
> 
> Burns

This is exactly what I found with my US Robotics.



Re:. 282

>     Note that there's no simple way to cancel billpayer
>     or delete all your vendors: you have to go in and delete each one
>     separately.  Successfully deleted most of them, but then got a
>     "cannot delete vendor" error on one vendor (problem number 2).  I then
>     tried to send mail to PC-Branch asking them to delete the vendor for
>     me, only to discover a stupid 10 line (or so) limit on mail messages
>     (problem number 3).

If you don't use Billpayer, i.e. don't have a scheduled transaction,
you won't get charged.

Many of the problems encountered with Billpayer is because the payee
does NOT accept electronic (ACH) payment. In this case a physical check
is cut. To date, only about 10% accept ACH. 

Gim

I have mixed feelings about PC Branch. I use it frequently but don't push
it hard. (I could manage with Easy Touch but prefer not to.) Yet I find the
think very klunky and unprofessional - it is not a package I would pay
money for, but is something I would use as freeware. (However I see a lot
of better quality freeware.) Naturally to me it is freeware, which is why I
do use it.

I don't know how to judge whether DCU is getting good value for money
spent, because I don't have visibility to the tradeoffs that it must make.

In the end, only competition will make this stuff better. This can occur at
two levels:

- individual banks can select among packages, and customers can vote with
  their feet. I don't think this will be very effective because there are
  many more important issues than quality of home banking software that
  influence choice of a bank. And the cost for a bank to switch from one
  package to another (in $ and in customer disruption) is too great for
  that to happen often.

- the frontend banking software (the part that runs on the customer's PC)
  could be unbundled from the backend software that runs at the bank. This
  would allow competition do develop in frontend software. Once this
  happens we are likely to see rapid improvements.

DCU could take a lead in encouraging this latter scenario. Negotiate with
the vendor to publish the wire protocol used by PC Branch. My guess is that
there are at least a few DCU customers that would take a crack at building
a competing frontend, to sell as shareware.

There are of course limits to what can be accomplished this way - it
doesn't address limitations in the backend software. But from what I have
seen, most of the problems are in the frontend.

	Paul

Just another data point.  I will *NEVER* use an online banking product 
until it seemlessly integrates with *MY* choice of financial tracking 
product (in this case Parson's Money Counts) as someone previously said.  
EasyTouch, the Info Center  and cost of checks being in the noise level 
provide me all the tools I have ever needed for electronic banking and I am 
more than 4 hours from the nearest branch and use the DCU as my only 
financial institution.

Jilly

>- the frontend banking software (the part that runs on the customer's PC)
>  could be unbundled from the backend software that runs at the bank. This
>  would allow competition do develop in frontend software. Once this
>  happens we are likely to see rapid improvements.
    
    That sure would be nice, but what I'd rather see is a standard
    interface such that no matter what company provided the server
    software, any compliant front-end (in this case, Quicken, 
    MS Money, etc.) could use it.
    
    I have actually exchanged e-mail and phone-calls with people at Intuit
    trying to get them to "see the light" in this method of business.  It's
    not much different than the model being used by rather fabulously
    successful companies like Netscape who give away the front end business
    and make their money on the server.
    
    I have no interest in building a better front-end to PC Branch.  I'd
    much rather it REALLY "speak Quicken".  This is much more ambitious
    change than merely fixing the annoying (and apparantly "perpetual")
    QIF file bug in PC Branch.  This means not having to USE the PC
    Branch front end, which almost seems like it was developed by someone
    as they were working their way thru "Visual Basic for Idiots".
    
    	db

I'm trying out the online banking through Quicken (using a small account at
another institution) and it works very well - very smooth.  PC Branch works
well enough for me, but I too would like to see integration with popular
software such as Quicken.

					Steve

    Using PC Branch with a BOCA 14.4 modem. Mostly connects at 19200. A few
    times it redialed and connected at 9600 Baud. I only download history
    data which I feed into Quicken. I'm not a "heavy" user of PC Branch but
    so far it worked very good for me. Doing Windows application design
    myself a bit I think the PC Branch product is made professionally even
    though it might not have the touch-and-feel of mainstream Windows
    applications.
    
    Thanks for making PC Branch available ...and for free!
    Guenther

Re: .288

> I'm trying out the online banking through Quicken (using a small account at
> another institution) and it works very well - very smooth.  PC Branch works
> well enough for me, but I too would like to see integration with popular
> software such as Quicken.

Steve -

My understanding is that the online banking through Quicken was NOT
real time, i.e. the information such as account balances, etc
is downline loaded once a day. Can you confirm?

Also is real time information important? (To me, as a user,  it is.)

Gim

re: .290

>Also is real time information important? (To me, as a user,  it is.)

Real time info is *very* important to me.  On the other hand, I really
don't care about Quicken support.

-Hal

I don't know how often the data is updated.  I'll ask.

			Steve

I just install PC Branch V2.0 on a Pentium based
Win NT4.0.  The Win NT was pre-loaded and not
upgraded from Win NT 3.51 or Win95.

PC Branch works fine.  Some of the PC Branch 
screens insisted on staying in "front".

Gim

    Last night, I experienced the same problem that I think someone else 
    did in this string. I attempted a transfer via PC Branch between
    two accounts. PC Branch reported a "connection failure" right after, 
    and did not confirm completion of the transaction. The reason for 
    the failure is unclear. I do have that prefix enabled within PC Branch 
    configuration to override call waiting on dial-up, so it couldn't 
    have been an incoming call on my telephone line.
    
    A subsequent reconnect and history download on both the accounts 
    showed the transfer did take place, with the "transaction description"
    field showing as "1 pending transactions" (i.e. no explicit reference to 
    an attempted PC Branch transfer). However, this situation had
    magically rectified itself by morning when I checked again - great.
    
    On the whole, the experience has me feeling somewhat unsettled. My gut 
    tells me this may have to do with system load - I attempted the 
    transfer around 9 pm EST, probably a peak time for PC Branch access.
    Usually, to sign on and download the default one week's worth of 
    checking history takes me about 70 seconds at 9600 baud (typically
    I don't do transactions, so I immediately disconnect to free up 
    the modem for another user). Last night this basic download took 
    close to three minutes, an apparent sign of heavy system load.
    
    I'm staying away from PC Branch on weekday evenings for a while..
    
    - Ganesh.

    A friend of mine is seriously considering a DCU auto loan.
    He gets paid every month, so he'll probably go with the
    automatic monthly payments from checking / 6.75% deal.
    
    He has some doubts however:
    
    (1) In addition to the automatic monthly payment, can he
        prepay arbitrary amounts to the loan - as and when he
        has money to spare in checking - using PC branch? 
    
    (2) Are such prepayments done just like "transfers" between 
        accounts in PC Branch?
    
    (3) Would such prepayments reduce the total amount of interest
        paid over the lifetime of the auto loan?
    
    (4) Do manual prepayments reduce the subsequent monthly
        automatic payments, or do they stay the same, and
        the loan just get paid off sooner?
    
    Would appreciate hearing about any direct experience 
    other members have had with this..
    
    - Ganesh.

I ran into this about six months ago.

>    (1) In addition to the automatic monthly payment, can he
>        prepay arbitrary amounts to the loan - as and when he
>        has money to spare in checking - using PC branch? 

He can prepay arbitrary amounts to the loan but if he wants these prepayments
to be applied to the principal only he will either have to call the information
center or go to a branch to make the transaction. PC Branch does not allow you
to make a principal only payment

>    (2) Are such prepayments done just like "transfers" between 
>        accounts in PC Branch?
 
PC Branch will allow you to transfer money to your loan. However, any transfers
to the loan using PC Branch will be treated like a normal payment, i.e. interest
is computed and deducted from the payment. I believe this causes a reduction in
the amount automatically transferred to the loan from the checking account at
the end of the month.
   
>    (3) Would such prepayments reduce the total amount of interest
>        paid over the lifetime of the auto loan?

If he makes a principal only payment, i.e. not using PC Branch, then yes, the
total amount of interest paid over the lifetime of the loan is reduced because
the lifetime of the loan is reduced.
   
>    (4) Do manual prepayments reduce the subsequent monthly
>        automatic payments, or do they stay the same, and
>        the loan just get paid off sooner?
 
Again, this depends on the type of payment. Using PC Branch will reduce the
automatic montly payment by the amount prepaid for the month in which the
prepayment is made. It will have no effect on the automatic payment for any
subsequent months. Making a principal only payment will not reduce the monthly
automatic payment but will cause the loan to be paid off sooner.   

One thing to be careful of is the penalty he may incur if he uses PC Branch to
make payments. The Credit Union gives a discount on the interest rate if
payments are automatically deducted from one of your DCU accounts. By making the
payments yourself using PC Branch you could lose that discount. I was told that
if I made three consecutive monthly payments using PC Branch I would lose the
discount. I can't recall if that was for full or partial payments but I do
remember that I stopped using PC Branch to transfer extra money to my car loan.

This all happened about six months and I did suggest to the DCU that they change
the policy and/or PC Branch so that it could be used to make principal only
payments. You should check with the DCU to see if they have changed their policy
recently.

I got a letter recently from DCU indicating that I might want to rethink the
use of Bill Payer for certain payees, including NYNEX.  Apparently, they
have been having trouble getting payments credited in a timely manner.  I
had used Bill Payer only once so far for NYNEX, and when I went to schedule
another payment, it told me to allow FIFTEEN DAYS!!!  This is absurd -
especially as NYNEX barely gives you that much time between receiving the bill
and when the payment is due.

I have a difficult time believing that this is NYNEX's fault, as I've been
using a bill payment service through Quicken and CoreStates Bank for about
nine months now.  CoreStates says to allow four days for payments to NYNEX,
and looking at the latest cancelled check (yes, I actually get these!), four
days is exactly what it took.

What is Intuit doing right that DCU's vendor is doing wrong?

					Steve

    From my point of view, it's hard to believe it's anything BUT NYNEX's
    fault.  I routinely use billpayer for a variety of bills and NYNEX
    is the only one that has more than a 6 day lead time.
    
    /j

During the one or 2 months that I put up with Intuit check paying, I found that
NYNEX was the worst of the lot.  I believe that my first payment to them did
take 2 weeks to credit.  That was run reason I gave it up.

Burns

It's never taken more than five days for an Intuit payment to be credited to
my NYNEX account.

				Steve

NYNEX offers their own "we'll take it from your account".  Since I read about
the lag time with PC Branch here, I opted for that and let NYNEX withdraw the
payment.  I'll see how "on time" they are when they take it.

bjm

    Re .390
    
    Lots of vendors have that - the "I'll just grab whatever 
    I claim you owe me from your bank account without asking 
    for your permission first.."  option.
    
    Many customers, including me, are totally uncomfortable
    with this. I'd rather not pay a disputed amount than ask
    for a refund after the fact. I'll only let a vendor do 
    automatic debits if *not* opting for it costs me extra money 
    (e.g. most Internet service providers).
    
    - Ganesh. 

    Re .385
    
    Thanks for posting your experience here.. this answers
    all of my questions.
    
    - Ganesh.

>NYNEX offers their own "we'll take it from your account".

I'm willing to do this with certain companies, but not NYNEX.  Why not
NYNEX?  Because NYNEX allows any sleezy fly-by-night long distance
company to put charges on my phone bill, possibly without any authorization
at all on my part.

/john

    Yes, I will never authorize an automatic payment for NYNEX.
    
    I have been bitten twice by such sleezy long distance charges,
    
    Including a $12.95 bill for a 1-minute phone call to a number that was
    only about 19 miles from where I was making the call!!!!!
    
    I do not want to have to contest such bills from the standpoint of
    getting money back.   That is, such places are entitled to try and get
    the money from me, but I don't want to be in the position of having to
    get it back from THEM!
    
    	db

    I signed up for the Nynex autopayment deal.  Maybe I shouldn't have.
    However, most such deals contain statements to the effect that their
    *only* liability if they take out the wrong amount is to put it back
    -- they don't even say when.  I don't recall exactly what the Nynex 
    agreement said, but it *certainly* didn't say that!  
    
    	Larry

Re. .393

This is a requirement that the Feds put on NYNEX and the other local carriers,
they must allow long distance carriers to include their bills, no questions
asked.  NYNEX of course gets a fee doing this so they really don't mind.

However I am sure that the locals could make it a bit easier to do business
with them for example:

Can you tell NYNEX to only deduct a certain amount? For example deduct just
their monthly rate or perhaps have a limit on their deduction?

Be quicker on processing EFTs or be better set up to handle it, etc.

Bob...

>                   <<< Note 975.373 by SUBSYS::SUNDARESAN >>>
>                      -< Seems OK with WNT 3.51 Server.. >-
>
>    Re .364
>    
>    So, did you get it to work under WNT 4.0? I'm staying away
>    from 4.0 at home until I hear stronger feedback on the 
>    positive side. 
>    
>    For what it's worth, I don't have any problems running 
>    PC Branch 2.0 under WNT 3.51 Server on a no-name clone 
>    consisting of assorted flea-market parts, modem card 
>    included. Only "setup" I had to do on PC Branch was 
>    to set the baud rate at 9600, and verify that the 
>    com port number was correct. 
>    
>    - Ganesh.
>
Late update:

PCB did work under NT 4.0 as soon as I rebooted. I'm guilty of installing
and then expecting it to work. Too many other pieces of software did
just that. Ie worked without rebooting. 

Regards,
/jon

I just found out a major problem with Billpayer.  I have overdraft protection 
on my checking account, so I assumed that if, with normal fluctuations, there 
was insufficient cash in the account when the bill was supposed to be paid,
they
would draw from the reserve. Wrong!

The model for billpayer is not a check. If there are no funds, your bill is
not
paid!

So much for trying to keep the bulk of the funds in a money market fund and
only 
keeping "enough" in the checking account. 

Billpayer may be "free" but could cost a bundle if you think you're paying off

a credit card only to find out it was not paid and you now owe interest. If
you
have, say, from travel, a $2500 credit card bill and you pay just $.01 less
than
the full amount, you could be owing $25+ in interest fees for just the one
month
in which you did not pay in full. Watch out!

Alex Conn
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

I believe this is a documented restriction in BillPayer that DCU is working
to try and remove.  I can't remember where I saw it, maybe in the FAQ section.

--Scott

    
    I thought I read in the notes and info section when you login
    to billpayer, that there WAS limited overdraft protection.  ie
    3 free transfers from your primary savings to cover checking.
    
    I've never had this situation occur (yet) to test it.
    
    I'm not where I can login to PC Branch today.  Can someone
    check it and report back?
    
    On the DCU web page, under the FAQ for PC Branch I got
    a timeout trying to read it.  I thought it might say the
    same as the news and info section on the PC branch login.
    
    --Bert

But the limited doesn't help you if you don't have anything in savings.

I was wondering of the overdraft protection being refered too is where DCU will
let your share 5 account have a negative balance, and then charge you $15 for a
short term loan (well, an overdraft charge).

--Scott

Bert is correct, it was changed - I just checked the FAQ on PCBRANCH.  They now
allow *limited* overdraft from Share 1 or Loan 1.

So, if you don't have the money in savings, or a loan hiding behind your share 5
account (or it's maxed out), then you could have problems, from the way it looks.

--Scott

    DCU provides an "advantage credit line" that will cover overdrafts
    *without* the $15 fee.  A check that would otherwise bounce simply
    causes a transfer to sharedraft from the credit line.  I tested this
    during a period when I had two checking accounts and sometimes wrote
    a check out of the wrong one.
    
    The feature that I would love to see is for the Advantage Credit Line
    to cover *any* check or charge made to the share drafts account that
    would otherwise cause it to go negative -- up to the credit limit,
    of course!   Apparently the advantage credit line doesn't apply to many
    other types of transfers from the sharedraft account.  For example,
    I wasn't able to get a cash advance when the balance was zero, even
    though checks I wrote were being honored.  Nor could I arrange a
    transfer into my checking account from the credit line, since I was
    at a foreign ATM.  Oh, well.  
    
    I asked a teller about this at one point.  I gathered from her
    response that there are technical reasons why it would be hard
    to allow the credit line to be used for cash advances.  Hey, I can
    live with it.  
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

The Advantage credit line is what is refered to as "loan 1" in the PCBranch FAQ.

>Nor could I arrange a
>    transfer into my checking account from the credit line, since I was
>    at a foreign ATM.  Oh, well.  

If you were near a phone though, you could have solved this by dialing up
EasyTouch and simply add on to the loan.

--Scott

I think I'm about to give up on Billpayer.  It told me to allow 6 days for a
payment to Warner Cable, but it actually took 15!

				Steve

Another word on NYNEX bills...

DCU now recommends not using Bill Payer for NYNEX.

NYNEX has a tendency to sit on such payments for 30-45 days if they
feel like it.

Apparently that's not a problem for business customers, but not when
it's your home phone bill and the delay pushes it past the point where
they cut off your service.

I never had any problems paying NYNEX from my Quicken Online account through
CoreStates Bank.  Payments would be credited in 5 days.  I think the problem
is elsewhere.

				Steve

I sent "PC Branch" mail about this but:

Has anyone gotten the /c option to work?

What?  You didn't know it existed?  At least with V2.0 it does.  Click on the 
About "icon" and look at the bottom it says:

Command Line Options:
  /c  Automatic Connect

When used, it fails.  I click on "CANCEL" then on "Connect" and it works.

My first response over the PC Branch "mail" was "if there is such an option..."
so they didn't know it existed.

PS - did you know there is a limit to the length of a message you can 
send via their "mail" interface?  Its not very big.  One cut and paste of 
five lines, about seven of my own and it starts beeping back at me.

Brian J.

    
    /c doesnt work for me either
    
    PC Branch is getting very annoying with those little
    connection windows and history update windows that dont
    go down when you minimize the application. 
    
    No other windows seem to be over to go 'over' these little
    pc branch ditties when they are on the screen.  Real annoying
    when you are letting pc branch connect int he background
    while trying to work in another window.
    
    --bert
                                         

>>    /c doesnt work for me either

The response from Vicci was "don't use that, use the connect button".

She kind of missed the point.

As for the windows staying up - yup a real pain in the ass at times.  

I ran across the /c option when I was hoping to find something like 
-min or -dont_use_the_entire_screen or -size command line option, I didn't 
find that either.

Brian

    
    On the subject of the little modem connect windows
    staying up I found something quite by accident today.
    
    If you follow this procedure you will get nothing on the screen
    until AFTER the connection is fully established and its loading
    your account info
    
    1) start pc branch
    2) slect connect  - the little acct window pops up
    3) minimize PC branch - leaves the acct info window up with
    				acct # and pin
    4) select ok on the acct window
    
    after you select ok, the acct window goes down and you dont
    get that pesky little modem information 3 line window that
    stays on top of everything else.  Once the modem is fully
    connected and downloading your info, stuff starts to popup.
    
    --Bert

I logged into PCBranch last night and got a message that Internet access is 
coming, and that there was more info under news&information.  Things weren't
working too well last night, so I wasn't able to get the info until this morning.
It says that details will be in the June issue of Member's Monthly.


http://www.dcu.org/whatsnew/new_serv/new_june.html#pc_branch contains the 
following information about it:

NEW Internet PC Branch Coming in July 

Thanks to member requests, DCU's Internet PC Branch will soon be here. This FREE
service will let you manage your accounts through this web site. You will no
longer have to log off the Internet to access your DCU account. The dial-up PC
Branch will still be available for members without web access. 

Internet PC Branch will let you make transfers between your accounts and to other
members, loan payments, and withdrawals. You can check balances, apply for loans,
download account history, and get stock quotes. Unlimited FREE bill payment will
be provided through Travelers, one of America's largest payment services.

For access, you'll need at least Netscape Navigator 3.01 or Microsoft Internet
Explorer 3.01. These browsers use data encryption for security. America Online
users can use Navigator while logged in to AOL. Watch our web site and
newsletters for more information.