ATA191 firmware update failure

[DaveZ]

ATA199 MPP version, on 11-1-OMSR3-9 and trying to update to ATA19x.11-2-1MPP0001-006.img 

It uploads, says it upgraded, but doesn't actually upgrade.

To get this far I had to reset to defaults because it was just rejecting everything before.

Thoughts? I bought it new from B&H but Cisco doesn't provide support without a contract number I'm not likely to get. 

I can set it up just fine but I do want to say up to date on firmware. 

[Jonathan Schulenberg]

Does the MD5 of the ZIP match what Cisco says it should be?

ATA19x.11-2-1MPP0001-006.zip

0fdcac8aa2fb9b9dfecae84a90aa28f6

[DaveZ]

MD5 (ATA19x.11-2-1MPP0001-006.zip) = 0fdcac8aa2fb9b9dfecae84a90aa28f6

So yes, it matches

[Jonathan Schulenberg]

This is the upgrade process that you followed? If yes, have you tried more than one transport method, e.g. TFTP and HTTP? I'm out of ideas after that other than combing through the log file on the device for clues; that's the point where I would call TAC.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cata/19x/3PCC/firmware/11-2-1/releasenotes/at9x_b_ata-191_192-rn-1121.html#task_4EC736C84F32A5EE5ED8835D706A4240

[DaveZ]

Yes, I tried that. I did not do TFTP but I will. I tried combing through the log file and then calling on TAC. TAC does not provide support to resale buyers, so I guess it's the returns department and finding something with more reasonable support policies. (I'm very disappointed as the owner of two Cisco SPA112s.)

[Jonathan Schulenberg]

I understand how the support situation can be frustrating and I do not spend my time on the forums to defend Cisco. I will share another perspective in case it tempers the frustration a bit. Obviously support isn't free; people cost money. Cisco chooses to break that cost out separately instead of raising the upfront product cost to cover the product throughout its lifespan, often 7-10 years. MPP endpoints tend to be used by three types of accounts: Cisco Webex Calling, other UCaaS suppliers, or the Asterisk/FreeSwitch community. The first camp should have a support contract with Cisco. The second typically sources endpoints from the UCaaS supplier - who then provides the initial support tier(s) and has a master support agreement with Cisco behind the scenes. The third tend to self-support, although there are certainly exceptions to that.

Could/should Cisco offer an easier way for the third camp to pay for TAC support on hardware they purchased from a reputable supplier, e.g. B&H? Yes, but - there is always a but - Cisco sells through, and heavily relies on, resellers. Most of them would object to Cisco allowing a customer to go direct, cutting them out of the support revenue. It's difficult to make everyone happy.

PS- You could ask B&H for help or a replacement. Resellers can open a TAC case for RMA scenarios within the product's manufacturer warranty; Cisco expects the reseller to triage the issue first. It's always possible that you just had the bad luck of a defective unit.

[DaveZ]

I appreciate your position. However, the cost of this device is much more than its predecessor, the SPA112. At that time they provided full support. 

I would understand if I was having a problem with configuration. This is clearly a device issue. Maybe they have a solution, maybe not. I don't know of any company that sells a product with literally no support at all, not even for 30 days. 

On a brand new product, there should either be support or a warning when you buy it that support is extra. In the meantime, I'm going to see how Poly's Obi products work out. I had good experiences with my past Cisco devices, but I think those were inherited from a company they bought anyway - indeed, they bought two of their competitors (Linksys had a good unit, too)... which may be why prices have gone up. 

[DaveZ · Accepted solution]

Reset all to defaults, tried again step by step, failed again without any indication of what went wrong - and going back into the original box. My full time job is not making phone boxes work. Thank you for your help (or at least for trying). FWIW, if Cisco only wants to sell these to Cisco experts, they should print on the box “not for end users, even ones who had literally no problems with earlier devices.”