The Network Hub » Networkingchannel

Is Cisco killing your network? End-of-life blues

Shamus McGillicuddy — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:11:52 +0000

No, Cisco isn’t killing your network, but quite a few of its products reached end-of-sale/end-of-life status this month, as Amy Kucharik noted on our sister blog, Changing the Channel. Some customers (and channel partners) are peeved that so many Cisco products are being retired this summer, especially in a tough economy where forklift rip-and-replace efforts carry too hefty a price tag for IT departments that have seen their budgets slashed.

As one anonymous Cisco partner told Barbara Darrow, senior news director for SearchITChannel.com, many Cisco customers will be dumping their old Cisco gear on eBay to recoup some of the cost of upgrading to new switches and routers:

Given the cost of a Cisco Catalyst switch, if I’m a gutted and hamstrung midsized business right now, thanks to the economy, and my choice is to spend $800 for an EOL’d switch in a manufacturer’s sealed box on eBay versus paying $2,200 for one from a reseller, guess what I’d do?

And there may end up being a lot of end-of-life Catalyst 6500 switches on the gray market soon. Just take a look at the Catalyst models that will be discontinued over the next few years.

Cisco busted for crushing one of its channel partners

Shamus McGillicuddy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:00:14 +0000

Sometimes the little guy wins.

According to our sister site, www.SearchITChannel.com, Cisco Systems has to fork over $6.4 million to a former channel partner. A jury in Orange County, Calif., found that Cisco had poached a customer from its value-added reseller (VAR) Infra-Comm and then kicked the VAR to the curb when the company’s owner sued Cisco for damages.

Infra-Comm had accused Cisco of violating its deal registration agreement by taking a prospect for a $1.5 million IP telephony deal from the VAR and handing it to AT&T. After Infra-Comm sued, Cisco kicked the company out of its partnership program, costing the VAR about 90% of its business. Cisco countersued Infra-Comm, alleging that the VAR had violated a contract and was unlawfully continuing to use Cisco’s name to do business. The jury agreed that Infra-Comm had unlawfully used Cisco’s name, but declined to award Cisco any damages.

This is all a very sordid story, and the court case may have set an important precedent about the nature of relationships between vendors and channel partners. To find out more about it, read SearchITChannel’s stories about the verdict and the lawsuit.