Sonic.net

TrueSTREAM is rebranded U-verse FTTN, just like Sonic FTTN, so the same rules apply for both, as dictated by AT&T.

danielg4 wrote:TrueSTREAM is rebranded U-verse FTTN, just like Sonic FTTN, so the same rules apply for both, as dictated by AT&T.

Dane has said the following in the past on these forums: AT&T doesn't dictate what their resellers should do with the gateway other than for authentication. Lease, sell, or give it away for free. Sonic has elected to lease only while DSLextreme allow their customers to lease as well as own.

I call BS. The FTTN installer, who worked for AT&T and not Sonic, made clear that the gateway is the property of AT&T and not of Sonic.

danielg4 wrote:I call BS. The FTTN installer, who worked for AT&T and not Sonic, made clear that the gateway is the property of AT&T and not of Sonic.

FTTN installer knows more about corporate policy than the CEO of Sonic or people who actually were able to purchase AT&T RGs from DSLextreme?

More likely, it reflects a change in AT&T's policy since those statements, since another thread just reported that while direct AT&T customers used to be able to own RG's, they no longer are: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4122&p=29741#p29741

danielg4 wrote:More likely, it reflects a change in AT&T's policy since those statements, since another thread just reported that while direct AT&T customers used to be able to own RG's, they no longer are: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4122&p=29741#p29741

AT&T's policies are not the same as resellers'. Unless that FTTN installer was in the same room as Sonic or DSLextreme negotiators I would be skeptical about equating his opinion with fact.

Note the following thread at DSLreports posted less than a week ago whose reply came from DSLextreme's rep at that site.
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31152167-Have-AT-T

Nevertheless, as far as Sonic FTTN goes, he put the RG here from his repository of AT&T equipment, so if he indicates that it remains the property of his employer AT&T, I'm inclined to believe that.

There is nothing more to be said in this thread now. It should not have been bumped after two and a half years.

danielg4 wrote:Nevertheless, as far as Sonic FTTN goes, he put the RG here from his repository of AT&T equipment, so if he indicates that it remains the property of his employer AT&T, I'm inclined to believe that.

You're not wrong, but there are these things called business contracts and they sometimes override the obvious to a casual observer.

Sonic--

Why can't u guys be different than all the other corrupt corporates. THE FACT THAT YOU CHARGE FOR YOUR MODEM, WHEN OTHERS WANT TO USE THEIR OWN MODEM IS DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING!!!

You crummy bastards...want 40 per month...but charge 50 if you don't rent the company modem...go straight to hell and get a life... Just give me a fair price...and we can both live with it. So...you are as costly as Xfinity. They are a bit slower...but because you are jerking us around...we are not changing.

So I got hooked up this week and have separate units. A fiber to Ethernet box, mounted on the wall, then a SMART/RG Model # SR515ac router.

When I just plug in my existing ASUS router/firewall/LAN/wifi unit the connection does work, but the bandwidth dropped by a factor of 5. But, my ASUS doesn't just hang every half hour for no reason.

So, what is this SR515ac router doing that is special. The consistent hangs and drops from the SR515ac overall is making the service less desirable. Does the *router* need to be special ? It just says WAN on the port that connects to the modem.