Sonic.net

danielg4 wrote:

oddhack wrote:DSLx is offering slightly greater performance at about $20/month less, in part because they don't force customers to get voice service as part of the deal (and in part because of promotional pricing, granted). Never heard of RBC before tonight.

AFAIK, they do not provision VDSL aside from FTTN, making that claim impossible.

The DSLx site has a literal checkbox asking whether I want to pay $9.99/mo. more for phone service, on top of the $65 + $6.50 + $2.88 for 45 Mbps service, or not. That word "impossible" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anybody who actually needs 100Mbps is going to have usage that will often be close to running afoul of AT&T's transfer cap, which would raise costs pretty quickly. And for how long is their promotional rate? Arguments about better price/performance on Comcast I can understand, but I'm failing to see how AT&T VDSL could be a winner, especially over Sonic VDSL.

$90/40 Mbps is much larger than $60/100 Mbps. I do not have usage that will "run afoul of" a 1 TB transfer cap.

flex-brannigan wrote:So I have to pay an extra 10 bucks a month to subsidize the fiber service of my neighbor who literally resides on the other side of my backyard fence? That guy ends up paying 10 dollars less per month for internet service that is FIFTY TIMES faster than mine. Gee, thanks Dane.

Oh! You're a new customer? We'll give you the same rate our loyal customers who have been with us for years USED to pay before we jacked up the price on them. Nice.

After being told — repeatedly I might add — that 1Gbps fiber would be available on my street, only to have Sonic decide not to provide it, makes we want to consider going over to the dark side.

you prolly live on the street where all the utilities are underground that's why SONIC is not bringing fiber to you yet ... or on the E-W street with almost not density and it's simply not viable / cost effective to bring it to you ...

oddhack wrote:

danielg4 wrote:

oddhack wrote:DSLx is offering slightly greater performance at about $20/month less, in part because they don't force customers to get voice service as part of the deal (and in part because of promotional pricing, granted). Never heard of RBC before tonight.

AFAIK, they do not provision VDSL aside from FTTN, making that claim impossible.

The DSLx site has a literal checkbox asking whether I want to pay $9.99/mo. more for phone service, on top of the $65 + $6.50 + $2.88 for 45 Mbps service, or not. That word "impossible" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Their 45Mbps service is FTTN only. They also have higher speeds for more money.
$62.95 + $6.50 + $2.88 + $9.99 + whatever VoIP tax = $82.32 + whatever VoIP tax (DSLExtreme 45Mbps with BroadVoice, promotional rate for 12 months)
$62.95 + $6.50 + $2.88 = $72.33 (DSLExtreme 45Mbps without BroadVoice, promotional rate for 12 months)
Non-promotional rates after 12 months:
$70 + $6.50 + $9.50 + whatever VoIP tax = $86 + whatever VoIP tax (Sonic FTTN X2)
$70 + $9.50 + whatever POTS tax = $79.50 + whatever POTS tax (Sonic VDSL X2 with optional modem rental)
$70 + whatever POTS tax (Sonic VDSL X2 without optional modem rental)
$50 + $9.50 + whatever POTS tax = $59.50 + whatever POTS tax (Sonic VDSL X1 with optional modem rental, exceeds 100Mbps for some)
$50 + whatever POTS tax (Sonic VDSL X1 without optional modem rental, exceeds 100Mbps for some)
The only $20 differences you could've cited do not compare apples to apples.

Anybody who actually needs 100Mbps is going to have usage that will often be close to running afoul of AT&T's transfer cap, which would raise costs pretty quickly. And for how long is their promotional rate? Arguments about better price/performance on Comcast I can understand, but I'm failing to see how AT&T VDSL could be a winner, especially over Sonic VDSL.

$90/40 Mbps is much larger than $60/100 Mbps. I do not have usage that will "run afoul of" a 1 TB transfer cap.

I call BS because:
1) $90 is the X2 price point, therefore:
2) 40Mbps total would be 20Mbps per wire pair, and:
3) Sonic will not provision VDSL except at distances where it would have a speed benefit over ADSL, and:
4) 20Mbps per wire pair is not a speed benefit of VDSL over ADSL:
As I keep saying, people who can get only ADSL should just look elsewhere for Internet. As for AT&T's 100Mbps plan, the $60 is only for the first 12 months, nominally $80, and their website says "Quoted prices do not include taxes, fees, surcharges, shipping, or other charges" so you are again not comparing apples to apples, since the $90 you say in the say in the same breath already includes all of those things. Additionally, if you have multiple simultaneously-used streaming devices, then you DO have usage approaching the 1TB cap, and if you don't have multiple simultaneous streams, you would see almost no benefit at 100Mbps compared to 40Mbps.

danielg4 wrote: I call BS because:
1) $90 is the X2 price point, therefore:
2) 40Mbps total would be 20Mbps per wire pair, and:
3) Sonic will not provision VDSL except at distances where it would have a speed benefit over ADSL, and:
4) 20Mbps per wire pair is not a speed benefit of VDSL over ADSL:

Let's review here. So far in the last two pages of the thread, you've:

* Asserted that I have FTTN. I don't.
* Asserted that I don't have an analog voice line. I do.
* Asserted that I "have absolutely nothing to complain about" when I've made very specific complaints regarding Sonic's delivered performance and price/performance.
* Asserted that DSLx charges more for slower performance than Sonic when exactly the opposite is true.
* Asserted that it's "impossible" for DSLx to offer a choice of voice service or not, when it's a checkbox option on the services listed on their website.
* Asserted that "anyone" who "actually needs" 100 Mbps service will overrun AT&T's usage cap when in fact, I would benefit from it, and my actual usage comes nowhere near their 1 TB cap. You have exactly zero understanding of what I'm doing or what I need.
* And asserted a variety of technically true but irrelevant statements about VDSL / FTTN / ADSL, since I don't give a fig what the technology is, what I care about is the price and delivered performance.

Now you "call BS" because you think it's impossible that I'm getting 40 Mbps VDSL x2 performance. I assure you that's the service I have and the delivered performance ranges from 40-43 Mbps depending on the time. It was well *under* 40 Mbps initially and only after a bunch of email and phone calls to Sonic support did they dispatch an AT&T tech who fixed that problem.

The reality here is that you're constantly making assumptions about other people's needs, service, and usage, and making up facts to suit your preconceptions about other providers, like a member of the current Administration. Everything I've stated in this thread about my Sonic service, what they charge for it, and the available options from other providers is factual. I'm starting to think you're just a sockpuppet for the other perpetual Sonic apologist in this thread, whom I've mercifully blocked.

We're done. You have no knowledge of and no useful input on the situation under discussion.

Please offer a low cost price just for internet. That's all we need.

I get a mere 2.2Mbps downstream on Fusion X1 at my location and I can't justify spending another $10/mo for that level of service. It's just crazy, why not just increase rates on the fiber subscribers that get way better speeds?

I don't need the voice service, is there any way to get just basic internet through sonic? When I look at my upgrade/downgrade options in member services, the only options are Fusion X2 or FTTN X2 service. Not even FTTN X1, which tells me sonic now is trying to push X2 service for greed.

I've been on sonic for 10 years now and I've started looking into other service options. Comcast 10Mbps for me is $30/mo first year, then $50/mo after, same price as X1, but faster speed than my X1 service. Plus I can buy my own modem instead of renting it. If sonic is set on ignoring its long time customers, I see no other option.

sorry Dane, the $10 increase is just too much for what it is. It's really pushed pass the limit where I can accept.
If there's a little speed bump with the $10 increase, it'd be easier to swallow, but I'm not that generous to fund other people getting Fiber. Those people getting Fiber should be paying for it, not others.


Moving to other provider.

klch wrote:sorry Dane, the $10 increase is just too much for what it is. It's really pushed pass the limit where I can accept.
If there's a little speed bump with the $10 increase, it'd be easier to swallow, but I'm not that generous to fund other people getting Fiber. Those people getting Fiber should be paying for it, not others.


Moving to other provider.

Same can be said in reverse those of us who have fiber should not be paying for people wanting to get it but that argument has been discussed here many many times .

pockyken007 wrote:Same can be said in reverse those of us who have fiber should not be paying for people wanting to get it but that argument has been discussed here many many times .

Has it? If anyone so far has said that they have Sonic FTTH; think that it would be unjustifiable for Sonic to increase their monthly fee by $10 in reflection of the value of the service that they receive and the capital investment that Sonic made in order to provide that service; will quit Sonic for a better deal from Comcast, I sure haven't noticed. Are you saying this?

GoneDude wrote:

pockyken007 wrote:Same can be said in reverse those of us who have fiber should not be paying for people wanting to get it but that argument has been discussed here many many times .

Has it? If anyone so far has said that they have Sonic FTTH; think that it would be unjustifiable for Sonic to increase their monthly fee by $10 in reflection of the value of the service that they receive and the capital investment that Sonic made in order to provide that service; will quit Sonic for a better deal from Comcast, I sure haven't noticed. Are you saying this?

So let me get this straight the haves suppose to support the have nots but the have nots have no obligation at all to other have nots in terms of support by paying the extra 10$ to make it so that people who are still without sonic fiber at least have a chance of getting it ? #Logic .