Required Modem--Extra 16.3% - 32.5% Per Month?

[Aeon]

It looks like Time Warner Customers are mad enough to sue to rid themselves of greedy modem "rental" fees.

http://gothamist.com/2012/11/13/twc_mod ... umer_f.php

[dane]

Re: TWC suit, the issue seems to be that they stuck it to their existing customers, with inadequate notice.

[jeffg1]

Re: TWC suit, the issue seems to be that they stuck it to their existing customers, with inadequate notice.

In an effort to identify the differences between Time Warner's situation and Sonic's, it's important to not lose sight of the similarities.

A similarity: customers everywhere seem to really dislike service fee increases being obscured and disguised as "equipment rental" fees.

Another *difference*, BTW: Time Warner allows customers to *purchase* an approved modem.

[dane]

Both quite true!

[cataha]

Re: TWC suit, the issue seems to be that they stuck it to their existing customers, with inadequate notice.

In an effort to identify the differences between Time Warner's situation and Sonic's, it's important to not lose sight of the similarities.

A similarity: customers everywhere seem to really dislike service fee increases being obscured and disguised as "equipment rental" fees.

Another *difference*, BTW: Time Warner allows customers to *purchase* an approved modem.

The question/answer as a see it, "monopoly"(meaning lack of choice)
I'm not in favor of "RENT-ed/ing/etc"
and from what i see how progressive this topic/subject gets, i would say best thing to do is to make a sticky topic/subject with voting to see how it will turnout, let say for a month

Yes other companies put their focus on "Specialized" access equipment due to "Technical training/expertise"(everytime i have got to a Sonic office i seen almost the same people(very nice, meaning less of training)), but along the line(s) there is an option to either rent or not to rent

Looking from a NONE-ADVANCE-USER site i would say it's best/MUST use provided/recommended CE device(therefor rent is fully justifiable)
Looking from an Advanced-User i would say there should be a choice
Looking from PE side i would say best to use provided/recommended device due to technical support

[Guest]

As I read the reasoning of the required modem, it has firmware codes customized for the need of Sonic Tech Support when the techs troubleshoot/diagnose line issues. For many, that is a feature not utilized but still being charged for in the name of the equipment rental fee.

[is this true?]

At the entry level was 1.5Mbps standalone service, without voice, for $35. We couldn't cover costs at that rate, so we added voice (which has virtually no cost for us) and increased the speed to the full uncapped rate, and set the price at $39.95.
[...]
This is fundamentally why there is only one product. The cost of delivering service is the loop and the network equipment - features are basically without cost, so we include them all.

Voice may carry no extra cost to Sonic but it costs your customers an extra $10 in taxes and fees. So why not charge $40, but make voice an optional service at no charge except for fees and taxes? Could it have something to do with the fact that the largest of those fees, the so-called "Federal Subscriber Line Charge Fee", actually goes to Sonic and isn't a government-mandated fee or tax at all? (http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-telephone#slc) Thus by requiring voice service as a part of Fusion, Sonic is collecting an additional $6.50 but passing it off under fees-and-taxes. (Note: $6.50 is the maximum allowed by the FCC, but even AT&T only charges $4.40)

I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this ...

[dane]

I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this ...

The Federal Subscriber Line Charge (FSLC) varies based upon the costs each carrier has to operate voice services. As the FCC says, "Local telephone companies recover some of the costs of telephone lines connected to your home or business through this monthly charge on your local telephone bill. Sometimes called the federal subscriber line charge, this fee is regulated and capped by the FCC, not by state Public Utility Commissions."

While voice taxes and fees come along with our voice service, they're a side effect, not the point.

Our vision with the Fusion service is to follow the European model, pioneered by Free.fr beginning in 2003. Their model of "one product, all inclusive" has swept Europe, and is a natural disruptive competitive offering. For €29.99, they deliver uncapped ADSL2+ or Fiber, plus unlimited phone (including 107 international destinations), and IPTV. (Interesting to note also that with the launch of their newest "FreeBox", they introduced a €9 monthly equipment fee, their first effective price hike since launching service in 2002.)

This product configuration is now common in most European nations, with the all-inclusive double or triple-play becoming the norm. It's exciting to see, because the competitive pressures from these operators have shifted even the incumbent business models. Orange (formerly France Telecom) today only has 49% of their domestic market, and more tellingly, has been forced to adopt the competitor's product design.

While we haven't gotten this much capability into the Fusion product yet, you can see from our history that this is the direction that we are headed.

I hope you will stick with us as we craft a unique (at least in the US) product which will create a movement in our marketplace. If all you want is "Internet only, absolutely nothing else", Fusion may not be a competitive option for you. But, I hope it remains a compelling offering, despite all of the features we have added and will continue to add to the product.

[is this true?]

I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this ...

The Federal Subscriber Line Charge (FSLC) varies based upon the costs each carrier has to operate voice services. As the FCC says, "Local telephone companies recover some of the costs of telephone lines connected to your home or business through this monthly charge on your local telephone bill. Sometimes called the federal subscriber line charge, this fee is regulated and capped by the FCC, not by state Public Utility Commissions."

While voice taxes and fees come along with our voice service, they're a side effect, not the point.

Our vision with the Fusion service is to follow the European model, pioneered by Free.fr beginning in 2003. Their model of "one product, all inclusive" has swept Europe, and is a natural disruptive competitive offering. For €29.99, they deliver uncapped ADSL2+ or Fiber, plus unlimited phone (including 107 international destinations), and IPTV. (Interesting to note also that with the launch of their newest "FreeBox", they introduced a €9 monthly equipment fee, their first effective price hike since launching service in 2002.)

This product configuration is now common in most European nations, with the all-inclusive double or triple-play becoming the norm. It's exciting to see, because the competitive pressures from these operators have shifted even the incumbent business models. Orange (formerly France Telecom) today only has 49% of their domestic market, and more tellingly, has been forced to adopt the competitor's product design.

While we haven't gotten this much capability into the Fusion product yet, you can see from our history that this is the direction that we are headed.

I hope you will stick with us as we craft a unique (at least in the US) product which will create a movement in our marketplace. If all you want is "Internet only, absolutely nothing else", Fusion may not be a competitive option for you. But, I hope it remains a compelling offering, despite all of the features we have added and will continue to add to the product.

While it's nice to hear what is happening in Europe, I still don't see a response to the post cited. The FSLC is, in fact, the point.

If, as you say, voice is zero cost (to sonic.net), then by requiring this as part of the service and collecting another $6.50 through taxes as the "cost" of supplying the service, that pushes the income for sonic to about $46.50/month - even before one adds in the required rental charge for the hardware.

And this is for a service advertised at $39.95/month.

At least that's how it looks to me. But perhaps I am wrong. This is what I am interested in hearing about.

[dane]

While it's nice to hear what is happening in Europe, I still don't see a response to the post cited. The FSLC is, in fact, the point.

If, as you say, voice is zero cost (to sonic.net), then by requiring this as part of the service and collecting another $6.50 through taxes as the "cost" of supplying the service, that pushes the income for sonic to about $46.50/month - even before one adds in the required rental charge for the hardware.

And this is for a service advertised at $39.95/month.

At least that's how it looks to me. But perhaps I am wrong. This is what I am interested in hearing about.

I'm afraid it is what it is. Our vision is a single simple product, and this means it includes voice taxes and fees. I think we do a pretty good job of explaining in detail the sources of these and breaking out the amounts clearly in our billing. Re-hashing it over and over isn't going to convince us we should move away from the concept of a single simple all-inclusive product. Because of this inflexibility, we cannot please every potential member, I'm sorry.