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.Re: TWC suit, the issue seems to be that they stuck it to their existing customers, with inadequate notice.
The question/answer as a see it, "monopoly"(meaning lack of choice)jeffg1 wrote: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.Re: TWC suit, the issue seems to be that they stuck it to their existing customers, with inadequate notice.
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.
Guest wrote: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)dane wrote: 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.
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."is this true? wrote:I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this ...
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.dane wrote: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."is this true? wrote:I'd be interested in hearing a reply to this ...
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.
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.is this true? wrote: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.