Sonic has to play the game the incumbents have established. Do you really think people will actually sit down and think about the value Sonic offers compared to companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner? Most ignore the fact that these companies cap their transfers per month, have established systems to shape traffic, and intercept their customers' activities without authorization. They only care about the bottom line while the pot is slowly simmering, having their privacy rights slowly boiled away. It would be a good idea to review Dane's perspectives about how bandwidth should be treated instead of the standard ILEC's rhetoric of it being a precious resource. http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/02/22/triangulation/ I hope it hasn't changed significantly, because once it does, then Sonic truly would have become just another ISP.Guest wrote:Now I see a company that looks like the others, lowballing the initial price and then adding fees that don't relate to the cost of supplying service. It's still a better deal for me at the moment, but that could change at any time, since the name Sonic doesn't seem to add any real value anymore.
As long as the incumbents continue to put these policies in place while Sonic does not, Sonic will always add more value.
I don't like the policy of Sonic's mandatory rental and have voiced my opposition. But there's a lot of things Sonic is doing correctly. I think Sonic is one of the few ISPs that have their CEO actively participate in forum discussions making their customers feel more empowered. While there are several individuals who have voiced opposition to the rental issue, there has not been a poll to indicate how many of Sonic's entire customer base actually feel about it. It would be an interesting metric. But I would think a lot more feel indifferent about it than the vocal few.
