Will Sonic finally end equipment rental fees?

[stefanl]

I upgraded my network to use a Ubiquiti UniFi USG and an AP. I just plugged it in and it worked, and my speeds and wifi connectivity are vastly better then the RG provided by Sonic. I work from home and have 4 kids doing learning from home, and it's been rock solid. That wasn't the case with the rental RG.

I don't really see what value the RG actually brings to consumers, and it's hard to justify the $10/month rental fee.

[ankh]

Ouch. I wish I could do that.

[klui]

Enjoy the eap_proxy bypass because word is ATT is upgrading their infrastructure and those that are impacted can no longer use this method.

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32858 ... still-work

[bayfiber]

I hope the Sonic team are reading this thread because this is an important issue that will separate Sonic from other providers such as Xfinity. Even that horrible provider does not charge me a modem fee by letting my buy my own, and certainly not a fee for what is essentially a locked down router.

I would be willing to pay Sonic a lower monthly fee ($3 perhaps?) to NOT take their RG and still get their "truck rollout insurance" in case I ever need it, which is unlikely but possible, and I suspect other potential and existing customers would do this as well. Give me the option to do that and I will take it. Make it loud and clear on the registration page and over the phone so people can just select it.

Having that as a 3rd option is better than the 2 existing options and will benefit both Sonic and the customer, so I hope @Dane is reading this and would consider such a solution. It is better to be upfront than spring that rental fee on the user while they are in the process of signing up for service with no way out except to feel like Sonic won't have your back if you don't pay for their RG.

[dane]

@bayfiber,

Today for all of the services which are on the Sonic network (Fusion X1 and X1 ADSL2+ and VDSL2 and Fiber) customers can opt to use their own equipment. Customers who go this way lose a number of support features and of course equipment updates (including security updates to firmware) and equipment replacements, and also the wiring plan which provides free technician visits when repair is required. Because of the pitfalls of the DIY process, would discourage it for all but very technical customers.

Related:
https://routersecurity.org/bugs.php

https://www.welivesecurity.com/2020/07/ ... ity-flaws/

https://threatpost.com/asus-home-router ... ks/157682/

TL;DR version: Consumer grade routers often have security issues that could affect the devices in your home, and your data and privacy, and there is no mechanism for the manufacturer to notify you that an update is required. Many are never updated: once they’re sold, they’ve got minimal incentive to keep them up to date with new firmware when security issues are revealed.

Carrier grade CPE platforms like the Pace and SmartRG systems are managed as a fleet, allowing us to track and manage deployment of updated firmware or configuration changes when needed, as well as access connection statistics when you’re having an issue that help us decide if an issue is caused by your circuit, the WiFi, or the equipment itself. This helps support determine what is required to resolve it quickly, either a technician visit, CPE replacement via UPS, etc.

But for the ATT network IP Broadband products, they require the CPE be used as part of their end-to-end management of the network, all the way to the in-hole device. Sorry, it’s not a policy decision we can change.

[apl]

Dane, your response does not address the analog telephone adapter for resold AT&T fiber, which was also raised by the original poster. This is also treated as mandatory, even for those who do not use their phone service, and unless I am mistaken that rental fee goes to Sonic, not AT&T.
Even for those of us who do use the phone service, we are paying $6.50 /month for the ATA. That may not sound like a lot, but it means that over a (probably very conservative) 5-year lifespan, I will end up paying $390 for a device that is available new on Amazon for $32.
(And on top of that, as discussed in other threads here, the Sonic version does not have the latest firmware and can not be updated by the user, which may be why the device does not recover correctly following a power outage.)

It would be nice to get an unambiguous statement either that Sonic will come into compliance with TVPA by December 20 with respect to this piece of equipment, or that you do not believe that law applies. (The response from another Sonic employee that we agreed to the rental by signing up for the service is also not helpful; that is exactly the type of abuse that the law is intended to prevent.)
It's not clear to me that the embedded authentication certificate should be enough to make that law not apply to the RG either, but I understand that that requirement is just passed along from AT&T through Sonic.

[dane]

Dane, your response does not address the analog telephone adapter for resold AT&T fiber, which was also raised by the original poster. This is also treated as mandatory, even for those who do not use their phone service, and unless I am mistaken that rental fee goes to Sonic, not AT&T.

Gotcha. Yes, all of Sonic’s services are “Fusion”, a bundle of both voice and data services. This is required by the FCC for our copper services, and we choose to have a consistent configuration for all of our products, so we do not offer a standalone data-only service at this time. It is something we have discussed extensively here, but it brings a lot of new complexity and would result in very limited actual savings, a net result of about $2 to $3 per month depending upon the City and resulting tax rate. This is because if the revenue for the voice service service goes away, we would have to raise the price of the data service to make up for that decrease.

Regarding legislation, there was a new requirement for Cable companies passed as part of the budget at the end of 2018, if memory serves. It appears to be focused on the ongoing increases in set-top-box fees, and was limited to Cable companies.

[apl]

No, still not quite getting it. Yes, I have read and understand many of those other threads about service bundling, and in fact I do use the telephone service. My comments (and those of the original poster, who does not use his telephone service) were specifically about the mandatory equipment rental, not the service itself.

The law in question is a bit hard to parse (I am not a lawyer) and is actually an amendment to a law going back to 1934(!) but it certainly covers more than cable TV and set-top boxes.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... /5035/text
Specifically, section 642:
"(c) Consumer rights to accurate equipment charges.—A provider of a covered service or fixed broadband internet access service may not charge a consumer for—

“(1) using covered equipment provided by the consumer; or

“(2) renting, leasing, or otherwise providing to the consumer covered equipment if—

“(A) the provider has not provided the equipment to the consumer; or

“(B) the consumer has returned the equipment to the provider, except to the extent that the charge relates to the period beginning on the date when the provider provided the equipment to the consumer and ending on the date when the consumer returned the equipment to the provider."

My reading of that is that it should allow people not using the phone part of their service at all to return the ATA, and avoid the rental fee. I think it would also allow me to buy my own ATA, and then do the same, although admittedly that is less clear.

If the upshot is that you raise your base rates, and I end up paying the same amount, well, I can live with that. More transparency industry-wide about the true costs of service will still benefit me as a consumer.

[dane]

@apl,

I don’t have a full analysis of the “Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019”, but do note from the summary you linked to that it only passed the House. It didn’t pass the Senate or become law. But I do recall that sections of it were incorporated into the overall federal budget act, but we’re only applicable to Cable TV companies when delivering Cable TV service. It appeared to be focused on the ongoing annual increases to television set-top-box rental fees.

Service bundling is permissible, and is how we have designed the Fusion services - from X1 through iPBB and Fiber. The bundle is required by federal regulation for our Fusion copper services, and we carry that product structure through our entire platform.

I hear the feedback that some would prefer we offer more flexibility on this, but I think most are assuming that this would result in a substantial cost reduction. It would not, the data service would rise to at or above the current bundle (and equipment, for IPBB) cost total.

We will continue to consider unbundling in the future, and are likely to do some market testing in other states and other parts of California to see how viable it is. But no near-term changes are planned for our core products at this time.

[apl]

From what I can tell, the section I quoted became law on Dec 20 2019 (as part of the appropriations act, as you said), and is slated to take effect (after some delay) on Dec 20 2020.
And unless I am misunderstanding, it applies to any broadband provider, and makes mandatory rental fees for equipment not wanted by the consumer illegal.

Bundling of services is NOT the same as mandatory rental fees for equipment, and I thought it was already clear that I was only talking about the latter.

I guess I need to let this go for now and hope that the new regulations are able to make a difference industry-wide.