Fusion Broadband pair bonded
September 9, 2009 – 1:03 pm
(One pair and two pair jacks)
Today we began offering pair bonded (four wire) Fusion Broadband, which can offer up to double downstream and upstream speeds for residential and small business users.
DSL technology has made just a few revolutionary steps in the last decade, and this is the next step.
In 1998, we offered the initial version of ADSL1, which topped out at speeds of up to 6Mbps.
Then, in 2008 we offered ADSL2+, with a maximum speed of 18Mbps.
Today, with the roll-out of pair bonding, we have passed another milestone in bringing faster Internet access to customers, with speeds of up to 30Mbps.
Services are available with dynamic IPs, or with eight static IP addresses.
Currently our Fusion Broadband products are offered on a standalone basis, without POTS voice telephone service. For customers who want a standard voice line delivered with Fusion, that service will be available soon.
For those seeking mobile voice service, Fusion Broadband can be bundled with Sonic.net Verizon mobile service, yielding up to $5/mo savings for a full year.
Fusion Broadband can also be bundled with Sonic.net DirecTV, for a $10/mo savings for eighteen months on the television bill.
To check availability and product pricing, please visit the Fusion Broadband page.
Update: we don’t have a full pricing table on the web page yet, so I’m putting the numbers up here for reference:
Pair Bonded, Residential locations, dynamic IP:
- 3Mbps/2Mbps $60/mo
- 6Mbps/2Mbps $65/mo
- 12Mbps/2Mbps $70/mo
- 18Mbps/2Mbps $75/mo
- 30Mbps/2Mbps $80/mo
Pair Bonded, Residential locations, 8 static IPs:
- 3Mbps/2Mbps $85/mo
- 6Mbps/2Mbps $90/mo
- 12Mbps/2Mbps $95/mo
- 18Mbps/2Mbps $100/mo
- 30Mbps/2Mbps $105/mo
Pair Bonded, Business locations, dynamic IP:
- 3Mbps/2Mbps $70/mo
- 6Mbps/2Mbps $80/mo
- 12Mbps/2Mbps $90/mo
- 18Mbps/2Mbps $115/mo
- 30Mbps/2Mbps $145/mo
Pair Bonded, Business locations, 8 static IPs:
- 3Mbps/2Mbps $100/mo
- 6Mbps/2Mbps $110/mo
- 12Mbps/2Mbps $130/mo
- 18Mbps/2Mbps $160/mo
- 30Mbps/2Mbps $190/mo
We’ve also seen some inquiries about qualification distances for these products. While qualification distance can vary based upon individual conditions, here are the general guidelines. This is subject to change based upon our observations about performance in the field, because we never want to over promise and fail to deliver.
- 3Mbps/2Mbps: 11,100ft (2.1 miles)
- 6Mbps/2Mbps: 9,500ft
- 12Mbps/2Mbps: 8,000ft
- 18Mbps/2Mbps: 6,600ft
- 30Mbps/2Mbps: 5,000ft
41 Responses to “Fusion Broadband pair bonded”
Hey Dane,
I just wanted to emphasize for any readers of the blog just how cool this is when it comes to residential service. This type of speed simply hasn’t been available en masse to regular home users before, at least not in the United States. While Cable internet service “can” on occasion provide speeds like this it can never do so consistently. The available bandwidth with Cable internet is spread out across all the users in the neighborhood. Bandwidth is a bit like water pressure, so you can imagine what your speeds would be like when every one decides to use the “faucets” at the same times. It’s never consistent because every one uses the same common connection.
This is why pair bonded Fusion is so cool, unlike with Cable, you’re not sharing your connection with anyone else, your bandwidth is yours alone. Right on.
By Kevin on Sep 10, 2009
Kevin;
As you are aware the ONLY way to get those type of speeds (pair bonding) is to be VERY close to the CO. The further you are away from the CO your speed drops significantly.
T
By Thom on Sep 11, 2009
@Thom 15 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up over a single line can be achieved around 8k feet from the DSLAM if I remember correctly. Maybe a little less, but that means that 30/2 service is available for a TON of potential custoemrs compared with AT&T’s and Qwest’s very limited-reach VDSL2 products.
@Kevin Cable can outdo 30/2 easily…if you upgrade your system to DOCSIS 3. Which COmcast has done…and Time Warner Cable flat-out hasn’t.
Personally, I won’t be able to get the service however if I had Time Warner Cable and AT&T DSL or U-Verse as the alternatives there’s no question which product I’d choose. 30/2 is faster than 18/1.5 or 15/2, no question.
Even here in Comcast DOCSIS 3 territory, if this product was available I know of a lot of people who would pick it up, since they’re running on slower non-pair-bonded Qwest ADSL right now. Neither ADSL2+ nor VDSL are available in my area.
Heck, I might even want to pick up a 3/2 line to inject some extra upload speed into my connection, and for the very few times when Cocmast is down (I’m one of the lucky ones).
By Ian L on Sep 11, 2009
Thom,
Pair bonding doubles ADSL2+ speed at all distances, so it’s a big leap for DSL broadband. ADSL2+ also increased speeds a lot, but particularly at closer ranges.
I’ve added the qualification distances to the blog post, FYI.
By Dane Jasper on Sep 11, 2009
I think there is an error in the business pricing and qualification distances lists – shouldn’t the last line be for 30/2 not 18/2 ?
@Dane I read somewhere that you may be having 4Mbps up in the future – if you do this will become an instant no-brainer for my businesses, even at 2Mbps it is very attractive as a T1 backup. How would you compare reliability and service for the business versions vs. a T1?
By Moschops on Sep 12, 2009
You’re right about the repeated 18/2 – the second one is 30/2. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
Regarding faster upstream, we’ve got plans to offer Annex M in the near future. This will allow for about double the upstream speed.
As for reliability – ADSL services are low cost, and generally a perfect fit for typical home and small business use. They do not have the technological reliability of T1 and Ethernet services, and the repair intervals can be far, far longer though. ADSL services do not have the 24 hour network ops center services, nor the four hour response assurance on outages.
Because of this, we recommend ADSL for any business where Internet is not key to doing business. For example, retail stores, restaurants, hair salons, etc should consider ADSL services. Law offices, insurance offices, anyone with servers or multiple sites, VoIP or other applications, and anyone who basically cannot do business effectively without their connection should opt for the symmetric Ethernet or T1 products. The T1 and Ethernet technology and equipment is generally more reliable, and that’s one of the main reasons that historically, T1 and T3 services have been a mainstay of business users.
I once got a call from a customer who had an insurance office with a staff of about eight. He told me that his AT&T DSL had been down for two days, and that as a result his staff of eight could not quote or bind insurance for customers, and that he was losing thousands of dollars. He was pretty upset about the outage. That customer was really in the wrong product. Because they had would lose business, they needed to opt for something that really gave them better technology and better than “best effort” repair.
But there is also a balance to be struck in costs vs. risk. This is something that the insurance agent should understand well.
A business with our Fusion 3Mbps/1Mbps service with eight static IPs would be paying $60 per month. They get pretty good speed downstream, but no service level agreement, and simply “best effort” repair.
If they were to opt for our enterprise class of product, the FlexLink Ethernet services, typical entry level cost for a 3Mbps symmetric Ethernet delivery would be $349/mo. However, they’d be getting a product delivered on multiple pairs, inherently more reliable, an enterprise grade router, 24×7 NOC support, four hour response, and triple the outbound speed. That outbound speed is important for folks with servers, or multiple offices with Citrix remote access, VoIP, etc.
So for your business, you need to decide how important reliability is, and understand the trade-off if you opt for the lower cost ADSL product. As long as you go into this with your eyes open, there’s no “wrong” decision, it’s just a matter of deciding how you feel about risk, and about cost.
Bear in mind that this isn’t quite an apples to apples comparison – a 3/1 asymmetric product vs. a symmetric 3/3 product, and the capabilities that come along with that symmetry. Two things push customers to Ethernet products; a need for more outbound bandwidth, or a need for more uptime and reliability.
Our FlexLink Ethernet products are available from 1.5Mbps symmetric up to 30Mbps symmetric. Our Fiber DIA Ethernet products range from 5Mbps to 1000Mbps. Contact sales if you’d like to explore the options!
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 12, 2009
I want that 30/2 service so bad. My 10/1 (now 12/1–thanks!) service has been incredible. I used to pay $65/month for 16/2 service from Comcast, but it was less reliable than dialup and I found the VOIP port blocked occasionally…
Just curious: I saw in the Macworld review of the new service that there is a $99 install fee and a $100 new “modem” required.
Do both fees apply to existing Fusion users or do I only have to pay the $99 to run the extra line?
By Noah on Sep 12, 2009
Noah,
You’d also need the new modem. The Motorola unit only supports single pair. The new modem is a Comtrend, and has some nice features. It’s a router, and offers four Ethernet ports and 801.11g Wi-Fi.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 14, 2009
This is *exactly* what I want. I’ve been paying for two Sonic DSL lines since December of last year, but still haven’t managed to get them both working. (Anti-spoofing seems to be blocking my attempt to treat them as one logical interface, and Sonic’s IP configuration prevent any one router from seeing both.)
I’d love to get this. I’m in San Diego, where Sonic wholesales from the AT&T DSLAM. Any chance of this being offered down here?
By Randall on Sep 15, 2009
I don’t anticipate that line level bonding will be something that we can offer in the AT&T network. It’s simply not a function that’s included in ADSL1, nor is it supported by AT&T. Coverage will expand, but San Diego is a not on our road map at this time.
We do offer packet load balancing in our Business T product line, which is targeted at enterprise clients. It’s an expensive product though, starting at about $300 monthly for T1 speed. As an alternative to a traditional T1, it’s a compelling product. Details here: http://sonic.net/sales/businesst/
By Dane Jasper on Sep 15, 2009
Thanks for your post.
I need the uplink speed for non-profit hobby servers, so I can’t justify spending a lot (under $200/month is fine).
By Randall on Sep 15, 2009
Randall,
Why not push the outbound hosting bandwidth into a datacenter? Check out http://www.sonic.net/sales/colo/1u/
Very low stock levels right now, I understand there is some construction underway to add more servers.
We have a few customers who split one of these servers between a few people. It’s a great fit.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 15, 2009
We like operating our own servers, with lots of different services (and being able to throw up new ones whenever we want).
I just stumbled on this company that makes a product for bonding multiple DSL lines. One of their boxes is deployed at both ends, but, if I’m reading it correctly, the beauty is that the remote end can be located anywhere. If so, you guys could offer a bonded service while wholesaling anyone’s DSLAM, by having one of these boxes at your data center, and one in the customer’s network (www.mushroomnetworks.com).
An alternative, I think, would be any IP tunneling protocol operated at both ends, but that might be hard for most customers to set up.
By Randall on Sep 15, 2009
Randall,
Ya, we did look at that product. Technically, it’s better just to due true MLPPP on both ends. We do this using Cisco CPE – a router with four DSL WICs on the customer side, and ATM switching to a Cisco aggregation solution on our side.
It ads up though, the equipment cost and new dedicated loop installs add up to $2000+ for the typical customer. This is the reason it’s a business targeted product.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 15, 2009
Mushroom offers an option to lease their box, plus a service where they aggregate customer-provided lines from any ISP. Is there any way you could offer a service such as that? It would be a nice way to keep all the service with you, at a lower cost (no dedicated local loop).
Really, I just need some way to get better uplink speeds with a few static IPs.
By Randall on Sep 15, 2009
As far as I can tell, the Mushroom solution is inferior to the Cisco configuration, and has similar costs. Either way it’s an expensive way to try to solve the problem. I don’t think a switch of equipment vendors and a move to “pseudo” load balancing would be a win.
There are also some false economics to be exposed. Because the economics of consumer access rely upon low usage, and because a balanced connection is only justifiable for high usage, the economics are not linear. In other words, we would be self selecting for very high usage, which would be a huge financial burden if the product was not priced to reflect costs. FYI, ATM aggregation and transport cost is nearly $100 per megabit. (Transit, BTW, has gotten cheaper, but that doesn’t help because you still have to face the transport overhead.)
So, a 1.5Mbps/1.5Mbps link costs about $300/mo delivered, including loops, transport and transit. That is a pretty close reflection of costs.
By Dane Jasper on Sep 15, 2009
This is cool. I just signed up. What info can you share on the VoIP? I’m going to lose my beloved CallVantage service next month and I’m hunting a good replacement.
By Sebastian on Sep 22, 2009
Sebastian,
Our Fusion Voice product won’t be VoIP, it’ll by traditional POTS, but overlayed with some advanced features like voicemail accessible via web and email. We’ve opted for POTS for quality and reliability. It’ll work during a power outage, for example.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 23, 2009
Sounds good… can you share any ETA, even rough? Just curious!
By Sebastian on Sep 24, 2009
Sebastian,
“A few months” is as close as I can pin down the delivery of POTS voice at this time.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Sep 24, 2009
Thanks Dane
By Sebastian on Sep 26, 2009
Hi, Dane. What’s the state of Fusion availability today? Perhaps you could do another update like the one you posted in March (”Next steps in growth”)? I’m in Mountain View, on 650-96x, eagerly awaiting something better than my 3M/512K DSL.
Thanks.
By Dave on Oct 1, 2009
Dave,
Today we’ve got 22 central offices up, but not Mountain View yet. I do not have a solid time frame to provide for that office specifically, but construction is ongoing in many offices.
By Dane Jasper on Oct 1, 2009
Thanks. I sure hope you bring it to Mountain View. I’m waiting for something like that down here and would love to come back to Sonic.net. I moved away because your pricing was out of line at one time. I think the speeds would get quite a bit of notice down here.
By Wayne Dyer on Oct 3, 2009
With 2 pairs, why can’t this support 6M/6M or even 12M/12M kind of speeds? I’d rather see that then 30M/2M
I currently have 6M/768 ADSL which is shared with my wife and teenagers, and find the uplink is the biggest bottleneck. one person uploading a file (I telecommute a lot), and the whole thing slows down (yes, I know this could be smoothed out with QOS routing). I selfhost my own photo collection on a home linux server, and if I’ve posted a photo in a popular forum, the web hits can really nail me too. I’d host this photo collection on a web service, but its kinda large and that gets expensive.
note i’m currently a customer of another ISP but when my DSL was upgraded recently I found myself on a dsltransport.net link which I gather is Sonic.
By John Pierce on Oct 6, 2009
My 2nd sonic.net line went in today… Just waiting for my new modem
Thanks
P.S. I am also waiting for the 4mbit upload!
By Devin on Oct 7, 2009
John,
With ADSL, it’s “asymmetric digital subscriber line”, a protocol designed for higher downstream than upstream. The total transmission spectrum is split up with a much larger chunk dedicated to downstream than upstream, as this is what most consumers are looking for.
We are working to make available an option called “Annex M”, which shifts the split between downstream and upstream, allowing for a bit over double the upstream speed. There is some potential reduction in the downstream, but in most cases it’s a reasonable trade-off. So, for example a given loop might max out at 18/1, (plus a little bit extra) but with Annex M, deliver 17/2. In another situation, you could have a loop that can deliver 20/1 (but capped at 18/1 based upon the speed purchased), that then can do 19/2, capped at 18/2 for the given product tier.
Note also that pair bonding doubles everything for a given loop profile, so 18/1 can become 30/2. With Annex M, that 18/1 might become 18/2, then with bonding, 30/4. The max we’ve seen in the lab is actually 46/4.8, see here.
Finally, to your initial point of symmetric speeds, there is another protocol called Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) which uses as it’s foundation e.SHDSL. This is enhanced symmetric, a product which can deliver up to a maximum of 5.7Mbps per loop, and EFM allows for bonding of many loops. The maximum we bond today is eight loops, and this allows for practical delivery in the real world of a product starting at 1.5Mbps (T1 speed) up to 30Mbps/30Mbps (2/3 of a full T3.) This is used to deliver products in our business FlexLink product line. These symmetric products include a strong service level agreement, have redundancy, and are supported by our 24×7x365 network operations center.
Typically any business that relies on Internet access for it’s day to day operations will find FlexLink to be a good fit. It’s got high reliability and strong support, plus symmetric speed that allows for remote access, VoIP, fast file transmission, server hosting, etc. FlexLink products have been very popular due to their low cost compared with traditional T1 and T3 services, with pricing ranging between $229/mo and about $1700/mo.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Oct 7, 2009
I’m with John — I need better uplink speeds, but not for business services or sustained data traffic. As John noted, if someone outside hits a few photo links, the slow uplink speeds make the photo download very slow for them. Likewise when uploading files to work. Even though the overall data volume is very low, we need need higher speeds for a better experience.
Personally, I’m thinking of giving the Mushroom bonding service a try, since it costs a lot less and has higher speeds than a Business-T setup. I fully understand why a business service needs to cost a lot, but I’m looking for faster upload without sacrificing too much download.
By Randall on Oct 7, 2009
Randall,
Will Annex M (doubling of upstream) help enough? That will push upstream max from it’s current 2Mbps up to around 4Mbps in our Fusion product line.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Oct 7, 2009
Dane,
I’d be delighted with that!
Sadly, I’m in San Diego and so am limited to ~768 uplink per DSL. That’s why I’m looking at purchasing the Mushroom service, which operates its own IP tunnel on top of any DSL or cable service to aggregating them.
By Randall on Oct 7, 2009
Got it! BTW, I think the Mushroom product really can only aggregate bandwidth on HTTP in the inbound direction. For outbound, as I read the specs, it’s simply session load balancing, perhaps with similar results as you might be able to achieve with traditional round robin DNS.
By Dane Jasper on Oct 7, 2009
My understanding is that the Mushroom product operates in standalone mode doing just as you say, but optionally also pairs with a unit in the Mushroom data center. When paired, it establishes IP tunnels over the DSL/cable links. Mushroom supplies a pool of IP addresses which are routed over the tunnels.
By Randall on Oct 7, 2009
Ah, that makes sense. I see on their site the “bonding in peered mode” stuff. I wonder how they deal with out of order packet delivery, loss, and how the end to end latency is in the real world.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Oct 7, 2009
I moved to East side Petaluma near the JC campus (it’s a high-middle class suburb). Fusion isn’t available last I checked and the highest DSL Sonic/AT&T can give me is 768kbps since I’m not on an RT and the CO is all the way downtown.
I’m forced to use Comcast until Fusion can be provided. I must admit that Comcast speed really does put traditional DSL to shame. So only 12Mbps+ Fusion can bring me back.
By Jeremy on Oct 12, 2009
Jeremy,
ADSL2+ and bonding are not a panacea. For those within the service area (about two miles or less from the central office), it can often provide the fastest service available. But, availability is limited to that area, so unfortunately there are many locations where we simply cannot compete on speed.
We are continuing our push for more speed and availability, with new COs coming online, with bonding, and with the upcoming Annex M roll-out. There’s more to come in future, it’s certainly a dynamic market, and we’re working hard to bring the fastest product we can do the greatest number of customers.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Oct 12, 2009
My 30/2 is up and runnning, due to distance I was only able to get 25.9 on the sync and speedtests show about 21.9/1.8
I am super happy sonic customer!
http://twitpic.com/lg0hr
By Devin on Oct 13, 2009
Excellent, I’m glad to hear you’re getting good performance.
We find that many speed tests become unreliable at 6Mbps and above, even the one we host here. Ours seems to be particularly sensitive to browser and PC performance. In some cases one browser will consistently return different results than another on the same PC.
Locally, FTP is likely to give you the most reliable results. Here’s some details: FTP speed testing
The best easy off-site test we’ve found is the one at Stanford: http://netspeed.stanford.edu/
That said, with a sync just below 26Mbps, the 22Mbps of actual throughput you’re seeing is about as close to accurate as you may be able to measure. Also keep in mind that you need to allow some overhead for TCP and IP.
-Dane
By Dane Jasper on Oct 13, 2009
I am a complete novice when it comes to IT & anything related. We were recently going to upgrade but our internet providers recommended Bonded Broadband which was a much better solution for us.
By Cheries Dutton on Oct 19, 2009
Hey Dane,
Can we get an update on POTS service? And will all Fusion customers get that more or less immediately when it becomes available, or will there be another rollout schedule? Thanks!
By Jon on Nov 5, 2009
I live in B Section of Rohnert Park on the Cotati CO and it would appear as though I am at the far end of the CO range. Line noise levels are high, speeds are low (640kbps) although I think we can sync at maybe 1mbps which is still, very unimpressive.
Any hope for a poor sap in B section? This part of RP seems more or less abandoned by the city and utilities (and maybe with good reason?:)
By Matt S on Nov 5, 2009
Hi Dane,
I’m a loyal sonic.net customer of 8+ years, and been waiting for over a year now to upgrade to ADSL+ in my area (650 AC, 594 prefix). It still doesn’t appear to be available–any idea what I can expect in the coming 6-12 months?
By Mike on Nov 11, 2009