Sonic.net Status

Yay for IPv6!

Does this mean you have some native IPv6 plan?

By Alun on Jun 28, 2012

what if we buy the identical device instead of paying rent every month? do we get the same ease of service. obviously if it needed to be replaced we would have to purchase our own again.

By dana on Jun 28, 2012

Will this mean faster DSL speeds than with Fusion?

By Jon on Jun 28, 2012

I’ve had good experiences with the D-Link 2640B, which is pretty cheap and featurewise comparable (only 802.11g – they have a new version with n but that’s close to irrelevant since the ethernet ports are still 100 Mbit).

Unfortunately none of the integrated modem/routers seem to have GigE ports, nor do they support open firmware, so I still need an unsightly stack of routers and modems

By Jon on Jun 28, 2012

Will the ZTE ADSL2+ unit be able to pass IPv6 traffic once IPv6 is available on Sonic.net? Or will the new equipment be mandatory?

By David on Jun 28, 2012

I prefer to own the equipment since it ends up being cheaper than renting. Will you still be supporting other modems like you do currently? I know I have had to call a few times to get the proper settings for my Motorola modem.

By Chris on Jun 28, 2012

Would one be able to receive native IPv6 service with existing hardware? My existing device is used in bridge mode, not as a router.

By Jon V on Jun 28, 2012

Will you be offering a modem only cpe device that will work with IPv6 when it rolls out?

By David on Jun 28, 2012

What is the make and model of the equipment? Can I just buy the equipment instead of renting it?

By Stefan Lasiewski on Jun 28, 2012

Why would I want to put my own router behind it? Would that be if I wanted more than 4 hardwired ports? This is an intriguing option…

By Jennie on Jun 28, 2012

Will there be an option to purchase it outright? It’s kind of cable company-ish to have to rent a $50 router for $80 a year.

By Todd on Jun 28, 2012

How much stress testing has been done with this new equipment? I ask because the existing ZTE devices have proven unreliable and prone to overheating and crashing under what I consider to be normal (local) load when Wireless is enabled. It seems the burden of combining 3 features, DSL modem, LAN router, and wireless in one device just generated too much load (heat). Hopefully the new devices do not have the same issues.

By Oshyan Greene on Jun 28, 2012

This is rather cool. I’m too far away for Fusion, but it’s still good to see.

A concern: It looks like this is going to be a mandatory device for new customers. AT&T U-Verse has a similar mandatory device. Unfortunately, it causes big problems with those who want to run more sophisticated networks at home. Check this out:

http://ka9q.net/Uverse/static-ip.html

This rant is mostly about IPv4, but still, it serves a point. Will there be any recourse for those who need IP addressing features not supported by the default “out of the box” setup of this new Fusion device?

By Josh Lehan on Jun 28, 2012

I live at the very end of the DSL range 14,000-16,000 feet away. Will ADSL2+ make a difference for me?

By Bill Barrett on Jun 28, 2012

Being an I.T. person, will I still be able to log into the new device and review the stats, such as the signal to noise ratio, error stats, etc.? Thanks for your feedback!

By Jim Carter on Jun 28, 2012

So how does that affect those of us in Sebastopol who expect to get a fiber link soon?

By JohnM on Jun 28, 2012

I like the IPv6 tunnel Sonic.net provides. With DD-WRT, my router connects to the 6in4 tunnel and advertises addresses for devices on my home network. It is functionally the same as having native IPv6.

By Daniel on Jun 29, 2012

Will the new modems/routers support bridging mode? I like to bind all of my static IP’s to a separate device witch NAT’s the internal network. This was the main factor behind not getting the 40mbps service as it I couldn’t find a modem that did this.

By Lucas Dohring on Jun 29, 2012

I would really encourage you to keep an option for future customers to not have to rent and pay an additional $8 each month! It just raises the cost for customers who don’t need that kind of support.

Even Comcast offers an option to buy or BYO to avoid the rental fee.

By Torsten Budesheim on Jun 29, 2012

Do I understand correctly that the main technical reason you merge the modem and mandate your own router, is to ease the rollout of IPv6?

It makes sense from technical perspective to have this default for non-tech customers, due to tech support nightmare that would otherwise ensue in IPv6 area between many routers and bridges.

However, it would be nice to have bridge-only option for those of us who prefer to not have an extra layer of abstraction to troubleshoot between our custom configured router and the bridge itself.

You know… be friendly to the tech folk.

The perpetual rental fee, however, I don’t get at all. Shouldn’t it only apply to the point until overall increments add up to the equipment cost?

By Aleksey on Jun 29, 2012

Requiring equipment rental is a bad plan. I have always actively avoided services with this bogus requirement. As an existing customer, I will continue to use my current equipment, though I expect that you will make that obsolete soon.

This is the first negative comment I have ever made about Sonic. I have really enjoyed your service and your excellent customer support, and have convinced most of my family to join you. Please don’t start messing up a good thing.

By Larry on Jun 29, 2012

@Dane: For (soon to be) Sebastopol fiber customers who also have copper-wired fusion phone service, will the adsl phone lines just revert to POTS once I switch from adsl to fiber? Any plans to use the fiber bandwidth for anything other than internet (like phone, TV, etc)? Thanks from an early adopter.

By JohnM on Jun 29, 2012

I very much second Alexskey here. It’s impossible to see this as anything except a stealth fee. When I suggest Sonic to people in the future I’ll have to say “well, I pay around $50-$51/month, but you’ll pay substantially more than that”. If I move I’ll suddenly be paying substantially more than I pay today for exactly the same service (except that I’ll have custody of an effectively useless new modem).

This just isn’t consistent with how Sonic has treated customers in the past, and is frankly pretty disturbing as a harbinger even though the immediate financial impact on me is nil. If you require greater revenue then personally I’d much rather see you raise the base monthly rate and work out some other arrangement regarding the modem, than pretend you’re charging people much less than you actually are.

By Jon on Jun 29, 2012

Also, saying that you’re moving to this model as an “industry norm” is perhaps even more disturbing than the specific modem issue. I am a Sonic customer precisely because you do *not* treat people by the industry norms of AT&T, Comcast, etc. If that changes then I’ll be off to the cheapest provider instead of being happy to pay a premium for features such as speaking to customer support who speak English as their native language and treat me like a human being instead of a checklist.

By Jon on Jun 29, 2012

I understand why Sonic is doing this and I don’t think there is any hidden agenda or other anti-customer activity going on here. However, for Sonic’s mix of customers, there are clearly many people for whom this change will be worrisome, even if it doesn’t really change things much in reality. The fee is of concern, but is also relatively small, and Sonic continues to have competitive pricing despite the change.

The real concern here is, I think, some sort of “slippery slope” toward more typical (and negative) ISP policies, hidden charges, and ultimately a “customers last” attitude. I don’t think this is a harbinger of that but I recognize the concern and certainly hope it doesn’t go that way.

Sonic may have to bow to the will of their more savvy customers and offer an owned-equipment option, given that the policy is already in place to allow support of *existing* equipment. Without such allowances, some of the more dedicated customers (and biggest evangelists) may be lost.

By Oshyan Greene on Jun 29, 2012

> The real concern here is, I think, some sort of “slippery slope” toward more typical (and negative) ISP policies, hidden charges, and ultimately a “customers last” attitude.

Yes, precisely. I was a Speakeasy customer for about 6 years because they had policies and behavior much like Sonic today. Then they decided that growth and being bought out were more important and everything went to crap. Fortunately I still had an alternative, one not available to most US broadband customers, and I will be extremely sad if that changes.

By Jon on Jun 29, 2012

Thanks Dane, I appreciate your detailed and consistent communications here. Just to be clear, for my part I am not particularly bothered by this change, in fact I welcome the possibility of better equipment than the ZTE device that I’ve had historical problems with (now operating in bridged mode, it’s fine). But I do recognize the legitimacy of the concerns being expressed and wanted to add some support for alternative approaches.

In general I’m very happy with Fusion and Sonic.net overall. I’ll be even happier when fiber reaches me in San Francisco, but I’ve not heard any mention of that even being on the way, so I’m not holding my breath.

By Oshyan Greene on Jun 29, 2012

The amount of negativity is absurd. Savvy users will buy their own modem, those who don’t care will just pay the fee. It’s still cheaper than AT&T.

By Daniel on Jun 29, 2012

@dane,

“we are making progress on our SF fiber pilot in the Outer Sunset, FYI.”

- How much progress? I’m a current customer in the Inner Sunset and am curious as to when I might be able to avail of the fiber upgrade.

By hkorp on Jun 29, 2012

Outer Sunset, eh? Seems like low population density (at least compared to many other neighborhoods), but I’m sure there’s a good reason for it. I recommend the Mission as your next deployment.

By Oshyan Greene on Jun 29, 2012

Thank you for your info on the update. Not being at all techy, I don’t understand most of what you say. My phone/internet costs have definitely gone down with Sonic vs my old AT&T, but even with two phone lines, I have not noticed any increase in speeds with Fusion.
If, after my son leaves for college, I might want to drop one of my phone lines. Will my speeds decrease?
I do not want to change to your new service.

By Richard Diamond on Jun 29, 2012

I’m sure you tried to fight crossing over to the dark side for as long as possible, Dane. But once my current ADSL2+ modem is obsolete I’ll probably be moving on and leaving sonic behind. It makes just about as much sense to pay rent on a toaster as it does to pay rent on a modem.

By Todd on Jun 29, 2012

What sort of testing/certification is done on the firewall software? Does it go through any sort of periodic testing/review for bugs? Is it open-source so that it can be reviewed? I run my modem in bridged mode since I have my own firewall, but I’d consider using the new modem’s firewall.

DMZ option on the firewall sounds like a good idea. Is one of the four Ethernet ports dedicated to connect to the DMZ computer/network? Looks like the LAN Subports feature is able to dedicate a port for this purpose.

By Robert on Jun 30, 2012

Man, I want to support Sonic, and definitely would like to stay away from the big companies. I’m moving to SF and researching options. I cannot understand nor justify paying $6.50 extra per month for some mandatory equipment charge for using adsl2 on top of being forced to have a phone line (don’t want it). It’s just a little too much. I despise Verizon and AT&T, but I also need to save money.

It’s also a bit disingenuous to pitch this change as an exciting benefit to customers, when actually what was available was just fine (hence, you allowing previous customers to keep that equipment), and without being up front about the fact that the actual price goes from $39.99 to $46.49. I’m certain you won’t include that new price in the advertisements and splashes on the homepage, but instead it’ll be kept as a fine print type of charge. Am I wrong? Why not have it be an opt-in, optional, deluxe feature?

Sorry, but this is just lame.

Won’t be signing up.

By Ivan on Jun 30, 2012

While I’m not thrilled about moving to a renting the equipement model, I do see some advantages. Whatever I decide, again I am impressed by Sonic’s forthright answers and honesty. I understand needing to adapt to competition and I’m willing to pay the additional cost because Sonic has given me stellar service from day one. And that is the most important thing to me.

By Kevin Cureton on Jun 30, 2012

@dane

An insufficient response all the way around. Perhaps you can find and then cite the study that says that individuals are perfectly capable of discerning their own wants and priorities. But instead you tell those self-same individuals that they don’t actually know what they like or what they want, and that consumers are best told by the companies what actually suits their needs sufficiently. It’s pure arrogance. The issue is that you raised the prices, but you present it as if you’re doing us a favor. You’re forcing new clients to rent equipment that isn’t a necessary component to utilizing your service, and you refuse to acknowledge that it sucks.

Sorry, just because other companies force you to rent equipment you don’t need, doesn’t justify it in your case. I can understand and even get on board with incentivizing the use of multiple products, but when you say that I MUST get phone service (with all of the attendant taxes and fees) AND now that I MUST rent equipment from you in addition, and you announce it without any meaningful acknowledgement of how much that aligns with the worst and most disingenuous components of large, depersonalized commerce, then you’re really seeming to be tone-deaf and naive. You shrug this off as a fundamental component of capitalism and in doing so you conveniently absolve your company of any culpability in contributing to the worst part capitalism: the de-personalization and ignorance of the individual.

I am not opposed to raising prices for an improvement in service, I’m just opposed to being told that it’s a joyful thing and that I don’t know any better. I can go to Comcast for that.

By Ivan on Jun 30, 2012

Why not simply sell the Sonic.net customized version of the Pace 4111N like you have in the past? It would be a much more palatable option to me.

Here is a question for the other techies out there. How complicated will it be to connect some other ipv6 compatible modem once Sonic’s IPv6 service is in place?

By David on Jun 30, 2012

David – the new equipment we’re using would require us to bump up the unit cost significantly from previous offerings. By stretching the cost of the device out over many months, we hope to get an excellent CPE out there, reduce the initial pocketbook pain involved with a new circuit, and not lose our shirts. It’s a balancing act, to be sure.

By John Fitzgerald on Jun 30, 2012

@dane,

Please don’t condescend to tell me the “realities” of commerce. Firstly, how you “feel” and the “realities” are two very different things, and you have a perfect example of a consumer (me) providing an example of an actual reality (not derived from a focus group), and instead of listening, and recognizing the opportunity to connect and clarify, you’re resorting to pompous platitudes. Stop it. I am eager to support Sonic because I want a smaller, more personal alternative to the other options that are out there.

As for the advanced announcement, you posted that entry on the 28th of June, that’s 2 business days to take action, hardly a benevolent gesture of goodwill.

And as to your last point, my indignation is of course not at your raising prices (if you’d read my last post, you know that; in fact, here’s a quote: “I am not opposed to raising prices for an improvement in service…”), but actually my derision is directed at being told that I like it, and that it’s better for me, and that I don’t actually know what I like, and that I don’t understand American commerce, and that you were thinking ahead by announcing it ‘in advance.’ But of course, you don’t have the decency and goodwill to level with us by saying, for example, “this amounts to an increase in price,” or “it is actually not necessary equipment, but we are trying to raise revenue,” or “we recognize that raising prices in this economy is a tough pill to swallow and we’re really sorry.”

Of course that’s the least you could do. What would be truly revolutionary would be for you to avoid following the unfortunate practices of your really crappy competitors who use bulk survey analysis to make decisions but refuse to listen to individuals who are frustrated.

BTW, I actually did try to sign up today, and was told that somebody would call me. It’s 4:15, and still no call…

By Ivan on Jun 30, 2012

$99 at Best Buy.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Pace—Home-Portal-802.11n-Router/4845848.p?id=1218548311950&skuId=4845848

By David on Jun 30, 2012

Granted, without the Sonic firmware.

By David on Jun 30, 2012

Getting Internet and phone with Sonic.net was cheaper than getting only Internet with Comcast and AT&T. They’ve already got a loop of copper coming into your house, why not apply 5 volts to it and throw in phone service while their at it? If Sonic didn’t provide telephone service everyone would be complaining about it. It’s much simpler for a CLEC like Sonic to have a single unified product rather than trying to run around the whole Bay Area supporting multiple combinations of a la carte services.

There is a lot of stuff you get for free with Sonic…like shell access, no data caps, web hosting, voicemail, full-name caller id. If you had to get all the same services from AT&T, Sonic would look like a bargain.

There are also things you can’t buy from AT&T or Comcast, like fighting for customer’s privacy rights. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576613284007315072.html

By Daniel on Jun 30, 2012

I have an iffy AT&T landline through which i get Sonic’s phone+DSL service, and i have been very happy with Sonic’s service. I’ll be happy to pay an additional seven bucks a month for an improved DSL connection.

By Louis Bryan AKA "Matte Gray" on Jun 30, 2012

Dane, does the new modem offer any benefits for those of us on 10K+ foot loops?

By Chuck Fry on Jun 30, 2012

I should have mentioned we currently have the ZTE box Sonic.net supplied when we first hooked up with you. I’m not thrilled with that box’s feature set, or ADSL speeds on our loop, but it has been fairly reliable.

By Chuck Fry on Jun 30, 2012

wow. it’s really sucks finding out about the new mandate equipment rental after the clock ticked pass midnight into 7/1. Thanks so much Dane for the 2days notice. But for now, I’ll stay with ATT. Not providing customer with a choice is NOT an American way of doing business. I wholeheartedly agree with Ivan that you and your company are very arrogant and do not care about your customers or prospective customer input. First, you control your customers by making decision for them on what they should get (additional landline + modem rental). I hate companies who treat people like dummies, incapable of making their own decisions. Sonic.net is not being honest in implementing a price increase. If your company really cares about how each individual feels, you should conduct a poll survey. My 2cents.

By Dan on Jul 1, 2012

@dane

Not sure what we disagree on, as you’ve yet to respond directly to a single point. So far you’ve set me up as somebody who’s indignant to change, who doesn’t know what I actually want and who doesn’t understand american commerce. I suppose I disagree with you on all of that. But that I still don’t know how you justify the move.

That said, I signed up yesterday, just before the cutoff. I dislike the kind of tactics you’ve displayed thus far, as I think they’re insulting and disingenuous, but I nonetheless appreciate the forum to let you know. And in the grand scheme, this option is better than the alternatives.

By Ivan on Jul 1, 2012

*sigh* I had been a long-term sonic subscriber (referring several friends and members of my family) until I moved out of range a couple of years ago. Now that Fusion is in my area, I was contemplating switching back, but with the extra charges I may have to rethink it. This is especially annoying as I check the Sonic.net website regularly to see whats happening, but I missed the 2 day warning window. It would have been nice if it was a 14 day window so I could have put my order in.

Is there a write up of the functionality available in the new equipment? I am a fairly heavy user of port forwarding.

By mike on Jul 1, 2012

What if consumers just want a standalone modem like the ZTE series? The all-in-one configuration might be nice but I already have my own wireless router.

I’ve been a customer for a year and after hearing this *mandatory* modem rental for new customers, I don’t think my friends would go to Sonic. It would be better if consumers have more choices such as being able to purchase the modem or their own modem instead of paying a monthly rental fee. Why limit the options?

By David on Jul 1, 2012

For now I will stay with my old Sonic equipment. But since your customer service is so outstanding, there is no way I would change my provider away from you.
Thanks!

By Richard Diamond on Jul 1, 2012

Talk about stirring up a hornets nest. I for one depend on the high quality service sonic offers, and fusion is one of the best values in the industry. While I may not choose to upgrade to the new equipment, I feel sonic will continue to deliver the value and reliability we have all come to enjoy.

Improved service and support is a good thing. We shouldn’t complain about it.

By jm on Jul 2, 2012

Right on Jim! As I am a happy 11 + years and counting current customer of Sonic.net, I agree: “Improved service and support is a good thing. We shouldn’t complain about it”.
Thank you Dane & your crew for increasing value year after year.

By Eric on Jul 2, 2012

I think there’s one very simple question that hasn’t been addressed: Why don’t customers have the option to buy the new modem from Sonic instead of renting it? $6.50 a month is a great deal if the modem lasts for, say, only a year before failing, but I would feel that I’m being taken advantage of if I it lasts for four years and I end up paying, in effect, $312 for a $100 modem. Why not give me the option to buy the modem and assume the risk of equipment failure?

By Jay on Jul 3, 2012

Dane, I understand that it costs Sonic money to provide us with Fusion services and that you need to be profitable. It’s possible that you’d have to charge a premium, well above the $100 price of an off-the-shelf unit, in order to support your plans for growth and other goals, but that is justified since Sonic’s firmware, custom settings, etc., add value to the hardware. I’m not saying you should do this for free, but I do think it would be wise to offer your customers a choice between renting and purchasing, if only to differentiate Sonic from your competitors who deny consumers that option.

By Jay on Jul 3, 2012

“The rental and the equipment supports the advance replacement of failed equipment, ongoing upgrades and overall integration of the equipment into the service. This facilitates more features and customer tools, plus ongoing upgrades (which might be software or hardware) when needed.” -Dane

So you’re introducing this new router because the failure rate of past devices outpaced what customers paid for them?

—–

“The new equipment runs quite cool, and has been reliable in our testing. One thing to bear in mind with equipment renting is that if it’s unreliable, we will bear the cost of dealing the the issues, so we also really want to make sure it works consistently.” -Dane

“It has a good analog front-end chip, a good Broadcom implementation and a twisted pair line cord, so it’s “as good as possible”” -Dane

“My team has engaged in extensive testing of the equipment – and this particular model of modem is in use by millions of DSL end-users today on other carrier’s networks. We’re optimistic that it’ll be a solid performer.” -Dane

And now you’ll offset that imbalance by charging a rental fee for a device that is expected to be far more reliable?

—–

“it has become the industry norm to rent equipment alongside service, and to remain on a level competitive playing field, we must adapt. Both UVerse and Xfinity have equipment rental, at $6/mo and $7/mo respectively.” -Dane

The $6.50 fee fits rather neatly between what ATT and Comcast charge. Competition is about offering a better deal. Why not charge $3 or $4 instead?

—–

“We are not forcing you to rent equipment. You signed up before that was the offering. If and when the modem you own breaks, you could just go buy a new one.” -Dane

So if my old (unreliable) equipment fails, I would have to pay full price for a replacement out of pocket or join the ranks of equipment renters. How long do you figure that Chinese-made ZTE you shipped to me a few weeks ago will last?

—–

“equipment rental supports the cost of our pool of modem inventory including future replacements if needed, the hosted back-end support portal and management system (which we pay an annual per-customer fee for), the diagnostic and loop optimization system (which we pay a monthly per-customer fee for) and support overhead including shipping to/from of replacement equipment.” -Dane

“This is a conscious decision on our part, we are managing the supply (staff availability) and demand (customers and their support calls) curve as we make gradual changes to the product. We must maintain adequate staffing availability to serve well the customers we have today, else we will lose what has been most hard won: their loyalty.” -Dane

Seems like you’re lacking adequate funding for operating costs and support staff. Shouldn’t that expense fall under the Fusion monthly rate rather than equipment fees?

—–

As some have already stated, the issue is not so much about raising the price of Fusion service, but rather adopting deceptive practices of the very competitors Sonic claims to set itself apart from. We can all understand that it’s hard for a small fish to keep swimming in such a big ocean, but the fish has to be honest with its customers. I would have understood and accepted a higher base rate for Fusion service. I can’t, however, justify the “equipment rental fee” *asterisk in the fine-print. It downright contradicts the “NOT an intro price” and “no contracts” selling points. It also undermines Sonic’s image for new and existing customers alike.
And that ’2-day notice for prospective customers’ is, quite frankly, a joke.

By Alex on Jul 3, 2012

I’d like access to the user manual for this modem, so I could look into what features its software provides.

By Robert on Jul 4, 2012

I’m hoping there’s no need to install software on a Windows or Mac computer in order to control this, that it is purely a web interface, since I run FreeBSD at home.

By Robert on Jul 4, 2012

How well does this router support the relatively large number of connections made by typical BitTorrent clients, or has this been tested?

By Robert on Jul 4, 2012

Dear Sonic.net,
I love your Fusion service and the value proposition it offered. I am one of the few who actively promote your Fusion offering to everyone I know and come across. I don’t gain anything from that activity beside the satisfaction that people will get a better deal from you.
In the few short weeks I have promoted your offering, you have gained an additional 10 new customers because they believe in the value proposition I have pointed out in your Fusion offering (without the rental requirement).
However, since finding out about this new modem rental requirement today, I have opted to stop promoting your Fusion product. It is very much like one of the previous commentator has said – it is very cable company like. I have three new potential customers that I have convinced to switch from AT&T this week. However, I now have to point out to them to pause and factor in the extra $78/year that you are looking to get from them.
Thank you for offering the Fusion the way it was. I am a happy customer of that. Please consider continue offering Fusion without equipment rental.

By eric on Jul 4, 2012

I’ve probably referred and outright set up about 6 friends to sonic since I switched over and I’m also switching from enthusiastic advocate to actively warning people away.

And please stop with the “everyone else does it”. In a child it’s a teachable moment, in an adult it’s pathetic and just plain unacceptable when it comes from a corporation.

By Todd on Jul 4, 2012

“http://gateway.sonic.net/” ?

Wait, so this new setup comes with mandatory “cloud” management interface?

Cisco just forced this on their customers. Did someone miss the backlash?

Nobody wants to “cloud manage” devices that are located in their own house. It’s a security hole, and an information leak.

All in all, thumbs down.

By Aleksey on Jul 4, 2012

Yeah, so far Dane et al. have cited the recent tactics of really, really shi*ty companies as justification for making the moves they make, with a subtext that it’s a necessity in order to stay competitive.

But, in the same breath, they brag about being different, about being disruptive, about being better. I suppose we are supposed to take it on faith that endorsing (by copying) the worst current practices of the absolute worst companies possible doesn’t signal anything to worry about. But it sure would be nice if they could be straight up and vocalize the reasons, or better yet, if they could think bigger, and less like scared sycophants.

Anybody looks good when compared to the worst possible example, but that doesn’t make you actually good. Beating the last place team doesn’t make you a contender; kicking a toddler’s ass doesn’t make you tough.

Ingenuity, quality, creativity, and goodness are not relative terms.

By Ivan on Jul 4, 2012

I have to say this is the worst thing I have seen in a long time. I live in a U-Verse exclusive building now and as such cannot have Sonic.net service, but I was incredibly eager to get the service once I moved.

Now, I will actively suggest people look elsewhere. There are several things wrong with this move:

1) Whining “but everybody else does it, mom!” as an excuse for adding a hidden below-the-line fee is completely despicable. First off, U-Verse doesn’t charge for equipment rental unless you have one of the top-speed tiers or also have TV or Phone service. You can get U-Verse Internet Only (up to 12Mb/s) and have customer-owned equipment. I know, because I have it. Second, I thought the whole POINT of your operation was to disrupt and to not be like everyone else. If you’re just going to become another scummy telco, that’s a very disappointing turn of events.

2) Your fee is not disclosed in a way that is honest and forthcoming. $39.95* is in approximately 42-point type, and the $6.50 “equipment fee” is in 8-point type. Just call it $46.50* (*plus [expletive-removed] fees we try to pretend are taxes but are actually just another way of us increasing the rate, like the USF surcharge, but hey, everybody else does it so apparently that makes it OK) and be done with it. The practice of burying sneaky fees in is despicable. The arguments of “if we do it this way, savvy customers are better off” is irrelevant. You are required to pay it, there’s no way out of it, so you cannot justify hiding it (or even itemizing it IMO). There’s no way to NOT pay you $6.50 a month in additional profit, I mean, equipment charges.

3) Oh, it turns out there’s ALSO an $8.72 (that’s awfully specific) shipping fee for the modem, that is only disclosed if you click through to the equipment page. That’s not even listed on the page with your initial fee disclosure. For pete’s sake, you can’t argue that you mandate rentals to try to spread shipping costs out (rolleyes) in one post then also charge for shipping the damn modem. There’s also a $75 installation fee that isn’t disclosed unless you click around, and a $35 “pay us this fee for the privilege of paying us money every month” fee that, to your credit, is disclosed.

Come on, guys. You have a great deal. Probably the best deal. Advertising it in this confusing, opaque way does not do you any favors. You don’t need every customer; it is probably substantially cheaper to you to only service customers who are capable of figuring out that your advertised fee (assuming you actually advertised the actual fee) is cheaper than a cable company’s “$39.95 a month”.

What exactly is wrong with saying “Fusion DSL and Voice service, including equipment, is $50.00 a month plus government-required taxes only. Click here to calculate your exact bill based on your ZIP code”? You could even compare that to the advertised prices from major providers to illustrate their confusing, opaque, and unpredictable pricing… or you could ‘compete’ with them by doing exactly what they’re doing.

Hopefully you guys change your mind.

By Greg on Jul 4, 2012

I think Greg’s comments, while a tad bit harsh, are very valid. I’ve been a very happy Sonic customer for many years (especially this last year or so once Fusion was available in my area) but I too balked a bit at the $6.50 service fee. It’s not a lot of money, now, but will it eventually go to $7.00, $7.50….? I’m assuming that the additional fees Greg pointed out are for new customers ($75 installation fee, $35 credit/debit use fee) and not for those of us who choose to upgrade to the newer modems or need to replace our ZTEs because of failure or problems. It would appear the the use of the new modems will be an eventuality for most of us so how about waiving all of the additional fees (shipping, installation, etc) for existing, long time customers (we are the ones who have helped you grow) and just send us out a new modem when requested and/or needed and charge only the $6.50 service fee?

By Scott on Jul 5, 2012

I think Sonic.net is going the wrong direction. It tried to get more customers by adding features like Static IP, free call to Canada, free call even to Guam/Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands, 250MB Disk Storage, 1GB hosted bandwidth that majority of people don’t really need. All those cost money. To make up for it, they charge this rental fee which angry all their customers which in turn no one promote Sonic.net anymore. If they want to make more money, they should just cut those features that majority of customers don’t need(charge some small fee for those that want them). Come up with new features that they can charge monthly fee but not something like modem that cost <$70 to buy it out right.

By JC on Jul 6, 2012

I just priced out ATT service for something similar to fusion as I’m looking for access to espn3 online – something you can’t get with Sonic. The equipment fee was waived for a 12 year contract and if you go fewer months than that you pay a flat fee for the equipment. With the new modem rental fees fusion is now very close in price to ATT.

By Jenna on Jul 7, 2012

I have been a Sonic/Fusion customer for just shy of two years. I am tending toward liking this development.

Eventually IPv6 will actually be required. This seems like a good way to help get there with less stress.

I am at about the 10,000 foot range, so this change does not do much for me one way or the other, so I might wait until it is time to replace my wifi router. When that time comes I suspect I will be happy to switch to the lease.

By Doug on Jul 7, 2012

@Aleksey

The “gateway.sonic.net” thing is a fake/intercept address that will point at the Sonic.net interface on your CPE (router/modem). It’s not Cisco-style hijacking or anything.

My Vonage V-portal device does the same sort of thing (if I hit “v-configure.com” from behind it, I get the management web interface on the ATA). It should also have an IP address of course, so that if your DNS overrides this interpretation, you can still manage the box.

By Rob on Jul 7, 2012

I have got to agree with Greg and Scott. This change is not something that makes me comfortable recommending Sonic to other people. $6.50 per month is not a good deal. Sure, some people will like the convenience of not having to worry about equipment, but I know I do not want some mandated piece of equipment to access your service. The only piece of equipment that I have no choice about is a Comcast CableCard (for which they credit me $2.50 a month to take in lieu of a cable box). I have not and do not intend to ever take a mandated modem/router for a fee disguised as a service benefit. It disappoints me that a company I previously had no problem recommending now seems no different from everyone else, activation fees, modem fees (and to add insult to injury shipping fees), installation fees. I hope that it improves your bottom line in the short term, but I think in the long term you are digging yourself into a hole.

If I was a new customer looking for service today, I would certainly no longer pick Sonic.

By Oliver on Jul 8, 2012

I will no longer be recommending Sonic to my friends because of this change. It was bad enough that you forced phone service with Fusion along with the phony official sounding required $6.50 subscriber line fee, now you charge another $6.50 modem fee.

And the excuse of everyone is doing it so we will too is ridiculous. Both AT&T and Comcast allow customer-owned equipment. They don’t force rentals. Not to mention your business model was built being different in a good way from the big companies.

By R on Jul 9, 2012

Does this new recurring charge and movement to following the “industry norm” mean we’ll be able to get ESPN3 now… (for an additional recurring charge).

http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2010/06/16/full-circle/

By Alun on Jul 9, 2012

Before I left for vacation I decided to switch ISPs from Comcast to Sonic. I didn’t place my order then due to the duration of my trip. Sadly, when I returned and wanted to place my order Sonic had a new package which requires new subscribers to rent equipment. This is a huge disappointment and turn-off!

By Ryan on Jul 9, 2012

@R Agreed… Even with AT&T U-verse they allow you to purchase the modem if you are only getting internet and phone.

By S on Jul 10, 2012

I was just about to sign up, but this deceptive way of doing business makes me mad and disappointed. I thought sonic was different from the major providers, but sadly I was wrong. You will not get my business or recommendation any longer.

By Colin on Jul 15, 2012

Do the new Sonic-provided modems support ADSL2 Annex L
(reach-extended ADSL, for your distance-challenged
customers)? If so, does Sonic have any actual
experience with customers using Annex L?

By John on Jul 18, 2012

(I’m late to the party on this topic.)

I can understand Sonic’s desire to simplify installation and maintenance; trying to support a mixed-bag of CPE can be a support nightmare, especially for a service that has a lot of other variables such as DSL. But what a lot of people here are choking on is the economic rationalization of the monthly fee. Will there be any promise (guarantee?) of a modem upgrade at any point in the future? A few years from now the original device will be generations behind (no 802.11ac, MIMO support, etc.) yet we will still be paying the same $6.50 per month. That makes us feel like suckers, and that does not make for happy customers.

I have a proposal for Sonic: pro-rate the modem fee after the first year and let us feel better about continuing to use older equipment. Drop it to zero after three years. Your best customers are the ones who never call for support and simply pay their bills every month. Give long-term and loyal customers an incentive to recommend your service.

(If, instead, your business projections include the modem fee as part of your future revenue, raise your price instead and be honest about it. We can handle that, but non-negotiable equipment rental is unpalatable no matter which industry does it.)

By Don on Jul 19, 2012

I was a happy Sonic.net customer at the place I lived some years back before a couple moves. The reputation for excellent customer service, value, and none of the crap pulled by other ISPs was well earned and lead me to recommend them to many people in the years since.

I’ve had my eye on the Fusion DSL service for awhile now, and when our AT&T uVerse modem died I figure it was a good time to switch since it is now available here. I have another compatible modem, but AT&T wouldn’t activate it since it wasn’t provided by them. Fortunately I knew that Sonic.net would function as long as it met the standards. I called up the sales number tonight to check on prices and times and was told that I could use my modem, but I would have to pay an equipment rental fee anyway.

What?? There must be some mistake! I am talking to Sonic.net? The service is $40 / month, right? That’s what I saw advertised.

That’s right.

But there’s also a mandatory additional charge whether or not I use my own equipment? If it’s part of the monthly price, and not optional, why isn’t it advertised as such?

I decided not to order the service. I figured the sales person I spoke with must have been confused, so I came online to search for more details, and found this post. This cannot be! I come to Sonic.net because I know there are no gimmicks, no games, just straightforward service. Don’t throw away your sterling reputation this way. If your costs or margin are too low, raise your prices, that’s fine. But don’t become just another service provider that I cannot trust and must carefully scrutinize the fine print for gotchas to let me down. For now, I will stop recommending Sonic.net to my friends.

Please, please reconsider this change and return to providing honest excellent service for a transparent cost.

By Dave on Jul 19, 2012

They haven’t been charging that to me so far. Perhaps it’s because I have dry loop DSL, but they are actually not charging any extra fees, just the exact $38 / month quoted. If they allow me to purchase a modem for a reasonable price that will continue to work with them without extra fees, then I will stick with them. At least for now.

By Dave on Jul 20, 2012

Dane,

I know that you’re just waiting for the noise to die down and for people to accept your modem rental, but believe me, you would be more appealing to future customers if you would just admit that this was a marketing blunder and raise your monthly base rate. That is far more acceptable to customers like me than for you to add this bogus “rental” fee. You are still the best deal in my area even at the higher rate.

By candl on Jul 20, 2012

candl’s comment++

I think it’s worth noting that I work for a large network tech company, people turn to me to ask what do I recommend, I was always saying sonic.net. I asked someone who is more senior than me, and left the bay area 12 years ago, it was that person who suggested sonic through their connections.

I think this company does very well from it’s reputation, and that’s a hard thing to resurrect when it’s gone.

By Alun on Jul 20, 2012

Dane,

How about “grandfathering” in existing Fusion customers when they need to/want to upgrade and just apply the fee to new customers?

By scasse on Jul 21, 2012

So if I decide to upgrade my Comtrend, what is the cost of the new “modem” and will it be fully supported if I buy it outright and not opt to pay the monthly $6.50 service fee?

By scasse on Jul 21, 2012

I’m glad I found this thread. I have been planning to sign up with sonic.net (have been with speakeasy for years), and have always heard good things about sonic. I was getting ready to put in an order. The mandatory equipment rental absolutely means I will not go with sonic. Either sell the hardware one time, or support other hardware. Otherwise there are a large number of users you will never acquire.

By Mark on Jul 24, 2012

Sonic is still one of the best ISPs around, especially if you can get their Fusion service, and their customer support is top notch. This new service fee is definitely a blemish on their otherwise excellent reputation. I’m not happy about it either so I sincerely hope they reconsider this.

By Scott on Jul 24, 2012

I’m curious if Sonic is willing to listen to some of the concerns raised here? Obviously, it has touched a nerve, as there are 125 responses on this thread already.

1) Choice of equipment.

Will third-party equipment (customer-owned modems) still be allowed on Sonic’s network for new subscribers (not just grandfathered subscribers), or will third-party equipment be banned?

2) Purchase option.

Is there a way to get out of the $6.50/month price increase by buying the modem outright, or perhaps buying it over time on the installment plan (as Pacific Bell used to allow, back in the days of expensive telephones)? Otherwise, it isn’t a “modem rental”, but an unavoidable surcharge. Which leads me to:

3) Honesty.

It would seem much more honest if Sonic were to simply announce a base price increase of $6.50/month and drop the entire idea of the separate “modem rental” charge. Only the most naive of all customers fall for the old trick of lowballing the base price (making it up on surcharges), and Sonic’s customers tend to be exactly the opposite!

Thanks for reading this!

Josh

By Josh Lehan on Jul 24, 2012

I wonder how much of the pushback is because of the integrated router, versus just the modem. Some people are (justifiably) selective about their routers, whereas a modem is just another piece of faceless telco equipment.

Sonic understandably wants to streamline the DSL installation and maintenance, and bundling their own modem makes sense to eliminate variables. I personally wouldn’t mind so much if the cost went up, say, two dollars a month and included a ‘rental’ modem, if it helps Sonic with the troubleshooting.

But the router is a different matter. Not only are they subject to rapid development (and thus obsolescence in some cases), but many people have personal preferences and features that they desire. Sonic’s response is to turn their equipment into a bridge and still use your own personal router, but then the monthly rental fee really stings.

I don’t know if such a DSL modem exists (probably not), but what if Sonic offered, for less per month, an optimized modem as part of their monthly fee that served their diagnostic needs, but left the choice of router to the customer? (They could still offer the new modem/router as an upgrade for those who want it.) Would people find that more acceptable?

By Don on Jul 25, 2012

@Don – I would not find that more acceptable (I already have a GigE router attached to my own router/modem).

I do not necessarily object to Sonic charging more money, because I want them to be able to stay in business. I do very much object to Sonic hiding how much people are paying in tiny footnotes and layers of obfuscation, while approvingly saying they are adopting industry standard practices. If I wanted industry standard treatment of customers I’d be on Comcast – and getting much higher download speeds than Fusion can deliver.

It’s nice and all that as a current customer I am not currently affected by this new behavior – until they change their minds – but meaningless compared the loss of trust in Dane that I’ve had as a result of how he’s approached this issue. As a direct result of this I will no longer recommend Sonic to potential new customers.

By Jon on Jul 25, 2012

Dane – If you refuse to sell the Pace 4111N with the Sonic custom firmware, would you at least provide a link so users can install the firmware themselves, on their own Pace 4111N’s?

By Drew on Jul 26, 2012

Grandfathering in old customers is great, as long as you happen to be an old customer. I’ve had my current dsl line for almost 10 years. From the Sonic reputation I was expecting to do the same with Sonic. Maybe I’d be grandfathered into some new setup at some point. But now I don’t know if I’ll ever find out.

I’m in the unfortunate boat of planning to switch to sonic but only now getting around to it… after 1 July. I am responsible for two friends switching to sonic earlier in the year (and they’re both happy as clams), at a time when I was unable. I’m now able but I’m really torn as to whether I’m still willing. The whole modem fee fiasco (which is what I consider it to be) really grates. It was a shock when I went to the web page today to start the sign up process and found extra fees. Especially given what I know about the past history of sonic. This is the last thing I expected to find – Sonic apparently behaving just like any other big company out there.

I have no problem paying a reasonable cost (one time!) for a specific *modem* the provider requires to connect the line. But to pay $6.50 per month just doesn’t sit right when that fee will/should pay for the router many times over in the end. How much will that fee be next month? Or next year? Will the line fee be bumped one month and the router fee the next in order to hide aggregate increases? Etc.

The gig switch I have just died so I figured I’d upgrade my old wireless router to N along with gig lan ports. If I had bought that and gone with sonic it’d be essentially worthless. Either that or, from comments above, I could use the DMZ setting on the sonic router in which case I’m paying $6.50/month for… a modem.

The rental fee and all that it implies along with the way it was presented has me once again looking for a new internet provider. And that’s too bad because there was so much good about sonic… until this.

Remember, goodwill is one of the hardest of things to obtain and easiest to lose.

Finally, I’ll note that along with my line I was going to have two family members switch (1 comcast, 1 att) to sonic. Now I’m not so sure that’ll be happening either.

By Andy on Aug 2, 2012

So today a friend asked me: “who was that ISP you loved when you were in the San Francisco?”

So I said “well, it’s complicated”, and have sent them to this link…

By Alun on Aug 4, 2012

@dane New police of requiring customers to rent a modem is a huge disappointment. I’m moving to another place and I was recommended by sonic support to order a new service before the move. I’m glad that Sonic support advised of possibility of keeping my old equipment and not renting a new one – otherwise I would cancel my order for a new service.

It is complete obstruction of truth that both evil companies (or industry as you say) does not allow BYOD. You can buy Pace 411N from ATT for $100 and you can BYOD to Comcast. Both of them are just having rental option as a default, but you have a choice. If you short on revenue – just say that your service costs $44 not $40, but give us a choice.

I’m fine with buying a new equipment to simplify things for Sonic, I’m even fine with buying Pace 411N if you wish, but I will use it as a modem – I don’t need any new security holes in my home network.

As concerning Sonic offering – I’m and old school and I want POTS service in my new place. I almost do not use it as in fact Sonic internet because of the slow connection speed, but I want to have it as a backup for Comcrap services just in case I need it and static ip option seals the deal.

I hope that Sonic will re-consider it’s policies about rental equipment and it will offer a choice for a willing customers…

Thanks in advance,
Roman

By Roman Avdanin on Aug 16, 2012

I hope soon you will update the boulder creek area. I one of alos of high techer’s that would like to get off att and get real 12mb internet.

Gary

By Gary Argue on Aug 18, 2012

I just found this link after someone I recommended Sonic.net to told
me they had to lease a modem.

So, here are my thoughts:

1) Saying Xfinity or others rent equipment is disingenuous at best, as
I just bought my sister-in-law a modem from Costco that we use on
Xfinity. Indeed, when I called them, they said “yup, sure, here’s the
list of approved devices”:

http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/

Woa. Now, I hate the cable companies, but, really, this was really
cool. And arguably the right thing to do.

2) Saying “We bake custom firmware for our modems” is great. I’m
totally fine with that. I’m even fine with a list of one device,
purchasable only through you. In two years, you’ll pay $156, or $56
over what @dane said is the rough cost of the modem. I’ve been with
Sonic.net for 6 years. If this had been in place since when I
started, I’d have paid $468 for that $100 modem.

3) What’s the upgrade policy? Because if someone I recommend goes
this route, I’d also suggest they email every month and ask if there’s
a new modem they can get. Because if you’re leasing it, you should be
able to get the latest and greatest with every release, right?

4) One thing I love about Sonic is that it is the ISP not only known
for quality, but for the fact they have a clue. And that attracts
people like me, that (hopefully) have a clue. Run their own
equipment, web servers, mail servers, etc. I was annoyed before that
I can’t get rid of my sonic.net email address, but at least they
forwarded it to /dev/null. Until Sonic.net *ONLY* notified my
sonic.net email address when I switched to Fusion. . . Grr. Anyway,
my point is, you (the collect Sonic.net you, not just @dane) have
angered a bunch of geeks who know better. Your arguments are great if
you are striving to be the next Comcast, and connect just anyone. And
I’m not against that. I just think you should have a “I know what the
heck I’m doing” switch and let those of us who think we know what
we’re doing flip it. And get a straight-up bridging device.

5) I think it’s insane that your Equipment Policy states that we don’t
have to use the equipment, but we have to keep it (see “Fusion &
Legacy DSL Customers under
https://wiki.sonic.net/wiki/Equipment_Policy). Seriously? I’m even
fine with you just saying “Fusion costs $6.50 more per month, with or
without equipment”, ’cause I ain’t gonna keep your equipment in a box
waiting for the day I need it.

6) What on earth are these features? I mean, the only thing the modem
should be doing is handling the signaling on the line. What is going
to require specified equipment on the downlink for IPv6? You’re
saying the downlink will use voodoo magic to get packets to the
router/modem, and that device will transmogrify them into actual
ethernet packets that are legitimate IPv6 packets?

7) Stop telling people to double-NAT. That’s unnecessary and a waste
of processing power, and all it does is add latency. Sure, it’s
small, but come on. I control my own PTR records and expect to be
able to get packets from IPs I control and send them out with
addresses I specify. I don’t want to screw around with some stupid
web interface when I have my PF rules set up on my OpenBSD firewall to
handle it all.

I cannot argue the benefits of a lease option on the router.
Undoubtedly it’s the greatest thing since the Internet was invented,
and you’ll have accolades heaped on you for how great it is to just
get this magic box that does everything.

However, it would appear there are plenty of us who don’t want that,
and clearly only a small number of us have found this thread and
bothered to comment.

I was looking forward to FiOS when it came into town. Now I’m
concerned. I don’t mind having to have a special piece of equipment
on my end — but I *REALLY* bristle at the notion of renting
something. For all the bluster about how you guys can manage,
upgrade, handle, fix, diagnose, make the world a happier place, the
truth is by not letting us buy the equipment, you’re just lining your
pockets. Unless you put your money where your mouth is and send out
replacement routers when something new comes along.

Just my $0.02.

Sean

By Sean Kamath on Aug 20, 2012

Hi Dane,

I appreciate your candor in responding to the inputs here, and I appreciate that you are running a business, not just trying to keep us happy. But I was very disappointed by this latest hiccup.

FYI, I ordered sonic.net a few months ago, had a great experience with it, and recommended it to my daughter, who is setting herself up as a starving student in a new apartment. She just got dinged with the new additional $6.50 for “required equipment rental”. (Not helped by the fact that it was back-billed to 2 weeks before her service started.) I was willing to help her out by covering the insane phone taxes that Fusion comes with because Sonic won’t unbundle the DSL from the phone service she doesn’t need, but this no longer makes economic sense. AT&T is willing to sell her a modem + router for $100, offers a dry DSL line for $19.95/mo for a year (about what Sonic bills for the DSL part of Fusion), doesn’t impose the equipment rental fee, and doesn’t charge any phone-line taxes. Even after the rate bumps up to their regular one, it’s still going to be cheaper than Sonic by about $18/month – over $200/year. That’s a lot for a student.

Addressing the repeated requests to allow people to buy your modem/router might help address some of the anguish – that does seem to be the main gripe, even though it’ll still not address more than half of the AT&T price advantage.

By the way, I still haven’t seen any answer to the repeated questions about equipment upgrades.

Thanks for listening.

By john wilkes on Aug 27, 2012

@dane,

thanks for the pointer about 6rd. So, the implication is you’ll be using your address prefix? for my local network? And when I go elsewhere, I guess I don’t take my IP6 addrs with me (not unlike today, but I was hoping. . .)

One thing that really chaffs with me is that a) you own the router, b) it’s *WAY* more than I actually want (I have always just wanted a pipe, not a web site, email address, wireless AP, router, etc — I *DO* like the POTS line, however), and c) because you own the router, you can do whatever the hell you want to with it. That last bothers me, since now I now longer have control over when, how or if my router gets a firmware upgrade.

I’m not thrilled with the IPv6rd stuff, either, as it’s a riff on 6to4. Sounding rather like FCoE in a way. Regardless, I’d prefer to see you folks have a true IPv6 infrastructure, and my IPv6 router can talk to your IPv6 router, and my packets can egress your network to the larger Internet. And my modem be just a modem, a means of sending packets to the other side.

Much as Audiophiles have, for years, had discreet components which individually could be upgraded and purchased to provide the best possible sound reproduction, many of us geeks want to do essentially the same thing with our network gear.

Being forced to pay for that all-in-one stereo rental (8-track included!) when you just want the amplifier. . . Sigh.

At least you’re listening. And responding.

Sean

By Sean Kamath on Aug 27, 2012

Oh god how I wish I signed up for Sonic.net 1 year ago; I got baited by AT&T’s 15/mo for 1 yr deal…

By De Ming Liu on Aug 31, 2012

I just want to add that I am not happy with this mandatory/no option rental fee either. It does make me suspicious of Sonic, the company I went with 15 (or more?) years ago because it was different, better, personal; it seemed to treat its customers as individuals, allowing them great options and a unique, exemplary service. Does it now mainly want to be bigger– in which case it will end up only being the same.

By Denise on Sep 26, 2012

I was about to make the switch from ATT DSL to sonic.net but after seeing the mandatory rental fee I have reconsidered to go to try out Comcast.

By Lawrence on Oct 26, 2012

Sonic, I guess the mandatory Modem fee is about money, nothing else. The modem cost what a 100 dollars. I thought Sonic was anout service being the best and cost effective, not taking your customer for a modern fee.

By Gary on Oct 26, 2012

The justification that this is “industry standard” is horrible reasoning. Poor customer support also is “industry standard”. A change like this creeps sonic.net closer to being like comcast and AT&T. I would think sonic.net’s modus operandi would be to differentiate themselves as much as possible from these two horrible firms. Luckily, I know that you guys still do differentiate, but this puts a dent in my enthusiasm when doing word of mouth (not to mention the hidden voice fees, at a time when more people do not want landline voice service and see this as an unnecessary tax).

I look at a DSL modem as a long term investment. I expect my modem to last 4+ years. The DSL modem we have at work has latest 10 years. I really do not like the idea of paying for a $780 modem.

Dane, how much would it cost to pay for the modem and whatever future support and services you are highlighting by this move? $100? $150? $200?

Why not price the modem at whatever this cost is? You can charge a high price and justify it with “future support and service”. You’d get upfront capital and the “look at the complete investment” customer is happy now that they get to own their equipment and will pay less in the long term. It may still cause some disgruntlement but I bet it’s less than mandatory equipment rentals will. And I’d expect most would still fall for your rental scheme anyway.

By Mike on Nov 17, 2012

Prospective customer here, shopping for new service for the first time in a long time.

sonic looked great until I read about the new modem rental policy. I’ll be continuing my search.

Saying modem rentals are industry-standard practice really doesn’t mean anything to me – I’m looking for alternatives to AT&T, not more of the same.

By Patrick Calahan on Nov 22, 2012

I’ve been a customer for about 12 years now. An equipment rental would come to $936 over that time. Nor do I recall ever calling over equipment issues related to my modems.
I read thru this entire blog and it strikes me the major complaint is the more than 10% increased usage fee (13-16% depending what you use as a base). I’d bet $3/mo wouldn’t have provoked so much antagonism.
I’ll stay with sonic because I like the acceptable use policy compared to the majors. But I am glad I beat the cutoff date.
Maybe after 18 months or so you could re-evaluate the cash flow and decide to amortize the equipment over 2 years and charge a lower ongoing monthly maintenance fee for your longer running customers. Maybe even split the charge up. If you did that, you could offer the option of customers purchasing their equipment solely from you (because of the customization) and getting the lower monthly cost upfront. Probably have to sign a waiver to allow your technicians access for remotely updating. You might even have an accountant look at it and find your cash flow improves overall.
After all, one desirable aspect of sonic is allowing customers choice. If you could do that and still remain profitable, why not?

By doug on Dec 2, 2012

I just wanted to be the first customer to note that it’s 2013… and despite 5 months of terribly negative feedback about the new requirement to lease equipment that increases costs by roughly 20%, Sonic has responded with justifications, but no changes. This company has turned an important corner without us on board and is not looking back. Maybe if everyone destroyed the modem they would really start considering costs. Like Ghandi’s Salt March, only instead of making salt, you’re twisting transistors until they say “Uncle” and let you buy your own equipment with the understanding that they won’t support it unless you agree to pay extra for that service…But not $78/year. Come on Dale. It’s New Year’s Resolution time…and fyi, my Sonic modem just stopped working, or Oakland’s DSL is seriously down since the first 3 hrs. of the year with no support in sight for 1/1/13.

By Paul on Jan 1, 2013

I’ve been with Sonic DSL a year and just switched to Fusion…I have referred others…my most recent referral told me yesterday about the $6.50 mandatory rental fee after I told her her modem was usable per your website…she’s exploring other options as I write…on the subject of mandatory $6.50 this shows up under the tax portion of my invoice…interesting that with DSL intro rate, I paid $14.95 no taxes/fees…hmmm! I guess $6.50 is the operative number these days…I do think your Customer Service is great! My download speed is better! While I’ve eliminated noise on my line, my upload service is a problem right now but I’m sure your fantastic English speaking and savvy techies will help me resolve that…If I make any more referrals, I’ll just have to be sure to tell them about the mandatory modem rental and fees.

By merna on Jan 22, 2013

We are considering leaving Comcast, very unhappy with their service, but we are definitely not willing to rent equipment where after a little over a year we have effectively paid for it outright and start to lose $7/month.

I was hoping to scroll down to the bottom of all these comments and learn that you have resolved this issue. Between this and the very high fee to have someone come out and “install” the modem (in our household of professional geeks) – it’s not looking too promising we will switch over.

Justifications about it being “normal” does not help, but is actually pushing me in the other direction as it sure seems like corporate greed. We are trying to get *away* from bogus fees like this.

Curious move in the Bay Area, where you have a higher per-capita of tech savvy customers who see through this, own more equipment, and have custom setup requirements.

By Jen on Mar 15, 2013

this is to Jen: shortly after my post on 1/22 Dane told me they were stopping the mandatory rental of the modem; haven’t been following this since but somehow i was advised of your posting today.

By merna on Mar 15, 2013

Hi Jen,

I’m sorry to hear that you’re unhappy with the service! We do understand that the Bay Area is a very tech savy area, and this is why we refund the installation fee for any Fusion customer who ends up installing the service her/himself and can demonstrate working service. However, the install is more involved than just hooking up the DSL modem. It usually requires connecting the internal house wiring to the new telephone pair provided to your phone utility box. Even in this part of the country, it’s not the kind of thing we want to suggest customers without the necessary expertise try.

Kind regards,

Adam E.
Sonic.net Support

By adame on Mar 15, 2013

Thanks Adam, good to know about installation to factor into our considerations. So the rental policy stands? That’s our primary concern, as it’s obviously quite costly over the years – we’re definitely not buying new modems every 14 months, which the cost seems to work out to. Pretty sure our Comcast equipment didn’t have any “maintenance” or replacements in the 8 years we used it (in Sonic terms, over $500 in rental fees above the cost of the box).

I understand how it makes your tech support easier for those who use it (when I was a QE, I would have loved to force all customers to use a single OS!), but I’m not sure if I understand why an unnecessary additional cost is passed on to the customer in doing so. Seems like it should be the other way around. At least let customers buy a designated modem, even better at the reduced bulk rate you’re getting them at, or close to it.

By Jen on Mar 16, 2013

my oops..it wasn’t Dane..but this is what got:”On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Sonic.net Tech Support wrote:
Hello,

We have heard a strong reaction to our modem rental program and are now allowing customers to “opt out” of the program after verifying with our provided modem that the connection is working. Customers do pay for the shipping but there is no ongoing charge associated if they decide to provide their own modem at that point. That said we cannot support third party modems and we do lose some visibility into the connection statistics. I hope this addresses your concern but please do let us know if you have further questions or concerns. Thank you for choosing Sonic.net!”

By merna on Mar 16, 2013

Thank you Merna! I hope they will honor that when we call them for more info, and I am glad that they are listening to the feedback.

By Jen on Mar 16, 2013

Nice, thanks for listening! I’m glad Sonic notices this *very long* thread of replies, almost unanimously negative, about their mandatory modem rental and associated fee. Nice to see them willing to bend a little on this policy.

By Josh on Mar 20, 2013