how-to block ads
|
-
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
 ·Comcast
 ·Qwest.net
 ·magicjack.com
 ·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to funchords
Re: ?
Agreed that Sonic is a service-focused provider. However I'm not so sure about upstream costs bringing down the house; upload bandwidth comes symmetric with download b\w and some companies seem to get away with providing more than one megabit. In the areas where Sonic is deploying ADSL2+, backbone bandwidth is cheap enough, I think, that those costs shouldn't be an issue.
On the other hand, the technical constraints of ADSL2+ are ma much more likely culprit for low upload speeds. Again, Sonic could do much worse (512-896k on AT&T DSL, Embarq, Windstream, Qwest come to mind) so I'm not one to complain. Heck, if Sonic.net had ADSL2+ service in my area, I'd likely switch to the 10/1 tier. 18/1 is a little rich for my blood (and there's no additional upload speed due to the way the tech works) but I could see a heavy 'net user getting that package. Just not me.
I'd get a static IP package except that $25/month is a bit steep for that offering (at least for my applications) and DynDNS does the job on my current connection quite admirably. | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to iansltx
I've never thought of Sonic as a company doing things because they can "get away with it." I'm more apt to think that 1 Mbps is the right offering in their estimation -- no malice present. They may also worry that offering 3.5 Mbps would result in P2P consumers uploading 1 TB a month. But either way, these are cool guys that love the net and they have customers that love them back.
If you don't think 1 Mbps is enough, then just tell them! But they also need a way to stay in business. If it's the fear of getting killed on the upstream costs, what's the right solution?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
