Well they can't do that here and there is not many people around.
Sonic Internet - anyone have any experience?
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
Can't do what?
Can't load up people on the fiber line for lot's of profit.
The "Fibre fed" cable system marketing mantra kinda makes me giggle. DOCSIS (coax) connections to the home have been HFC (Hybrid Fiber (fibre for our friends in Canada) Coax for at least a couple decades. I highly doubt that there are any cable systems left that aren't HFC. DOCSIS just doesn't have enough bandwidth to support a lot of homes per segment.
Oh, I see, because the home density isn't high in your area...
I would think it depends on the density. Fairly crowded suburbs without buried utilities might be the ideal case for the ISP. I think underground utilities might be a pain to deal with. Rural areas are going to have problems with density.
But even then there are safety glasses that block out specific wavelengths. I looked at the price and they're more expensive than the corrective glasses I'm wearing now.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It would still be an oversubscribed service, your density is just low enough that you won't experience it being saturated.
There is funding for rural internet.
https://www.usda.gov/broadband
https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-se...s-loangrant-combinations-and-loan-guarantees.
There are rural areas just a few miles from where I live, which is high density suburbs. So service in those areas may not be a matter of access. They're going to be reasonably close to trunk lines. Whether or not there's a business proposition is about spending that much on last-mile infrastructure where they probably won't get their investment back unless at least the installation of cabling is subsidized.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
They aren't going to be terminating individual PON connections onto backbones/trunks, the equipment is different and bandwidth on backhauls is reserved and paid for by the carriers/subscribers using it. Even our little semi-local ISP has their own dedicated fibre running from Millbook to Front St. in Toronto. Typically, the telco's follow the POTS routes for PON, and may opt to use the old DSL remotes as the termination points, where they then jump on whatever backhaul feeds the remote. Allows a lot of reuse of existing infrastructure, so it keeps the cost down. That's how Bell has managed their fibre deployment in Canada.
For Bell, maintaining 100+ year old POTS infrastructure has become more expensive than just replacing it with fibre, so yes, there may be financial incentives from the government to replace it with PON, but there's also the maintenance cost associated with legacy POTS, which they can eliminate when they replace it with fibre.
Some of the CO equipment that supports POTS is no longer manufactured, so the clock is ticking on the existing analog equipment. The carriers have to get the old equipment out of the network before spare parts run out. There are many instances were there are no spare parts left. This is not conjecture on my part, it's a known fact.
But we’ve got internet only providers, and AT&T doesn’t have many home phone customers left other than on some kind of VoIP service. AT&T tried to get completely out of providing copper lines in California. They’re moving to fiber though, but I’m thinking they can get subsidies for rural areas.
There are still millions of working POTS lines.
I was thinking in relative terms. They certainly would love it if they could get out of the business completely, although none of what's left is anything close to traditional end to end copper line service.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yep, and in some cases it makes sense for providers that aren't the incumbents on POTS or DOCSIS to run new infrastructure on existing routes, but other times it's them piggybacking on that infra as well, which was super common with DSL and DOCSIS. Even if they are just doing last mile type stuff and then piggybacking on that infra at DSLAM's or the like.
I'm not sure how similar AT&T's setup is to Bell's, but Bell has to completely replace POTS with fibre before they can pull the POTS service from an area, even if there aren't many, if any, customers. And "customer" doesn't necessary mean phone, it can also mean xDSL internet. So, this has been a motivator for them in rural areas to completely remove the POTS serving these low density areas, which costs a fortune to maintain, and replace it with a much simpler (and brand new) fibre infrastructure.
We have multiple thousand pair trunks running in 100 year old access ducts underneath city streets here and for decades, if the pair was noisy, due to water or some other intrusion on the century+ cabling, Bell would just move you to another pair that was hopefully cleaner. Rinse and repeat. Replacing that with a few strands of fibre has greatly reduced their servicing costs, where they've been able.
Historically, where there's power, there's POTS, even if it isn't in use.
Previously I tried connecting something to the gigabit ethernet port of the ONT. Thought it might work, and maybe it could serve as an extra port for convenience and perhaps to save up one more port if needed. But I didn't read the instructions. Says "This port is disabled". Sounds like a single form factor (board, case) that would be used for either 10 Gbit/sec or 1 Gbit/sec. But not both. Looked at it closely and the port is there but has no contacts. I suppose if they actually had two working ports, it would require a switching circuit.
I guess the convenient thing is that we have a lot of devices that use 12V coax barrel inputs and lots of spare power adapters. From pretty much everything to older external hard drives, access points, modems, etc. Some rated at 1.5A, but I suppose a higher rating (like 4A) wouldn't hurt.
- 10 Gbps XGS-PON SC/APC connector (WAN)
- Two POTS (Phone) Ports
- 10 Gbps Ethernet Port
- 1 Gbps Ethernet Port (This port is disabled)
- Reset Button
- Power Connection for the Supplied AC to DC Power Converter (12 V)
- On/Off Button
I guess the convenient thing is that we have a lot of devices that use 12V coax barrel inputs and lots of spare power adapters. From pretty much everything to older external hard drives, access points, modems, etc. Some rated at 1.5A, but I suppose a higher rating (like 4A) wouldn't hurt.
I get that most people don't need it and it's just kind of a gee whiz thing to see internet speeds top 1 gigabit/sec.
However, in our case our new ISP doesn't really play any games. No installation fees or contracts. No equipment rental for necessary equipment (like the ONT). No data limits, which was a huge incentive to switch. The charge the same $50/month regardless of whether it's a gig or a 10 gig line. Others will cap speeds even if all the equipment is capable of faster.
At my house I was previously on a plan with Comcast which had a hard data limit. However, the line was also used for a TV plan and that data didn't count against the data cap. I played around with a lot of things including using a neighbor's Xfinity Wi-Fi hotspot for downloads, which didn't count against our monthly data cap.
They're not going to artificially limit anyone's use. Apparently not even any kind of throttling for data hogs.
https://www.sonic.com/transparency
its smart business why would you limit yourself.. they dont sell it for the same price?
For an enthusiast they get 159 a month for 5/5 instead of 69 for 1/1
and the guy is happy.
I just wish we were symmetrical or close. 35/1100 here. up/down
I could do 250 or 500 down if I still had 35up.. but no those are 10/300 and 15/500 iirc.
My current setup would support 10GBE to the router. but certainly the rest of my equipment would need upgrades.
I'd be very happy with 1/1 gbit service though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I agree with @Rand, it's a smart business decision, as it may get people to switch providers. Up here, Bell provides their "Gigahub" which has WiFi capable of taking advantage of the speeds, as well as a 10Gbit uplink port for people that have the appropriate equipment (like myself). Plus, given the average usage profile of the end customer, they are unlikely to regularly, if ever, scratch the bandwidth limits of the service, while feeling like they bought "the best" available, because of the advertised numbers.
I switched from 350/30Mbit cable to 1.5Gbit/1Gbit fibre and cut my bill in half. Despite my aversion to having to deal with Bell (which is a common sentiment), the deal was just too good. So, in that context, as a business decision, it's a wise one.
Similar threads
