The contention was that Sonic's "business model is fundamentally to advertise a low price and charge a high one" and that other ISPs will openly "rip you off" while Sonic will
"lie about the real price".
I can't see how the bill supports any of those arguments. Sonic indisputably offers lower prices for their service than any other ISP. Their advertising and billing practices are, at worst, indistinguishable in terms of being more misleading. At best they're far better as my experience with Comcast and other telecom providers has been steady increases, whereas I'll be shocked the day Sonic increases their price.
All the voice line taxes might be a surprise to people, but Sonic isn't pocketing that money (except maybe the $0.36 property tax allotment), no more than any other tax, so I don't see how it's a strategy to make more money. Even if they disclosed them upfront their advertised price would go up a commensurate amount along with every other ISP.
I won't argue that the world would be better with greater pricing transparency, but so would world peace and eradicating homelessness. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out Sonic in these regards.
It would be reasonable to say something like, "Sonic is at least as good as any other ISP, but it would be nice if they also lead the way in terms of pricing transparency". But that's not what was said.
Their advertising and billing practices are, at worst, indistinguishable in terms of being more misleading.
Whataboutism is a pretty weak argument to make. Poor behavior on the behalf of Comcast and Verizon does NOT make Sonic's behavior excusable.
All the voice line taxes might be a surprise to people, but Sonic isn't pocketing that money
It's not surprising, but Sonic IS pocketing some of those "taxes".[1]
I won't argue that the world would be better with greater pricing transparency, but so would world peace and eradicating homelessness. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out Sonic in these regards.
First of all Sonic is not being singled out. People complain about Comcast and Verizon all the time. But there's a very good reason to complain: just because some of Sonic's behavior is better than Comcast should not give them a free pass.
That $50/mo rate? The increase was snuck into a footer in the monthly invoices just like you'd expect Comcast to do. After a few decades of few surprises I got out of the habit of checking everything with a fine toothed comb. No heads up to existing customers.
Or how about Dane agitating against municipal internet access? Apparently San Francisco has enough competition for internet access. Sonic is a for-profit business, of course, which means they're not altruistic as much as their talking points might lead you to believe. After all, Google bought into "do no evil" for a short while.
I can't see how the bill supports any of those arguments. Sonic indisputably offers lower prices for their service than any other ISP. Their advertising and billing practices are, at worst, indistinguishable in terms of being more misleading. At best they're far better as my experience with Comcast and other telecom providers has been steady increases, whereas I'll be shocked the day Sonic increases their price.
All the voice line taxes might be a surprise to people, but Sonic isn't pocketing that money (except maybe the $0.36 property tax allotment), no more than any other tax, so I don't see how it's a strategy to make more money. Even if they disclosed them upfront their advertised price would go up a commensurate amount along with every other ISP.
I won't argue that the world would be better with greater pricing transparency, but so would world peace and eradicating homelessness. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to single out Sonic in these regards.
It would be reasonable to say something like, "Sonic is at least as good as any other ISP, but it would be nice if they also lead the way in terms of pricing transparency". But that's not what was said.