Update News

Android Devices no longer able to join SonosNet



Show first post

161 replies

would the connection not get routed back over Sonos net no matter the naming protocol and the channel selection for the access point?
Correct.

As to channel selection, a follow up; While Sonosnet and Wifi are best kept on separate channels, is there any such recommendation for the channels to be set for the access point and the main router? Does it even matter, given the distance of the access point from the main router?

YMMV. If they're on the same channel and within earshot of each other they'll simply share the channel cooperatively. Given that the AP's throughput would be throttled by SonosNet anyway this is unlikely to be an issue.
A small digression for clarification, based on a copy/paste from:
https://en.community.sonos.com/controllers-software-228995/use-sonosnet-as-wifi-repeater-mesh-for-laptops-tablets-mobile-devices-5804059

"SonosNet is independent from WiFi. However networks can be extended over SonosNet, by plugging third party devices into the remote Ethernet ports.

The Sonos unit wired to your router could communicate over SonosNet with your PLAY:5. When you wired the PLAY:5 to the AP a loop developed, because it could also communicate via the AP.

If the AP was wired back to the router Sonos would generally have resolved the situation itself, blocking its SonosNet connection and breaking the loop."

The second para confuses me: When one unit is wired to the router, all Sonos units communicate via Sonosnet, as I understand. How would the above loop get created then, how would the root bridge unit or the Play 5 also communicate via the AP?

Looking back at that thread the poster referred to "a Netgear Access Point (actually, a degraded router)", which already had a connection back to the main router. Evidently this connection was not passing STP packets, so when he also bridged the two devices over SonosNet a loop developed. A pathological case.
Userlevel 1
We’re always evaluating how we can deliver the best listening experience to everyone using Sonos. This involves making regular changes to our platform that allow for new features and capabilities to be added over time. We do know some people have been using this feature, but ultimately we had to make the decision to remove it.

If you have any trouble with using Sonos after extending wireless networks or with using wireless access points, our support team is happy to assist, so please do feel free to contact us.

Getting a better router in the house, or using wireless access points/mesh networks is a great way to strengthen your home network for all devices you might want to use with Sonos.

"We do know some people have been using this feature, but ultimately we had to make the decision to remove it."

SOME people... I belive that almost everyone is (was) using this fantastic feature. Why? whats the problem for you?
I will NEVER EVER buy your products again. That was a really appreciated feature!

I have seven of them in and around the house.
@ratty
Thank you for those clarifications.
This Sonos action has indirectly helped me; instead of using an old AEX as a WiFi extender in the adjoining to the router room as I was using it for years, I have now - after reading some posts here - wired it to the port on a Connect Amp there, and after creating a new network, I am using that for internet access for my Mac in that room. Much better internet/WiFi service this way, with no change in how Sonos works, which is fault free enough to be acceptable.
I agree that the AEX gets ridiculously hot, but it has soldiered on since 2011, so this improved service from it is a bonus.
SOME people... I belive that almost everyone is (was) using this fantastic feature.

I am not defending Sonos' decision, as there will certainly be some users who are adversely affected. But in truth relatively few users knew this was ever possible, let alone actually used it. It was irrelevant to iOS users, and unnecessary for most Android users.

Still a shame it's gone. As has been explained already on this thread, a very cheap access point will get you back to where you were. Unwelcome, of course, but let's not overstate how serious this is.

I would personally just keep the SSID and channel number the same as the main WiFi, for ease of use. The connection will get routed back over SonosNet doing it that way.

Ken, do the two sentences need a para to separate them - would the connection not get routed back over Sonos net no matter the naming protocol and the channel selection for the access point?

As to channel selection, a follow up; While Sonosnet and Wifi are best kept on separate channels, is there any such recommendation for the channels to be set for the access point and the main router? Does it even matter, given the distance of the access point from the main router?

Just to hopefully clarify Kumar. I would personally use the same credentials (SSID/Password/Channel etc.) on the access point as those used on the main WiFi router, that’s for ease of use by the mobile controller device as you move around the entire premises.

SonosNet should be operating on an entirely different channel to the WiFi ...usually best to set that at least 5 channels away from the main routers 2.4ghz channel ... so if the router and access point were both on channel 6 for example, then set SonosNet to either channel 1 or 11.

As the access point is connected to the Ethernet port on the remote speaker, the traffic entering/leaving that access point will be routed over the speakers SonosNet connection.

i hope that clarifies things a litter better than my previous comment.

I would personally use the same credentials (SSID/Password/Channel etc.) on the access point as those used on the main WiFi router, that’s for ease of use by the mobile controller device as you move around the entire premises.


Does this mean that if the credentials are the same, the mobile device will dynamically/automatically switch networks? If not, how would one know which one is which?


I would personally use the same credentials (SSID/Password/Channel etc.) on the access point as those used on the main WiFi router, that’s for ease of use by the mobile controller device as you move around the entire premises.
Does this mean that if the credentials are the same, the mobile device will dynamically/automatically switch networks? If not, how would one know which one is which?

Surely there is no issue of switching networks? There is only one network.
Userlevel 7
Badge +21

"We do know some people have been using this feature, but ultimately we had to make the decision to remove it."

SOME people... I belive that almost everyone is (was) using this fantastic feature. Why? whats the problem for you?


I would be curious to hear how you came to that conclusion. As John stated earlier, the feature isn't useful for iphone/apple users, which is approximately half of all users. Then you'd further reduce the users who only have 1 or 2 sonos speakers (creating a smaller net) and are completely unaware that the feature existed.

I can see where people discovered the feature after buying Sonos products, and then used this feature as part of the motivation for buying more speakers. That would definitely be frustration.

Surely there is no issue of switching networks? There is only one network.

My main router is an Apple Time Capsule - TC. I was using an Airport Express in "extending the wireless network" mode. In this mode, AEX did not seem to work when wired to the Sonos LAN port. So I switched it to "create a new network" mode, with a different name by default, and it worked fine.
Aren't there two networks here?
My knowledge of AEX is limited to say the least, but for a Sonos system to work, my understanding is that all devices must be on the same network, indeed the same subnet.


Surely there is no issue of switching networks? There is only one network.
My main router is an Apple Time Capsule - TC. I was using an Airport Express in "extending the wireless network" mode. In this mode, AEX did not seem to work when wired to the Sonos LAN port. So I switched it to "create a new network" mode, with a different name by default, and it worked fine.
Aren't there two networks here?

You just give the AEX access point the exact same credentials using the Airport Utility App... but, as will perhaps all access points, you can give it a different SSID/Password and channel number if you want to... but personally, it’s easier to keep them the same. I can confirm the AEX does work with the same credentials, as I set up my son-in-laws in his outbuilding with the same credentials as his main router... he just moves seamlessly between his outbuilding and his home.
Clearly an AEx would need to be in bridge mode, otherwise there wouldn't be a single subnet throughout. The SSID can be whatever one chooses. Calling this a "new network" is IMO loose and confusing talk, though admittedly many people think of a "WiFi" as a "network" and don't usually walk around with the OSI 7-layer model to the forefront of their brains.

As for the selection of SSID, some devices will be happier to roam if it's common throughout. Others will stubbornly refuse to roam until the signal from the previous AP drops entirely.

You just give the AEX access point the exact same credentials using the Airport Utility App

That's what I have now done, and it seems to work. But do you also remember if you set the AEX in "create a network" mode as opposed to "extend the network" mode in the app?
ratty: the AEX is in bridge mode, but there are these options that I refer to.
Anyway, I am using the set up only for better internet access via Wifi on a MacBook, and there is no change in how the Sonos unit that is lending its LAN port is working - via Sonosnet as before.


You just give the AEX access point the exact same credentials using the Airport Utility App
That's what I have now done, and it seems to work. But do you also remember if you set the AEX in "create a network" mode as opposed to "extend the network" mode in the app?
ratty: the AEX is in bridge mode, but there are these options that I refer to.
Anyway, I am using the set up only for better internet access via Wifi on a MacBook, and there is no change in how the Sonos unit that is lending its LAN port is working - via Sonosnet as before.

If my memory serves me correctly it’s “create a network” mode, which I accept sounds a bit odd, but it’s been quite a while since I did my son in laws... hope that helps Kumar.👍
Badge +1
So, my deal is a bit different. I have plenty of wifi signal, but Android devices will not connect UNLESS I use Sonos Net. System is hardwired to router. (Fios). Of course, Room Tunes on my BBerry Z30 works perfectly. Except, I have retired that phone.

SOME people... I belive that almost everyone is (was) using this fantastic feature. Why? whats the problem for you?



1) Over half of Sonos users are on iOS, who cannot use this feature.

2) A significant portion of Sonos systems are using wireless setup, they also cannot use this feature

3) Personally, I tried it out once and switched back to my router.

So no, "almost everyone" was not using this feature.
@Kumar. I suspect that when the AEX offers 'create a new network' it means 'Use a different SSID'. So, as @ratty said, it is playing fast and loose with the terminology.
@Kumar looking online a little further into this matter, you do need to use the option to “create a new network” (Access Point Mode), but you simply then use the same SSID and password as the main router. It appears to me, from what I have read, that to use 'extend an existing wireless network' (Repeater Mode) option, that the main router has to be another 'Airport' device, like an Airport Extreme for example... just Apple's way to ‘perhaps’ attempt to tie-in some customers to use Apple hardware, but the option to “create a new network” (whilst cabled to any router) will work just fine with the same credentials
I should have perhaps added to my post above that ‘extending an existing wireless network’ would be pointless anyway at such a remote location as the WiFi signal would be virtually non-existent, or extremely weak, to perhaps ‘repeat’ it ...and so ‘creating a new WiFi network', in any event, is the best option from a wired connection to the Sonos Speaker. I have read online that the wired connection is likely to be as much as 60% faster than the option to extend the wireless network ... though that’s not taking into account any speed limitation of the SonosNet signal.
I should have perhaps added to my post above that ‘extending an existing wireless network’ would be pointless anyway at such a remote location as the WiFi signal would be virtually non-existent, or extremely weak, to perhaps ‘repeat’ it ...and so ‘creating a new WiFi network', in any event, is the best option from a wired connection to the Sonos Speaker.
I must admit that was the logic I used in selecting"create a new network", never mind the Apple logic in naming of the options. And things seem to be working well. Why this should be so, I am not quite sure. As a WiFi extender, the AEX would repeat the signal from the router and now, it is picking up the signal via Sonosnet propagated wirelessly from the same place as the router, so unless the root Play 1 radio is a lot more powerful than that of the Apple base station, why should things be as noticeably better as they for sure are, for the browsing experience? I guess that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth...
I must admit that was the logic I used in selecting"create a new network", never mind the Apple logic in naming of the options. And things seem to be working well. Why this should be so, I am not quite sure. As a WiFi extender, the AEX would repeat the signal from the router and now, it is picking up the signal via Sonosnet propagated wirelessly from the same place as the router, so unless the root Play 1 radio is a lot more powerful than that of the Apple base station, why should things be as noticeably better as they for sure are, for the browsing experience? I guess that would be looking a gift horse in the mouth...
Single-band repeaters must receive and retransmit every packet within the same channel. There's therefore contention, and bandwidth is effectively halved. By hooking an AP to a SonosNet node one can at least mitigate this effect by using different channels for the two. That said, SonosNet's throughput is not huge, so it's horses for courses.
I don't really bother much about the cause for the removal of this feature. If it really caused trouble it'd still have been an option to inform ppl about it and trust they can make their own decision to disable it or live with potential side effects.

It's actually sad Sonos gets worse and worse, removing this amazing feature is just another step into "applefying" the service. It almost feels like disrespect for Android users who've been providing very valuable feedback in the past.

"Buy a new router"- honestly, what kind of an answer is this? Next time something doesn't work we'll be told to "buy an iPhone"!
"Buy a new router"- honestly, what kind of an answer is this? Next time something doesn't work we'll be told to "buy an iPhone"!
Honestly - Sonos is not in charge of improving your home network, that's your own responsibility.
Userlevel 1

SOME people... I belive that almost everyone is (was) using this fantastic feature.I am not defending Sonos' decision, as there will certainly be some users who are adversely affected. But in truth relatively few users knew this was ever possible, let alone actually used it. It was irrelevant to iOS users, and unnecessary for most Android users.

Still a shame it's gone. As has been explained already on this thread, a very cheap access point will get you back to where you were. Unwelcome, of course, but let's not overstate how serious this is.


"A very cheap accesspoint" I'd need several of them 6-7 (big house), and if relatively few user used it, then what would be the problem of keeping the feature as is. What's the benefit of removing it??

Reply