Broadband Speed

[Thorin]

Not at all. I am criticising BT, Sky and all the other ADSL providers for advertising false hope with their sales pitches. Not from a legal standpoint, but from a conning bastards standpoint.

 

What do you think the general public rely on with regards to information on services? Do you think they rely on the big carrot dangled in front of them in every advert, or do you think they are cynical and go onto a broadband site (when they may not have it, knowledge of it or even access to it) to see if they are one of the people who can achieve the maximum? Or even close to it for that matter.

 

Granted you can put that down to the consumer not doing their homework but there has to be a point where what the ADSL providers are accountable for false advertising. Morally the advertising is very wrong.

 

The "Up to" 20Mb service for example. What is the percentage of BT consumers who can actually achieve this figure? I am only guessing, based on experience and the fact that I have only heard of 1 person achieving it (taking their word on it, not seen any proof), that this %age would be extremely low. That for me is false advertising. It should be reasonable to assume that a good portion of the customers would be able to achieve the highest figures in order to advertise that service.

 

They state "up to" 20Mb, and that's completely true, even if only 1% of customers can get that (as an example). How else would you propose they advertise it?

[Scott]

They state "up to" 20Mb, and that's completely true, even if only 1% of customers can get that (as an example). How else would you propose they advertise it?

 

If they wanted to be moral about it, they would advertise it as an average across the UK.

 

I think the going rate nowadays is about 4Mb. The best I know of personally is 8Mb but most will see 4.

 

"New BT broadband, up to 20Mb service with an average speed of 4Mb across the whole of the UK."

 

Something like that only with a newly introduced couple with family memebers etc.

[Matt H]

"New BT broadband, up to 20Mb service with an average speed of 4Mb across the whole of the UK."

 

I'd say that was fair as long as it was mandatory for all service provides to qoute the same. Business suicide if BT decided they would just 'do it'.

[Ark]

In the same amount of time that it's taken BT to upgrade me from 512 to 1mb (!), Virgin have gone from 10mb to 100mb...it's just plain embarassing. By the time all this 21CN stuff gets deployed far enough to be interesting, the game will have moved on again and Britain will still be languishing low on the speed leaderboards (you think Sweden et al are resting on their laurels?).

 

Plus I resent being charged even more each month on line rental to subsidise the upgrade work.

[Scott]

I'd say that was fair as long as it was mandatory for all service provides to qoute the same. Business suicide if BT decided they would just 'do it'.

 

Totally agree, I see it as false advertising across the board. I wasn't meaning to single out BT, just using them as an example.

 

If you want to state an "up to" stipulation then I think it should be mandatory to show the UK average for that service... regardless of what it is or who owns/runs it.

[Thorin]

It's not false advertising! You can get "up to" 20Mb, provided you are close enough to the exchange. A UK average figure could be skewed by many factors, that it could be misleading.

[GlennK]

I'll be getting Virgin 50MB/s cable soon so will see how good it is and post up the results.

[Scott]

It's not false advertising! You can get "up to" 20Mb, provided you are close enough to the exchange. A UK average figure could be skewed by many factors, that it could be misleading.

 

Yeah... that's misleading. But saying "up to 20mb" isn't, when less than 1% of BT customers can actually achieve it.

 

Let me put it to you this way. If they advertised it in a fair manor by giving the "up to" and the uk average as I suggested, I bet there would be less people taking up the service. Agree?

 

If you agree to the above then this clearly shows my point about false advertising. If they were honest about their service they would lose out on business, this simply substantiates my point.

[Matt H]

I'll be getting Virgin 50MB/s cable soon so will see how good it is and post up the results.

 

That would be virgin fibre optics. In that case you should pretty much get bang on 50mb as you get what you pay for with fibre optics.

[Matt H]

If you agree to the above then this clearly shows my point about false advertising. If they were honest about their service they would lose out on business, this simply substantiates my point.

 

On the flip side, people might choose to not bother with 20mb on the premise they will get nowhere near it when the truth maybe that they might be in that 1%.

[Thorin]

Yeah... that's misleading. But saying "up to 20mb" isn't, when less than 1% of BT customers can actually achieve it.

 

Let me put it to you this way. If they advertised it in a fair manor by giving the "up to" and the uk average as I suggested, I bet there would be less people taking up the service. Agree?

 

If you agree to the above then this clearly shows my point about false advertising. If they were honest about their service they would lose out on business, this simply substantiates my point.

 

There is nothing false about the statement. There is nothing misleading about "up to" regardless of how many people can get that figure.

 

Lets say BT decides they'll start listing an "average" speed of 2Mb, but another broadband company advertises their average speed at 4Mb... but the other broadband provider supplies most of their LLU service only in large city exchanges. A customer decided to go with the other broadband supplier but just happens to be on one of the very few rural exchanges that they support, they get a shit speed. Have they been misled?

 

Or lets say BT provide an average speed... but then in very small print state that this excludes Scotland. Averages can be fudged, "up to" is a statement of fact, it is a maximum speed that is possible using their ADSL service.

[garethr]

The fact is that Virgin are able to give real world speeds on their web site

http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html

 

Why do other ISPs not do the same?

 

 

Does anybody remember Monty Python's spoof advert for the Welsh martial art of Llap Goch? Go to bed with up to any ludicrous number of girls you care to think of providing you realize this statement is quite meaningless as the phrase "up to" clearly includes the number "nought".

 

 

[Matt H]

There is nothing false about the statement. There is nothing misleading about "up to" regardless of how many people can get that figure.

 

Lets say BT decides they'll start listing an "average" speed of 2Mb, but another broadband company advertises their average speed at 4Mb... but the other broadband provider supplies most of their LLU service only in large city exchanges. A customer decided to go with the other broadband supplier but just happens to be on one of the very few rural exchanges that they support, they get a $#@! speed. Have they been misled?

 

Or lets say BT provide an average speed... but then in very small print state that this excludes Scotland. Averages can be fudged, "up to" is a statement of fact, it is a maximum speed that is possible using their ADSL service.

 

good point

[Thorin]

Why do other ISPs not do the same?

 

They do, well most do anyway, going through the sign-up process the first part is checking against your line number and providing an expected speed for your line.

 

Fibre (Virgin) works differently to ADSL in that with fibre, you pretty much get the stated speed (less a bit for transport overheads).

[Scott]

There is nothing false about the statement. There is nothing misleading about "up to" regardless of how many people can get that figure.

 

Lets say BT decides they'll start listing an "average" speed of 2Mb, but another broadband company advertises their average speed at 4Mb... but the other broadband provider supplies most of their LLU service only in large city exchanges. A customer decided to go with the other broadband supplier but just happens to be on one of the very few rural exchanges that they support, they get a shit speed. Have they been misled?

 

Or lets say BT provide an average speed... but then in very small print state that this excludes Scotland. Averages can be fudged, "up to" is a statement of fact, it is a maximum speed that is possible using their ADSL service.

 

Ok I'll take this point by point....

 

2 Scenarios. In Scenario 1 there is new legislation stating that companies must include the Average speeds along with their "Up to" speeds. Scenario 2 is as it is just now.

 

Lets say BT decides they'll start listing an "average" speed of 2Mb, but another broadband company advertises their average speed at 4Mb... but the other broadband provider supplies most of their LLU service only in large city exchanges. A customer decided to go with the other broadband supplier but just happens to be on one of the very few rural exchanges that they support, they get a shit speed. Have they been misled?

 

Scenario 1 - BT lose out on the business as the other company has a higher average. The customer is a little peeved that they get a crap speed. If the average is 4mb and they are hitting 2mb they would have been as well with BT (only if cheaper obviously)

 

Scenario 2 - BT gain the business as they have the "up to" 20mb offer. The customer is absolutely outraged as they thought the 20mb speed would at least be atainable some of the time. Perhaps even if hitting 10mb or even 4mb they would be happy but no, they get 2mb.... 1/10th of what is advertised as being possible.

 

Given both of the above scenarios I would be happier, as a customer, with scenario 1.

 

 

Or lets say BT provide an average speed... but then in very small print state that this excludes Scotland. Averages can be fudged, "up to" is a statement of fact, it is a maximum speed that is possible using their ADSL service.

 

No it isn't. It is a statment of the maximum speed available in certain areas and homes in the UK. It isn't the maximum speed of their ADSL service as a whole.

 

If the "up to" statement referred to every line in their network, or even a majority percentage of their network, then I would agree. If I (I being the customer) took on a system that could potentially offer 20mb I would be happy, even if I wasn't seeing it all of the time. The fact is that most of the lines/exchanges/networks in the UK cannot offer "up to" 20mb. Example. If 1 area in the heart of London can provide 20mb to 10 customers at off peak times in the dead of night but the rest of the time and the rest of the UK along with the millions of customers are left with a maximum facility of 8mb that would be acceptable for you as far as advertising goes?

 

It might be legal, but it isn't moral.

[Thorin]

If the "up to" statement referred to every line in their network, or even a majority percentage of their network, then I would agree. If I (I being the customer) took on a system that could potentially offer 20mb I would be happy, even if I wasn't seeing it all of the time. The fact is that most of the lines/exchanges/networks in the UK cannot offer "up to" 20mb. Example. If 1 area in the heart of London can provide 20mb to 10 customers at off peak times in the dead of night but the rest of the time and the rest of the UK along with the millions of customers are left with a maximum facility of 8mb that would be acceptable for you as far as advertising goes?

 

It might be legal, but it isn't moral.

 

You're having a laugh now, surely if every line got 20Mb there wouldn't be a need for the "up to" statement?

 

It's just not how ADSL works. Specifying "averages" would only confuse matters more.

[Scott]

You're having a laugh now, surely if every line got 20Mb there wouldn't be a need for the "up to" statement?

 

It's just not how ADSL works. Specifying "averages" would only confuse matters more.

 

Of course I'm not having a laugh.

 

The Toyota Supra can do "up to" 155mph.

How come mine can only do 100mph?

Ahhh.. that was the test vehicle that managed that speed down a cliff.

 

They don't have to be able to GET 20mb all the time. Just have the potential to do so. During busy hours, fair enough the exhange will be overloaded and speeds will get hit or capped. There should always be a time when the speed is atainable on any area of the network... and there isn't.

 

If this scenario can be true, then the advertising is a sham.

 

Bob "I just got the new BT broadband, means I can get up to 20mb broadband"

 

Derek "no you can't, you're 10 miles away from the server"

[Thorin]

My car can do 155MPH....

 

They don't have to be able to GET 20mb all the time. Just have the potential to do so. During busy hours, fair enough the exhange will be overloaded and speeds will get hit or capped. There should always be a time when the speed is atainable on any area of the network... and there isn't.

 

Again, that's just not how ADSL works.

[Matt H]

For

 

Against

 

There's obviously points for an against this average idea. After considering Thorin's thoughts on the matter, I think an average my not be the solution. Perhaps a firmer emphasis on the fact 20mb won't be attainable by most customers and more onus on providers to direct their potential customers to pre-testing of lines.

 

What I do feel needs sorting out which seems to have been slightl over looked is actual costs. I pay for 20mb broad but get 4mb, yet my friend in place x gets 18mb and pays the same? I think the costs banding needs sorting out more than the wording.

[Scott]

My car can do 155MPH....

 

 

 

Again, that's just not how ADSL works.

 

It doesn't matter how it works. If the service cannot be delivered to the line you are paying for, it should not be advertised as being capable to do so.

 

Can you pay for up to 20mb broadband in the town I live in - Answer yes.

Can you get anywhere near a 20mb download anywhere in the town other than plugged into the exchange - Answer no.

Is anyone in the town being provided with a potential internet speed of 20mb - Answer no.

 

Is it false advertising to everyone in that town - Answer Yes.

 

Now multiply that by the towns, villages and cities across Britain. It's false advertising.

[CJ]

In this land where subterfuge and corruption is rife, the Greeks are surprisingly honest when selling you ADSL.

 

They all (well, we only have two suppliers on the island so saying "all" may be a bit misleading) tell you the lines are up to 20meg but always ask where you live and then give you a close estimate of what you will actually get.

[Matt H]

The Toyota Supra can do "up to" 155mph.

How come mine can only do 100mph?

 

Your Supra's sh!t

[Matt H]

saying "all" may be a bit misleading

 

I'm sick of being mislead in this thread.

[Scott]

There's obviously points for an against this average idea. After considering Thorin's thoughts on the matter, I think an average my not be the solution. Perhaps a firmer emphasis on the fact 20mb won't be attainable by most customers and more onus on providers to direct their potential customers to pre-testing of lines.

 

What I do feel needs sorting out which seems to have been slightl over looked is actual costs. I pay for 20mb broad but get 4mb, yet my friend in place x gets 18mb and pays the same? I think the costs banding needs sorting out more than the wording.

 

Ahh but wait. By average I didn't mean what the average user got on a speedtest.net service. I mean the average speed that BT can actually provide over the network. I also don't mean the average that they can provide at peak times, I mean the average that they can provide in the dead of night.

 

Of course they would want to maximise their figures. At least then less people would feel conned.

 

It would have to be across the board though, not just BT, as said earlier.

[Thorin]

It doesn't matter how it works. If the service cannot be delivered to the line you are paying for, it should not be advertised as being capable to do so.

 

So as they can't tailor adverts to every single person who might view them, perhaps the solution is not to advertise a speed at all...

 

 

 

MattH - I begrudge paying the same for a 1MB connection as someone who can get 20MB, but the costs to the ISP are the same regardless of the line length, so can't see that changing... although someone on a 1MB connection is probably using far less data per month than someone on 20MB.