Average speeds on advertising - anyone heard anything?

I've heard a few whispers from a couple of places that pressure is on the ASA from politicians and some providers to change the current broadband advertising regulation from the current level where the speed advertised must be achievable by just 10% of customers to the mean or median.

Anyone heard anything along these lines?

This is an interesting one as it would, no question, hurt xDSL-based solutions and favour FTTP/B and Virgin Media's HFC network.

I'm definitely in favour of such a change although they cynic in me suspects service providers would start rejecting orders that may bring down their averages on products if the standard isn't worded to preclude this.

In reference to www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/16/mps-calls-for-reforms-ov...:

Broadband speed advertising is misleading and must be reformed, a cross-party group of MPs has said.

Customers should be able to leave contracts and be given compensation if they have been misled by service providers, according to the British Infrastructure Group.

It also criticised the way Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) guidelines mean only one in 10 broadband users need to be able to obtain the fastest advertised speed.

Grant Shapps, who set up the group, told BBC Radio 4�s Today programme: �It seems to us that�s extraordinary.�

The former Conservative party chairman said tougher laws would be needed if internet service providers and the ASA failed to act.

�Clearly there is an issue with broadband in this country,� he said.

�This is talking about all internet service providers who are failing to provide anything like the speeds they are advertising. Of course, once you are in the contract you can�t leave it and you don�t get compensation.�

The infrastructure group�s report found that customers had �very few rights� and must be given more powers to act if broadband speeds do not reach the levels promised.

�Rather than one in 10, it should be nine in 10 people receive the speeds. You should get automatic compensation. You should be able to leave the contract and if we can�t get the internet service providers, or indeed, the regulators, to do that, well then parliament will need to act,� he added.

Edited by deleted (Sat 16-Apr-16 10:40:00)

Cheers for the link, Sir.

The Beeb has picked it up too, several items on News24 this morning.

Should the headlines read something like:

Broadband demonstrates that teachers are failing to educate correctly - Nine out of ten cannot understand the meaning of "Up To ..."

Saturday morning tasks have flipped from coverage checking to publishing the lower decile figures. Suspect there will be some interesting side effects and actually lowest 10% is going to have side effects i.e.

Providers refusing to service longer lines

DOCSIS/FTTH services will be impacted too unless the 10% rule is a connection speed thing.

Might lead to a stagnation of upgrade market as people know they get 8 Mbps now, and advertising everything is only showing up to 2.5 Mbps so why upgrade - or even get to the personal estimate stage

Alternatively could push those upgrading to buy the higher tier package as the up to figure meets their needs, when in reality the next product down would have suited them better.

A merry go round of people chasing compensation i.e. a few years of free broadband and line rental in prospect for those who game the system.

Possibly

But it's not easy to give a "fair" figure- in the nature of things ISPs will want to advertise their service in the best light possible, and too harsh a requirement may cause some to refuse connection to those who, for whatever reason, cannot get a decent speed and would thus reduce the speed the ISP were allowed to claim.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Should the headlines read something like:

Broadband demonstrates that teachers are failing to educate correctly - Nine out of ten cannot understand the meaning of "Up To ..."

They probably are, having been hamstrung by a series of bad ideas by government, however advertising has to cater to a pretty low denominator.

Advertising 'up to' figures that only a pretty small fraction can reach is no better than weight loss adverts suggesting results only 1 in 10 achieve.

Not a fan of the whole compensation thing. If suppliers are playing by the rules as they stand they should not be fearful of any repercussions.

We've seen changes before. What impact, I wonder, did the changes have on ADSL 2+ and did they perhaps help push people towards VDSL upgrades?

The ADSL2+ change took place in a different time, and the change was more marginal and some smaller providers and SME ones still show up to 24 Mbps.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/7400-grant-shapps... illustrates bottom 10%/median/top 10% and some product splits we've not done before.

Given people should receive a personal estimate during sign-up now that is MUCH more relevant than any speed in an advert. Broadband advertising might actually be better if no speed was mentioned at all, until such time as bill boards can detect a person and where they live and show them the estimate for their property.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Given people should receive a personal estimate during sign-up now that is MUCH more relevant than any speed in an advert. Broadband advertising might actually be better if no speed was mentioned at all, until such time as bill boards can detect a person and where they live and show them the estimate for their property.

I'll admit bias. If advertising changes force an earlier transition away from xDSL-based technologies or, at very least, force them to be deployed with deeper fibre sooner I'm inclined to support them.

If the ASA do pursue this the irony of them being so anal with regards to advertising of speeds while allowing 'fibre optic' to be used so freely will be delicious.

I'd love to see more differentiation between the ultrafast, full-fat fibre solutions and 'fibre optic broadband' in order to assist the business case for those networks. If this does that it works for me.

Which DOCSIS and FTTH avoid the line length issues, all the other factors that lead to speed variation are an issue.

Up to 940 Mbps products (Gigabit) will have a hard time proving 10% of users get above that figure - unless they give people 10 Gbps fibre cards for their PC

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Which DOCSIS and FTTH avoid the line length issues, all the other factors that lead to speed variation are an issue.

Up to 940 Mbps products (Gigabit) will have a hard time proving 10% of users get above that figure - unless they give people 10 Gbps fibre cards for their PC

A Samknows panel might be necessary to check out that providers are delivering what they claim to.

Only if they stop then applying a model to it - models involve assumptions and these may be wrong

Imagine the impact of a Gigabit SamKnows user on the rest of a building

In reply to a post by MHC:

Should the headlines read something like:

Broadband demonstrates that teachers are failing to educate correctly - Nine out of ten cannot understand the meaning of "Up To ..."

Yes. All this fuss and stupid rules just because people can't do a little research and understand a basic principal. Pathetic.

It'd probably also help if they were taught what advertising is - a pack of lies. No-ne should ever take what they see in an advert seriously.

Edited by Andrue (Sat 16-Apr-16 14:17:09)

And of course the advertising rules never bother about contention or peak time variance. Just connection speeds which are pretty much fixed by the laws of physics anyway. The one thing that could differentiate ISPs is the one thing no-one seems inclined to regulate.

Edited by Andrue (Sat 16-Apr-16 14:20:05)

What I cannot get a grip on is why Grant Shapps seems to be attacking the broadband industry in general, whether it is this, or his previous tirade an few weeks back.

Because it looks set to be the next PPI goldmine, i.e. it connects with voters and talk of compensation will make people happy.

Ed Vaizey MP was very clear about one thing people complain about i.e. line rental required with his warning that changes to roll line rental into a single price will not guarantee lower prices and a chance it may actually mean paying a little more, but for the sake of clarity this may be what needs to happen.

Its like BOGOF and other supermarket deals that campaigns have now often removed, those with a head for figures and a freezer could often benefit i.e. you bulk buy cheaply after checking the different sizes/prices and then sub divide into portion sizes for freezer.

If you want to see the future, take a look at the Sky UFO advert that is running sometimes (i.e. depends on your browsing history) which is half small print to explain their speed guarantee

In reply to a post by Andrue:

And of course the advertising rules never bother about contention or peak time variance. Just connection speeds which are pretty much fixed by the laws of physics anyway. The one thing that could differentiate ISPs is the one thing no-one seems inclined to regulate.

Actually they do.

Marketers should account for all the relevant factors that cause a reduction or variations in speeds.

The principal factors are:

� Signal attenuation
� Congestion/contention
� Traffic/network management
� Protocol overheads

Edited by deleted (Sat 16-Apr-16 15:25:16)

In reply to a post by MHC:

What I cannot get a grip on is why Grant Shapps seems to be attacking the broadband industry in general, whether it is this, or his previous tirade an few weeks back.

He's an opportunist. He's seen what he considers an opportunity.

Correct, many FTTH people seem to believe they are immune from the rules due to the fixed connection speed medium used.

Interesting conversation on this.

Perhaps rather than averages speed ranges would appeal more, with customers able to take a lower product without penalty if they end up in a lower range?

This isn't without precdent.

Speed guarantee details.

In the case of FTTC if a provider availed themselves of all the available options they could sell 52-76Mb, 38-52Mb and 15-38Mb products.

In the case of the fixed rate products Virgin Media would be selling perhaps 30-50Mb, 50-100Mb and 100Mb-200Mb.

Those plus customised estimates to consumers may mollify the politicians, the less educated public and not be too onerous on ISPs.

very strongly in favour, but will this just be access speeds (hugely favourable to VM) or throughput? access speeds is obviously by far easier to regulate.

It may also explain why BT have rolled out a 55/10 product, they may be aware this change is in the pipeline, a bit like how VM over provision customers to bump their averages up to hide congested areas, BT bump their package up to skew away the low syncing lines.