Advertising of broadband speeds

On the basis that it is better to light a candle than shout at the darkness, I suggested to the ASA that :-

1. Product advertising should diferentiate between Fixed speed products (inc cable) and Variable rate products (rate adaptive DSL). Here the speed is the technical link speed not the actual data throughput. Adverts for variable rate products need to emphasise the variability and its causes (distance etc) as per current rules.

Consideration should also be given to incorporating the minimum link speed so for example BT Infinity would be 15 - 40 Mbits/s but VM cable 50M would just be 50M as it's fixed speed. Currently they would be called "up to 40M" and "up to 50M" which sounds like they are effectively the same.

2. A change to stating actual data throughput without overheads should be considered, as consumers can readily measure throughput but link speed is less transparent. So "up to 8M MaxDSL" would become "up to 6.7M" etc.

3. Current practice of relying on number checkers etc to indicate likely link speed is preferable to reporting a "typical" or "average" figure as the link speed is specific to the user's line and it is useless to say a product is typically 4M when the consumer may get 6M or 0.4M.

4. Minimum data throughput should be stated to allow differentiation of better quality products. If 600k throughput is the acceptable minimum for a connection of 2M or more (eg BT Wholesale) then this should be stated in advertising to help consumers compare products and understand the effects of contention / sharing. This may also provide the incentive to improve the minimum.

I didn't address traffic management or usage limits/FUP/unlimited - life's too short.

Interestingly the Australians have a code of practice that almost bans use of speed so a company can advertise ADSL2+ broadband but if it were to say "up to 24M broadband" it would be at risk of contravening their Trade Practices Act

In reply to point one....

How would that work then? Are not all HOME services technically "UP TO" and have contention ratios? Virgins products are no more "FIXED" speed than anyone elses, they just (IN THEORY) perform better at delivering that "UP TO" speed. It cant be a guaranteed or "FIXED" speed though due to the contention ratio.

Also what would you then classify BT FTTC as, fixed speed or variable? Because it isnt technically a "(rate adaptive DSL)" product.

Virgin media 50Mb is not "FIXED" speed, they clearly advertise it as UPTO and their litrature (which along with BTs is constantly shoved through my letterbox grrr) even says in the small print, "subject to network capacity" <<< therefore its obviously not "FIXED".

I AGREE WITH THE POINT OF (and i suppose this is also point number four to a degree)........ Introducing a system where a minimum speed is guaranteed as well as a maximum speed quoted for all broadband products, not just BT FTTC. I think thats the best way to stop any confusion, let the customer know worse and best case scenario. If the sheep of society still couldnt understand that then screw them HOWEVER the minimum speed would have to be what service(s) should technically run at, at their minimum and not left to ISPs to either under or over "estimate" that minimum rate. Otherwise the system would be pointless.

Edited by deleted (Thu 02-Sep-10 13:34:16)

Fixed as in connection speed, throughput speed is another matter.

I think the other poster was suggesting splitting figures apart, i.e. connection speed, and then throughput.

An advantage here is that an ISP with a 10Meg connection might have 6Meg throughput at peak, but once connecting at 15Meg might only have a 5Meg throughput. Under current advertising they simple say up to 10Meg and up to 15Meg.

I think lots of people would spill their coffee is the real minimum guaranteed speeds for services were published, something like 20 to 100Kbps for most products. The fact we almost always get more is a factor of the fact we don't all use it to its maximum all the time.

Verifying this minimum guarantee is not easy, and as an ISP adds customers every day, it is constantly changing.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Fixed as in connection speed, throughput speed is another matter.

Agreed though which matters to you personally, would you rather know the min and max throughput speed or the min and max sync speed? I know what id sooner know.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I think the other poster was suggesting splitting figures apart, i.e. connection speed, and then throughput.

An advantage here is that an ISP with a 10Meg connection might have 6Meg throughput at peak, but once connecting at 15Meg might only have a 5Meg throughput. Under current advertising they simple say up to 10Meg and up to 15Meg.

I think lots of people would spill their coffee is the real minimum guaranteed speeds for services were published, something like 20 to 100Kbps for most products. The fact we almost always get more is a factor of the fact we don't all use it to its maximum all the time.

Im not sure, maybe im wrong but point 4 does state "Minimum data throughput should be stated" which IMO is more important than sync.
This is maybe another reason it wouldnt work at all or be fair comparisson for all the differing services. As sync and real world speed can vary so much on any service.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Verifying this minimum guarantee is not easy, and as an ISP adds customers every day, it is constantly changing.

Agree again, so if it cant be verified or is too much work, then maybe it wouldnt work in practice, and we would just be misled by ISPs "guesstimates" again anyway.

Personally id like to see every service individually assessed and minimum and maximum averages of throughput across their entire userbase published...... Though obviously before you reply i know thats wishful thinking and would as you have already pointed out be near impossible and a darn lot of work and co-operation involved. I think thats the only way you would ever get a fair side by side compare of 2 differing services though, which at the moment promise similar "top/headline" speeds.

Edited by deleted (Thu 02-Sep-10 15:01:50)

Knowing your max sync (connect speed) becomes useful to know if a DSL line is degrading over time.

Answer is, yes a lot more information can be provided to consumers. Question is how much will it cost, if it added £3 a month to the broadband bills many would simply say no thanks and continue as they are.

One of the reasons good business services cost more, is the level of monitoring and information available. The vast majority are simply happy so long as web browsing works, and the few minutes of video they watch a week on a news/movie trailer website work. Or just it another way, if you download movies and music then you are in a small minority still.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Knowing your max sync (connect speed) becomes useful to know if a DSL line is degrading over time.

Answer is, yes a lot more information can be provided to consumers. Question is how much will it cost, if it added £3 a month to the broadband bills many would simply say no thanks and continue as they are.

Id pay the extra, as long as that extra is re-invested for independant analysis of providers connections to continue. Then if/when my current providers speeds went to pot, i could look at everyone in a fair manner and decide very easily who would get my trade. I could ignore all the UPTO nonsense advertising terminolgy.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

One of the reasons good business services cost more, is the level of monitoring and information available. The vast majority are simply happy so long as web browsing works, and the few minutes of video they watch a week on a news/movie trailer website work. Or just it another way, if you download movies and music then you are in a small minority still.

Im not so sure about that MrSaffron, iplayer as just one example and its usage continues to grow.

Video, Music and the web being more and more media rich in general is what will happen, it always has. I remember the days when youtube didnt exist, shockwave flash sites that take a minute or so to load didnt exist, and something like iplayer wouldnt had even been dreamed of let alone a reality.

HEAVY web content isnt going to decline no matter how many people claim they only surf the odd web site and email uncle fred on the other side of the world once a week, its going to increase more and more over the years, and as it happens (Id even argue right now) minimum speeds and maximum speeds (In real life not advert term nonsense) are going to become more and more important to enjoying that media rich experience.

Even this site has become more media rich over the years and consumes users bandwidth more and demands higher speed to enjoy it to its full potential........ THREE quick examples....

You have a video section, never used to. (downloading them all even though there are only a few which are the largest/highest quality versions on a silly sub 2Mb line would take a while)
Your background image (ok this is a push) is several kb (lol) larger than it used to be. (come on its me you expected atleast one giggle)
The speed tests available have became more extensive, with actual download speed testing as well as mobile apps in addition to the normal java based applet.

All of it the faster your connection is the better you can enjoy even this site.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Knowing your max sync (connect speed) becomes useful to know if a DSL line is degrading over time.

True - but if it does degrade it's not easy getting anybody to take any interest!

ISP/BT often just come back with it's within acceptable speeds...

In reply to a post by b4dger:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Knowing your max sync (connect speed) becomes useful to know if a DSL line is degrading over time.

True - but if it does degrade it's not easy getting anybody to take any interest!

ISP/BT often just come back with it's within acceptable speeds...

Yep and what they or any ISP may deem is "acceptable" often is not. Not even i would tag BT as being the only ones guilty of pulling that stunt. Far too many of the big boys try it.

Something in this country needs to be done about mythical speed advertising Im not interested in what these silly groups often think is key, which is the price, im more interested in the quality (or lack of) you get for your money (cheap or expensive).

Edited by deleted (Thu 02-Sep-10 18:56:35)

In reply to a post by yarwell:

1. Product advertising should diferentiate between Fixed speed products (inc cable) and Variable rate products (rate adaptive DSL). Here the speed is the technical link speed not the actual data throughput. Adverts for variable rate products need to emphasise the variability and its causes (distance etc) as per current rules.

Consideration should also be given to incorporating the minimum link speed so for example BT Infinity would be 15 - 40 Mbits/s but VM cable 50M would just be 50M as it's fixed speed. Currently they would be called "up to 40M" and "up to 50M" which sounds like they are effectively the same.

great idea;would help.

2. A change to stating actual data throughput without overheads should be considered, as consumers can readily measure throughput but link speed is less transparent. So "up to 8M MaxDSL" would become "up to 6.7M" etc.

Yep, essential.

3. Current practice of relying on number checkers etc to indicate likely link speed is preferable to reporting a "typical" or "average" figure as the link speed is specific to the user's line and it is useless to say a product is typically 4M when the consumer may get 6M or 0.4M.

4. Minimum data throughput should be stated to allow differentiation of better quality products. If 600k throughput is the acceptable minimum for a connection of 2M or more (eg BT Wholesale) then this should be stated in advertising to help consumers compare products and understand the effects of contention / sharing. This may also provide the incentive to improve the minimum.

One more point is upload.

Almost no ISP advertises upload, just try and find the upload figure for Virgin's 50m product for example.

At work the constant complaint I hear from homeworkers is "I have 8meg ADSL" or "I have 20meg cable"..... "why does it take so long to send these attachments?"

Nobody realises on their 6.7meg download, they're getting 327kbps upload Even VM's 50m download is 1.5meg upload - the same upload I get with BE .....

#1 disagree, unless its a 1:1 product the term "up to" has and always should be used, cable isnt 1:1. Cable is a fixed sync speed but not access speed. Adsl it needs more than to just more inform the user, the price needs to vary depending on speed recieved.

#2 no problem with what you said

#3 problem with current practice is end user see's max possible speed before the estimated speed is shown. on adsl2+ this is a major problem as the vast majority of people will get nowhere near 20-24mbit.

#4 my thought is isp's should only be allowed to advertise the speed expected during the time when most people use the connection, if they traffic shape they should be further penalised and display speed of slowest protocol.

example

isp1 - p2p 128kbit shaped during evening, advertise 128kbit speed product that is up to typical speed of 4mbit at quiet periods and on some protocols.
isp2 - no shaping but congests down to 1mbit, advertise 1mbit increasing to typical speed of 4mbit during quiet periods.
isp3 - no shaping no congestion, typical speed of 4mbit expected at all times.