what company site?

the dsl example is datastream, that had bad performance issues also if I remember correctly.

I just noticed this thread.

I agree with you that it does feel a bit of a let down.

I think we all know the 'up to' wording was because ISP's were advertising a speed that 99% of their users couldnt get.

Now I think its swinging the other way and companies are exploiting the wording. What is to stop a company advertising any speed as long as 1 of their users can get it.

I think there should be a minimum speed requirement.

Isn't there one that stops people ordering fibre if their line isnt capable of sustaining high speeds?

In reply to a post by bowdon:

What is to stop a company advertising any speed as long as 1 of their users can get it.

I think there should be a minimum speed requirement.

Isn't there one that stops people ordering fibre if their line isnt capable of sustaining high speeds?

The ASA rules that state at least 10% of an ISP's customers must be able to reach the speed advertised.

I know VM and others are very open to average speeds being the advertising criteria, the resistance is coming mostly from BT.

Why are the isp's even having a say? regulations are supposed to be for the benefit of consumers not the companies that are regulated, regulation does work odd in this country.

VM will be open as even with average, with it been nationwide this would benefit them nicely. Their average would be same as it is now.

VM's "up to" lets them off the hook for congestion in the Internet. Area congestion (which they eventually fix) is considered by them as a fault when a threshold is reached.

BT's (and the others using the copper last mile) "up to" means something else. It means that your speed depends on how far you are from the street cabinet and whether or not your wires are of aluminium substance rather than copper. These are physical constraints that result in your minimum speed offer. VM does not suffer this constraint.

So the same term "up to" then creeps into discussions, covering the same sentiment to users discussing the two systems, but actually meaning very different situations.

On latency, my BT Infinity 2 latency is worse than my VM 200/12 latency. That's prolly due to the aluminium wires that go to the street cabinet, not to mention that BT at 55/10 can't come close to VM's 200/12. What I really object to with BT Infinity is having to pay the same price as the neighbour with copper wire who gets the 76/20. BT are total sharks sweating the copper/aluminium "asset" and milking the customers in areas where VM don't supply.

Are you talking minimum connection speed? Or minimum throughput speed?

Parts to the Ofcom speeds code of practice don't apply to cable services due to the fixed connection speed nature.

BT Consumer will provider something not called Infinity to customers with an estimate under 15 Mbps, so you still get service but are not in official speed data.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Why are the isp's even having a say? regulations are supposed to be for the benefit of consumers not the companies that are regulated, regulation does work odd in this country.

All regulators consult with their industries. All industries lobby their regulators. That's the way of the world. Regulation made in a vacuum can and does backfire horribly.

"BT's (and the others using the copper last mile) "up to" means something else. It means that your speed depends on how far you are from the street cabinet and whether or not your wires are of aluminium substance rather than copper. These are physical constraints that result in your minimum speed offer. VM does not suffer this constraint."

I'm using BT setup and my house doesn't move further from the CAB but in the evenings and weekends it slows down a bit. So your statement is a bit simplistic.

@broadband66

My post was simply to point out that "up to" at BT includes the built in weakness of their copper/aluminium solution. The only way they "tell" you about that is through the minimum speed offer.

Contention would be a peril common to both systems.