Headlines - Broadband sometimes slower than advertised shock

[HEXUS]

Apparently, occasionally broadband connections aren’t as fast as ‘up to’ claims imply.

Read more.

[dangel]

Crikey! I'd better check mine tonight!

Cue massive repeat debate over 'unlimited', advertised speeds and what's 'fair'.

[MadduckUK]

“Of the users who reported subscribing to an ‘up to 16 Mbps’ package, only 4% said that their connection actually provided it,” said Pamela Varley, research analyst at Point Topic.

as much as i dislike "up to" advertisements. i know there is a difference between poor service and just living too far from the exchange to achieve it.

this actually made me quite angry. because although my connection is brilliant, not a bad word to say with either speed or service. it would be in the "doesn't achieve" side because it "only" gets 22.5Mbps rather than the advertised 24Mbps...

what a useless, childishly analysed survey it is

[Peter Parker]

How fast is your broadband?

I'm not sure that this report shows anything statistically meaningful. They point out that as you go up the speed categories (512Kbps and 1/2/4/8/16 Mbps) the variance in people achieving the maximum speed increases. So higher speed -> wider range of achievable rate, and it's hard to get 16Mbps (though they don't say if lots of people get 12-15 Mbps or not) Genius

If people have a problem understanding "up to" and the providers don't clearly explain their services, then rather than surveys like this perhaps they should propose some alternative pricing schemes such as "at least 4Mbps 95% of the time" or per megabyte billing. However I don't think people will like what happens to the costs of the services then.

[Nickg]

hm for me that is simply deflecting the issue.

if you buy "upto xx speed" and u only get x speed because you are 20 miles from your local exchange, thats hardly something that you can blame on the ISP. Surely a better way to do it would be to use the BT test and just buy the package that equates to your top speed.

what REALLY frustrates is when the quality of said service fluctuates during usage. for instance if you buy a 2MB line, you should ALWAYS have 2mb down, not 2mb during 12midnight to 6am and half of that for the rest of the time due to traffic (contention ratios) kicking in...to me that is the falseness behind the advertising.

[usxhe190]

I still think the ISP have got it VERY easy with just chucking in a "up to" when they know EXACTLY where you live - they can provide you with an average speed you will get when you subscribed to them.

[mycarsavw]

I still think the ISP have got it VERY easy with just chucking in a "up to" when they know EXACTLY where you live - they can provide you with an average speed you will get when you subscribed to them.

....and price your package accordingly.

But that'll never happen.

[Mblaster]

....and price your package accordingly.

But that'll never happen.

It used to, I remember when first getting ADSL you could choose a 512kbps, 1mbps, or 2mbps , and they were priced accordingly. But that's gone now in favour of a single 'up to' for all customers, and then you get whatever speed your line can handle, whether it's 2mbps, or 24mbps (which sucks for me being ~6miles from the exchange)

[Main]

Just over a year ago I had 'up to 8mbit' ADSL in a house that was less than 500m from the local exchange - highest rate I ever saw was 4mbit. My modem was an ADSLII model so it could have handled 8mbit, maybe more. There's always the possibility the line couldn't take it. Makes you wonder what percentage they can actually deliver 8mbit to...

[Zak33]

but it IS good that someone spends months, or even YEARS, working out something that anyone could have told them, innit?

What a waste of everyone's life. Better off writing a "how to get your parrot to swim in treacle" article tbh.

[Scott B]

...give it special treacle flippers. Duh.

Joking aside, maybe if this well-trodden theme keeps getting resurrected in the media it will eventually force some change.

Then again, maybe not.

[Timmy!!!]

As said before, this survey shows absolutely nothing.

Parents house - Sky's 'up to 8 meg adsl' and it's always a very quick 6 meg speed with absolutely no slowdown any time of the day.

My house however - Virgin's '10 meg unlimited' is a maximum of 5 meg and usually around 1 meg (with pages constantly timing out). I find this absolutely disgusting as cable should be a perfect 10 meg no matter how far you are from the exchange (if exchange is the right word). I've complained for ages now and had quite a few engineers check the line all with the same conclusion - bandwidth limiting.

Instead of doing a survey on the reported connection speed, they should instead have done a test of peak download speed during peak hours - that really would have shown which isp to go for. I shall never use virgin ever again unless they dramatically change their ways.

[Lee H]

Really ?

I must check my router stats immediately

Bandwidth (Up/Down) [kbps/kbps]: 2.291 / 18.477

Phew... I'm fine *wipes brow*

To be honest the general public need a good lesson on ADSL and ADSL2+ works in relation to SNR and line length as these factors determine the speeds you get more than anything.

[danroyle]

i must be on of the lucky 4% i pay sky for my 16mb unlimited and 95% off the time it is over 16mb mine varies from a low speed of 15.1mb on a friday night up to 22mb at other times.

i have no idea why i get so fast speed i suppose i could always phone up and complain