Ofcom Informs us of UK ISP's Real broadband speeds!

[Blackmage]

Ofcom has followed up its UK 3G coverage assessment with its own real world test of the country's broadband speeds. Determined to see just how much we are being short changed by supposedly faster 8-10Mbit packages the industry body trialled the nine largest ISPs.


The breakdown per ISP (including margin of error) was as follows:

ISP and package - average speed
AOL ('up to' 8Mbit/s) - 3.3 to 3.9Mbit/s
BT ('up to' 8Mbit/s) - 3.8 to 4.2Mbit/s
O2 ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 4.1 to 5.1Mbit/s
Orange ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 3.8 to 4.5Mbit/s
Plusnet ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 3.8 to 4.9Mbit/s
Sky ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 4.0 to 4.7Mbit/s
TalkTalk ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 3.8 to 4.6Mbit/s
Tiscali ('up to' 8Mbit/s) 3.2 to 3.7Mbit/s
Virgin Media ('up to' 10Mbit/s) 8.1 to 8.7Mbit/s

Link

My take

If I apply for an 8mb package; but find out that I'm capable of only 4mb, one should have the right to downgrade to a lower speed/costing package within 30days. who also agrees with this?

[Jay]

I think for the first 30 days you should get charged full prie then after your speed has settled you should just pay per megabit that you sync at.

I suppose the issues with this would be that people who get low speeds will probably end up with no broadband as the compant can not afford to run a service in those areas.

The VM speeds look good but as it fibre to the box there is no real excuse not to be able to give full speed.

[Blackmage]

Shockingly I'm with BT and actually get 8mb, I think it's due to me having an ASDL2 Line.

[pipTheGeek]

...
The VM speeds look good but as it fibre to the box there is no real excuse not to be able to give full speed.

VM still over sell their bandwidth, otherwise they would never be able to make any money. Getting an average of 8 on a 10 connection is reasonable. (My friend gets 512K on an 8, that is less reasonable). I get between 35 and 49 on my 50. And upstream is always 1.5, which is what it is meant to be.

[mehmeh]

Shocking results, but taken in context about what you'd expect. Some get 8Mb, some are lucky to see a fraction of it and most are somewhere in the middle. IMO the speed is less important, its the inconsistancey of speed right accross the UK that is the real problem. If you don't live in a huge town/city or a few hundred yards from the exchange your screwed.

If I apply for an 8mb package; but find out that I'm capable of only 4mb, one should have the right to downgrade to a lower speed/costing package within 30days. who also agrees with this?

Nice in theory, but arent the big boys cutting profit margins close to the bone already? Companies like Sky will also give you upto 8Mb for free so don't think its the money spinner it once was. I'm no expert but surely the saving of providing a 2,4, whatever Mb line over 8Mb is insignifcant. It could also have the opposite effect and inflate the prices of upto 8Mb lines (which have been driven down and become the basic standard in recent years) so companies can slot slower speeds back in and present them as cost effective to the consumer.

I'm actually a fan of upto 8Mb and upto 24Mb packages. It makes things simple and in theory, everyone will get the best possible speed at a fair price thanks to competition. Could argue it sucks that those who can only get 1Mb are subsidising those who get the full 8Mb, but if the capacity exists at the ISP's end then that surely isn't the case and unless I'm wrong on my above price assumptions, its better for us all.
What needs to change is the way ISPs market broadband. BT and the rest of them need to get their act in order and start sinking some real investment in. Fair usage policies and bandwidth caps need to disappear. The ever increasing gap between download and upload speeds needs to be addressed. Just the usual stuff then!

[ACE_RIMMER]

My brother went for broadband with BT and he kept calling me to say it's slow so I checked the speed and he was getting 400k if he was lucky, I told him to use speedtest and check at different times for a week and make a note of the speeds and the most he got was half meg although he was on an 8 meg connection, I called BT and after an hour of tests and messing about they advised me that, due to the location, they cannot provide a faster connection but would not drop the price.

Then a week later BT phoned him and said they would upgrade him to 16meg at a super special price once in a lifetime deal (which turned out to be the same price as the online price advertised), when he told them that he's only getting half meg and asked if they were taking the pi** they hung up on him, in the end he went with sky as the broadband was free, still on a slow connection but at least he ain't paying for it.

[MoonPig]

I'm with Virgin and get the 8Mb (i get roughly 768KB/s). This is all good for downloading, BUT the pings i get are really bad. And i mean REALLY bad.

Also, they may come out on top with the download speeds, but the 'trafficing' is bad.

[Funkstar]

If I apply for an 8mb package; but find out that I'm capable of only 4mb, one should have the right to downgrade to a lower speed/costing package within 30days. who also agrees with this?

That would mean going back to the pricing model we had before the ADSL Max connections were released.

I have to disagree, I would rather have a package that made the best use of my line, which is what we have at the moment, than having to go by the ISPs/BTs estimation of your connection and then pay for that.

Zen estimated I would connect at 6.5mbit, however my Draytek has managed to connect at 8128000 Down and 448000 Up. Pretty damned good if you ask me

If you had teired packages, you would either have to start on the highest and have a couple of weeks of potential instability as the system negotiated you downwards to what you were stable at. There would also be lots of confusion with regards to pricing, but probably not a lot of difference between them. So someone 8mbit package might be £22, but their 1mbit is only going to shave a couple of pounds off that. Then what happens to that half meg that you couldn't really price for, but your line could handle?

I say leave it as it is, but make sure it is advertised better and people are made more aware. Remember, it isn't really the bandwidth you are paying for, thats really cheap, it's the data transfered over that bandwidth that costs the money. Hence the caps we have now.

[jimbouk]

The problem is the technology. I would be far happier with a solid 2meg connection with a low ping and no drop-outs (what I used to get). When the UK 'upgraded' to ADSL max with it's "up to 8meg" nonsense it just got less and less reliable.

And whilst Virgin might have the better tech atm, their quality is atrocious. Surfing at peak time became a chore, I would've been happier back on ISDN!

[Blackmage]

...I say leave it as it is, but make sure it is advertised better and people are made more aware. Remember, it isn't really the bandwidth you are paying for, thats really cheap, it's the data transferred over that bandwidth that costs the money. Hence the caps we have now.

What I meant was that ISP's do offer different speed packages already, so if I buy an 8mb package but find that I'm syncing at 4.5mb, why can't I take out their 4mb package which is beneficial in cost to me? You clearly can't provided me with nearly half the speed I'm paying for; which isn't right at all!

[handscombmp]

I think it's aslo bad how the broadband can vary over the day.

In the morning i can get 7.2mb but come the eveing i'm lucky if i get 2mb.

This evening i was on 0.7mb!

[Funkstar]

What I meant was that ISP's do offer different speed packages already, so if I buy an 8mb package but find that I'm syncing at 4.5mb, why can't I take out their 4mb package which is beneficial in cost to me? You clearly can't provided me with nearly half the speed I'm paying for; which isn't right at all!

Then BT woould need to offer all these various packages to the ISPs.

At the moment you have the choice of 512kbit, 1mbit, 2mbit or 8mbit Max. the ISPs are charged differently based on which of those packages they buy from BT. Of they have their own equipment in the exchange, and offer an unbundled product then they have more flexability.

[Blackmage]

Then BT woould need to offer all these various packages to the ISPs.

At the moment you have the choice of 512kbit, 1mbit, 2mbit or 8mbit Max. the ISPs are charged differently based on which of those packages they buy from BT. Of they have their own equipment in the exchange, and offer an unbundled product then they have more flexability.

Thanks, I never knew that, make sense now.

[Funkstar]

It may not be the same now, but when ADSL Max was introduced, it was the same cost as a fixed 2mbit connection. The difference was that BT started charging more for the actual data transfered instead of the bandwidth that was made available on the connection. This is why we have caps on downloads, otherwise ISPs would go bankrupt selling because of a small minority of people swamping their connections.

Personally, I think it's a good system. It's just the advertising and awareness that needs to improve.

[nightkhaos]

I do not understand why Ofcom expects ISPs to do about this. Anyone with any decent understanding of the technologies involves knows that the theortical speeds are almost always impossible to attain.

Noise on the line, the fact a long wire tends to act as a low pass filter, all work against a connection.

Then there is cable, which would be great, if VM provided decent upload, didn't shape the traffic, and had better routing equipment. The pings people can get on VM in some areas are henderous.

[Singh400]

I wish OFCOM would stop doing these reports - we already know most ISPs don't give us the full speed that we pay for.

So how about they quit wasting money on reports, and actually do something about it?

Obviously where technology is the limit, then nothing can be done (apart from replace exisiting said technology - yeah right(!)). But you always hear of people sitting next to their exchange with terrible speeds.