Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Lie About Broadband "Up To" Speeds
Haffner writes "Ars Technica has an article detailing the difference between ISP advertised 'up to x Mbps' speeds and the actual speeds, in addition to some possible solutions. They find that on average, the advertised speeds were 'up to 6.7 Mbps' while the real median was 3 Mbps and the mean was 4 Mbps. This implies that ISPs were falsely advertising by at least 50%."
And how do we compare plans? If one ISP has "up to" 10 mbits, and another has "up to" 20 mbits, which one is faster?
Not lying, but not in any way honest.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I have RCN (Cable and Internet) in Chicago. I have spoken candidly with technicians who come out to do installations and I have verified through several phone calls with customer representatives that they "aim" for 60% of advertised speeds. I perform speedtests, using their preferred site and have found that I am almost ALWAYS at 60% of advertised speeds. In order to get over 10 mbit/sec down, I have to pay for the "20mbit/sec" rate, and am typically around 12 mbit/sec down. If I was a normal customer, I'd easily compare the 20mbit/sec advertise rate against competition and opt for RCN's as it is the cheapest price for that advertised speed. Complete garbage and misleading to consumers. How is this legal?
Yeah, I don't get the point of this article. The ISPs have the weasel words right in front of you, they're not hiding anything.
Now with that "unlimited" connection promise, on the other hand...
~Philly
With unlimited plans, the ISP's incentive is to prevent you from using up all your bandwidth, because infrastructure costs money, so if you used up all your neighborhood's bandwidth, they'd have to upgrade their network.
With a per-megabyte plan, the company's incentive is to provide you with more bandwidth than you could ever possibly need so that nothing will prevent you from downloading as much as possible.
If we want fast pipes, we should be asking for pay as you go data plans.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I'm beginning to subscribe more and more to a friends theory that all that is wrong in first world nations can be blamed on an MBA.
I actually like the parent's Doritos analogy - it's true when you think of it that way; there would be all sorts of uproar if physical goods were advertised and sold the way broadband is.
"Up to" a dozen bagels in your order, or "up to" two patties on your burger would never fly. And who would work for pay on an "up to" scale? I'm sure companies would be happy to pay someone "up to" four hundred dollars an hour.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the fact that a sizable portion of the population is not terribly computer-literate or technically savvy. They want "an Internet" or "a Google" or (my new favorite) "the Facebook" and don't really care much about how they get it.
The average end user, in my experience, has difficulty distinguishing between a slow computer and a slow connection. To many, they might as well be one and the same. I get asked for help all the time with people saying "my computer is slow" and it turns out they actually have connectivity problems. ISPs not only take advantage of that mentality, they count on it. I'm sure many of you have seen the commercials for those sites like "FinallyFast" or "MaxMySpeed" or whatever they're called, where they advertise a "free scan" to tell if you're "infected" or "experiencing registry errors", and by purchasing their product, you can avoid having to buy a new computer. That is basically the same demographic ISPs are targeting; the population that knows they want a computer and an internet connection but doesn't know much beyond that. I would honestly describe it as predatory.
I know I'll probably get modded down for not taking a more pro-capitalistic stance, but in my opinion this is a case where consumers are being taken advantage of - and there simply are no better options. It's very easy to say "vote with your dollar and don't buy their services", but an internet connection is critical for many people nowadays. I know several people who run businesses out of their homes using websites, VOIP lines, etc. For them, canceling their internet connection is just not an option. If there were an ISP that actually provided good service and had consumer-friendly policies, I would be more than happy to switch to their service and recommend all of my friends. The problem is that my options right now are "bad", "worse", and "even worse yet". Comcast blocks all torrent upload data in my area (disclaimer: I don't pirate content, but I do use torrents for FOSS/Linux downloads and similar uses); Verizon has declared that they plan to test a 150GB (if I remember correctly) monthly cap on FIOS in this area; and there's basically no one else around because they've been driven out of business or out of the area. Again, with the nature of the internet and the role it plays in communication and commerce, I would almost consider supporting it being regulated like a public utility, or at least with more oversight. It's all well and good to say "don't give them your money", but when I need the internet to obtain that money, I don't have many options.
only if they weren't the ones who built it up in the first place. If it's hops along an ISP's own backbone you better believe they can control the speeds. It's one more reason for packet inspection (whether deep or otherwise), one of the few legitimate reasons even.
Meanwhile, I guess it depends on population in a given area. I pretty much see the speeds as promised by comcrap in my area, as much as I hate them. I am also but a few miles outside of a major metro city.
If by very little control, you mean oversubscribing the line by a factor of N, then okay, whatever.
The days of people only using the DSL in bursts to checkmail or grab a webpage are gone. In my house, we've got 3 towers and 2 laptops running off a wifi'd 3MB DSL.
At any moment, one or more of us will be streaming video or running torrents etc, so we're usually running at capacity 24/7 - which I have no qualms about whatsoever, as we were sold a 3MB package, not one of those silly "up to 3MB packages" - and for the most part we DO get what we paid for.
I guess my point is, they cannot oversubscribe the lines anymore, because it will mean an instant slowdown for everyone else.
Better than that - recently my ISP, Shaw (shaw.ca) increased all of its plans by 50% without changing rates. So I was getting 10Mbps, now it's 15Mbps. That should, in theory, get me up to about 1.9MB/s. However, they also apply a SpeedBoost "technology" (yeah, they just allow extra bursts at higher rates) such that I've seen 2-3MB/s speeds from some mirrors. And wherein the boost is supposed to be for brief durations, though they never really say how brief, I've had sustained 2-3MB/s speeds for 10-30 seconds before settling back down.
Their customer service sucks. But at least I almost never need to talk to them. And when I do, I generally ignore their questions about operating system. Works better that way. Especially since the only times I call are when the cable modem itself no longer has the upstream light on.
If I had mod points, I'd have given you you "up to" +4,000,000,000 Funny.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Maybe as part of net neutrality, Congress will require cmpanies to alter their plans from "upto XXX" to "minimum XXX".
You would be guaranteed that level of speed (or get a pro-rated refund). But most times it would be faster.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall