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%."

Comments

Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite.

[Rary]

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%.

"Up to" doesn't mean "median" or "mean". "Up to" means "up to", as in "maximum".

That being said, it is rather sneaky to advertise a product by focusing on a theoretical maximum that you may (or may not) experience on the rarest of occasions. It's kind of like selling a limited service as "unlimited". But no one would ever do that, right?

Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite.

[MBCook]

Do you think Doritos would be allowed to sell bags as "up to a pound" when they averaged 9oz and some had quite a bit less? The big problem is it's one way. When you are promised Xmbps, you get some number, Y, where Y<= X. I would be amazed if more than 1% of the broadband population got higher than their rated speed. If it was a real normal distribution, or when you called to sign up they told you "you can expect to get X most of the time".

But my parents have 12 or 15mbps cable internet. During normal hours (even early afternoon) it is almost never faster than about 8mbps, and that's with multiple downloads coming from what I assume to be a CDN, because most sites aren't anywhere near that. Over the last 5-6 years, the top speed you could reach on their cable line has dropped as more people have signed on, but the advertised speed (and the price) have both increased. They have a medium package since there is no point trying to get more on an oversubscribed line.

I, on the other hand, pay for 6mbps DSL, and get almost exactly 6. I like getting what I pay for, and if I could only get 3, I'd pay for that service level.

If your "up to" only applies to 5% of your customers, you're scamming them. If it was 30%, I think we'd all be a lot more forgiving.

Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite.

[DeadPixels]

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.

Technically correct

[fluffy99]

Yes, some customers are getting "up to" the advertised speed. Since all the advertising says "up to" this isn't lying. Where's the story in this?

And I want their bandwidth...

[SanityInAnarchy]

You'd think that'd be a mutually beneficial arrangement of the sort that would make Adam Smith proud...

But no, it seems they want to keep my money and their bandwidth, so fuck 'em.

I'm running at 100 Percent

[amiga3D]

I have a small local ISP here. Comsouth.net they consistently run at 100 percent of advertised speed. I'm amazed sometimes how fast it is. No lag, no drop in speed after the kiddies get home from school. I don't know what's wrong with them.

You don't say!

[fudoniten]

This is unbelievable! Next you're going to tell me that "3.9G wireless" doesn't mean anything, or that 9 out of 10 doctors don't recommend Crest, or that most items in an "up to 90% off!" sale are not in fact 90% off!

Sounds pretty paranoid to me. If we can't trust company advertisements for unbiased information, what can we trust?

So just what am I paying for?

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.

Re:Technically..

[jc42]

I learned long ago that whenever an advertiser says "up to", you should always translate it as "less than" in your mind. That's what they're really saying; they're just saying it in a way that's misleading but legal.

Why, send them a nice letter...

[zogger]

...tell them you will pay them "up to" the agreed on price for their service, but you will determine what the real sums involved will be.

The incentives are all wrong

[Ichijo]

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.

"Up to" means "less than"

[Clovert Agent]

It's standard marketing bullshit. Every time you see "up to" in an ad, replace it with "less than". "Up to 10mbps", "up to 80% shinier hair", "up to whatever". If one out of the entire sample/customer base experienced an anomalous outlier result, they will claim "up to" that. You're statistically unlikely to be the anomalous outlier, therefore you will experience less than what they're claiming.

"Less than" is more accurate anyway. What you experience may be anything in a wide range of values below that, but you KNOW you won't experience more. So do the mental substitution, and I promise your perception of advertising will change as a result.

It's not a lie

[Weaselmancer]

"Up To" means "Less Than or Equal To".

What are all the numbers you can name from zero "up to" 6.7? Would you expect to encounter 3 and 4 on your way up to 6.7?

It's misleading maybe, but it's not a lie. They are publishing their maximum possible speed. YMMV.

Re:It's not a lie

[DimmO]

Would you expect to encounter 3 and 4 on your way up to 6.7?

Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to six point seven.

Re:It's not a lie

[beh]

Indeed, if it's speed limited, then it would be a lie.

With your broadband modem, if it's configured for 6.7MBit/s, then that is your speed limitation. Whether the network behind it can serve it is another matter.

The article itself, on the other hand, is doubly bogus - for one thing, they don't seem to get the wording 'up to', the other thing is that the compare the MEDIAN speed to the 'up to' speed.

Picture this: Your sports car can go UP TO 300km/h. There is no speed limit on the motorway (in Germany, at least) - yet traffic moves at a median speed of around 130km/h.

Does this mean the 'UP TO 300km/h' on your sports car brochure is wrong?
No... The median speed has nothing to do with what the car would be capable of.

Same thing here - if they were to say 'up to 6.7MBit/s' in the brochure, but their observed TOP speed over half a year would never go past 4MBit/s, they might have a case. Saying the median is lower than the top speed - only one word springs to mind: Duh!

Well, there is a solution of sorts:

[Penguinisto]

...what if I, in return, promise to pay the ISP "up to" $45/mo for their service?

Oh, that's right - they'd cut me off. :/

/P

Re:Well, there is a solution of sorts:

[Shakrai]

If everybody switched away from ISPs that pulled this crap they would stop doing it in short order. Just switch to another local provider and this will all go away. It's not like your local government cut a deal with them giving them monopoly status in exchange for bribes^Wfranchise fees or anything.......

Re:ISP's want your money...

[Hognoxious]

News at up to 12

FTFY.