Slashdot Mirror


Measuring Broadband America Report Released

AzTechGuy writes "Early this year I received one of the 'Whitebox' routers to test the speed of my ISP and compare it to the advertised speed. Today I received an email that they have released the first report with another report due at the end of the year. My results do not correspond with the results reflected in the report." It appears that most ISPs are within 80% of their advertised speeds during peak hours with Verizon leading the pack mostly exceeding their advertised rates. Cablevision users, on the other hand, shouldn't expect more than half of the promised bandwidth (youch!).

10 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Errr what? by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My results do not correspond with the results reflected in the report.

    You mean a single data point doesn't follow the trend? Throw the study out! It must be crap!

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  2. False advertising by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would say that any company that was listed that never reached an average of their advertised speed should be taken to task for false advertising. Maybe dragged in front of the FTC, and possible legal action since it looks like most providers are never able to deliver their advertised speed.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:False advertising by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The words 'up to' and 'average' do not mean the same thing.

    2. Re:False advertising by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      Actually, it should be cap/time. If you have a "100mbit" connection with a 5GB monthly cap, a listed speed above 1.9kbps is false advertising.

      Indeed. As are fuel consumption figures for cars with the throttle anything less than wide open.

  3. Promised bandwidth? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cablevision users, on the other hand, shouldn't expect more than half of the promised bandwidth (youch!).

    "Promised bandwidth"? I'm sure if you read the fine print on *any* residential broadband SLA, you'll find the ISP "promises" exactly *zero* bandwidth. Every contract I've ever seen says they promise speeds "up to" a certain amount but there is no lower limit to what they actually deliver. This is akin to the good old days of zero CIR frame relay where the provider had the right to discard up to 100% of your packets if network congestion became an issue. In return, you got rock-bottom pricing. I never saw any ISP ever drop 100% of packets due to a zero CIR, so you were essentially gambling (and winning) that the ISP would always have some spare bandwidth.

    I'm sure people who opt for the 22Mbit/sec package expect they should get 22Mbit/sec or something close to it on a regular basis, and if the ISP is only regularly providing, say, 2Mbit/sec then the customer has a reason to be upset. However, to say the ISP is "promising" bandwidth is a complete fabrication. The OP should read up and understand the different between "up to" and "no less than."

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Promised bandwidth? by LinksAwakener · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that expecting 100% of advertised speeds--since the advertisement claims "up to"--is entirely unrealistic. However, there certainly has to be a threshold where a user could claim false advertisement. IMHO, getting 70% of the speed is barely acceptable, 50% is downright atrocious.

  4. good faith? by Nyall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how long this will last until a class action suit.

    I think the ISPs are hiding behind the variables like distance to the tap and peak hours to not make a good faith effort to provide what they are advertising.

    In many cases people pay for 3mbs but get 2mbs, then upgrade to the 6mbs plan and get 4mbs, which demonstrates the ISPs capability to have delivered the full 3mbs in the first place.

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
  5. Cablevision/Optimum is Fine by MoldySpore · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cablevision users, on the other hand, shouldn't expect more than half of the promised bandwidth

    Hmm...Perhaps you may not hit the max advertised rate on Cablevision's Optimum service, but I can tell from experience that it is much faster than most other services. I have Time Warner Road Runner Turbo and I am paying $66/mo for it in Western NY. I MAX out @ 1.7 MBps sustained, with bursts up to 2.0 MBps (Yes, Mega BYTES, bot bits). But when I visit my friends who live in Eastern NY where Time Warner doesn't have a death gripping monopoly on the broadband market, they are paying far less per month for speeds that always exceed 2.0 MBps on STANDARD level service. Optimum Online Boost, which some do have, get in excess of 3.0 MBps.

    So in my personal experience, Optimum wipes to floor with other ISPs. Especially because they have no enforced cap like Comcast or FIOS, and are faster than Time Warner and Cox based connections. Benchmarks and speed tests are fine, but my real world use will decide what ISP I look for when it comes time to buy a house somewhere else. I don't care if they only give me 1/10th of their advertised speed. As long as that speed is still faster than the competition for an equal or lesser price, which so far they have been delivering in my experience.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  6. Why are these graphs not symmetric? by mc_barron · · Score: 2

    If these speeds are averages over several days, and we are looking at 24 hours of data, then why in the world does the right side of the graph not mirror the left side of the graph? Surely the speeds don't suddenly change at midnight?

  7. Re:Verizon Rates vs. Caps by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Verizon FIOS has no caps.

    Only Verizon Wireless has caps.