Update: how do broadband providers get away with ‘up to’ speed advertising?

Malcolm, you talk a lot of sense.

Do any ISPs actually promise speeds? I have been with 4 ISPs at my current address and they have advised I won’t get a great speed because of the distance to the exchange but should be able to get 4.5Mbps. On several occasions when the speed has dropped, they have worked with me to try and improve it. I have never switched ISP just to get a better speed as there is no point. But I can honestly say no ISP has conned me into a contract that is unattainable.

ISPs are mainly dependent on the BT infrastructure and you can’t get blood out of a stone.

“Up to” depends on so many things and Which? would do better lobbying for BT to improve the infrastructure and advising people how to get the most from their slow speed not just backing weak directives from Ofcom.

Hi Malcolm, thanks for your comment. There are two issues here. One is the interaction you have with your provider when taking out a contract. This is why our campaign last year resulted in changes to Ofcom’s code of practice – requiring providers to give individual customers more information about the speed they can expect to receive, and giving people stronger rights to leave their contract penalty free if the speed they receive fall below that reasonable level.

And then there’s how speeds are advertised more generally. If a handful of customers can receive a speed of 150Mbps, does that mean a provider can advertise with [small letters] “up to” and then [big headline] 150Mbps? We think that the headline speed should be available to the majority of customers if a provider uses it in advertising. That gives all consumers a clearer indication of what speed that provider’s package offers, before they engage in the purchasing process. We’re not calling for all customers to get the maximum speed advertised, but for broadband ads to be more realistic.

Yes, it’s a good idea to contact all providers to get an estimated speed, but many find that the way the speed is presented influences their decision of which provider to engage with. Hence the importance of challenging advertising rules to make sure that they are fit for purpose and give consumers a realistic picture of what they can expect. We don’t think the current guidelines do this, so we’re asking for them to be reviewed.

Patrick, I understand that. However, what headline speed do you advertise? It will never match everyone’s achieved speed, will it. So it seems to me a pretty useless concept to pursue. If I know my provider is limited to 16 Mbps (on copper for example) but am told how to find out what I am likely to get then I will have useful information.

If you simply want to knock the way the advert is done – like EU fuel consumption – then that is fine by me. But put something constructive in its place. What I strongly dislike is the inference in your campaign that 15.4 million people have all been misled into getting an unachievable speed. Which? are simply sinking to the same level as the advertisers we seek to constrain.

I’m probably a lone voice, but I would like Which? to adopt objective fact-based actions and stop treating consumers as non-critical observers who can be marshalled into a campaign by stretching the truth. As well as having consumer support you also need to be seen by commerce, industry and others as a fair-minded consumer champion to retain their respect.:-(

All marketing needs to be honest to decide which companies to shortlist when choosing a broadband service. I’m grateful for the efforts of Which? but disappointed that Ofcom and ASA have not done more.

Maybe ‘up to’ still has a place in the context of broadband. The service providers could be told that they have ‘up to six months’ to accede to the proposals made by Which? These seem reasonable and fair to me.

Malcolm – My last comment was related to Patrick’s post.

You ask what headline speed speed should be advertised. Most consumers will be looking for a service that meets their current or future needs, which might be being able to use iPlayer, YouView or use games consoles, and both speed and infrequent disruption of service are important. It is the minimum speed that is the vital information and anything above this is a bonus.

As well as the minimum speed, you could give some breakdown of what service users achieve but the least helpful information is the maximum possible speed.

wavechange, as you will see from my comment I have no disagreement here. The point I was making – where I am concerned- is Which?’s inflammatory approach. I do not see it as a necessary or a good way for a responsible organisation to enlist support for a campaign. I want positive proposals, not negative company bashing.

You say “All marketing needs to be honest”. Of course it does, and “up to” is honest, just not very helpful. Is this campaign honest? I think Which? is using the same marketing tactics that we criticise elsewhere. So honest? Economical with the facts perhaps to help persuade us.

As you will note I have been critical in the past of Which?’s approach to a few consumer issues. I am not one who thinks everything Which? does is above criticism and will continue to voice a view when I think it has crossed a line. But maybe my concept of what Which? (Consumers Association) job should be, and its approach, is outmoded. It certainly seems more populist to knock commercial organisations at any opportunity.

Malcolm – Having worked in research where we were expected to publish information that was objective and backed up by evidence and statistical treatment of results, I have never been comfortable with high profile campaigning. But – as every politician knows – you will not achieve much if you try and take the middle road. The Conversation introductions are, I assume, deliberately provocative to encourage more people to participate. In many cases the text has been revised when someone has pointed out a factual error. If commercial organisations feel that they are being victimised then they could take legal action against the Consumers’ Association. Maybe that does not happen very often because it would draw attention to why the companies were being criticised.

If I’m going to join in with Which?-bashing, my main concern is probably the time than issues like broadband speed drag on. I’m beginning to think that the issue will disappear when we all have fibre broadband. Although I am very happy with the input Which? has made to raising awareness and action on the campylobacter problem, why little was done before, either by the Food Standards Agency or Which? My neighbour has just informed me that his wife is lying paralysed in hospital as a result of a severe bout of food poisoning believed to be caused by chicken. She has Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare complication of campylobacter poisoning. It happened abroad but could equally have been in the UK.

I’m glad to see Which? giving us the opportunity to discuss problems outside the commercial sector.

The Cambridge Dictionary quotes ‘up to’ can be used as either an adverb or a preposition. Used in the context of an adverb for advertising purposes referred to above it is “used to say that something is less than or equal to but not more than a stated value, number, or level.

Used as a preposition (doing) – to be doing something, often something bad or illegal, usually secretly eg (I’m sure he is up to something) or (responsibility) – to be the responsibility of someone eg (It’s up to the manager to make the final decision).

Suffice to say probably all of the above are relevant when attempting to promote a product. People can be easily deceived when psychological tactics are used to sell sell sell.

Yes. I can see what they are up to with ‘up to’.

Perhaps ‘up to here with it’ would reflect popular opinion of how many of us feel about the broadband providers.

Hi Malcolm, we try to cover the issue as clear as possible in a short space, but also so that it’s engaging to get as wide an audience as possible for these important issues. Our research resulted in newspaper front pages and lots of online coverage. We think change is needed and we’re highlighting the facts, based on in depth research, policy work and consumer surveys: http://www.staticwhich.co.uk/documents/pdf/broadband-advertising-not-up-to-speed-406472.pdf

I also thought it was worth mentioning that we work closely with companies and regulators, sharing our research and advising them on where we think they need to make changes. I’m sorry if it might look like we’re just knocking companies – we want to work with business to make them change for the better, to improve customers’ lives and ultimately their businesses. As an example we invited TalkTalk and OpenReach to our event with Ofcom. We have also had some positive industry responses to our calls: http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/broadband-speed-service/Virgin-SSE-against-confusing-broadband-ads

I hope that goes some way to answering your concerns Malcolm.

wavechange, having worked in research myself I am well aware of the importance of facts, and of presenting them in an objective way – not shaping them match preferred conclusions. However, I am not criticising “Conversations” – there we all have the opportunity to present information and opinions to allow others to draw conclusions. Here I am concerned with Campaigns aiming to garner support from Which? members; I received mine today by email asking me to “end confusing broadband ads” (ok) but introduced by the 15.4 million misled people claim. That is not objective, but manipulative, and factually untrue. I do not want Which? as an independent consumer organisation to follow the example you cite “as every politician knows – you will not achieve much if you try and take the middle road.”. They mislead us with economy of truth to achieve their dubious ends. It was hardly a good example to support the case.

Patrick, I agree with the broad aim, but am concerned when the tactics are dubious. There is a clear case here to amend the broadband ads without resorting to unsupportable facts.15.4 million people were not misled – perhaps you could have said “up to a shocking 15.4 million households aren’t getting the promised ‘up to’ broadband speeds they’re paying for. 🙂 and come down to the level of the worst.

Grabbing headlines is fine when you have a case that is clearcut, but like the EU fuel consumption headlines, you are misleading the public for cheap publicity.

You’ll be glad to hear that once again mrs r has made a cuppa and I’m going to relax……. until the next time. 🙂

Patrick, just a quick question while the tea brews:
Which? say “A shocking 15.4 million households aren’t getting the promised ‘up to’ broadband speeds they’re paying for.”
What speed were these 15.4 million people “promised” exactly?
Or do you mean that 15.4 million people aren’t getting the maximum speed (the “up to speed) that many ISPs advertise.
There is a big difference
Sorry – I suppose that’s two questions and it’s now poured out..

Malcolm I think it means, quite simply, 15.4 million people were actually paying for more than they were actually receiving or, more importantly, thought they would get.

PS I hope Mrs r remembered to fill your cuppa ‘up to’ the top of your cup!

Beryl, I don’t think it means that, or was meant to (IMO). We generally pay the same (for a given service) but get a speed that partly depends on our location in relation to the exchange. I think it was an ill-considered and incorrect introduction designed just to grab headlines.

Our cups hold up to half a pint but I don’t like it full to the brim in case a shaky hand spills it on the carpet.

Incidentally, as I seem to be in a grumpy mood today I quote “Which? analysis discovers energy bills have not kept in line with falling wholesale prices, costing consumers up to £2.9 billion over the last year – an equivalent of up to £145 per household on a standard tariff.” One Which? bad use of up to – is it £2.9 billion or not – and one good use – up to £145 depending no doubt what you’ve paid. One of our anti-up-tos posted this. Funny old world.

Anyway, as it’s late, mrs r has now made a hot chocolate. Hope it’s not too full. 🙂

As Patrick says, there is a lot of coverage of the broadband speed issue at present and a friend mentioned this yesterday evening. She went on to say that she was resigned to companies giving less than they promise and gave a couple of familiar examples that illustrated her contempt for dishonest marketing.

I have signed up to give my support to Which?, adding this note: ‘My broadband provider stopped using ‘up to’ claims a couple of years ago, but I’m supporting this campaign because others need to do the same.’

Totally agree. ‘From’ is another foxy word used in marketing telecom tariffs.

Do you mean ‘From only ££’ or have I missed something, John?

I wish that marketing people would not constantly claim or infer that their products and services are better than they are. After many years, I still feel that Gerald Ratner should have been given an award for honesty in marketing.

Yes, “From only £- – -“. I realise it is difficult to market products that come in a range of specifications at different price points but in too many cases the highest grade product is illustrated or described whereas the ‘from’ price refers only to the lowest grade. This is virtually ubiquitous, from sofas to holidays, but when ‘up to’ and ‘from’ appear together as seems often to be the case with telecom tariffs there is double jeopardy.

It’s interesting how things have changed in the East Riding. In the days when nationalised British Telecom had an almost nationwide monopoly, the municipal Kingston-upon-Hull telephone system was held up as a paragon of good service, economy, efficiency and progressive development!

I doubt that you’d find 4G in an area with poor landline infrastructure – I would guess both of these investments are mostly made in populous areas.

I used phone tethering and mobile broadband for several months after moving house 3 years ago. It was OK for basic emailing and surfing but no use for media streaming.

I have no doubt that you are right that most areas with 4G coverage also have decent broadband via landlines but I have discovered a few with good 4G and poor landline broadband since I have owned a 4G phone. I was thinking about those who have modest demands such as accessing email and websites rather than streaming.

Further detail I forgot to mention. BT won’t give us a complaint number as ‘it isn’t their problem’. We can’t get one from Openreach as we aren’t their customer, BT are!

Don’t let Openreach off the hook. In rural areas especially it’s Openreach’s network that’s likely to be the primary cause of slow speeds.

If “politicians” see a problem then they have the power to try to change it. So instead of making remarks like this perhaps Ed Vaizey should actually do something about it.

He could, however, point out in the meantime that subscribers can get a check on the actual speed they should be receiving by asking their potential provider. But that would not make headlines, I suppose – too mundane (and practical).