Had it ‘up to’ here with broadband advertising? You’re not alone

My Broadband provider has recently advertised they’re doubling my broadband, what they omit is not until Jun -Oct 2013. That’s kinda pointless too.

Any upto speeds should be for a minimum of 51% of customers and if I was to push the boat out ideally for over 75% of them. If not, then they should be banned from upto and state the minimum achievable, that would certainly inspire then to improve it for all.

I have been wondering if Which? will be doing anything to protect the interests of those who are quite content with a low broadband speed and enjoy a lower price for it. There is so much pressure for faster and faster broadband that in some places there will be no alternative and charges will surely rise across the board.

How about Which campaigning for all new houses to be built with a satisfactory infrastructure?

I’ve moved into a new house and the speeds are….. wait for it….. 1MB download and 0.07k upload!!

Kev actually has it quite good, we can’t even run iplayer or watch a film on lovefilm the connection speed is so slow. I understand that we are a way from the exchange, however, PlusNet are our provided (recommended by Which) yet their service is so sporadic that we hardly ever get a reliable connection.
I can accept variations in the providers network speed/bandwidth, yet we don’t have an initial high enough speed to cope when something goes wrong their end, which is very very frequent.

The irony is that there is another exchange much nearer to us but that would involve laying a pipe across the river which I am sure was decided to be “too expensive”. We would honestly be better off with a dial up connection, I cannot believe how we pay the same as everyone else yet don’t get anything like the service due to where we live.

A Which? investigation could be “Should we pay for our broadband according to the actual speeds/bandwidth that we can receive?”

Surely that is the point, you get a decent connection, you pay more, I am happy to do that, but then I suppose the ISP’s wouldn’t be able to make any money from the majority of people having a poor connection, how silly of me!

You have to realise and accept that anyone’s Broadband speed is primarily dependent on the length of their copper phone line to the exchange; it’s just obeying the Laws of Physics.

The ISPs are simply advertising the top speeds of the technologies they are employing, as they cannot predict the mix of the potential speeds of their target market. However, they should be able to give a much more accurate estimate once an individual applies for the product and supplies their phone number.

The comparison with car speeds is unfair as they are not subject to the similar constraints. You don’t have cars going slower as they get further from the filling station. Unless you are thinking of battery powered vehicles 🙂

I use BT for both my phone and Broadband, so that BT cannot argue over suppliers. I am in a rural area and get about 2 – 4 meg and this allows me to use I player. My main complaintis about internet screens taking a longer than normal time due to the fact it waits until all the adverts are loaded, however this is a problem with the site. The only real problem I’ve experienced in the early days my NETWORK was slow. However a phone call to BT got me a UK centre and the very techically aware person who analysed my fault and told me how to fix the problem with my network. For ME BT is a very good supplier with excellent backup and supplies one stop shopping. Yes it may be more expensive but it’s the aftercare that is important to me.

Up to speeds are so wrong. They may as well say up to 100 mbps even if you can only get 3 ! In fact the ISP can test your line and give you a speed which your line can take. If you then sign up with that ISP that speed is what you should get. Many years ago in Hong Kong they were getting a speed of 100 mbps so goodness knows what they are getting now.
Sitting Duck