Loading… loading… new advertising rules for broadband finally arrive

I don’t disagree with you about all the problems that can affect broadband speed but in my view these need to be taken into account when companies market their services.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Exactly duncan. But the Which? research suggests they have accurate results. How was that achieved?

Which? give research showing “broadband services that are, on average, 51% slower than advertised.” Presumably they mean judged against the “up to” speed?

It would be helpful to know just how this research was conducted. For example, were users recording speed on an ethernet cable or on wifi (that can substantially slow speed depending on where the equipment is then located)? Were they measuring speed at a number of different times of day? Did they have up to date equipment? Just that to reach an accurate conclusion you need to have a carefully-constructed test method.

I wonder just what speeds will now be publicised as peak time will be the slowest. Is that helpful? That seems to assume the most important users are those who download entertainment rather than use computers for more serious activities – like convos. Is that a fair criterion?

A number of us have said elsewhere that as the entertainment companies profit heavily from their internet services, that presumably can substantially affect the speed of everyone, they should also contribute quite heavily to upgrading the network to restore and improve speed.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Hi Colum – After using the Which? speed checker we are invited to state which service we are using and the ‘up to’ speed. Surely the speed should be compared with the estimated speed provided by the ISP.

I do wish Which? would push for a ban on ‘up to’ speeds, so that the marketing of broadband was on the basis of an estimated speed range. So long as unattainable speeds are quoted, many users will feel cheated.

Thanks Colum. As the ISP is responsible, as I understand it, only up to the entry connection at the premises this is what should be used to decide the speed they are providing when they are being looked at critically. I agree that they can help people with advice to improve their own (the customer’s) equipment and layout but that is a quite separate issue from deciding whether they are meeting their obligations.

I assume when you say “we released new research showing British households are paying for broadband services that are, on average, 51% slower than advertised. ” you mean less than the “up to” speed. That is not surprising, is it. Presumably the new “rule” that 50% will get the advertised speed means 50% will not, so has much changed?

An “up to” speed, is fairly worthless except to show the maximum the ISP’s service is capable of. We need a system where an individual can find what they are likely to get at their premises.

We live in Stroud Gloucester UK. It’s hilly and our broadband speed is far below acceptable. We are told cable is not even considered possible. If you got 50% at any time we would be rejoicing.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Colum – consumers are given a speed estimate on contracting for BB. This is what they pay for! Not an ‘up to ” advertised speed. What I am missing here – why do you and Which? keep ignoring this?

That was the point I made earlier on this page, Stephen, and others have said the same.

@j964144156 Hi Colum – Please can you explain why Which? is comparing actual speed with the ‘up to’ speed rather than the estimate. Thanks for your recent feedback.

I doubt Which? will reply Wavechange. I raised it with them as soon as the report came out and have had no response. Which? seem happy enough to distort facts when it suits them. I am very disappointed in all this. The credibility of Which? is undermined by this kind of sloppy research.

Let’s hope we get a response, Stephen.

In his introduction, Colum said: “Did you know that, under the rules that go out the window today, providers were able to advertise an “up to” speed, so long as one in 10 of their customers were able to achieve it?” The only reason that ‘one in 10’ was allowed was as a result of campaigning by Which? and others. In my view the industry should never have been allowed to use ‘up to’ speeds in their marketing. While I am not keen on the way that Which? conducts its campaigns, this may be the only way of making progress in tackling dishonest marketing within the industry.

The broadband industry could gain more credibility if the all dropped their ‘up to’ headlines and provided realistic speed ranges for their customers.

It seems to me that advertising any speed that a % of consumers will get is not very helpful. Like 50% at peak time. So half of us will get less than that, and half more. Which half would complain?

We should be looking at how to get an individual speed prediction before we commit to a contract. What others might get is not really relevant.

Yes, and we are agreed that realistic speed predictions are the sensible solution. Unfortunately, what many people focus on is the ‘up to’ headline speed. A minority of people might want to know what the theoretical maximum speed that their connection could support but that could be put in the small print. Would you agree?

We are agreed! :-). Perhaps Which? will also agree and campaign to require speed predictions rather than less helpful averages.

.I believe I understand what “up to” means – the maximum possible speed that the particular ISP’s service can provide. Not the speed I will get.. Knowing the problems with distance from the exchange, traffic, time of day, I don’t think I’ve ever been under the illusion I might get that speed. My ISP did tell me what to expect, and that is more or less what I seem to get.

Some don’t really read information, or choose to misinterpret it.

What bothers me about the Whjch? approach is they compare so-called achieved speeds (of dubious accuracy I’d suggest) with an “up to” advertised speed, which is comparing apples and pears. I do wish they would avoid this kind of misleading argument and properly explain the facts. It might not make such good headlines, but I can do without those.

We are only agreed on one point. It does not matter what you or I can understand, Malcolm. If you want to retain the ‘up to’ speed, why not put it in the small print?

Duplicate post removed.

It is very difficult for ISP’s to support users if ISP’s have no control over what bits of kit users attached to the incoming connection, and users lack of competence in managing said kit. ISP’s are responsible for getting the contracted connection speed to the user premises; if this responsibility is to be extended then ISP’s will have to be able to specify only their equipment is attached to the connection and such equipment is locked down from user amendment. Think about electricity and gas supply – these are supplied to the premises but what happens after that if down to the consumer.

But don’t we get this at the moment – a speed prediction based on the line in question?

Internet service providers need to make it clear that their speed predictions are based on what they deliver to the premises, not what the customer can expect. That must not be hidden in the small print. Advice on how to deal with problems caused by internal wiring, WiFi interference and distance from the router, and simultaneous use of multiple devices can be explained and some ISPs do have very useful help sections on their website. I fully support ISPs charging for engineers’ visits to investigate problems that are not their fault. I assume that ISPs do advise customers to carry out their own checks and warn them of the cost of sending an engineer if no problem is found. If they did not do this then I expect we would see many complaints on websites.

I’m very lucky being on FTTP and my download speed is always around 75Mbps, which is what is advertised.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Thanks for coming back, Colum. I can now see the strategy and would love for ‘up to’ speeds to be banned because I agree that these are what many people focus on. On the other hand, it’s easy for us to get an estimated speed these days and if that was used, many more people would be getting what they pay for. It would be interesting to know how estimated speeds compare with what the customer receives, obviously taking into account problems with internal wiring, WiFi connections and computer equipment.

I will carry on pushing for a ban on use of ‘up to’ in marketing of broadband and hoping that the entertainment industry will help foot the bill for the roll-out of decent broadband services.

Column, I appreciate what you say about advertising. However, whatever general figures are presented are fairly unhelpful. What 50% will receive or exceed means another 50% will not. Which 50% will the recipient be in? And how far short of the speed advertised will they be?

Surely Which? could recognise that promoting an individual speed estimate is far more useful, and helpful, to the customer? By all means have slightly better advertising, but adding the means to get far better information would be much more benefial?

Yes – I thought this might be the case. But the simple fact is that the statement that people are not getting the service they are paying for is not correct. Which? is being disingenuous in using the survey results in this way. This concerns me greatly. If Which? cannot be honest with the facts why should they expect others to be honest. No need to reply too this – I am in the process of taking this matter up with the Which? hierarchy. Thanks for the response.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

So far as I am aware, the government is paying Openreach for much of the faster fibre roll-out and in many areas it is ahead of schedule. I think it is inevitable that there will be some pockets of total isolation that only other technologies can bridge.

My gripe about VM and other media suppliers [including BT] is that they are flooding the network with content in connected areas but have not made an equivalent contribution towards the capacity.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

This comment was removed at the request of the user

It must be your computer or browser, Harry. I have used it on about ten computers since it was first available.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

OK. If Harry wants to keep his settings an easy option would be to switch to another browser. I used to have a variety of browsers for different purposes but two do the job now.

This comment was removed at the request of the user