Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Floydoid on December 19, 2007, 05:47:50 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7151132.stm
It's rather stating the obvious.
-
So being told the reasons we won't get 8mb the powers that be seem to think everything is ok and people who still get very poor speeds have to pay the same as those who get fast speeds.When I first got broadband in April of this year I automatically thought everyone got 8mb.It was not until my line fault was finally sorted out and the third BT engineer told me to have a look at the Kitz website that I really found out what was going on.I guess there is a lot of users out there who just log on daily and don't have a clue about speeds etc.
-
I don't think Ofcom (or anyone else for that matter) takes much notice of the "consumer panel" - its just a vain attempt to make Ofcom look as if they actually care about consumers (which they don't).
-
"This code would establish agreed processes to give the customer the best information during and after the sales process, and to give them flexibility to move freely to different packages that reflect the actual speeds with which their ISPs are able to provide them
Okay they can have "an up to 8Mb" package.... or you can have "an up to 8Mb" package. :no:
maxdsl works at the best speed it can - and it costs the same to provide regardless whether you get 500kbps or 70000kbps. In reality those getting the slower speed lines are more likely to be the most expensive for both BTw and the ISP due to the additional support and problems etc than someone living next door to the exchange getting the full wack. :(
The panel also said it would ask the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that the advertising for net services feature more prominently information about what can slow the passage of data.
I bet the likes of Tiscali et all are laughing their socks off - they totally get away with the unlimited rubbish and their throttling which is the real reason why so many users get carp speeds.
In late September a study by UK magazine Computeractive found that 62% of those who used its speed testing software were browsing the net at less than half of the top speed advertised by their supplier
Yeah well the least said about that the better. The speedtester is/was inaccurate.
-
The panel also said it would ask the Advertising Standards Authority to ensure that the advertising for net services feature more prominently information about what can slow the passage of data.
I bet the likes of Tiscali et all are laughing their socks off - they totally get away with the unlimited rubbish and their throttling which is the real reason why so many users get carp speeds.
I have pointed out on the BBC "Have Your Say" that the problem is ISPs can say whatever they like on their own website. Stop them doing that and the problem goes away (largely). Govt and ASA are in business' pockets though so suck it up people, nothing will change :(
-
This is hilarious, scroll down and read the last line of the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7117065.stm
-
That debate dates from early December Floydoid. BBC "Have Your Say debates" are generally only open for a week or so.
-
I never agreed with Computeractive`s campaign, IMHO it should have focused on the blatant use of the word "Unlimited" which as we all know means nothing of the sort in almost every case.
All the ISPs say "Up To" xxMb.
It doesn`t take a Genius to work out that "Up To" means "Up To" & not "You will get" xxMb.
I really don`t see that any ISP needs to alter any Adverts, why should they they aren`t lying (I include Tiscali - God I hate to say that).
In all honesty its total rubbish & very good PR for the likes of CA, BBC, OFFCOM & a few others who`ve jumped on the bandwagon, they can show they`ve all done their bit & addressed the issues in championing the consumer, when in fact sod all has changed or will change. Maybe they`ll be another asterix or perhaps the "Up To" will be made a little larger or more prominent.
If they really want to do something about this, then they need to make all ISPs Offers transparent, FUPs. AUPs, Caps etc need to be stated.
At present there is no way to properly compare one ISP against another on a level playing field, almost all the issues are hidden behind some sort of Mumbo Jumbo or just blatant Lies "Yes Sir/Madam its really Unlimited", "You can use it as much as you like", "You can download Music, Films etc" & possibly you may get "we may have to step in if you Abuse the service by sending spam or downloading Illegal stuff....Its all in the T&Cs [Avoiding actually explaining anything]" & I`m sure I could go on..... ::)
I`ve been following this campaign & have avoided saying anything, but I had to have a rant about it.
If people don`t understand what "Up To" means then I give up.
Steve
-
What they should be producing and displaying is a list of average speeds for various regions, possibly by postcode, that current users are currently experiencing.
Although even that again may only be an indication and may not reflect accurately what you may actually get.
-
The problem being its impossible to accurately reflect what speeds you could see. - There are far too many variables.
- 1) Distance
The most obvious is your distance from the exchange which will affect your connection speed.. but theres other variables which can and will affect this such as your own set up - router, and internal wiring.
- 2) Exchange Contention
To make adsl affordable to mere mortals, the VP backhaul is shared by many users of different IPstream ISPs. A 1:1 2Mb leased line costs several hundreds of pounds each month, therefore with adsl we "share" the VP backhaul (which can be anything from 4Mb to 155Mb) with several hundred/thousand other users on our exchange. adsl is designed for "bursty" traffic and not continous downloading, therefore if you can imagine it doesnt take too many heavies maxing out their line to affect your exchange.
- 3) ISP Contention
IPStream bandwidth isnt cheap - a 622Mb central pipe costs an ISP something like £1.5 million pounds per annum. An ISP usually has many centrals.
Out of your subs they also have to pay circa £7-£9 each and every month to BTw for your line just being connected at the exchange. This doesnt leave the ISPs much £ to pay for huge amounts of bandwidth on the centrals, nvm before they start taking into account such things as transit (internet) costs, huge servers and equipment, premises and staff.
Therefore a 622Mb pipe can be shared with anything up to 30,000 other users. Again imagine that it wouldnt take too many heavies maxing out to slow things down on the ISP side.
I honestly wouldnt like to be an ISP these days - prices are cheap and the profit for IPStream ISPs is actually slim pickings.... aside from some ISPs with reputations for cramming too many users on their centrals in order to make larger profits. Its the large ISPs with big numbers of users that are more likely to be able to do this and get away with it.
- 4) ISP Throttling
I'm sure I dont need to explain that one ;)
- 5) "Bandwidth Theft"
Viruses, malware and unsecured wireless networks actually do account for a large portion of slow speeds.
I'm sure I mentioned before correspondence I had with a BTw (old style) SFI guy who told me that the largest finding of slow speeds from BT engineer call outs were down to the above factors.
- 6) Home - equipment
The condition of your internal wiring, location of the router, even the type of modem/router you use can make a difference.
As regular readers of this and a few other adsl forums will know... it is possible to improve your chances of getting higher sync speeds by performing a bit of "DIY" on your connection.
Theres other things like MTU issues and tweaking your MTU can sometimes make a difference.
It virtually impossible to guarantee speed with any one of the above factors... never mind mixing all of them together.
Finally its doesn't actually cost an ISP less to provision a line at 2Mb or at 8Mb... The same technology is in place... longer lines are often more troublesome and therefore more expensive to provide and maintain.
Then theres the fact that some users with a 2Mb can do much more "damage" on an exchange VP or the ISPs centrals than other users who may have the full 8Mb. It depends on how the said user utilises that connection.
-
>> What they should be producing and displaying is a list of average speeds for various regions, possibly by postcode, that current users are currently experiencing.
The nearest you are going to get to that is something like this:-
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adslchecker.php
But thats an estimate and no way accurate. The database is often wrong either way.
You may have someone who is estimated at 8Mb - but they have poor internal cabling and equipment. Thats not down to BT or the ISP.
Then you may have very good lines which are conservatively estimated. Mine for eg was showing 6.5Mb but Ive always got the full 8Mb. However I did notice the other month that they had increased it to 8Mb - probably after 18 months of continual syncing at 8Mb, the database was updated accordingly.
-
Indeed how difficult would it be for an ISP, on their website, to simply state the basic factors which effect the speed of ADSL. All that is required is to state that physical line length, internal conditions and CPE (among other factors) effect the speed of service.
Indeed Ofcom are useless when it comes to issues like this and will likely do nothing to improve how broadband services are advertised and described.
Indeed it seems that Ofcoms [almost] sole purpose is simply to make BT bend over backwards to competitors.