Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: stevebrass on May 18, 2018, 04:23:07 PM
-
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44160630#comment_130571281 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44160630#comment_130571281)
I think Which? are wrong to say that people don't get what they pay for based on the maximum speed of the package, as their contract will show the likely download speed - which is what you are paying for in contractual terms.
-
TBH I'm not sure even if the new ASA rules will satisfy everyone, and if it will just confuse people further.
Anyhow these figures are how Plusnet will be advertising their products from next week.
-
My own take.
Personally, I think people just need to use common sense, and to use their understanding of the english language, to take things literally.
“upto 25 Mbps” includes all speeds, from dialup modem speeds and less, upwards, but excluding anything above 25 Mbps. “Upto 1,000,000,000 Mbps” also includes all speeds from dialup and less, upwards, excluding anything above quoted limit. The expression “Upto” defines the maximum, not the minimum, and not even the median.
It doesn’t help that ‘upto’ has been adopted as the defensive clause in BBC and other news reports, when unsure of their facts. They’ll say for example “ upto 300 people are affected” (by whatever) when the mean “about 300 people are affected”. Don’t ask me why, but BBC & etc never say “about” these days, it is always “upto”.
Even so, most people in UK should be capable of a command of our language. “Upto” is an upper limit, nothing more, and carries no implication as a minimum. Why do native UK, English speaking people find that hard to understand? Sorry, but I just don’t get it. ???
-
What Sevenlayermuddle said.
-
I wonder, if ISPs start to publish accurate “average” figures as well as “up to”, will there soon be articles in the press with headlines...
“Shock. Horror. Around half of ISP customers get less than the claimed average”
::)
-
RevK of AA wrote some horrifying stuff about this in his blog, revk.uk.
He pointed out that as well as playing with wording and statistical choices, ISPs could just segment their set of users so that they could quote crazy derived stats making them look ridiculously better than other ISPs just by choice of the data set and choice of calculation methodology. You just have a 'Turbo deal' and only put the users with the best lines on that 'deal', so giving you a subset that looks stunning. A grammar school amongst ISPs and lines.
-
I think overall this might work out better in terms of sales for some ISP's because the 'upto' term meant most people were disappointed from the original advertised speed.
At least by printing the average speeds then if someone gets above that they will feel very happy.
It might also be an idea to find a way to test the real speed of individual connections before entering in to a full contract. I think my minimum speed was set at mid 50s. I've never been that low (yet). It might be interesting to have a 1 month trial/testing period and then after that depending on the sync speed will calculate the monthly contractual price.
-
The estimated speeds that are provided now are fairly accurate in my experience, what good is a population average to somebody's individual line? It's a silly, misleading, use of stats.
-
Also there is no such thing as a 'line' speed. Only a speed of a particular modem at a particular time on a line. They would need to define a 'standard modem' which might not be a bad idea, a reference posh design.
-
The estimated speeds that are provided now are fairly accurate in my experience, what good is a population average to somebody's individual line? It's a silly, misleading, use of stats.
It's rather difficult to provide an estimate tailored to a person's individual address on an advertising hoarding, on the side of a bus of whatever. :)
-
So they see the average speed advertised on a hoarding, visit the ISP website and enter their number or address, then find their individual line speed estimate is lower ... then they contact Which? and moan, and the cycle continues.
-
Folk seem both logically and mathematically challenged these days. Anecdotally: I had the task of collecting monies from certain clients. Usually we were well above the average of all our offices, but once not.
Boss has me in to moan. he couldn't grasp that our results raised to the average, would still mean we would have performed below the average still. ::)
-
So they see the average speed advertised on a hoarding, visit the ISP website and enter their number or address, then find their individual line speed estimate is lower ... then they contact Which? and moan, and the cycle continues.
Not quite. Which? run a survey that collects attained speed and maximum advertised speed and conclude that respondents are not getting the speed they pay for, ignoring the advised individual speed.
-
I think the problem is over hyped speeds/quality and the reality of service what people actually get.
I think the 'upto' word was used as a marketing ploy to entice people to pay big money for an illusion that people with knowledge know isn't likely to be achieved.
I think when ISP's post the average speeds there won't be as many people disappointed.
If you're getting an educated guess of speed then its better from a marketing view to guess slightly lower than what you think.
-
Be good to see these ISPs that people were paying 'big money' for that were selling an illusion. I'd hope that anyone with the ability to spend 'big money' is capable of reading the personalised estimate supplied them under the Ofcom code before they agree to pay their 'big money'.
Obviously there are those services that do not provide a personalised speed estimate. This will do virtually nothing to impact them - where the laws of physics aren't the enemy they've ensured they're up to scratch, which they pretty much were anyway before this came in.
Our broadband services remain pretty cheap in the grand scheme. You can purchase 'faster' FTTC with line rental for the same price as a meal for 2 at McDonalds 3 times a month. Regular speed FTTC is a couple of McD's for two with a cup of Starbucks each a month.
-
Be good to see these ISPs that people were paying 'big money' for that were selling an illusion. I'd hope that anyone with the ability to spend 'big money' is capable of reading the personalised estimate supplied them under the Ofcom code before they agree to pay their 'big money'.
As I said in my last post the problem is that copper broadband hardly ever delivers what it should do and this is why advertising as been trying to fit a square peg in a round hole for many years.
We have to acknowledge that most people aren't like us. They don't look at the small print, and might not even take notice of the estimated speed. They just want broadband thats working and as cheap as possible. As long as it does what they want then they are happy.
An example of my point is if you and me were running rival ISP's and you advertised upto 76MB and I was advertising the average connection att 66MB. You would get more people disappointed than I would based on perception of service. That's my thoughts on it. I guess we'll see what happens after the changes and see if the complaints level as dropped any.
-
Hopefully the requirement to provide personalised estimates put paid to that one, however I am a humanist and at times have definitely had too much faith in my fellow human being ;D
-
I guess we'll see what happens after the changes and see if the complaints level as dropped any.
People will always complian, no matter what. The real question is, will the media consider whether he complaints are valid, and take the complaints seriously?
For Which?, consumer complaints are their bread and butter, they are not impartial. Broadband complaints are a big earner for Which? and I’d not expect them to relax their grip on that market anytime soon, no matter what action ISPs may take. Which? Will do what they will do, based solely on whatever will earn themselves the most money.