Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Author Topic: Interesting but not unexpected  (Read 3828 times)

tuftedduck

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 29658
  • Router Luvvin Duck
Interesting but not unexpected
« on: July 27, 2010, 08:20:43 AM »

Are you getting the speed you pay for ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10760069
Logged

UncleUB

  • Helpful
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 29543
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2010, 08:42:56 AM »

In a nutshell......No  >:(

Its a case of up to,might,could,depends etc,etc.

Logged

roseway

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 43562
  • Penguins CAN fly
    • DSLstats
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2010, 09:35:42 AM »

I suppose the interesting thing will be whether OFCOM actually do anything about it. They can't produce faster or more reliable connections out of a hat, but maybe they can make the advertising more honest.
Logged
  Eric

waltergmw

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2776
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2010, 10:02:07 AM »

Given that there is no Universal Service Obligation how on earth is an ISP going to stick his neck out today using the (inaccurate) BT line performance database when it could, and often does, all change tomorrow ?

Unless and until BT have sufficient capital to fibre up the whole country we will have to rely on the more dependable Virgin Media fibre / coax network which we all know is better, for those that can get it, but it is far from perfect.

It would also help if BT removed their head from the sand and were prohibited from using the term superfast broadband EXCEPT where their infrastructure is FTTH.

Kind regards,
Walter
Logged

silversurfer44

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4421
  • Lord Muck
    • Ben Novice Weather
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2010, 10:05:23 AM »

Since when did any company advertise honestly. Which ISP is going to be the first to advertise
'Possibly 8meg providing you have your adsl modem plugged directly into the exchange. Anybody else will have a long line.'
There's not much OFCOM can do IMHO, except educate the users not to expect what the read about in adverts.
O2 have been fairly honest with me, but then I didn't expect what it says in their adverts about LLU.
Logged
Colin II : It's no good being a pessimist, it wouldn't work anyway.

geep

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
    • My ST546 Statistics
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2010, 11:11:13 AM »

What about Ofcom legislating that we only pay for the proportion of the advertised speed actually received?
I get 7 on a 24 connection so I should only pay 7/24's of the advertised price   ;D
Cheers,
Peter
Logged

cakei3

  • Just arrived
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2010, 11:19:40 AM »

why not tell your provider that you will pay anything up to the advertised price they are asking for their bb
Logged

HPsauce

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2010, 11:22:27 AM »

Would pay according to speed necessarily be that fair though?
Firstly, the costs are actually higher for slower users as they're normally on longer lines with more maintenance.
Secondly, how much of what we do is THAT speed-sensitive, so what would be a fair pricing mechanism?
Posting this here would work equally well on dial-up speeds for example.
Logged

UncleUB

  • Helpful
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 29543
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2010, 11:26:50 AM »

What about Ofcom legislating that we only pay for the proportion of the advertised speed actually received?
I get 7 on a 24 connection so I should only pay 7/24's of the advertised price   ;D
Cheers,
Peter

User A....lives a hundred metres from the exchange and on an up to 8mb package will get nearly the full 8mb

User B who lives 6km (or thereabouts) from the exchange might be lucky to get a quarter of a MB..yet there is a lot more cabling  used to get user B online..so should he be the one to pay more.?

I see HP has beat me too it. ;D
Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2010, 12:24:11 PM »

To my simple mind, the biggest problem is that there are two potential bottlenecks, the first is the connection speed, and the second is 'bandwidth' of the ISP.  By 'bandwidth', I mean contention ratios,  congestion, FUPs and traffic shaping.

As regards the ISPs, and taking one example from above, I fully understand why ISPs have to impose traffic shaping.  But an ISP who applies traffic-shaping should, in my view, be made to state up-front that the headline 'up to' figure will only be available for some applications, whilst other applications (preferably to be listed in advertisements) will be 'up to' a much lower figure.
 
For connection speed, my view is that the real problem is lack of accountability.  BT seem to have complete freedom to declare what each line is 'capable of', with no means of challenge, unless the householder is lucky enough to be able to demonstrate a voice-line defect.  Further, each line's actual connection speed is governed largely by BT's DLM (LLU excepted), and again - BT seem to be responsible to nobody for ensuring that DLM works as efficiently as it can.

Logged

BritBrat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Interesting but not unexpected
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2010, 04:31:24 PM »

To my simple mind, the biggest problem is that there are two potential bottlenecks, the first is the connection speed, and the second is 'bandwidth' of the ISP.  By 'bandwidth', I mean contention ratios,  congestion, FUPs and traffic shaping.


You missed the third but most important one.

Profit.

We need OpenReach to be publicly owned with the main task to role out a Digital Britain being funded from taxes and leasing out the service to ISP's at a reasonable cost.

i.e. No profit.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 04:35:17 PM by BritBrat »
Logged

tuftedduck

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 29658
  • Router Luvvin Duck
Logged