FCC Relying On Faulty ISP Performance Data 89
alphadogg writes "The FCC recently used speed test results from comScore as an absolute indicator of specific ISPs' performance. Consulting firm NetForecast analyzed comScore's testing methodology and data to assess whether it accurately reflects broadband ISP performance, and to assess the appropriateness of using the data to reach general conclusions about the actual performance ISPs deliver to their subscribers. NetForecast uncovered problems on both counts. They found that the effective service speeds comScore reports are low by a large margin (PDF) because its data calculations under-report performance and place many subscribers in a higher performance tier than they purchased."
comScore got it more or less right (Score:5, Insightful)
comScore got the data more or less right. The OP's main complaint seems to be that the speed is under-reported because packet loss causes the TCP session they used to slow down. Guess what? Packet loss causes the TCP session to slow down. Customers on ISPs with noticeable loss rates experience slower performance than the line's rated speed. Hello!
Re:FCC is faulty? (Score:4, Insightful)
And we all know employees of private companies are infallible.
Re:comScore got it more or less right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FCC is faulty? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but in contrast to a government operation there are a dozen other companies colluding with each other and trying to screw their consumers as much as possible.
FTFY.
Re:comScore got it more or less right (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically false, but true in practice.
Better would have been to say Windows doesn't come with any such tools, and therefore the vast majority of people don't have access to such a feature because they lack the technical ability to get it.
Re:FCC is faulty? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ya know.....
the only reason ISPs have monopolies is because local governments GAVE them the monopoly. If local governments stopped handing-out these exclusive licenses, and allowed the free market to operate, then we'd have a dozen different companies serving our homes. Just imagine if your choices were:
And the only reason those monopolies stay in place is because those same companies you list collude together to lobby that they stay around. If you think any of those companies actually want to compete against each other you're living in a fantasy world.
Re:FCC is faulty? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Natural monopoly due to high fixed cost of infrastructure would prevent that.
Get real. Running fiber and purchasing/leasing rights-of-way is expensive, and a dozen companies are not going to run out competing infrastructure without making sure they can dominate the local market.
I personally experienced this in '84-86 when my town was trying to get cable service. We voted a local monopoly for 20 years, which expired in 2006. Guess what? Even though everyone was *pissed* at our current provider, and over 60% of survey respondents said they would change providers if equivalent pricing were available, not a single other provider was interested in coming in. Finally we got Verizon to come in with FiOS -- but they already had the rights-of-way and conduit laid (for telephone service), so there was less of an up-front cost for them.
I'm firmly convinced that if Verizon didn't already have a big chunk of the sunk cost taken care, we'd still be languishing under Cablevision -- and paying 40% more for the same service than our neighbors down the road whose condo board allowed satellite dishes.