ISPs Lie About Broadband "Up To" Speeds 547
Haffner writes "Ars Technica has an article detailing the difference between ISP advertised 'up to x Mbps' speeds and the actual speeds, in addition to some possible solutions. They find that on average, the advertised speeds were 'up to 6.7 Mbps' while the real median was 3 Mbps and the mean was 4 Mbps. This implies that ISPs were falsely advertising by at least 50%."
So just what am I paying for? (Score:5, Interesting)
And how do we compare plans? If one ISP has "up to" 10 mbits, and another has "up to" 20 mbits, which one is faster?
Not lying, but not in any way honest.
RCN in Chicago (Score:3, Interesting)
I have RCN (Cable and Internet) in Chicago. I have spoken candidly with technicians who come out to do installations and I have verified through several phone calls with customer representatives that they "aim" for 60% of advertised speeds. I perform speedtests, using their preferred site and have found that I am almost ALWAYS at 60% of advertised speeds. In order to get over 10 mbit/sec down, I have to pay for the "20mbit/sec" rate, and am typically around 12 mbit/sec down. If I was a normal customer, I'd easily compare the 20mbit/sec advertise rate against competition and opt for RCN's as it is the cheapest price for that advertised speed. Complete garbage and misleading to consumers. How is this legal?
Re:Loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I don't get the point of this article. The ISPs have the weasel words right in front of you, they're not hiding anything.
Now with that "unlimited" connection promise, on the other hand...
~Philly
Big Bad ISP Good (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, I guess I'm the lucky one. I pay extra for bandwidth to my home, and the plan calls for 15 Mbps.
I've measured that puppy several times right at 30 Mbps. Most times, it hovers around 20.
I'm lovin' this.
Most surprising of all, it's a well known major ISP.
They still couldn't run a DNS server to save their lives (Thank you, OpenDNS), but on the bandwidth front I have no complaints. (Other than cost, of course :) ). That, and my upload appears to be 640 Kbps instead of 768... Oh well.
The incentives are all wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
With unlimited plans, the ISP's incentive is to prevent you from using up all your bandwidth, because infrastructure costs money, so if you used up all your neighborhood's bandwidth, they'd have to upgrade their network.
With a per-megabyte plan, the company's incentive is to provide you with more bandwidth than you could ever possibly need so that nothing will prevent you from downloading as much as possible.
If we want fast pipes, we should be asking for pay as you go data plans.
Re:I'm running at 100 Percent (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm beginning to subscribe more and more to a friends theory that all that is wrong in first world nations can be blamed on an MBA.
Re:So just what am I paying for? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Up to" a dozen bagels in your order, or "up to" two patties on your burger would never fly. And who would work for pay on an "up to" scale? I'm sure companies would be happy to pay someone "up to" four hundred dollars an hour.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the fact that a sizable portion of the population is not terribly computer-literate or technically savvy. They want "an Internet" or "a Google" or (my new favorite) "the Facebook" and don't really care much about how they get it.
The average end user, in my experience, has difficulty distinguishing between a slow computer and a slow connection. To many, they might as well be one and the same. I get asked for help all the time with people saying "my computer is slow" and it turns out they actually have connectivity problems. ISPs not only take advantage of that mentality, they count on it. I'm sure many of you have seen the commercials for those sites like "FinallyFast" or "MaxMySpeed" or whatever they're called, where they advertise a "free scan" to tell if you're "infected" or "experiencing registry errors", and by purchasing their product, you can avoid having to buy a new computer. That is basically the same demographic ISPs are targeting; the population that knows they want a computer and an internet connection but doesn't know much beyond that. I would honestly describe it as predatory.
I know I'll probably get modded down for not taking a more pro-capitalistic stance, but in my opinion this is a case where consumers are being taken advantage of - and there simply are no better options. It's very easy to say "vote with your dollar and don't buy their services", but an internet connection is critical for many people nowadays. I know several people who run businesses out of their homes using websites, VOIP lines, etc. For them, canceling their internet connection is just not an option. If there were an ISP that actually provided good service and had consumer-friendly policies, I would be more than happy to switch to their service and recommend all of my friends. The problem is that my options right now are "bad", "worse", and "even worse yet". Comcast blocks all torrent upload data in my area (disclaimer: I don't pirate content, but I do use torrents for FOSS/Linux downloads and similar uses); Verizon has declared that they plan to test a 150GB (if I remember correctly) monthly cap on FIOS in this area; and there's basically no one else around because they've been driven out of business or out of the area. Again, with the nature of the internet and the role it plays in communication and commerce, I would almost consider supporting it being regulated like a public utility, or at least with more oversight. It's all well and good to say "don't give them your money", but when I need the internet to obtain that money, I don't have many options.
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:1, Interesting)
Stores often advertise sales where items are "up to 50% off". Sometimes only 1 or 2% of the items in-store are actually 50% off. How is this any different?
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:3, Interesting)
only if they weren't the ones who built it up in the first place. If it's hops along an ISP's own backbone you better believe they can control the speeds. It's one more reason for packet inspection (whether deep or otherwise), one of the few legitimate reasons even.
Meanwhile, I guess it depends on population in a given area. I pretty much see the speeds as promised by comcrap in my area, as much as I hate them. I am also but a few miles outside of a major metro city.
Re:The incentives are all wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the best model for fair use of the neighborhood pipe is to have a moving window (say 72 hours), and your speed is a base (say 128 kpbs) plus a fraction of the available bandwidth determined by your usage compared to your neighbors who are currently using the pipe. That way you only get penalized for being a "bandwidth hog" at times when others want to use that bandwidth, but you can still check the weather, email, etc no matter what without a problem.
Sure, the above system does nothing to encourage ISPs to upgrade their systems, but I'm convinced the only thing that will is true competition or strong government regulation, both of which are doubtful to happen soon. Therefore I'll settle for a fair system to manage what bandwidth we can get.
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:4, Interesting)
If by very little control, you mean oversubscribing the line by a factor of N, then okay, whatever.
The days of people only using the DSL in bursts to checkmail or grab a webpage are gone. In my house, we've got 3 towers and 2 laptops running off a wifi'd 3MB DSL.
At any moment, one or more of us will be streaming video or running torrents etc, so we're usually running at capacity 24/7 - which I have no qualms about whatsoever, as we were sold a 3MB package, not one of those silly "up to 3MB packages" - and for the most part we DO get what we paid for.
I guess my point is, they cannot oversubscribe the lines anymore, because it will mean an instant slowdown for everyone else.
Re:Oh stop (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously the amount of whining geeks do about Internet speeds is amazing. The up to thing is perfectly fine, they are not ripping you off no matter how much you try and cast it as that.
I am on dial-up. The connection is snappy and the latency is low. Adblock and noscript ensure I make few simultaneous connections. I also block content until and unless I want to hear a sound or see a picture (videos are saved for work with the T1s). What makes my experience speedy, is having a computer that works and knowing how to operate it. I doubt many intelligent people whine about speed. This is about advertised speed which ISPs use as a dick-measuring contest. A real-world comparison telling you what bandwidth you can expect (in addition to how much you can download, latency, and other tidbits) ought to be welcome by all.
What they are doing is telling you what the rate cap of your line is. The actual throughput will vary based on load of the segment and so on.
Not when they design your final mile to be less than the rated speed. The top speed should be achievable at low bandwidth usage times. It is not, you have been sold a bill of goods. NOW, that may not be worthy of action on your part if ther service is otherwise worthwhile. However, as honest, thoughtful people we should strive for a world in which technogobblygook isn't used to cheat the less knowledgable. When I upgrade to DSL - or whatever - I will get the lowest speed because it is more than I need.
Re:Stop the "oversubscription" canard. (Score:3, Interesting)
Better than that - recently my ISP, Shaw (shaw.ca) increased all of its plans by 50% without changing rates. So I was getting 10Mbps, now it's 15Mbps. That should, in theory, get me up to about 1.9MB/s. However, they also apply a SpeedBoost "technology" (yeah, they just allow extra bursts at higher rates) such that I've seen 2-3MB/s speeds from some mirrors. And wherein the boost is supposed to be for brief durations, though they never really say how brief, I've had sustained 2-3MB/s speeds for 10-30 seconds before settling back down.
Their customer service sucks. But at least I almost never need to talk to them. And when I do, I generally ignore their questions about operating system. Works better that way. Especially since the only times I call are when the cable modem itself no longer has the upstream light on.
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, the Doritos analogy is good, but it's flawed in the way it's analysed. You get 9oz of dorito chips, not 100 chips. You get an aggregate that adds up to what you ordered, which may vary depending on the size of chips and other factors. Show me someone who orders chips by number instead of weight, and I'll show you a crazy person. 'Fast internet' is, in reality, an qualitative thing, not a quantitative thing. There really isn't much difference between 6Mb/s and 8Mb/s, but there is between 256kb/s and 8Mb/s. Not to mention that the ISPs where I am also provide graphs to give you an idea of expected speed given your distance from the exchange, hardly obfuscatory.
If you really want to be told specifically what speed you'll get, feel free to offer your ISP some $$$ to send out a technician and find out the combination of umpteen factors that will give you your result. It may take quite some $$$ but you'll be able to convince them - and you will get your precious accurate values. The way things currently are is an approximation that assists the whole process, not greedy anti-consumer capitalism at work.
Re:Sneaky, yes. Lies, not quite. (Score:1, Interesting)
What if I were to say "As a bartender you can make up to $400 of tips in a night."
Are there nights that you can make $400 in tips? Certainly, on some extremely busy nights that you get lucky.
Would you expect the mean/median to be $400 in tips from this sentence? No.
Let's be honest, they are certainly not lying to you, and most people would agree "up to" (=) is not the same as "equal to" (==).
Now I think as a consumer we should be given the mean/median speed of a service we are considering (kind of like how food has a nutrition label) in the form of a federal mandate requiring any advertising or sales materials including the min, mean, median, max connection speeds averaged from a statistically valid sample base of their customers.
Re:And I want their bandwidth... (Score:2, Interesting)
What we have here is pure deception. It's a manipulative deception because we're talking about communication speed that is dolled out in tiers. Communication is a human-species-defining quality. We're wired to want more of it, and this is the reality that all communications companies - ISP's included, bank on.
An analogy would be a company that sold breathable air, saying that they would provide "up to" a certain amount of oxygen per month. They would give you enough, but just enough so that you would always want more. ATT, Comcast and the rest have this all figured out, and they continue to limit the potential of America's social and intellectual capital, in the name of their tunnel-vision profits. I say this makes the senior executives of those companies charlatans and criminals of the first order, because they are stealing our future, as other countries pass us by.
Re:Well, there is a solution of sorts: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I had mod points, I'd have given you you "up to" +4,000,000,000 Funny.
Re:And I want their bandwidth... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe as part of net neutrality, Congress will require cmpanies to alter their plans from "upto XXX" to "minimum XXX".
You would be guaranteed that level of speed (or get a pro-rated refund). But most times it would be faster.