cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

So it Should be...

Community Veteran
Posts: 2,211
Thanks: 95
Fixes: 4
Registered: 18-02-2013

So it Should be...

8 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,242
Thanks: 933
Fixes: 54
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: So it Should be...

So how would this be achieved
Quote
Rather than providing an estimated speed range that a customer could expect to receive, providers should pinpoint a more accurate speed that customers can expect at their home address and provide this in writing.

This is worth a read http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6370-which-starts-campaign-for-broadband-speed-guarantee.html
Quote
A speed guarantee for a broadband connection will achieve one of two of the following, either consumers will get used to picking between a service that guarantees 0.2 Mbps (Mega bits per second) on an ADSL2+ service and refuses to provide a service at all to those on longer lines, and on the superfast services this might guarantee might rise to 0.5 Mbps. The second option will be that providers will provide a guarantee but wrap it up in the many caveats that have to apply since they do not control our computers, wireless environment and the servers spread across the globe that actually make up the Internet, making the guarantee worthless.
Quote
No one disputes the opinion of those taking part in the survey, but there is little detail of the methodology used in the Which! report but BBC coverage reveals that this is survey based on opinion rather than asking people to test their speeds and tell Which! what the speed estimate was when they signed up they were asked if they had suffered from buffering when streaming or slow downloads
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,335
Thanks: 607
Registered: 23-09-2010

Re: So it Should be...

I take the point that there are so many variables that the actual speed would be hard to guarantee but some sort of realistic cut off minimum should be possible.
And the point
Quote
It's less superfast broadband, more super-slow service

will strike a cord with more people than would be acceptable in many other services.
Community Veteran
Posts: 2,211
Thanks: 95
Fixes: 4
Registered: 18-02-2013

Re: So it Should be...

I'd be happy to pay for the end product, meaning what i actually get in terms of speed. So for example i get less than half of a possible 76mbps supplied connection, therefore i should only be paying half. I'm not talking about a connection that has problems or a possible lack of resources to be able to maintain that speed, that can be worked out as normal via compensation.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,671
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: So it Should be...

the main reason for the wide swings between predicted and achieved speeds though seems to be the poor infrastructure equipment, what they should do is to insist on overhauling the infrastructure that BT has consistently underinvested in since the day it was privatised, preferring to wait for failures and get paid to replace the system through there operating insurance package, like the spate of "cable thefts" that hit problem trunking sections (someone posted on a different forum that less than 1 in 10 of the listed "theft's" were genuine cases a while back) and allowed BT to replace them with no cost to themselves .....
if the industry was national there wouldn't be this constant problem of the infrastructure being substandard because it would of been subjected to an overly expensive pre failure rolling replacement system .......
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,850
Registered: 11-08-2007

Re: So it Should be...

and we'd still be using rotary dial telephones.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,671
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: So it Should be...

why because the infrastructure was being looked after properly or because the various operators would of dragged there heels in driving change in a state subsidised environment ?
the infrastructure upgrade program would of gone though a decade earlier than BT started it because the state would of wanted the benefits (because the security services would of demanded it and the benefits/health departments would of agreed with it) instead we have been forced to suffer mediocre half implemented rollouts done on the cheap to ensure maximum profits from a duped and duped again public .....
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,314
Thanks: 462
Fixes: 1
Registered: 21-03-2011

Re: So it Should be...

The ISPs should advertise their service as a speed limit.  A bit like the UK Road System where there are speed limits. You cannot necessarily travel at the road speed limit during periods of congestion.
Now Zen, but a +Net residue.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,671
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: So it Should be...

@AA
is that not what they do already ?
advertise your product as 80/20 for instance is the max on the connection, yet most people wont receive more than 76/18 at best and probably only get around 50/10 at peak congestion (yes I'm using figures for fibre)
the problems arise though when the consumer link from the cabinet is stuck using ancient copper lines or worse still aluminium lines, often there will be several splice points causing hi-res joints in them but only during certain types of weather (which means an intermittent crash in speed) such problems are always given a cursory investigation and then swiftly fobbed off as "no fault found" instead of doing the job properly and replacing the junk with something capable of doing the job, and that is all about keeping costs lower whilst increasing charges for an increasingly subpar service, something that gets more and more profound the faster the top connection speeds get
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you