Posted on June 30th, 2011 by Barry Collins

Who are the real broadband conmen: the ISPs or the ASA?

When you’ve dug yourself a hole, stop digging. Or if you’re the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), keep going until you hit the molten core of the Earth itself.

Regular PC Pro readers will know how the ASA has allowed ISPs to over-egg the speed of their broadband connections by permitting them to advertise fantasy “up to” speeds, which Ofcom’s research has proven time and again are pure fiction. Even Ofcom itself called for this insidious practice to stop over a year ago, since when the ASA has dithered with a year-long consultation on the use of “up to” speeds, but still hasn’t arrived at a conclusion.

Consequently, one ISP took matters into its own hands. Last year, Virgin Media launched its Stop The Broadband Con website, calling on ISPs to advertise typical rather than maximum speeds – very similar recommendations to those made by Ofcom itself.

Virgin, of course, has very good reason to make such calls. Ofcom’s research has repeatedly shown that Virgin’s actual connection speeds are much closer to the advertised headline speed than those offered by the ADSL providers.

Here, according to Ofcom, is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers of “up to” 20Mbits/sec or 24Mbits/sec ADSL packages (click to enlarge graph):

And here is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers on Virgin’s “up to” 20Mbits/sec cable lines:

As we can see, only 1% of ADSL customers get a maximum speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec. None get an average speed higher than 18Mbits/sec. Are those customers being conned when they’re sold “up to” 24Mbits/sec lines? In at least 99% of cases, yes.

Virgin made that very same point on its website. After complaints from rivals Sky and BT, the ASA decided that was beyond the pale, and ordered Virgin to shut down the site and not run its ads again.

“[We] considered the text “Not getting the broadband speed you’re paying for … Stop the broadband con” was also likely to be interpreted as suggesting other ISPs dealt with consumers dishonestly in relation to broadband speeds, rather than as highlighting Virgin’s concerns about the disparity they believed existed between broadband advertising and speeds delivered to consumers. We therefore concluded that the claims were denigratory.”

So outright exaggeration of ADSL speeds is fine; pointing this out isn’t.

Faster speeds “not better”

The ASA made another extraordinary statement regarding broadband speeds. Both Sky and BT had challenged Virgin’s assertion that “faster connection would always give a perceivable benefit for surfing the web and watching TV online”. Sky also moaned about Virgin’s assertion that an average ADSL speed of only 6.5Mbits/sec would lead to “buffering delays” compared to Virgin’s cable services.

The ASA, inexplicably, backed BT and Sky with one of the most technically inept judgements I’ve ever had the misfortune to read.

“We understood that, in order to surf the web or stream TV online without interruptions, consumers would need a certain amount of bandwidth and that some ADSL customers would have sufficient bandwidth to do so, even if their service was used concurrently. We noted that Virgin would therefore be unable to offer those ADSL customers who were not experiencing interruption problems an improved broadband experience.”

Here, the ASA appears to be claiming that a 20Mbits/sec Virgin cable line with an average speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec for the vast majority of customers, wouldn’t necessarily offer “an improved experience” over an ADSL line where only 1% of people get in excess of 18Mbits/sec. That is categorically wrong. If you’re waiting for a HD iPlayer video to buffer before playback, an 18Mbits/sec connection will start playing more quickly than a 6.5Mbit/sec connection every single time.

Not to mention the fact that you need a steady connection of at least 4Mbits/sec to even watch HD iPlayer streams – something that 41% of customers on “up to 24Mbits/sec” ADSL lines simply can’t achieve, according to Ofcom’s empirical research.

Yet, because the ASA “had not seen evidence that a speed of 6.5 Mbits/sec would cause delays for internet users in all instances, we concluded that the claim was misleading”.

It’s one thing to allow ISPs to peddle lies about their broadband speeds; it’s quite another to censure another ISP when they point them out. The ASA is entirely responsible for the broadband con. It’s high time it stopped.

Tags: ASA, broadband, BT, ISPs, Sky, Virgin Media

Posted in: Newsdesk

Permalink

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

27 Responses to “ Who are the real broadband conmen: the ISPs or the ASA? ”

Simon Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
The statement given by the ASA is in relation to ADSL, where virgins stable 20Mbit speeds are maintained by a cable connection, not ADSL. Two separate types of connection. Cable isn’t available everywhere. If any one is wrong in this argument it is virgin, for implying that they can provide better connections for those who cannot access cable.
JmLing Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Your first point is totally valid.
However… Faster isn’t often better. Traffic shaping, port blocking and fair usage policies will slow it down and these are applicable to all of Virgins packages except XXL. Sky have them on the Connect package (BT Infrastructure), only a data limit on Everyday and none of them on their unlimited package. BT have them on almost everything except their most expensive (fair use still applies aswell as throttling).
People and ISPs have to stop seeing speed as being the defining factor of the connection better.
Carl Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Not the point, yes VM do have a point but wrapping it in hyperbole and mud slinging meant they broke the advertising code.

The advertising code isn’t something to be flexed if the take home message is accurate, had they stated the case rather than thrown mud at the competition they’d have been fine.

This is the problem with negative advertising, you have to be really pretty careful.
Vin Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Virgin have shaping/cripling on all of their broandband offerings. I have XXXXXXXXL 50Mbit broadband and see my connection regularly shaped.

Virgin still claim otherwise if you bring it up with any of their Call Centre staff.
Baz Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I really do not understand your angst over this subject. If folk are so stupid not to understand ‘up to’ by now then they don’t deserve ADSL. It is so simple as to be untrue; closer to exchange = faster. If they advertised that x% of people will get a certain speed then I would have an issue.
What is far more of an issue is that I live 50M from a cable installation and Virgin will not connect me. BT have the Universal Service mill stone so have to connect me. That is the real story you should be dealing with.
Ryan Thomas Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I can’t believe you lot are on the ASA’s side here! This is about not getting the speed you are being sold. Yes, Virgin traffic shape, but at least they do it at the advertised speed – most of the ADSL ISPs traffic shape at pitiful speed. The ASA, as Barry stated, are happy for ISPs to be VERY economical with the truth yet don’t like someone calling them out on it. It’s like being beaten up at school and then getting detention when you complain to a teacher!
Craig Dunn Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
I just can’t bring myself to comment on the sad state of affairs the ASA has become… oops..
Mat Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
So, in summary, BT/Sky are average but serve many, VM are pretty good but serve few. The ASA probably misunderstand the topic and apparently are cowards even when they do. Nothing we didn’t already know there…
Steve Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
It’s not about ‘getting the speed you are sold / paid for’ at all.
That’s how some companies will try to make it sound.

When these kind of services started, they were all pretty much 512Kb/s services.
As technology improved it went up to 2Mb, and maybe 4Mb.

BT then ‘upgraded’ my package to 12Mb/s at no extra cost but told me that I probably wouldn’t see an increase in speed due to my location.

Quite frankly, What I paid for was 2Mb/s, what I got was a little bit faster than that, even though it was labelled as up to 12Mb/s

At the time there wasn’t a price increase for up to 12Mb/s, or even later on, up to 20Mb/s
The price was the same / similar for all packages.

What is criminal however is that that was about 10 years ago and very little appears to have moved on.
Ryan Thomas Says:
June 30th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
@Steve – that’s okay for you who got in on the ground floor, but what about someone who is getting broadband for the first time – is it any more okay to sell them a 3Mb/s line as an ‘up to 24Mb/s’ than it is to sell them a Fiat Punto as an ‘up to 120mph’ car, knowing full well that neither are acheivable?
Stiggy Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 8:02 am
Joe Public and the ASA may be too stupid to understand how ADSL works, but PC Pro has no such excuse.

The further you are from the telephone exchange, the slower your connection is. Simples.

I’ve just had a price cut from PlusNet as they now have their own equipment in the exchange. I’m also getting >6Mbps due to some fortunate geography.
Barry Collins Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 9:10 am
Stiggy – of course we know how line length affects ADSL – what else would explain the distribution of speeds shown in the graph above?

The issue isn’t that some people are getting worse speeds than others because they live further from the exchange. The issue is the ASA allowing ISPs to advertise speeds that are simply unachievable to 99% of their customers, and then slapping down a company that points this out.

Barry Collins
Editor
Andrew Ferguson Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 9:58 am
No one has mentioned the Ofcom speed code of practice, that means signed up providers provide an estimate of the speed you should get on your specific line.

Did Virgin Media stop using up to to describe its own National ADSL product range when the campaign was running?
Stiggy Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Of course I know that “of course we know how line length affects ADSL”.

The point is that the ASA (and the ISPs) seem to have given up trying to explain that to consumers. This PC Pro article also fails to mention it, although it is the key point.

To be helpful, why not advocate an alternative way of doing the calculation; such as average speed for all consumers within 4 miles of the exchange (for example)?
Barry Collins Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
The voluntary code of conduct that ISPs were blatantly ignoring (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/356824/isps-ignore-ofcoms-broadband-code-of-conduct), you mean Andrew?

Fair point on Virgin ADSL, but they did put prominent average speeds on the ADSL pages.

Barry Collins
Editor
Peter Says:
July 1st, 2011 at 5:20 pm
The notion that somehow “anybody” should ‘know’ that despite being sold an “up to” speed, reality is going to be slower is perverse.

If I buy a Pint of beer I expect a pint, not “up to” a pint (except North of Watford where they like froth). Indeed its no accident that “up to” a pint isn’t allowed and the vendor has to state clearly exactly what you are getting, and can be prosecuted if the product isn’t as promised.

Whilst the analogy doesn’t hold 100%, its close enough. My BT line is “up to” 20Megs, but I can reasonably expect a MAXIMUM of 6.5, and raraely acheive more than about 5.8. How do I know this? Becuase BT can easily measure the various parameters and fairly closely estimate the outcome, then measure it using various diagnostics. They have done so, and their results concur with mine.
Greemble Says:
July 2nd, 2011 at 1:53 am
“easily measure the various parameters”
Yes, but only once the line has been activated.

The beer analogy is nothing like getting a broadband line. A beer glass is made to a precise spec & it’s known how much the glass will hold before it’s filled – There is no accurate way to tell what speed a given line will achieve until it’s connected & tested.

How else can the ISPs advertise their products without knowing beforehand the line stats?
Average speed for that ISP’s customers? Great, anyone further than 2Km cannot get a connection because the ISPs wont want their ave to drop.
This ignores the fact that almost all ISPs are using the same BT phone lines anyway – Same length, same SNR, same attenuation, thus more or less the same speed.
Mane Says:
July 3rd, 2011 at 10:16 am
‘Up to’ speeds are clearly wrong, but moving to average speeds for broadband services will lead to ISPs refusing customers distant from the exchange in order that they do not bring the number down. Instead of 2Meg on an ‘up to 24Mbps’ you’ll just get ‘Sorry, we are unable to provide broadband to your location’. Some will still provide a special ‘rural’ package for a premium price to those of you who would otherwise bring down the average.
mikejdcastle Says:
July 3rd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
It’s really simple… If your line is only capable of carrying 2mbps, then that’s the package you should be sold. Then, instead of having to admit (or not) that, “Less than 1% of our customers can actually get our premium 24-meg package,” they could quite legitimatey and accurately state that “95% of our customers get the line speeds that they pay for.”

So, if you’re lucky enough to live inside the exchange box itself, and you want 24mbps, then you pay for that. At any achievable speed lower than that, you pay pro-rata for what you can actually get.

Any ISP that adopted this pricing plan would likely have people switching over in droves, because it is the only really honest way to operate, given the POS infrastructure that we’re stuck with.
Barry Says:
July 3rd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I guess if BT or ASAss was running a pub, then your pints would only be filled to the one third mark but they will charge u the full price of a pint. In what universe doesn’t that scream theft? And why is the lie going on? Corruption?
Mark P Says:
July 3rd, 2011 at 7:29 pm
But this is so easy to sort out. Given the imprecise nature of what the customer is buying and the impossibility of accurately estimating what every DSL line can do, all that needs to happen is that the customer is given a 30 day full money back guarantee.

If the customer isn’t happy with the service then they simply get all their money back (line setup fee, DSL set up fee, first monthly subscription and line rental).

That’s centralised with Openreach who refund the ISP. Then Openreach can enjoy the process of discovery as to which line does what at their expense, not the customer’s.
Peter Says:
July 4th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
I’m a bit surprised that this is seen as being so ‘complex’. BT can quite accurately assess what the likely throughput of a given connection is, based on (I assume) known factors for the transmission infrastructure, distance from Exchange, etc.

They assesed mine as having a ’sweet spot’ around 6.5 K and that’s roughly where I am.
jamie allan Says:
July 7th, 2011 at 8:54 am
This is topical to me as BT have just enabled my local exchange with Fibre To The Cabinet. My local end can support up to 6Mbs and off peak I achieve 5.4Mbs but due to the extra demand out of the exchange to the rest of the BT network I now see peak time speeds of 500kbs. BT simply reiterate that the local line can support 6Mbs and they can do nothing about congestion/contention even though they’ve caused it by selling extra bandwidth locally.
Alan Says:
July 7th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
In JA’s response is a key point in that all ADSL provision from a BT exchange has a limit which although well known once you research is never mentioned. The ceiling for my exchange is 7.5Mb yet nowhere in my contract for an “up to” speed is this mentioned. Even if you accept that advertising is generalised and will always claim the best possible figures (how much money can you save by switching to Direct Line, Churchill et al) the contract is personalised and should be accurate. Certainly Virgin should have to include their own ADSL offering when making competetive claims or make it clear it is not like for like technology.

The trouble is the ASA has made such a fool of itself over this matter already and has failed to accept the claim for the accurate reason ie unequal technology comparisons because without that consideration Virgins statements are correct so the complaint is wrong.

What is also galling is that this not even Virgin Media’s system. The bought out what was foe me a good reliable service (in my case ntl) and slapped on it their own absolutely dire customer service and terms and conditions. No mention of the high levels of customer dissatisfaction in their adverts.
Ian Says:
July 8th, 2011 at 1:06 am
The ASA lost all credibility when it allowed advertisers to use the word ‘unlimited’ to mean ‘as limited as we can make it’.

In one case (someone’s mobile internet), ‘unlimited’ means ‘20Mb’.

The ASA’s excuse seems to be that they’re all doing it, so it’s ok.
Paul C Says:
July 8th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Perhaps it is time for Virgin to sue the ASA or publicly defy it and challenge it to prove it has a clue what it is talking about.
James Says:
August 31st, 2011 at 11:18 pm
For once the ASA was correct in their judgement. They have let Virgin media get away with so much in the past that I thought there must be some backhanders going on.

Now hoping that the ASA will investigate them for advertising faster upload speed upgrades almost a year ago which some customers have still not had and VM claim are still in the planning stages.

Archos G9 8in and 10in tablets review: first look

Toshiba’s glasses-free 3D laptop review: first look

Posted on June 30th, 2011 by Barry Collins

Who are the real broadband conmen: the ISPs or the ASA?

27 Responses to “ Who are the real broadband conmen: the ISPs or the ASA? ”

Leave a Reply

Authors

Categories

Archives