Should cable intenet companies be required to disclose the actual speeds they are delivering?

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Having trouble with your internets?

Nah, just thought this might put an end to the big "up to" scam and might actually help improve performance. BTW I added a poll since you posted.

So.. Um.. We have control in the matter?

 

[ViviTheMage]

speedboost and whatnot will skew it....

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: spidey07
All your analogies fail when the technology and contracts hit the road. Want the bandwidth
and guarantee, then pay for it.

You are missing the point.

OP isn't asking for existing service levels to change. He's asking that current levels be advertised at a normalized, standard rating.

So say a currently advertised 10mbs is tested and through whatever standardized rating comes out to 6mbs. Has the service changed? No. Has the advertisement come closer to reality? Yes.

Sure, if you truly want 10mpbs sustained (like was advertised), expect to pay more (like businesses).

OPs problem comes in when 3 ISPs offer 10mbs service but have dramatically different actual throughput.

 

[Modelworks]

They need to change the wording to be At least or minimum instead of maximum.
$54.95 for a minimum of 8Mbps and a maximum of 10Mbps.

They won't though because that doesn't look as good in ads.

 

[nakedfrog]

Why not just do some speed testing and move to the appropriate billing tier?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

OPs problem comes in when 3 ISPs offer 10mbs service but have dramatically different actual throughput.

And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: cpmer
Its kind of funny how if you read the comments you get the impression that ATOT is against this yet the poll tells a different story. I think this kind of situation is common through out ATOT especially in P&N.

Yes, it is interesting - similar to actual political elections. There will always be a few vocal politicians with agendas from special interests consuming a lot of bandwidth.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's end the nonsense of of the most ridiculous advertising scam in America. Cable companies advertising "up to xx Mb. speed"

How about a truth in advertising law? Just like the one that straightened out the "watts of power" claims that stereo receivers used to make 35 years or so ago.

FYI back in my youth stereo receivers used to make outrageous claims of power because there was no truth in advertising law. Finally the FCC (or some such agency) made them specify their wattage into a specified load for a specified time. This law was one of the best ones ever passed. If you are my age you remember how great it was.

So, why not make it a law that the cable companies must meet some standard to claim a certain speed.
For instance, if you advertise "up to 10 Mb" you must supply 10 Mb to 90 percent of your customers 90 percent of the time.
Simple.

EDIT: With 63 votes the results are in.
ATOT'er voted 84 percent that cable internet service providers should be required to disclose the actual speeds they are delivering?

HOW ABOUT CAVEAT EMPTOR?

You people that want to make a law over every little injustice YOU expose yourself to is bananas.

 

[evident]

stereos still advertise ridiculous wattages. over 10000 watt subwoofer omfg!!!

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

OPs problem comes in when 3 ISPs offer 10mbs service but have dramatically different actual throughput.

And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

Then maybe they should start advertising that fact and stop advertising "up to..." speeds.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't even have to read the thread to know that Spidey voted no . If I am wrong, I'll be quite surprised.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

So low?? Japan is paying 20 bucks a month for a 160 Mbps connection and we are paying 50+ a month for 5 Mbps connection(or less). Also even europe pays less than what we pay. Spidey07 keep spewing more nonsense

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: evident
stereos still advertise ridiculous wattages. over 10000 watt subwoofer omfg!!!

Probably not the best counter-example. There was litigation on this many moons ago - hence the current rms spec. The frequency range is also included in the list of manufacturer specs.

I think the ftc takes truth-in-advertising seriously. I don't think the internet providers warrant an exemption unless there is national security issue I'm unaware of.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: spidey07
And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

So low?? Japan is paying 20 bucks a month for a 160 Mbps connection and we are paying 50+ a month for 5 Mbps connection(or less). Also even europe pays less than what we pay. Spidey07 keep spewing more nonsense

The thread talked about the reasons so unless you are going to show them don't just say one side.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

OPs problem comes in when 3 ISPs offer 10mbs service but have dramatically different actual throughput.

And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

you must not live in my neighborhood. their supposed 12mb cable runs about 6.5mb just about any time of the day and costs 60 a month. id not call that cheap or low by any standard.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: spidey07
And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

So low?? Japan is paying 20 bucks a month for a 160 Mbps connection and we are paying 50+ a month for 5 Mbps connection(or less). Also even europe pays less than what we pay. Spidey07 keep spewing more nonsense

Both pay substantial taxes, some of which go to subsidize the network. They're paying well over "20 bucks;" it's just that a good chunk of it comes out of the worker's pockets whether they use it or not ("Europe" is a little broad, it does vary somewhat by country within the EU, doesn't it?)

Is it totally wide open, unlimited, bidirectional for 20 bucks (is that $US or local currency?)? Is that rate (160Mbps) available for all / most / some / few of the population?

Just curious, thanks

 

[So]

IMO, they should only be allowed to quote the speeds they'd offer you (in theory) continuously. So, if they put a 40GB cap on a connection, then over the course of a month you can only average a max of 123kbps -- they should have to advertise that. ((40E9bytes/month * 8bits/byte) / (30days/month*24hours/day*60minutes/hour*60seconds/minute)

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: spidey07
And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

So low?? Japan is paying 20 bucks a month for a 160 Mbps connection and we are paying 50+ a month for 5 Mbps connection(or less). Also even europe pays less than what we pay. Spidey07 keep spewing more nonsense

Both pay substantial taxes, some of which go to subsidize the network. They're paying well over "20 bucks;" it's just that a good chunk of it comes out of the worker's pockets whether they use it or not ("Europe" is a little broad, it does vary somewhat by country within the EU, doesn't it?)

Is it totally wide open, unlimited, bidirectional for 20 bucks (is that $US or local currency?)? Is that rate (160Mbps) available for all / most / some / few of the population?

Just curious, thanks

Read this...

It's for 10Mbps up, & 160Mbps down. Text

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: spidey07
And that's just the nature of consumer broadband because prices are so low. They can't guarantee anything.

So low?? Japan is paying 20 bucks a month for a 160 Mbps connection and we are paying 50+ a month for 5 Mbps connection(or less). Also even europe pays less than what we pay. Spidey07 keep spewing more nonsense

Both pay substantial taxes, some of which go to subsidize the network. They're paying well over "20 bucks;" it's just that a good chunk of it comes out of the worker's pockets whether they use it or not ("Europe" is a little broad, it does vary somewhat by country within the EU, doesn't it?)

Is it totally wide open, unlimited, bidirectional for 20 bucks (is that $US or local currency?)? Is that rate (160Mbps) available for all / most / some / few of the population?

Just curious, thanks

Ok be specific. What and how much are their "taxes" that go to support their "network". How do you know this? Have any proof or is it just "truthiness"?
I really am interested.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
[

Both pay substantial taxes, some of which go to subsidize the network. They're paying well over "20 bucks;" it's just that a good chunk of it comes out of the worker's pockets whether they use it or not ("Europe" is a little broad, it does vary somewhat by country within the EU, doesn't it?)

Americans pay to subsidize the system too. Way too much for what we get in return.

That is not how Japan can offer broadband so cheaply. They split the system . One company supplies the infrastructure , the cable to your home. The other companies are the isp that provide the actual service. In Japan they can have 20+ competing companies trying to sell service to each home.

In the USA we need to break the system up. Let each city own its cables to the home. Then let companies compete to sell service to each home.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I guess I'm confused as to why some say that 'if you want x you have to pay for it' but the op is just asking for truth in advertising...
I refuse to believe that the provider cannot guarantee some level of average speed over x time. The truth is they just don't want to.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I guess I'm confused as to why some say that 'if you want x you have to pay for it' but the op is just asking for truth in advertising...
I refuse to believe that the provider cannot guarantee some level of average speed over x time. The truth is they just don't want to.

That's just not true. They can't provide it because if they did your service would cost a whole lot more and would say so in your contract. It costs money to provide a minimum.

Go price an internet connection with the appropriate service level agreements on performance and see what it would cost. At the very minimum it will be 20 times more expensive than 50 bucks a month. Probably more like 2 grand for a 6 Mbs symetrical.

 

[DamnRena]

well if i send a 1gb file from one computer to another using wireless i get about 8mb per second....does this count?

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Americans pay to subsidize the system too. Way too much for what we get in return.

That is not how Japan can offer broadband so cheaply. They split the system . One company supplies the infrastructure , the cable to your home. The other companies are the isp that provide the actual service. In Japan they can have 20+ competing companies trying to sell service to each home.

In the USA we need to break the system up. Let each city own its cables to the home. Then let companies compete to sell service to each home.

Sounds good to me

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Americans pay to subsidize the system too. Way too much for what we get in return.

That is not how Japan can offer broadband so cheaply. They split the system . One company supplies the infrastructure , the cable to your home. The other companies are the isp that provide the actual service. In Japan they can have 20+ competing companies trying to sell service to each home.

In the USA we need to break the system up. Let each city own its cables to the home. Then let companies compete to sell service to each home.

Sounds good to me

Good. Because that's how it is in the US as well. Except the ones who lay the cable are a private entity but they must by law allow others to use their lines.