"ISPs’ listed speeds drop up to 41% after UK requires accurate advertising"


#1

Original article.

Most broadband providers in the UK “have been forced to cut the headline speeds they advertise when selling deals” because of new UK rules requiring accurate speed claims, according to a consumer advocacy group.

“Eleven major suppliers have had to cut the advertised speed of some of their deals, with the cheapest deals dropping by 41 percent,” the group wrote last week.

“BT, EE, John Lewis Broadband, Plusnet, Sky, Zen Internet, Post Office, SSE, TalkTalk, and Utility Warehouse previously advertised their standard (ADSL) broadband deals as ‘up to 17Mbps,’” the group noted in its announcement on Saturday. “The new advertised speed is now more than a third lower at 10Mbps or 11Mbps.”

“TalkTalk has completely dropped advertising speed claims from most of its deals,” the consumer group also said. “Vodafone has also changed the name of some of its deals: Fibre 38 and Fibre 76 are now Superfast 1 and Superfast 2.”

The ‘up to’ advertising is being tighted up but I don’t think its being tightened up enough:

Previously, ISPs were allowed to advertise broadband speeds of “up to” a certain amount, even if only one in 10 customers could ever get those speeds, Which? wrote. “But the new advertising rules mean that at least half of customers must now be able to get an advertised average speed, even during peak times (8-10pm),” the group said.

At least we’re not the US!


#2

John Lewis Broadband? Really?

Really?

Because I regularly see groups of John Lewis engineers digging up the road and laying fibre cables… (obviously) - But, that’s the problem… It’s all just leased line bollocks.

As far as I’m aware, there are 2 lines in the UK. Virgin, which is actual fibre up to your street, and then coax to your house… and BT - which is copper generally everywhere, and maybe fibre between exchanges.

I remember, as I’m sure many of you all do, when NTL laid their network throughout the UK. That was a massive job and no one to date has taken on the same venture.

Anyone who acts as a reseller is effectively selling BT outdated rubbish. Of course, it’s now ‘Openreach’ because the monopoly commission didn’t want BT having control of the cables and the service. Competition is good, don’t you know? Also rubbish. Especially when competition just means selling an identical product at a similar price.

I’m glad companies are getting called out on this. Might possibly entice some true competition…


#3

glad im with virgin now im getting the speeds advertised and them some :smiley:

Openreach have alot of work to do before they can even hope to hit Virgins top speed across the UK


#4

Ive been thinking about changing to virgin, but they are getting such a bad rep over here for bringing you in with a good price only for it to go up massively after the 1st year.

Still will be moving from vodafone to plusnet I think


#5

Virgin will put the prices up as you go. Biggest downside - because they know there isn’t any true competition.


#6

BT and Sky are both the same unfortunately.


#7

BT have fiber to the street with pretty good coverage; the fiber is part of whatever multicore they’ve been laying between exchanges and cabinets for a long time, but they’re dragging their heels over upgrading the cabinets to provide their consumer VDSL offering, because they’ll only do it where there’s sufficient registered uptake/investment from property developers. Consequently, the backbone to support fttp is also there, but there’s been no push for a consumer offering beyond a few trial areas. You can still get it installed (Openreach will give you whatever they can if you offer them the money, my high school blew a chunk of cash they got for running a ‘language college’ on fiber, in 1998), but they’re already trialling faster speeds in some areas so i doubt we’ll get a proper consumer offering (like BT Infinity is for fttc) until they’ve settled on something higher than the 330Mbps their cabinets will currently push.

They’ll also keep dragging their heels because they’ve still got a monopoly over too much of the country due to the cost it takes for anyone else to lay a new cable network to compete with them. That and they’re not very good. Like to the extent i don’t know anyone, personally or at any business, who has ever a) had anything but bad things to say about them and b) has ever encountered anyone worse. So there’s that against them.

That said, I’m not aware of anyone having ever used virgin for any large scale telecoms stuff; I’m not sure if they do that or just consumer targeted stuff. And they’ve had some dodgy af business practices in the past, including deliberately damaging tv aerials, cables, phone lines and the like to make it difficult for customers to drop their services :frowning:

I’ve had negative experiences with all of them, but virgin can only offer me 16Mbps DSL and Sky are a shower of cunts so I’m with BT until something better comes along. Would’ve tried vodafone, but i told them i would go with them when i could use my own equipment, and then they tried to sell me it again when they knew that wasn’t the case, and i don’t trust an organisation that can’t understand that simple a proposal to provide me with anything we’d agree on.

In terms of legislating advertising; i was lead to believe i would get 68Mbps when i upgraded to fiber, and i get 69. The only thing i did to check what speed i would get was check what openreach’s own cabinet status check page told me. Because why would i look at or believe anything else? Who has the problem that this is fixing? Who believes whatever advertising or marketing they see/read/hear?


#8

There was a ‘thing’ recently that with broadband and mobiles, that if they put your pricing up whilst in the contract period, you have the right to cancel within a 30 day period.

Good way of ending it early.