dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
2003
share rss forum feed

hawkesrw

join:2013-05-23
Libby, MT

Advertised Speeds

It Seems to me allot of the post including some of mine are due to Advertised Speeds. If Frontier would just advertise what the realistic speeds will be they would cut there complainants in half.

So if you have a max 6 meg download and you end up with somewhere between four and five if they just advertised 5 and you got more so much the better.

My package which is advertised at 25 meg most of the time runs three to five meg short of the advertised package. Just state the real speeds in the adds and if people get over that you have a happy customer.


Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1
All Frontier can continue to do is to advertise "up to" speeds. That is the nature of DSL. The farther away you are from the source of the signal the slower you will go also. Certain areas have been upgraded and some have not been. In my own town here I have been told that some neighborhoods can get the up to 25 meg speeds and others can't. So the ads are generalized as a result.

aaron1312

join:2012-10-10
Phoenix, AZ
I've seen countless people provisioned for the Max speed available to an area (3 Mbps) and with some of the reps you get they'll say "Up to 6 Mbps" Always check with tech support if you have a neighbor or friend, although it's not always accurate.


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
reply to Racerbob
said by Racerbob:

All Frontier can continue to do is to advertise "up to" speeds.

And it's exactly what all the other providers (DSL, cable, or fiber) do as well. Nothing new here...
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

revere521

join:2013-06-24
I just got off the phone with frontier, because i am paying for the internet max plan (northeast Pennsylvania) the DSLAM in nearby towns is provisioned for the 6 mbit, by the one in my town is only provisioned for 3.7 mbit. I tried to get them to lower by bill, or change something - but the only thing they could (or would) do was offer to put me on the 1 mbit plan :sigh:

I think its really terrible that a company would offer an "up to 6 mbit" plan knowing - for certain - that you will never ever reach that speed - because they don't really offer it - but still expect you to pay the same price that someone who gets that true service speed.

At least they were able to take the auto-renew contract off my account so I can have a choice next March......


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to hawkesrw
Some providers advertise the sync rate as their speed. AT&T sells a 6.0 Mb tier, where the modem holds sync at 6016 kb/s. But they use ATM on their ADSL product, which has a 15% overhead which nicks the actual download: 6016 x 0.85 = 5113.6 kb/s.

If AT&T can't set the profile to sync at 6016 down due to loop length, they will not offer that tier.

Some providers advertise the actual download rate. Sonic.net, LLC sells ADSL2+ at "up to 20 Mb/s down". They don't have tiered service, but let the modem and DSLAM negotiate the optimum speed for the loop length and line condition. Their 20 Mb/s service is attained when the customer is close enough to get the max sync rate of 24,000 kb/s. They are accounting for the ATM overhead in their "up to" claim.

And it costs the provider no more to offer higher speeds than lower speeds, so tiers are more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Action2

join:2010-06-29
Newman, IL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to revere521
Frontier has bandwidth issues in many areas. Many areas are capped at 3Mb regardless of distance.

I am on the 12Mb/s bonded plan even though I am close enough to get over 20Mb/s on a single line. They do not sell anything over the 12Mb plan here and congestion is so bad I only get 1.5Mb/s during prime time hours. Hopefully more upgrades will happen at some point.

revere521

join:2013-06-24
Agreed, i hope they do soon, I've been waiting nearly a decade lol.

My area is relatively rural - but i'm 8 miles from Tunkhannock (relatively large township) where its not capped, and less than 2 miles from my DSLAM where it is capped.

I think they shouldn't have a 1.01 to 6 mbit tier for sale in my area - when its really an up to 3.7 mbit - and they know I am paying exactly the same as my Father in the next town who does get the 4.5 - 5 mbit.

it just feels so much like a bait and switch.


Doug Huffman

join:2007-07-27
Washington Island, WI
reply to Racerbob

Re: Advertised "up to" is logically equivalent to LESS THAN

Their "up to" is logically equivalent to less than.


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4

Re: Advertised "up to" is logically equivalent to LESS

"Logically" it's less than or equal to. "Realistically" might be something else ;^)
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

jamesonnorth

join:2012-12-22
Modoc, IN
reply to hawkesrw

Re: Advertised Speeds

That's actually what they do in a lot of areas. My area, for instance, is advertised as a max of 6mb, but the CO equipment is actually capable of 7.1, and the lines at my house can push 16+. They under promise so they can *hopefully* over-deliver. Usually they still end up over promising, but that's the idea behind it.

I think they also say *up to*, which is stressed here on the forum. It's unfortunate they don't have the resources to really build up a good network to compete.
--
CompTIA Net+ Network Administrator - I know networks!
Professional Photographer - www.jnphoto.biz - Weddings and Senior Photos
Nice and comfy with Frontier DSL: I can help with your issues!
»speedtest.net/result/2472459013. ··· 9013.png

NetworkWiz

join:2013-06-27
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to hawkesrw
There's a fair point to be made about the way some customer's aren't correctly informed about the kind of speeds they should be receiving based on the 'tier' of plan they purchase, and I certainly don't condone misleading customers.

But as someone who's worked for multiple DSL companies as well as services running on Fiber, Coax, Satellite, and even one which ran off contracted cell tower broadcasts, I feel the need to mention that (as unfortunate as it may be) the tiered system of service is necessary because "That is the nature of DSL."

DSL service consists of shoving high frequency broadcasts down lines that weren't built to do that. The upside is that it makes broadband internet available in areas that wouldn't otherwise have it, because it's not fiscally feasible for cable and fiber providers to lay down lines because there's not a large enough customer base to earn back what it would cost to offer service. The downside is that every foot counts when it comes to speed, because those high frequency signals get attenuated from 6Mbps to 4Mpbs to unreadable static a whole lot faster than you might think as you move away from the the DSLAM. They have to offer tiered plans like 4Mbps 'up to' 6Mbps or they literally couldn't advertise. Either it's tiers of service speed, or every single customer would have to have their own plan calculated based on exact footage of their line, everyone paying a slightly different price and getting slightly different service down to the foot, which simply isn't feasible.

"And it costs the provider no more to offer higher speeds than lower speeds, so tiers are more of a marketing gimmick than anything else."

If only this were true. The fact is though, offering higher speeds = more customers on the network = more bandwidth used = more revenue to increase the infrastructure = higher speeds available = higher speeds advertised. That's how internet companies grow, and it's a cycle that can be applied to almost any tech business. In the long run, it's how you get speeds that really faster when it's said and done.

"they know I am paying exactly the same as my Father in the next town who does get the 4.5 - 5 mbit. It just feels so much like a bait and switch."

Think again. A Big Mac where I live is about $3.50. When I lived in Manhattan, New York City, it was just shy of $7. Fill up your gas tank at your corner station. Pick a direction and drive until your needle hits the 'E' and then find the nearest station and fill back up. Do you expect a tank of gas to cost the same at both locations? Prices will always be different based on supply and demand in different locations. To expect an Internet company to break that rule and provide the same product at the same price everywhere just doesn't make any sense.

I hope I haven't stirred the chum. I do again want to make clear that I do not in any way condone deceiving a customer about the kind of service they'll receive, and I know Frontier has a worse reputation than many on this point, and they should be held accountable for that. But when it comes to their finances and policies I have to stick my wimpy carpel tunnel hand up from the engineer's section and remind folks that it is the only way a DSL company can do business.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by NetworkWiz:

But as someone who's worked for multiple DSL companies as well as services running on Fiber, Coax, Satellite, and even one which ran off contracted cell tower broadcasts, I feel the need to mention that (as unfortunate as it may be) the tiered system of service is necessary because "That is the nature of DSL."

Apparently, Dane Jasper, Sonic.net, LLC CEO disagrees:

»I feel like I'm subsidizing other customers
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

NetworkWiz

join:2013-06-27
Reviews:
·Comcast
To quote Dane Jasper from the thread you linked:

"speed is either a configured limitation, or a physical one... the cost (and thus price) is derived from the infrastructure cost, not a configured limitation."

Which is just a paraphrase of what I said. The physical nature of of the technology limits the ability to deliver the consistent service to everyone on the line. However it looks like based on his comments there, instead of a tiered system to try and create some kind of parity between cost and service like Frontier does, they've created just one tier and are charging everyone on the line a flat rate for renting the copper, whether they get the fastest speed or the slowest.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by NetworkWiz:

To quote Dane Jasper from the thread you linked:

"speed is either a configured limitation, or a physical one... the cost (and thus price) is derived from the infrastructure cost, not a configured limitation."

To complete his quote, which you truncated:
quote:
In fact, speed is either a configured limitation, or a physical one - but on a given technology, speed itself is costless.

So it would seem that tiers are designed to make the customer think he is getting "a deal" for choosing a slower, "cheaper" tier.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

revere521

join:2013-06-24
reply to NetworkWiz
Think again. A Big Mac where I live is about $3.50. When I lived in Manhattan, New York City, it was just shy of $7. Fill up your gas tank at your corner station. Pick a direction and drive until your needle hits the 'E' and then find the nearest station and fill back up. Do you expect a tank of gas to cost the same at both locations? Prices will always be different based on supply and demand in different locations. To expect an Internet company to break that rule and provide the same product at the same price everywhere just doesn't make any sense.
No, i do understand - but there's a difference and its less about what is possible, and more about how much my sales rep didn't (or couldn't) tell me. They knew how much I could get out of the "up to" on that plan - but they obfuscated that. If it were easy for me to know what was possible beforehand there wouldn't need to be a DSL reports forum to delve into the details of the technology.

when i run out of gas - first i know i can pick my gas station from several choices and the price per gallon is on the sign - thats what i pay. I dont pay 40 dollars for an unknown amount of gas between 5 and 10 gallons based on the limitations of the pump - limitations that i don't get to know about until after i buy the gas.

It isn't supply and demand - its telling the whole truth beforehand.
Expand your moderator at work

NetworkWiz

join:2013-06-27
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to NormanS

Re: Advertised Speeds

"but on a given technology, speed itself is costless."

You're correct, I included the latter part instead because he makes it clear that he's talking about a conceptual strategy of the cost of providing the service applied to the cost to the consumer. He's making the point it doesn't cost the ISP more or less to adjust the speed provided up to the limitations of the technology. At that point, to increase the speed capability requires upgrading the infrastructure, which does cost. He's making the same point as I did that difference in available connection speeds is the nature of a DSL network. The only difference is that he's making an argument that his company changed from applying a concept of value for speed to their customers and applied the value of service to the infrastructure like it is on the ISP's side.

"make the customer think he is getting "a deal" for choosing a slower, "cheaper" tier."

Aren't they? They're paying a lower price for a lower quantity of service. I think that would satisfy the definitions of 'deal' and 'cheaper.'

Which is a perfect way to examine Dane's point. Taking the average consumer's view, the customer would be paying a lower price for a lower quantity of service (data). Dane would argue that the customer should be charged for the quality of service (infrastructure), like Sonic's flat rate VDSL regardless of how far from the CO they are (and therefore regardless of what speeds they can receive). My original point was addressing the concerns some posters had about paying the same rate as someone who had faster speed capabilities within the same billing tier (i.e. two on a 3.5Mbps 'tier' paying the same cost but one receiving 2.7Mbps because of the physical limitations of his line and the other getting the full 3.5Mbps because they're closer to the dslam). Dane's idea makes this problem worse by ignoring speed capabilities when pricing a service (1Mbps customers pay the same price as 12Mbps for the same service type). That's why many Frontier customers (the one's who weren't deceived about service capability) were extremely happy when Frontier changed it's billing in many markets from the old 'Max' service (flat rate for whatever the maximum capabilities of the line are) to the new lite/max/ultra/ultimate tiered system. It's still not ideal, but it does at least provide some sense of parity between cost and service. I do think Dane's idea has some merit, especially for the ISP's financial structure. The problems with it are that:

1: The average consumer holds a paradigm that speed and cost are linked in regards to service, and aren't going to happily except that changing, no matter how valid his concept is in the technical sense.

2: I don't think it is valid in the technical sense. He's putting DSL technology in a conceptual vacuum where attenuation doesn't exist. He's saying that a modem, an NID hookup, and a connection to the carrier is the same product in definition, and should therefore by priced the same. But if the loop length on that link to the carrier is shorter or longer, that line may deliver a 1Mbps connection, or it may provide 15Mbps. I (and I think most customers as well) would consider that two different products, and therefore expect a difference in cost for them.

P.S. Neither quote nor bquote tags worked when trying to post this. I used these rules: »Posting How To - Examples and just got plain text. Any suggestions?

atigerman

join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
I have a question for Network Wiz.

The main line was laid down a county road here and the remote dslam was placed at the end of that road. So as the cable goes, i should be a straight line to the dslam.

You see at present i don't have the right kind of modem to know my line stats and frontier really hasn't made that type of information common knowledge to me.

Now being dsl is distance dependent and as the road/cable is about 1.1 miles or 5808 feet away from me. Is it not unreasonable for me to request that my distance not exceed 6000 feet?

NetworkWiz

join:2013-06-27
Reviews:
·Comcast
Tigerman, I don't see why not. As long as the line and DSLAM are there, you should be able to get service at that length, and anything under 1.2 miles should deliver optimum speeds. If they tell you that's not possible, I'd be curious as to why.

Also, revere, I commented on this pretty specifically, but I wanted to repeat since you mentioned it. I absolutely wasn't trying to comment on deceiving customers, and definitely know Frontier's reputation for it, and don't approve. I only meant to address the idea of difference in price for similar speeds in different areas.

hawkesrw

join:2013-05-23
Libby, MT

1 edit
reply to hawkesrw
Thanks everyone, as I stated above I am far from a guru when it comes to DSL. I do understand the basics. To me it's just a technology that takes old infrastructure and makes it due things which it was never designed to do.

Lets face it most of us are prisoners of our local market with limited choices. In cases like this the companies know you don't have many options so its a take it or leave it attitude.

We have three options here DSL, a Cable company which believe it or not doesn't use fiber(beyond horrible at night when everyone gets home) or satellite.

Which in Theory what is the top stable speed DSL can handle?

From what I can see True Cable which uses Fiber is by far the best and if I lived in a area where there was that choice why would anyone pick the DSL its appears to be outdated technology which side by side with fiber cant begin to compare?

I am happy with my DSL here I still have never hit that upto speed and probably never will? The local office is staffed with a great group of people and that sure makes a difference. Someone told me that most providers consider it acceptable if you get within 70% of the advertised "up to" speed.

I know I have a old dialup modem here somewhere only problem is it's ISA


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to NetworkWiz
As to 1: That paradigm was created by the ISPs, not the customers.

As to 2: So what increments would you use to define "different" DSL products. AT&T uses these steps:

• 768/384 (Basic)
• 1536/384 (Express)
• 3008/512 (Pro)
• 60016/768 (Elite)

There is no 5900/590 product, though my old loop would support such; AT&T only offered 3008/512, while that moronic Sonic.net allowed me to have a 5900/590 connection!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Ben J
Triple Play Architect
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:10
reply to NetworkWiz
said by NetworkWiz:

2: I don't think it is valid in the technical sense. He's putting DSL technology in a conceptual vacuum where attenuation doesn't exist. He's saying that a modem, an NID hookup, and a connection to the carrier is the same product in definition, and should therefore by priced the same. But if the loop length on that link to the carrier is shorter or longer, that line may deliver a 1Mbps connection, or it may provide 15Mbps. I (and I think most customers as well) would consider that two different products, and therefore expect a difference in cost for them.

And there is a different cost for them, especially when discussing rural ISPs. Speed available for most of our subscribers comes down to a cost decision to shorten the loop length or not. I can give every subscriber in my footprint 150Mbps bonded VDSL2, but the average cost to shorten all those loops to the point they can attain it would price us WAY out of the market (especially in a rural area where the majority of the loops back to the CO are very long). The average cost to supply one of our markets with 1.5Mbps service will be significantly less than the average cost to supply one of our markets with 24Mbps, entirely because you are correct that speed is based on loop length and loop length dictates how much infrastructure I have to buy. Within that average there are some that are cheaper (you live across the street from the CO) and some that are more expensive (you live a long ways out and I have to install a 12 or 24-port RT for only 5 homes within its reach). The pricing models are tiered to average max speed because the costs to attain that average max speed are tiered for us.
--
Transparency Disclosure and Disclaimer: I am a Frontier employee posting in my own personal capacity. The opinions and positions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier.


Ben J
Triple Play Architect
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:10
reply to hawkesrw
U-verse would be a better place to make the argument. In Lightspeed (at least, back when I worked there), the minimum "qualified for service" speed is the maximum offered speed. It doesn't matter than you can sync to 75Mbps, it matters that you can sync ABOVE let's say, 50Mbps. Then you can get 24Mbps Internet (and TV if you want it). All subs are offered a max speed at less than the minimum sync rate, and extra sync speed was wasted. This also made the engineering pretty simple. All loops had to be less than a certain number of feet on a certain gauge with no more than a certain number of bridge taps to attain at least minimum sync. The decision to bring U-verse to a neighborhood/market meant that we could shorten all the loops in it for less than $X/home (among other things, but we're oversimplifying here...). Within that model, the concept of "paying for lower/higher speed" is, to Dane's point, entirely marketing.
--
Transparency Disclosure and Disclaimer: I am a Frontier employee posting in my own personal capacity. The opinions and positions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier.

atigerman

join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
reply to hawkesrw
I can't find the information any longer, but i thought the three tiers of service was "Up to 6", "Up to 12", and "Up to 25" Mbps.

While a lot of factors have to be taken in to what would qualify you for what service. I'm interested just what kind of distance do you have to be within to get the 6, 12, 25 service.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by atigerman:

While a lot of factors have to be taken in to what would qualify you for what service. I'm interested just what kind of distance do you have to be within to get the 6, 12, 25 service.

The sixth post shows a scattercram. Speed is on the Y-axis, distance is on the X-axis. The charts show ADSL2+; with some ADSL modem users at about 8 Mbps. VDSL is not offered by Sonic.net, so there is no VDSL data.

It would help to include the link!!!

»New Fusion average speed/distance chart

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


fightinISPs

@frontiernet.net
reply to hawkesrw
I'm just going to jump in here and say, at least in my local area, the management seems to be purposely capping all service to 3.7mbps. The fiber that is run to the local office has more then enough room to provide speeds up to 25mbps to those who are within service loop length and so on all the way down the speed tiers. I fought with them for a month to get the to admit to this and provide me with 12mbps service that they claimed whole heartily at first my area could not get.

I have noticed that all of the local techs as well as there "buddies" have had these speeds for the last few years while they provided only 1.5mbps to 3mbps to everyone else. I documented these speeds as I helped different people with computer issues and this was what I used to fight to get this imposed cap upped at least for a few people in my area. I am not sure why they are doing it as they would take about 50% of the cable ISP's customers since the service has major issues due to lack of maintenance over the years.

I am now moving to a new service area with the same claims as my current place and will be fighting with them with documentation that the service is possible in the area....

As people have said before there might be issues with service ability but at least in my case not always.

atigerman

join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
reply to hawkesrw
Click for full size
Modem stats
Tell me if i'm reading/understanding this right.

Looking at my modem stats. I have a high SNR and a low attenuation and if i'm reading the Dsl speed correctly, i am connecting at a rate of 3.7 Mbps. I do need to find out what my provision speed is...But i do know it's capped at 3 Meg for the area.

How trustworthy is the Dsl Speed of the modem stats?


Hank
Searching for a new Frontier
Premium
join:2002-05-21
Burlington, WV
kudos:3
That is what you are provisioned for.


Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:25
reply to atigerman
Trustworthy. That's a good line there, and Frontier should really be making an effort to give you more.