While technicians and informed users know that an "up to 3Mbps" connection means under optimal conditions (line quality, CO distance), less informed consumers are repeatedly surprised when they perform their first speed test and notice they're getting significantly less. While some have suggested regulator-enforced speed tests to ensure customers are getting what they pay for, there's too many factors to consider (trojan infection? poor home wiring?) to make proper enforcement practical.

A recent UK survey showed that 62% routinely get less than half of the top speed advertised by their provider. UK consumer watchdog "Which?" also reported that users in the UK often see a third of the speed stated in advertisements. The group found that buyers of an "up to 8 Mbps" tier actually achieved 2.7Mbps on average, and some didn't see speeds any faster than 0.09Mbps. Nobody surveyed saw speeds faster than 6.7Mbps.

That gaping difference between advertised and real prices has resulted in pressure on regulators to change the way ISPs do business. UK consumer advocates would like to see a number of changes, including the ability to opt-out of one's contract if your line speed varies significantly from the advertised speed.

With the arrival of long-term contracts here in the States, is it only fair to allow users out if they're not getting what they pay for? Or does that in essence make ISPs liable for line conditions they may not always have control over?