Are You Getting the Speed You Pay For? → Speeds advertised are all "UP TO" speeds

All the providers, every one, sell their services with the proviso that the speeds advertised are "UP TO" a certain speed. No where do they quarantee a speed test will hit the maximum advertised rate. So what is the point of forcing ISPs to provide users the measured speeds throughout the day?

Besides, anyone who cares about speed knows where to find hundreds of speed test sites or can download speed monitoring software for their computer.

And what about users with routers? Will the good professor demand a speed monitor be built in to every router, because in houses with multi-computers, that would be the only correct place to measure speeds.

If the network never permits anyone to realistically achieve the "up to" speed, then the point would be to prevent the ISP from advertising that speed.

Or maybe the point would be to require that ISPs list average peak and off-peak maximum speeds in addition to theoretical "up to" speeds.

Back in the day, purveyors of audio equipment would tout their rigs with all sorts of misleading measurements. They would tell you, for instance, that their amplifier was capable of 200 watts per channel MPP(Music Peak Power), or that the output was X watts IPP (Instantaneous Peak Power). The point being that the MPP/IPP power figures were unsustainable output spikes that could only even be approached in rare circumstances. It turns out that a power output rated in RMS (Root Mean Square) terms is the actual, sustainable output level. As I recall the FTC cracked down on these phony rating schemes some years ago. I think JTRockville is arguing for an equivalent speed rating for what passes for broadband service. I think she's on to something.

I've noted before in an earlier post that a friend of mine is paying for "up to" 768K DSL from Verizon (in the DC Metro area where you would think the lines would be pretty good). I ran a speed test for her using the Broadband reports speed test page. She was barely pulling 150 kbs -- not nearly what she was paying for (and yes, I had run the tweak tests and used Dr. TCP). She mentioned that whenever a Verizon tech came to work on the phone lines for her or her neighbors they would climb the pole and then make some comment about how it was amazing that the phones even worked. Given scenarios like that, why shouldn't the customer be able to make choices based on realistic data, rather than the marketing department's fantasy scenario?

I agree... There should be a way to monitor the ISP's to see if they are giving you the speeds you pay for, if they cannot provide you with the advertised speeds, they should change their advertisement to reflect only what they can provide. If they find because of distance or other issues then they should also adjust their pricing to reflect what your speed actually is! Not what they think it can be...

This is not a good analogy. For this to work, you have to have the majority of customers not able to obtain speeds advertised, which in most cases, most people can acheive 90% of the speed. As for your friend barely pulling 150kbs, that would be a deal breaker for me. But hey she is only paying $15 a month, and it beats dialup. She could shell out at least $15 more and go with cable.

What are you basing the assertion that "most people can achieve 90% of the speed" on?

Why assume their not? All we see on here usually is the negative of any given company...(XX casts too much...cant get my speed, X is having a nationwide problem.)

But what about the millions of people who have no problem? Im sure there is some who dont know how to check or dont bother, but I would say there is a higher percent of people that have no issues than do.

You may be correct, but we have no way of knowing given that large numbers of folks don't know about the availability of speed tests. All we have now is speculation and (occasional) anecdotal evidence. All the more reason that some sort of verifiable monitoring mechanism is desirable. I don't think information to the consumer would be a bad thing.

I'd rather not assume anything. That's why I want the data.

Thanks Wtansill for putting this discussion in the proper perspective. It is very similar to the audio equipment industry's misleading specs from the 60's and 70's. It really is more of an FTC issue because it makes claims about performance in misleading ways. For instance, just because the ISP refers to speeds "up to" 4 Mbs, does that mean the consumer should expect half or less of that performance for months at a time? That's ridiculous. NEWSFLASH: anything between 0 Kbps and 4 Mbps is "up to" 4 Mbps, isn't it? Therefore, no service at all would potentially meet the requirements of such a qualified service statement.