[Infowarrior] - The Infamous 'Up To' Broadband Qualifier

[Richard Forno]

The Infamous 'Up To' Broadband Qualifier
Australian regulators have had enough...
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81315

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has issued a
warning to Australia ISPs to come clean about their broadband speeds and
stop using the "up to" marketing term, or face possible litigation. "Most
consumers won't understand what 'up to' means and then they are
significantly disappointed when they don't achieve those speeds," says ACCC
chairman Graeme Samuel. "We know all the technicians know that in most cases
the speeds that you are claiming as the headline speeds are not achievable,"
he warns.

There's been a similar debate here in the States. 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.

Our resident ISP techs will be the first to tell you that residential
broadband is a "best effort" service, and users desiring guaranteed speed
and reliability should look toward business class lines with SLAs. Users on
the other side of the fence argue you don't pay for "up to" a gallon of
gasoline, with the gas station saying .7 gallons was their "best effort" in
getting it from the ground to your tank. Either way, if there's a problem
with the "up to" tag, it's a marketing department issue. Is the "up to" tag
misleading? Is it something regulators should squash?