Ofcom report on ADSL Max packages

muon

muon

muon

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
23,562
Location
London
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8171074.stm

Apparently Virgin Media ADSL has the highest average speeds.

Perhaps a bit unfair on ISPs with ADSL2+ packages as there could be an element of self selection where those on good lines select ADSL2+ connections rather than ADSL. Then again that could be completely wrong as well and work the other way where people on worse lines pay for ADSL2+ lines to compensate for slow connection. Also there is BT's criticism.

edit:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4014-ofcom-finally-publishes-final-broadband-report.html

Apparently they used Virgin's 10Mb(£14 per month) cable connections, which is a somewhat unfair comparison since they avoided Be/O2/Sky upto 20Mb/24Mb services which are price competitive.
 
Last edited:
They also completely ignore the throughput the connections achieve.

My poor line may only give me 8.5mb from Be, but I get close to 8mb throughput ALL the time; the 'is faster than' all 10mb VM might beat that in a speedtest, but that's about it;)
 
Broadband users are not getting the speeds they are paying for, according to the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken by telecoms regulator Ofcom.
Nearly one fifth of UK broadband customers on an eight Megabit per second (Mbps) connection actually receive less than 2Mbps, it found.
Click to expand...


... except you're not paying for an 8Mbps connection! You're paying for 'up to 8Mbps', which is clearly stated before you sign up for DSL. It's not your ISP's fault if your line's rubbish.
 
No, it's Virgin Media cable that topped the bill, not their ADSL.

pxmm said:
They also completely ignore the throughput the connections achieve.
Click to expand...

Why do I suspect if they'd done that (or taken account of some of the smaller ISPs like O2/Be), the positions would have been reversed. Not that Ofcom's biased towards Virgin Media, of course...

Edit: It seems the report does take account of transfer rates by virtue of the testing SamKnows did. AAISP have a response to the report too.
 
Similarly, you lose ~12% on any connection to overheads though. ISPs have never advertised that you were giving that away.

stockhausen said:
Do you have any reason to believe that Ofcom IS biased towards Virgin Media or was that just a casual, cynical, unsupportable suggestion?
Click to expand...

Feel free to give evidence why that is "a casual, cynical, unsupportable suggestion".

For me, the case is the lack of any sanction for claiming VM's HFC is "fibre optic broadband", the ex-VM staff at the top of Ofcom, the beating on BT, need I really continue? Comparing a 10Mbps HFC connection with up to 8Mbps ADSL, because that's a straight comparison isn't it?
 
Reading that is probably the biggest waste of time and I'd got as far as also saying the biggest insult to my intelligence this year so far.

The people that get less than 2 meg were originally on 2meg packages anyway, but 8meg is now the bottom standard for most ISPs, they can't actually pay any less. Most would have been upgraded free of charge.

Almost all ISPs will do a site survey to varify speed if you ask them. But it does cost upwards of £80 in most cases. so you could find out if you REALLY CARE THAT MUCH.

Not even sure why they are comparing ADSL and Cable in the same survey anyway, they're two completely separate technologies developed separately with speeds influenced by completely different factors.

It's not just internet I'm sure divs buy ferraris and whine that they don't drive like Schumacer
 
Last edited:
Suprised AOL been on bottem... i dont know much about speeds but got a 8mb line and getting a steady 750k on most websites
 
tolien said:
Similarly, you lose ~12% on any connection to overheads though. ISPs have never advertised that you were giving that away.
Click to expand...
I think you may be missing the point of the Ofcom report which it seems to me is suggesting that Broadband customers are being short-changed.

There is a world of difference between some techie on a forum knowing that the speeds quoted in adverts are theoretical maximums, never actually achieved by anybody and the man on the Clapham omnibus knowing that when an ISP advertises speeds of up to 8 or 24meg, they know full well that you will be lucky to get half of that or why they aren't getting what they thought they were paying for.

The only comparison that matters to most people is what speed they actually get for what they pay; the fine detail of why they do or don't get a particular speed is of no practical value or interest to them.


tolien said:
For me, the case is the lack of any sanction for claiming VM's HFC is "fibre optic broadband", the ex-VM staff at the top of Ofcom, the beating on BT, need I really continue?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you do really need to continue. Actually, no, you don't, because it isn't really important, even if it is true.

So far as I can tell, none of the Ofcom board (Colette Bowe, Ed Richards, Millie Banerjee, Lord Norman Blackwell, Tim Gardam, Philip Graf CBE, Stuart McIntosh, Mike McTighe or Peter Phillips) are ex-Virgin Media but you probably know otherwise.


tolien said:
Feel free to give evidence why that is "a casual, cynical, unsupportable suggestion".
Click to expand...
Because I don't think you have justified your accusation although I very much doubt that anyone other than fans of BT or AOL could really care less :p
 
I cannot believe anyone handed Ofcom funding to come up with a report such as that. It seems that all I need to do to become Britains best ISP is serve a tiny percentage of the population and give them all 100Mbps.

It's worded like some dross that Watchdog would come up with ("not getting the speeds they are paying for"), not a government body.
 
I'm not missing any point (although I wonder if I should be feeding the troll, or belting it with a hammer). I was replying to the point that 8Mbps ADSL gets you a 7.15Mbps IP profile with BT Wholesale.

stockhausen said:
never actually achieved by anybody
Click to expand...

Except they are. Look at the rebuttal from AAISP I posted - all the people on fixed rate get "what they're paying for", and around a quarter of people on up to 8Mbps service get the full 8128kbps sync rate. The rest are getting less because of loop length, which isn't trivially estimable and isn't relevant to the price you pay.

when an ISP advertises speeds of up to 8 or 24meg, they know full well that you will be lucky to get half of that or why they aren't getting what they thought they were paying for.
Click to expand...

No, the ISP doesn't have a clue what you will get unless they have access to, for example, the attenuation/SNR margin/sync rate statistics from an existing ADSL service. They maybe have some statistic that around 25% will get full rate from an up to 8Mbps service, but you could apply the same elsewhere - the 3G providers and VM clearly know what areas are oversubscribed and so users are unlikely to get the headline speed there.

The only comparison that matters to most people is what speed they actually get for what they pay; the fine detail of why they do or don't get a particular speed is of no practical value or interest to them.
Click to expand...

They pay for up to 8Mbps or up to 24Mbps, and get exactly that. The "fine detail" of the two words preceding the number is clearly of no interest to them but that doesn't excuse their ignorance.

Yes, I think you do really need to continue. Actually, no, you don't, because it isn't really important, even if it is true.
Click to expand...

You made the comment. It's of some relevance because Virgin Media came top, for better or worse, and you can bet that someone's already writing it into their advertising spiel.

So far as I can tell, none of the Ofcom board (Colette Bowe, Ed Richards, Millie Banerjee, Lord Norman Blackwell, Tim Gardam, Philip Graf CBE, Stuart McIntosh, Mike McTighe or Peter Phillips) are ex-Virgin Media but you probably know otherwise.
Click to expand...

Last I looked, the majority were ex-NTL, including the like of Stephen Carter (ex NTL COO). If that's changed, great, though actions speak louder than words.

Because I don't think you have justified your accusation although I very much doubt that anyone other than fans of BT or AOL could really care less :p
Click to expand...

Fans of BT or AOL? Do justify, because if you're implying I'm some fan of either you're sorely mistaken...
 
******* clueless morons on newsbeat "I get between 3.6 and 3.8meg and sometimes I cant even connect to the site".
 
Caged said:
To add fuel to the fire on Ofcoms bias towards Virgin Media, Virgin are the only provider mentioned by name in this video (excluding the logos at the start):

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/features/broadvideojy

Everone else is just referred to as "the provider".
Click to expand...
Virgin Media are mentioned precisely ONCE :rolleyes:

Incidentally, there was a related thread on GD . . . but it is now closed :confused:
 
Is this comparing 8Mb connections against Virgins 10Mb connection? So they are comparing one service against another that is potentially 205% faster? Seems a little unfair anyway...

Besides, theres so many variables involved it's hard to fairly compare.

- Pea0n
 
Sorry to dig this up again but the Beeb have written an article attempting to explain things:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8171984.stm

I'm not sure I've ever read a worse written article relating to a technical issue. It's chock-full of crap like "not getting what they paid for" despite Ofcom never mentioning this, and plain awful analysis - many consumers have microfilters? Surely they mean anyone who enjoys using the phone at the same time as their internet connection?

It almost makes The Register look well researched.
 
Wow. That is dreadful. Never seen so much misinformation in one article. Not only don't they know what a microfilter is, but they've completely misunderstood sync speed, SNR and the relationship between them. It also sounds an awful lot like it's blaming the ISPs for withholding bandwidth and not squeezing 8Mbps down rubbish lines. C'mon... surely they could have found somebody with a vague idea of how DSL works. It ain't rocket science.
 
Andrew/MrSaffron from Thinkbroadband was on Working Lunch and News24...so it's not as if they didn't even speak to people with a clue :(

Edit: The graph looks like it's been ripped from either an American chart (like the ADSL2+ graph that gets tossed around) or dream land - no one with an ettenuation >50dB gets a service? Since when?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom