But there is no legal imperative for these companies to comply with the code
"But there is no legal imperative for these companies to comply with the code"
Ofcom is tightening the screws – sort of – on broadband providers that play fast and loose with speed promises by imposing a deadline to meet service obligations or allow customers to walk away without a penalty. Customers are able to exit a deal if velocity slips below a minimum guaranteed level and the provider can’t rectify …
Of course not. Ofcome have yet again fumbled the ball - and note that even with this pissy, lukewarm, years overdue move, the fools of Ofgem have given the industry a further year's grace to keep on selling contracts that they know they can't honour. In no other area are consumer interests so poorly defended by a regulator.
Ofcom should be abolished other than for technical regulation like spectrum licenciing, and the other industry regulators treated likewise. Then there should be a single consumer regulator to oversee all consumer interests in those regulated markets - broadband, voice, mobile, electricity, gas, water. And then they should get an absolute rottweiler to head it up, somebody who delights in giving a kicking to lard arse companies. Like Rob Offchurch who was at Ofgem last time I encountered him.
I can think of a few; water, energy, press regulation. They are all captured to some extent. But you have to remember they are commercial businesses and operate in their interests. That is not always the same as every consumers interest.
Ofcom, the Information given by BTWholesale Speedchecker is an antiquated joke. How do you expect any customer to measure this, other than by the ISP's own self-verification?
Why the fcuk do customers still have to install bug ridden Adobe Flash in 2018 to use this Speedchecker?
Ofcom, we need a tool that shows:
---------------------------------------------
The speed between the FTTC/exchange and premises.
The congestion at the FTTC/local exchange in terms of ADSL.
The backhaul congestion regards BTOpenreach backhaul between the BT 21cn Internode/ISP.
Congestion/faults/re-routes specific to the ISP.
Congestion at the LINX (London Internet Exchange).
The wholesale BT Checker is currently purposely failing to file data too, when it encounters low speeds to prevent poor statistical data ever reaching Ofcom.
Basically, it tells you absolutely fcuk all, as a customer, why you're Internet is slow, whether that be single thread downloads, streaming, or whatever.
Often it will give a different values each time, eventually even showing zero for both upload/download, if you re-run the test several times.
The backhaul congestion regards BTOpenreach backhaul between the BT 21cn Internode/ISP.
Congestion/faults/re-routes specific to the ISP.
Congestion at the LINX (London Internet Exchange).
On the topic of that last one, I've never quite understood why BT haven't invested in extending their IP core to IXMAN or indeed the other LINK locations (IXScotland/Cardiff). Manchester has a significant data centre community, and it makes absolutely zero sense to send traffic from the North down to the OpenReach core around London in order to be bounced back up to a server in Manchester. Virgin do, as do BalkBalk, Vodafone and O2, along with the big-hitting content providers like MS/Apple, Cloudflare, BBC, Akamai, etc.
Might add some redundancy for those occasions when their Uninterruptible Power Supplies are interrupted....
The information on the current checker is amazingly out of date for some areas too, taking it past a joke.
I have one site with an estimated speed of 2.5mbps, it's .7.
Another has an estimated speed of 4.5, it's currently running at 10.8!
It would be interesting see how such a regulation could be enforced.
Very easily. All other regulated industries have to submit extensive performance reports on customer service standards to their regulator, and get caned for failure to meet targets. Of course, as this is self reported they can tell lies and hope nobody notices, but there's often an extensive external audit undertaken by the regulator or their appointee. I worked for a regulated company some years ago, and a small cabal of crooks decided to lie in the regulatory return to achieve personal bonus related targets. This was uncovered, the regulator fined the company £37m, two directors and a senior manager (all of whom I knew) were given the boot, and rightly so. They also had to endure personal investigations by the SFO, although sadly the SFO decided not to prosecute them individually.
Ofcom should be abolished other than for technical regulation like spectrum licenciing
I'm not convinced that they are compentent at doing that, I seem to recall howls of protest from radio hams about powerline ethernet equipment and OFCOM refusing to use the powers that they already had to protect the spectrum from interference from unlicensed users.
The problem is that Ofcom are attempting to regulate things which rightfully belong in the domain of the Office of Fair Trading and thanks to the ongoing turf war, the British consumer loses out.
(lack of) Competence at RF matters is noted but it would be hard for them to go against EU type approvals without having a shitstorm coming down - and as part of the reason that bands are allocated to hams is to allow them to research improvements in the art, they should be coming up with ways to work around the interference. The government _could_ turn around and simply increase their license fees to "unaffordable" levels (or merely cost recovery ones).
well over half the UK consumers could be getting less than that awesome 34.6Mbit/s
It appears the figures are provided by SamKnows and even Ofcom's report accepts that the figures might be skewed towards people who have an interest in getting the best broadband performace. Around half of the people participating had FTTC-like speeds which is not entirely inline with what I observe amongst family and friends. Still, nice to know it's gradually getting better...
May I kindly suggest that if 34.6Mbit/s is not fast enough for you then you need to get a life?
Having gone from "up to 20 Mbps"(1) that was normally around 11-12 Mbps directly to "at least 200 Mbps"(2) that was in fact anywhere up to 300 Mbps, I can say that going back is one of the least desirable changes I can imagine in my internet service.
Bear in mind that 300 Mbps is 37.5 MBYTE/s. I can download a GB of whatever it is I want to download in less than 30 seconds.(3)
Oh, yeah, and 100 Mbps *up*, so that two megabyte .JPG that I attach to mails from time to time goes up in almost no time at all.
(1) Well, really it was advertised as "jusqu'à 20 Mbps", but that's just Froglandish for the same thing.
(2) "Au moins 200 Mbps". Froglandish, obviously.
(3) With 7 Mbps of TCP ACK packets in the other direction. In a way, that's the most remarkable part of the whole thing.
You need to be retuning your algorithms - you'll get better speed and lower latencies if you do.
Sort of, maybe. It's getting 300 Mbps down at that rate, so the speed is probably bounded by the fibre's traffic shaping more than any TCP window size / RTT / ack-fraction / etc. that might be going on.
I *could* even up the rate to 500 Mbps down / 400 Mbps up, but (a) it costs enough more that I can't be bothered to pay the extra and (b) 300 Mbps is near the upper limits of the UTM's performance, and it's the fastest one the company makes that's fanless.
Yes, a small number of people have lousy speeds and high latency
When you say "a small number", Virgin towing that average up with 100-300Mbps DOCSIS services should tell you just how shonky the xDSL services are that many people have access to.
If the average is 34.6Mb/s then for each Virgin Customer receiving 100Mbps, there are two DSL customers receiving ~1Mb/s.
Virgin have 4.2million broadband customers. You do the maths.
Virgin speeds as in this speed, or maybe this ?
I wouldn't mind slow speeds so much if only the buggers could be contacted to fix it when they grind to a halt altogether! A much higher priority for Ofcom should be to insist on a functioning customer service!
Well it would be nice to actually get 34Mbs, even on fttc, where due to the miss-selling by BT/OR it will never happen due to cabinet being too far away, while there are others closer, 21Mbs is the norm, but OR refuse to put you on those, despite the fact that they are taxpayer funded, and cover the postcode in question.
Had to laugh the other day, checked out BT site for going to fibre, yes up to 38Mbs , but when I went to purchase, 56Mbs available!! Don't think so not on my allocated cabinet.
Yet Another Great British Ripoff.
And a few people with lousy speeds, don't think so, check out the isp community sites.
May I kindly suggest that if 34.6Mbit/s is not fast enough for you then you need to get a life?
It's not really about the actual speed that someone gets - it's about that person knowing in advance what they will get, and being able to leave without penalty if they don't get it. At the moment, you know what the pricelist says the cost is for a (for example) "up to 80M FTTC" connection, and they'll tell you what they think you are likely to get - but if you can't get anything even near that then you still end up paying for the 18/24 month contract, or paying penalties to leave early.
A bit like buying "a tub" of something online - and them not telling you whether that's a 100g tub or a 1kg tub, just that it's "up to" 1kg.
This new rule is like the seller of the something having to tell you the minimum amount you'll get in the tub. So for example you might be told that you'll get no less than 600g - and if you do get less then you have the right to cancel. So no more telling you that "you're likely to get 600g" and then delivering a tub with just 50g in it - and you having no recourse.
If these measurements are against well known speed test sites then all they have to do is host one of the test servers and voila!
If there were a competent regulator they'd realise this risk, and make it illegal for ISPs who prioritise speed server traffic. Given the dubious practices common in telecoms retailing, that wouldn't stop some ISPs, but the obvious thing would theerfore be to have eye watering fines. In fact, it is about time that ISPs had to do regulatory reporting to Ofcom on all important quality of service indicators - average speeds, customers connected by speed band, speeds delivered relative to contract, number of service interruptions per customer, customer minutes lost, average latency, packet losses.
But sadly Ofcom are out to lunch, and none of this will happen.
"make it illegal for ISPs who prioritise speed server traffic"
Unfortunately the speed servers are in on the game, look at who pays for their banner adverts.
They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them and anyone who sets up on the basis of showing realworld speeds isn't going to have the money to run the system for long.
That's a fair point, but where I am, I can get 300 Mbps downloads from servers in Paris, and 7ms ping RTT from home (Lille) to those servers. That's an hour by train, so the best part of 180 miles(1), so definitely it gets out onto the backhaul from my exchange.
(1) French high speed trains(2) actually *are* high speed, thanks.
(2) "TGV" is an abbreviation of the French for "high speed train", duh.
You might have something there, actually. I notice that buried in EU upcoming regs, is a proposed ban on plastic straws.
You don't honestly think Gove had that idea himself.
(I made £10 by betting it would pop up as a UK "initiative" when it flitted past my screen last year.)
Virgin Media are one of the worst for this... they host a speedtest server... so I refuse to use the server they suggest and opt for others closest to me... And I do comparative tests using the netflix based fast.com.
VM speetest is always at least 50% higher... whilst when I sel;ect non VM based servers or use fast.com, I get speeds ranging from next to nothing up to 20Mbps... with the worst one being 68kbps. Yup you read that right... as bad as a 90's dial up modem.
As a long standing customer of Vermin Media, I'm well pissed off with their poor service and the rubbish Hub 3, but to give them their due I almost always get just above my contracted speed of 200 Mbps.
A test just now against fast.com reports 210 Mbps, and against a Paris server run by Bouygues Telecom (so international, not local, no links to VM, and unlikely to be prioritised) comes in at 231 Mbps. Transatlantic tests using obscure test services see half that, but even so, looks like some people (me) are getting what they pay for.
"Virgin Media are one of the worst for this... they host a speedtest server... so I refuse to use the server they suggest and opt for others closest to me... And I do comparative tests using the netflix based fast.com."
Depends on how you look at it. Having a speed test inside the ISP network can work as evidence that the "fault" is inside the ISP network. Low speeds off-net might be evidence of faults outside the ISPs control OR or might indicate the ISP cheaping out on peering.