11 ms·

It always puzzled me that internet companies can simply say that the speed is "up to" a certain number. Especially since, they will often sell various tiers of

by Drakim 9y ago

It always puzzled me that internet companies can simply say that the speed is "up to" a certain number. Especially since, they will often sell various tiers of speed, proving that they ARE capable of delivering a faster speed. Imagine paying for 50mb/s internet and only getting 23mb/s. So you upgrade to the 75mb/s plan and now your real speed is 46mb/s. Why couldn't you get that higher speed for the original plan? It seems bizarre that this setup would be legal anywhere in any country. If you can simply provide "up to" on something, then I wanna sell you a box for ten bucks that contains up to a million dollars! Edit: Obviously speed depends on a million factors, but I don't know if I've ever experienced even half the speed I was paying for, even when I control both end points.

e_proxus 9y ago
Sweden has solved this in a pretty good way I think. As an ISP you have to disclose a range (e.g. 12-24 Mbit/s) and pledge to keep that lower limit. In some areas you see instead the range of 1-XX and then you know as a customer that the connection is less reliable.
wmf 9y ago
Imagine paying for 50mb/s internet and only getting 23mb/s. So you upgrade to the 75mb/s plan and now your real speed is 46mb/s. In reality you'd probably still get 23 after upgrading. The state of New York is suing Spectrum over this issue; customers complained about slow speeds so Spectrum told them to upgrade to a faster plan but their speeds didn't improve at all because the congestion was still there.
- SerLava 9y ago
  They should force the cable companies to automatically discount the monthly cost if, say, 30%+ of the actual use falls more than, say, 10% below the advertised speed. I mean it makes perfect sense. And oh, what fire it would light under their asses.
  - foota 9y ago
    I don't think this would work since you can't effectively measure bandwidth available without stressing the system?
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      You are correct in theory. However, the present system is so bad that it routinely fails at (eg) streaming Netflix even though this uses less than your advertised bandwidth (by a wide margin). So at present, it would just be a matter of automatic documentation of failures -- and the situation would be much improved if we were up against the limit you propose.
      - foota 9y ago
        Fair point.
    - wtallis 9y ago
      You can't do it properly from an endpoint, but the ISPs are already monitoring it internally. They know when and where they have serious congestion.
      - notyourwork 9y ago
        This is precisely why ISP's should have to operate more transparently as a common carrier and not as a private business milking a cash cow.
        chii 9y ago
        If an electric utility company did the same, with 'up-to 240volts' - they'd get their ass sued out of existence. Why can't the gov't establish standards for such things, like a minimum speed (from the IPS's own servers of course, you cannot expect that they control it all).
        9y ago
- xzel 9y ago
  God the internet provider racket could be my least favorite thing about NYC. The infra is terrible, ping is pretty terrible, price rates are terrible, providers are terrible and you probably only have one for your building. Its a real shit storm. There are too many people for the current infra there and I'm sure no one want to foot the bill to improve it. I had Spectrum when I moved from NYC. I probably got 50/50 out of the 100/100 and during times of high traffic (dinner until 11) it was probably more like 20/20. I called, they said eh, you can pay 250 to get a better connection put in.
  - ploxiln 9y ago
    I've never seen a cable company offer 100/100, it was 100/10 or 200/20 or 300/20 (mbps) last I checked. In my experience, the internet available in NYC is way better than most suburban or rural places in the US. 50/50 is actually pretty good, if that's what you were getting - that's like 5 high-definition video streams both up and down.
    - isatty 9y ago
      It's bizarre to me that you think that 50/50 is good. I'm on 1gbps up/down and using slower connections at home is not ideal for me.
      - azinman2 9y ago
        It’s more than sufficient to watch Netflix, download things in reasonable times, and browse the web. Few have 1gbps...
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        I would classify 1gbps symmetrical as "stupendous". 50/50 would be "good". I'm paying too much for 50/10, and apparently being delivered about 15/5 (per my ISP's speedtest).
      - maccard 9y ago
        1gb/1gb is incredible, and probably top 1% in the world of connections. My office connection is 1gbps/1gbps, and my home connection is 15mbps/2mbps, with no possibility to improve. The highest package available in my city with any provider (not available in my area), and probably across most of the uk is 300mbps/30mbps
smudgymcscmudge 9y ago
Our cable internet is sold as "up to 100mbps", so the joke at our house is that if we ever get 101mbps we will sue them for breach of contract. Edit: I realize it isn't a good joke.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  I found the edit funny though.
- dboreham 9y ago
  If I may balance things a little here : we have "100Mbit" Charter/Spectrum and for the vast majority of the time we get ...120Mbits/s. True, there are times, usually a Sunday evening, when things go topot on their network and QoS goes down the pan, but those times are rare and the problem seems to get resolved quickly. Measured at the demarc Ethernet segment, L2 throughput including framing overhead, with a single TCP stream to a server I control that is about 1000 miles away.
  - wmf 9y ago
    Yes, I get 70 on a 50 plan from Spectrum. This is less awesome once you realize why they're doing it: in some places they have serious congestion during peak hours so they are giving extra performance during off-peak hours to make the average daily throughput of FCC speed measurements equal 100%. This was uncovered in the New York lawsuit.
- bgirard 9y ago
  Would be an interesting defense against a bandwidth overage charge.
- hrrsn 9y ago
  The New Zealand Commerce Commission got grumpy when ISPs started selling gigabit plans as 1000mbit, as it's not realistically possible for consumers to reach those speeds. So, instead of gigabit, we get "up to 900/400Mbps" or more realistically about 800/400, which, you know what, I can live with. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/87071149/spark-warned-off-marketing-new-fibre-plans-as-gigabit-plans-says-spokesman http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/87071149/spark-wa... http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6671498802.png http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6671498802.png
kuschku 9y ago
Actually, this is an interesting topic, because there are court decisions on this in Germany. So if an ISP has, say, a 25mbps, 50mbps, and 75mbps plan, the 50mbps plan has to provide 25 or more, and the 75mbps plan has to provide 50mbps or more.
- executesorder66 9y ago
  I decided last year that I want to move to Germany within 5 years. (For various reasons) Since I've made that decision, I keep finding more reasons to do so.
walshemj 9y ago
You know how ADSL (and related tech) works the speed you get depends on the distance from the exchange I don't know how it works in the USA but I ca test my line and at 6k yards it said I should get 3.5 ish which is what I get . I suspect a lot of BB speed complaints are down to poor wifi installations and local congestion in the wifi bands
- throw_away_4567 9y ago
  It sort of depends on distance, in reality it depends more on circuit noise and attenuation. If you have a really quiet circuit and high gauge high quality copper you will get a good signal to noise ratio which will give the modem margin to train to. The curves used to calculate speed over distance make bulk assumptions.
- Freestyler_3 9y ago
  See, this is what bothers me. There are people who mistake the speed of their internet with the speed of their own network. It bothers me a lot that when I call about slow speeds that the ISP starts troubleshooting my network. I know not to test on the wifi. (mostly test on the modem itself) I have a 500/500 line, and get guaranteed that it wont fall 10% below that. Most of the time I am really close to it or even above it. Right now I am seeing an anomaly 420/220. Not going to complain though, I only have this line because the other option was 20/2 for 80% of the price im paying now. Does help when getting or sending big files over for projects. edit: speedtest was giving me a slow server, better results now http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6690112916 http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6690112916
slipstream- 9y ago
>If you can simply provide "up to" on something, then I wanna sell you a box for ten bucks that contains up to a million dollars! So, scratchcards then?
icebraining 9y ago
They can. I often had 11mbps on my 10mpbs cable line.
rayiner 9y ago
They’re selling best effort service at a fraction of the price of what dedicated bandwidth costs. We’ve got a 100/100 symmetric line at work. We can pick from several different business Internet providers, but they all cost many multiples of what my symmetric gigabit line at home costs. It’s a different product offered at a different price. This is not unique to ISPs. You can buy an over-subscribed VPS for a fraction of the cost of a dedicated server.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  Home and "business" lines are exactly the same for pretty much every ISP out there. Real difference starts only for other ISPs (or anyone with ISP level bandwidth requirements), still best effort though.
  - waffle_ss 9y ago
    I was under the impression business lines typically have a different contention ratio[1], so you are less at the mercy of "noisy neighbors," as well as offering real SLAs (for whatever good those are). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
    - dboreham 9y ago
      The parents are I think talking past each other somewhat, because there are really three kinds of Internet service and you're talking about two of them as if they're the same thing: 1. Consumer/Residential: speed is "up to", throughput is highly asymmetrical, QoS is best effort, reliability is "mostly works", if you are lucky you will get a human if you call for support. If you complain about service typically the response is a shrug. Generally the service is whatever the provider defines it to be and you either buy it or you don't. Often static IP is not available. Cost: $20-100/mo. 2. Business: Sold by the same providers as #1. Much the same service, except (this varies) : dedicated channels on HFC, different traffic shaping, static IP allowed, perhaps even subnets, if you are really lucky reverse DNS is supported. Generally you get a human when you call support. If you complain about service they might do some basic investigation. In the case of our cableco they have different humans knocking on your door for install and trouble shooting (perhaps the more knowledgeable and more senior folks?). Cost: $50-200/mo ISP upstream/Dedicated/Real Connectivity: The name varies but this what one of the parent posts calls "Business". The service an ISP would get, or a big tech company, etc. You typically get an SLA with specified maximum packet loss rates and latency profile. Throughput is symmetric. Local loop is typically fiber. You can run your own BGP, HSPR etc is supported. IPv6 is always available. You can call the provider's NOC directly and have a conversation about why they're dropping packets in one direction to some obscure peer somewhere in the world. They'll investigate and resolve the problem asap. If you accidentally power off your edge router one of their NOC staff will call your call phone within minutes asking why there's no traffic on your link. Cost: $1000/mo+ Source: I ran an ISP for 10 years.
xkpd3 9y ago
What about turning this logic backwards? I don't need a guarantee. I want per-mbit prices. Like you pay what you get. Limit the rate by saying: I will pay up to 100mbit for example. Then the can give you less for less money. But this would not be in their interest anymore.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  Plans are for marketing purposes only. Broadband ISPs already typically calculate bandwidth as 1-2 mbps per customer.
BenjiWiebe 9y ago
I'm aware a lot of people have this problem, but here in a rural area we are paying for 6 Mbps DSL and usually get 6.25 to 6.5.
mrmondo 9y ago
Australia is appalling for this, the average person paying for 24Mbit ADSL2+ gets a messily 7Mbit (and I thought 24Mbit was bad enough!).
- chrismorgan 9y ago
  In Melbourne I never experienced sustained speeds of below 9Mbps on ADSL2+ in two locations, normally 11–12Mbps. But if you want a fast, stable Internet connection, move out into a small country town with a 4G tower (doesn’t need to be NBN). There’s much less congestion. Look around for plans, as most are expensive; I use amaysim’s 50GB/$65/28 days which is about what ADSL2+ would be in the country. Living in Stawell (a few thousand people) I get 20–25/12Mbps with greater reliability than I ever got on ADSL2+. I shall be moving to Navarre soon (~100 people) and get 45/15Mbps there.
  - viraptor 9y ago
    If you can live with the data cap, that's great. Otherwise, 50gb is pretty low for work (remote conferences, download some system images, upgrade your mac and you're done). Another issue in small towns is that the moment a new tower needs to go up, there may be a low of community pushback (radiation! kids!). It's much better if the current one gets an upgrade.
    - dragonsky67 9y ago
      Small towns in Australia tend to be a lot less paranoid about technology than an equivalent sized town in the USA. Comes from being really remote (think 100+Km to the next centre), having to fight for any services at all and a long history of using telecommunication technology to make life better. Think School of the Air using HF radios to provide education to remote children.
      - viraptor 9y ago
        Some possibly are. Mount Beauty had a weeks long local Facebook posts about it when wireless NBN was being planned. Then there are cases like this: https://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2017/08/30/solar-flare-up/ https://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2017/08/30/solar-flare-up...
richev 9y ago
It's because the law hasn't yet caught up with their spurious marketing claims.
Namrog84 9y ago
Where I used to live many years ago. I paid for up to 30. Got about 23. Then I switched to cheaper 10 and still got 23. And told all my friends and they got the same. They had 3 tiers all providing identical service beyond who was willing to pay for 10,30 or 50. Did this for 3+ years.
Nition 9y ago
Tangentially related: We used to have a bunch of "$2 Shop" stores - I think other countries have the equivalent "dollar store", "pound shop" etc. Due to inflation they've all now become "$2+ Dollar" shops or "$2 and up" etc. In reality of course they still sell the same sort of cheap stuff but it's funny how the name has gone from a shop that guarantees cheap prices, to one that guarantees not to be really cheap, since any price is now valid except ones below $2.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
maxxxxx 9y ago
Same for "Unlimited" when it actually has clear limits. Or camera manufacturers sell "Weather resistant" equipment but never specify what it means exactly and will void your warranty if there is water damage. Having their cake and eating it too!
drrob 9y ago
The classic excuse I'm receiving from Virgin Broadband at the moment is "we're currently upgrading the network in your area, there may be some speed disruption for several months." I'm paying for 100mbps, a few weeks back I tested it during one bad spell; I was receiving less than 1mbps. I was struggling to sync my emails, never mind watch Netflix.
- bostik 9y ago
  Not to mention that right now (and in fact for the past 4-5 days) Virgin Broadband is utterly broken. I get 38% average packet loss over long time windows, and see 2500ms+ roundtrips to the next hop. If this area was served by Hyperoptic, I would have changed more than two years ago.
  - drrob 9y ago
    If my area was merely served by two tin cans joined by a piece of string I'd have changed years ago.
nathan_long 9y ago
> It always puzzled me that internet companies can simply say that the speed is "up to" a certain number. I always imagine it like this: Them: "This plan gives you up to 23mb/s." Me: "So you're saying you guarantee I will not get more than 23mb/s?" Them: "Right." Me: "OK. I'll pay you up to $40 a month for that."
BrandoElFollito 9y ago
It would be interesting to pay in x€/Mbps (up to y Mbps). This is how I buy potatoes so this is hardly a revolutionary novelty.

by Drakim 9y ago

e_proxus 9y ago

Sweden has solved this in a pretty good way I think. As an ISP you have to disclose a range (e.g. 12-24 Mbit/s) and pledge to keep that lower limit. In some areas you see instead the range of 1-XX and then you know as a customer that the connection is less reliable.

wmf 9y ago

Imagine paying for 50mb/s internet and only getting 23mb/s. So you upgrade to the 75mb/s plan and now your real speed is 46mb/s. In reality you'd probably still get 23 after upgrading. The state of New York is suing Spectrum over this issue; customers complained about slow speeds so Spectrum told them to upgrade to a faster plan but their speeds didn't improve at all because the congestion was still there.

SerLava 9y ago
They should force the cable companies to automatically discount the monthly cost if, say, 30%+ of the actual use falls more than, say, 10% below the advertised speed. I mean it makes perfect sense. And oh, what fire it would light under their asses.
- foota 9y ago
  I don't think this would work since you can't effectively measure bandwidth available without stressing the system?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    You are correct in theory. However, the present system is so bad that it routinely fails at (eg) streaming Netflix even though this uses less than your advertised bandwidth (by a wide margin). So at present, it would just be a matter of automatic documentation of failures -- and the situation would be much improved if we were up against the limit you propose.
    - foota 9y ago
      Fair point.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    You can't do it properly from an endpoint, but the ISPs are already monitoring it internally. They know when and where they have serious congestion.
    - notyourwork 9y ago
      This is precisely why ISP's should have to operate more transparently as a common carrier and not as a private business milking a cash cow.
      - chii 9y ago
        If an electric utility company did the same, with 'up-to 240volts' - they'd get their ass sued out of existence. Why can't the gov't establish standards for such things, like a minimum speed (from the IPS's own servers of course, you cannot expect that they control it all).
        9y ago
xzel 9y ago
God the internet provider racket could be my least favorite thing about NYC. The infra is terrible, ping is pretty terrible, price rates are terrible, providers are terrible and you probably only have one for your building. Its a real shit storm. There are too many people for the current infra there and I'm sure no one want to foot the bill to improve it. I had Spectrum when I moved from NYC. I probably got 50/50 out of the 100/100 and during times of high traffic (dinner until 11) it was probably more like 20/20. I called, they said eh, you can pay 250 to get a better connection put in.
- ploxiln 9y ago
  I've never seen a cable company offer 100/100, it was 100/10 or 200/20 or 300/20 (mbps) last I checked. In my experience, the internet available in NYC is way better than most suburban or rural places in the US. 50/50 is actually pretty good, if that's what you were getting - that's like 5 high-definition video streams both up and down.
  - isatty 9y ago
    It's bizarre to me that you think that 50/50 is good. I'm on 1gbps up/down and using slower connections at home is not ideal for me.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      It’s more than sufficient to watch Netflix, download things in reasonable times, and browse the web. Few have 1gbps...
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      I would classify 1gbps symmetrical as "stupendous". 50/50 would be "good". I'm paying too much for 50/10, and apparently being delivered about 15/5 (per my ISP's speedtest).
    - maccard 9y ago
      1gb/1gb is incredible, and probably top 1% in the world of connections. My office connection is 1gbps/1gbps, and my home connection is 15mbps/2mbps, with no possibility to improve. The highest package available in my city with any provider (not available in my area), and probably across most of the uk is 300mbps/30mbps

smudgymcscmudge 9y ago

Our cable internet is sold as "up to 100mbps", so the joke at our house is that if we ever get 101mbps we will sue them for breach of contract. Edit: I realize it isn't a good joke.

Chris2048 9y ago
I found the edit funny though.
dboreham 9y ago
If I may balance things a little here : we have "100Mbit" Charter/Spectrum and for the vast majority of the time we get ...120Mbits/s. True, there are times, usually a Sunday evening, when things go topot on their network and QoS goes down the pan, but those times are rare and the problem seems to get resolved quickly. Measured at the demarc Ethernet segment, L2 throughput including framing overhead, with a single TCP stream to a server I control that is about 1000 miles away.
- wmf 9y ago
  Yes, I get 70 on a 50 plan from Spectrum. This is less awesome once you realize why they're doing it: in some places they have serious congestion during peak hours so they are giving extra performance during off-peak hours to make the average daily throughput of FCC speed measurements equal 100%. This was uncovered in the New York lawsuit.
bgirard 9y ago
Would be an interesting defense against a bandwidth overage charge.
hrrsn 9y ago
The New Zealand Commerce Commission got grumpy when ISPs started selling gigabit plans as 1000mbit, as it's not realistically possible for consumers to reach those speeds. So, instead of gigabit, we get "up to 900/400Mbps" or more realistically about 800/400, which, you know what, I can live with. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/87071149/spark-warned-off-marketing-new-fibre-plans-as-gigabit-plans-says-spokesman http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/87071149/spark-wa... http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6671498802.png http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6671498802.png

kuschku 9y ago

Actually, this is an interesting topic, because there are court decisions on this in Germany. So if an ISP has, say, a 25mbps, 50mbps, and 75mbps plan, the 50mbps plan has to provide 25 or more, and the 75mbps plan has to provide 50mbps or more.

executesorder66 9y ago
I decided last year that I want to move to Germany within 5 years. (For various reasons) Since I've made that decision, I keep finding more reasons to do so.

walshemj 9y ago

You know how ADSL (and related tech) works the speed you get depends on the distance from the exchange I don't know how it works in the USA but I ca test my line and at 6k yards it said I should get 3.5 ish which is what I get . I suspect a lot of BB speed complaints are down to poor wifi installations and local congestion in the wifi bands

throw_away_4567 9y ago
It sort of depends on distance, in reality it depends more on circuit noise and attenuation. If you have a really quiet circuit and high gauge high quality copper you will get a good signal to noise ratio which will give the modem margin to train to. The curves used to calculate speed over distance make bulk assumptions.
Freestyler_3 9y ago
See, this is what bothers me. There are people who mistake the speed of their internet with the speed of their own network. It bothers me a lot that when I call about slow speeds that the ISP starts troubleshooting my network. I know not to test on the wifi. (mostly test on the modem itself) I have a 500/500 line, and get guaranteed that it wont fall 10% below that. Most of the time I am really close to it or even above it. Right now I am seeing an anomaly 420/220. Not going to complain though, I only have this line because the other option was 20/2 for 80% of the price im paying now. Does help when getting or sending big files over for projects. edit: speedtest was giving me a slow server, better results now http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6690112916 http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6690112916

slipstream- 9y ago

>If you can simply provide "up to" on something, then I wanna sell you a box for ten bucks that contains up to a million dollars! So, scratchcards then?

icebraining 9y ago

They can. I often had 11mbps on my 10mpbs cable line.

rayiner 9y ago

They’re selling best effort service at a fraction of the price of what dedicated bandwidth costs. We’ve got a 100/100 symmetric line at work. We can pick from several different business Internet providers, but they all cost many multiples of what my symmetric gigabit line at home costs. It’s a different product offered at a different price. This is not unique to ISPs. You can buy an over-subscribed VPS for a fraction of the cost of a dedicated server.

zzzcpan 9y ago
Home and "business" lines are exactly the same for pretty much every ISP out there. Real difference starts only for other ISPs (or anyone with ISP level bandwidth requirements), still best effort though.
- waffle_ss 9y ago
  I was under the impression business lines typically have a different contention ratio[1], so you are less at the mercy of "noisy neighbors," as well as offering real SLAs (for whatever good those are). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
  - dboreham 9y ago
    The parents are I think talking past each other somewhat, because there are really three kinds of Internet service and you're talking about two of them as if they're the same thing: 1. Consumer/Residential: speed is "up to", throughput is highly asymmetrical, QoS is best effort, reliability is "mostly works", if you are lucky you will get a human if you call for support. If you complain about service typically the response is a shrug. Generally the service is whatever the provider defines it to be and you either buy it or you don't. Often static IP is not available. Cost: $20-100/mo. 2. Business: Sold by the same providers as #1. Much the same service, except (this varies) : dedicated channels on HFC, different traffic shaping, static IP allowed, perhaps even subnets, if you are really lucky reverse DNS is supported. Generally you get a human when you call support. If you complain about service they might do some basic investigation. In the case of our cableco they have different humans knocking on your door for install and trouble shooting (perhaps the more knowledgeable and more senior folks?). Cost: $50-200/mo ISP upstream/Dedicated/Real Connectivity: The name varies but this what one of the parent posts calls "Business". The service an ISP would get, or a big tech company, etc. You typically get an SLA with specified maximum packet loss rates and latency profile. Throughput is symmetric. Local loop is typically fiber. You can run your own BGP, HSPR etc is supported. IPv6 is always available. You can call the provider's NOC directly and have a conversation about why they're dropping packets in one direction to some obscure peer somewhere in the world. They'll investigate and resolve the problem asap. If you accidentally power off your edge router one of their NOC staff will call your call phone within minutes asking why there's no traffic on your link. Cost: $1000/mo+ Source: I ran an ISP for 10 years.

xkpd3 9y ago

What about turning this logic backwards? I don't need a guarantee. I want per-mbit prices. Like you pay what you get. Limit the rate by saying: I will pay up to 100mbit for example. Then the can give you less for less money. But this would not be in their interest anymore.

zzzcpan 9y ago
Plans are for marketing purposes only. Broadband ISPs already typically calculate bandwidth as 1-2 mbps per customer.

BenjiWiebe 9y ago

I'm aware a lot of people have this problem, but here in a rural area we are paying for 6 Mbps DSL and usually get 6.25 to 6.5.

mrmondo 9y ago

Australia is appalling for this, the average person paying for 24Mbit ADSL2+ gets a messily 7Mbit (and I thought 24Mbit was bad enough!).

chrismorgan 9y ago
In Melbourne I never experienced sustained speeds of below 9Mbps on ADSL2+ in two locations, normally 11–12Mbps. But if you want a fast, stable Internet connection, move out into a small country town with a 4G tower (doesn’t need to be NBN). There’s much less congestion. Look around for plans, as most are expensive; I use amaysim’s 50GB/$65/28 days which is about what ADSL2+ would be in the country. Living in Stawell (a few thousand people) I get 20–25/12Mbps with greater reliability than I ever got on ADSL2+. I shall be moving to Navarre soon (~100 people) and get 45/15Mbps there.
- viraptor 9y ago
  If you can live with the data cap, that's great. Otherwise, 50gb is pretty low for work (remote conferences, download some system images, upgrade your mac and you're done). Another issue in small towns is that the moment a new tower needs to go up, there may be a low of community pushback (radiation! kids!). It's much better if the current one gets an upgrade.
  - dragonsky67 9y ago
    Small towns in Australia tend to be a lot less paranoid about technology than an equivalent sized town in the USA. Comes from being really remote (think 100+Km to the next centre), having to fight for any services at all and a long history of using telecommunication technology to make life better. Think School of the Air using HF radios to provide education to remote children.
    - viraptor 9y ago
      Some possibly are. Mount Beauty had a weeks long local Facebook posts about it when wireless NBN was being planned. Then there are cases like this: https://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2017/08/30/solar-flare-up/ https://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2017/08/30/solar-flare-up...

richev 9y ago

It's because the law hasn't yet caught up with their spurious marketing claims.

Namrog84 9y ago

Where I used to live many years ago. I paid for up to 30. Got about 23. Then I switched to cheaper 10 and still got 23. And told all my friends and they got the same. They had 3 tiers all providing identical service beyond who was willing to pay for 10,30 or 50. Did this for 3+ years.

Nition 9y ago

Tangentially related: We used to have a bunch of "$2 Shop" stores - I think other countries have the equivalent "dollar store", "pound shop" etc. Due to inflation they've all now become "$2+ Dollar" shops or "$2 and up" etc. In reality of course they still sell the same sort of cheap stuff but it's funny how the name has gone from a shop that guarantees cheap prices, to one that guarantees not to be really cheap, since any price is now valid except ones below $2.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

maxxxxx 9y ago

Same for "Unlimited" when it actually has clear limits. Or camera manufacturers sell "Weather resistant" equipment but never specify what it means exactly and will void your warranty if there is water damage. Having their cake and eating it too!

drrob 9y ago

The classic excuse I'm receiving from Virgin Broadband at the moment is "we're currently upgrading the network in your area, there may be some speed disruption for several months." I'm paying for 100mbps, a few weeks back I tested it during one bad spell; I was receiving less than 1mbps. I was struggling to sync my emails, never mind watch Netflix.

bostik 9y ago
Not to mention that right now (and in fact for the past 4-5 days) Virgin Broadband is utterly broken. I get 38% average packet loss over long time windows, and see 2500ms+ roundtrips to the next hop. If this area was served by Hyperoptic, I would have changed more than two years ago.
- drrob 9y ago
  If my area was merely served by two tin cans joined by a piece of string I'd have changed years ago.

nathan_long 9y ago

> It always puzzled me that internet companies can simply say that the speed is "up to" a certain number. I always imagine it like this: Them: "This plan gives you up to 23mb/s." Me: "So you're saying you guarantee I will not get more than 23mb/s?" Them: "Right." Me: "OK. I'll pay you up to $40 a month for that."

BrandoElFollito 9y ago

It would be interesting to pay in x€/Mbps (up to y Mbps). This is how I buy potatoes so this is hardly a revolutionary novelty.