Mythical broadband speeds to plummet in crackdown on ISP ads Broadband providers will only be able to advertise "average" download speeds if at least 50 per cent of customers are able to receive them at peak times, under new rules announced today by the advertising regulator. This marks a change from the current position that advertised "up to" speeds if they were available to at least …
I actually get advertised speeds most of the time.
However:
1. I have put my modem in bridged mode
2. I have a proper CPE behind it (it can do 4GBit+ despite being virtualized).
If you are getting really bad speeds on Virgin your prime suspect is not Virgin, but the Netgear POS with Puma inside which is sitting in-between Virgin and your network. While it is supplied by Virigin, it is a malaise which is global, not Virgin specific. You should thank Intel and the CPE software developers for that one.
If you are getting really bad speeds on Virgin your prime suspect is not Virgin, but the Netgear POS with Puma inside
Actually, the speeds with VM's Superhub 3 are usually fiine. Doing a quick check now, and this very moment I'm getting 226 Mbps against a Vodafone server in the UK, for a contracted 200 Mbps connection. Cynics will reasonably assume VM are prioritising test loads, but I can bypass that by VPN'ing to a US exit point, and then testing against a different third party US server, and I'm STILL getting 185 Mbps, inclusive of the cross Atlantic connection (latency's nothing to write home about, as you'd expect).
But your point is valid and very important, and it is that OFCOM need to look at connection quality as much as speed. Not all, but many people have access to high speed broadband. And for those on Virgnmedia, due to the Puma 6 problems, any Superhub 3 connection suffers frequent and significant latency spikes to 150-250 ms, packet loss and interrupted connections. That peak latency is like trying to game on a US west coast server from the UK - the experience is very poor. In some cases the game servers see the latency shoot up over 100 ms and kick you altogether. And it isn't just first person gaming - any application that is sensitive to latency and packet loss (eg some streaming, VOIP, video calls) is affected in some measure. It seems to play up with my Chromecast.
For casual downloaders and browsers, the Superhub 3 appears fast and effective; but If you're a gamer, or use other latency sensitive applications, avoid a Virginmedia contract unless you have no choice. The charlatans even market their faster connections as "broadband for gaming", when they KNOW that the gross connection speed has no relevance to gaming, and they likewise KNOW that their mandatory cable modem is eminently unfit for gaming purposes. Although existing customers know VM are trialling a (supposed) firmware fix, publicly the company are in absolute denial about the existence of the problem, and worse still, they are actively foisting the Supergarbage 3 on both existing and new customers. And although the Puma 5 had related problems, the previous Superhub 2 had measurably less bad performance than the SH3, so despite a 33% speed increase recently, my connection quality has been made worse.
I don't blame Intel, or even Arris who make the SH3 - they are free to make and market junk if they want. Looking at the Intel Management Engine fiasco, it appears that Intel simply aren't any good at software. I blame Virginmedia and Liberty Global for their total failure to adequately specify and/or test the Superhub 3, their poor communication, and for offering no alternatives for customers who want and are paying for a decent quality connection that isn't being delivered.
We just got a V6 box and it came with a Hub 3. So thinking it would be a good thing I activated and installed it. Our old box was set up on non default name and password and not broadcast. I went in from my laptop via web with an ethernet cable and immediately hit problems, it first insists you change the default password, good advice, but when I did that when I tried to log in neither my password or the default worked. After three resets I rang Virgin and the Indian tech did something so that got fixed.
Except changing the network name and passwords nothing could connect to the 2.4GHz channel, just the 5. The only suggestion the Indian tech could offer was to reset to default. I threw a wobbly and said that was unacceptable and got escalated to a very good, nice English guy who after discovering our old router was a 2ac pragmatically suggested I reinstall it and he then got it registered and working again from their end.
There is something wrong with our Hub 3 and I refuse to run it in full default mode. We are surrounded by VM and BT boxes in default mode. I cannot see a single unique router name. They all broadcast, we don't. We get security by hiding pretty secure in amongst all the low hanging fruit.
@ Muscleguy
Judging by my experience, and other reports on VM's customer forums, the field techs are under instruction to replace SH2 models with SH3 on any customer visit, and usually take the SH2 away, even when the customer asks to retain it.
The Superhub 3 is a complete dog of a device. It has the slowest interface I've seen on any device since the year 2000 (not joking), it struggles with latency, dropped packets, there's multiple reports of wifi problems and the router side losing customer settings. When changing settings it frequently returns a white screen to the computer, so you can't tell if the changes have been accepted. Even when it works, I find it often takes two or three attempts to make a new client wifi device to connect for the first time, and the wifi signal strength is no better than the SH2.
The Superhub 2 was a distinctly average modem/router with its own problems. It takes a special kind of genius to actively make things worse from such a low base, luckily Virginmedia employ people like that. I say luckily because can you imagine the havoc they'd make in another field? The only area I can think of that has such deeply ingrained incompetence is the Cabinet.
They seem to be obtaining stock so they can hand them to assertive gamers with high value packages to prevent them leaving.
Whilst probably true, the Puma 5 chipset in the SH2/2ac performed poorly on latency, so it isn't exactly a customer win:
"Virginmedia Vivid 300, ultrafast broadband for gamers. Only £48 a month, and includes free secondhand modem and router that's a bit less shit than the one we'd like you to have"
Depends where you live. We're in the 'burbs of Dundee, detached or semi-detached houses, lots of elderly not silver surfers etc and we get pretty good speeds. The boxes are about 200m away across the park.
The not very dense population means we get engineers whether they are Virgin or British Gas etc pretty quickly.
I accept that this situation does not pertain everywhere, but if you choose to live in the right places, it clearly does. If there are a lot of teenagers and Millenials in your hip-hop and happening hipster 'hood you like living in then the cables will be crowded. But live somewhere different and they aren't.
Also we have been with Virgin for some time and they keep increasing our speeds without asking for more money, not upfront anyway. I've lost track of the number of speed bumps we've had and I test the reality occasionally and it is real. Except when my wife comes home and hits her laptop, phone and ipad simultaneously. But there the choke point is the router.
The problem is VM are really an amalgamation of lots of different networks. Some were good, some were bad and they've done nothing to improve the situation. So in some parts of the country you get advertised speeds and in other parts you get massive contention and frequent kit failures.
Worse than that there was a time when they flogged ADSL gear on BT's network branded as virgin product which did them massive reputational damage. Whoever came up with that one was a moron and should have faced the firing squad.
I am on Virgin cable and get the advertised 'up to' speeds most of the time, slightly less at peak times.
'Average' is better than 'up to' but the real problem is that no single statement of speed tells the full story.
A better guide would be a table which shows what speeds 50% of customers are getting at particular times, weekdays and weekends, at peak, daytime and overnight, or what percentage gets what is advertised at those times.
Local, regional and national figures would also help. I don't expect all that data to be included in every advert, but they should all be required to make that information public.
CAP's sister body, the Advertising Standards Authority, also today ruled that it is not materially misleading to describe broadband services that use fibre-optic cables for only part of the connection as "fibre broadband"
Great, so anything that uses a fibre trunk to the exchange, and copper to the subscriber, can be fibre broadband?
Sheesh!
You're forgetting they (ASA) were the first, redefining the definition of Advertising Standards Authority. What does "Standards Authority" even mean now? not fcuking much, that's for sure.
Fcuking weasels looking after the own, just like the regulator Ofcom.
BT have probably parachuted their bank rolled 'ex-employees' into ASA too, as well key the decision making management roles at Ofcom, which can be evidenced, if you only look at Ofcom related LinkedIn profiles.
(Have to say I quite liked MP Matt Hancock's definition "Copper to the Premises", it isn't that bad in terms of defining/differentiating products).
Maybe we can advertise broadband as "full-fibre" or "part-fibre" for this issue?
It's always part-fibre, even if you have an optical port on your PC (who does?) it's copper on the motherboard.
Who gives a fuck if it's a copper wire or a glass one anyway? It's the performance that matters.
@Alistair
... and made my own ASA "fibre broadband mis-representation" complaint and got the same answer. It's like saying because the M25 is 4 lanes wide for 99% of its length, putting in a single 10m stretch of single lane, one-way dirt track doesn't affect the traffic flow at rush hour. You're being sold a motorway with the throughput of a country lane. Just fine.
So much for "protecting the consumer".
CAP's sister body, the Advertising Standards Authority, also today ruled that it is not materially misleading to describe broadband services that use fibre-optic cables for only part of the connection as "fibre broadband".
So it is misleading, just not "materially" so. Perhaps the ASA could apply some thought about defining the point at which something that is misleading becomes "materially" so.
The obfuscation will no doubt continue, but just in a different way (or ways)
Edit: Does this not clearly demonstrate that the ASA is perfectly happy for companies to mislead potential customers, as long as they don't materially mislead them, irrespective of what it is that they are trying to sell?
Does this not clearly demonstrate that the ASA is perfectly happy for companies to mislead potential customers, as long as they don't materially mislead them, irrespective of what it is that they are trying to sell?
Is this new though? ("Do you want salt and vinegar on those chips sir?")
Does it actually matter? Telling people they'll get a speed of X when most only get a fraction of that is misleading and detrimental as what you receive isn't what you expect, however whilst describing fibre->copper broadband as 'fibre' is misleading in the sense it's incorrect, does it actually matter in regards to the quality metrics people care about? If I buy a 50Mb internet service and I get 50Mb do I really care for the transmission medium?
As far as I can see, the logic is that it's fine because everybody's calling FTTC fibre.
To my recollection, it's all Virgin's fault, as their existing HFC network was transformed overnight to provide "fibre" internet by the marketing department. (OK, there was new hardware at both ends, but the network itself had just as much fibre as before.)
"because the adslingers would have to understand what "median" means"
No, they wouldn't. They'd just have to pay the penalties until they learned that they should ask someone who does before making public statements on behalf of the company.
The Laws of the Land aren't like the Laws of Nature. Compliance is entirely optional.
No, they wouldn't. They'd just have to pay the penalties
Pay what penalties? The ASA merely tell dodgy advertisers not to repeat the specific advert they got caught on. They have no powers to fine them. Which is unsurprising, since the ASA is essentially a self-regulator, paid for and peopled by the advertising industry.
"Which is unsurprising, since the ASA is essentially a self-regulator, paid for and peopled by the advertising industry."
This! There seem to be a lot of people complaining about the ASA without realising what the ASA actually is.
It's one of those things set up because government told the advertising industry to sort itself out or face legislation to do the job for them. The ASA was the result, ie just enough to forestall enforced government regulation.
Sky adverts will no longer have a speed on the adverts due to the amount of throttling. Some days i was unable to use their broadband at all between 6 and 11pm...And i live in a developed town, not the countryside...
Much happier with Virgin these days. Bumpy start, but better than Sky.
I have been with Virgin since they first laid cables down our street a Long time ago. (at least 15 years)
I started with Dual ISDN (2 X 64k lines), When Broadband first arrived i took it straight away (500k) and have been continually upgraded over the years and am now on 200mb.
Probably had about half a dozen times when it has stopped working over that time. I think i have had at least 4 different boxes (I am currently on the latest box, HUB 3).
Whenever i test it it always gives me (at least) the stated speed.
Yes, the price keeps going up but the service (for me) has always been good and the speed also good.
If I had to move house then one of the major considerations would be whether i could get Virgin broadband at the new house.
If I had to move house then one of the major considerations would be whether i could get Virgin broadband at the new house.
That is only half the story. Another part is how many others in the street are leeching off the same bit of NTL Coax that I would be using.
The final question to ask is what is the download speed between 14:00 and 23:59?
(supplemental is to find out the speeds when a new release of something like GTA or Call of Duty is released)
It is not use getting 200Mbits when at the time you want to use it, all you can get is 1Mbit because every man and their dogs are download GOT or something.
I have VM 200mb and do get the full speed. And for myself and my family it's brilliant. I get around 50mb on wifi devices round the house. I have Hub 2 but I once asked the engineer about the Hub 3- while he was here doing some work. He was very clear that I should avoid it. And that's their engineer!
AC because I know there's no chance that VM would be able to identify me from my posts, and track the nice engineer down, but even so...
It seems those standards are low but the ASA are proudly announcing that they are now out of the gutter and laying in the road instead.
While it is good that there has been a change you wonder how this rates as an improvement as they have been given clear permission to continue re-interpreting words to enhance the appearance of their offerings. Do you think I would get off a speeding ticket if I could show my average speed was within the stated limit?
Exactly my thoughts, they've been getting away with that crap since the dialup days.
I applaud this move from the advertising regulator, although it remains to be seen what deception the ISPs will now try to get away with since they can no longer use "up to".
However it's too late for me, I am now actually getting the "up to" speeds on my Infinity 2 connection, well, when it doesn't cut out at random intervals usually between a minute and ten minutes, except for that time the router couldn't connect for 3 and a half bloody hours.
Moved into new flat.
Got bothered by the "management agent's official ISP" (never heard of them, but they were "official"). Told them where to stick it, as it was just a BT line in the flat anyway.
Went on the broadband checkers. Apparently, in the middle of a major town within the M25, I can get "up to 3Mbps" if I go with ADSL, "up to 5Mbps" if I go VDSL ("fibre"). I literally never bothered to activate the line. That's just LUDICROUS.
Bought a 4G Wifi router instead. No phone rental. No sales calls. My existing 4G phones all get 10's of Mbps and perfect signal. And there's a package for 40Gb for less than I would have to pay to run a BT line + line rental. Lots of neighbours have similar, judging by the Wifi SSID names nearby.
God knows what BT think they are playing at. Those cables or the local exchange must be bloody atrocious.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
