Has there been any sort of test case over the broadband speeds that companies sell vs the speeds they actually deliver? I know they have the legal cop-out of quoting "up to", but wondered if any sort of precedent had been set in favour of the consumer?
- I pay for an 8 MB/s service, upgraded from 4 MB/s;
- The line/eqpt is capable of about 7.2 MB/s download (seen once or twice in the early hours of the morning), about what you'd expect, given that I'm only about 300 yds from the exchange;
- The normal speed during off-peak is about 4 to 5.2 MB/s;
- The peak hours (1600-0200) speed is <1 MB/s, often as low as 50 KB/s - ie slower than dial-up!
My ISP says: "Tough sh*te; you have 20:1 contention and should be grateful for anything above 400 KB/s.....Read our T&C, where in the small print it explains that we guarantee nothing, etc".
I appreciate that this is rip-off UK and we expect to have to pay for nothing, but the telecomms providers really kick the arrse out of it....
- I pay for an 8 MB/s service, upgraded from 4 MB/s;
- The line/eqpt is capable of about 7.2 MB/s download (seen once or twice in the early hours of the morning), about what you'd expect, given that I'm only about 300 yds from the exchange;
- The normal speed during off-peak is about 4 to 5.2 MB/s;
- The peak hours (1600-0200) speed is <1 MB/s, often as low as 50 KB/s - ie slower than dial-up!
My ISP says: "Tough sh*te; you have 20:1 contention and should be grateful for anything above 400 KB/s.....Read our T&C, where in the small print it explains that we guarantee nothing, etc".
I appreciate that this is rip-off UK and we expect to have to pay for nothing, but the telecomms providers really kick the arrse out of it....