[LINK] Net firms quizzed on speed limits - BBC News

[Ivan Trundle]

On 11/10/2007, at 5:53 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

> Ahh, that old saw again.
>
> Things that don't run to their maximum rated capacity all the time  
> (off the top of my head):
> Cars (can do 160 km/h, don't)

But some people buy on the basis of advertised speed capability (or  
capacity)...

> Computers
> Ethernet (can run gigabits/second, but most connections are idle  
> most of the time)
> Wireless Ethernet (sold on line speed, perform by "maximum  
> throughput", mostly idle most of the time)
> ....and so on.
>
> The problem is: what *do* you sell broadband on? The "minimum"  
> speed may be zero. Or realistically, the average per-user  
> throughput is in tens of Kbps.

I think that it's a fair enough question/comment in the context of  
the original enquiry.

Of course bottlenecks might have a deleterious effect on a user's  
throughput, and of course everyone will experience a level of  
throttling or limitations at one time or another, but if an ISP is  
advertising ADSL2+ without acknowledging that other factors will  
limit the maximum speed, then nothing will be done, and punters will  
be disgruntled due to poor understanding and education.

I don't think that the absolute measure of speed is as important as  
people being aware that the maximum possible speed might never be  
attained, and that they should be aware of what factors will  
influence this, and make decisions on what services to buy accordingly.

It's a case of determining who or what is to blame when advertised  
speeds are not realised.

If, for example, an ISP offers ADSL2+ and the customer never gets  
more than 1/10 of this, but can do so from other providers, then it  
pretty clear to me that the first ISP is doing something wrong that  
needs correction, at the ISP level.

I suspect that this is what the original enquiry was about.

iT