RSS Feed

Related Articles

Related Categories

Broadband providers failing to deliver advertised service

20th September 2007 Print
With more than half of the UK now signed up to broadband, high speed connections are becoming increasingly popular.

However, Internet service providers (ISPs) have come under fire for not providing the speeds that they advertise. Research has shown that ‘up to 8Mb’ broadband connections regularly provide connection speeds of around 4Mb. Service providers were also attacked recently for advertising ‘unlimited’ broadband deals that were, in fact, limited by companies’ Fair Usage Policies.

Karen Darby from SimplySwitch.com, the price comparison and switching service, comments: “While ISPs are careful to state ‘up to’ speeds in their advertising, we feel something must be done to give consumers a better understanding of what they’re actually paying for. The bandwidth that a customer receives is dependent on their distance from their local exchange, as well as the number of people that are using the Internet at the time. However, a customer’s likely connection speed could easily be calculated by taking these factors into account. Because of this, ISPs should be able to tell potential customers their ‘typical’ connection speed, given the customer’s post code and phone number. This would give people a far better indication of what they’d get for their money.

“As demand for high speed connections increases, ISPs will find it harder and harder to cope. If nothing is done, we will soon find ourselves in a situation where demand outstrips ISPs’ ability to deliver and the ‘information super-highway’ transforms itself into the M25 during rush hour. Fortunately, Ofcom is preparing to launch a major consultation to determine what needs to be done to keep the UK’s infrastructure on track with the rest of the world.

“In the meantime, we urge Ofcom to enforce a more ‘honest’ approach from broadband providers. We would like to see ISPs provide ‘likely’ connection speeds as standard, as well as clarifying their worryingly vague ‘Fair Usage Policies’.”