Wednesday, October 20, 2010
There's been no small discussion recently about the use of "up to" in advertising broadband speeds. When ISP's publish rates "up to" a certain speed, how often does the connection actually get up to that speed, for how long, and for how many subscribers. That's what the FCC wanted to find out recently, and what consumers want to make sure is being advertised honestly.

So, is it?

An independent study says, "yes!" Ookla--the brains behind such testing services as pingtest.net and speedtest.net-- decided to do some comparisons recently. They charted advertised speeds in over 100 countries against the actual broadband speeds the end users experience on average. What they found may shock you... honesty.

That's right. They're report "concludes that Americans get 92.91 percent of their advertised throughput rate" (ARS Technica, 10/2010). In short, we get what we pay for over 90% of the time--a stat that the telecommunications industry is sure glad to tout. The global study puts the U.S. 11th among the 26 countries tested, led primarily by former Soviet nations in Eastern Europe. According to Ookla's standings, the U.S. leads Western European nations such as the UK and France, who bottomed out the list at 25th and 26th respectively--delivering honest speeds less than two-thirds of the time.

So, what does this mean for business? First and foremost, it ought to (but still might not) quiet some of the accusations levied against the telecom industry at large. Why might it not? Because of exactly what the report says: nearly 8% of customers don't get what they think they're buying. In this debate, we have what many would call a "loud minority" petitioning for justice on behalf of what is likely to be a select few perpetrators in advertising. The reality is that most ISP's are honest, most customers get what they pay for, and still a few sour apples are spoiling the bunch.

Ookla's report, while encouraging, should not stop the efforts of the telecom industry to continue pushing for honesty. False advertising, however rare, must be addressed no matter what industry it is in. However, consumers of broadband services can rest assured--at least 90% sure, that is--that the rates they think they're getting are being delivered.

Labels: Advertising, Broadband, Broadband Speed, FCC, Ookla, Published Rates, Telecommunication

posted by Unknown at 5:55 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, September 2, 2010
One topic that periodically hits the news headlines, and thereby the blogosphere, is the issue of truthful advertising of broadband speeds. The question, really, is whether the statement "up to" a certain speed can actually be substantiated, trusted, and regulated by the FCC and FTC. Virgin Media took the lead on this issue recently by voluntarily opting to change their messaging strategy in an attempt to remain above reproach (and probably spur their competitors to do the same). But is a wide-scale change, specifically a regulated and mandated change, in messaging really called for?

First, let's start with defining the grievance. What's the beef? The problem, as most consumers have identified, lies in the fact that advertised speeds for broadband services most commonly boast the highest allowable speed using "up to" phrasing. However, such messaging falls under criticism when the broadband customers cannot achieve said rate. Now, of course, nobody ever promised consistent and guaranteed speed, but the supposition is that if the advert says "up to" that I would periodically and not-so-rarely get up to that speed. In many cases, however, the customers do not.

And so it is concluded, the broadband provider must have been dubiously planning this deceit. Now, that is possible, and certainly does take place. But, as one in the industry, I'd like to offer a pause for some objective criticism of the critics, shall we?

First, consider all of the factors that contribute to the connection speed of a network terminal--how many of those are within the Broadband Provider's control? When connection speeds were low at my office, the problem was eventually traced to an issue from the punch panel to my desk. Second, don't be so quick to presume the promise of speed was so dubiously presented. Many broadband providers are starting to offer simple speed calculators on their sites to allow customers to test their connection speeds.

Ultimately, however, as a one not only in the industry, but specifically involved in marketing, I'd like to explore this topic of "published rates." It is often not the contract rates that are in question, it's the advertised rates. Virgin Media has decided to publish their average speed in lieu of their optimal speed. But, do we expect that to be the norm in advertising? Mortgage rates are often advertised "as low as" what a good borrower could qualify for. C-Stores advertise the price of regular unleaded, not premium, on their signs. Airlines publish the anticipated arrival times, not considering the potential for disaster, technical failure, weather, etc. Are these deceitful--intentionally trying to mislead the buyer? I don't believe so.

Most importantly, "up to" rates are no more misleading than an "average" published speed. Average means that still 50% of subscribers will fail to reach even that par. Among those who do fall within the average, they will certainly not do so consistently -- they will enjoy spikes of speed during low-traffic times and dip well below average during peak usage hours. It remains a select few customers who could count on a consistently average speed.

Should the lying stop? Absolutely. Is it as easy to regulate as you might think? Not really. Are the broadband providers as universally unscrupulous as accused? Hardly. In fact, as is common with categorical prosecution, many are blamed for the sins of few.

Labels: Broadband Speed, C-store, Published Rates, Virgin Media

posted by Unknown at 11:08 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments