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

Tuesday, July 27, 2010
In a small Welsh town called Crumlin, broadband consumers are about to become test subjects for an incredibly fast fiber network courtesy of Virgin Media. It's going to be free to consumers and serve as a beta, or proof-of-concept, for Virgin. Now, before you get too excited at this novel idea and wonderful display of philanthropy on Virgin's behalf, ask yourself: doesn't this sound vaguely familiar?

In February of this year, Google announced something similar: Google Fiber. The promise was about the same--unheard-of broadband speeds for a deserving community. The difference was this: nobody knew which community... yet. So, of course, the PR mileage that Google (intentionally or unintentionally) drew from this announcement was far-reaching.

But when Virgin Media announced their venture, it barely blipped the media's radar. Why? What's different? First of all, it's the 2nd time around. Copy cats never do as well as the original. However, I want to be careful to state something: I'm not so sure Virgin Media is copying anything.

Whereas Google's underlying premise of their venture was to bring broadband to more communities, Virgin really is testing some new technology. In the interest of deployment cost and speed, they have opted to route fiber on the above-ground utility poles instead of the traditional underground method.

Virgin hopes to discover whether the fiber can endure the exposure to elements and, when elements cause failure, if the long-term cost to maintain the above-ground route is justifiable in lieu of the upfront costs to install buried fiber. Both scenarios serve as proof of one simple fact: the last mile is the most costly. Virgin Media is using an above-ground method in order to avoid alleviate some of the costs associated with going the last mile--the local loop from cable to computer.

The fact remains, however, that the easiest and most cost-effective way to connect the last mile avoids cable and fiber altogether--regardless of which side of the turf you're talking about. A managed wireless local loop, such as Accel Networks provides, can take the same broadband--which no doubt reaches the area on the back of a terrestrial workhorse--and put it into any business in a matter of days.

So Virgin, Google, and the many others who dare to bring broadband to the masses: we love that you're connecting our community, but could there be a better way to connect each consumer?

Labels: Google Fiber, Local Loop, Virgin Media

posted by Unknown at 6:02 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments