Is this data tested from an average selection of end-users' residencies, or from the broadband offices/hubs?
The actual service the user receives depends solely on the carrier medium between hubs and the user's residence...this often is average to poor...and in the case of cable broadband, it is shared within the local area, so of course this could be saturated by a small group of users depending on the setup.
Please provide more detailed information on 'how' the study was done to show/prove their findings.
[citation][nom]officeguy[/nom]Isn't that false advertisement? Correct me if I am wrong, but there isn't a term for speed between dial up and broadband. I guess they cant say it is dial up so they round out the speed to broadband.[/citation]
Not really, false advertising or deceptive advertising is considered false or misleading. You know about the speeds when you sign up YOU personally are aware of the speeds. It should be categorized as low speed broadband. Now if they were selling 6mbps and charging an insanely low rate..and it ended up 768k...then yes that would be false advertising.
I pay 40 bucks a month and usually after 6pm each night I can't play youtube clips because the system is over flooded...this is after they've done their major upgrade in the area. You can forget about streaming Netflix.
This news is not surprising considering the cable companies are scamming the gove4rnment here in the USA. One of the things the broadband act was supposed to do was increase our national speed average. So they decided, lets fake it, by implementing Turbo Boost and crap like that so all the speed test averages go up. When infact they have done nothing else to improve our broadband network infrastructure. I hope the government finds a way to fine or penalize them for this. How about the lazy a$$ cable companies quit trying to profit so much and upgrade the actual infrastucture. I'd probably create Jobs which are needed everywhere. Plus the cable networks are gonna start losing all their customers to the phone networks like Verizon. I'd switch but Fios is not available in my area yet.
If that is the case then they likely have load balancing issues. I had a similar problem where I live. It took literally a year of calls to tech support to get them to fix it. I documented trace routes and ping times. Download speeds at different times of day... the works. I was paying over $40.00 a month for 15 mb/s service and was getting 1 or so on a good day and there was no way that was going to stand. I realize that you have moved and your service is now better, but if this is happening to any of the rest of you then I suggest you call and complain. I did that once a month for a year, and demanded a refund for the service once a month for a year. (Which I got, after all they were not providing what I was paying for).
It took forever and was very frustrating but in the end my speeds went from the 1 mb or so down that I was getting to the 15mb, (usually 18mb or more), that I pay for. So a little perseverance paid off, plus it benefited everyone in my little area of town whether they realized it or not.
[citation][nom]bgaimur[/nom]My connection can fill my 250GB cap if utilized fully for less than 12 hours straight. Does that make sense?[/citation]
If you have a connecion of 50 MBits/s or higher it does.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Lol, in my area, the only ISP abuses. Theyre billing me $35/month for 1mb. And the max download speed is 54 kb/s. They call it broadband, is it enough to report them to FCC?[/citation]
The FCC currently has no control over ISP that don't provide dialup access. This definition of what "Broadband" is, is essentially meaningless unless Congress grants them control over ISP's through a new definition of what type of service internet access is to be considered. If you're paying for a service you're not receiving...you can file a formal complaint with your state or local government. If you're using a 1mbps DSL service, then being below 1mbps is common as DSL connections rarely obtain their maximum speed.