Ofcom wants to ban misleading broadband speed ads

Question

Ofcom is seeking to stop internet service providers from advertising unrealistic broadband speeds.
Currently most ISPs advertise services as 'up to' a certain speed - for instance, 20Mbps (megabits per second).
But Ofcom's latest research finds that very few consumers actually get these headline speeds.
Ofcom's latest research into broadband speeds found that just 14% of customers on 'up to' 20Mbps services received speeds of over 12Mbps, while 58% averaged speeds of 6Mbps or less.
Cable and fibre services fared better, with 92% of V***** M**** customers on an 'up to' 50Mbps service averaging 45.6Mbps.
BT's Fibre-to-the-Cabinet technology, which is currently available to 15% of UK homes, has an average of 31.8Mbps on the 40Mbps service.
BT is not impressed with Ofcom's idea.
"We have real concerns with their approach. Broadband speeds vary from line to line and so it is meaningless to use one speed for advertising. That is why we use the term 'up to'," said John Petter, managing director of BT Retail.
He said he thought such a policy "would encourage digital exclusion rather than tackle it".
"Enforcing typical speed ranges is also dangerous as it could encourage more ISPs to cherry pick customers who will increase their average, leaving customers in rural and suburban areas under-served," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12611315
-+-No longer a forum member-+-

Answer 1

I feel 'Up to' is acceptable, 'Maximum product speed' (with the usual caveats about line length, quality, etc) would be better when advertised alongside a minimum product speed guarantee, say 2Mb/s.
Far more pernicious are 'Unlimited' claims (which Ofcom/ASA are also investigating) - any service which is advertised as 'Unlimited' and has ARTIFICIAL constraints placed upon it is not unlimited!
Blaming users for actually using the product they have purchased and restricting 'heavy' users is disingenuous!  IF a package is described as unlimited then the available bandwidth should be shared equally between those users contending it rather than the more common 'you've exceeded your permitted bandwidth of this unlimited product... we're restricting you to speed X during peak times.'
Such restrictions are not for the benefit of the other customers... if memory serves, residential bandwidth is contended 50:1 (or thereabouts)... if the ISP has insufficient bandwidth to accomodate a serviceable connection to each of those users simultaneously that is the ISP's problem but which would they prefer to, potentially, lose?  A few 'heavy' users or fifty customers for having the audacity to expect some minimum level of service?