Saturday, August 4th, 2018 (12:01 am) - Score 4,323

Consumer magazine Which? has today claimed that advertised broadband speeds are now 41% slower on the “cheapest deals” since the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) began requiring UK ISPs to only promote “average” speeds (a median measured at peak time) for their headline packages.

At this point it’s vitally important to highlight that the change, which was introduced from 23rd May 2018 (here), has not had any material impact at all on the actual physical connection speeds that are being delivered to end-users. Instead what has changed is the headline rates (i.e. those that are promoted more general to all consumers by ISPs).

Obviously any move to focus on promoting an average, rather than a top 10% fastest figure (old method), was always going to result in a negative change for less reliable copper line based broadband technologies (e.g. ADSL, FTTC etc.), which is exactly what we’ve seen and what has long been predicted since the discussions began.

For example, prior to the change many ADSL2+ offering standard broadband packages promoted a general headline rate of “up to” 17Mbps (or thereabouts) and after the change we tend to see an “Average speed” of around 10Mbps being advertised. The change has been less dramatic on slower FTTC (VDSL2) tiers, although “up to” 76Mbps packages have fallen to an “Average speed” of around 63Mbps to 67Mbps.

Meanwhile FTTP/B (Gigaclear, Hyperoptic etc.) and Cable ISPs (e.g. Virgin Media) haven’t really been hit much due to their superior and more reliable network technologies. In fact Virgin Media has actually seen their advertised speeds increase since the change, although they’re very much the exception rather than the rule.

The Study

Which? clarified that across all the deals on offer from the 12 biggest providers, the advertised speeds from ‘up to 17Mbps’ to ‘up to 100Mbps’ had decreased by an average 15% (i.e. the bold 41% figure they tout was only on the cheapest deals – a key point).

Due to this we feel it important to highlight how today’s stated 15% (overall) fall is considerably less dramatic than the 51% that Which? first predicted would occur before the new rules were introduced (here). The crucial difference here is that their preliminary study was based on unreliable end-user based data from speedtests.

As we said at the time, speedtest base data was unlikely to ever give them a fair picture because it’s subject to some key external factors that will affect the results (slow WiFi, local network congestion etc.). By comparison the new study simply looks at how the actual advertised rates have changed, which is something that everybody can already see for themselves.

The group also claimed that TalkTalk had “completely dropped advertising speed claims from most of its deals“, although a quick look at their website reveals that they’re still very much promoting average speeds on their packages (ADSL as 11Mbps and FTTC from 35Mbps).

Alex Neill, Which? MD of Home Services, said: “Customers will now have a much clearer idea of the speeds that can be achieved when they are shopping around for broadband. For those still struggling to get a reasonable speed or connection, the Government must press ahead with its crucial plans to deliver the service that broadband customers need, without it costing them the earth.”

Greg Mesch, CEO at CityFibre, said: “While it is great that this change to the rules has pushed industry to bring its speed claims closer to the truth, it only goes to show why it is so important that the Advertising Standards Authority finishes the job it started here. Now is the time to address the use of “fibre” in adverts, as across the country people are still paying for services they can’t yet receive while being stuck on prehistoric copper-based infrastructure. The ASA must take its head out of the sand and change these antiquated rules immediately so that as full fibre becomes widespread, customers are able to make a genuine choice.”

Sadly we note that quite a few smaller ISPs (excluding those that don’t mention a speed) still haven’t adopted the ASA’s new guidelines and continue to show the old “up to” figures instead, although the ASA aren’t known for being pro-active in their pursuit of such infractions and in any case they’re more likely to be flexible during the first few months after implementation.

Another change we’ve noticed is that the big ISPs now seem to be much more reluctant to promote upload speeds since the new rules were introduced. In fact other than Virgin Media, none of the biggest players mention upload speeds anywhere on their main product pages and that’s disappointing given the rising importance of upstream performance to consumers (Twitch/XBox/PS4 streaming, Facebook uploads etc.).

On the other hand Ofcom does now require that upload speeds be displayed as part of a customer’s personal speed estimate during the order process (details), which does at least mean that you’ll be told what to expect before parting with your hard earned cash. Likewise our ISP Listings also include this key detail.

Perhaps a bigger question in all this is whether or not the average speeds being promoted are actually correct. Quite a few ISPs appear to be mirroring the rates of their competitors for specific packages, which is understandable but also suggests that they may not all be using their own data to produce a figure. Every ISP will have a difference balance of users and speeds, thus we’d expect to see much more variation than currently exists.

Finally, an average still means that there will always be those who suffer slower speeds than the advertised rate, as well as those who receive something far faster.

UPDATE: