On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
This is exactly my point. If a subscriber can use the service for 30 consecutive days and never achieve the "8Mbps" because the network is incapable by design, or by virtue of its over subscription is statistically impossible of delivering it, then I believe this is false advertising. I, and most others, accept that when a service is marketed as "up to", the service may not always deliver the "up to" number. But if the service is marketed as "up to" any number, then the service should at least be capable of delivering that advertised number some reasonable fraction of the time; Never is not a reasonable fraction of the time.
--Blake
So, you want something like EPA MPG ratings, where empirical, standardized testing is done to validate manufacturer/vendor claims, rather than just taking their word for it that the claimed speeds might once in a blue moon be achievable. with updates to the claimed performance if subsequent testing fails to validate the initial claims, such as with the ford c-max hybrid: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/8a... http://epa.gov/otaq/documents/fueleconomy/420f13044.pdf Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered. Thanks! Matt