Virgin media have been given a slap on the wrist by the Advertising Standards Authority because they overstated broadband speeds in adverts.

I understand when it comes to advertising there has to be small print saying people won’t always receive the top speed mentioned depending on time of day, quality of line, etc. but I’m not sure why it isn’t followed through to fair trading after you sign up.

There is a larger issue here altogether meaning that ISPs are misselling broadband entirely. If I get a 8Mb/sec line I expect to get close to that stated speed at some point in the day. If it never gets above 2Mb/sec surely I should be charged the cost of a 2Mb/sec line? OK there are various factors that effect this especially line quality when it comes to ADSL. However I believe that when you are setting up a new broadband connection the ISP should do a line test and provide you with a cost, a maximum speed and a minimum speed. This way it is totally transparent to the customer and if there are problems they have a point where they can complain they are not receiving an adequate service.

I’ve experienced speeds of 256Kb/sec on a 8Mb/sec connection, only 3% of the speed sold, and been told by BT nothing is wrong. Clearly they were under-performing here but I had no way of complaining as there was no technical fault to speak of. Does this sound right to you?

Yes there are many variable factors when providing broadband but these could be taken into account and the contract amended accordingly.

In addition this also brings up the subject of net neutrality - should broadband providers be able to limit bandwidth according to agreements they have with content providers? No! If I pay for 8Mb/sec I pay for 8Mb/sec to every location on the net I choose! Underinvestment in your infrastructure is not a reason to try and screw over your customers to try avoid needed upgrades.

It’s about time the whole issue of selling broadband should be tightened up.

I’m confused.

I was pretty sure that BT said their 21st Century Network was the roll out of a fibre network across the UK. According to an article on the BBC website it seems BT are claiming that ADSL2+ is this 21st Century Network. If they think squeezing an extra few Mbps from the antique copper wires is 21st Century Network I better create a time machine and take a trip to the 22nd Century!

There are already companies providing a ADSL2+ service so what BT is beginning to use isn’t even the first of its kind.

Just another example of the telecomms monster under-investing and under-providing for something that could seriously affect the UK ability to keep pace online.

Not content at being a hugely ineffective, unaccountable, inefficient behemoth BT have now decided to break the law by monitoring 30,000 users without permission for a trial of the potential Phorm system! An alternative opinion on Phorm is here.

Personally I don’t have a massive problem with the idea behind the system if it means I get targeted adverts that I might actually be interested in. However there are still major questions about privacy and surely this should be an opt in system not just be rolled out for every user?

As for trialling without people’s permission - which planet are these people on? Hang em all!