ASA broadband complaints: is there a better solution?

ASA's pockets are definitely getting filled by vodacom. It's a shame.
 
I can understand Lars' frustration, but these tech exec's must remember(they actually know) that it's easy to fool a non-tech savvy man on the street. My CellC modem was sold to me with the packaging stating it's 7.2mbps, but as we all know in reality you won't see those speeds. The real world speed I currently get is around 2.5 - 3mbsp(often less), this is less than half of the advertised speed. I think it would be fair to advertise using real world speeds, not theoretical/impossible figures!
 
I can understand Lars' frustration, but these tech exec's must remember(they actually know) that it's easy to fool a non-tech savvy man on the street. My CellC modem was sold to me with the packaging stating it's 7.2mbps, but as we all know in reality you won't see those speeds. The real world speed I currently get is around 2.5 - 3mbsp(often less), this is less than half of the advertised speed. I think it would be fair to advertise using real world speeds, not theoretical/impossible figures!
I disagree. I think they should be more specific on the adverts, along the line of "maximum possible speed of xmBits/s".
The real life number are meaningless as they depend on your current network loading/signal strength/weather/etc....
 
The solution is for the companies involved to be honest in their advertising. Now there is a novel idea.
 
I can understand Lars' frustration, but these tech exec's must remember(they actually know) that it's easy to fool a non-tech savvy man on the street. My CellC modem was sold to me with the packaging stating it's 7.2mbps, but as we all know in reality you won't see those speeds. The real world speed I currently get is around 2.5 - 3mbsp(often less), this is less than half of the advertised speed. I think it would be fair to advertise using real world speeds, not theoretical/impossible figures!

I mostly disagree. First, it's not so easy to fool the non-tech savvy as you might think. The truly non-tech savvy ignore the numbers anyway (they don't know what 7.2 mbps means), so they ask family or friends who are tech savvy for their advice. Word-of-mouth is a powerful mechanism for cutting out the bullsh*t.

Secondly, anytime you aren't happy with a product because it fails to meet expectations, you are free to return it. You can compare numbers but you always know the experience is going to vary between products. (Nobody buys a car just for its top speed or mileage figure.)

Thirdly, what are real-world speeds? Anything from zero to just a bit short of the theoretical max is possible. So which is the correct, or "fair" number to advertise? Who decides? This is the biggest problem with mandating "real-world" numbers. Because it involves politics, there is no guarantee the consumer will actually benefit.

Fourth, the underlying issue is that wireless is simply not reliable the way ADSL is. There's nothing stopping ADSL providers from informing the consumer of this. MWEB can point out that with them, 4 mbps is 4 mbps, but with wireless, 7.2 mbps is whatever it wants to be that day. This puts pressure on the wireless networks to make some guarantees, which is good for the consumer. Of course, if the wireless providers have power in the ASA, they will do what they can do prevent ads like this getting out.

I agree adverts mustn't make promises the product can't live up to. But all that means is that they need to add a disclaimer clearly stating that 7.2 mbps is a maximum, and that overhead and network conditions will decide the actual throughput. (Hard drive makers do a similar thing.)
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think they should be more specific on the adverts, along the line of "maximum possible speed of xmBits/s".
The real life number are meaningless as they depend on your current network loading/signal strength/weather/etc....

Using maximum possible speed has it's own pitfalls, there are many ways to 'enhance' that figure. I have managed to get 6.2mbps outta my 7.2mbps compliant modem, but it was long ago, and only via a speedtest.net check... I must have been the only user on the network at the time!
 
I have a question for somebody in the know -- is the ASA completely extra-legal? What happens if an advertiser simply ignores a ruling from the ASA? Surely if companies really do have no recourse to the law to have rulings overturned, the ASA similarly has no recourse to the law to actually enforce a ruling?
 
I can understand Lars' frustration, but these tech exec's must remember(they actually know) that it's easy to fool a non-tech savvy man on the street. My CellC modem was sold to me with the packaging stating it's 7.2mbps, but as we all know in reality you won't see those speeds. The real world speed I currently get is around 2.5 - 3mbsp(often less), this is less than half of the advertised speed. I think it would be fair to advertise using real world speeds, not theoretical/impossible figures!

If only people can read - I am sure there is a disclaimer on that modem packing that reads: ** Network Dependant and other important information that we consumers tends to overlook but continues to b!tch and moan.
 
I believe, and my advice to all parties have been, to do both:

1. State the modem speed in the technical specification portion of the modem.

2. Indicate (in big friendly letters - like the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) the typical SERVICE speeds with all the other disclaimers.

While this sounds simple, problems arise in practical advertisments. A good example is the MTN 21.1 AYOBA HSPA+ complaint Cell C lodged against MTN.

Basically the heading of the ad contained the number 21.1 and in the body of the text it spoke about fast internet, etc.

The ASA ruled that using words like 'fast' in such close proximity of a number like "21.1" can be misread as a speed claim and ruled in Cell C's favour (in other words they upheld the Cell C complaint).

What I've been proposing is the players all get together and agree on a format for ads that will ensure we make clear distinction between modem specification, networking technologies and SERVICE speed (maybe quote the latest speedtest.net average, or something similar).
 
I mostly disagree. First, it's not so easy to fool the non-tech savvy as you might think. The truly non-tech savvy ignore the numbers anyway (they don't know what 7.2 mbps means), so they ask family or friends who are tech savvy for their advice. Word-of-mouth is a powerful mechanism for cutting out the bullsh*t.

Secondly, anytime you aren't happy with a product because it fails to meet expectations, you are free to return it. You can compare numbers but you always know the experience is going to vary between products. (Nobody buys a car just for its top speed or mileage figure.)

Thirdly, what are real-world speeds? Anything from zero to just a bit short of the theoretical max is possible. So which is the correct, or "fair" number to advertise? Who decides? This is the biggest problem with mandating "real-world" numbers. Because it involves politics, there is no guarantee the consumer will actually benefit.

Fourth, the underlying issue is that wireless is simply not reliable the way ADSL is. There's nothing stopping ADSL providers from informing the consumer of this. MWEB can point out that with them, 4 mbps is 4 mbps, but with wireless, 7.2 mbps is whatever it wants to be that day. This puts pressure on the wireless networks to make some guarantees, which is good for the consumer. Of course, if the wireless providers have power in the ASA, they will do what they can do prevent ads like this getting out.

I agree adverts mustn't make promises the product can't live up to. But all that means is that they need to add a disclaimer clearly stating that 7.2 mbps is a maximum, and that overhead and network conditions will decide the actual throughput. (Hard drive makers do a similar thing.)


ADSL is also a best effort service, it is incorrect to say 4 mbps is 4 mbps, in most cases you will find that the backhaul between the DSLAM and the internet POP is 20mbps and the contention ratios are much higher. It will be very difficult to realize the full 4 mbps on your ADSL even if you the only one (1) on that DSLAM. It is only recent where some DSLAM are getting the Metro Ethernet backhauls which are up 200mbps. A dedicated or guaranteed b/w services are available but will cost one an arm and a leg. Let us understand the products we buy or use before we complain. A car with a Speedo meter reading of 280km/h doesn’t necessarily mean that car is capable of reaching that speed but yet no one b!tch and moans about it.
 
I believe, and my advice to all parties have been, to do both:

1. State the modem speed in the technical specification portion of the modem.

2. Indicate (in big friendly letters - like the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) the typical SERVICE speeds with all the other disclaimers.

While this sounds simple, problems arise in practical advertisments. A good example is the MTN 21.1 AYOBA HSPA+ complaint Cell C lodged against MTN.

Basically the heading of the ad contained the number 21.1 and in the body of the text it spoke about fast internet, etc.

The ASA ruled that using words like 'fast' in such close proximity of a number like "21.1" can be misread as a speed claim and ruled in Cell C's favour (in other words they upheld the Cell C complaint).

What I've been proposing is the players all get together and agree on a format for ads that will ensure we make clear distinction between modem specification, networking technologies and SERVICE speed (maybe quote the latest speedtest.net average, or something similar).

How about you guys stop picking on CellC for bringing decent packages?
 
haha this made me laugh

It's not a bad analogy.

In fact cars, roads and speed restrictions are a great analogy for the whole network / speed issue.

You can buy any car, with any performance spec, from nearly anyone and use it on a variety of roads with different conditions. These parameters leads to a large number of possible permutations.

1. Cars - You can buy a car for as little as a few thousand rand (clearly not new and it might have serious problems) to decent new cars for around R100K to 'typical' cars for closer to R300K, right up to hyper-cars costing a few million. The cars will have power output that vary from less than 50KW all the way up to hundreds of KW. Top speeds can range from 80Km/h to 440Km/h.

Yet all these cars can be driven on the road. Importantly, car manufacturers don't build roads.

2. Roads - We have from toll roads with many lanes and safe up to high speeds to double carriage roads with a speed limit of 80Km/s to normal single lane roads with a speed limit of 60Km/h right through to badly surfaced roads, full of potholes and requiring a 4x4 with a max top speed of 40Km/h - Sandton, for example.

These roads all can have varying traffic conditions on them. Importantly, road builders don't make cars.

3. Traffic Conditions - Clearly these can vary from completely open to fully congested.

If you have a Porsche 911 on the autobahn, with no traffic - you can probably get to it's 300Km/h top speed. If it's Monday morning, you'll be lucky to get to 80Km/s. Neither car nor the road changed, only the level of congestion. If you have the same car on an open rural road, you'll probably also only get 80Km/h. Again the car did not change, the road surface did. And so forth.

In networking we can have the same 3 parameters apply:

1. Modems - think of cars. Different models have different top speeds. But any modem (car) can work on any network (road). Clearly within reason.

2. Networks - think of road systems. You get a 14.4, 21.6, 43.2 network. Just like you get 40, 60, 80, 120Km/h roads. Yet any modem can 'drive' on any of these networks.

3. Congestion - same concept.

Now you can make the analogy of the 'fastest' modem (car) driving on the 'fastest' network (road system) with the least amount of congestion. This is your best bet to ever max out your modem (car). Take that same 43.2 modem onto a slower 14.4 network and your top speed has to drop. Add in some congestion and again top speed will drop.

So, the analogy holds quite well.

Question is why do few people see this as a valid traffic model but not a valid networking model? The only answer I could come up with is that you tend to buy the car from a different supplier than the road system contractor. I.e. if you bought your car from the same people who made the road, would you expect them to give you a road that can use the car's top speed all the time? I actually think, as consumers, we would. :)
 
The ASA ruled that using words like 'fast' in such close proximity of a number like "21.1" can be misread as a speed claim and ruled in Cell C's favour (in other words they upheld the Cell C complaint).

How about the ASA just swallow a chill pill? We can all see it's a waste of time and money that they are actually ruling on this kind of complaint. Fun when it's in your own company's favour... otherwise just a waste. And where's the consumer in all this -- does seeing the word "fast" near "21.1" hurt me?

What I've been proposing is the players all get together and agree on a format for ads that will ensure we make clear distinction between modem specification, networking technologies and SERVICE speed (maybe quote the latest speedtest.net average, or something similar).

The last thing we as consumers need is the players getting together. That's also known as collusion, and even when it's done with the best of intentions it does no good for the consumer. Service speed? Who decides whether it's the speedtest.net average or something else? Does each company get a vote? No thanks... I'll find out the speedtest.net average for myself. I do not want the companies to "get together" and decide what's in my interest. In any case, this market is too competitive for that. Try getting Cell C to agree with you what constitutes their "service speed".
 
It's not a bad analogy.

In fact cars, roads and speed restrictions are a great analogy for the whole network / speed issue.

Question is why do few people see this as a valid traffic model but not a valid networking model? The only answer I could come up with is that you tend to buy the car from a different supplier than the road system contractor. I.e. if you bought your car from the same people who made the road, would you expect them to give you a road that can use the car's top speed all the time? I actually think, as consumers, we would. :)

Good point. The fact that modem and network speeds are confused is part of the problem, but it's not really the service providers' problem.

And this analogy also illustrates why the idea of advertising "service speeds" is so impractical. How do we talk about South Africa's roads? There's no point generalizing -- we have a lot fewer potholes in the Western Cape than Eastern Cape, for example. Consumers just know and learn this from experience. There is no other way. Forcing car companies to tell you their "road speed" doesn't help the consumer, but it might help one car company at the expense of another. Same with wireless networks.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X