I’m glad to see that ofcom — the telecoms regulator in the UK — had started to ask broadband providers about their misleading advertising, I just don’t think they’re going nearly far enough. They’re asking the companies to think about ways they can better inform customers about the bandwidth they’re likely to get. Well, I guess that’s better than nothing, but how about this instead; how about telling isps that they can no longer advertise their product based on some theoretical maximum bandwidth that no user will actually ever achieve? How about forcing them to specify a minimum bandwidth provision that they guarantee every user will actually get? Can you imagine if food manufacturers only had to tell you the theoretical maximum amount of food that the packaging could contain, rather than what was actually in there? No one would stand for that at all, but it’s exacty what broadband operators are currently getting away with.

But, shocking though that is, I actually don’t think it’s the worst thing about broadband advertising in the UK. No, that honour goes to the ubiquitous claims of “unlimited” broadband — claims which are, by and large, lies.

There are a couple of ISPs that actually mean it when they say “unlimited” (UKFSN and Be spring to mind,) but the vast majority of them enforce an “acceptable use policy,” which limits the amount you’re allowed to use the service. I honestly don’t understand how they get away with it. They make claims in their advertising that are quite clearly contradicted by their policies and practices.

Worse yet, these acceptable use policies are rarely explicit about how much bandwidth is too much, or what the isp will do about it if you exceed that limit; they’re a vague policy that the isp is free to decide on a case by case basis who is exceeding their usage limit and apply whatever sanctions they want — usually a significant reduction in connection speed. I far as I can see there is no earthly way that can be honestly squared with the claim that the service is “unlimited.”

Update 15÷10÷07: Looks like I was unnecessarily easy on Be. Their acceptable use policy states:

If it’s felt that any Be member’s Internet activities are so excessive that other members are detrimentally affected, Be may give the member generating the excessive web traffic a written warning (by email or otherwise). In extreme circumstances, should the levels of activity not immediately decrease after the warning, Be may terminate that member’s services.

So, like most of the others, they’re saying “if you use too much bandwidth we’ll terminate your contract.” Not their unwillingness to say what “too much bandwidth” actually is. That’s exactly the sort of information they should be legally required to disclose in their advertising (or at least in their contract,) not just allowed to make up as they go along.