Optus in court over 'supersonic' broadband

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Optus in court over 'supersonic' broadband

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
64673 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 68352 20-Sep-2010 10:06

"Should a telecommunications company be able to advertise its Broadband as “supersonic” when its speeds could be as low as 64Kbps?

The problem with these plans is that while the usual speed is 100Mbps, if a customer goes over their download limit for the month their speed is slashed to just 64Kbps. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) isn’t happy about Optus’ sensationalist claims, which it is sure breaches the Trade Practices Act."

Apparently Optus is being taken to court for naming its service "Supersonic" when it's also throttled after a cap.

My technology disclosure | Digital Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Data Insights, Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics

michaelmurfy

Mr Snotty
8875 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 382155 20-Sep-2010 10:49

Next, NZ ISP's.

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 382171 20-Sep-2010 11:26

michaelmurfy: Next, NZ ISP's.

"Slingshot. A better place"

nickb800

2298 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 382195 20-Sep-2010 12:10

Warpspeed, Lightspeed...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
64673 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 382210 20-Sep-2010 12:47

nickb800: Warpspeed, Lightspeed...

Very different. On TelstraClear your connection is not intentionally throttled to 64Kbps, as is the case with some other ISPs.

My technology disclosure | Digital Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Data Insights, Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics

nickb800

2298 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 382215 20-Sep-2010 12:52

Different for sure, but some would consider it to be sensationalist given issues with transperant proxies and youtube caching of late. You could even get technical that it is not delivering at 'light speed' on the final coaxial leg.

But thats just the way of marketing these days, and its most likely not illegal, though ianal.

bazzer

3304 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 382269 20-Sep-2010 14:38

This sounds a bit rough to me. Just because they are advertising it as high speed it has to be high speed all the time? I suppose it might depend on how obvious the throttling info is. e.g. If I bought a "Supersonic 20GB" plan, I'd expect 20GB at fast speeds, but after that, who knows?

I had a look at the website. Don't know if it's been changed or not, but it does say things like "Live life without limits" and "There's no limit to what you can achieve". However, it also says (in fine print, but reasonably prominent, i.e. in the main graphic/ad) "Applies when downloading most Australian-hosted content and popular overseas content... Various factors affect actual speed including your plan's data and throttle limits, content location, hardware, software and congestion."

Ragnor

8034 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 382304 20-Sep-2010 15:28

Suggestion: ISP's should have to publicly disclose the average contention ratio on a connection for best effort shared network services... I believe this is common place in the UK.

For example:

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 500:1 contention on national transit and 1000:1 international

vs

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 250:1 contention on national transit and 500:1 on international

.. now you can clearly tell which connection is better and have some idea of what speeds to realistically expect in best and worst case scenario's (ie: peak time).

nickb800

2298 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 382331 20-Sep-2010 16:02

Ragnor: Suggestion: ISP's should have to publicly disclose the average contention ratio on a connection for best effort shared network services... I believe this is common place in the UK.

For example:

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 500:1 contention on national transit and 1000:1 international

vs

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 250:1 contention on national transit and 500:1 on international

.. now you can clearly tell which connection is better and have some idea of what speeds to realistically expect in best and worst case scenario's (ie: peak time).

I would have completely supported this 5-10 years ago, however with the advent of caching and lack of peering by some players, it has become less relevant. Still useful, but there are plenty more important pieces of information before deciding which ISP to go with.

e.g slingshot has a higher contention ratio but better caching and peering than say telstraclear with a lower contention ratio but little or no local peering

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 382334 20-Sep-2010 16:11

nickb800:
Ragnor: Suggestion: ISP's should have to publicly disclose the average contention ratio on a connection for best effort shared network services... I believe this is common place in the UK.

For example:

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 500:1 contention on national transit and 1000:1 international

vs

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 250:1 contention on national transit and 500:1 on international

.. now you can clearly tell which connection is better and have some idea of what speeds to realistically expect in best and worst case scenario's (ie: peak time).

I would have completely supported this 5-10 years ago, however with the advent of caching and lack of peering by some players, it has become less relevant. Still useful, but there are plenty more important pieces of information before deciding which ISP to go with.

e.g slingshot has a higher contention ratio but better caching and peering than say telstraclear with a lower contention ratio but little or no local peering

It could still work, you just count the total Gbps possible to be served by the cache as bandwidth, makes a national/international split harder tho (guessing most of the cache is international and count it that way maybe?).

webwat

1990 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 385221 27-Sep-2010 22:41

Ragnor: Suggestion: ISP's should have to publicly disclose the average contention ratio on a connection for best effort shared network services... I believe this is common place in the UK.

For example:

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 500:1 contention on national transit and 1000:1 international

vs

10Mbit/1Mbit ADSL connection with 250:1 contention on national transit and 500:1 on international

.. now you can clearly tell which connection is better and have some idea of what speeds to realistically expect in best and worst case scenario's (ie: peak time).

I think ISPs still don't know what contention ratio Telecom uses (if at all) and certainly have no control over it or any ability to ensure it is consistent across all users/areas. Perhaps they can still specify contention on their own networks though.

Qualified in business, certified in fibre, stuck in copper, have to keep going ^_^

Ragnor

8034 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 385242 27-Sep-2010 23:37

Yeah, why is (Telecom wholesale) backhaul and handover so constrained in NZ? Is it really cost related (due to our population density and geography etc) or is it artificial scarcity?

I believe BT wholesale were dimensioning at 20:1 for office and 50:1 for home on 8Mbit back in 2005... 2007 they changed to "Expected End User Experience" which they claim is around 5:1 in practice.

Batman

Mad Scientist
20923 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 385274 28-Sep-2010 07:35

well if the offending AD never mentions any fine prints i can't see how optus can not lose the case. but if there is the fine print mentioning throttling then i can't see what all the fuss is about!

but if the Oz equivalent of our ComCom takes optus to court they must know they have a good chance!

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.