[AusNOG] "It's like grandfather's axe"

[Jake Anderson]

On 22/11/13 13:14, Ross Wheeler wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Beeson, Ayden wrote:
>
>> It's less about infallibility and more about accountability.
>
>> As was said, it's all the "Up to" and "maximum" that is the issue.
>
>
> Perhaps a page from the "Weights and Measures" handbook. Turn it all 
> around, rather than the unprovable puffery of "Up to 2 million 
> terrabits/nanosecond (*)" how about a guaranteed MINIMUM speed.
>
> If you sell something that you claim will deliver "not less than 2 
> megabits/second" then thats exactly what it has to achieve, all the 
> time. Sure, it might burst to 5, 10, 100 megabits/sec and thats 
> perfectly acceptable, as long as it ACHIEVES the published MINIMUM 
> speed ALL THE TIME. (Just like if you buy a litre of petrol.. it has 
> to be "at least" a litre. (or at least within a couple of percent). 
> Isn't that how a "bakers dozen" came to be? To make sure they 
> delivered (at least) what they HAD to, including the lumps and bumps 
> of a few smaller-than-expected individuals)?
>
> R.
I would support this minimum speed requirement for anything offering a 
speed.
I most certainly wouldn't hold my breath on it happening however.

Why is it that in the commercial world if I order a 10mbit service, i 
can expect to get 10mbit (or more)
but in residential/everywhere else its "up to" speeds.

Ban the use of "up to" in all advertising I say.