So over here in Germany we already have something similar.
ISPs are required by law and regulation to supply potential customers with the
following standardized information before closing a contract:
example "Product information sheet"
h++ps://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=475EBAEFFD5ADDD7D3E30FDBF9CA29C2?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
instructions how to create a "Product information sheet"
h++ps://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=475EBAEFFD5ADDD7D3E30FDBF9CA29C2?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
The national regulatory agency also established a (somewhat complicated and
time-intensive) process to check whether ISPs actually deliver the
contractually promised throughput (and they still ignore latency which clearly
should be improved).
Customers who show that ISPs doe not deliver can opt either:
a) get an immediate right to cancel the contract
b) opt for getting the price reduced proportional to the amount of contractual
fulfillment (for the duration of the existing contract, after that the ISP can
opt not to offer only lower speedgrades)
c) sue the ISP in court (as before)
This will not help in conditions like Rich's, but it generally helps in getting
the whole market get an understanding that contracts do matter. (ISPs are free
to only promise those numbers they see fit, they are only held accountable to
actually fulfill their commitments).
I would expect that for a plan-by-plan information something that gives
reliable information about generally achievable capacity (and preferably
latency under load) would be helpful. Especially when combined with an official
web-site that step-by-step explains what kind of capacity and (worst case
latency) different use-cases require.
That is have the label not try to explain everything but have it refer to a
well-written web site that helps to put the numbers into perspective.
But I might be biased the the method I know and there might be better ways.
Regards
Sebastian
P.S.: I know some here operate ISPS and hence see this from a different angle
than end-customers, but the measurement procedure is pretty fair for ISPs and
customers (and arduous enough that folks are unlikely to run a measurement
campaign just for fun or to pester an ISP).
> On Mar 20, 2023, at 12:30, Rich Brown via Bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 19, 2023, at 11:03 PM, bloat-requ...@lists.bufferbloat.net wrote:
>>
>>> Consumers really need things like published performance specs so they can
>>> assemble their needs like an a la carte menu. What do you do, what’s
>>> important to you, what details support that need, and they need that in a
>>> simple way. Like a little app that says “how many 1080p TVs or 4K TVs,
>>> how many gaming consoles, do you take zoom calls or VoIP/phone calls. Do
>>> you send large emails, videos, or pictures.”
>>
>> The problem is that these needs really are not that heavy. Among my ISP
>> connections, I have a 8/1 dsl connection, even when I fail over to that, I
>> can
>> run my 4k tv + a couple other HD TVs + email (although it's at the ragged
>> edge,
>> trying to play 4k at 2x speed can hiccup, and zoom calls can stutter when
>> large
>> emails/downloads flow)
>
> I want to second David Lang's comment. I live in a small rural NH town that
> was stuck at DSL prior to a local company raising the money to install fiber
> to all premises.
>
> Before the fiber came in, I had 7mbps/768kbps service. If I wanted to bond
> two circuits, I could get 15/1mbps. But many neighbors had 3mbps/768kbps - or
> worse - so they were basically unserved. We frequently saw people parked
> outside our public library after hours to get internet. (And yes, a good
> router improved things. I told a lot of people about the IQrouter that turned
> the unusable service into merely slow.)
>
> But there is a huge swath of rural US that is in the same situation, with
> zero or one provider of dreadful service.
>
> What's the value of a "nutrition label"?
>
> a) It's meaningless for those rural customers. They have no choice beyond
> "take it or leave it."
>
> b) For the lucky ones where alternative providers compete, the proposed label
> does provide a standardized format that lays out purported speeds and the the
> pricing tiers (including overage charges). I don't think I'd ever believe the
> latency numbers.
>
> c) Coming back to metrics: we can't look to a federally-agreed-to Nutrition
> Label to give guidance for which provider offers the right choice for your
> mix of gadgets. The most important advice I can imagine is "get a router that
> manages your latency", and your problems will go away, or at least be *much*
> better.
>
> Rich
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
