Premium Internet Plans Overpromising on Speeds, Atlas VPN Report Says

December 20, 2022 – Consumers often experience internet service speeds that are dramatically lower than advertised speeds, and the gap is widest for high-end plans, according to analysis by Atlas VPN published Tuesday.

Examining plans advertising 1200 Megabits per second, Atlas found the median tested speed was 360 Mbps – a 70 percent drop-off. For plans offering 400 Mbps and 250 Mbps, the median tested speeds were 256 Mbps and 195 Mbps, respectively. The report did not find a significant discrepancy for plans advertising speeds of 125 Mbps or slower.

Atlas analyzed the bills of more than 6,000 consumers, using data from Consumer Reports. Survey participants documented their experienced speeds with a Measurement Lab speed test. The report attributed the speed discrepancies to the prevalence of network congestion, low-quality or outdated hardware, and ISPs’ fair usage policies, which “limit the amount of bandwidth a user can consume at any given time.”

Atlas released the report amid widespread concerns that many providers serially advertise speeds they are unable to deliver. To allay concerns that service providers have overstated speeds to the federal government as well as consumers, several advocates say the FCC should consider speed test data more heavily as the agency updates the national broadband map.

In Maine, UScellular appears to have greatly overstated coverage, according to analyst Mike Conlow. “According (to) the FCC maps, they offer 25/3 service to 390,212 locations in Maine. I went through the US Cellular sign up process. Nowhere do they advertise throughputs of 25 down and 3 up,” Conlow wrote in a recent Substack Post.

Will nutrition labels ensure that consumers get the speeds they pay for?

To ensure customers can enjoy promised and paid-for speeds, the Federal Communications Commission in November mandated broadband nutrition labels, which display download and upload speeds, latency, monthly fees, and other metrics. Providers are required to display the labels at point-of-sale and in the customer’s online portal. The labels must be machine-readable, which facilitates research and analysis.

Some supporters of nutrition labels say the FCC should go further. Free Press unsuccessfully asked the FCC to require their inclusion on consumers’ monthly bill.

“Opposition to the label isn’t coming from every ISP – just the biggest ones,” Josh Stager, the advocacy group’s policy director, told Broadband Breakfast in October. “Smaller ISPs and new entrants like Starlink see the label as good for business because they have simpler pricing.”

Some industry players disagree, however. “There is no evidence that existing customers would benefit from the addition of label information to their monthly bill,” NCTA – The Internet & Television Association wrote in a September FCC filing. “To the contrary, there is a substantial likelihood that it will simply generate customer confusion.”