ISP Sues Former Customer Over Reviews Claiming His Internet Speed Was Less Than A Third Of What Was Advertised

from the 'to-be-sued-in-your-jurisdiction,-press-7' dept

Wed, Jul 30th 2014 12:14pm — Tim Cushing

Because this always works out well for the plaintiff, another company is suing another disgruntled customer over his online complaints. Peak Internet, a Colorado ISP, has decided to ensure its former customer receives a broader platform to discuss its alleged connection speed issues. [H/t to Techdirt/Popehat reader Carl O. Graham, who may have shoved this in the wrong inbox…]

Russell Petrick is disabled and spends a lot of time on his computer at home. He signed on with Peak Internet for web access to watch movies and surf the net.

"It was just too terrible to consider keeping," Petrick said when asked about the service.

He said he was paying $50 a month for Internet download speeds of 20 mbps... Petrick claims the speeds were nowhere near that, and averaged 6.5 mbps.

"The fastest speed I got was 13.6 mbps download and 3.1 mbps upload," Petrick said. "I didn't get anywhere near the 20 mbps mark."

Since KOAA's "investigation" doesn't provide much more than "this is a thing that happened" reporting and the judicious deployment of the always-reliable "torn off bits of paper" skeuomorph highlighting words like "defamation" and "Yelp" to indicate a lawsuit is being discussed, I've hunted down some of the offending reviews.

Peak Internet's lawsuit says Petrick's statements are not only defamatory, but defamatory per se -- false statements that are so obviously harmful that the ISP doesn't even need to prove it's been harmed.

Since discontinuing his service, Petrick has made defamatory statements about Peak Internet on the Internet, including, but are not limited to, Yelp, YouTube, Superpages, and Yahoo.

The defamatory statements made by Petrick about Peak Internet include, but are not limited to, false statements about the speed of services provided by Peak Internet and responses to complaints about alleged issues with the speed of services provided by Peak Internet.

Here's one of the reviews Peak Internet takes issue with.

★☆☆☆☆ Beware: This company advertises fast internet speeds, but in reality rarely provides those speeds. Like every ISP, the advertised speeds are up to that speed. You shouldn't expect to get the top speed all of the time, but you can expect an average speed about 70% of the advertised speed. That's how a regular ISP works. I am receiving speeds at 50% or lower of the advertised package speed.

Peak has a guaranteed minimum which is nice, but they seem to think the guaranteed minimum is the speed that you should average at. One thing to keep in mind with wireless internet is your speeds may fluctuate due to weather and interference. This is not the issue with the package I ordered, as I explain below.

I order the 20Mbps plan. I ran speed tests and monitored the line for a full week after install, and these were the results:

* Speeds to Peak Internet hosted servers: 90% to 100% of capacity. This is useful in determining that there is not an issue between the transmitter on my house and the tower.
* Speeds to any other speed test server, CDN, website, regular download server: 50% or less of capacity. I tested to multiple types of servers at multiple locations across the USA. My average speed was 7Mbps. My max speed was 12Mbps. I never once went above 12.

When I contacted Peak Internet about this issue and provided them the documentation of the tests I had been running they refused to acknowledge the issue. They said I was getting above their guaranteed minimum (4Mbps) and that I should actually be happy that I was getting 12Mbps. If I wanted that, I would have paid for the 12Mbps plan.

Peak Internet has major issues with peering and their bandwidth providers. When I pay for internet access, that means the whole internet. I'm not paying for fast speed tests to internal servers. They also just don't seem to care. They didn't want to look into the speed issue. They didn't have any desire to provide good service. They just wanted to make their money and not deal with people who call them out on their false advertising.

I feel sorry for somebody less technologically savvy that is paying for their higher packages but getting slow speeds. They don't know that they're paying double or triple than they could be for the exact same speed they are getting now with the same company.

Petrick's other reviews (Yelp, Superpages, BBB, Yahoo!) are all pretty much worded identically and make the same allegations. His complaint with the Better Business Bureau contains a link to his speed tests, which show that over the period of time tested, his connection only cleared 12Mbps once, despite being sold a 20Mbps connection. At times, it even dipped below the "guaranteed minimum" speed of 4Mbps.

Peak Internet says Petrick made "false statements about the speed of services provided by Peak Internet and responses to complaints about alleged issues" but Petrick seems to have some data that clearly indicates he never approached the advertised connection speeds during the time period he performed the speed tests.

The second part of that sentence seems to claim that Petrick's lying about Peak Internet's reps telling him that he was receiving over the guaranteed minimum connection speed and should be happy occasionally hitting 12 Mbps, even if Peak's 12/1 package sold for half the price ($25) Petrick was paying.

But Peak Internet's own response to Petrick's BBB complaint says pretty much everything Petrick accused the ISP of in his reviews.

The complainant currently subscribes to our $49.95/mo package for a maximum download speed of 20Mbps, with a guaranteed minimum download of 4Mbps. As the complainant has mentioned numerous times in both his BBB complaint, and his support ticket to us, he is achieving over this guaranteed connection speed. Unfortunately, as with every ISP, we can only guarantee the connection and speed within our own network. Once the traffic leaves our network and enters the public Internet we no longer have control over it, and thus cannot guarantee the connection speeds to any third party speedtest server. We value the complainant's business and would like to apologize that he didn't receive our email reply to his tickets and hope that he understands the clarification of our policy regarding the advertised minimum connection speeds.

ISP to customer: thanks for paying for a 20 Mbps connection speed. Anything above 4 Mbps is bonus speed. Stop complaining.

For the most part, it doesn't look like Peak's lawsuit is going to gain much traction. Almost everything Petrick claims can be backed up, either by speed tests or Peak Internet's own statements. And as Ken White at Popehat points out, Peak's suit doesn't really specify much of anything, other than it would like Russell Petrick to stop complaining:

Notably, Peak Internet does not specify exactly what part of what Petrick said that was false, or exactly how it was false. Remember what I always say: vagueness in defamation claims is a hallmark of meritless thuggery. Here, Peak Internet has used vagueness as a strategy to (1) obscure whether it is suing based in part of protected statements of opinion, (2) hide exactly which statements it contends to be false, avoiding early proof that the challenged statements are true, and (3) increase the costs and pressures of litigation on Petrick to shut him up and deter others from criticizing Peak Internet. You can't tell from the complaint, for instance, whether Peak Internet's argument is "our speeds were never that slow that often, he's lying" (which might be a valid defamation claim) or "his arguments are unfair because these speeds are above the guaranteed minimum speed and we don't promise the top speed all the time" (which would be an invalid attack on a protected opinion).

A customer who can only approach the speeds of a connection priced at half what he's paying obviously isn't going to be happy, but rather than work towards improving connection speeds, the company apparently decided to defer to its fine print. This isn't a great way to provide customer service and suing someone over bad reviews is an even worse decision.

Saying something is defamatory is basically calling that person a liar. Can Peak Internet prove Petrick was willfully lying when he wrote these reviews? Will it deny that it told him he probably would never approach the advertised speeds it offers but apparently can't fulfill? It seems like a long shot. The fact that other customers have left reviews complaining about slow connection speeds indicates Petrick's experience wasn't an isolated instance. This looks more like a terribly misguided attempt to silence a critic with a little intimidation.

If there is any further question about the legitimacy of this lawsuit, Peak Internet's own actions taken in conjunction with the appearance of Ken White's post on the subject show a company hastily mismanaging its reputation. Bad press from an unmerited lawsuit is never a good thing, but Peak is actively making things worse by deleting negative comments from its Facebook page (but at "advertised speeds" as Ken White notes) and apparently posting fake reviews at Yelp (via Adam Steinbaugh.)

Complaint Teller County (PDF)Complaint Teller County (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: colorado, defamation, reviews, russell petrick
Companies: peak internet

64 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:19pm

ISPs
I'm actually starting to believe Comcast's claim of being the #1 rated broadband supplier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:23pm

Re: ISPs
Nah, they're clearly #2. Behind these guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:45pm

On their Facebook page, they say specifically not to use Chrome or Firefox when running a speed test.

I have to question the technical aptitude of any company that makes a statement like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:49pm

Maybe
maybe Peak Internet should rename itself to Peak Speed, Peak Service or Peak Customer Satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:49pm

Peak's argument is obvious
He's complaining about not getting what they tried their hardest to lead him to believe he would be getting when in fact he's getting what they always intended to give him instead!

Peak got caught lying, and their secondary defense is the always popular "well, everyone else is lying too, so it can't be wrong." Advertising "up to" speeds is deceptive advertising, regardless of who is doing it. I hope the FTC will put a stop to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vel the Enigmatic, 30 Jul 2014 @ 12:52pm

After all...
Amazing legal muscle power clearly matters more than having good customer service, right? It's not like having to give good service is a requirement since everybody needs the internet, right?

So what does he have to complain about? Oh, he's getting above the minimum guarantee? That should be acceptable, right? Surely this man is just a malcontent who wants to muddy our beautiful, stellar, crystal clean reputation and service. Guess we'll have to shut him up so we can continue making marry and not giving a damn about what customers want like the peerless fat cats we are.

Hold on a sec, let me get the phone. Hello?

Hello, this is joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:11pm

Any particular reason this article didn't say "this is clearly a SLAPP suit and is likely to be thrown out of court with Peak owning legal fees to Petrick"? It seems like articles like this always mention that. Is this case different in some way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:14pm

He said he was paying $50 a month for Internet download speeds of 20 mbps... Petrick claims the speeds were nowhere near that, and averaged 6.5 mbps.

I pay for Comcast's "Blast" and during peak times I'm stuck at around 1.5 Mbps down and just under 5Mbps up. Talk about false advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:22pm

Re:
By the way, they are not only deleting comments on Facebook, but they are also completely banning people from their page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:24pm

Peak management: Hmm, we have a customer who's got bad connections speeds. People, we have two choices.

1) We send a technician to check his lines, maybe somebody to ensure our infrastructure is sound. This might cost us around $1,000 to $10,000 depending on what the issue is and might even improve us overall.

or

2) Spend ~$100,000 on lawyers to sue the guy and likely lose, whilst engaging The Barbara Striesand Effect at full speed costing us even more money in lost sales.

PICK 2! PICK 2!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Avatar28 (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:25pm

Re: ISPs
Say what you will about them but I can't fault their speeds. With only a few exceptions, I get pretty close to what I pay for or better. I've got the Blast package, supposed to be 50 mpbs. It's rare that I'm not able to sustain download rates of around 5-6 MB/s and often even a bit higher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bobmorning (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:42pm

Maybe I should start complaining about CenturyLink
Rural PA, DSL only, I wish I could get 4 Mbps minimum.

Heck I'm lucky if I can get 3 Mbps on a good day and if the stars are aligned. And I am buying extra for the 6Mbps plan.

CenturyLink! You listening???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CenturyLink, 30 Jul 2014 @ 1:51pm

Re: Maybe I should start complaining about CenturyLink
No, we're not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:00pm

Clear, non-hyperbolic, accurate review - no wonder they sued him.
Russell Petrick's review seems factual, clearly explained and easy to understand. No wonder Peak sued him for defamation. Cable companies really, really don't want to be held to the marketing claims they repeatedly make.

If they can't be responsible for speeds outside of their network, then how can they have a guaranteed minimum speed? That gives the lie to the idea that they can't take any responsibility for the maxim speed. And if a customer *never* gets the "maximum" speed, in what sense is it in any way an actual number based in any fact? Shouldn't it just be called "totally made up marketing number speed"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldMugwump (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:01pm

Re: We send a technician to check his lines
Read the original post. The speeds to Peak's internal servers were fine. So the lines were fine.

The problem was Peek's peering to the greater Internet.

Unless the ISP is totally incompetent, they already knew what the problem was. They just didn't want to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rapnel, 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:04pm

Re:
This is why peer-to-peer is good stuff. Stuff that can take advantage of ass for ip service and make streaming suck less and pulling and pushing data much, much less of a burden on these whiny ass, bull shit media/ISP providers. It's pretty clear who's in the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:29pm

Re:
There doesn't appear to be an anti-SLAPP law in Colorado.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-colorado
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: We send a technician to check his lines
Unless I'm reading it wrong, he has wireless internet from Peak. There would be no "lines".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:41pm

Re: Re: Re: We send a technician to check his lines
OK, "communication channels", then, Mr. Pedant. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:46pm

Ha, I used to have the same issue until my ISP was bought out. I had a full 50Mbps to any connection within my ISP, but the ISP's external connection to the rest of the internet is crap 20Mpbs at best, and adds 60 ms on that one hop alone. I now can get the higher speed, but the latency hasn't changed.

Still, you're paying for a connection to the internet. The ISP's internal network is not the internet itself. It makes no difference for a customer when discussing their connection to the internet if the limiting factor in a customer's connection is the ISP's external connection to the internet. The customer even said the connection to the ISP's network was good. That's stupid for them to claim they ARE the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keroberos (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Maybe I should start complaining about CenturyLink
Ah...but you answered. So you clearly are, and then lying about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 2:50pm

"Unfortunately, as with every ISP, we can only guarantee the connection and speed within our own network. Once the traffic leaves our network and enters the public Internet we no longer have control over it, and thus cannot guarantee the connection speeds to any third party speedtest server."

And just how big do they print that in their ads?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 3:01pm

Re: Peak's argument is obvious
I would love it if companies were barred from using the sleaze line of 'speeds up to, as it's nothing more than taking the absolute fastest connection a customer could theoretically(but never actually) get, and passing it off as the normal.

Instead, what I've like to see happen, would be them forced to list the average speeds their customers can expect, based upon random(so they can't temporarily game the speeds) monthly checks, performed by a third party that gets a bonus based upon how off the advertised speeds are compared to the tested ones.

Make the speed checks, and the listed speeds, regional, so they couldn't choose an area with a good network, and pretend all of their network is equally solid, and that would solve that particular sleaze move quite well I'd think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other AC (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 3:03pm

Say what ever you will about Verizon as a company. I am thankful for currently having FiOS. Just got moved to synchronous speeds and checking multiple servers with speedtest.net, got 55-59 down stream and 60-65 upstream.

There is something to be said for fiber to the building.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CenturyLink, 30 Jul 2014 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Maybe I should start complaining about CenturyLink
We'll sue you for saying that!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 4:15pm

Re: Re:
@ rapnel-
do you have any personal experience with these systems, or is it your opinion that we should migrate to those types of systems for de-centralized control reasons ?

i have looked into some of the sat systems (ubiquiti, or some sort of weird spelling TLTG (too lazy to google)), and *still* not sure what putting together a viable rural system would entail... maybe if i went to a paid seminar they would say... no time, no dime...

IF you have personal experience, i would be interested in picking your brain on the subject... thanks
a r t g u e r r i l l a a t w i n d s t r e a m d o t n e t
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 5:25pm

Even just the few first words about how advertised speeds are just theoretical speed...uh-no...not in GWN (.ca), with videotron I got their TGV-30 plan, I get 30mbps down, 12mbps up, from every speedtest.net to actual usage (I sftp a lot of stuff back home from my remote server), and wheter I use sftp, ftps, or just ftp makes no difference in speed, I just like the additional layer sftp provides.

Even the small ISP's seem to horrible in the US. I won't make a generalization, I hear Charter and Cox are no-nonsense and truthful most of the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 30 Jul 2014 @ 5:44pm

so
Deleted their facebook, but they still have their twitter up: https://twitter.com/peakinternetco
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: Peak's argument is obvious
Pay to the order of .. Your ISP
Up to the amount on the bill
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:01pm

Re: Re:
I would like the Colorado legislature to remedy this immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:01pm

Guilty as charged?
Peak Internet states that, "The complainant currently subscribes to our $49.95/mo package for a maximum download speed of 20Mbps, with a guaranteed minimum download of 4Mbps."

To me, this sounds like admission of false advertising. If I were Petrick, I'd drop a note on this admission to the FTC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:04pm

Re: Re: We send a technician to check his lines
This sounds vaguely familiar ... sort of like another story in the news recently, some other ISP .... who was that, hmmmm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:08pm

Re:
I read that some ISPs provide fast connection initially but then slow it down after a short time period just so that the speed tests give good readings. You ever run a lengthy test and average the results?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:12pm

Re: Guilty as charged?
It certainly seems to be an admission that they *can* guarantee speeds outside their network, contrary to their claims. They just don't feel like guaranteeing the higher of the two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russell Petrick, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:23pm

Thank you for writing
Hello,

Thank you for writing about this. I have posted some info on an old site of mine: http://rjpetrick.me

If anybody is looking for more technical information about this whole thing, I am willing to share it with you or post it on the page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 30 Jul 2014 @ 6:41pm

Loved your clearly articulated review.
I loved your clearly articulated review. It was good explanation stating what your problem was and why it mattered.

I do hope you will be very careful in what you post, though. Even though the legal proceedings against you are utter BS, BS can win if they have the time and money. If the Popehat signal comes through for you, do talk to a lawyer about what and what not to post about this case, if you haven't already.

I look forward to Peak's capitulation in this matter as soon as possible!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sneaking.ninja, 30 Jul 2014 @ 8:11pm

we had the same issue in norway years ago, the (A)DSL providers changed their products to reflect its *upto 20mbps* on their product pages
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 8:42pm

Re: Re: Peak's argument is obvious
No! No average or other soft language, they have had the opportunity and they have failed.

Almost every ISP provides "Business Class" service. They need to provide this for all customers or not advertise any speed whatsoever.

My power company doesn't provide "up to" 120 vac it is pretty much 120 volts 24/7/365.

ISP's should state a speed and how may 9's that speed is available for.

When they fail to deliver then they don't get paid.
Watch how fast last mile fiber gets built out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 30 Jul 2014 @ 10:43pm

Re:
This is a really important point. Connection speed versus download speed is a real hard one for most people to get past - and yes, the ISPs use this to their advantage.

My ISP sells me a 1 gig connection (yeah, lucky dude, right?). However, they do make it clear, it's a 1 gig connection from my home to their first router, and nothing more. After that point, it is subject to the network overall.

So realistically, even internal to their network (their own speed test) I am more likely to see speeds between 600-800meg a second based on their local network testing. If I speed test outside of the network, 500m would be good.

The mistake most consumers make (and ISPs sell) is the false notion that the speed at which you connect to their network is in fact the speed you get. Some people get 50meg sercice and call it a "50 meg net connection", but it's not, it's a 50 meg local network connection at best. If you ask, their technicians will come to your home, plug in the line tester, and show you the full connection speed.

Mr Patrick's reviews are correct in the sense that all that he documents is correct, but generally not relevant to the question of his modem connection speed, which is what he is paying for. His only valid true complaint here would be any time the actual throughput speed was slower than the minimum that the ISP advertised or provided for in their contract.

It really would be a good thing is the FTC (or FCC, or whatever 3 letter pencil pushers you want) would create and enforce standards in regards to ISP services. So instead of the current "up to this speed" advertising, you could get a box like thisL

Connection Speed: 20 meg
Minimum guaranteed net speed: 4 meg
bandwidth limit per month: 500 gig

Put that in a pretty box similar and require it in all advertising, and the nonsense and misinformation will stop on both sides.

oh, and for me, while the ISP is likely correct in this case, I think that Mr Patrick should have the right to express his opinions, however, his own testing showed that his local connection was 90%, which is pretty much right considering overhead on the line. His issue as a result isn't his connection speed, he is getting it. It's throughput, and that is a different problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2014 @ 11:51pm

Re: Re: Guilty as charged?
"It certainly seems to be an admission that they *can* guarantee speeds outside their network, contrary to their claims."

Where does it say that the minimum speed guarantee applies outside of their network?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 1:34am

Re: Re:
9 paragraphs to say literally nothing this time, except to try to blame the victim and even support the main point in the article (unless he's maliciously lying, he has the right to openly voice his complaint without fear of legal repercussions). While missing the central complaint in the article, of course.

"It's throughput, and that is a different problem."

Yes, we've heard that story from you before. Those poor, poor ISPs just can't be expected to have enough peering or other capacity in place to deliver the speeds they advertise. They certainly can't correct their advertising to reflect what they offer in reality. Customers should be happy with 50% or less of what they're supposedly paying for, and we can presumably blame Netflix for providing a service people dare to use if the ISP can't keep up. Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 2:31am

Re: Re: Re:
"9 paragraphs to say literally nothing this time"

Hi troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 3:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another word you don't understand. Why do you insist on being contrarian to every article, even to the point where you have to tell outrageous lies and silly claims (such as Amazon not understanding how credit card transactions work)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2014 @ 6:59am

Re:
This.

"Whatever" is correct in that the bandwidth guaranteed by an ISP can only be within their internal network. NO ISP is able to guarantee that speed across the ENTIRE public Internet, as they have no administrative control over other ISP routers, path selection, etc.

HOWEVER - this comment summarizes the frustration that most customers fail to understand, and you NEVER hear this part when ISPs advertise speed information. If they just put this disclaimer IN BIG BOLD LETTERS, maybe, just maybe, then general public might understand what's going on.

This is why they are perceived as liars - because they do it by deliberate omission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:21am

Re: Clear, non-hyperbolic, accurate review - no wonder they sued him.
" And if a customer *never* gets the "maximum" speed, "

Whoa whoa whoa slow down there buddy.... he can get the maximum speed he just needs to only download from servers housed at his ISP....which is apparently what PEAK is basing it's speeds on.

Course if you don't want to read one of the dozens of webpages the ISP serves your SOL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It talks to itself, a sure sign of insanity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DigDug, 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:34am

Sam Knows...
Hell, anyone can become a member of Sam Knows (Uncle Sam Knows), just sign up with the FCC to join up.

I subscribe to a 20Mb/s DSL service, and prior to asking for (and receiving) my Sam Knows equipment, I was getting about 12Mb/s on a regular basis.

After connecting the equipment, and seeing on the report a first week or 2 of slow service, I saw a significant uptick in speed, to where I'm now getting 24Mb/s.

Play the system, it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:42am

Re:
The best thing aboot Videotron is they offer Unlimited bandwidth... A bit Pricey but I have seen people torrent 3-4 TB's a month without Videotron batting an eye...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:49am

What you say can be used against you
Peak Internet, the plaintiff says:
> Since discontinuing his service, Petrick has made
> defamatory statements about Peak Internet on the Internet

The customer probably had to disconnect his service and switch ISPs in order to even have good enough service in order to complain about his service with Peak Internet.

Mabye Peak's own statement is evidence of just how bad their service really is.

Or maybe Peak Internet's poor service is intended to keep people from being able to complain about them online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digger, 31 Jul 2014 @ 7:50am

Re: Re: Re: Guilty as charged?
Right at the point that it *doesn't* state that the minimum applies to only their internal network.

By not limiting their minimum speed guarantee, they are clearly guaranteeing that any traffic will come through at a minimum of 4Mb/S.

Glad to help with the legalsleeze translation for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 8:02am

Re: Maybe
They should rename it to Guaranteed Minimum Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 8:16am

ISP Sues Former Customer Over Reviews Claiming His Internet Speed Was Less Than A Third Of What Was Advertised

They'll not get far in court then. Isn't the standard for defamation that the statements at issue have to be substantially untrue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 9:59am

Re: Re: Re: Peak's argument is obvious
But if they don't quantify what "business class" means, then it means nothing. So we're back to metrics.

Personally, I'd prefer that ISPs list two numbers: the guaranteed minimum speed and the median speed within a reasonable geographical area. Theoretically maximum ("up to") speeds are meaningless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 10:04am

Re: Re:
"not relevant to the question of his modem connection speed, which is what he is paying for."

I disagree. When companies advertise, they say outright that speed refers to internet access speeds, not the link speed to the ISP's routers. When people pay the ISP bill, they think (because they've been told) they're paying for the internet access speeds.

This is particularly important when ISPs have taken to intentionally allowing their peering points to degrade.

" If you ask, their technicians will come to your home, plug in the line tester, and show you the full connection speed."

And when they do this, they're helping to perpetuate the bait and switch the ISP is trying to engage in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 10:06am

Re:
"we can only guarantee the connection and speed within our own network"

Almost. They could guarantee the connection and speed their peers. Once the traffic has been handed over to a different network, of course, they have no control over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 10:07am

Re:
I used to be a Charter subscriber, and they have their own set of issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Geno0wl (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 1:00pm

Epic PR Fail
You know you just had an epic PR fail when you had to delete your facebook page due to public backlash.
Do these companies put literally any thought process or research into "should we sue this guy who made a yelp review against us"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JoeCool (profile), 31 Jul 2014 @ 1:52pm

Re: Maybe I should start complaining about CenturyLink
I got CenturyLink as well, but where I am I can only get 1.5 Mbps. The house next door gets 5, but I'm on a different line that's not as good, and they can't connect me to the other line. The local CL tech took my number and said he'd call when CL improved the line I'm actually on. Haven't heard from him in over a year...
:(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2014 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re:
So basically you're in favor of corporations lying to consumers. What a surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 1 Aug 2014 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: Guilty as charged?
More to the point - find me a person who is interested in paying for as high a speedy connection as possible to the ISP's machines only, and not concerned at all about speed to the rest of the global Internet.
When I shop around for an ISP, I'm looking for one who gives me great speed to the Internet, not great speed just to their routers that they directly control. Their advertisements show people on Facebook, Youtube, Netflix et al, and often times, show multiple people in the same household doing all of these things simultaneously. Not once has it ever been advertised showing a great connection to ISP Head Office, and just that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Automode (profile), 13 Aug 2014 @ 2:06pm

No control of speeds?
I think the line "we can't control how fast the rest of the internet goes" is a flat out lie on the part of any ISP that would say this. While they do not have control over the equipment, network lines and total traffic of off net and transport providers, they sure as hell do negotiate peering with these providers. If you offer a 50Mbps product knowing full well that the peering agreements upstream will generally mean you will not get 50Mbps, you are selling snake oil. My company spends $1200 a month for 50Mbps service but average about 5 - 10Mbps. I did a speed test using a well known Ookla server in Chigago and managed to pull 11 down and 6 up. I did the same speed test on my 25Mbps service at home and got 28 down and 5 up, actually faster than my rated speed. Then I did a traceroute over both connections and found that each ISP offloaded to Level 3 at the same point. Before that, the traffic was on-net which means that someone is full of shit. If traffic at the office is on-net until it gets to level 3, and I know that the level 3 segment can push 28Mbps with ease, and I'm only getting 11Mbps, then they only possible sources of the bottleneck are either their own network or their peering agreement with Level 3. I would love to see the numbers on that agreement!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big john, 17 Dec 2014 @ 1:53am

I agree
I agree with auto mode couldn't be on the money any better because the company I am with does the same crap offer 50 down and 28 up and they provide outdated equipment, I haven't seen any where near that when the there crappy service decides to allow us to sign on 2 days out of the week, christ the router they gave us is discontinued and has been since 03 we joined in 2010,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank, 18 Mar 2015 @ 3:24am

Internet speed
Test your Internet speed with our powerful DSL Speed Test Tools. Check your internet DSL speed with accurate upload and download speed test results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2015 @ 9:38am

"When I pay for internet access, that means the whole internet. I'm not paying for fast speed tests to internal servers." This idiot needs to shut up until he learns how the internet works. ISPs have NO control past thier own servers. Quit eye fucking speedtest.net all night and get a life!
[ link to this | view in thread ]