From: michael.trew@att.net   
      
   On 5/9/2022 18:16, Bill Horne wrote:   
   >   
   > Frontier told consumers that it could provide service   
   > "up to" certain speeds, but failed to deliver. The complaint details   
   > how, in some cases, Frontier could not, as a technical matter, even   
   > possibly deliver the speeds it promised. Some consumers paid for more   
   > expensive service than they received.   
      
   I can't recall ADSL2+ or VDSL, but when I worked there, the two ADSL   
   tiers were "Broadband Max" (up to 6 Mb/s dl) or "Broadband Lite" (up to   
   1 Mb/s dl).  "Lite" was $31.99/mo and "Max" was $34.99/mo -- depending   
   on the market.   
      
   If, for example, a rural customer could only achieve 3.76 Mb/s, we sold   
   them "BB Max", as it made sense for a few more dollars per month to   
   achieve over 3 times the bandwidth.  1 Mb/s is almost useless in this   
   day, unless you do nothing other than Usenet and E-Mail; forget about   
   streaming video.   
      
   In short:  I suppose the issue here was that we/Frontier still marketed   
   the "BB Max" as "up to 6 Mb/s", even if the customer could only achieve   
   3.76 Mb/s (or anything over 1.5 Mb/s) and that's what they were   
   provisioned for.  I, of course, always looked up and informed the   
   customer what they were going to be provisioned at, but I suspect that   
   many phone reps did *not* do that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)