I'm sure this has been aired here before now, but I really can't understand how bt can get away with their speedtester now reporting that:

For your connection, the acceptable range of speed is 600Kbps -7150Kbps

and:

If your download speed lies in this range then your connection seems to be working fine.

OK, my contract does say up to 8Mbps but IMHO this is truly stretching the meaning of words.

Not quite sure I understand, max. If you're getting 7.2Mbps on an alleged 8Mbps connection then you are the one doing well!

According to bt my dl results are fairly consistent @ approx 2330Kbps, i.e. 2.3Mbps with ul 448Kbps. OK, I guess, for the type of stuff I do, but I know of several folk who get a fraction of that but who are still, according to bt's weasel words, in the acceptable range. It's the disparity against the adverts which I consider to be gross distortion of the normally understood meaning of words.

The 7.2Mbps (for me) and 8Mbps (for you) figures do not mean anything and they never have. I occasionally top 1Mbps. A 2.3Mbps connection speed is very good. The providers should give figures than mean something but at the moment they do not do this.

Yeah, max, but I still think bt is guilty of sharp practice. The words 'up to' should be banned! How about 'you may get, just possibly, perhaps, occasionally, with a following wind'?

One thing I don't understand is the difference between bt and thinkbroadband readings.

For example, this morning I got bt speedtester readings of: DL 2306Kbps, UL 448Kbps, DSL connection 2976Kbps, and IP profile 2500Kbps. But, immediately after, the thinkbroadband test gave me DL 2375Kbps and UL 376Kbps. Sometimes the difference is quite a bit greater.

I'm sure one of the experts here will be able to explain (in words of one syllable please - I'm not the brightest bunny in the hutch).