Paying for 2Gbps broadband but only getting 900Mbps? Your provider may not be the problem

A familiar complaint is beginning to appear more often as faster full-fibre packages reach UK homes. Customers sign up for a 1.6Gbps, 2Gbps or even faster service, run a speed test on a laptop or desktop computer, see a result somewhere around 900Mbps and conclude that the provider is not delivering what it promised. Social media posts then quickly turn into accusations of false advertising, misleading sales practices or outright scams.

Sometimes there genuinely is a broadband fault, and sometimes a provider may be supplying substantially less capacity than the service should provide. But there is another explanation that is far more common than many consumers realise: the broadband connection itself may be working correctly while the equipment inside the home is imposing a much lower limit.

That distinction matters because the speed available to a property is not necessarily the same as the speed any individual device inside that property can use.

The easiest way to understand the problem is to think of a broadband connection as a chain. The provider's network reaches the property, usually through an optical network terminal on a full-fibre service, before passing through a router and then through Wi-Fi, Ethernet cables, switches, mesh systems, docking stations, adapters and finally the device itself. Every one of those components has its own technical limits, and the usable speed at any point in the chain can be restricted by the slowest component involved.

Take a customer with a 2Gbps broadband package who connects a desktop computer to the router using standard Gigabit Ethernet. The broadband service may be capable of delivering the full 2Gbps to suitable equipment at the property, but the computer's network interface has a nominal maximum link speed of 1Gbps. It cannot suddenly become a 2.5Gbps interface merely because the customer has upgraded the broadband package.

Real-world throughput over a 1Gbps Ethernet link is also normally somewhat below the headline 1Gbps figure once networking overheads are taken into account. A speed-test result somewhere around the 900Mbps range can therefore be entirely consistent with a properly functioning gigabit network connection. The customer may be paying for 2Gbps broadband and receiving 2Gbps broadband, while the particular device being tested is physically incapable of showing it.

The same principle becomes even clearer with older equipment. A computer, television, games console or adapter connected through a 100Mbps Ethernet interface remains limited by that 100Mbps connection regardless of how fast the fibre service entering the property may be. Broadband capacity and local-network capacity are separate things, even though advertising rarely encourages consumers to think about them separately.

Wireless networking introduces another layer of variables. Wi-Fi performance depends not only on the capabilities of the router but also on the capabilities of the receiving device, the wireless standard being used, channel width, frequency band, signal strength, interference, distance from the router, walls and other physical obstacles, as well as how many devices are competing for airtime.

That means a router advertised with very high theoretical wireless capacity does not guarantee that an individual phone, laptop or tablet will achieve anything close to that figure. The router may support a modern high-capacity Wi-Fi standard while the device connecting to it uses an older radio, fewer spatial streams or a narrower channel width. The result can be a perfectly healthy broadband service paired with a much slower wireless connection.

Ofcom itself recommends using a wired Ethernet connection when carrying out the most reliable broadband speed tests because Wi-Fi can reduce the speed observed by the device. Some providers also explain the distinction more clearly than others. Hyperoptic, for example, currently describes its 1Gbps package using an average peak-time speed based on a wired connection, while separately explaining that Wi-Fi performance can vary depending on the home environment, distance from the router and connected devices. Brsk similarly warns that Wi-Fi can produce lower speeds than Ethernet and that the full speed of higher-tier services may not be achievable by one device wirelessly.

The information is there in parts of the market. The more difficult question is whether explanations of this kind are prominent enough when consumers are being encouraged to buy increasingly expensive multi-gigabit packages.

Not necessarily. A provider selling a 2Gbps broadband service is generally selling the capacity of the broadband connection supplied to the property. It is not ordinarily promising that every individual device in the home will download data at 2Gbps under all circumstances.

That extra capacity can still have considerable value even where no single device reaches the headline speed. Several people in a household may be streaming, downloading, gaming, uploading files or using cloud services at the same time. One suitably equipped computer could use more than 1Gbps while other devices continue consuming bandwidth elsewhere in the home. A multi-gigabit service can therefore provide genuine additional capacity without ever producing a 2Gbps result on an ordinary laptop.

That is why a speed test of 900Mbps on one device does not, by itself, prove that a 2Gbps service is defective or that the provider has misrepresented the product. But that does not entirely resolve the consumer issue, because the way these services are marketed can still leave customers with an incomplete picture of what they need in order to benefit from the higher speed.

Broadband providers understandably compete heavily on speed. It is one of the easiest features for customers to compare, and increasingly large numbers help distinguish premium packages from cheaper ones. As full-fibre competition increases, the industry has moved beyond hundreds of megabits and into headline figures of 1Gbps, 1.6Gbps, 2Gbps and beyond.

The problem is that once broadband packages move beyond 1Gbps, the hardware requirements for actually experiencing those speeds on one device become more demanding. A customer may need a router with suitable multi-gigabit ports, a computer fitted with a 2.5GbE, 5GbE or 10GbE network interface, compatible switches, suitable adapters, a capable mesh system and appropriate cabling. Wireless users face a different set of constraints involving Wi-Fi generation, radio configuration and device capability.

That is a significant amount of technical knowledge to expect from the average household. A consumer comparing broadband deals is unlikely to think instinctively about whether a docking station contains a gigabit Ethernet controller, whether a mesh satellite has 1Gbps backhaul, whether a laptop supports 2.5GbE or whether a wireless client has sufficient spatial streams to exploit the speed being sold.

The headline offer might therefore be perfectly genuine while still creating expectations that the customer's existing equipment cannot fulfil.

UK advertising rules already place limits on how broadband speeds can be presented. CAP guidance says numerical speed claims should generally be based on speeds achievable by at least 50% of the relevant customer base during the peak period between 8pm and 10pm, with those figures normally described as average speeds. The aim is to prevent providers from presenting theoretical or unusually favourable performance as though it represents the experience most customers can expect.

The rules also go further than the headline number itself. CAP guidance recognises that broadband speed claims may need qualification where significant factors mean certain customers are unlikely to achieve the advertised speed. In those circumstances, those factors can amount to material information that should be stated in the advertisement.

That principle becomes increasingly important as providers move further into multi-gigabit broadband. A 2Gbps or 5Gbps connection may be entirely capable of delivering the advertised service to the property, while a customer's existing router, Ethernet interface, mesh system or receiving device prevents them from experiencing anything close to that speed on an individual device. The technical capability of the service and the practical capability of the customer's equipment are therefore two different things, but that distinction is not always obvious from the way very high-speed packages are promoted.

This does not mean every advert for multi-gigabit broadband must contain a detailed explanation of Ethernet standards, network cards or Wi-Fi specifications, nor does it mean an advert becomes misleading simply because some customers own equipment incapable of using the full connection speed. But UK advertising rules already recognise that significant limitations affecting the likelihood of achieving an advertised speed may need to be made clear.

As multi-gigabit packages become more common, that raises a legitimate consumer question: should providers explain more prominently, at the point of advertising and sale, that achieving speeds above 1Gbps on an individual device depends on compatible home-network equipment and device hardware?

A short qualification could resolve much of that uncertainty. Something as simple as “Speeds experienced on individual devices depend on your device and home-network capability. Multi-gigabit speeds require compatible networking equipment” would give consumers important context without undermining the headline product being sold.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 is also relevant because consumer law does not look only at whether an isolated statement is factually accurate. The Act addresses misleading actions and misleading omissions, including circumstances in which information may be presented in a way that gives consumers a materially misleading overall impression.

It also recognises the concept of material information, meaning information that an average consumer needs in order to make an informed transactional decision. Information can potentially be problematic not only when it is absent, but when it is provided in a manner that is unclear, untimely or unlikely to be seen.

That does not mean a multi-gigabit broadband advertisement without a prominent device-compatibility warning is automatically unlawful. Whether information is material, and whether a particular presentation is misleading, will depend on the facts and the overall context of the advertising.

The important point is that the legal question is wider than simply asking whether the fibre line is technically capable of delivering the number printed in the advert. How a service is presented, what an average consumer is likely to understand from that presentation and whether important limitations are sufficiently prominent can also matter.

There is a relatively straightforward way for broadband providers to reduce that confusion without undermining the products they are selling. Multi-gigabit packages could carry a short and prominent explanation making clear that speeds experienced on individual devices depend on the capabilities of those devices and the customer's home network.

A statement such as “Speeds experienced on individual devices depend on your device and home-network capability. Multi-gigabit speeds require compatible networking equipment” would tell customers something that the headline speed alone does not.

Providers could go further by explaining, in plain language, what is required to exceed 1Gbps on a single wired device. A customer should not need to understand the internal workings of Ethernet standards to discover, after upgrading, that the computer they use every day has a 1Gbps network port.

This would not diminish the value of faster broadband. It would simply describe the product more completely.

Consumers considering a broadband service above 1Gbps should therefore look beyond the headline speed before signing up. Check the Ethernet specification of the computers you intend to use, the LAN ports on the supplied router, any switches installed elsewhere in the home, mesh systems, docking stations and USB or Thunderbolt network adapters.

For wireless devices, check what Wi-Fi standard the device itself supports rather than assuming that a new router automatically gives every connected device access to its maximum advertised wireless capability.

It is also worth asking why the upgrade is being purchased. A busy household with numerous devices may benefit substantially from a 2Gbps service even if no individual device ever reaches 2Gbps. By contrast, a household with one main computer connected through a 1Gbps Ethernet interface may see very little practical difference between a 1Gbps and 2Gbps package during normal everyday use.

The larger number is therefore not automatically the better purchase. What matters is whether the additional capacity can actually be used.

None of this gives broadband providers a free pass where the service itself is underperforming. There is an important difference between a customer's own hardware creating a bottleneck and the provider failing to supply the broadband performance that was promised.

Ofcom's Broadband Speeds Code of Practice requires participating providers to give consumers information about expected speeds and a minimum guaranteed speed when they take out a service. Where a qualifying problem exists within the provider's network and speeds remain below the guaranteed level, customers can ultimately gain the right to leave without an early termination charge if the provider is unable to resolve the problem within the required period.

The practical challenge is therefore identifying where the bottleneck sits. A 2Gbps fibre service feeding a computer through a 1Gbps Ethernet interface is fundamentally different from a provider delivering substantially less bandwidth to the property than agreed.

A speed-test result, viewed in isolation, does not always tell you which of those two situations you are dealing with.

Multi-gigabit broadband is real, and a customer can genuinely have a 2Gbps broadband connection while seeing less than 1Gbps on a particular device. That does not make the service a scam, nor does it automatically establish false advertising or a breach of contract.

But as residential broadband moves towards 1.6Gbps, 2Gbps, 5Gbps and potentially even faster services, the distinction between broadband speed and device speed is becoming increasingly important. Consumers need to understand that buying a faster connection does not automatically upgrade every piece of equipment inside their home.

Providers are now selling increasingly sophisticated networking services to ordinary households. It is unrealistic to assume those households understand multi-gigabit Ethernet, Wi-Fi standards, interface limits, network backhaul or the various bottlenecks that can exist between the fibre entering a property and the screen displaying a speed test.

The broadband industry has become extremely good at telling consumers how fast its connections are. As multi-gigabit services become mainstream, it could do considerably more to explain what consumers need in their own homes to actually experience those speeds.