> The ISP's advertised bandwidth should be available essentially always, with rare exceptions for unusually high levels of traffic,
You can buy service like this, and you pay for it. At work, we have a 100 mbps line from Cogent, with dedicated bandwidth to their backbone. It's something like $500-700/month. At home, I've got an "up to 940 mbps" line from Verizon, that's usually about 900 mbps but sometimes can fall down to 500 or so. (It's 16 users sharing a GPON node so only 75 mbps per user if everyone is downloading at the same time). But it's only $90/month...
Also, how is "but we couldn't deliver that product at that price" in any way a justification for then simply delivering a different product under the same advertisement? If you cannot actually provide 940 Mb/s for 90 $/month, that's fine ... but then don't advertise it as such.
There is nothing wrong with overselling--but it should be the responsibility of the ISP to hide it. From what you write, it seems like what they are actually selling you would fairly be advertised as a 500 Mb/s link. There is no need to actually have reserved bandwidth for each customer, but the moment the ISP saturates a link for more than a few minutes per month, it should be their responsibility to add capacity, or to reduce advertised bandwidths. I as a customer cannot just go "paying the full price this month is too expensive, I'll only pay half", so why should it be an excuse for the ISP to say "building infrastructure to provide advertised services is too expensive, we'll only deliver half"!?
> delivering a different product under the same advertisement?
It's a different product delivered under a different advertisement. Business lines are advertised as "dedicated" X mbps. Consumer lines are advertised as "up to" X mbps. "Up to" does not mean "essentially always." If I see the Microsoft Store is having a sale of "up to $400 off on Surface Pros," I don't expect a $400 discount on "essentially all" the models--I know it's the high water mark.
Compare to how other over-subscribed systems are advertised. To pick a random example: https://www.serverhub.com/vps/ssd-cached. VPS servers are typically advertised as "4 cores." Are VPS providers ripping people off because you can't expect a $20/month VPS to get you 4 cores of throughput "essentially always?"
> Consumer lines are advertised as "up to" X mbps. "Up to" does not mean "essentially always."
If it doesn't mean "essentially always", what does it possibly mean then? Sure, the literal reading suggests that anything that doesn't exceed X Mb/s is acceptable ... so not connecting the link at all is acceptable then, I suppose? If not, why not?
> If I see the Microsoft Store is having a sale of "up to $400 off on Surface Pros," I don't expect a $400 discount on "essentially all" the models--I know it's the high water mark.
Which is a nonsensical analogy, as one of these is about getting your attention (in order to then tell you the actual specific price of an actual specific product that you could buy if you wanted) while the other is about getting you to make a contract only to then have the other side decide what they actually want to deliver in exchange for your payments.
> Are VPS providers ripping people off because you can't expect a $20/month VPS to get you 4 cores of throughput "essentially always?"
WTF, YES!
How the fuck is it my problem that they advertise something that they cannot deliver?
If a provider cannot provide 4 cores, then they cannot advertise 4 cores, how could that possibly not be obvious? If you promise something, it is obviously no excuse to then claim "but you should have known that that was unrealistic!" It's your fucking responsibility if you make a promise to make sure you can fulfill it, and if you can't, to not make a promise.
How is a market supposed to work where advertisements are just non-binding suggestions? How the fuck am I supposed to select a provider for a given use/load if every provider can just excuse themselves from providing the advertised service by claiming that I should have known better than to believe their advertising? How should I even possibly know what prices are unrealistic if all prices are made-up bullshit?
Also, why is that only an option for the provider? Can I also just pay half because it should have been obvious that I don't really want to pay that much?
Without details it's hard to compare. Does that include initial construction, transit, etc? Is that from a data center, or will they run it to a telecom closest in our 1960s office building?
That's excluding construction (if you rent 2+ years, it's inckuding construction), including transit, and goes to any building in any of the cities where they offer it. Which is about 3 cities right now, including Kiel.
You can buy service like this, and you pay for it. At work, we have a 100 mbps line from Cogent, with dedicated bandwidth to their backbone. It's something like $500-700/month. At home, I've got an "up to 940 mbps" line from Verizon, that's usually about 900 mbps but sometimes can fall down to 500 or so. (It's 16 users sharing a GPON node so only 75 mbps per user if everyone is downloading at the same time). But it's only $90/month...