Good :-)My 2c - I wasn't planning on creating pages listing ISPs in order of decreasing buffer bloat score.
Absolutely. I despair in this country because there's a regular 'ISP A is faster than ISP B' graph/battle...and it really makes no sense.
And for speeds of course in the USA and most markets there are ranges of products each with their own speed and price attached, so ranking ISPs by any simple averaging of speeds is pointless as well.
If you're in a geographical/single supplier situation then yes. In the UK it simply doesn't work like that, any area, 'any' supplier.
However I think there is value in map-based speed results especially ones that pin down average speeds and technologies to streets and towns, and if there is any value at all in grading a single test for bufferbloat (or latency to major cities, or jitter, or packet loss ..) then there is also value in combining those statistics.
Our speeds are fundamentally controlled by how close to the cabinet/exchange you are, not really ISP controlled. There are 2 bandings on VDSL though, 80/20, 40/10. ADSL is a bit more 'best effort' Incidentally VDSL is advertised as a 'fibre' service in this country! You can get real fibre, but really it's Fibre(rare to the home), Cable(Virgin Media), VDSL(effectively BT), ADSL(BT&others)
And even just pure speeds, one can statistically work out products and create interesting comparisons, both spot, and changes over time. Even if, at least in the US, there is no way to switch because your local cable company is your local cable company.
:-) No top 100 nonsense yay :-)
There is also value in showing just how far a few ISPs are ahead of everyone.
For example, in the USA, any speed ranking would put google fiber far out in front, and Verizon FIOS far in front for upload speed. Why hide that information? There may be a few ISPs that really get on top of buffer bloat as well, and highlighting those, if they exist, makes sense to me. This can be done without doing a top 100 chart full of nonsense.