Which is one of my other concerns - lying to the customers.
ISPs ,even here, often and more often lie about the internet capacity. They sell some poor guy 50mbit internet for big bucks knowing
his line will only provide 30mbits, because they said in the contract up to 50mbit
This should be treated as criminal fraud in my opinion.
I mean in obvious cases, not when the actual speed is 5% slower than promised.
The concern is more that they present it in marketing as customers actually getting 50mbit on a 50mbit line. That's obviously bullshit, but practical concerns do usually prevent a line from reaching full speed. Legally speaking, they actually have provided you with a 50mbit line, but environmental factors prevent you from actually exploiting this speed. As a rule, if you've got full speed on a broadband connection, you're actually being throttled by your ISP, because chances are, the line is capable of more.
The best analogy for an internet connection is a contract for a taxi trip from A to B. The marketing promises you that you will be there in exactly an hour, but the small print states that it may be give or take a few minutes, depending on traffic conditions, roadworks, technical problems and so on and so forth.
That's the nature of the internet. It's never possible to tell precisely how fast X household's internet connection will be until the damn thing is actually connected, because it's dependent on how many other subscriber lines there are, how far the subscriber is from the DSL multiplexer, how many people are using that copper/fibre op line at any one time etc.
But yeah, I do agree that there should be an guaranteed minimum on available bandwidth. The telecoms are at least capable of using empirical data to estimate what a user will get in a given area.