10 meg is being downgraded in the evening.

[GPR]

Yes this is true, 10 meg Is being downgraded in the evening [as explained to me buy V/M for network sharing] because of Limewire or P2P software.

I have 10meg and now only get 900kbps or lower in the evening [time now 20.00] This is disgraceful I pay for a 10meg connection it does not say anywhere in my contract my connection will be cut in the evening.

PLEASE LETS ALL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

My telephone call to V/M was very thorough and also have a reference number.

[Hugh]

ermmm..............

What would you like us to do?

(beside download large "iso's" ;) less......)

[dev]

1st 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 94 ms = 1394383 Bytes/sec = approx 11601 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 110 ms = 1191564 Bytes/sec = approx 9914 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 109 ms = 1202495 Bytes/sec = approx 10005 kbits/sec

although, non-ntl speedtests say differently

[Bill C]

ermmm..............

What would you like us to do?

(beside download large "iso's" ;) less......)

Indeed.

[Paul H]

PLEASE LETS ALL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

Wait till May. I've been told it's when all hell breaks loose :D

:cleader:

[Hugh]

Wait till May. I've been told it's when all hell breaks loose :D

:cleader:

What????

Armageddon? :Yikes:

[Paul]

I have 10meg and now only get 900kbps or lower in the evening [time now 20.00] This is disgraceful I pay for a 10meg connection it does not say anywhere in my contract my connection will be cut in the evening.

You pay for an up to 10meg connection, big difference.

[Bill C]

What????

Armageddon? :Yikes:


OMG run for the hills :Sprint:

[Paul H]

What????

Armageddon? :Yikes:

http://www.citizenrob.com/hamst.gif Yep!

---------- Post added at 21:24 ---------- Previous post was at 21:18 ----------

You pay for an up to 10meg connection, big difference.

When they are deliberately only giving you a certain speed. then that's different.

factors like the speed a website can support, the amount of traffic accessing it, and content caching

10 meg Is being downgraded in the evening [as explained to me buy V/M for network sharing] because of Limewire or P2P software.

[dev]

You pay for an up to 10meg connection, big difference.

true but if its hitting 10mb inside ntl's network, it should surely be getting close to that to at least something outside ntl's network, hell even ftp.blueyonder.co.uk isn't hitting 2mb

[jrhnewark]

I think you'll find that saying it's being downgraded is defamatory against VM. It's actually just that the network gets busier. We rarely get above 6Mbps.

[Mechanicus]

I too have been noticing my speed dropping to 900-1100kb/s (0.9-1.1mb connection speed) during the evenings.

Here the thing people should read though:

IT USED TO BE FINE

I used to get 10mb speeds all day. Since about a week ago, it has been spotty. Infact, ever since my connection to both my TV and BB died (it was fixed about 2 hours later).

So this definately isn't just an "Oh, it's a lot of people downloading". This is forced throttling, with no prior warning.

[jommy999]

i know the speed just up and down tonight , my one between 7 -14 MB

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:31:44 UTC

1st 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 328 ms = 1561 KB/sec, approx 12863 Kbps, 12.56 Mbps
3rd 512K took 375 ms = 1365.3 KB/sec, approx 11250 Kbps, 10.99 Mbps
4th 512K took 235 ms = 2178.7 KB/sec, approx 17952 Kbps, 17.53 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 14270 Kbps, 13.94 Mbps

[zing_deleted]

I too have been noticing my speed dropping to 900-1100kb/s (0.9-1.1mb connection speed) during the evenings.

Here the thing people should read though:

IT USED TO BE FINE

I used to get 10mb speeds all day. Since about a week ago, it has been spotty. Infact, ever since my connection to both my TV and BB died (it was fixed about 2 hours later).

So this definately isn't just an "Oh, it's a lot of people downloading". This is forced throttling, with no prior warning.

explain please how you know this? if your an expert or have someone on the inside told you this? funnily enough my net works at 10 meg then sometimes it doesnt and then it does again amazing someone at VM must be twiddling my bits ;)

[Horace]

There isn't a single person in this thread who has posted their speed test results with genuine cause for complaint and contention can easily explain all the minor dips in speed you're experiencing.

[Paul H]

So this definately isn't just an "Oh, it's a lot of people downloading". This is forced throttling, with no prior warning.

Come may when the 20Mb is released I think everyone will have to be throttled.

---------- Post added at 00:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:06 ----------

explain please how you know this? if your an expert or have someone on the inside told you this? funnily enough my net works at 10 meg then sometimes it doesnt and then it does again amazing someone at VM must be twiddling my bits ;)

Not being rude but it really annoys me when people spell you're as your.
Just being helpful :)

[zing_deleted]

well if ive managed to annoy you then its a job well done

[Paul H]

well if ive managed to annoy you then its a job well done

Are you saying that you deliberately try to annoy me? :(

[zing_deleted]

I keep telling you you're ;) not gonna goad me into a fight

[Toto]

My Speed test reult for tonight:

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:14:37 GMT

1st 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps
3rd 512K took 234 ms = 2188 KB/sec, approx 18029 Kbps, 17.61 Mbps
4th 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 17893 Kbps, 17.47 Mbps




And a test of a mirror site gives me:

1650Kb/s

Which is fairly OK for 20Mb service, so I'm fairly satisified. I do live in a high volume area so I do not expect a constant perforance.

[Paul H]

I keep telling you you're ;) not gonna goad me into a fight

:confused:

[zing_deleted]

My Speed test reult for tonight:

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:14:37 GMT

1st 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps
3rd 512K took 234 ms = 2188 KB/sec, approx 18029 Kbps, 17.61 Mbps
4th 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 17893 Kbps, 17.47 Mbps




And a test of a mirror site gives me:

1650Kb/s

Which is fairly OK for 20Mb service, so I'm fairly satisified. I do live in a high volume area so I do not expect a constant perforance.

I think if you did complain I for one would be going der de bloody der in your general direction ;) that looks like it would max out on a multi threaded download manager :)

[Toto]

I think if you did complain I for one would be going der de bloody der in your general direction ;) that looks like it would max out on a multi threaded download manager :)

Yeh, I'm sure a download manager would work for me very well, but I don't do that much downloading, although I know a fair bit goes on in my area.

That speed is not always the case, somedays it can be a lot lower for some period of time, but all-in-all I'm happy.

[Gareth]

Anyone here read PC Pro? There's a statement in this month's edition with someone from NTL confirming that they're implementing bandwidth throttling on 10Mbit users who are causing issues for others by being excessive, and that they can temporarily limit the connection to 5MBit until either the downloading stops or it's out of peak hours.

I was kinda surprised to see it in PC Pro, but then again it's a shockingly bad magazine so it wouldn't surprise me if they just made it up themselves, to be honest.

[Paul H]

Anyone here read PC Pro? There's a statement in this month's edition with someone from NTL confirming that they're implementing bandwidth throttling on 10Mbit users who are causing issues for others by being excessive, and that they can temporarily limit the connection to 5MBit until either the downloading stops or it's out of peak hours.

I was kinda surprised to see it in PC Pro, but then again it's a shockingly bad magazine so it wouldn't surprise me if they just made it up themselves, to be honest.

It's true. it's been going on for a few months now. there's talk that it will be introduced across the whole network when the 20Mb starts.

[zing_deleted]

It's true. it's been going on for a few months now. there's talk that it will be introduced across the whole network when the 20Mb starts.
And as ive said time and time again if it means better service for all not just the leeches then im all for it and im a heavy user

[Paul H]

And as ive said time and time again if it means better service for all not just the leeches then im all for it and im a heavy user

If it saves the company money and they can make more money by having more customers by restricting all the customers then I'm all for it too.

Not sure now if after all that you can have a better service :confused:

[Gareth]

And as ive said time and time again if it means better service for all not just the leeches then im all for it and im a heavy userYep, me too - on both counts. :)

[zing_deleted]

If it saves the company money and they can make more money by having more customers by restricting all the customers then I'm all for it too.

Not sure now if after all that you can have a better service :confused:

Im happy with the service I get from VM. CS in most walks of life is poor because its cut back to cut costs. I for one think I get good value for money yeah I have to call CS when the bills are wrong and pull my hair out like everyone else when im talking to a foreign call centre but hey why let it get under my skin? Whats the point it all just adds to the stress just like you try to do on this forum and im sorry I just cant be arsed :)

[Paul H]

Im happy with the service I get from VM. CS in most walks of life is poor because its cut back to cut costs. I for one think I get good value for money yeah I have to call CS when the bills are wrong and pull my hair out like everyone else when im talking to a foreign call centre but hey why let it get under my skin? Whats the point it all just adds to the stress just like you try to do on this forum and im sorry I just cant be arsed :)

Believe me. I am not at all stressed. thanks for the concern mind and I hope you get well soon :D

[djb61]

If they do roll out this throttling nationwide I hope they do it intelligently.

By that I mean apply it to users who are heavy users during the peak periods. I'm definitely a heavy user but make sure I do the large majority of downloads during offpeak hours, ie overnight starting around midnight. If they just blanket apply the throttle to anyone downloading over X GB regardless of at what times they did the downloading then it is rather unfair to those of us who try and be considerate with our network use.
Even though I do the large majority of my downloading off peak there is always an odd occasion when you need something of reasonable size immediately and thus have to do it at peak time, thus I'll be rather annoyed if I get throttled at these times even though my usual usage in peak periods is minimal.

Unfortunately I must admit I have little faith in VM doing this as doing a blanket accounting of traffic is much simpler and thus I expect they'll go that route :(

[zing_deleted]

Believe me. I am not at all stressed. thanks for the concern mind and I hope you get well soon :D
where did I say you was stressed? I said you come on here to cause stress please make an effort to actually read what I say

---------- Post added at 07:11 ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 ----------

If they do roll out this throttling nationwide I hope they do it intelligently.

By that I mean apply it to users who are heavy users during the peak periods. I'm definitely a heavy user but make sure I do the large majority of downloads during offpeak hours, ie overnight starting around midnight. If they just blanket apply the throttle to anyone downloading over X GB regardless of at what times they did the downloading then it is rather unfair to those of us who try and be considerate with our network use.
Even though I do the large majority of my downloading off peak there is always an odd occasion when you need something of reasonable size immediately and thus have to do it at peak time, thus I'll be rather annoyed if I get throttled at these times even though my usual usage in peak periods is minimal.

Unfortunately I must admit I have little faith in VM doing this as doing a blanket accounting of traffic is much simpler and thus I expect they'll go that route :(


IIRC the plan is eventually to target the leech. I do not feel it will be unreasonable for VM to look at my overall bandwidth use and say hey this guys a leech and throttle me peak. Remember the plan is to limit higher bandwidth users to 5 meg this is a dvd in a little over 2 hours a cd image in 20 minutes an mp3 in what 30 seconds? I cant see anything thats gonna be that urgent that 5 meg will be to slow. Its only a few months since the NTL part of VM went above 3 meg and it only went upto that in Feb 2005 and its only a few years since 512 BB went to 1 meg.For that matter its only really what 6 or 7 years since the vast majority of us only had isdn as an option of faster than 56 k

[Nedkelly]

I get a good 7 to 9 meg connection on both modems it does dip a little bit in the evening but apart frome that mine is ok .In this area we are getting dual doscis to help with the traffic soon and for when 20 meg is launched :tu: Trials start soon :tu: :)

[djb61]

IIRC the plan is eventually to target the leech. I do not feel it will be unreasonable for VM to look at my overall bandwidth use and say hey this guys a leech and throttle me peak. Remember the plan is to limit higher bandwidth users to 5 meg this is a dvd in a little over 2 hours a cd image in 20 minutes an mp3 in what 30 seconds? I cant see anything thats gonna be that urgent that 5 meg will be to slow. Its only a few months since the NTL part of VM went above 3 meg and it only went upto that in Feb 2005 and its only a few years since 512 BB went to 1 meg.For that matter its only really what 6 or 7 years since the vast majority of us only had isdn as an option of faster than 56 k

I guess my problem with this is that throttling during peak times a heavy user who does their downloading in offpeak hours will gain them almost nothing yet penalise us in the same way as less considerate heavy users. If they start doing that then why should I bother being nice and doing my downloads offpeak, may as well just max the 5mbit during peak hours and then they'll actually end up worse off.

[GPR]

The problem is Iam not a heavy user, and if i was as other S/P do is to send you a e-mail warning you.

So some people think me paying £35 a month for a 1meg connection in the evening is fare.

I should have been told about this before I signed the contract.:mad:

[Nedkelly]

:) I think sending a email to you is a good idea .I can not remember what vm do i think you get a letter.But they are somtimes a bit slow a doing this not as fast as BT as my mate gets them all the time :)

[zing_deleted]

The problem is Iam not a heavy user, and if i was as other S/P do is to send you a e-mail warning you.

So some people think me paying £35 a month for a 1meg connection in the evening is fare.

I should have been told about this before I signed the contract.:mad:

I dont think you will be shaped to 1 meg if thats all your getting its something else. If the something else cant be fixed you have grounds to terminate your contract anyway remember a contract works both ways if the service isnt fit for purpose and you can show that then you can not be in breach of contract if you end it early

[arcamalpha2004]

I think you'll find that saying it's being downgraded is defamatory against VM. It's actually just that the network gets busier. We rarely get above 6Mbps.


So why bother paying the increased premium for something people will not get? but hey its vm, if it was bt it would be different.

[Mechanicus]

So why bother paying the increased premium for something people will not get? but hey its vm, if it was bt it would be different.

This is why I put some of my post in bold. People try to tell you what it is, without knowing the facts. I mean, it couldn't possible be VM doing something, it must be my end, or I must be downloading too much, or it's just normal strain on the lines.

[arcamalpha2004]

Anyone here read PC Pro? There's a statement in this month's edition with someone from NTL confirming that they're implementing bandwidth throttling on 10Mbit users who are causing issues for others by being excessive, and that they can temporarily limit the connection to 5MBit until either the downloading stops or it's out of peak hours.

I was kinda surprised to see it in PC Pro, but then again it's a shockingly bad magazine so it wouldn't surprise me if they just made it up themselves, to be honest.


This is what the " unlimited broadband " has come to? :erm:

[zing_deleted]

So why bother paying the increased premium for something people will not get? but hey its vm, if it was bt it would be different.

Elaberate on the BT different thing? Most people on higher speed adsl do not get anywhere near the max upto speeds so clarify that post makes it look to me like your saying lower speeds dont happen with BT which is one of the funniest things ive read in ages

[arcamalpha2004]

And as ive said time and time again if it means better service for all not just the leeches then im all for it and im a heavy user


And you are fine paying for a 2 litre bottle of coke but only getting 1.5 litres because too many people are buying the 2 litre ones?;)

---------- Post added at 08:20 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------

The problem is Iam not a heavy user, and if i was as other S/P do is to send you a e-mail warning you.

So some people think me paying £35 a month for a 1meg connection in the evening is fare.

I should have been told about this before I signed the contract.:mad:



If you are paying £35 a month for 1meg, and in fairness that is all we have, your word, move to bt, it will save you a packet a year, and you will get more than the speed you get now :)

[zing_deleted]

Where does it say on the bottle upto 2 l? your stretching an already to split subject using ridiculous analogies to get nowhere

---------- Post added at 08:22 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------





If you are paying £35 a month for 1meg, and in fairness that is all we have, your word, move to bt, it will save you a packet a year, and you will get more than the speed you get now :)
or just drop your VM speed cut a deal and save its not brain surgery

[arcamalpha2004]

This is why I put some of my post in bold. People try to tell you what it is, without knowing the facts. I mean, it couldn't possible be VM doing something, it must be my end, or I must be downloading too much, or it's just normal strain on the lines.


Or you are trying to facilitate what you were offered.;) unlimited broadband, unlike sky :erm:

---------- Post added at 08:25 ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 ----------

Elaberate on the BT different thing? Most people on higher speed adsl do not get anywhere near the max upto speeds so clarify that post makes it look to me like your saying lower speeds dont happen with BT which is one of the funniest things ive read in ages



If you have stopped laughing;)
I am not saying that lower speeds do not happen with BT, vm just need to cut the crap advertising thats all.

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

Where does it say on the bottle upto 2 l? your stretching an already to split subject using ridiculous analogies to get nowhere

---------- Post added at 08:22 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------


or just drop your VM speed cut a deal and save its not brain surgery


What are you on about? drop your speed?
The op said they were paying vm £35 a month for 1mb bb, that is rip off big time, but as I say if it was any company other than vm it would be different.
So, putting " upto " makes it ok to charge for the top level but give whatever they decide?
Sorry have to agree to disagree.
Unless they drop the " unlimited broadband " spin.

[Downloads]

I guess my problem with this is that throttling during peak times a heavy user who does their downloading in offpeak hours will gain them almost nothing yet penalise us in the same way as less considerate heavy users. If they start doing that then why should I bother being nice and doing my downloads offpeak, may as well just max the 5mbit during peak hours and then they'll actually end up worse off.

I sympathise mate but i think VM are doing this fairly intelligently. I've got several friends on ADSL who get capped in the evenings regardless of how much they download. I think it might be Pipex one of them is on. They get their 4meg during the day and 1meg at night. He's spoken to them and they've just said it's traffic shaping. You are a very considerate user, but i don't think most people operate that way (you might even be the only one). Just to be totally fair, the friend uses things like the Playstation store on the PS3 and he can't even get in it in the evneing.

I think if people looked at it the way Zingle did, then they would get far less stressed out. It's alright having a moan, but i have said this before, businesses won't put resources in place in case every user on a street decides to max their connection. They will use some sort of general rule of thumb. If i was running their business i would do the exact same thing and so would everyone here forced to make difficult choices.

Getting 10 all day and 5 in the evneing is still better than getting 4/5 max on ADSL with the chance of traffic shaping, which is probably an average for most users.

---------- Post added at 08:34 ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 ----------

The op said they were paying vm £35 a month for 1mb bb, that is rip off big time, but as I say if it was any company other than vm it would be different.
So, putting " upto " makes it ok to charge for the top level but give whatever they decide?

Have to agree yet again with Zingle, it's the user's issue, VM won't make him pay for 1mb for £35, they know that would be wrong regardless of signing a contract and would let him drop and renegotiate.

[alferret]

At the end of the day if your not happy do as Zing says phone them up and cut a deal otherwise there is always the option of going over to ADSL and dependant on how far your from the exchange your "up to 8mb" could just manage 1mb.

Yes this is true, 10 meg Is being downgraded in the evening [as explained to me buy V/M for network sharing] because of Limewire or P2P software.

I have 10meg and now only get 900kbps or lower in the evening [time now 20.00] This is disgraceful I pay for a 10meg connection it does not say anywhere in my contract my connection will be cut in the evening.

PLEASE LETS ALL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

My telephone call to V/M was very thorough and also have a reference number.

Just how far from a 10mb service do you think 900kbps is?


Its all in the bits and bytes which some people seem to forget, the service is 10 megabit, not 10 megabyte.

Im on 4megabit and max out at 480kbps, so your speed drops to 7-8megabit well in my book thats better than sod all ;)

[zing_deleted]

Or you are trying to facilitate what you were offered.;) unlimited broadband, unlike sky :erm:

---------- Post added at 08:25 ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 ----------





If you have stopped laughing;)
I am not saying that lower speeds do not happen with BT, vm just need to cut the crap advertising thats all.

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------




What are you on about? drop your speed?
The op said they were paying vm £35 a month for 1mb bb, that is rip off big time, but as I say if it was any company other than vm it would be different.
So, putting " upto " makes it ok to charge for the top level but give whatever they decide?
Sorry have to agree to disagree.
Unless they drop the " unlimited broadband " spin.

Drop there speed ie downgrade to whatever and pay less. Your arguement is valid for traffic shaping but its not valid for contention of either VM or the net. People post a speed test showing low speed and its always gotta be shaping when a lot of the time it isnt

[GPR]

Better than ... all :mad: I pay for upto 10meg ,durring the day as i explained my speed is very good , but to drop to just under 1meg in the evening is a RIP OFF. Is there anyone from V/M that read these froums that will look into this for me.

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

I am so :mad: all I want is it to be FARE.

[Paul H]

Just how far from a 10mb service do you think 900kbps is?

About 9Mb? :)

[alferret]

Better than ... all :mad: I pay for upto 10meg ,durring the day as i explained my speed is very good , but to drop to just under 1meg in the evening is a RIP OFF. Is there anyone from V/M that read these froums that will look into this for me.

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

I am so :mad: all I want is it to be FARE.


Im not being funny GPR but you have said it yourself and I quote "I pay for upto 10meg" that says it all really. You pay VM a sum for a service that is quoted by VM as "UP TO" it doesnt mean you will get a constant amount 24\7.

Your original post states you drop to 900kbps or lower, 900kbps is only a little below your full speed, as I said its all about bits and bytes.
I wish I had 900kbps to play with :p

There are network limitations and if the amount of users downloading in the evenings is far higher then bandwidth limitations will apply.
If I personally download Linux distro's between 4pm & midnight my speeds drop to below 250kbps, this i accept.
If I dont download and im traffic shaped my browsing isnt any worse for it really.
You could always downgrade your service to an "up to"4mb for £25 a month and wait till they upgrade the 4mb speeds to 10mb, then you'll be having a discount of £12pm for the same speed as your getting now ;)

[Paul H]

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

:LOL:

[Mechanicus]

Your original post states you drop to 900kbps or lower, 900kbps is only a little below your full speed, as I said its all about bits and bytes.
I wish I had 900kbps to play with :p

I'm sorry, but I've got to say this, to everyone who thinks 900kbps is 9mb

MMMMMNNNNNNNGGHHH!

Its 0.9mb, as in just under 1 meg. Not 9 meg.

[Paul H]

I'm sorry, but I've got to say this, to everyone who thinks 900kbps is 9mb

MMMMMNNNNNNNGGHHH!

Its 0.9mb, as in just under 1 meg. Not 9 meg.

I think alferett is a bit confused :)

I have 10meg and now only get 900kbps or lower in the evening

So he's getting only 1Mb? agreed?

[SnoopZ]

Mechanicus isn't confused but alferret is getting his Bits & Bytes wrong and we all know that's easy to do.

900kbps = 0.87mbit
900KBps = 7.03mbit

As Mechanicus correctly said hes getting around 0.9mb which is disastrous on a 10mbit connection.

[Hugh]

Better than ... all :mad: I pay for upto 10meg ,durring the day as i explained my speed is very good , but to drop to just under 1meg in the evening is a RIP OFF. Is there anyone from V/M that read these froums that will look into this for me.

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

I am so :mad: all I want is it to be FARE.

GPR, I sympathise with you only getting under 1MB in the evening - can I ask what you are doing - is it only browsing, or are you downloading? If you are downloading, have you thought of doing it off-peak?

If you aren't downloading, have you thought of changing to 4mb - it appears to be more consistent.

Good luck.

[Mechanicus]

Yeah, I got a bit harsh because I had all that on another forums. Nobody would concede that 900kbps is 0.9mb

[Paul H]

Mechanicus isn't confused but alferret is getting his Bits & Bytes wrong and we all know that's easy to do.

As Mechanicus correctly said hes getting around 0.9mb which is disastrous on a 10mbit connection.

I realise that now. my mistake. I'm just getting confused with everyone making me confused :)

[zing_deleted]

Better than ... all :mad: I pay for upto 10meg ,durring the day as i explained my speed is very good , but to drop to just under 1meg in the evening is a RIP OFF. Is there anyone from V/M that read these froums that will look into this for me.

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

I am so :mad: all I want is it to be FARE.

I think you would get more support and help if you approached matters better, If you speak to Tech even closely to how you appear to express yourself here its hardly a surprise people wont go out there way for you is it?

I used to rant and rave and express my point with aggression and got only limited support now my approach is calm (even if im not) and friendly and I tend to get the help I need. Its called people skills. I offer a lot of help on this forum gladly but I wouldnt help people if they approached me with aggression or attitude. There is a small portion of members on this forum I wouldnt urinate on if they were on fire cuz im sick of there flaming already

[Paul H]

I think you would get more support and help if you approached matters better, If you speak to Tech even closely to how you appear to express yourself here its hardly a surprise people wont go out there way for you is it?

We don't now how he approaches the tech staff on the phone. he could be the most politest person in the world.

[zing_deleted]

see your not reading my post again lol you gave me an english lesson yesterday your turn today. What do you think "if" means>? and "even" and "appear"????
He asked for VM workers to help on here didnt he? my post was totally correctly worded

[alferret]

[HUMBLE PIE] Apologies for getting me bits & bytes ar$e about face :dozey: [/HUMBLE PIE]

So just to advoid and confusion over the matter.

Here is a nice little megabits\bytes - kilobits\bytes convertor LINK (http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/)

[Paul H]

see your not reading my post again lol you gave me an english lesson yesterday your turn today. What do you think "if" means>? and "even" and "appear"????

The word "hardly" is the key word. it's like an assumption that that is the case.

He asked for VM workers to help on here didnt he? my post was totally correctly worded

Not really.
"If you speak to Tech even closely to how you appear to express yourself here"
"here" is the key word there.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

[HUMBLE PIE] Apologies for getting me bits & bytes ar$e about face :dozey: [/HUMBLE PIE]

No problem alferret. everyone gets confused sometimes. you only have to read Zingy's posts to see that :)

[SnoopZ]

There's nothing wrong with Zingles posts, i think you need to look a little closer to home.

[Paul H]

There's nothing wrong with Zingles posts, i think you need to look a little closer to home.

It was a bit of humour. try not to look at who the poster is. just see the humour.

[Hugh]

It was a bit of humour. try not to look at who the poster is. just see the humour.

:erm: It's only humour if it is understood to be humour - it appeared not to be understood to be humour...........

btw, it can be difficult to distinguish between the message and the messenger ;)

[Paul H]

:erm: It's only humour if it is understood to be humour - it appeared not to be understood to be humour...........

The funniest person in the world isn't funny if you let your predijests get in the way.

btw, it can be difficult to distinguish between the message and the messenger ;)

You've lost me.

[on in an hour!]

Better than ... all :mad: I pay for upto 10meg ,durring the day as i explained my speed is very good , but to drop to just under 1meg in the evening is a RIP OFF. Is there anyone from V/M that read these froums that will look into this for me.

Tried to speak to call centre last night to try and sort something out, I explained to the gentleman from India i could not understand a word he was saying...... His replay was LEARN TO SPEAK and he then hung up.

I am so :mad: all I want is it to be FARE.
this is the official customer facing statement 'as per our terms and conditions of service we ''reserve the right to manage traffic on our network to optimise the quality of service for all our broadband customers'' this is ONLY relevant to the ex NTL network and NOT ex telewest.within the current Ts & Cs the appropriate clause is: 'we reserve the right to monitor and control data volume and/or types of traffic transmitted via the interactive services and/or internet services'. further: 'as this technology will be used as and when necessary on the network to manage congestion issues (either those experienced now or expected),it is not possible to definitively state what restrictions will be applied and when'.and more:'this traffic management only impacts P2P file downloads,and not other internet services such as e-mail,newsgroups and web browsing.these controls will also impact the broadband plus service where P2P protocols are used (e.g. napster)
we have a user policy,available at www.ntlworld.com/userpolicy,which includes information about fair usage and usage allowances in section 20.2. all other major ISP;s also have Acceptable Use Policies.below is a list of P2P protocols that will be controlled:
100BAO
100GP2P
ARES
AudioGalaxy
BAIDU
BitTorrent
Blubster-MANOLITO
COOLGO
DIRECT CONNECT
EDONKEY
EXOSEE
FILETOPIA
FREENET
FURTHER
GNUTELLA
HOTLINE
JABBER
KAMUN
KAZAA
KONTIKI
KURO
MADSTER-AIMSTER
MANOLITO
MUTE
NAPSTER
POCO
QQ
REALLINK
SHARE
SORIBADA
SOUGOOD
SOULSEEK
THUNDER
WASTE
WINand finally 'to deliver the highest quality of service possible we use traffic management technology to manage peer-to-peer file downloads in areas where we believe that customer affecting issues would be generated otherwise.This is done in conjunction with our continuous work to build out our network to meet the capacity needs of our network and our customers'
sorry if this is a bit vauge but its all i could find!! :D

[zing_deleted]

:tu: Top post

[AndrewJ]

Am I right then in thinking torrents are not monitored? I've just about quit using torrents as I am more in a position to just buy what I want.

I have noticed my speeds are in the 9.1/8mb area 99% of the time I run tests here and I am more than happy when my bandwith is above 5mb hell why do you need the whole 10mb?

[zing_deleted]

The funniest person in the world isn't funny if you let your predijests get in the way.



You've lost me.

Its prejudice matey ;)

[Bill C]

:tu: Top post

agreed

[Paul H]

why do you need the whole 10mb?

Because it is what those who want the whole 10Mb are paying for? if they only wanted half then they could pay for the other cheaper one.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------

Its prejudice matey ;)

I know that. I just thought I'd let you have one up on me :)

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 ----------

agreed

Yep excellent post.

[zing_deleted]

Because it is what those who want the whole 10Mb are paying for? if they only wanted half then they could pay for the other cheaper one.

---------- Post added at 11:33 ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 ----------



I know that. I just thought I'd let you have one up on me :)

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 ----------



Yep excellent post.

yeah right

[Paul H]

yeah right

predi 'jests'
got it yet?

[arcamalpha2004]

this is the official customer facing statement 'as per our terms and conditions of service we ''reserve the right to manage traffic on our network to optimise the quality of service for all our broadband customers'' this is ONLY relevant to the ex NTL network and NOT ex telewest.within the current Ts & Cs the appropriate clause is: 'we reserve the right to monitor and control data volume and/or types of traffic transmitted via the interactive services and/or internet services'. further: 'as this technology will be used as and when necessary on the network to manage congestion issues (either those experienced now or expected),it is not possible to definitively state what restrictions will be applied and when'.and more:'this traffic management only impacts P2P file downloads,and not other internet services such as e-mail,newsgroups and web browsing.these controls will also impact the broadband plus service where P2P protocols are used (e.g. napster)
we have a user policy,available at www.ntlworld.com/userpolicy,which (http://www.ntlworld.com/userpolicy,which) includes information about fair usage and usage allowances in section 20.2. all other major ISP;s also have Acceptable Use Policies.below is a list of P2P protocols that will be controlled:
100BAO
100GP2P
ARES
AudioGalaxy
BAIDU
BitTorrent
Blubster-MANOLITO
COOLGO
DIRECT CONNECT
EDONKEY
EXOSEE
FILETOPIA
FREENET
FURTHER
GNUTELLA
HOTLINE
JABBER
KAMUN
KAZAA
KONTIKI
KURO
MADSTER-AIMSTER
MANOLITO
MUTE
NAPSTER
POCO
QQ
REALLINK
SHARE
SORIBADA
SOUGOOD
SOULSEEK
THUNDER
WASTE
WINand finally 'to deliver the highest quality of service possible we use traffic management technology to manage peer-to-peer file downloads in areas where we believe that customer affecting issues would be generated otherwise.This is done in conjunction with our continuous work to build out our network to meet the capacity needs of our network and our customers'
sorry if this is a bit vauge but its all i could find!! :D



It means nothing when 70+% of customers believe that they are getting a truly unlimited service, it is solved quite easily if vm drop the " unlimited broadband download as much as you want " crap.

[SnoopZ]

Am I right then in thinking torrents are not monitored? I've just about quit using torrents as I am more in a position to just buy what I want.

I have noticed my speeds are in the 9.1/8mb area 99% of the time I run tests here and I am more than happy when my bandwith is above 5mb hell why do you need the whole 10mb?

BitTorrent is listed as number 6 in that list, so i guess it's monitored. I'm glad newsgroups aren't(yet).

[Paul H]

I'm glad newsgroups aren't(yet).

I'm glad that email and just general use aren't(yet)
When it does happen I guess we'll just have to accept it, and find a decent dial-up provider :rolleyes:
Changed my mind now. when it does happen they will be able to bring out the 250Mb connection that we can buy off them and be able to brag to our mates about! :rolleyes:

[arcamalpha2004]

Drop there speed ie downgrade to whatever and pay less. Your arguement is valid for traffic shaping but its not valid for contention of either VM or the net. People post a speed test showing low speed and its always gotta be shaping when a lot of the time it isnt


And can you prove that a persons drop in speed is not down to shaping?
The fact is companies are using this unlimited bullcrap to pull customers in on a falsehood, just fraud by any other name in my opinion.
If they want to traffic shape that is up to them, but they should not lie from the offset.
If they cannot maintain the network to give customers the full package they are paying for they arelittle less than thieving money from them.
So drop the unlimited spin as I say, because it is clearly not an unlimited service.

[Paul H]

It means nothing when 70+% of customers believe that they are getting a truly unlimited service, it is solved quite easily if vm drop the " unlimited broadband download as much as you want " crap.

You won't be able to download as much as you want if they're throttling to the extreme that it's only possible to get a lot less than what you wanted :)

[AndrewJ]

BitTorrent is listed as number 6 in that list, so i guess it's monitored. I'm glad newsgroups aren't(yet).


Well if I use p2p now once a month that is about it, more busy with online gaming.

To be honest I think some users are damn picky with all of this seriously do you live online checking your speed 99% of the time?

[Hugh]

It means nothing when 70+% of customers believe that they are getting a truly unlimited service, it is solved quite easily if vm drop the " unlimited broadband download as much as you want " crap.
I agree with you - they should add at the end, after "as much as you want", "but if you insist on mass downloading of illegal copies of copyrighted software and films/tv shows, we will slow it down so it takes longer". :D

Oh - they couldn't say that, could they? That would make them implicit in copyright theft.............:dozey:

[on in an hour!]

It means nothing when 70+% of customers believe that they are getting a truly unlimited service, it is solved quite easily if vm drop the " unlimited broadband download as much as you want " crap.
dont mean to pry but what survey are you quoting the '70+%' from,heresay and guesswork are very counterproductive to discussions like this as it leads people to believe you know what youre on about..ha ha..:D

[arcamalpha2004]

I agree with you - they should add at the end, after "as much as you want", "but if you insist on mass downloading of illegal copies of copyrighted software and films/tv shows, we will slow it down so it takes longer". :D

Oh - they couldn't say that, could they? That would make them implicit in copyright theft.............:dozey:


They quote " download as much as you want with no limits", I dont mean to sound nasty here, but what does " no limits " mean?

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

dont mean to pry but what survey are you quoting the '70+%' from,heresay and guesswork are very counterproductive to discussions like this as it leads people to believe you know what youre on about..ha ha..:D


It was actually a survey carried out by u switch, does that answer for you?

[JohnHorb]

To me, 'download as much as you want with no limits' means 'download as much as you want with no limits'. I don't think it says anywhere 'as quickly as you want':shrug:

[Bill C]

It was actually a survey carried out by u switch, does that answer for you?

any chance of a link then :)

[arcamalpha2004]

any chance of a link then :)


Check on the working lunch website, not sure how long they keep their archives, it was on working lunch anyway, uswitch want the termology " unlimited " done away with.

[Paul H]

To me, 'download as much as you want with no limits' means 'download as much as you want with no limits'. I don't think it says anywhere 'as quickly as you want':shrug:

There's a petrol station by me that sells petrol for 96p a litre. when they're running out of the stuff they only give everybody half a litre for 96p. can't complain though. at least it's petrol and not plain water.

[spankysmagicpian]

I'm OK with all this. I'm on 10Mb, download quite a bit of stuff but always start it off when I go to bed which is usually anytime from Midnight to 1am. If I get dropped down to 5Mb in the evening then so what? Thats more than enough for email / browsing and gaming - even 2Mb would be OK.

[arcamalpha2004]

To me, 'download as much as you want with no limits' means 'download as much as you want with no limits'. I don't think it says anywhere 'as quickly as you want':shrug:


What it means to you and what is means to 70+% of people is different.
People are only utilising or attempting to what they are paying for, do you think that is unfair? where in the agreement is the usage limit per month?
Nowhere I will tell you.
So even companies who specify a set figure are bending the termology " unlimited "

[JohnHorb]

There's a petrol station by me that sells petrol for 96p a litre. when they're running out of the stuff they only give everybody half a litre for 96p. can't complain though. at least it's petrol and not plain water.

But if they are only offering one litre for 96p, that is hardly 'unlimited'.

[arcamalpha2004]

I'm OK with all this. I'm on 10Mb, download quite a bit of stuff but always start it off when I go to bed which is usually anytime from Midnight to 1am. If I get dropped down to 5Mb in the evening then so what? Thats more than enough for email / browsing and gaming - even 2Mb would be OK.


But should vm give you back a refund on the 5mb speed drop?
Would be far too easy to charge people on a metering system that is averaged out over the month, too complicated that one.

[on in an hour!]

They quote " download as much as you want with no limits", I dont mean to sound nasty here, but what does " no limits " mean?

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------




It was actually a survey carried out by u switch, does that answer for you?
in the affirmative my friend,and i can honestly say that u switch are totally independent of any outside influences. (except of course the fee they receive every time someone switches providers with information they provide on their site) :D

[JohnHorb]

What it means to you and what is means to 70+% of people is different.
People are only utilising or attempting to what they are paying for, do you think that is unfair? where in the agreement is the usage limit per month?
Nowhere I will tell you.
So even companies who specify a set figure are bending the termology " unlimited "

I'm not sure what point you are making? Most ISPs have a usage limit, Virgin, as far as I know, don't - hence their use of 'unlimited'.

[arcamalpha2004]

But if they are only offering one litre for 96p, that is hardly 'unlimited'.


Maybe the words " upto 1 litre " are missing.

[Paul H]

I'm OK with all this. I'm on 10Mb, download quite a bit of stuff but always start it off when I go to bed which is usually anytime from Midnight to 1am. If I get dropped down to 5Mb in the evening then so what? Thats more than enough for email / browsing and gaming - even 2Mb would be OK.

There's another problem. some people think that in order not to upset other people in using the bandwidth they are paying for, they will download when everyone is asleep. what if everyone started doing that? the blame and the problem would be shifted and I would be moaning at you for being inconsiderate to others. I'd forget that I'm paying a high premium for the faster speed and not have a word with my supplier. I'd just concentrate on you hogging all the bandwidth and blame you instead.

[arcamalpha2004]

in the affirmative my friend,and i can honestly say that u switch are totally independent of any outside influences. (except of course the fee they receive every time someone switches providers with information they provide on their site) :D


And ofcourse royal mail are a totally independent company who post vm spam mail through my letterbox, likewise royal mail get a fee ;) where does that come from?:D

[JohnHorb]

Maybe the words " upto 1 litre " are missing.

Think you are confusing quantity (unlimited) with speed (up to 10MB)

[Paul H]

Maybe the words " upto 1 litre " are missing.

Do you think that if them words were there at the pump. they would get away with only giving me 2 tea spoons worth for 96p?

[arcamalpha2004]

I'm not sure what point you are making? Most ISPs have a usage limit, Virgin, as far as I know, don't - hence their use of 'unlimited'.


But it is not unlimited in the sense of the word, dont feel I have to elaborate more, I will credit you some intelligence.:)

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Think you are confusing quantity (unlimited) with speed (up to 10MB)


You may be I am not.;)

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

There's another problem. some people think that in order not to upset other people in using the bandwidth they are paying for, they will download when everyone is asleep. what if everyone started doing that? the blame and the problem would be shifted and I would be moaning at you for being inconsiderate to others. I'd forget that I'm paying a high premium for the faster speed and not have a word with my supplier. I'd just concentrate on you hogging all the bandwidth and blame you instead.


:tu::tu:

[Paul H]

But if they are only offering one litre for 96p, that is hardly 'unlimited'.

It's not a question of 'unlimited' it's a question of 'up to'

[arcamalpha2004]

Do you think that if them words were there at the pump. they would get away with only giving me 2 tea spoons worth for 96p?


I would defo turn off my engine if I saw someone take out a medicine spoon ;)

[dev]

But it is not unlimited in the sense of the word, dont feel I have to elaborate more, I will credit you some intelligence.:)

You may be I am not.;)


if you want to be that technical about it, then a 56k service isnt unlimited, any service isnt unlimited as there is a physical limit you can download. the unlimited used by virgin means there is no imposed limit (excluding the physical limit posed by the speed). also, if you aren't mixing quantity and speed up, why are you thinking they are the same? :p:

[Paul H]

I would defo turn off my engine if I saw someone take out a medicine spoon ;)

No it comes out the pump. no tea spoons to see. just a drip drip :)

---------- Post added at 12:58 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------

if you want to be that technical about it, then a 56k service isnt unlimited, any service isnt unlimited as there is a physical limit you can download. the unlimited used by virgin means there is no imposed limit (excluding the physical limit posed by the speed). also, if you aren't mixing quantity and speed up, why are you thinking they are the same? :p:

What was different in the old days when blueyonder sold their 56k dial-up as unlimited and other ISPs didn't?

[arcamalpha2004]

if you want to be that technical about it, then a 56k service isnt unlimited, any service isnt unlimited as there is a physical limit you can download. the unlimited used by virgin means there is no imposed limit (excluding the physical limit posed by the speed). also, if you aren't mixing quantity and speed up, why are you thinking they are the same? :p:


So you agree that vm and other companies who use the unlimited spin are in the wrong if it means that because you want to utilise what you are paying for ( unlimited broadband ) your speed is reduced?
See my logic is this, if I pay x amount for 10 mb bb I want that 24/7, that then means that the service really is unlimited.
If people are paying a premium for 10mb and their speed is dropping to half that they are being ripped off, imo ofcourse.

[JohnHorb]

Do you think that if them words were there at the pump. they would get away with only giving me 2 tea spoons worth for 96p?

No, but I'm sure, if the pump was rated at 1 litre per second they would get away with the pump taking more than one minute to fill your 60 litre tank, because the pump was servicing two nozzles simultaneously.

[Paul H]

What I want to know is when is the Oxford dictionary going to update to explain that there's the normal definition of the word 'unlimited' that has always meant what it means. and the new one that has another definition as defined by Virgin media. :D

[Mr Angry]

For reference.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=unlimited&ia=luna) un·lim·itÃƒÆ ’‚·ed https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/10.gif https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pnghttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2009/02/8.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Funlimited) /ʌnˈlɪmhttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pngɪhttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pngtɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: 2.boundless; infinite; vast: 3.without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME; see un- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=un-)1, limited (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=limited)https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.png]

�Related formsun·lim· it·ed·ly, adverb

�Synonyms 1. unconstrained, unrestrained, unfettered.

[JohnHorb]

So you agree that vm and other companies who use the unlimited spin are in the wrong if it means that because you want to utilise what you are paying for ( unlimited broadband ) your speed is reduced?
See my logic is this, if I pay x amount for 10 mb bb I want that 24/7, that then means that the service really is unlimited.
If people are paying a premium for 10mb and their speed is dropping to half that they are being ripped off, imo ofcourse.

Speed vs quantity again. No-one that I am aware of offers a residential service at anything other than 'up to...' speeds (and certainly not an 'unlimited' speed). If they did, I doubt many people could justify the cost. It is up to the consumer, having researched web sites such as this, to decide what the 'up to' means in practice for the different suppliers.

[Paul H]

No, but I'm sure, if the pump was rated at 1 litre per second they would get away with the pump taking more than one minute to fill your 60 litre tank, because the pump was servicing two nozzles simultaneously.

The petrol station I go to. each nozzle has its own pump. I can tell by the noise of mine stops when I've finished but the other nozzles pump is still pumping :)

[JohnHorb]

The petrol station I go to. each nozzle has its own pump. I can tell by the noise of mine stops when I've finished but the other nozzles pump is still pumping :)

So you think your ISP should provide you with a dedicated, uncontended 'pipe'?

Anyway, I thnk we are getting rather :notopic:

[dev]

So you agree that vm and other companies who use the unlimited spin are in the wrong if it means that because you want to utilise what you are paying for ( unlimited broadband ) your speed is reduced?
See my logic is this, if I pay x amount for 10 mb bb I want that 24/7, that then means that the service really is unlimited.
If people are paying a premium for 10mb and their speed is dropping to half that they are being ripped off, imo ofcourse.

again, you are saying speed and quantity are the same. the unlimited nature applies to the amount of data, whether you get it at 1k/s or 1mb/s is irrelevant.

i dont agree with your logic either, if you want a 10mb internet connection 24/7 at that speed you need to pay for one. a home connection is not that. a 10mb dedicated line for yourself which will allow you full speed 24/7 will cost you a 3 figured sum per month.

[Paul H]

not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: 2.boundless; infinite; vast: 3.without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

There's a good argument as to why they shouldn't and can't use the word 'unlimited' anymore.

[Mr Angry]

Speed vs quantity again. No-one that I am aware of offers a residential service at anything other than 'up to...' speeds (and certainly not an 'unlimited' speed). If they did, I doubt many people could justify the cost. It is up to the consumer, having researched web sites such as this, to decide what the 'up to' means in practice for the different suppliers.

You appear to be overlooking the fact that there are many customers, myself included, who signed up to "10mb unlimited internet" prior to the inclusion of the "up to" prefix.

[Paul H]

Anyway, I thnk we are getting rather :notopic:

We're still on topic. you can't use that excuse just because you know I'm right ;) ;)

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

You appear to be overlooking the fact that there are many customers, myself included, who signed up to "10mb unlimited internet" prior to the inclusion of the "up to" prefix.

That's a very good point. it's only recently that they started to include that term. :tu::tu:

[JohnHorb]

You appear to be overlooking the fact that there are many customers, myself included, who signed up to "10mb unlimited internet" prior to the inclusion of the "up to" prefix.

A valid point, and I suspect, particularly as a lawyer, you could probably have used that to get out of your initial contract. Presumably that is why the various caveats and the 'up to' were added to the T&Cs.

[Paul H]

Presumably that is why the various caveats and the 'up to' were added to the T&Cs.

The 'up to' was added to the T&Cs to encourage customers to cancel their contracts? :erm:

Or are you saying that customers had a case to cancel their contracts because of the term 'unlimited' but speeds were being throttled. so they put the 'up to' clause in in order to counter balance?
If that's the case then does that mean that they know what the definition of 'unlimited' really meant before the use of the term 'up to' was added?

[JohnHorb]

The 'up to' was added to the T&Cs to encourage customers to cancel their contracts? :erm:
Pendant - you know what I meant.:)

[Hugh]

The 'up to' was added to the T&Cs to encourage customers to cancel their contracts? :erm:
Or for clarification :monkey:.

My car can travel at "up to 140mph" - I don't complain to Audi because there are speed limits; I can still get to my destination, but not just as fast.

PS, I agree the ads should have a caveat, stating that if you are a heavy downloader, you will be throttled (in the nicest possible way).

[arcamalpha2004]

Speed vs quantity again. No-one that I am aware of offers a residential service at anything other than 'up to...' speeds (and certainly not an 'unlimited' speed). If they did, I doubt many people could justify the cost. It is up to the consumer, having researched web sites such as this, to decide what the 'up to' means in practice for the different suppliers.


So explain why 70+% of people think unlike you.
If vm are limiting the speed then that is not getting what you are paying for, unlimited in the sense of the true meaning.

[Hugh]

[quote=arcamalpha2004;34281921]So explain why 70+% of people think unlike you. [quote]
Possibly because they like an argument ;)

If you take the dictionary definition to the nth degree, the bandwidth should be boundless, vast, etc :D

[arcamalpha2004]

again, you are saying speed and quantity are the same. the unlimited nature applies to the amount of data, whether you get it at 1k/s or 1mb/s is irrelevant.

i dont agree with your logic either, if you want a 10mb internet connection 24/7 at that speed you need to pay for one. a home connection is not that. a 10mb dedicated line for yourself which will allow you full speed 24/7 will cost you a 3 figured sum per month.


I am sorry we are going to have to agree to disagree.
If I take the 10mb service I pay more than if I take the 4mb, with me so far?
So why should I pay a premium to only get 1mb above my current speed?
It is still wrong imo and your argument that it is irrespective whether it is 1k/s or 1 mbs does not wash sorry.

[Paul H]

If you take the dictionary definition to the nth degree, the bandwidth should be boundless, vast, etc :D

But it's not. so Virgin shouldn't use the word :D

[arcamalpha2004]

For reference.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=unlimited&ia=luna) un·lim·itÃƒÆ ’‚·ed https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/10.gif https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pnghttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2009/02/8.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Funlimited) /ʌnˈlɪmhttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pngɪhttps://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.pngtɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: 2.boundless; infinite; vast: 3.without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
[Origin: 1400–50; late ME; see un- (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=un-)1, limited (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=limited)https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/05/113.png]

—Related formsun·lim· it·ed·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. unconstrained, unrestrained, unfettered.



UNRESTRAINED / not limited or controlled.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

But it's not. so Virgin shouldn't use the word :D


Banging heads against walls here pal.
What is going to happen with the advance of technology? am I going to wait a week to download a film? if I stayed with vm I would have to I guess.


" Our broadband service on cable is four times faster than BT, AOL or Tiscali1, so you'll get the speed you need, and there's no limit on how much you can download "


You have to larf.

[Mr Angry]

A valid point, and I suspect, particularly as a lawyer, you could probably have used that to get out of your initial contract. Presumably that is why the various caveats and the 'up to' were added to the T&Cs.

Exactly. There is, of course a situation where customers may not want to get out of their contract but would prefer that they receive the service they were sold / pay for.

Additionally, if customers were to invoke action on the basis that they had been missold a service then VM wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Their latter day inclusion of "up to" after the fact is an acknowledgement at worst and an admission at best that they were unable to fulfil the terms of contracts sold as "10mb" with any consistency.

With all due respect to the poster above - any suggestion that customers who signed up for "10mb unlimited" prior to the "up to" inclusion wanting 24/7 10mb should expect to pay a three figure sum for a dedicated uncontended pipe or any other such nonsense is just that, nonsense. There is a contract in place and, on the premise that the contract is legally binding, then VM should be made to bite the bullet in that they are obliged, by law, to provide the services offered / sold / advertised for the price stated / required / charged under the terms of that contract.

If they cannot then they should be taken to task as to why they contended (pun fully intended) that they could.

[zing_deleted]

UNRESTRAINED / not limited or controlled.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------




Banging heads against walls here pal.
What is going to happen with the advance of technology? am I going to wait a week to download a film? if I stayed with vm I would have to I guess.
perhaps you could rent one from blockbusters

[GPR]

First Iam sorry for coming across as a little angry.

I just surf the internet 99% of the time.

From 10meg to under 1 meg in the evening thats just not fare i don t think.

I don t think i can downgrade to 4 meg I am on the vip pack.

I have started a debate though lol.;)

[Paul H]

Banging heads against walls here pal.
What is going to happen with the advance of technology? am I going to wait a week to download a film? if I stayed with vm I would have to I guess.

At least with the advance of technology you'll be on a Terrabyte connection to be able to download that film that will take you a week to complete.
If you're still with Virgin that is :LOL:

[JohnHorb]

So explain why 70+% of people think unlike you.
If vm are limiting the speed then that is not getting what you are paying for, unlimited in the sense of the true meaning.

I've not seen the source for your '70%+' so can't comment on whether they think 'unlike me', but 'download as much as you want' and 'up to 10MB (or 4MB or 2MB)' seem pretty clear to me.

[Paul H]

Exactly. There is, of course a situation where customers may not want to get out of their contract but would prefer that they receive the service they were sold / pay for.

Additionally, if customers were to invoke action on the basis that they had been missold a service then VM wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Their latter day inclusion of "up to" after the fact is an acknowledgement at worst and an admission at best that they were unable to fulfil the terms of contracts sold as "10mb" with any consistency.

With all due respect to the poster above - any suggestion that customers who signed up for "10mb unlimited" prior to the "up to" inclusion wanting 24/7 10mb should expect to pay a three figure sum for a dedicated uncontended pipe or any other such nonsense is just that, nonsense. There is a contract in place and, on the premise that the contract is legally binding, then VM should be made to bite the bullet in that they are obliged, by law, to provide the services offered / sold / advertised for the price stated / required / charged under the terms of that contract.

If they cannot then they should be taken to task as to why they contended (pun fully intended) that they could.

An excellent post :tu::tu:

[arcamalpha2004]

perhaps you could rent one from blockbusters


I could walk to the one in china in the time it would take to download ;)

[Paul H]

perhaps you could rent one from blockbusters

Not the illegal/warez/copyright argument again :(

[arcamalpha2004]

First Iam sorry for coming across as a little angry.

I just surf the internet 99% of the time.

From 10meg to under 1 meg in the evening thats just not fare i don t think.

I don t think i can downgrade to 4 meg I am on the vip pack.

I have started a debate though lol.;)


You are well within your rights to feel the way you do.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

At least with the advance of technology you'll be on a Terrabyte connection to be able to download that film that will take you a week to complete.
If you're still with Virgin that is :LOL:

After how many more takeovers? :LOL:

NTL/TELEWEST/VM/THE REEBOK STADIUM/PERSIL/FAIRY LIQUID/BIRDS EYE/ICELAND/ASDA/NETTO.;)

[zing_deleted]

Not the illegal/warez/copyright argument again :(

no a perfectly reasonable solution to having to wait a week you need to stop pulling faces the wind will change and you will stick like that ;)

[arcamalpha2004]

I've not seen the source for your '70%+' so can't comment on whether they think 'unlike me', but 'download as much as you want' and 'up to 10MB (or 4MB or 2MB)' seem pretty clear to me.

How about this:


"Our broadband service on cable is four times faster than BT, AOL or Tiscali1, so you'll get the speed you need, and there's no limit on how much you can download†. "

Take note of the " you'll get the speed you need "
That is from their own site.

[zing_deleted]

I could walk to the one in china in the time it would take to download ;)


wow man your the faster man on earth at walking pleased to meet you

[Paul H]

After how many more takeovers? :LOL:

NTL/TELEWEST/VM/THE REEBOK STADIUM/PERSIL/FAIRY LIQUID/BIRDS EYE/ICELAND/ASDA/NETTO.;)

It'll have to be a name that the public will trust.
What's the name of that window company that rips people off? :LOL:

[arcamalpha2004]

no a perfectly reasonable solution to having to wait a week you need to stop pulling faces the wind will change and you will stick like that ;)


The fact is my face would pull a very annoyed look if I saw the amount of money going out my bank every month to vm for a service they cannot fulfil ;)

---------- Post added at 13:52 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

It'll have to be a name that the public will trust.
What's the name of that window company that rips people off? :LOL:


That is a MOUNTAIN of a task to answer, far be it for me to answer ;)

[Paul H]

The fact is my face would pull a very annoyed look if I saw the amount of money going out my bank every month to vm for a service they cannot fulfil ;)

---------- Post added at 13:52 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------




That is a MOUNTAIN of a task to answer, far be it for me to answer ;)

Doesn't matter because they wouldn't be able to use them.
It'll have to be The C0-OP :)

[JohnHorb]

Exactly. There is, of course a situation where customers may not want to get out of their contract but would prefer that they receive the service they were sold / pay for.

Additionally, if customers were to invoke action on the basis that they had been missold a service then VM wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Their latter day inclusion of "up to" after the fact is an acknowledgement at worst and an admission at best that they were unable to fulfil the terms of contracts sold as "10mb" with any consistency.

With all due respect to the poster above - any suggestion that customers who signed up for "10mb unlimited" prior to the "up to" inclusion wanting 24/7 10mb should expect to pay a three figure sum for a dedicated uncontended pipe or any other such nonsense is just that, nonsense. There is a contract in place and, on the premise that the contract is legally binding, then VM should be made to bite the bullet in that they are obliged, by law, to provide the services offered / sold / advertised for the price stated / required / charged under the terms of that contract.

If they cannot then they should be taken to task as to why they contended (pun fully intended) that they could.

A serious point here. When NTL was rebranded as VM, they sent me a copy of their T&Cs (I think it was labelled as 'the legal stuff' or something like that). Are customers bound by the T&Cs as they were when they signed up, or as they are now? As a non-lawyer, I would have thought customers could cancel if they did not like the new T&Cs, but if not, they would be bound by them?

Also, if, as you say, VM ARE legally bound to supply a 10MB (rather than 'up to 10MB') service, how would they be expected to fund this other than by increasing the price to cover the cost of supplying dedicated, uncontended 'pipes'? As far as I know, there is nothing in the contract to stop them raising the price, but I assume the customer could then cancel.

[arcamalpha2004]

A serious point here. When NTL was rebranded as VM, they sent me a copy of their T&Cs (I think it was labelled as 'the legal stuff' or something like that). Are customers bound by the T&Cs as they were when they signed up, or as they are now? As a non-lawyer, I would have thought customers could cancel if they did not like the new T&Cs, but if not, they would be bound by them?

Also, if, as you say, VM ARE legally bound to supply a 10MB (rather than 'up to 10MB') service, how would they be expected to fund this other than by increasing the price to cover the cost of supplying dedicated, uncontended 'pipes'? As far as I know, there is nothing in the contract to stop them raising the price, but I assume the customer could then cancel.


But why increase the prices? they are charging what they charge and accepting that is for 10mb speed, so there would be no increase justified imo.

[Hugh]

But why increase the prices? they are charging what they charge and accepting that is for 10mb speed, so there would be no increase justified imo.

Should be quid pro quo then - VM should supply constant 10mb (as they advertise) and customers should not download illegal copies of films/tv shows/software (as VM state in their AUP linky (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html) paras 4.1.2 and 4.2 ).

Or does "fair" only work one way? ;)

btw, I agree that all ISPs should stop advertising BB as "unlimited" - nothing is. It's strange that certain people keep harping on about VM using the word "unlimited" (which VM shouldn't), but ignore the fact that Sky do exactly the same for the MAX BB.

[Paul H]

I agree that all ISPs should stop advertising BB as "unlimited" - nothing is. It's strange that certain people keep harping on about VM using the word "unlimited" (which VM shouldn't), but ignore the fact that Sky do exactly the same for the MAX BB.

Probably due to the fact that this is the Virgin Media forum and not the Sky one :)

[JohnHorb]

Should be quid pro quo then - VM should supply constant 10mb (as they advertise) and customers should not download illegal copies of films/tv shows/software (as VM state in their AUP linky (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html) paras 4.1.2 and 4.2 ).

Or does "fair" only work one way? ;)

btw, I agree that all ISPs should stop advertising BB as "unlimited" - nothing is.

As far as I know, VM advertise 'up to' 10MB. As Mr A has pointed out, the 'up to' was added when they realised that the increase in downloading (legal and illegal) meant they could not provide a consistent 10MB at a cost the consumer would accept.

'The speed you need' as advertised by VM is somewhat subjective, but not quite the same as 'unlimited'.

[zing_deleted]

As far as I know, VM advertise 'up to' 10MB. As Mr A has pointed out, the 'up to' was added when they realised that the increase in downloading (legal and illegal) meant they could not provide a consistent 10MB at a cost the consumer would accept.

'The speed you need' as advertised by VM is somewhat subjective, but not quite the same as 'unlimited'.

At which point it changed its terms and condition to allow for such new measures which when sent to customers give the aforementioned reason to cancel there contract without clause and reject the new contract. Staying I believe constitutes acceptance

[arcamalpha2004]

Should be quid pro quo then - VM should supply constant 10mb (as they advertise) and customers should not download illegal copies of films/tv shows/software (as VM state in their AUP linky (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/acceptableuse.html) paras 4.1.2 and 4.2 ).

Or does "fair" only work one way? ;)

btw, I agree that all ISPs should stop advertising BB as "unlimited" - nothing is. It's strange that certain people keep harping on about VM using the word "unlimited" (which VM shouldn't), but ignore the fact that Sky do exactly the same for the MAX BB.




"Download a music track◊ in under 4 seconds "

" Downloading movies "
VM are offering the facility ;)

It is not only vm I have the gripe with over " unlimited "

[Mechanicus]

At which point it changed its terms and condition to allow for such new measures which when sent to customers give the aforementioned reason to cancel there contract without clause and reject the new contract. Staying I believe constitutes acceptance

I never received the new T&C. Infact, this is the first tiume i've heard of it being 'up to'. Where does that leave me?

[Paul H]

At which point it changed its terms and condition to allow for such new measures which when sent to customers give the aforementioned reason to cancel there contract without clause and reject the new contract. Staying I believe constitutes acceptance

It's not actually the 'staying' that constitutes acceptance. Virgin say that just 'using' the service constitutes acceptance. Whether that would stand up in court if it came to it. I don't know.

[arcamalpha2004]

As far as I know, VM advertise 'up to' 10MB. As Mr A has pointed out, the 'up to' was added when they realised that the increase in downloading (legal and illegal) meant they could not provide a consistent 10MB at a cost the consumer would accept.

'The speed you need' as advertised by VM is somewhat subjective, but not quite the same as 'unlimited'.

So if the term " The speed you need " is " subjective " it should not be used either.

[JohnHorb]

It's not actually the 'staying' that constitutes acceptance. Virgin say that just 'using' the service constitutes acceptance. Whether that would stand up in court if it came to it. I don't know.

How can you 'use' the service without 'staying' (legally, that is).:shrug:

[arcamalpha2004]

At which point it changed its terms and condition to allow for such new measures which when sent to customers give the aforementioned reason to cancel there contract without clause and reject the new contract. Staying I believe constitutes acceptance


Does not make it right to offer a service they cannot keep to.

[JohnHorb]

So if the term " The speed you need " is " subjective " it should not be used either.

I guess, if we were to ban 'subjective' terms, at least we would be rid of all the annoying advertising breaks on the telly:)

[Hugh]

Probably due to the fact that this is the Virgin Media forum and not the Sky one :)
Yeh, you're right - no one ever compares suppliers on these threads.

Oh, what's this?
Virgin vs Other Supplier (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/59/33611526-per-minute-calls-very-expensive-heres.html#post34264900) ;)

[Paul H]

How can you 'use' the service without 'staying' (legally, that is).:shrug:

It doesn't really make sense either way. staying or using.
If they were to change the T&Cs today to they have the right to throttle you to 56k speeds. you might not have read the T&Cs stating that. but you're still here using the service 2 weeks later. according to them you have accepted the changes without having even read them.

[arcamalpha2004]

How can you 'use' the service without 'staying' (legally, that is).:shrug:


It can be done, believe me.
When I stumbled across an error made by sky some years ago when they offered me the full package free for 3 months, they forgot to switch off the " extra channels" even though I called them to cancel the trial offer.
I was scanning through the channels and discovered channels I was no longer paying for ;)

[Paul H]

Yeh, you're right - no one ever compares suppliers on these threads.

Oh, what's this?
Virgin vs BT (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/59/33611526-per-minute-calls-very-expensive-heres.html#post34264900) ;)

You said Sky. you didn't say BT :)

[Hugh]

You said Sky. you didn't say BT :)

Oh, for God's sake.....

I said compare suppliers, not VM vs Sky or VM vs BT :monkey:

I'm really not sure if you are being obtuse or just plain provocative.......................

To make you happy (if anything will) op changed...

[Paul H]

Oh, for God's sake.....

Calm down a bit. ok you said you only see people saying that it's only Virgin and the use of the word 'unlimited' being talked about in this forum. you don't see anyone mention Sky and the use of the word 'unlimited'

I don't have an answer. sorry. ask me an easier one ;)

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

I'm really not sure if you are being obtuse or just plain provocative.......................

What do you want me to say? :help:

[Hugh]

What do you want me to say? :help:
As little as possible ;)




Only joking :D

[Paul H]

As little as possible ;)

Only joking :D

I'll be having my sunday roast very soon. I'll be very quiet then :D

[Cobbydaler]

I'm really not sure if you are being obtuse or just plain provocative.......................


Deliberately obtuse... :geez:

[JohnHorb]

I'll be having my sunday roast very soon. I'll be very quiet then :D

Unlimited quantity, at 'up to' 10 chews per mouthfull?:)

Enjoy.:)

[setch]

You pay for an up to 10meg connection, big difference.

I agree that it says "Up to 10Meg", but Virgin have 3 levels 2, 4 and 10. Each one states "up to 2, 4 or 10" I believe it should be

2Meg = Up to 2
4Meg = > 2 and up to 4
10Meg = > 4 and up to 10

Other wise what is preventing Virgin (or any other ISP) selling an up to 1Gig service and you not being able to do much about it when you only get 512Kb.

I think that you should get what you pay for, Tesco don't sell tins of beans with up to 200grams.

Setch

[papa smurf]

I agree that it says "Up to 10Meg", but Virgin have 3 levels 2, 4 and 10. Each one states "up to 2, 4 or 10" I believe it should be

2Meg = Up to 2
4Meg = > 2 and up to 4
10Meg = > 4 and up to 10

Other wise what is preventing Virgin (or any other ISP) selling an up to 1Gig service and you not being able to do much about it when you only get 512Kb.

I think that you should get what you pay for, Tesco don't sell tins of beans with up to 200grams.

Setch

but they do sell petrol that doesent work:) :) :)

[Paul H]

but they do sell petrol that doesent work:) :) :)

It suits my car. if you want quality stuff go to Shell or BP.

[Mr Angry]

Hi John,

I'll answer these points individually.

A serious point here. When NTL was rebranded as VM, they sent me a copy of their T&Cs (I think it was labelled as 'the legal stuff' or something like that). Are customers bound by the T&Cs as they were when they signed up, or as they are now? As a non-lawyer, I would have thought customers could cancel if they did not like the new T&Cs, but if not, they would be bound by them?

The T&C's are entirely separate from and do not consitute, but make reference to, the service provided. They merely reference how both parties are agreeing to perform their respective undertakings having subscribed to a mutual contract. As such they are two entirely unique and individual elements of what constitutes expected services provided and the terms under which both parties accept the contract. The core issue is that many customers signed up to "10mb unlimited broadband". It is a matter of public record that this is not what is being provided to a large number of individuals who subscribed on that premise.

The fact that the sales pitch, T&C's etc now make reference to "up to" is largely irrelevant to those who subscribed as detailed above. The "dupe" has already been committed and they would find it hard to waive their contractual obligation in that regard should someone elect to challenge them on the matter and query:

1. Why such erroneous information was allowed to be used in advertizing and promotional / sales materials and sales contract terms when it was obvious that the service could not be provided with any degree of consistency across their customer / uptake base.

2. Why no "fault" on their part in doing so was ever acknowledged by them and, further, what recompense or redress, if any, they afforded their customers contracted under such terms for their failure to supply the services as advertised under the terms of the contract.

On the second point above I suspect that this is part and parcel of why they are content to heavily discount 10mb customers who complain.

Also, if, as you say, VM ARE legally bound to supply a 10MB (rather than 'up to 10MB') service, how would they be expected to fund this other than by increasing the price to cover the cost of supplying dedicated, uncontended 'pipes'?

Thankfully for me that is their problem - not the customer's. I would have thought that a company with the at market experience, technological knowhow and infrastructure available to them at the time would have had a better handle on the service deliverability of their network.

On the point of your question "if, as you say, VM ARE legally bound..." I would have to ask that if there is a contract in place then what is the purpose of the contract if it isn't legally binding?

As far as I know, there is nothing in the contract to stop them raising the price, but I assume the customer could then cancel.

Equally there is nothing in their contract which permits them to use patently incorrect information and sales / advertizing materials to garner / consolidate custom.

Yes, under the circumstances you outline a customer would be as entitled to cancel as they would be to expect the services they signed up to receive.

Hope that helps.

[papa smurf]

the thing i dont get is this ,if your not happy with vm services ,then why dont you go elswere,if vm bb isn't doing what you want then why not go to a better isp,like any consumer with any product ,if your not happy go somewere else,or do you enjoy being dissatified!

[Paul H]

the thing i dont get is this ,if your not happy with vm services ,then why dont you go elswere,if vm bb isn't doing what you want then why not go to a better isp,like any consumer with any product ,if your not happy go somewere else,or do you enjoy being dissatified!

You could use that argument for anything. I could shop at Tesco and get bad service and you could say that to me. I could say that I don't want to shop somewhere else I want to shop here. now if you don't mind I am speaking to the nice lady about this complaint I have :)

[Mechanicus]

the thing i dont get is this ,if your not happy with vm services ,then why dont you go elswere,if vm bb isn't doing what you want then why not go to a better isp,like any consumer with any product ,if your not happy go somewere else,or do you enjoy being dissatified!

Well for me, and I suspect the creator of this wildly derailed thread, it is because we were enjoying a good service until recently.

At the time of writing this, my speed is at 2mb on a 10mb connetion.
This has been happening, on and off, for about a week now.
It used to be great, 10mb speeds day or night, but recently it has been spotty.

I am not saying it is a ripoff - £17.50 a month is good for any speed above 2mb - but when you are used to a steady unproblematic 10mb all the time, you want to get it sorted, not just run away.

[dev]

I agree that it says "Up to 10Meg", but Virgin have 3 levels 2, 4 and 10. Each one states "up to 2, 4 or 10" I believe it should be

2Meg = Up to 2
4Meg = > 2 and up to 4
10Meg = > 4 and up to 10

Other wise what is preventing Virgin (or any other ISP) selling an up to 1Gig service and you not being able to do much about it when you only get 512Kb.

I think that you should get what you pay for, Tesco don't sell tins of beans with up to 200grams.

Setch

a better comparison would be complaining to the government every time you are in a traffic jam and can't travel at the speed limit

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Well for me, and I suspect the creator of this wildly derailed thread, it is because we were enjoying a good service until recently.

At the time of writing this, my speed is at 2mb on a 10mb connetion.
This has been happening, on and off, for about a week now.
It used to be great, 10mb speeds day or night, but recently it has been spotty.

same with mine although it's only <10mb to non-ntl networks (excluding akamai)

[JohnHorb]

Good analogy:tu:, though I do agree with the 'banding' comment, i.e. 10MB should mean between 4MB and 10MB.

[dev]

Good analogy:tu:, though I do agree with the 'banding' comment, i.e. 10MB should mean between 4MB and 10MB.

practically impossible to guarentee though :p: if 50 4mb users and 50 10mb users all fight over a single 100mb link, i, as a 10mb user, would be happy to have all 100 users getting 1mb. however should there only be 10 10mb users on a single 100mb link, i'd expect close to 10mb

[JohnHorb]

practically impossible to guarentee though :p: if 50 4mb users and 50 10mb users all fight over a single 100mb link, i, as a 10mb user, would be happy to have all 100 users getting 1mb. however should there only be 10 10mb users on a single 100mb link, i'd expect close to 10mb

Agreed it is impossible to guarantee all of the time, but if a 10MB user is CONSISTENTLY getting < 4MB for extended periods, either VM should upgrade the infrastructure in that area, or offer a discount until they can.

[Hugh]

Well for me, and I suspect the creator of this wildly derailed thread, it is because we were enjoying a good service until recently.

At the time of writing this, my speed is at 2mb on a 10mb connetion.
This has been happening, on and off, for about a week now.
It used to be great, 10mb speeds day or night, but recently it has been spotty.

I am not saying it is a ripoff - £17.50 a month is good for any speed above 2mb - but when you are used to a steady unproblematic 10mb all the time, you want to get it sorted, not just run away.

Good post, with points well put..... :tu:

[on in an hour!]

or you could always save yerself a tenner by downgrading to 4meg,not heard any complaints from 4meg users...PROBLEM SOLVED...CLOSE THE THREAD AND GOOD NIGHT TO YOU ALL.;)

[dev]

it's not an area problem afaik, on "ntl" speed test (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.html) i get 10mb, on all others its ~2mb, and seeing as the "ntl" one isn't in my area, it's something with ntl's peering

[Paul H]

practically impossible to guarentee though :p: if 50 4mb users and 50 10mb users all fight over a single 100mb link, i, as a 10mb user, would be happy to have all 100 users getting 1mb. however should there only be 10 10mb users on a single 100mb link, i'd expect close to 10mb

The fighting over the pipes is the ISPs problem not the customers. it's like a bus conductor taking money and putting more people on the bus. even though the bus isn't going anywhere as the bus driver can't see where he's going because he has 2 passengers on his lap and one on his shoulders. :)

[Hugh]

The fighting over the pipes is the ISPs problem not the customers. it's like a bus conductor taking money and putting more people on the bus. even though the bus isn't going anywhere as the bus driver can't see where he's going because he has 2 passengers on his lap and one on his shoulders. :)
Metaphors are our friends........

I prefer the one about how the bus is overloaded because some of the passengers bought family tickets, and then brought their mums, dads, and all their cousins and their luggage for the holidays, and then complained because they couldn't all fit on the bus. ;)

I have every sympathy for those subscribers who are using their connections for legal purposes/downloading, and are not consistently getting what they pay for - they should have their service remedied, or get money back. For the ones who are slamming the network with constant illegal downloads, I have as much sympathy for them as I have for speeding motorists. :dunce:

[JohnHorb]

The fighting over the pipes is the ISPs problem not the customers. it's like a bus conductor taking money and putting more people on the bus. even though the bus isn't going anywhere as the bus driver can't see where he's going because he has 2 passengers on his lap and one on his shoulders. :)

Of course it is the ISPs problem, and the solution is simple - add more pipes (which takes time, as well as money). Now, who is going to pay for that? Either government subsidy (us, the tax payer) or the ISP's customers (us, the customers). Can't think of any other way.

[Paul H]

Metaphors are our friends........

I prefer the one about how the bus is overloaded because some of the passengers bought family tickets, and then brought their mums, dads, and all their cousins and their luggage for the holidays, and then complained because they couldn't all fit on the bus. ;)

Family Saver Ticket - For up to 6 people, at least 1 but no more than 2, must be adults

Flawed :)

[Hugh]

Vm Aup :)

[Paul H]

Of course it is the ISPs problem, and the solution is simple - add more pipes (which takes time, as well as money). Now, who is going to pay for that? Either government subsidy (us, the tax payer) or the ISP's customers (us, the customers). Can't think of any other way.

Well if they can't afford it then don't over subscribe and you won't need to buy bigger pipes. buy bigger pipes when you've saved up your money. and then you can get more customers :)

[Hugh]

Flawed :)
Much like your argument.

VM AUP
For the avoidance of doubt, the storage upon and/or distribution over our systems by any User of "pirated" software, or any other materials that are not expressly licensed to the User, will constitute a violation of this section 4 of the AUP.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Well if they can't afford it then don't over subscribe and you won't need to buy bigger pipes. buy bigger pipes when you've saved up your money. and then you can get more customers :)
Or you could try to save money and provide the appropriate bandwidth to customers who are not abusing the system by throttling the p2p'ers of illegal downloads ;)

[on in an hour!]

Much like your argument.

VM AUP
For the avoidance of doubt, the storage upon and/or distribution over our systems by any User of "pirated" software, or any other materials that are not expressly licensed to the User, will constitute a violation of this section 4 of the AUP.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------


Or you could try to save money and provide the appropriate bandwidth to customers who are not abusing the system by throttling the p2p'ers of illegal downloads ;)
thats what it says on my previous post about the network controlling,did you not see it m8??

[Hugh]

thats what it says on my previous post about the network controlling,did you not see it m8??

Yes, but I thought it was worth re-iterating (and I don't work for VM) :D

[Paul H]

Much like your argument.

VM AUP
For the avoidance of doubt, the storage upon and/or distribution over our systems by any User of "pirated" software, or any other materials that are not expressly licensed to the User, will constitute a violation of this section 4 of the AUP.

What has that got to do with the bus?

Or you could try to save money and provide the appropriate bandwidth to customers who are not abusing the system by throttling the p2p'ers of illegal downloads ;)

If they knew what was an illegal download and what was a legal download from p2p's. then wouldn't that be like them being part of the thing like the hosting of illegal usenet groups and the carrier argument? :)

[on in an hour!]

good point,well put,fair comment and all that :)

[Paul H]

good point,well put,fair comment and all that :)

Thanks :blush:

[dev]

out of curiosity, can someone on 4mb do a speed test from this site (link at top) and one from speedtest.net?

[Hugh]

out of curiosity, can someone on 4mb do a speed test from this site (link at top) and one from speedtest.net?

OK

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:18:14 UTC

1st 512K took 1131 ms = 452.7 KB/sec, approx 3730 Kbps, 3.64 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1042 ms = 491.4 KB/sec, approx 4049 Kbps, 3.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1081 ms = 473.6 KB/sec, approx 3902 Kbps, 3.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 1082 ms = 473.2 KB/sec, approx 3899 Kbps, 3.81 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3895 Kbps, 3.8 Mbps


https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/108.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[dev]

so it seems it only affects 10mb users, which means making it 20mb wont make any difference except to places inside ntl's network and any highly threaded downloads

[alferret]

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:25:01 UTC

1st 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1078 ms = 475 KB/sec, approx 3914 Kbps, 3.82 Mbps
4th 512K took 1094 ms = 468 KB/sec, approx 3856 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3885 Kbps, 3.8 Mbps

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/109.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[nfs6600]

Unless they drop the " unlimited broadband " spin.

Thats for unlimited downloads, it has no reflection on the speeds you're getting. No cap to individual users basically. I can't see the problem. My connection has been rock solid since I got 10Mb. Fair play, sometimes it will go down to about 8Mb at peak hours but I'm what you would call your average 10Mb user. Of course I only download the linux distros every once in a while. Unlike the heavier users who download them every hour of everyday ;)

Why should the average user suffer slow speeds because of some leech getting his/her "distros" ? For most people performances on the service is spot on, perhaps not those that are on this forum - but how often do you see posts of people coming to say how great the performance is? Not very often, that goes for all ISPs. If something is slow, your going to kick up a stink about it, if its great then you have no need to raise your voice.

I'm all for it. Provided it is only applied to the "culprit" abusing the network. At the end of the day it gives the vast majority of users a stable, fast, healthy connection what they're paying for.:tu:

[dev]

I'm all for it. Provided it is only applied to the "culprit" abusing the network. At the end of the day it gives the vast majority of users a stable, fast, healthy connection what they're paying for.:tu:

which it isn't at the moment, seeing as i'm getting fine speeds to speed tests on homepage.ntlworld.com, i'm assuming there are no local problems or congestion, yet <2mb speeds to everywhere else kinda makes it pointless for having a 10mb over a 4mb line

[on in an hour!]

OK

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:18:14 UTC

1st 512K took 1131 ms = 452.7 KB/sec, approx 3730 Kbps, 3.64 Mbps
2nd 512K took 1042 ms = 491.4 KB/sec, approx 4049 Kbps, 3.95 Mbps
3rd 512K took 1081 ms = 473.6 KB/sec, approx 3902 Kbps, 3.81 Mbps
4th 512K took 1082 ms = 473.2 KB/sec, approx 3899 Kbps, 3.81 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 3895 Kbps, 3.8 Mbps


https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/108.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
i rest my case and send foreverwar many thanks,:) although the name scares me a bit!!! remember,war yields no heroes,only dead fools and slaughtered innocence :(

[Nedkelly]

Well said:clap:nfs6600

[papa smurf]

so it seems it only affects 10mb users, which means making it 20mb wont make any difference except to places inside ntl's network and any highly threaded downloads

a survey of 1 customer..just how acurate is that , sorry 3 customers

[JohnHorb]

Make that two. I get typically anything between 5 and 9 MB using the CF speed test, less than 3MB on speedtest.net, can download at c. 9.8 MB from gentoo.virginmedia.com, but get a lot less downloading from Microsoft.

[papa smurf]

Make that two. I get typically anything between 5 and 9 MB using the CF speed test, less than 3MB on speedtest.net, can download at c. 9.8 MB from gentoo.virginmedia.com, but get a lot less downloading from Microsoft.

i allways get >9.....unless i go wireless then its 2-5

[JohnHorb]

I'm on wireless, which probably explains why the speed is inconsistent within one speed test run, but that doesn't explain the discrepancy between accessing sites within the VM network and outside.:shrug:

[Mechanicus]

Make that two. I get typically anything between 5 and 9 MB using the CF speed test, less than 3MB on speedtest.net, can download at c. 9.8 MB from gentoo.virginmedia.com, but get a lot less downloading from Microsoft.

Three

[nfs6600]

which it isn't at the moment, seeing as i'm getting fine speeds to speed tests on homepage.ntlworld.com, i'm assuming there are no local problems or congestion, yet <2mb speeds to everywhere else kinda makes it pointless for having a 10mb over a 4mb line

How do you know this is not the case for the majority of users? I would love to see some evidence based on this. Simply going by what people have poseted on this forum is not sufficient to say the service is poor. There are well over 1 million broadband customers. How many complain on this forum? Probably the same 20 or so every month. Thats a tiny fraction of the million + VM has.

The people here complaining may very well have a justification for complaining about slow speeds. But the majority don't suffer these. If they did you would be damned sure you would know about it

[on in an hour!]

How do you know this is not the case for the majority of users? I would love to see some evidence based on this. Simply going by what people have poseted on this forum is not sufficient to say the service is poor. There are well over 1 million broadband customers. How many complain on this forum? Probably the same 20 or so every month. Thats a tiny fraction of the million + VM has.

The people here complaining may very well have a justification for complaining about slow speeds. But the majority don't suffer these. If they did you would be damned sure you would know about it
but how many subs know about this site,perhaps we should have link off VM's
website,would help subs and users.

[JohnHorb]

but how many subs know about this site,perhaps we should have link off VM's
website,would help subs and users.

Agreed, but people would then think CF was somehow connected to VM.

[on in an hour!]

Agreed, but people would then think CF was somehow connected to VM.

how so?? that would mean all the companies who have links on there would then be connected to VM.

[JohnHorb]

How do you know this is not the case for the majority of users? I would love to see some evidence based on this. Simply going by what people have poseted on this forum is not sufficient to say the service is poor. There are well over 1 million broadband customers. How many complain on this forum? Probably the same 20 or so every month. Thats a tiny fraction of the million + VM has.

The people here complaining may very well have a justification for complaining about slow speeds. But the majority don't suffer these. If they did you would be damned sure you would know about it

Think the main point here is that speeds seem to be fine within VM's network, but degrade when accessing 'outside'. Either the Internet is not capable of supporting 10MB with the current volumes of traffic, or VM's connections to the 'outside' could do with upgrading. Could even be something to do with the extra load imposed by removing the proxies. (Dons flameproof suit).

[nfs6600]

but how many subs know about this site,perhaps we should have link off VM's
website,would help subs and users.

Indeed that is a fair point, but there is more than one forum on the internet to voice your concerns. If the service was as bad as some users here claim it to be then do you not think you would see it in other places? Other websites, the news, the newspapers.

Every person that I have spoken to that I have spoken to, both in and out of town, has never had a problem with speed issues. I do lie, there was on, but that was a problem with her computer. Thats probably over 50 people. More than who complain about slow speeds on this site I would say. So to use their generalisation....The service is fantastic, it never lets people down. Nothing wrong with it at all ;)

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Think the main point here is that speeds seem to be fine within VM's network, but degrade when accessing 'outside'. Either the Internet is not capable of supporting 10MB with the current volumes of traffic, or VM's connections to the 'outside' could do with upgrading. Could even be something to do with the extra load imposed by removing the proxies. (Dons flameproof suit).

As I said in my previous post, my service has been rock solid since day one. I think the only problems I have problems with are those based on the other side of the world, which it to be expected.

There was an area outage the other month....the first in the 10 or so years I've had comcast/ntl/virgin media. That has been the only problem.

[papa smurf]

Indeed that is a fair point, but there is more than one forum on the internet to voice your concerns. If the service was as bad as some users here claim it to be then do you not think you would see it in other places? Other websites, the news, the newspapers.

Every person that I have spoken to that I have spoken to, both in and out of town, has never had a problem with speed issues. I do lie, there was on, but that was a problem with her computer. Thats probably over 50 people. More than who complain about slow speeds on this site I would say. So to use their generalisation....The service is fantastic, it never lets people down. Nothing wrong with it at all ;)

i agree wholehartedly with that the service is fantastic,i have never had a problem.:tu:

[nfs6600]

i agree wholehartedly with that the service is fantastic,i have never had a problem.:tu:

Most people do. It's just a fraction of those that don't. You can't give every single customer a perfect service, it's simply not possible.

For example, Ford have sold say 1 million cars over the past 3-4 years. Are all them still running now without any problems past or present?

Perhaps not the best comparison as a car can be replaced, but I'm betting that the neighbours of the complainers here don't get as many problems as they do...

[dev]

How do you know this is not the case for the majority of users? I would love to see some evidence based on this. Simply going by what people have poseted on this forum is not sufficient to say the service is poor. There are well over 1 million broadband customers. How many complain on this forum? Probably the same 20 or so every month. Thats a tiny fraction of the million + VM has.

The people here complaining may very well have a justification for complaining about slow speeds. But the majority don't suffer these. If they did you would be damned sure you would know about it

i didn't say i knew it was the case for the majority of users. If it was affecting ALL networks i'd expect it to be a localised issue, thus only affecting a small number of users. Seeing as it isn't and only affects non-ntl networks, whatever is congested or throttled (or whatever) must be somewhere on the periphery of the ntl/vm network, and therefore i'd be guessing it'll affect more people, not all, but quite a large number.

i can guarentee its not the source of downloads as from uni i can get a good 10.2MB/s (on a 100mbit line) from what i'm using as the source of a download. Also as stated previously, when i was on 4Mb, i always got maximum speeds and its only started dropping on the 10Mb service.

[Dean B]

9pm on a Sun eve, sat in the lounge on my Mac lappy and the Speedtest gives me an average 9.4Mb. I can live with that :)

Now if only my bl***y Online light would stop flashing ...

--Dean

[GPR]

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:11:59 UTC

1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 454 ms = 1127.8 KB/sec, approx 9293 Kbps, 9.08 Mbps
4th 512K took 1093 ms = 468.4 KB/sec, approx 3860 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 8030 Kbps, 7.84 Mbps

Thats more like it.:)

[AndrewJ]

Getting 9.95mb on speedtest here :D :)

[GPR]

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:36:58 UTC

1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 436 ms = 1174.3 KB/sec, approx 9676 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
3rd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 9415 Kbps, 9.19 Mbps


Getting better.

[Hugh]

Yes this is true, 10 meg Is being downgraded in the evening [as explained to me buy V/M for network sharing] because of Limewire or P2P software.

I have 10meg and now only get 900kbps or lower in the evening [time now 20.00] This is disgraceful I pay for a 10meg connection it does not say anywhere in my contract my connection will be cut in the evening.

PLEASE LETS ALL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

My telephone call to V/M was very thorough and also have a reference number.

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:36:58 UTC

1st 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
2nd 512K took 436 ms = 1174.3 KB/sec, approx 9676 Kbps, 9.45 Mbps
3rd 512K took 468 ms = 1094 KB/sec, approx 9015 Kbps, 8.8 Mbps
4th 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 9415 Kbps, 9.19 Mbps


Getting better.

What a difference a day makes...................... :D

[Merrin]

The speed test on here has rarely, if ever, shown me as averaging more than 5-6Mbit/sec on my 10Mb line, but, and a big but, using Giganews, so totally off the VM network, I have been sat solid at between 1100KB/sec and 1200KB/sec. I really don't trust speed tests at all. I would much rather rely on my own maths, 4.6GBytes takes x , so how fast is that (whips out calculator). In other words I trust the rate I get from newsgroups far more than any online speedtester.

Suffice to say I do get a small drop in speed at peak times, but usually (aside from the last week which has been a bit rubbish, 600-800KB) it is flat out at most times during the day. I probably only max my line for 2 or 3 hours per day if that, so I don't ask much, I would object to being hit by throttling for using it for 3 hours a day and would complain. I would rather stay with everyone having 10Mbit than get traffic shaping and 20Mbit.

Merrin

[zing_deleted]

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:11:59 UTC

1st 512K took 437 ms = 1171.6 KB/sec, approx 9654 Kbps, 9.43 Mbps
2nd 512K took 453 ms = 1130.2 KB/sec, approx 9313 Kbps, 9.09 Mbps
3rd 512K took 454 ms = 1127.8 KB/sec, approx 9293 Kbps, 9.08 Mbps
4th 512K took 1093 ms = 468.4 KB/sec, approx 3860 Kbps, 3.77 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 8030 Kbps, 7.84 Mbps

Thats more like it.:)

so do you concede it might not have been a deliberate ploy from VM then?

[king2001]

I live near Port Talbot and have very recently found that when downloading from newsgroups my 4mb connection is being halved during the evening. Therefore if 10mb is being cut down to 5mb would my holmesian skills be correct in deducing that 20mb would become 10mb?

[Mechanicus]

so do you concede it might not have been a deliberate ploy from VM then?

Not necessarily, no. Just because mine is showing as alright at 11am Monday morning, doesn't mean it's fixed. It might go down again tonight, which - and I stress this before I get the old "busy time" line - Didn't used to happen.

[zing_deleted]

Not necessarily, no. Just because mine is showing as alright at 11am Monday morning, doesn't mean it's fixed. It might go down again tonight, which - and I stress this before I get the old "busy time" line - Didn't used to happen.

wasnt asking you mate

[Mechanicus]

wasnt asking you mate

Well, if you were only asking him, then I think you need to stop trying to provoke him into an argument.

[arcamalpha2004]

Metaphors are our friends........

I prefer the one about how the bus is overloaded because some of the passengers bought family tickets, and then brought their mums, dads, and all their cousins and their luggage for the holidays, and then complained because they couldn't all fit on the bus. ;)

I have every sympathy for those subscribers who are using their connections for legal purposes/downloading, and are not consistently getting what they pay for - they should have their service remedied, or get money back. For the ones who are slamming the network with constant illegal downloads, I have as much sympathy for them as I have for speeding motorists. :dunce:


But the ones you have no sympathy for are still paying for a sh** service, agreed?:)

[zing_deleted]

I cant believe yet another capping /shaping thread has over 200 posts. There must be about 100,000 on the same subject spread around here

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 ----------

Well, if you were only asking him, then I think you need to stop trying to provoke him into an argument.

No i was making a point I think it was a perfectly valid question. Do you not think ive seen it all before? countless people hear about traffic shaping and jump on the band wagon when they simply are wrong. Im just pointing out that fact.

[arcamalpha2004]

out of curiosity, can someone on 4mb do a speed test from this site (link at top) and one from speedtest.net?


https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/96.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[Mechanicus]

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/96.png (http://www.speedtest.net)


To compare, my 10mb at 1pm Monday:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/97.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[peanut]

I cant believe yet another capping /shaping thread has over 200 posts. There must be about 100,000 on the same subject spread around here

Aye, I agree, but not one of them reach any kind of conclusion so the topic tends to stay 'active'.

The trouble is, you have people who don't mind being shafted, people that won't be shafted even if it's over 1p, and people who ain't got a clue if they are or not being shafted. And last but not least, people that think it's fair to be shafted because they think it's justified. Quite an argument don't you think.

I really see that everyone is right in their own sense, the context is justified, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean it's suddely right or wrong.

It is after all VM's doing, all these threads and moans and groans could be sorted out if they actually made everything simple to understand. Unlimited reads unlimited, they sell it as unlimited, and when contradictions appear people need to know the answers to which no one really knows.

[zing_deleted]

well if you knew how I use my connection then you would understand why I choose to live with it.
Of course there is degree of shafted and lets be honest here and not full of bull plop those most likely to be shaped are those who are illegally sharing data. These people are by rights and your logic shafting the industry they are stealing from. So they come here complain there 10 meg is being dropped to 5 and not unlimited anymore but they are quite happy to steal copyrighted material . Now please (this is aimed to the most) dont try and lie to me and say im mr innocent cuz we all know its crap

[peanut]

But I think people would just like to know where they stand. If you sign up for something that they big up by saying unlimited, knowing yourself that you are a heavy downloader, you'd sign up. Then that's where you find out they weren't so clean with their advertising.

If I knew what I can, can't, how much is too much, if I knew my own limits and bounderies then I'd have no reason to complain, it would be them my choice to what I sign up for.

I didn't like the cap when it was 75gig, but at least I knew where I stood, if I didn't agree I could have left and gone elsewhere. And I'm sure you also limited your amounts at those times. Now it's 'unlimited' 75gig seems like a distant memory, now it's in the 100's you would just like to know that 'limit'. wouldn't you.

[Paul H]

well if you knew how I use my connection then you would understand why I choose to live with it.

You have me interested now. just what do you download?

Of course there is degree of shafted and lets be honest here and not full of bull plop those most likely to be shaped are those who are illegally sharing data. These people are by rights and your logic shafting the industry they are stealing from. So they come here complain there 10 meg is being dropped to 5 and not unlimited anymore but they are quite happy to steal copyrighted material . Now please (this is aimed to the most) dont try and lie to me and say im mr innocent cuz we all know its crap

Sorry. that is nonsense. there's thousands and thousands that you say shouldn't complain at only getting half of what they're paying for. because as you say they are downloading illegal content. that really is unfair. there's more to the internet than 'illegal' content. and you have to be very naive to think there isn't.

[zing_deleted]

nah im quite happy to be shaped when I am to 5 meg at peak and the test which are in place should hopefully mean its working right when fully implemented. The shame is where the tests are effecting the wrong people. I personally think its clear that most reports of poor speed we hear in these threads are not victims of shaping at all just contention etc.
If it implememted as I see it heavy users will be shaped from doing certain things in areas it effects others so that to me says there isnt a limit its all in the effect caused in areas so the limit will differ

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

You have me interested now. just what do you download?



Sorry. that is nonsense. there's thousands and thousands that you say shouldn't complain at only getting half of what they're paying for. because as you say they are downloading illegal content. that really is unfair. there's more to the internet than 'illegal' content. and you have to be very naive to think there isn't.

but its been posted what will be affected and its certain p2p applications your not trying to tell me most people use it legally are you?

[peanut]

I'd be happy to know what is a heavy user. I like to download things, but I don't want to be penalised for it. After all they still think 3-30 gig a month is still a lot today.

[Mechanicus]

well if you knew how I use my connection then you would understand why I choose to live with it.
Of course there is degree of shafted and lets be honest here and not full of bull plop those most likely to be shaped are those who are illegally sharing data. These people are by rights and your logic shafting the industry they are stealing from. So they come here complain there 10 meg is being dropped to 5 and not unlimited anymore but they are quite happy to steal copyrighted material . Now please (this is aimed to the most) dont try and lie to me and say im mr innocent cuz we all know its crap

In VMs eyes, there is no such thing as 'illegal' downloading.
P2P/Torrents/Etc. can be used for perfecly legal downloads. For example, WoW used to use Torrents for it's patches (haven't played for years, so I don't know if they still do). Last week I downloaded the LotRO beta via Torrent, from the link I was given on the official LotRO forums. There are many things you can download with Torrent programmes which are perfectly legal. It is like saying Download Managers such as Flashget are illegal. It's just a way of downloading which is being used sometimes for nefarious purposes, because it affords anonymity and untracability.


Unfortunately, from VMs side, all they see if someone using P2P or Torrenting, they don't know if it is illegal or not. So saying that is it justified to throttle people for using torrents, because they must be downloading illegal material, is baseless. And to lump people together and essentially accuse them of such is not really a good road for VM to travel down.


Edit::

...5 meg at peak...

What would you consider peak? Because I am getting between 2-5mb right now.

[zing_deleted]

I'd be happy to know what is a heavy user. I like to download things, but I don't want to be penalised for it. After all they still think 3-30 gig a month is still a lot today.

its someone who downloads at lot at full speed and it has an effect on others in their area

[Paul H]

but its been posted what will be affected and its certain p2p applications your not trying to tell me most people use it legally are you?

You're telling me that they are. it's your argument for why they should all stop complaining about paying for 10 and only getting 5. if you was in charge of Virgin you would probably state that you are going to take the money for the 10 but only give you 5 because you're all downloading illegaly anyway. so ner ner ner ner ner.

[peanut]

its someone who downloads at lot at full speed and it has an effect on others in their area

Which is what? 24/7? 5 gig a day? When do you know it is effecting others? Is full speed the speed I signed up for? That's one stab in the dark statement on VM's behalf don't you think.

[zing_deleted]

In VMs eyes, there is no such thing as 'illegal' downloading.
P2P/Torrents/Etc. can be used for perfecly legal downloads. For example, WoW used to use Torrents for it's patches (haven't played for years, so I don't know if they still do). Last week I downloaded the LotRO beta via Torrent, from the link I was given on the official LotRO forums. There are many things you can download with Torrent programmes which are perfectly legal. It is like saying Download Managers such as Flashget are illegal. It's just a way of downloading which is being used sometimes for nefarious purposes, because it affords anonymity and untracability.


Unfortunately, from VMs side, all they see if someone using P2P or Torrenting, they don't know if it is illegal or not. So saying that is it justified to throttle people for using torrents, because they must be downloading illegal material, is baseless. And to lump people together and essentially accuse them of such is not really a good road for VM to travel down.


Edit::



What would you consider peak? Because I am getting between 2-5mb right now.

I think either the shaping test is failing somewhere or your not being shaped its something else

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:15 ----------

Which is what? 24/7? 5 gig a day? When do you know it is effecting others? Is full speed the speed I signed up for? That's one stab in the dark statement on VM's behalf don't you think.

how do you expect me to know? its gonna be variable

[Paul H]

which is what? 24/7? 5 gig a day? When do you know it is effecting others? Is full speed the speed I signed up for? That's one stab in the dark statement on VM's behalf don't you think.

That was when it was only 10Mb too. they sell the product then accuse you of being an abuser for using the full 10Mb. so what do they do? they double the speed just so they can accuse you of being a bigger abuser than you were before!
madness :banghead:

[zing_deleted]

You're telling me that they are. it's your argument for why they should all stop complaining about paying for 10 and only getting 5. if you was in charge of Virgin you would probably state that you are going to take the money for the 10 but only give you 5 because you're all downloading illegaly anyway. so ner ner ner ner ner.


The science and reasons for why has been explained by better men than me. I though actually understand the reasons why and accept them so I say people need to understand why shaping is needed and be reasonable about it. But people tend to be unreasonable so im not surprised a lot dont want to understand why but just want their own way

[Paul H]

The science and reasons for why has been explained by better men than me. I though actually understand the reasons why and accept them so I say people need to understand why shaping is needed and be reasonable about it. But people tend to be unreasonable so im not surprised a lot dont want to understand why but just want their own way

Shaping or any limitations would not be needed if they didn't have these ridiculously high speeds that they sell to be abused.

[zing_deleted]

so now your saying 10 meg is to high mmmmmm maybe 5 meg will be better? but only at peak eh? oh you see what you did there ;)

[peanut]

how do you expect me to know? its gonna be variable

And you wonder why there are threads upon threads like this. When no one knows anything. Apart from personal opinions.

[zing_deleted]

its being tested maybe then it will all become clear. No one on this forum has the power to change it or stop it whats the most active in doing something about been? posted on this forum? called tech and cs and shouted>? maybe wrote a letter? some possibly left VM but there is nothing we can do about it . I feel more pushing to find out what the fault is rather than blaming shaping where in a klot of cases its not which is just pointless

[Paul H]

so now your saying 10 meg is to high mmmmmm maybe 5 meg will be better? but only at peak eh? oh you see what you did there ;)

5 wouldn't be better no. it would leave them behind in the willy waving competition. but in order to win the willy waving competition they have to do the 10 and 20. but as a consequence the person who buys it can only have half because he or she is obviously downloading illegal content.

[zing_deleted]

ok mate then I just agree to differ

[Paul H]

ok mate then I just agree to differ

That's fine by me :)

[peanut]

And we're all no better off than before this thread started. :p: :p:

[Paul H]

And we're all no better off than before this thread started. :p: :p:

As always :rofl:

[ginge51]

My Speed test reult for tonight:

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:14:37 GMT

1st 512K took 281 ms = 1822.1 KB/sec, approx 15014 Kbps, 14.66 Mbps
2nd 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps
3rd 512K took 234 ms = 2188 KB/sec, approx 18029 Kbps, 17.61 Mbps
4th 512K took 219 ms = 2337.9 KB/sec, approx 19264 Kbps, 18.81 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 17893 Kbps, 17.47 Mbps




And a test of a mirror site gives me:

1650Kb/s

Which is fairly OK for 20Mb service, so I'm fairly satisified. I do live in a high volume area so I do not expect a constant perforance.

wtf fairly satisfyed???
why in the hell do you need to use 17+mbs? 24/7?

u dont even need that much speed maybe do for certain things(coughs)
but you dont need that speed 24/7.

[Mechanicus]

wtf fairly satisfyed???
why in the hell do you need to use 17+mbs? 24/7?

u dont even need that much speed maybe do for certain things(coughs)
but you dont need that speed 24/7.

Maybe because he is paying for it, and knowhere does it say he won't get that speed 24/7.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ----------

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:46:24 GMT
1st 128K took 516 ms = 254016 Bytes/sec = approx 2113 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 750 ms = 174763 Bytes/sec = approx 1454 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 687 ms = 190789 Bytes/sec = approx 1587 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 719 ms = 182298 Bytes/sec = approx 1517 kbits/sec

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/04/94.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[Harry56]

It's actually just that the network gets busier. We rarely get above 6Mbps.

The point is that if you went to a pub and asked for a pint of beer and only got half a pint but had to pay for a full pint then I doubt you would be happy especially if the excuse given was "the pub is getting busier so that's all we can give you".

I know the get out phrase given by VM is "up to 10Mb" but there must be a minimum speed to be acceptable and fair to VM's customers.

H56

[homealone]

The point is that if you went to a pub and asked for a pint of beer and only got half a pint but had to pay for a full pint then I doubt you would be happy especially if the excuse given was "the pub is getting busier so that's all we can give you".

I know the get out phrase given by VM is "up to 10Mb" but there must be a minimum speed to be acceptable and fair to VM's customers.

H56

Absolutely, I agree wholeheartedly, but the concept of the 'spot' availability of bandwidth doesn't apply with cable, we share the bandwidth available in our local area, and what we actually get depends on a number of factors, but the ultimate limiting factor is the number of users on the local connection, and how much the up & down streams are saturated.

- inconsiderate users saturating local upload bandwidth with p2p traffic can be a cause of poor performance, for example :)

One thing I wonder about, having recently been converted to newsgroups, rather than torrents ( can you tell ;) ), is that it takes only 15 minutes on my 4Mb connection to download a TV program which will take me 45 minutes to watch...

- no point in me downloading 24/7, then, I'll never catch up :D