View Full Version : whats a fair limit?
as the thread title says,
reading other threads on this forum there are some people who download literally 100's of gigs a month this cant be good for any network and imo the price they pay does not refllect there usage. the cloning problem is another issue so lets not let the thread go down that path (mr angry ;) ) what are peoples views on a "fair amount" imo 350gb down and 70gb up is enough for most people any body going over that i wouldnt shape them id cut them off!! your views please......im just changing into flame proof clothing as i type:D
nicke261192
23-10-2007, 19:46
350gb Down!!!!! 70gb Up!!!!! Blooddy Helll!!!!
350gb Down!!!!! 70gb Up!!!!! Blooddy Helll!!!!
?? is that to much/ to little
im amazed at some quotes on here so i thought i was being generous
SimpleSimon
23-10-2007, 19:49
350GB per month = approx 11GB per day - I think that is more than ample. Probably equates to 10 films per day. Who would get to watch that many, nobody I would say.
By the way this is just my twopennys worth.
MovedGoalPosts
23-10-2007, 19:53
An amount that appears reasonable one month, might be less reasonable the next month. Regardless of the legality of the content (a separate issue), we've seen an increasing dominance of streaming technologies, which are now moving towards high definition.
If guide limits have to be set - and let's not please go back to the bad old days of capping - they need to be flexible and adaptable.
An amount that appears reasonable one month, might be less reasonable the next month. Regardless of the legality of the content (a separate issue), we've seen an increasing dominance of streaming technologies, which are now moving towards high definition.
If guide limits have to be set - and let's not please go back to the bad old days of capping - they need to be flexible and adaptable.
i fully agree but "some" people take the mick and imo the network would be a better place for the majority if the heavy downloaders were cut off...i dont think it makes commercial sense to let them carry on
Well considering i did over 700 gig last month then i say 700 however if i do 800 this month then its 800. I do have a unlimited service so there is NO limit. VM say its unlimited that's what i signed up for, that is what they give me, so why should i have to even consider what a limit is.
If VM want to move back to the dark ages then *BE look good
Just one point however much you don't want to talk about clones, You WILL see a massive increase in there sale and usage should VM go back to the dark ages.
TraxData
23-10-2007, 20:07
350GB per month = approx 11GB per day - I think that is more than ample. Probably equates to 10 films per day. Who would get to watch that many, nobody I would say.
By the way this is just my twopennys worth.
Oh please, we've moved on from divx/xvid you know, a tv show can weigh in at 6+gb these days, and a movie in well over 15gig, so 350gb/month is rather low.
MovedGoalPosts
23-10-2007, 20:09
i fully agree but "some" people take the mick and imo the network would be a better place for the majority if the heavy downloaders were cut off...i dont think it makes commercial sense to let them carry on
But as in the old days of capping type limits, which is in fact the greater problem for the network - download or upload? It's the download speeds that have dramatically increased, the upload only fractionally so in proportion. Most of those who download heavily will also be uploaders. Should you just be targeting the one area?
In the days of capping policies the arguments for limits were done to death. Realistically traffic shaping is a better policy, if there has to be a restriction. Bottom line, those who pay for the fast services do so because they want to use it heavily. Heavy use may mean a lot of gaming, it may mean media streaming, it may mean lots of linux distros, it may mean uploading to websites your latest home movie, it may mean VOIP, and of course it can be a combination of these, with multiple users from a mutli computer home.
The problem is one of capacity, and as broadband gets ever more popular and accepted, the novice user becomes and average one, and the average user becomes a heavier one, as expectations and knowledge rise. ISPs need to accept that they provide a tier of speeds and price points to attract the differing customer levels. If at a level they become oversubscribed, they shouldn't seek to throw people off, they should stop accepting new customers until they add new capacity.
DerekRothwell
23-10-2007, 20:10
It seems that a fair limit as defined by Virgin <Edit Rob: deleted> traffic shaping team is about as much as it takes to boot your computer, then log into your home page... thats you lot matey boy - your shaped for the next 4 hours (or maybe as long as you are daft enough to keep giving us money......)
Well considering i did over 700 gig last month then i say 700 however if i do 800 this month then its 800. I do have a unlimited service so there is NO limit. VM say its unlimited so why should i have to even consider what a limit is.
but in the real world the unlimited service keeps on falling over and will do until all the advertising hype is taken out and some sensible limits imposed,
with all the new content from the likes of bbc/ch4 the average user will start to download even more ALL networks will sooner rather than later have to introduce caps, i must agree though if i was a heavy downloader i too would bury my head in the sand.
btw
until recently i considered myself a heavy downloader i usually average 50-60gb but on reading threads on here i am just stunned at the use of others, im perhaps to old skool i still remember my first 9600kb modem
kryogenik
23-10-2007, 20:12
:edit: sorry, dont wanna get involved after all.
:)
but in the real world the unlimited service keeps on falling over and will do until all the advertising hype is taken out and some sensible limits imposed,
with all the new content from the likes of BBC/ch4 the average user will start to download even more ALL networks will sooner rather than later have to introduce caps, i must agree though if i was a heavy downloader i too would bury my head in the sand.
BTW
until recently i considered myself a heavy downloader i usually average 50-60gb but on reading threads on here i am just stunned at the use of others, im perhaps to old skool i still remember my first 9600kb modem
with all the new content from the likes of BBC/ch4 the average user will start to download even more ALL networks will sooner rather than later have to introduce caps, i must agree though if i was a heavy downloader i too would bury my head in the sand.
So Do these new services have to stop because a company would sooner spend money on trying to sue another company over something that lets be truefull they are NOT going to win.
VM should be spending money on its network instead of trying to control it with stm and ****ing off it paying customers.
if i was a heavy down loader i too would bury my head in the sand.
I never have and never will
You want limits fine have your limits but be ready for every **** bag under the bridge to start selling cloned modems. Before you know it there will be no bandwidth anyway. Because anyone who is anyone will have been on EBAY and paid for 5 or 6 modems to cover there downloading habits. What do you think was the reasoning behind the first cloning of modem's, Let me think oh yes it was the CAP
VM should be spending money on NETWORK upgrades not bloody STM
So Do these new services have to stop because a company would sooner spend money on trying to sue another company. VM should be spending money on its network instead of trying to control it with stm.
I never have and never will
You want limits fine have your limits but be ready for every **** bag under the bridge to start selling cloned modems. Before you know it there will be no bandwidth anyway. Because anyone who is anyone will have been on EBAY and paid for 5 or 6 modems to cover there downloading habits.
VM should be spending money on NETWORK upgrades not bloody STM
i agree with all your comments but no major investment is on the way and until then the network needs manageing....in my area the students have arrived again on mass trouble tickets galore for slow speeds and there is nothing the "worker ants" commonly known as techs can do...it is very, very frustrating!!
Mr Clean
23-10-2007, 20:50
It's all becoming a J.O.K.E again with STM and Capping. It's the only way ISP's (All ISP's, not just VM) can think of to solve something that cant be solved. They wont put money into their hardware and upgrade the systems to make it better for customers to experience. It just too easy for them to rip off their customers by introducing these B**LS**T management systems and cappings because not enough customers will do anything about it to make a stand and change things.
The fact of the matter is that only the people who really use their paid for high speed connections will notice any difference with these caps. The average Joe Bloggs who's just got broadband (whatever tier) just because it's broadband wont notice any difference when checking their mail or browsing a few sites. The majority of any ISP's customers DO NOT utilise their connections bandwidth to anything near it's ability because they don't need to for what they use the connection for. I have friends and family with Broadband connections. They pay full whack for the best out but dont download anything, upload anything, hardly even use the PC, but have the fast speed so when they do what they do, email, browse, shop, whatever, they can do without waiting for ages like in the old days of 56k V92 Modems.
The majority of users fall into that class with all ISP's where as a small % of customer actually use their connections to download 30Gb+ of data daily, or upload as much as possible. Be it illegal warez or legitimate filesharing, hosting, gaming, whatever.
Customers wont win. These arguments, talks, discussions always prove fruitless. ISP's will never listen to the customers that do speak of unfair cappings and limitations because the % is too small to make a difference to the ISP's revenue should a small % decide to ditch the service and move on.
I reckon I should shut up now. I do go on. But I did use to work for a leading UK ISP on Tech Support and I heard it all from customers just like me and you who didn't like cappings of connections when they were first introduced years ago. Even back on the old 56K disconnection after 2 hours for congestion. I lived through it all. It's an endless circle and when the next thing comes after broadband. Whatever that may be. It will be all unlimited for a while and then it will start to have limitations creep in and disgruntling the most active bandwidth users.
Cheers. Lets get drunk. ;)
Mr Clean
Mick Fisher
23-10-2007, 21:04
Actually I thought 350gig down and 70gig up was very fair. I mean, if I could find something remotely interesting to download then I would, but mostly I can't. :)
Hark! What is that I hear, could it be an angry mob with a rope fashioned into a loop bearing down on Northants?
Ooops! Better get me coat, toute suite.
:LOL:
but in the real world the unlimited service keeps on falling over and will do until all the advertising hype is taken out and some sensible limits imposed
Quite, though I notice VM aren't advertising BB anywhere at the minute. I can't recall seeing any adds on TV or in print for at least the last 3 months.
They must have had their knuckles wrapped.
It'll be interesting to see how they're going to advertise in future with such draconian limits in place. Sorta null's any advantage they had.
The notion that it's blisteringly fast at all times simply isn't true, since my connection is currently sat at 640kb/s :(
MovedGoalPosts
23-10-2007, 21:55
The Uma Thurman high speed broadband TV ad has been all over my screens recently - albeit only the digital type channels and probably the ones controlled by VM.
The Hitman
23-10-2007, 23:55
I don't download much at all . 20-30gigs per day.It depends on the new linux and Distros iso's that are upped. Oh and yes when I get the time I do online game as well.;)
Berealwith
24-10-2007, 00:47
Whats a fair limit..............er sold as seen UNLIMITED.......but we dont get it....even when we use the 4-12 rule ........
It's all becoming a J.O.K.E again with STM and Capping. It's the only way ISP's (All ISP's, not just VM) can think of to solve something that cant be solved. They wont put money into their hardware and upgrade the systems to make it better for customers to experience. It just too easy for them to rip off their customers by introducing these B**LS**T management systems and cappings because not enough customers will do anything about it to make a stand and change things.
what can customers do? leave? that'll suit the ISPs as whoever they all flock too will be hit with congestion and implement the same systems. The only realistic way to remove any caps/limits/whatevers is by having a system just like the phones. You pay a small fee to have the line installed and pay for how much you use. If you then want to download 700gb of linux distros then you can, but you have to pay a fair rate for it. By fair i mean fair as to the going rate on the internet which can vary from 20/30p per Gb to £1/Gb. The ISPs could then offer deals which have a higher monthly fee but with certain transfer amounts included and a reduced price.
TraxData
24-10-2007, 02:07
what can customers do? leave? that'll suit the ISPs as whoever they all flock too will be hit with congestion and implement the same systems. The only realistic way to remove any caps/limits/whatevers is by having a system just like the phones. You pay a small fee to have the line installed and pay for how much you use. If you then want to download 700gb of linux distros then you can, but you have to pay a fair rate for it. By fair i mean fair as to the going rate on the internet which can vary from 20/30p per Gb to £1/Gb. The ISPs could then offer deals which have a higher monthly fee but with certain transfer amounts included and a reduced price.
I suppose thats how other european countries manage to give 100mbit symetric for around £50/month, because they charge by how much bandwith you use :rolleyes:
No my friend, the realistic way is for VM to get off its backside, upgrade its network as neccessary, move over to docsis3, and then remove STM (50mbit on docsis3 would be less stressful on the network than us on 20mbit/docsis1 right now.)
One can dream though, perhaps whoever buys VM out will actually have a brain and roll BB out properly.
I suppose thats how other european countries manage to give 100mbit symetric for around £50/month, because they charge by how much bandwith you use :rolleyes:
No my friend, the realistic way is for VM to get off its backside, upgrade its network as neccessary, move over to docsis3, and then remove STM (50mbit on docsis3 would be less stressful on the network than us on 20mbit/docsis1 right now.)
One can dream though, perhaps whoever buys VM out will actually have a brain and roll BB out properly.
they are in a different situation they had the money to get it all sorted first time. let me ask you, would you be prepared to pay more for the 20mb bb for say a year if it meant VM would upgrade the network? or would you expect them to produce the money out of thin air?
TraxData
24-10-2007, 02:55
they are in a different situation they had the money to get it all sorted first time. let me ask you, would you be prepared to pay more for the 20mb bb for say a year if it meant VM would upgrade the network? or would you expect them to produce the money out of thin air?
They had the money to do it in the first place, they spent it on other things, so please dont try and spin that one at me.
And yes, yes i would if i knew the outcome was an upgraded network that would actually perform well, as for money out of thin air, they aint that short on money despite their debt, they keep giving managers 150k bonus rises every year, obviously not that short on it.
They had the money to do it in the first place, they spent it on other things, so please dont try and spin that one at me.
And yes, yes i would if i knew the outcome was an upgraded network that would actually perform well, as for money out of thin air, they aint that short on money despite their debt, they keep giving managers 150k bonus rises every year, obviously not that short on it.
If they can afford Barrister's and a stupid court case then they should be able to spend on the network, however in the real world we all know that is not going to happen :(
Instead what they will spend there money on is the next stupid idea that is sold to them that claims to stabilise the network with no extra build or money needed. :rolleyes:
A fair limit would be sold as a package unlimited meaning just that no hidden limits or crapping out of bandwith, pay as you go for other users which might be benefical to the non downloaders, but seriously space and size gets bigger every year most of the think tank people on vm have no brains atm honestly the amount of bandwith that will get used by joe bloggs or a typical family now is well above there ideas.
We have a new generation of media which will take off this coming year with hd, blu ray and more bandwith sapping applications people in vm need to do some soul searching and get the ideas and methodology in place now to compete hard and bring cable bb back on top if they dont all i can see is doom and gloom either before they sell the company or for the shmuck's that inherit the company.
xspeedyx
24-10-2007, 07:52
well 350gb only works out till 50 700mb avi's and that not including overheads and web browing gaming I would say 1TB is fair
No limits would be fair, 'cos that's what they advertised, and that's what attracted me to them.
If They stopped giving stupid deals to customers just to keep them then they would have the money to upgrade the network why should joe bloggs get 20meg broadband for £23 and somebody else have to pay £37.00 a month not a fair deal is it .They advertise as UNLIMITED meaning just that no limits
Berealwith
24-10-2007, 10:49
If They stopped giving stupid deals to customers just to keep them then they would have the money to upgrade the network why should joe bloggs get 20meg broadband for £23 and somebody else have to pay £37.00 a month not a fair deal is it .They advertise as UNLIMITED meaning just that no limits
I agree what gets me mad is i have always paid top money for most things i buy i want the best. That is consumers choice, i have always wanted to be above the rest in the elite circles of life, and you have to pay for that privilege. But i dont like paying top dollar for bottom service...
people that come on here saying its the top downloaders that have ruined it need a wake up call. or lets have a pay as you go, WHAT !!!!
Do they forget it Says "UNLIMITED". ok fair usage not a problem use the 4-12 rule. But we still get managed if we have'nt broken that, now thats wrong.
The way i look at it is i buy Paint from a paint supplier top price high gloss. people see my house and want my paint but cheaper, the supplier likes his money and sells it to others at a reduced cost he sells to me, then he gets in a pickle too many people so he waters down the paint, to keep everyone happy so he thinks !!! this is what VM are doing.......... and some idiots think the guys who are paying for high gloss are wrong......lets get this right its ALL VM's fault, and that is that, don't blame us, BLAME VIRGIN
or would you expect them to produce the money out of thin air?
Why not, that's what all other companies have to do, it's called finding investors!
Even though most people are horrified by the concept, is "pay per gb" not a fairer way of doing things? Those that want to download more, pay more, those that barely use and have an impact on the service pay less, am I missing anything here?
Berealwith
24-10-2007, 11:04
Even though most people are horrified by the concept, is "pay per gb" not a fairer way of doing things? Those that want to download more, pay more, those that barely use and have an impact on the service pay less, am I missing anything here?
Yes i think you are. The answer is if you dont use your internet for the high speeds then dont buy it. get 1mb for 9.99 somewhere, dont come on to VM and say we should pay more.
Even though most people are horrified by the concept, is "pay per gb" not a fairer way of doing things?
I'd be happy to pay for what I use, ofcourse it depends on how much they'd like to charge per Gb.
Those that want to download more, pay more, those that barely use and have an impact on the service pay less, am I missing anything here?
Judging by the posts here from people who claim they're never STM'd, I can only assume they either hardly use the connection, or are on a package that so far outweighs their needs that they never get to the STM threshold.
Alot of people are probably paying over the odds for a service they will never use. The ideal customer no doubt.
Alot of people are probably paying over the odds for a service they will never use. The ideal customer no doubt.
And unfortunately a lot of people are paying over the odds for a service that's being crippled by people who download 24/7, it's an issue that's been around since the dawn of the internet and I believe if every ISP used a reasonable PAYG model instead of promising the world initially then having to downgrade their services when too many people sign up then it would help weed out the people who ruin it for others.
Berealwith
24-10-2007, 11:13
Blimming Eck !!!!!! its not how we should manage ourselves. Its what should be right for what we are paying. Look at your answers Pay as you go, pay for Gig usage !!! next thing VM will pick up on this and we have yet another tier to go through hell.....sort yourselves out, or are you from VM and posting propaganda about !!!!!
Blimming Eck !!!!!! its not how we should manage ourselves. Its what should be right for what we are paying. Look at your answers Pay as you go, pay for Gig usage !!! next thing VM will pick up on this and we have yet another tier to go through hell.....sort yourselves out, or are you from VM and posting propaganda about !!!!!
No, I'm not from VM, I'm not from any ISP. When you've finished spitting at your screen perhaps you might like to tell me what exactly is wrong with a PAYG model.
or are you from VM and posting propaganda about !!!!!
propaganda about what?
the posts here are stating how crap the service is, and why they WON'T implement pay as you go.
And unfortunately a lot of people are paying over the odds for a service that's being crippled by people who download 24/7, it's an issue that's been around since the dawn of the internet and I believe if every ISP used a reasonable PAYG model instead of promising the world initially then having to downgrade their services when too many people sign up then it would help weed out the people who ruin it for others.
This is it. At the end of the day it is a contended service. If people want an uncontended service they should consider getting a leased line. I bet they won't like the price tag that comes with that.
This is it. At the end of the day it is a contended service. If people want an uncontended service they should consider getting a leased line. I bet they won't like the price tag that comes with that.
There's still some responsibility with the ISP to do their best to reduce contention.
There's still some responsibility with the ISP to do their best to reduce contention.
Oh, absolutely. But people signing up to a contended service have no right to moan when they can't get full speed 24/7. And that appears to be what some people here are doing.
I download roughly 1 - 2 GB/day and find 4Mb connection quite adequate for most of what I do, even with STM. The 2Mb connection limit of 350MB before STM is crippling!
I see a lot in this thread about caps and download limits, but to get things in perspective if you have a 20Mb connection, and if you actually get 20Mb/s, then it is theoretically possible to download over 160GB per day, nearly 5000GB per month and that's with STM in place!!!
Berealwith
24-10-2007, 11:25
and pay as you go would sort the problem out. now i am laughing. I can only see that if pay as you go was introduced we would all end up paying more (change always cost more, i havent seen it give anyone a saving ever)
to get back on topic ....... what do you think is a fair download usage ?
PAYG
Oh, absolutely. But people signing up to a contended service have no right to moan when they can't get full speed 24/7. And that appears to be what some people here are doing.
They're not moaning in this thread as it's about download limits, not download speed.
I suppose thats how other european countries manage to give 100mbit symetric for around £50/month, because they charge by how much bandwith you use :rolleyes:
No my friend, the realistic way is for VM to get off its backside, upgrade its network as neccessary, move over to docsis3, and then remove STM (50mbit on docsis3 would be less stressful on the network than us on 20mbit/docsis1 right now.)
One can dream though, perhaps whoever buys VM out will actually have a brain and roll BB out properly.
so where in europe can you get 100mbit symetric?? and if there is such a place i bet it was public funded, its not just vm thats grinding to a halt its all networks without public funding the true cost of 100mbit line would be £100's a month not 50. ultimatly data is a commodity and should be charged/paid for as such ie you use more you pay more
TraxData
24-10-2007, 18:14
so where in europe can you get 100mbit symetric?? and if there is such a place i bet it was public funded, its not just vm thats grinding to a halt its all networks without public funding the true cost of 100mbit line would be £100's a month not 50. ultimatly data is a commodity and should be charged/paid for as such ie you use more you pay more
France for one, you can also get 10/10 there and 100/50.
Depends which isp you go with.
40/Euros a month for 100mbit symetric.
Difference is VM can afford to do it, they just dont wanna spend money on anything, just want to keep raking in money from customers while not giving anybody the service they are paying for!
France for one, you can also get 10/10 there and 100/50.
Depends which isp you go with.
40/Euros a month for 100mbit symetric.
Difference is VM can afford to do it, they just dont wanna spend money on anything, just want to keep raking in money from customers while not giving anybody the service they are paying for!
im not saying your wrong but id love to see a link i can find 20mb speeds but not 100mb
TraxData
24-10-2007, 18:45
im not saying your wrong but id love to see a link i can find 20mb speeds but not 100mb
go to orange france and click fibre, 100mbit symetric!
that's just one of the isps there.
i cant remember the name of the other one, but im in france next week and i'll pass on all the info to you if i must.
go to orange france and click fibre, 100mbit symetric!
that's just one of the isps there.
i cant remember the name of the other one, but im in france next week and i'll pass on all the info to you if i must.
yes ok im eating humble pie and the uk are ****
alferret
24-10-2007, 20:04
What if VM were to set a monthly limit 350\70 as per the OP's suggestion.
Firstly many, many people would be happy with that amount, even me! But then there would be a small percentage that would moan like hell, just like in this thread, (OP asked a question and some are bitching) and there would be some who wouldnt give a flying ****.
But VM would have to sell this service and people would have to sign up to it.
They would have to tier their service. Offer an unlimited 20mb service and a 20mb limited service, same for 4mb and again the same for 2mb. Give people the option.
£55.00 totally unlimited @ 20mb
£30.00 450\90
£27.00 totally unlimited @ 4mb
£20.00 350\70
£17.00 totally unlimited @ 2mb
£13.00 300\50
No STM. Limited users get sent an email reminder when into their last 20gb, and there would be a clear statement from VM as to what fair usage is so those on any unlimited service dont share their Mac's with others. Also VM to police what Mac addy's are being used, any duplicates both Mac's get suspended until account owner contacts VM and is issued with another modem, if the same account gets cloned again within a 6 month period then that account is put onto a 1mb max speed for 6 months at which the account holder will be charged at £9.00pm for a limited 200\40 account.
If given these options what would you choose?
I feel the above tariffs would be fair, personally.
VM still think 1gig is a huge amount, so can't see them even thinking about a 450gig limit anyway.
What if VM were to set a monthly limit 350\70 as per the OP's suggestion.
Firstly many, many people would be happy with that amount, even me! But then there would be a small percentage that would moan like hell, just like in this thread, (OP asked a question and some are bitching) and there would be some who wouldnt give a flying ****.
But VM would have to sell this service and people would have to sign up to it.
They would have to tier their service. Offer an unlimited 20mb service and a 20mb limited service, same for 4mb and again the same for 2mb. Give people the option.
£55.00 totally unlimited @ 20mb
£30.00 450\90
£27.00 totally unlimited @ 4mb
£20.00 350\70
£17.00 totally unlimited @ 2mb
£13.00 300\50
No STM. Limited users get sent an email reminder when into their last 20gb, and there would be a clear statement from VM as to what fair usage is so those on any unlimited service dont share their Mac's with others. Also VM to police what Mac addy's are being used, any duplicates both Mac's get suspended until account owner contacts VM and is issued with another modem, if the same account gets cloned again within a 6 month period then that account is put onto a 1mb max speed for 6 months at which the account holder will be charged at £9.00pm for a limited 200\40 account.
If given these options what would you choose?
I feel the above tariffs would be fair, personally.
i like the general idea but the 4pm-12pm traffic problems will always be with us unless large investments are made
What if VM were to set a monthly limit 350\70 as per the OP's suggestion.. Most people would leave .If you not happy with the service go to an isp with a PAYG we pay for an unlimited service.Its not the users fault if virgin cant cope they was the ones who introduced it .next thing VM will pick up on this and we have yet another tier to go through.
Most people would leave .If you not happy with the service go to an isp with a PAYG we pay for an unlimited service.Its not the users fault if virgin cant cope they was the ones who introduced it .next thing VM will pick up on this and we have yet another tier to go through.
if that were true then i also think vm techs need a big pay rise and a increase in holidays!! but on a serious note "some" people usage is out of hand, unlimited or not.
alferret
24-10-2007, 23:34
Most people would leave .If you not happy with the service go to an isp with a PAYG we pay for an unlimited service.Its not the users fault if virgin cant cope they was the ones who introduced it .next thing VM will pick up on this and we have yet another tier to go through.
I dont think most people would leave, seriously do you? Think about it realisticly 4+million BB subscribers, possibly 1-2% not happy due to STM, 5-10% may not be happy due to over subscription. The other 89-94% happy with the service provided. So where you get "most" from I really dont know. If you do know tell ya what give me Saturdays lottery numbers too :D
Soz i should of said quite a few not most ,what i pay for my 20meg bb i`m quite happy with it took out another year contract just for bb and phone if they ever decided to bring capping the amount people download then i will phone up and ask to be put over to a business connection as i also use my xbox 360 to play games online aswell as my pc to play games personaly i dont download a lot but if you stream videos listen to radio streams download a few game demos etc it all adds up at the end of the month. lol btw im not telling you the lottery numbers its my turn to win this week :D
Dawn Falcon
25-10-2007, 01:17
I dont think most people would leave, seriously do you? Think about it realisticly 4+million BB subscribers, possibly 1-2% not happy due to STM, 5-10% may not be happy due to over subscription. The other 89-94% happy with the service provided. So where you get "most" from I really dont know. If you do know tell ya what give me Saturdays lottery numbers too :D
No, they're really not. They might not be able to name the issue they're suffering beyond "my broadband's slow and laggy", but it's hitting anyone who uses common services like streamed video or games.
There should not be any limits!
There should not be any limits!
another point well made:erm:
seconded I signed up for unlimited broadband t hat the fair limit
Berealwith
25-10-2007, 19:43
Hey i have an idea...........lets all pay for a 20mb connection and just surf or a few hours a day.........VM would pick up on that and sell the unused bandwith for more deals......Gosh some of other peoples posts are patetic.......I will say it again It is VM fault and not the customers....Wise up....the PAYG people
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.