View Full Version : [Merged]Neil Berkett (Virgin CEO) against net neutrality
brundles
10-04-2008, 18:17
Apologies if this has been posted already, but after the DS article (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a93556/virgin-media-ceo-attacks-net-neutrality.html?rss) quoting Neil Berkett against the concept of net neutrality, I wondered how they could claim money from content providers in good faith when they consistently have problem areas with slow speeds, over subscription, STM, etc.
I hope this money they get for delivering content to us goes to reducing our bills
as if..
GraphiX2004
13-04-2008, 14:07
The new CEO of Virgin Media is putting his cards on the table early, branding net neutrality “a load of *******s” and claiming he’s already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. If you aren’t prepared to cough up the extra cash, he says he’ll put you in the Internet “bus lane”.
Net neutrality really is the hot topic at the moment. Ignited by the Comcast fiasco, the concept of net neutrality has certainly been brought into the mainstream. Most ISPs are never quite forthcoming about their throttling, capping and otherwise interfering behavior, but that crowd certainly doesn’t include the CEO of Virgin Media, the UK’s second largest ISP.
In an interview with the Royal Television Society’s Television magazine, far from covering up their intentions, Virgin Media’s new incoming CEO Neil Berkett - who joined the Virgin Media Board just a few days ago - has launched an attack on the ideas and principles behind net neutrality.
“This net neutrality thing is a load of *******s,” he said, adding that Virgin is already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers.
With around 3.5 million customers in the UK, and already traffic shaping due to lack of capacity, it’s a sobering thought that at the behest of “content providers” with deep pockets, Virgin is prepared to speed up their traffic, which would presumably have a negative impact on those at the bottom of the ISP’s priority list, namely bandwidth hungry file-sharers.
Berkett then turned on the BBC and their iPlayer service, telling them - and other public broadcasters like them - that if they don’t pay a premium to gain faster access to Virgin Media’s customers, their service would be put into “bus lanes”.
It just shows that some ISPs are happy to throttle just about anyone in the name of profit, it’s just that most aren’t as open about it as Mr Berkett.
Thus far, Ofcom has made little comment on the network neutrality debate. In 2007, long before the current iPlayer discussions, the then Ofcom policy chief Douglas Scott indicated that the regulator planned a "hands off" approach to the issue. Scott has since departed the regulator for Channel 4.
---------
This guy needs to be sacked! before he ruins everything for us all.
someone put it like this to me which makes sense.
say the water company is meant to supply everyone with the same water well imagine them only supplying you half or a 3rd
and then some other big businesses actually get your HALF of the water as well but the difference is you and the business
is Actually paying the same amount why the hell should they get more of the water than me since we are paying the same amount?
This idiot speaks as if they give away their Services for free!
what the hell are we paying for if not for BW to use on the Internet.
This guy needs to go fast get the news out fast!
---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------
http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-media-ceo-says-net-neutrality-is-a-load-of-*******s-080413/
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a93556/virgin-media-ceo-attacks-net-neutrality.html
well you have to admit,Neil Berkett it seems has finally broke the exC&W/exNTL/exTW/Virgin Media mold by being first at anything....
he might come to regret it in this case though, unless they get their rears in gear and massively upscale the Docsis 2.0b/3.0 rollout and finally turn on end users accessable multicasting to improve bandwidth savings...
its doable, but given Neil Berkett's past history in the other parts of the business, it might not be as he expects it to turn out.
this gives a good overview of how the products can benefit, but if he doesnt put in place the things the customers want to buy or rent(more CMs per account, DVB-C PCi cards+VM smartcard for direct PC use interaction, etc ) then he's in for a rather large loss of extra real month on month revenue perhaps.
http://www.cedmagazine.com/Article-DOCSIS-better-business-model.aspx
DOCSIS 3.0 Builds Better Business Model
....
"
depends how its done imo
if it some form of traffic shaping then it's a bad idea, but if it's say the bbc getting a direct pipe to VM (and so the bbc paying for it) then that should be allowed
While from the perspective of a user, I don't agree with this, I can see why they are talking about it.
Take iTunes for example. If you spend £9.99 on a CD at a local shop, you've paid for the CD, the wages of all the people involved in the production, distribution and sale of that CD and the costs of fuel, premises etc. A *lot* of different costs come out of that £9.99.
When you buy the same £9.99 CD from iTunes, beyond licencing, storage and some of the bandwidth costs, the rest is pure profit for Apple and the record companies. The ISPs further down the line (nearer the user) get nothing, despite the fact they still have costs.
I say I disagree with it as sites (such as this one) are likely to suffer as the ISPs give higher priority to data from companies who pay.
I'm not sure that he is actually saying you have to pay to get your content to VM customers over the net, but that they can deliver content much faster over their Cable TV network via VOD, if you come up with the cash.
BBC's iPlayer as an example is causing headaches for networks, they have spoken out against the BBC, and BBC has returned a few views of its own on the matter.
Berkett's Virgin Media are about to launch a version of the BBC iPlayer over its TV network, hopefully reducing the congestion for that traffic over its Internet network. If that is in fact what he means.
its my understanding the the BBC already directly peer with the core VM network.
but perhaps Neil being in his VM past and present position doesnt know this basic tech stuff..., he took long enough to realise and spin the fact that most wireless routers cant support the full 20Mbit thoughput speeds, service.
looking at this new so called VM supplyed basic 11G wireless router just as all the others are moving to the far faster 11n.
again, it proves he and his advisers have not got a grasp of the fact they needed to replace these (some might say antiquated)11g with current 11n models even before the official VM launch the other day, so as to cover even the short term growth of more people using the 20Mbit services, never mind the 50Mbit rollout he says will cover 70% of the VM network by 2008 years end.
brundles
13-04-2008, 21:21
While from the perspective of a user, I don't agree with this, I can see why they are talking about it.
Take iTunes for example. If you spend £9.99 on a CD at a local shop, you've paid for the CD, the wages of all the people involved in the production, distribution and sale of that CD and the costs of fuel, premises etc. A *lot* of different costs come out of that £9.99.
When you buy the same £9.99 CD from iTunes, beyond licencing, storage and some of the bandwidth costs, the rest is pure profit for Apple and the record companies. The ISPs further down the line (nearer the user) get nothing, despite the fact they still have costs.
I say I disagree with it as sites (such as this one) are likely to suffer as the ISPs give higher priority to data from companies who pay.
Personally, I think that VM really would be taking the mick by implementing paid for priority at the moment. Assuming for a minute they do manage to change the STM model to take into account priority traffic (i.e. not throttle it after it's been paid for by both sides!), I agree with the point that I don't want my connection to suffer just because my neighbour (paying the same price as me) is using a "premium" site.
We're both paying the same price for the same service so why should one of us suffer?
GraphiX2004
13-04-2008, 21:39
This needs to get to the big media sites who can help with this?
This needs to be Squashed ASAP before were all Slapped with 56k without anything
we can do about it as it will of all been put in place by the time their customers know.
make a big fuss about this like the phrom thing and lets get this guy some clues.
While from the perspective of a user, I don't agree with this, I can see why they are talking about it.
Take iTunes for example. If you spend £9.99 on a CD at a local shop, you've paid for the CD, the wages of all the people involved in the production, distribution and sale of that CD and the costs of fuel, premises etc. A *lot* of different costs come out of that £9.99.
When you buy the same £9.99 CD from iTunes, beyond licencing, storage and some of the bandwidth costs, the rest is pure profit for Apple and the record companies. The ISPs further down the line (nearer the user) get nothing, despite the fact they still have costs.
I say I disagree with it as sites (such as this one) are likely to suffer as the ISPs give higher priority to data from companies who pay.
The ISP charges it's users to access the internet doesn't it? We've paid for the bandwidth that we use to download the music. If the ISPs feel that we are not paying enough then they should be honest and not misrepresent the services they offer. Virgin need to improve their network and charge appropriate prices for appropriate services.
This fits in nicely with the "App Management" thread. (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33631460-you-ve-heard-traffic-management-well.html)
If you don't want your users' content to be shaped into oblivion you better cough up. Bad news if anyone wants to watch BBC's iPlayer on the weekend.
VM just get worse.
The ISP charges it's users to access the internet doesn't it? We've paid for the bandwidth that we use to download the music. If the ISPs feel that we are not paying enough then they should be honest and not misrepresent the services they offer. Virgin need to improve their network and charge appropriate prices for appropriate services.
I'm not defending Virgin at all. As I said, from my own point of view, I think it's a bad thing.
The problem is that bandwidth costs a lot more than we are charged. Hence, ISPs base their business models on the assumption that the average user will not use his/her connection to the max 24/7, and don't allocate the bandwidth needed for each user to max their connection 24/7.
The problem is that with applications such as iPlayer, P2P and iTunes, this business model is no longer correct, but no ISP is willing to pass the cost of the increased bandwidth needed on to the customer (to do so would be commercial suicide). ISPs need money, like anyone else.
So, in summary, do I like it? No. Do I think it will happen anyway? Unfortunately, yes.
“This net neutrality thing is a load of *******s,†he said, adding that Virgin is already in the process of doing deals to speed up the traffic of certain media providers.
Berkett then turned on the BBC and their iPlayer service, telling them - and other public broadcasters like them - that if they don’t pay a premium to gain faster access to Virgin Media’s customers, their service would be put into “bus lanesâ€Â.
It just shows that some ISPs are happy to throttle just about anyone in the name of profit, it’s just that most aren’t as open about it as Mr Berkett.
This from a guy who's service is abysmal for 90% of the time I want to use it!
He desperately needs sacking, these comments are an utter disgrace (IMHO).
What is this guy on? We, VM customers, pay to access VM's network which is in turn connected to all the other networks around the world, it's called the Internet. Which other network we choose to access is our business not his. I don't want to have the network I choose to access throttled because some other network has paid VM a sweetener. I don't think he gets it - we pay your wages you lexically challenged individual - you need to keep us happy to keep our business, we owe you no favours. I don't think RB would be too happy to have his brand tarnished with this man's tirade.
Quite frankly trying to blackmail companies to pay is wrong and in the case of the BBC it is just stupid as they do not work on a normal business model. If people can't access the BBC very well then they will just point the finger at the ISP, and quite rightly so.
We already pay for the speed we want which is a crude method of restriction and also capping (which is a limit so it's not unlimited) therefore if that's not working then they should come up with some other method. And if VM's network can't handle it then they need to look at how they can make it handle what it's users want to use it for, and charge accordingly.
melevittfl
14-04-2008, 12:57
The ISPs further down the line (nearer the user) get nothing, despite the fact they still have costs.
And those costs are covered by the money I paid for the ISP to connect me to the Internet.
And when I drive to the CD store to buy the CD, Ford gets nothing from the sale of the CD either.
I guess it's difficult for some people to see the repercussions of this but to put it simply, VM's internet service will be poorer than it is now for the majority of places you download/surf from for the same price you're paying now with VM being the only one that benefits from this degradation of service.
And when I drive to the CD store to buy the CD, Ford gets nothing from the sale of the CD either.
However, Ford doesn't incur costs when you do so.
hokkers999
14-04-2008, 14:33
However, Ford doesn't incur costs when you do so.
No and neither does VM. The cm is in my house already paid for, the ubr is already paid for, so is the fibre (let's forget financing for the moment).
The bandwidth is already paid for, and I paid for this with my monthly sub. There are no incremental costs unless VM buy their bandwidth on a pay as you go payment plan. Mind you knowing them :dozey:
If they priced it wrong, then change the price.
No and neither does VM. The cm is in my house already paid for, the ubr is already paid for, so is the fibre (let's forget financing for the moment).
The bandwidth is already paid for, and I paid for this with my monthly sub. There are no incremental costs unless VM buy their bandwidth on a pay as you go payment plan. Mind you knowing them :dozey:
If they priced it wrong, then change the price.
the £xx/month you pay to VM covers modem rental / free callouts etc and a set amount of bandwidth. If everyone on the network used their connection 24/7 at full speed (on any ISP), they'd go bankrupt that month probably. How much bandwidth data do you think £37 will get you (on a proper connection, not a residential ISP)?
TraxData
14-04-2008, 15:10
the £xx/month you pay to VM covers modem rental / free callouts etc and a set amount of bandwidth. If everyone on the network used their connection 24/7 at full speed (on any ISP), they'd go bankrupt that month probably. How much bandwidth data do you think £37 will get you (on a proper connection, not a residential ISP)?
That's beside the point though, it's residential BB and they are advertising it is unlimited, you cant sell something as unlimited then get a hissy fit when people want to use it.
BB isp's dont go around shoving unlimited everywhere, least you know what ur getting.
So I guess VM will start stating that some sites will be slower than others in big red letters in their ads. Thought not. This rubbish along with Phorm won't ever get mentioned before they sign you. VM are pursung a policy of putting profits first and customer experience last in the most obvious and cynical manner. I guess this is what they meant by making broadband a priority.
the £xx/month you pay to VM covers modem rental / free callouts etc and a set amount of bandwidth. If everyone on the network used their connection 24/7 at full speed (on any ISP), they'd go bankrupt that month probably. How much bandwidth data do you think £37 will get you (on a proper connection, not a residential ISP)?
If everyone, as you suggest, went 24/7 full speed, that full speed would be slow with VM's current backbone connection but wouldn't make any difference to VM's costs AFAIK.
What this comes down to is VM (and they're not alone) underestimating the increase in net traffic through their networks and trying to blame other companies. If they blamed us, their customers, who are the ones using sites like BBC iPlayer then that would be an even worse PR stunt than this.
Asking other companies to pay for VM's network incapacity? You could be forgiven for thinking he was joking.
So I guess VM will start stating that some sites will be slower than others in big red letters in their ads. Thought not. This rubbish along with Phorm won't ever get mentioned before they sign you. VM are pursung a policy of putting profits first and customer experience last in the most obvious and cynical manner. I guess this is what they meant by making broadband a priority.Your post reminded me of this picture I saw posted over at Digital Spy...
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/04/113.jpg
Virgin Media's new CEO's pricing policy perchance...?
GraphiX2004
14-04-2008, 16:37
from some of the comments here keep going on about how they should need to do this to cope with demand what crack pipe are you smoking?
you dont run a business selling or renting a product if you once you rent/bought that
product cannot use it to its full extend hello! this is why you buy/rent the service.
how about stop saying well they have to do something bandwidth costs them blah.
and start being a customer and saying thats their stupid fault for not looking far enough
into the future and setting their businesses up to handle anything thats thrown at em.
you, i, mr jones next door shouldn't and couldn't care less if they are in the deep dodo
we are a customer not a shareholder or a partner i am not sympathetic to any
business because at the end of the day they couldn't care less about their customers
so why the hell should anyone care or be sympathetic to a company like that?
i really find your attitudes to defend virgin every single time something happens
to be bizzare at the very least, unless your getting your Service free of charge.
if i was getting my service free of charge sure limit it, screw with it turn it upside down
but while i'm giving them my hard earned money for something that they advertise
then take away from us or start to restrict you can bet your bottom dollar i'll be issed
and so should you! are they bothered about if you can afford that 37 quid that month?
if you have a awuful service or capped to buggery do they lower the charge a month?
You need to stop trying to justify why they need to do this and start asking why
it should be our problem, were only a customer they are the provider if they cant provide
then they should make changes in their business model to adapt anyway they can
to make sure they can provide a service full stop to every customer
if i want to use my connection 24/7 i'll damn well do it i'm paying just to do that!
and i couldn't care less if their stuggling thats their problem not mine i'm a customer.
just for a laugh phone them and explain your deciding to cut your price this month because it's necessary
then explain since they seem it's fine to screw with your service any way they see fit your going to do the same.
lets see how far you get, OMG! i can't believe because i can't afford £37 this month your actually not
going to lower the cost to about 10-15 quid?? OMG! i dont understand why you are not sympathetic because i cant afford it.
Your answer would be if you can't afford it then cancel it or i shouldn't have the service in the first place.
it's always one sided with a company they can screw us left and right and its not even meant to be spoken about
your meant to just go with the flow and accept it, but when you have issues or problems will they go with it and accept it?
Stop acting like your a shareholder or partner and start acting like a PAYING Customer.
The guy should be sacked - they are really turning good Telewest stuff into junk NTL only now it is called Virgin (like I give a toss about brand name). :mad:
from some of the comments here keep going on about how they should need to do this to cope with demand what crack pipe are you smoking?
...snippety snip snip....
Stop acting like your a shareholder or partner and start acting like a PAYING Customer.
Was this rant at anyone in particular, or were you just generally letting of some steam?;)
Best rant for a long time. Well done, sir!
Forward it to Berkett's office.
However, Ford doesn't incur costs when you do so.
Neither does VM !
Neither does VM !
They do.
---------- Post added at 18:14 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------
from some of the comments here keep going on about how they should need to do this to cope with demand what crack pipe are you smoking?
Assuming that is aimed at me, let me state a few things:
I do not work for, and am not a shareholder in VM. Nor do I accept any payment or discount from them.
I haven't tried to defend Virgin. I have repeatedly stated that I don't like this idea. I have merely stated why I believe it is likely to happen.
While I don't currently take Broadband from Virgin, that was only because Be offered a better deal.
I don't blindly defend Virgin (or any company). If, in my experience, they provide a good service, I say so. If they don't, I say so.
Oh, and drop the attitude.
Whether we agree or not, the Internet has changed vastly over the last five years. To say that our monthly subscription costs cover peering costs incurred by ISP's is frankly naive.
Many of the big players in the UK are concerned with the increasing demands on their network, and somebody has to meet the costs. If its us, we should be up in arms over this, but then, that may force the current pricing model to change, something I eluded to on this very forum years ago when NTL announced its capping policy.
We run the risk of being charged once a certain download figure has been reached. It hasn't happened yet because no one network has the stones to do that.
Berkett comes out and says if you (content providers) want access to to our high speed network with top content, well you have to pay. If the BBC are prepared to offer iPlayer through VM's TV network, and other content providers are considering similar deals, then they must think its worth it.
I think it may be Hobsons choice.
Now, where are my flame proof pants!
GraphiX2004
14-04-2008, 21:09
Stuart wasn't a hit at you at all mate
i'm not that stupid to say anything against a cable forum staff member.
i'm talking about most of the time most published news articles the general view
is that some if not most always side with virgin
if virgin decided to increase prices to 500 pound a month and stopped you
using any bandwidth at all someone here would applaud the efforts by justifying it
by stating due to them trying to be a better company and efficient they need to
put the prices up and become more efficient on uses of bandwidth users pay for.
instead of looking at the issue like a customer who's getting royally screwed 5 ways to sunday
Mick Fisher
14-04-2008, 22:59
Whether we agree or not, the Internet has changed vastly over the last five years. To say that our monthly subscription costs cover peering costs incurred by ISP's is frankly naive.
Many of the big players in the UK are concerned with the increasing demands on their network, and somebody has to meet the costs. If its us, we should be up in arms over this, but then, that may force the current pricing model to change, something I eluded to on this very forum years ago when NTL announced its capping policy.
We run the risk of being charged once a certain download figure has been reached. It hasn't happened yet because no one network has the stones to do that.
Berkett comes out and says if you (content providers) want access to to our high speed network with top content, well you have to pay. If the BBC are prepared to offer iPlayer through VM's TV network, and other content providers are considering similar deals, then they must think its worth it.
I think it may be Hobsons choice.
Now, where are my flame proof pants!
Good points Toto.
I too have suggested a pricing model based on usage a number of times. Unfortunately though, I feel the problem really is that VM cannot and don't want to provide the bandwidth needed to implement said pricing model. It would seem that what they really want to do is extract even more money for the use of their increasingly inadequate infrastructure and they don't care where it comes from.
As for the, mythical at the moment, Docsis3 upgrades I would think by the time they are completed, that due to the ever increasing need for bandwidth, the network will still be just teetering on the brink of meltdown.
At the rate of decline that we have seen since the rebranding it surely can't be long before this sad Company falls headlong into the huge hole it has, for so long, been digging for itself. If only at some point, some Company mouthpiece had remembered that marketing and supporting a good product at a competitive price while at the same time valuing your customer base is an almost sure fire way to success then VM probably wouldn't be in the mess they find themselves in now.
Mind you Comcast and Rodger's seem to be the same dire state. Rate restricting HDTV so as to make room for more channels (shopping? ) being their latest bright idea. Perhaps at the root of all this is that Cable Networks are just a Bad Business Idea.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/15/virgin_media_net_neutrality/
A spokesman for the firm said it does not intend to hinder access to content providers who do not pay. Rather, VM could offer content providers deals to upgrade their provisioning if they want to ensure best access to to broadband subscribers.
The BBC already does so via a direct peering with the VM network, to offer faster iPlayer access. That link sees no money change hands. "It could be argued that that's a non-neutral solution," the spokesman said.
"However, we recognise that as more customers turn to the web for content different providers will have different needs and priorities and, in the long term, it's legitimate to question how this demand will be managed. We welcome an informed debate on this issue."
This from a guy who's service is abysmal for 90% of the time I want to use it!
He desperately needs sacking, these comments are an utter disgrace (IMHO).
if you get abysmal service for 90% of the time then MOVE!! or tell the truth anybody who puts up with such a service is very foolish.
brundles
15-04-2008, 16:17
That's still slightly vague in my view though. They might not actively throttle iPlayer (for example), but consider a couple of scenarios...
In the first scenario VM implement a system where premium paying providers (say the BBC for sake of argument) don't have their traffic hampered by STM rules. At this stage, iPlayer isn't being hampered but will (probably) contribute towards your STM triggering level thus still killing the connection for someone else.
In the second scenario, localised VM congestion is still very much a problem. Because premium paying providers (again sticking with the Beeb as an example) get priority, other content providers end up going from bad to just plain not working as iPlayer gets all of the local bandwidth.
They're not actually spending time and money to throttle/cripple non-paying content providers but just sitting back and letting their network do a more than adequate job for them.
Whether we agree or not, the Internet has changed vastly over the last five years. To say that our monthly subscription costs cover peering costs incurred by ISP's is frankly naive.
Many of the big players in the UK are concerned with the increasing demands on their network, and somebody has to meet the costs. If its us, we should be up in arms over this, but then, that may force the current pricing model to change, something I eluded to on this very forum years ago when NTL announced its capping policy.
We run the risk of being charged once a certain download figure has been reached. It hasn't happened yet because no one network has the stones to do that.
Berkett comes out and says if you (content providers) want access to to our high speed network with top content, well you have to pay. If the BBC are prepared to offer iPlayer through VM's TV network, and other content providers are considering similar deals, then they must think its worth it.
I think it may be Hobsons choice.
Now, where are my flame proof pants!
over the last 5 years? try last 2 years :p: look at LINX for example, this time last year it was shifting on average 100gbps (peak of 140gbps) of traffic, now it's averaging 160-170gbps (peak of 240gbps). Now if it's similar increases like that on VM's network then as you say (and i've said previously) pricing will change. IMO it's likely to be either:
1. Cheap price/month like £5/month to cover modem/techs/support/etc and you pay for the bandwidth/transfer used.
2. Various teers with various hard limits on (monthly basis) and then charged for extra.
I dont believe in the whole 'my speed has doubled so i'll download more' thing. I want faster speeds so if i want to download something i don't have to wait not so i can download more.
As i also said, it depends how this is implemented. I doubt VM will slow the non-paying peoples traffic down, just have a sort of 'toll road' pipe connected to the people who pay more. That imo is fine.
from some of the comments here keep going on about how they should need to do this to cope with demand what crack pipe are you smoking?
you dont run a business selling or renting a product if you once you rent/bought that
product cannot use it to its full extend hello! this is why you buy/rent the service.
how about stop saying well they have to do something bandwidth costs them blah.
and start being a customer and saying thats their stupid fault for not looking far enough
into the future and setting their businesses up to handle anything thats thrown at em.
you, i, mr jones next door shouldn't and couldn't care less if they are in the deep dodo
we are a customer not a shareholder or a partner i am not sympathetic to any
business because at the end of the day they couldn't care less about their customers
so why the hell should anyone care or be sympathetic to a company like that?
i really find your attitudes to defend virgin every single time something happens
to be bizzare at the very least, unless your getting your Service free of charge.
if i was getting my service free of charge sure limit it, screw with it turn it upside down
but while i'm giving them my hard earned money for something that they advertise
then take away from us or start to restrict you can bet your bottom dollar i'll be issed
and so should you! are they bothered about if you can afford that 37 quid that month?
if you have a awuful service or capped to buggery do they lower the charge a month?
You need to stop trying to justify why they need to do this and start asking why
it should be our problem, were only a customer they are the provider if they cant provide
then they should make changes in their business model to adapt anyway they can
to make sure they can provide a service full stop to every customer
if i want to use my connection 24/7 i'll damn well do it i'm paying just to do that!
and i couldn't care less if their stuggling thats their problem not mine i'm a customer.
just for a laugh phone them and explain your deciding to cut your price this month because it's necessary
then explain since they seem it's fine to screw with your service any way they see fit your going to do the same.
lets see how far you get, OMG! i can't believe because i can't afford £37 this month your actually not
going to lower the cost to about 10-15 quid?? OMG! i dont understand why you are not sympathetic because i cant afford it.
Your answer would be if you can't afford it then cancel it or i shouldn't have the service in the first place.
it's always one sided with a company they can screw us left and right and its not even meant to be spoken about
your meant to just go with the flow and accept it, but when you have issues or problems will they go with it and accept it?
Stop acting like your a shareholder or partner and start acting like a PAYING Customer.
:clap::clap::clap:
Charlie Stross (reasonably well-known SF author) raises some interesting (imho) points about the damage VM are doing the the Virgin brand on the entry dated April 14th.
1st point - VM allegedly dropping packets on routers
2nd point - phorm
3rd point - net neutrality
Link (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/)
He closes with this point, which may be of interest to Forum members -
"If you're a Virgin subscriber, I advise you to do likewise. And if they give you any **** over getting out of your contract early, refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm) (specifically Schedule 2 of terms that may make a contract unfair: 1(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract; (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided; ... both of which Virgin Media seem to fall foul of."
But surely you would only be able to do that IF and WHEN and IF Phorm was part of Virgin broadband
As for the net neutrality, from what has been said today, Virgin are not going to be changing/downgrading any of the existing service, just offering faster direct connections for those companies that want it
Neither of these things have happened yet so aren't part of the contract
Plus Virgin's own terms already have that provision
If:
we and/or Virgin Media Payments increase our charges under this agreement;
we make significant changes to the services so the services you are entitled to receive in return for the charges you pay are significantly altered or reduced; or
we and/or Virgin Media Payments make significant changes to the terms and conditions of this agreement (including the other legal stuff),
you may cancel those services affected without penalty by giving us at least 30 days' notice in writing. If you cancel any services in these circumstances, the increased charges will not apply to those services during the 30 day notice period and paragraph J2 will not apply if you cancel before the end of the minimum period. If you do not give us notice of cancellation within 30 days of any increase in charges or changes to the services or this agreement being notified to you or, if later, receipt of your first bill following such increase in charges, we and Virgin Media Payments will assume that you have accepted the increase in charges and the changes to the services and this agreement and you will no longer be able to cancel your services under this paragraph.
Good points Toto.
I too have suggested a pricing model based on usage a number of times. Unfortunately though, I feel the problem really is that VM cannot and don't want to provide the bandwidth needed to implement said pricing model. It would seem that what they really want to do is extract even more money for the use of their increasingly inadequate infrastructure and they don't care where it comes from.
As for the, mythical at the moment, Docsis3 upgrades I would think by the time they are completed, that due to the ever increasing need for bandwidth, the network will still be just teetering on the brink of meltdown.
At the rate of decline that we have seen since the rebranding it surely can't be long before this sad Company falls headlong into the huge hole it has, for so long, been digging for itself. If only at some point, some Company mouthpiece had remembered that marketing and supporting a good product at a competitive price while at the same time valuing your customer base is an almost sure fire way to success then VM probably wouldn't be in the mess they find themselves in now.
Mind you Comcast and Rodger's seem to be the same dire state. Rate restricting HDTV so as to make room for more channels (shopping? ) being their latest bright idea. Perhaps at the root of all this is that Cable Networks are just a Bad Business Idea.
Yeh, I don't think the UK is ready for the fixed line price per byte model yet, and the first network to offer such a service on a national scale will have to show some nerve.
Berkett has said that the BB aspect of its business is its true strength, and as CEO he knows all too well that if it does go titsup, he'll be off back to NZ. :)
They do.
*If* they do then it can only be as a direct result of their miss-selling of the package and as such they should carry that cost (or go bump).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/15/virgin_media_net_neutrality/
if you get abysmal service for 90% of the time then MOVE!! or tell the truth anybody who puts up with such a service is very foolish.
Quite, though I did qualify it with "when I want to use it" which is only between 6pm and 9 ;)
Clearly if you bother to read it right then you wouldn't have to resort to suggesting people are liars.
The truth is that the service *is* abysmal in relation to how it was in the telewest days and the advertising (IMHO ofcourse.. no need to get upset!)
Currently in the process of getting BT line fitted in order to leave.
hokkers999
15-04-2008, 19:03
They do.
No they DO NOT. The cost is already incurred once per month when they pay their supplier for the pipe. No matter how many people use it the pipe costs the same. It just means we all get a bit less.
If the problem is they bought a 155 mbit pipe instead of a 622 mbit one, tough luck. By a bigger pipe and put the price up.
The only way it can cost VM more if I actually use my service is if they have bought the bandwidth on a "pay as you go" service.
No they DO NOT. The cost is already incurred once per month when they pay their supplier for the pipe. No matter how many people use it the pipe costs the same. It just means we all get a bit less.
If the problem is they bought a 155 mbit pipe instead of a 622 mbit one, tough luck. By a bigger pipe and put the price up.
The only way it can cost VM more if I actually use my service is if they have bought the bandwidth on a "pay as you go" service.
You're joking right, their peers only charge them for the pipe, not the volume of data flowing through it.
:rofl:
HOW long is VM going to get away with all of this rubbish?????
I appologise if some do not like my attitude, but what can be expected, for US to just roll over and take this bull crap from VM????
VIRGIN MEDIA; LISTEN UP: STOP OVER-SUBSCRIBING AREAS, STOP CUTTING CORNERS AND BLOODY WELL UPGRADE YOUR NETWORK OR YOU ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF BUSINESS BEFORE MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!![/SIZE]
EvilJeff
16-04-2008, 09:19
The new CEO of Virgin Media is putting his cards on the table early, branding net neutrality “a load of *******s†and claiming he’s already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. If you aren’t prepared to cough up the extra cash, he says he’ll put you in the Internet “bus laneâ€Â.
There's an international company which works on the same principal. Pay us the cash, or we's put you out of business. What was it called? .... oh yes ... "The Mafia"
Wild Oscar
16-04-2008, 14:41
Interesting little clip here ..
Link removed due to swearing.
Bring on the revolution ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/15/virgin_media_net_neutrality/
If you haven't looked at this article it is basically saying that VM are not pleased with Neil Berkett outburst and said;
"We strongly support the principle that the internet should remain a space that is open to all and we have not called for content providers to pay for distribution,"
---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------
Interesting little clip here ..
[removed]
Bring on the revolution ..
I wonder why they start that clip with the girl with her exposed cleavage? :rolleyes:
Please do not link to any videos that contain words that are forbidden on this site. This includes quotes of Mr Berkett.
HOW long is VM going to get away with all of this rubbish?????
I appologise if some do not like my attitude, but what can be expected, for US to just roll over and take this bull crap from VM????
VIRGIN MEDIA; LISTEN UP: STOP OVER-SUBSCRIBING AREAS, STOP CUTTING CORNERS AND BLOODY WELL UPGRADE YOUR NETWORK OR YOU ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF BUSINESS BEFORE MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!![/SIZE]
would you be happy with either these:
1. they terminate your connection as they are currently over subscribed.
2. they put the price up to cover the costs of upgrades
If you haven't looked at this article it is basically saying that VM are not pleased with Neil Berkett outburst and said;
---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------
I wonder why they start that clip with the girl with her exposed cleavage? :rolleyes:
It also said that Berketts message was taken out of context and not fully quoted as far as I can see, it does not hint at VM not being pleased with their CEO's comments at all. Also consider that Reg article may also have been edited, as is the right of the press to do so.
would you be happy with either these:
1. they terminate your connection as they are currently over subscribed.
2. they put the price up to cover the costs of upgrades
NO i would not, for the simple reason: I DID NOT cause them to be debt, I was NOT responsible, they DID NOT ask my advice on their expendatures, so its not MY problem, it is THEIRS, and as such, it is UP UP THEM to sort it all out.
And I do not mean by using STM to drag everyone back into near 54K conditions, if there is no room, there is no room!
There is no point trying to cram 100 passengers on a bus that can only take 80!
NO i would not, for the simple reason: I DID NOT cause them to be debt, I was NOT responsible, they DID NOT ask my advice on their expendatures, so its not MY problem, it is THEIRS, and as such, it is UP UP THEM to sort it all out.
And I do not mean by using STM to drag everyone back into near 54K conditions, if there is no room, there is no room!
There is no point trying to cram 100 passengers on a bus that can only take 80!
i didn't think you would be. so theres too many people, they have 3 options:
1. reduce the number of customers (kick off people on a usage basis, highest first)
2. drop the speeds down (why should i have a slower speed during the day just because of peak time congestion?)
3. upgrade and put up prices (people would go else where)
NO i would not, for the simple reason: I DID NOT cause them to be debt, I was NOT responsible, they DID NOT ask my advice on their expendatures, so its not MY problem, it is THEIRS, and as such, it is UP UP THEM to sort it all out.
And I do not mean by using STM to drag everyone back into near 54K conditions, if there is no room, there is no room!
There is no point trying to cram 100 passengers on a bus that can only take 80!
You need to chill out a bit.
There is no point trying to cram 100 passengers on a bus that can only take 80!
Perfect anyology. Thats what all ISP do. Its a balancing act.
Now lets look at it from another angle. Lets say the bus company sell 80 tickets for people to use the bus as and when they like. Now not all those people are going to be using the bus at the same time and each of the tickets would have to be very expensive becuase you've gote the petrol to pay for etc etc and most of the time some seats are going to be empty. Now this would be a very exclusive service only for the rich and famous because the tickets are so expensive and out of reach for most ordinary folks.
Another bus company knowing that some of the time seats are going to be empty sell 160 tickets knowing that people arn't going to be catching the bus all at the same time. Now because they've sold more tickets the price is a lot cheaper and brings it withing the reach of us ordinary people. Which is win win all around. The company still gets the money they need and the avarage joe can afford a ticket on this bus when otherwise it would be too expensive. This works well untill people start getting gready and instead of only catching the bus when they need it, have the mindset that they've paid for the ticket so are going to make the most out of it and sit on the bus all day long every day. Its going to cause a few problems and this is the problem the ISP's face on how to manage demand while keeping prices low and withing the reach of consumers and still make a profit to keep the shareholders happy. Which is why I agree with STM, I hate it when my speed gets droped but I understand the reasons why and thats the reason my price is reasonable.
Out of intrest I've got a quote from Extranet before for a leased line running at 10mb. They quoted just over £18k a year. Now I'd dare say this is out of reach to everyone apart from companies.
I've no problem if Virgin Media and content providers want to come to some agreement in providing a direct pipe into the network, so that the content providers can avoid general net congestion and get the content to the user faster. In fact I think it makes perfect sence and look forward to them doing it.
I do have a problem however if Virgin Media do anything to the traffic once its on the network itself and this includes it getting higher priority than other traffic or not being subject to STM etc.
watzizname
17-04-2008, 11:20
Now lets look at it from another angle. Lets say the bus company sell 80 tickets for people to use the bus as and when they like. Now not all those people are going to be using the bus at the same time and each of the tickets would have to be very expensive becuase you've gote the petrol to pay for etc etc and most of the time some seats are going to be empty. Now this would be a very exclusive service only for the rich and famous because the tickets are so expensive and out of reach for most ordinary folks.
Another bus company knowing that some of the time seats are going to be empty sell 160 tickets knowing that people arn't going to be catching the bus all at the same time. Now because they've sold more tickets the price is a lot cheaper and brings it withing the reach of us ordinary people. Which is win win all around. The company still gets the money they need and the avarage joe can afford a ticket on this bus when otherwise it would be too expensive.
Appreciate what you're saying, but this particular bus company is still selling tickets, knowing full well that existing passengers are already having to sit on the roof for the duration of their journey..
would you be happy with either these:
1. they terminate your connection as they are currently over subscribed.
2. they put the price up to cover the costs of upgrades
I would if it meant I would get anything like the service advertised. Either that or VM should just go bump and let someone else have a go!
Mick Fisher
17-04-2008, 21:00
Perfect anyology. Thats what all ISP do. Its a balancing act.
Now lets look at it from another angle. Lets say the bus company sell 80 tickets for people to use the bus as and when they like. Now not all those people are going to be using the bus at the same time and each of the tickets would have to be very expensive becuase you've gote the petrol to pay for etc etc and most of the time some seats are going to be empty. Now this would be a very exclusive service only for the rich and famous because the tickets are so expensive and out of reach for most ordinary folks.
Another bus company knowing that some of the time seats are going to be empty sell 160 tickets knowing that people arn't going to be catching the bus all at the same time. Now because they've sold more tickets the price is a lot cheaper and brings it withing the reach of us ordinary people. Which is win win all around. The company still gets the money they need and the avarage joe can afford a ticket on this bus when otherwise it would be too expensive. This works well untill people start getting gready and instead of only catching the bus when they need it, have the mindset that they've paid for the ticket so are going to make the most out of it and sit on the bus all day long every day. Its going to cause a few problems and this is the problem the ISP's face on how to manage demand while keeping prices low and withing the reach of consumers and still make a profit to keep the shareholders happy. Which is why I agree with STM, I hate it when my speed gets droped but I understand the reasons why and thats the reason my price is reasonable.
Out of intrest I've got a quote from Extranet before for a leased line running at 10mb. They quoted just over £18k a year. Now I'd dare say this is out of reach to everyone apart from companies.
I've no problem if Virgin Media and content providers want to come to some agreement in providing a direct pipe into the network, so that the content providers can avoid general net congestion and get the content to the user faster. In fact I think it makes perfect sence and look forward to them doing it.
I do have a problem however if Virgin Media do anything to the traffic once its on the network itself and this includes it getting higher priority than other traffic or not being subject to STM etc.
Hmmm I think most of us know they damn well do it. I think what is in question is the degree to which it is done by VM in certain areas.
What is needed is legislation on the maximum contention ratio allowed as the ability of private enterprise to self regulate is laughable. All that happens is they see what their competition is getting away with and then degenerate their own products and services down to that overall low level in the interests of saving money in the short term.
We can only dream though as the Government and it's regulators seem only to care about the amount of tax business generates for the Treasury as opposed to any ethical considerations on how they make those taxable profits.
I know you do and quite a few other "regulars" do but some of the messages left in this very thread make it clear that quite a few people just don't seem to grasp this fact and thats half the problem.
I agree with what you've said partly. I don't think that providers should be forced to have a minimum contention ratio, I'm not a fan of goverment interferance unless absolutley nessesory but there should be a framework in which its cheacked that the company is working to the published contention ratio and a league table publish on the internet letting people compare the different providers and the actual level of service they are providing. Along with a reliable way to check the actual speed and the avarage speed published for each level of service
Also coupled with this there should be a guide to help educate the general consumer in what it all actually means so that they can grash what contention really means.
Action urged to keep net neutral
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7354133.stm
NTLVictim
19-04-2008, 14:31
Please do not link to any videos that contain words that are forbidden on this site. This includes quotes of Mr Berkett.
Er Gavin, that's most of the net...:(
Chrysalis
23-04-2008, 12:51
given that the bbc isnt keen on bailing out isps on iplayer traffic, I think we can all be hopeful of having favourable news reports on neutrality from the bbc hopefully.
agent00x
23-04-2008, 18:12
Regulation is going on everywhere nowadays, we knew the net would be next. I compare this situation to pollution and congestion charging. There are quite a few similarities.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.