Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
Who said anything about it being mythical? From http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...t/traffic.html :
If they've done reasearch to show that 5% of people on 2MB download more than 350MB, 5% on 4MB download more than 750MB and 5% on 10/20MB download 3GB in one evening after 4pm then fair enough. If you've been wrongly shown to be downloading more than your allowance when actually you haven't then yes go ahead complain. It's not a reason to stop shaping entirely, it just means those specific users should contact CS and sort it out - no need for a 'campaign'. |
Just as a matter of interest Bertie - What would you anticipate that a member of CS might say if they were contacted / challenged by someone who believed, sincerely, and had evidentiary proof that they had been unfairly traffic managed?
Do you think that the CS member might say "Ooops, sorry there. Thanks for pointing out our error, it won't happen again" and that the customer would be entirely satisfied with the outcome - safe in the knowledge that he / she has had an admission of wrongdoing and a verbal undertaking from a frontline member of staff that such an error would not occur again?
Personally I'm suspicious of the methodology behind the statistical research. I cannot be the only living being who finds it remarkably coincidental that 5% (on each service tier mind you) are reportedly responsible for the wheels coming off the VM broadband service.
This smacks of reverse statistical analysis in the form of "Determine the most common download totals to within a degree of 5% of each service tier and we'll make those figures the magic numbers for our new, never previously published, AUP in relation to our new, never previously publicly announced, Traffic Management system and we'll deem that 5% (who were blissfully unaware of there being traffic control systems in place and who had never seen our never previously published AUP) as the
bad guys and those solely responsible for the introduction of Traffic Management".
Given the recently produced quarterly figures from VM it strikes me as rather "strange" as to why, rather than target this 5% and cause uproar and dissent among previously reasonably happy & satisfied customers, they didn't elect to simply terminate their contracts as is their right (even under previously unpublished AUPs) and count them as churn for the next quarter.
What do you think was the reasoning behind their not doing that?
Could it be that the 5% isn't actually 5% at all? Could it be that they've realized (shock horror) that they've committed to offering a service of twice the speed of the one they already can't deliver?