Cable Forum - View Single Post - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Mox3d · 25-06-2008, 06:10

I swear I am this close to going mad with VM. Phorm, STM and the anti procurement of warez and pirating as a supposedly targetted policy (potentially of both systems imho).

What is un-clear to me (certainly beyond the boundary of this forum) is exactly how a user can remain `anonymous' in the true sense of the word when advertising is meant to be targetted at them. Also, STM in it's operation directly renders advertising claims redundant and arguably misleading. 20mb per second is not 20 mb per second when it is throttled down to whatever less. Regardless of how the situation came to be, if a person is sold on what is labelled as a 20mb package and is using it, be it for online gaming, watching streamed video's on youtube or whatever then if the company seeks to cap peak downloads and reduce service to any individual, then surely that is unfair and not in compliance with the law. Oh well. The law appears as ambiguous as the service industry it is supposed to cover.

The fleeting written glances toward the guise of providing fair service for all is complete rubbish when in fact it is glaringly obvious that the opposite is the case. Taken to it's verbatim, is it now unreasonable to be able to expect 20mb per second 24 hours a day every single day of the year for your money ?

I don't believe so.

25-06-2008, 06:10	#10090
Mox3d cf.member Join Date: Jun 2008 Services: All of them. Posts: 28	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] I swear I am this close to going mad with VM. Phorm, STM and the anti procurement of warez and pirating as a supposedly targetted policy (potentially of both systems imho). What is un-clear to me (certainly beyond the boundary of this forum) is exactly how a user can remain `anonymous' in the true sense of the word when advertising is meant to be targetted at them. Also, STM in it's operation directly renders advertising claims redundant and arguably misleading. 20mb per second is not 20 mb per second when it is throttled down to whatever less. Regardless of how the situation came to be, if a person is sold on what is labelled as a 20mb package and is using it, be it for online gaming, watching streamed video's on youtube or whatever then if the company seeks to cap peak downloads and reduce service to any individual, then surely that is unfair and not in compliance with the law. Oh well. The law appears as ambiguous as the service industry it is supposed to cover. The fleeting written glances toward the guise of providing fair service for all is complete rubbish when in fact it is glaringly obvious that the opposite is the case. Taken to it's verbatim, is it now unreasonable to be able to expect 20mb per second 24 hours a day every single day of the year for your money ? I don't believe so.