[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

most of what we have discussed is irrelevant, trading standards only care about if a product is fit for purpose, they dont care how much it costs the supplier or how much it is sold for.

Don't think I ever suggested this was a consideration for TS, however given that you can't mention when TS have been involved in a case over broadband performance it could be said that they are irrelevant until such a time as things go that far.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

You do seem to have a short memory, because when I mentioned not fit for purpose I am talking about web sites timing out, streams not working, speeds not close to claimed typical speeds. Not sure why you consider such a situation acceptable but you do certianly hold the financial needs of a company too highly. Gamers care for jitter but I guess in your corporate mindset they are irrelevant as its all about looking after the mass market web browsers. The odd ping of 40ms is not a major issue but pings varying in the 100s spiking to 1000s certianly is.

I don't remember commenting on 'fit for purpose' beyond that it's a matter of perspective. You're looking to disagree with me for statements I didn't make. Too concerned by my 'corporate mindset' perhaps.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am merely talking about maintaining standards to the point mainstream activities are useable, which isnt the case across VM's entire footprint. Advertised benefits of the service should all be useable.

I largely agree, however it's all about the small print. Performance and suitability for any task cannot be guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Incidently if VM sold a broadband service with a low rated speed or 'no' rated speed, made no claims of typical speed, made no claims of how fast movies download, no claims of good for gaming then I would be abit more forgiving although it would still be debatable if areas like brighton have a service fit for purpose.

You would be forgiving, you'd also not have a cable ISP, they would be bankrupt. Whether we like it or not the potentially but not unequivocally massaged statistics say that the majority of VM's customer base have a service that is fit for purpose by any definition.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I know why they advertise as they do as they scared of churn, people are more concerned about customer count than profit. Again tho this is irrelevant. What fit for purpose is the subject, costs, profit all irrelevant, the only thing relevant is if the service is sold as advertised.

I never suggested anything about what makes 'fit for purpose' as such. Again you're tackling me on points I didn't make.

The comments on profit are actually perhaps not so valid given VM's recent financial results. I would have agreed with you but the numbers suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

You right I could go elsewhere but it leaves 2 issues.

1 - they still getting away with it to other customers, this is my gripe, I dont have a "im alright jack" attitude, in fact right now my service is quite good, yet here I am still moaning for others who have a service not fit for purpose. A service fit for purpose is not 1:1 with SLA's so dont go overboard with what I am on about.

I wasn't actually talking about you, my exact words were 'customers' not 'you' or 'Chrysalis'. If you wish to be some kind of broadband consumer champion that is, of course, your prerogative, however customers can most certainly leave if they choose to.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

2 - the fact that the competition is all poor, the alternative for me is adsl where BT have not invested in my area at all and the service from any isp will be poor as a result. perhaps I should just keep hopping from company to company if I dont like any right?

That's what we do with every other privately delivered product if we don't like our current service. If a company fails why reward this failure with continued custom?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

The attitude's I see towards large business is shocking from some in this country. Ofcom telling isp's they can do what they want as long as they explain first to people they misselling products, BT getting away with phorm even tho the EU clearly stated its illegal what they did.

I agree with many of the issues around ISP advertising. I entirely reject the EU's opinion on the Phorm issue, we're allegedly still a sovereign nation not some subservient state of the EU so their 'opinion' is entirely irrelevant. It was also as far as I'm aware not legally binding.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

the fact is VM can fix issues it is within their control and some of their customers have a product not fit for purpose and as such VM have breached trading standard laws to those customers, the fact they havent been done for it doesnt make it ok. By that point of thinking if I burgle a house its fine as long as I am not caught. VM may make a bit less money by doing the right thing but thats life.

Which trading standards laws would VM be breaking with areas that are oversubscribed?

Most companies don't exist to 'do the right thing'. That's not what a profit making enterprise is in business for, it's not why most investors invest. They have a fiduciary duty to supply the highest possible return to their shareholders. They have a legal duty to obey the relevant laws in the jurisdictions in which they trade.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

On my shares. one company is one I want to have a share for token value, in truth its a shocking investment and I am very unlikely to make a profit on it but like to own part of a F1 team. The other company I expect the shares to go up in value and is nice to get a say as a shareholder but considering whats going on in that company I was shocked when they allocated funds to dividends. My message was more to say put the house in order before giving out gifts, and the charity suggestion was if they really insist on sending it somewhere then send it to charity instead.

Dividends aren't 'gifts'. They increase share price and encourage further investment in companies. Do you think that pension funds and other long term investments are constantly trading every share in order to make payouts? No, a goodly part of their income is from the steady flow of dividend payments. In addition these dividends both incentivise further investment by offering a regular return and incentivise holding onto the shares for longer term reducing volatility.

On the one hand you complain about companies being money obsessed on the other you think they hand out 'gifts' presumably out of the goodness of their black corporate hearts. Interesting.