Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
The speed is where it should be, per the estimate. You aren't entitled to 76Mb and it's made very clear throughout the order process that speeds are subject to distance from cabinet.
You aren't entitled to a discount if your speeds drop below 40Mb, you are entitled, if they can't bring it back into range, to break contract and go elsewhere. This is as regulated by Ofcom, as is the need to provide speed estimates.
If you could show me the equivalent speed guarantee from VM that'd be appreciated. As far as I'm aware there isn't one; VM can sell incredibly congested services with no fear unless customers pursue legal remedies for failing to provide services that are fit for purpose.
VM are indeed upgrading constantly, however if the money is being spent and the work being done so completely why are there any speed issues, let alone ones that take several months and even upwards of a year to resolve? There are areas that have had issues for over two years bar a 3 month period.
It is, frankly, crap that customers get sub-5Mb/s at peak periods, VM take months to do the cheapest capacity upgrade they can, then a few months more to do the same again, and only spend any real money addressing the issues a year down the line.
I am aware there have been issues with deploying new Arris CMTS and downstream ports on Cisco kit, and it's run behind schedule in some cases. So why weren't nodes being split in advance, so that when the ports became available nodes could just be decombined ensuring that the capacity was there to relieve the issue in one hit?
I've read another couple of instances on the VM forum today where VM did nothing with issues for months waiting for ports to become available. They could have been planning and implementing node splits. There should've been no areas waiting an age for extra channels, then having to wait again for a Cat C because there should've been no Cat C required as the node had already been split and recombined.
You can't on the one hand point out that VM can deliver maximum speed to all customers regardless of distance from the cabinet, unlike BT, that they are constantly upgrading their network, then excuse their failure to keep pace with customer demands to the point where areas spend upwards of a year delivering less than 10% of customer's paid-for speeds at peak times.
Sadly you seem to want to ignore that there are valid reasons why your service isn't 76Mb, that the speeds you would get were made very clear to you at sign-up time, and that you are within that range, hence you are getting exactly what you were told you would get.
Virgin Media have one simple reason why they don't deliver full speed to all customers - they choose not to. They do not target full speed for all customers. The upgrades they undertake are not intended to achieve this aim, it's a pleasant bonus when it happens.
I've shown you what I consider to be a better approach, how Comhem advertise services and how they operate. To me this is a more transparent, fair and reasonable way of operating. It makes clear that Comhem do not attempt to provide full speeds all the time, and gives a very clear delineation as to what they consider to be acceptable and the remedies the customer is entitled to.
Per my earlier post, it's interesting that a company spending all this money and running around delivering capacity upgrades has lower peak speeds in September 2015 than in September 2014. Even more interesting that they see fit to do tier uplifts in this environment.
VM need to plough serious cash into capacity, and they need to stop trying to avoid splitting the nodes and simply do it as the very first step in capacity relief, with additional channels only either where needed for a tier uplift or to relieve the congestion somewhat while the split is being planned and executed.
You know, pretty much as the then-recently bankrupt ntl managed to in the early 2000s.
|