Legal Obligation?

[caph]

Do Virgin have a legal obligation to inform new customers that they can't even provide the old bottom tier (2Mb) to people who sign up for 20Mb (the top tier in many areas) in certain areas?

Does anyone with any legal expertise know?

And would this obligation extend to advertising? I'm sure we've all seen the "mother of all broadband" adverts which has rubbed salt in to the wounds for many of us.

[haydnwalker]

They would be obligated to advise if a service wasn't available when you ordered it.

What do you mean by "can't provide" though? Do you mean, not in a cabled area? or can't supply the speed you pay for? Because it is still a contended service, and if you are in an oversubscribed area, then no, they aren't obligated to inform you of this.

[*sloman*]

I think they can get away with it due to the "Up to 20mbps"

They could say "Up to 1Gbps" does not mean you are going to get a 1Gbps connection.

Call and say you want it sorted or your cancelling or your bill reduced!

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

I think they can get away with it due to the "Up to 20mbps"

Up to used to be an advantage to Virgin when telling people that ADSL was only up to


Now they're using it to their own advantage and saying it's not 20MB. it's only up to 20MB.

[caph]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

They would be obligated to advise if a service wasn't available when you ordered it.

So if I wanted a 20Mb service but they knew they couldn't provide it but instead could only provide me with a 1Mb service at best then they would be obligated to tell me because the service I wanted wasn't available to me at the time I ordered?

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

What do you mean by "can't provide" though? Do you mean, not in a cabled area? or can't supply the speed you pay for? Because it is still a contended service, and if you are in an oversubscribed area, then no, they aren't obligated to inform you of this.

So if I wanted a 20Mb service but they knew they couldn't provide it but instead could only provide me with a 1Mb service at best then they would not be obligated to tell me because the service I wanted wasn't available to me at the time I ordered but is a contended service?

I think you see my point!

The "up to" can't be an unlimited get out clause (or can it? Hence my original question). Otherwise zero is technically up to xMb and not providing any broadband service to people who sign up for broadband surely can't be legal.
---------- Post added at 01:34 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Originally Posted by *sloman*

Call and say you want it sorted or your cancelling or your bill reduced!

I've tried. It's a nightmare. I speak to someone who struggles to understand English and argues with me about switching the modem off and on.

From their point of view, why should they refund when they can make it as difficult as possible for you to even get them to admit there's a problem.

Here's a 20Mb service guv, on lighting fast fibre optic broadband don't you know. What's that? It's only as fast as dial-up? Let me pass you over to my Indian friend, he'll sort it out for you. Indian guy after more time than it's worth finally brings up the UBR stats and says - That's the worst overutilisation I've ever seen sir! There's nothing I can do about it though. That's one for Capacity Management.

Capacity Management are not customer facing and answer to no-one as I've found out to my cost.

This is all a digression however. My original point still stands. They are still signing people up to broadband (and I presume 20Mb) in my area without mentioning the fact that they can't provide the service they are selling (not even the old bottom tier service). Surely that can't be legal? Can anyone with any legal expertise or experience corroborate this?

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by caph

So if I wanted a 20Mb service but they knew they couldn't provide it but instead could only provide me with a 1Mb service at best then they would not be obligated to tell me because the service I wanted wasn't available to me at the time I ordered but is a contended service?

They can and do provide it.

You're signing up to a 20Mbps contended service. This means that your line is capable of 20Mbps, but you may not get that because of high levels of utilisation in your area. Contention is likely around 50:1, that means that there's 49 other people out there that have been sold the same 20Mbps of bandwidth. You can see quite easily why in areas of high utilisation this can cause issues, and if everyone on the service was using it at the same time you'll get a lowly 400Kbps. There's no obligation on VM's part to do anything about it though, because you're still getting what you pay for.

[MovedGoalPosts]

I thought Ofcom were trying to regulate this so that ISPs had to be more honest and realistic about achievable speeds

[broadbandking]

Originally Posted by Rob

I thought Ofcom were trying to regulate this so that ISPs had to be more honest and realistic about achievable speeds

VM only have to read something this out below

During peak times 5-11 the speed advertise may vary for information on traffic management please visit virgin website.

So doesnt really help the customer

[Milambar]

A friend and I had a talk about this situation a few months ago actually. As the law stands, it seems that as long as an ISP can demonstrate that it is trying to give you the speed you pay for, they can in theory legally get away with giving you a mere 0kbps, and doesn't have to give any discounts for failing.

The law could be different here, because hes in Holland, but I suspect its not so very different, and perhaps thats why OFCOM is trying to regulate this better.

[Ignitionnet]

Virgin Media are expected to give a reasonable estimate of performance, and if they are likely to not be able to achieve the performance on the tier you are paying for they should offer you the tier closest to your actual performance.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDon

Contention is likely around 50:1

*Snicker* not in many places it isn't

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by Rob

I thought Ofcom were trying to regulate this so that ISPs had to be more honest and realistic about achievable speeds

They came up with their "Voluntery Code of Practice for Broadband" and basically stopped all regulation. You can no longer complain to the regulator in a meaningful way and are actively discouraged from doing so.

I did a FOI request to get information on what methods Ofcom use to measure compliance with their code... the answer.. None. They have done no checking that ISPs are complying whatsoever. Apparently they intend to do so in the future, but have no idea when.

Currently it's a free for all.

[haydnwalker]

Originally Posted by caph

So if I wanted a 20Mb service but they knew they couldn't provide it but instead could only provide me with a 1Mb service at best then they would be obligated to tell me because the service I wanted wasn't available to me at the time I ordered?

No..because they can provide all services if stated its available in your area... YOUR meaning is different in the sense of "20mb and only getting 1mb"

So if I wanted a 20Mb service but they knew they couldn't provide it but instead could only provide me with a 1Mb service at best then they would not be obligated to tell me because the service I wanted wasn't available to me at the time I ordered but is a contended service?

If they say they can provide the 20Mb Tier then they can provide you with an up to 20Mb service. As has previously been stated, it is a contended service and their could me many other people sharing your bandwidth (just as it is on ADSL)

I think you see my point!

No not really

The "up to" can't be an unlimited get out clause (or can it? Hence my original question). Otherwise zero is technically up to xMb and not providing any broadband service to people who sign up for broadband surely can't be legal.

As far as I'm aware if you aren't getting anything near the tier of service you pay for, then can offer you a tier closer with the savings that come with it - but are probably not obgliated to do so.

From their point of view, why should they refund when they can make it as difficult as possible for you to even get them to admit there's a problem.

Fair point - but they are a business - and its all about the marketing... Do your research before signing up

Here's a 20Mb service guv, on lighting fast fibre optic broadband don't you know. What's that? It's only as fast as dial-up? Let me pass you over to my Indian friend, he'll sort it out for you. Indian guy after more time than it's worth finally brings up the UBR stats and says - That's the worst overutilisation I've ever seen sir! There's nothing I can do about it though. That's one for Capacity Management.

Its not all like that... at least, not in my experience with them.

Capacity Management are not customer facing and answer to no-one as I've found out to my cost.

Are you trying to find a casing point to make all of VMs departments customer-facing?

They are still signing people up to broadband (and I presume 20Mb) in my area without mentioning the fact that they can't provide the service they are selling (not even the old bottom tier service).

How do you know? Have you been to all the houses connected to your UBR and asked them all to do a Speed Test?

---------- Post added at 11:10 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Magilla

They came up with their "Voluntery Code of Practice for Broadband" and basically stopped all regulation. You can no longer complain to the regulator in a meaningful way and are actively discouraged from doing so.

I did a FOI request to get information on what methods Ofcom use to measure compliance with their code... the answer.. None. They have done no checking that ISPs are complying whatsoever. Apparently they intend to do so in the future, but have no idea when.

Hmmmm... I wonder if an FOI request could be done on VM to request which UBRs are oversubscribed and Time-to-Fix dates

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

No..because they can provide all services if stated its available in your area... YOUR meaning is different in the sense of "20mb and only getting 1mb"

No, it focuses on performance, if one is getting performance closer to a lower tier according to the code there should be a reasonable expectation to be offered that one instead.

If they say they can provide the 20Mb Tier then they can provide you with an up to 20Mb service. As has previously been stated, it is a contended service and their could me many other people sharing your bandwidth (just as it is on ADSL)

See above, 'up to' isn't good enough. If performance is closer to a lower tier customer should be offered a regrade, just as if a customer has a DSL line that, through noise, drops from 12Mbit sync to 8Mbit at peak times they should be offered an 8Mbit package rather than a >8Mbit one at their discretion.

As far as I'm aware if you aren't getting anything near the tier of service you pay for, then can offer you a tier closer with the savings that come with it - but are probably not obgliated to do so.

If they want to claim compliance with the Ofcom guidelines they signed up with they are

Hmmmm... I wonder if an FOI request could be done on VM to request which UBRs are oversubscribed and Time-to-Fix dates

It would be interesting data indeed. We'll have to wait until Gordon nationalises cable first though.

[*sloman*]

VirginMedia Customer Relations : 01642 642920

http://www.saynoto0870.com/companysearch.php

speak to them!

[Milambar]

AFAIK, the FoIA only covers public companies and agencies (aka, government run). Virgin Media is not a public company.