Virgin rapped on broadband speeds

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

BT do protocol based shaping though rather than having a set limit of data then protocol agnostic throttling. Unless BT start advertising their P2P speeds they are fine.

throttling is throttling, I actually believe protocol throttling to be worse as it punishes select people only. So people just web browsing get the impression the service isnt throttling. Facts remain however, the basis of BTs complaint was peple on VM could not download music and videos fast at peak, the same applies to BT as that would be affected by the protocol throttling.

BT advertise a generic speed which would cover p2p.

[Nicosia]

i does make sense

[h3llb1tch]

Originally Posted by Be*

You are not limited to how much you can download. The only thing that may get limited is the speed. You can still download as much as you can just at a lower speed

Now which part of that did you not understand?

You are defending the indefensible.
Unlimited means without limits. NO LIMITS or restrictions. Not a single Goddamn one.

If a service is advertised as unlimited, people will natuarally assume there are no limits.

So imagine how peed off they are when they realise that during STM hours, they are limited both in how much they can download (if they don't want to be STM'd their download capacity is restricted because they are only allowed to download XXX amount of data) and how fast they can download it (if they trigger STM, their speed is limited, restricting their download capacity relative to the full speed sevice which is being paid for.)

You cannot rewrite the English language and write in exceptions to the rule.

Unlimited means NOT limited.

Which part of the definition do you not understand ?
Perhaps I should get you a dictionary...

[Central]

Originally Posted by h3llb1tch

You are defending the indefensible.
Unlimited means without limits. NO LIMITS or restrictions. Not a single Goddamn one.

If a service is advertised as unlimited, people will natuarally assume there are no limits.

So imagine how peed off they are when they realise that during STM hours, they are limited both in how much they can download (if they don't want to be STM'd their download capacity is restricted because they are only allowed to download XXX amount of data) and how fast they can download it (if they trigger STM, their speed is limited, restricting their download capacity relative to the full speed sevice which is being paid for.)

You cannot rewrite the English language and write in exceptions to the rule.

Unlimited means NOT limited.

Which part of the definition do you not understand ?
Perhaps I should get you a dictionary...

Well Virgin have apparently re wrote it. Why has this not been challenged by ASA and OFCOM then?

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Be*

Well Virgin have apparently re wrote it. Why has this not been challenged by ASA and OFCOM then?

Simple. The ASA dont understand internet jargon, and OFCOM dont care about anything but phone lines.

Originally Posted by Be*

Well Virgin have apparently re wrote it. Why has this not been challenged by ASA and OFCOM then?

Actually, they have.

You'll read about it in a few weeks probably.

[Visitor]

ASA said that you agreed to the "fair use" or what ever its called, so agreed to the download limits, in fact you agreed to everything, and you agreed to any changes.

Its all on the ASA site to read

Originally Posted by Visitor

ASA said that you agreed to the "fair use" or what ever its called, so agreed to the download limits, in fact you agreed to everything, and you agreed to any changes.

Its all on the ASA site to read

And the ASA have also agreed that what VM have in place is a "CAP" thus not "unlimited" and VM failed to report to the ASA that they also did daytime traffic management, telling the ASA it was only during "peak" times.

[Central]

Got a link for this? I would like to read this.

Thanks

[Nicosia]

at this rate the capping will be 24/7, how can they offer 50mbit ( soon ) when they already have to cap everyone even the 2mbit users which dont use up any b/w at all even if they dl 24/7

Originally Posted by Be*

Got a link for this? I would like to read this.

Thanks

http://www.asab.org.uk/asa/adjudicat..._ADJ_44615.htm

Originally Posted by Ken W

BT advertise up to 8Mb but the max that can be attained in my area is 3.5Mb which is why I am on VM cable 4Mb and get a solid 3.9Mb all the time.

It does not excuse the ripping off that vm do and try to get away with it.
Well done BT.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Nicosia

at this rate the capping will be 24/7, how can they offer 50mbit ( soon ) when they already have to cap everyone even the 2mbit users which dont use up any b/w at all even if they dl 24/7

50mb? Do not believe their lies.
They cannot offer the speeds they are contracted to.

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------

Originally Posted by h3llb1tch

You are defending the indefensible.
Unlimited means without limits. NO LIMITS or restrictions. Not a single Goddamn one.

If a service is advertised as unlimited, people will natuarally assume there are no limits.

So imagine how peed off they are when they realise that during STM hours, they are limited both in how much they can download (if they don't want to be STM'd their download capacity is restricted because they are only allowed to download XXX amount of data) and how fast they can download it (if they trigger STM, their speed is limited, restricting their download capacity relative to the full speed sevice which is being paid for.)

You cannot rewrite the English language and write in exceptions to the rule.

Unlimited means NOT limited.

Which part of the definition do you not understand ?
Perhaps I should get you a dictionary...

Just make sure it is the vm dictionary.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

throttling is throttling, I actually believe protocol throttling to be worse as it punishes select people only. So people just web browsing get the impression the service isnt throttling. Facts remain however, the basis of BTs complaint was peple on VM could not download music and videos fast at peak, the same applies to BT as that would be affected by the protocol throttling.

BT advertise a generic speed which would cover p2p.

So should vm now be answering to the ASA for their "Mother of all Broadband " advertisements?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Nicosia

hell yes, the speed test they did in sctoland took 4 mins to dl 10meg file thats not good. even the other speed test took 10 seconds and i am dling 24mbytes in about 10 seconds on 20mbit, is there even one adsl customer who recieves full 24mbit? even 20?

There are a fair few who receive full 24Mbit and even more who receive 20. Certainly not a majority but it's far from unknown.

[xxtomasxx]

Letter I have written to the ASA... not a happy VM customer

Dear ASA...

I am writing to complain having connected to Vrigin Media and subject to a minimum contract term as a result...

The advertisement uses the term 'UNLIMITED' to highlight a significant benefit, of joining it's ISP's as opposed to its rivals... that being that as a broadband customer, you are not subjected to a fair usage policy that may not be attractive to your usage needs. It was an overriding factor in my choice of this ISP.
That is a good deal and I believe the price to be good too... I connected the service, tweaked my PC to ensure I could reach such a speed and carried out a speed test and I received the speed as promised in the advertisement.
However... an unadvertised 'policy' entitled Traffic Management Policy is limiting my speeds during peak periods of the day to 25% of the promised speed... In my case a 10Mb connection, is limited to just 2.5Mb.
Initially I was not aware of this, I knew that I had troubles with my connection speed, however as an everyday customer, I am not an expert on what a problem may be and so, as you do, I contacted the customer support team and was taken through an array of checks that failed to solve my problem, I was further advised to monitor my speed and that it may be a problem with my PC.
After some time I discovered about Traffic Management Policy, through a website called cable forums. I am aware that I do download considerably, however this was something I had considered when choosing their service as opposed to other available ISPs.
I contacted customer support with my suspicion that in fact it was Virgin Media who had been limiting my speed and after some discussion, It was confirmed to me. I would like to point out, that I find it incredibly sneaky of Virgin Media, in my initial call to not be told what they knew, and I had no idea of. Furthermore, I suspect that it may be a tactic of their support service, to not volunteer this information... especially during the first 30days of service, as I would have had a statutory right to terminate my contract.
As for the advertising, I have read many arguments on the Cable Forum website. I however feel that, if Virgin Media had issues with the amount of data that a user chooses to download, it should have, as other ISPs have done, advertised a fair usage policy. I believe there is a criminal offence entitled “Receiving Goods and services through deception” that is appropriate to their false advertising, as calling a service ‘unlimited’ and then limiting it later on is a way to get customers on board and subject to contract, will have to see out there contracts out until the end.
For periods of a day, I am paying for a 10Mb service and receiving 2.5Mb. If I had chosen a lesser package, I would have paid less. Why am I not being refunded for the time I am having my service limited?? I think that’s undependable and potentially criminal, I certainly have no doubt that the way It was advertised was misleading, with a view to securing valuable business.
In contacting the ASA, I am minded that your role is to protect the consumer from false and misleading advertising. I understand that you have made previous judgement on aspects of Virgin Media policy (BT vs Virgin Media) adjudication. Having read your adjudication, I think the issue I raise is different, in the sense that, I claim that the advertising, carries no warning as to a Traffic Management Policy and that the policy itself, is vague in terms of the criteria of client it applies to, simply stating ‘heavy user’. At least when other ISPs advertise ‘A Fair Use Policy’ you are able as a consumer, identify its criteria with ease. I would also highlight the fraudulent use of the term Unlimited, to bring in customers, who otherwise would have looked elsewhere.
I noted in the forums, as mentioned earlier, that someone pointed out that no other company, would possibly offer a service and the recall part or the majority of the entitlement attached to that service. It’s simply criminal.
I feel the ASA should rule in my favour following examination of this false advertising practice and given the many customers out there who are currently locked into contracts, they didn’t sign up to, receiving services at up to 75% diminished value during times in the evening and the day, with no refund. It should be a judgement of a weight that recognises the appaling advertising that is misleading customers into this money trap and should also send a message to the industry, that such money making endeavours are totally unacceptable to the ASA.
Thankyou

[Exorcist74]

Originally Posted by Visitor

ASA said that you agreed to the "fair use" or what ever its called, so agreed to the download limits, in fact you agreed to everything, and you agreed to any changes.

Its all on the ASA site to read

I challenge VM to show me or anyone, proff that I signed a agreement to or any kind of document to say that I agreed to the Traffic shaping or whatever they like to call it.... I Think NOT.
When I signed up (the first month it came on line NTL then) I signed for UNLIMITED usage...
No signed agreement has been signed since.