Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[weesteev]

Ok am I missing something here, why is the OP comparing their contract with the comapnies T&C's?

You take a contract with Virgin Media for a set period of time for a service at a set price (or an offer price) after installation or change of a package. Acceptance of a cnatract is also classed as acceptance of company terms and conditions (if you were an ex-Telewest customer then if you have a copy of the Telewest Broadband T&C's they do also state that your connection may be managed).

The Terms and Conditions of this service state the companies obligation to you (and vice versa) as well as limits, restrictions, policies etc.

The T&C's clearly state that your connection may be managed under certain circumstances...

The T&C's also state that they can be amended at any time...

Im sorry but you agreed to abide by the companies terms and conditions which are pretty clear when it comes to this area. Court action is almost pointless I would say as any solicitor worth his salt should refer you firstly to your contractural obligation with the respective company and how their T&C's would regulate your case.

Surely also OFCOM would be used as a defence case seen as they are the regulator who essentially "proof read's" communication companies T&C's... as well as the many lawyaers from Virgins side which scrutinse all their communications and legal documentation before they are issued?

I dont want to rain on your parade but I think it is definatley worth while pointing out the difference between "Contract" and "Terms and Condtions of service", which are clearly two seperate thinsg altogether.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by broadbandking

fiber optics is true and so is the unlimited but if they said unmetred then that would be false

I swear that's a piece of coax coming into my home

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Originally Posted by weesteev

The T&C's also state that they can be amended at any time...

Actually I'm quite sure that phrases like that have been found to be invalid in contracts as they are unfair. It's considered illegal for a company to be able to arbitrarily change the terms of a contract which is very much what that phrase translates to.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out but again VM employees should really consider not posting their opinions, all of which can be used in a court of law as they are not noted as being without prejudice.

EDIT: Here's proof of my comments above:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...rms/oft143.pdf

Originally Posted by Office Of Fair Trading

Variation clauses paragraph 1(j), (k), and (l) of Schedule 2
For example, the company may at any time vary or add to these conditions as it deems necessary.

When a contract is made, obligations are accepted in return for benefits. If one party can unilaterally change agreed terms, to its advantage, the balance of the transaction is lost. So a term is likely to be unfair if it gives the supplier the right at its discretion to force the consumer to accept changes to the bargain. A right to change any term in the contract, or to vary its core terms – the price or description of the product – is particularly open to objection.
Fairness, and the law, require that consumers get what they agreed to buy. Goods, in particular, must be of the agreed description and purpose, not just of 'equivalent quality'. A right to raise prices at discretion, where consumers are locked into the contract, is also highly suspect. Where the supplier's freedom to vary is more restricted, there may be no unfairness. Terms which allow only technical product modifications of no significance to the
consumer are usually acceptable. Even a right to make more substantial variations may be unobjectionable if the changes permitted are precisely specified, so consumers do effectively know what they are agreeing to. Alternatively, a variation clause that confers no real discretion, for instance, a right to raise prices in line with a published price index, may be fair.
Finally, and most importantly, any right to vary may be fair if the consumers can exit from the contract before being affected – but obviously adequate advance notice of the variation must be given and the consumer must not suffer any loss or significant inconvenience by cancelling.

Not quite as cut and dried as Virgin Media / then Telewest or ntl would have you believe, is it?

[Mike_A]

Thank you, Broadbandings, for your concise rebuff to what the Virgin Media and Telewest employees have stated on this forum. I am beginning to suspect they are using damage avoidance and obfuscation tactics.

The fact is that the term "unlimited" means just that, and not anything else as the Telewest employee has posted. So, be it contract, terms and conditions, or some other magic phrase Virgin Media want to mislead clients and potential clients about the one thing that shines in all their conduct so far, on and off list, is the obvious willingness to mislead people.

Additionally, whilst I am commenting generally, and not on the specifics of the case, some comments by Virgin Media and subsidiary company staff are bordering on something the court may wish to speak to Virgin Media about. Punitively.

I can well understand why Virgin Media would want to push someone off a case and protect their position viz-a-viz their constant deception.

They could, of course, be reasonable and fair to people. If they choose.

[Blaze]

The way I see it is, think of it like you're in a queue for something.

If someone uses up a load of time in the queue, itll be a slower wait for you.

Virgin dont limit how much you can download, just that if you download this amount within a set time period, youll be on a slower speed.

I dont think of it like you buy a car which can do 150mph and you can only go upto 130mph.

It might be because it doesnt bother me. I usually do big downloads either when im alsleep or when im out.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Not quite as cut and dried as Virgin Media / then Telewest or ntl would have you believe, is it?

Nor as you would have believe

Even a right to make more substantial variations may be unobjectionable if the changes permitted are precisely specified, so consumers do effectively know what they are agreeing to.

The changes of the Traffic Managment are and have been precisely specified at www.virginmedia.com/traffic

Finally, and most importantly, any right to vary may be fair if the consumers can exit from the contract before being affected – but obviously adequate advance notice of the variation must be given and the consumer must not suffer any loss or significant inconvenience by cancelling.

Which is built into Virgin terms

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Thank you, Broadbandings, for your concise rebuff to what the Virgin Media and Telewest employees have stated on this forum. I am beginning to suspect they are using damage avoidance and obfuscation tactics.

The fact is that the term "unlimited" means just that, and not anything else as the Telewest employee has posted. So, be it contract, terms and conditions, or some other magic phrase Virgin Media want to mislead clients and potential clients about the one thing that shines in all their conduct so far, on and off list, is the obvious willingness to mislead people.

Additionally, whilst I am commenting generally, and not on the specifics of the case, some comments by Virgin Media and subsidiary company staff are bordering on something the court may wish to speak to Virgin Media about. Punitively.

I can well understand why Virgin Media would want to push someone off a case and protect their position viz-a-viz their constant deception.

They could, of course, be reasonable and fair to people. If they choose.

Hang on a minute Mike. The contributions over a long period of time of Virgin Media staff to this forum have been valuable and informative to the membership. I don’t see it serves the readership to gag their opinion either directly or indirectly.

Free speech is more important than saving a few bob on that which is paid for internet, or any other, services. I think people should be allowed to express their views with impunity provided Cable Forums’ own rules are observed. It will enrich the discussion.

Let everyone and anyone share their personal views and don’t beat them over the head for contributing to your interesting thread.

[Ignitionnet]

You misunderstand me, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, and what Virgin build into their terms is irrelevant if it's against guidelines.

Did Virgin permit customers to exit their contracts early without penalty?
Could cancelling Virgin Media services cause significant inconvenience?
Did Virgin give advanced notice prior to deployment of STM?

If any of the 3 above you can't answer appropriately you're potentially in strife.

[nfs6600]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

They could, of course, be reasonable and fair to people. If they choose.

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all.

You really do believe VM's guff on STM I see

STM is in place because VM when they rolled 20Mbit didn't have the bandwidth to support it, and have done thousands of upgrades since its' rollout to try and push towards having enough bandwidth to support the products they have been selling..

Nothing to do with heavy users at all, you don't like heavy users you boot them, VM just didn't have the bandwidth to offer 20Mbit on a fully unlimited basis. Heavy users cause the most problems but for the most part VM just didn't have the local bandwidth at the MAC domain level to handle the tiers of service they have been selling.

Who knows it may encourage VM to continue their upgrade programs in order to offer their full range of services with no STM, or to look into alternate management systems.

Unlimited is just a PR title, VM have been unable to sustain an unlimited service since the 20Mbit deployment and are fully aware of this, hence STM and why it was deployed alongside 20Mbit.

[Mike_A]

Kursk, you are quite correct. The staff concerned are, of course, entitled to provide opinions - and they are useful opinions. Debate has two sides. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Apologies.

My tenor was meant to be more like a mirthful comment, the type of which is shared amongst friends in a pub, but writing doesn't always convey that. In that context, as with chatter about who the best of two football sides is, and given the obvious legal basis that people have to stick to a contract once agreed, their comments have a ring of either deception or wholesale misunderstanding of law {nudge nudge, wink wink - and David Beckham is a terrible footballer...}

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Kursk, you are quite correct. The staff concerned are, of course, entitled to provide opinions - and they are useful opinions. Debate has two sides. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Apologies.

My tenor was meant to be more like a mirthful comment, the type of which is shared amongst friends in a pub, but writing doesn't always convey that.

Understood Mike, thank you .

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all.

You misunderstand what I am doing. I (and others joining the case) are saying that repayment must be made for service not delivered. If someone is on an unlimited package and receives less than that (because VM unilaterally take it away) then that someone should receive a quid-pro-quo rebate. If someone wants to download movies from China all day every day, then that's between them and their supplier. I agree that greedy users should face penalties but regular users should not suffer as a result - which is precisely what is happening.

Simply put, Virgin Media should not be selling in a way that overloads the technology they have available - locally, regionally or nationally. If they sell something they cannot deliver then that is fraud. I, and others like me, do not want to be defrauded. I do not mind STM so long as it is reasonable and aimed at those continuously overloading the system to excess.

Oh, and why should normal users pay for the excesses of others?

[broadbandking]

Broadbandings - isn't that fiber underground?

[nfs6600]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

You misunderstand what I am doing.

What your doing (in my opinion) is opening up a whole can of worms for the customers out there who never have any problems at all as most never have any issues with regards to the STM policy - This is in my opinion, from what other posters have said on this board and others

It is unlimited broadband as there is no hard cap on how much you can download per month. Your clutching at straws my friend. I don't mean this in any offence but I hope that you lose this case and VM come out top trumps.

Originally Posted by Mike_A

I agree that greedy users should face penalties but regular users should not suffer as a result - which is precisely what is happening.

This would also be unfair to the heavy users though, surely?

Originally Posted by Mike_A

I do not mind STM so long as it is reasonable and aimed at those continuously overloading the system to excess.

Oh, and why should normal users pay for the excesses of others?

Agreed on this point. But also again, unfair to heavy users. You state you want the system to be fair. So that should mean fair to all users. Making it fair to the average user is singling out the heavy user, thus unfair still. So please, how can Virgin Media make a fair system without making any of the users being given the shoddy end of the stick?? I'd love to know

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

You really do believe VM's guff on STM I see

Not so much a case of guff, more like I believe it to be the best way to keep the network in a stable state for most users.

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Nothing to do with heavy users at all, you don't like heavy users you boot them

Problem, the heavy users are those who are on 20/50 tiers. Who are of course paying a premium price. You lose those you lose revenue, which in turn means you don't have as much cash to upgrade the network. Outcome? Poor network for all no matter what tier you're on

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Who knows it may encourage VM to continue their upgrade programs in order to offer their full range of services with no STM, or to look into alternate management systems.

No STM would be the way forward without doubt. But what other management system would there be? Limit certain programs, p2p for example. To the OP's logic that would be unfair I think, and he wants it to be fair for all

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Unlimited is just a PR title, VM have been unable to sustain an unlimited service since the 20Mbit deployment and are fully aware of this, hence STM and why it was deployed alongside 20Mbit.

Agreed on the PR title. However I can personally say my 20Mbit has never went lower than 16Mbit even at peak times. Infact most people I know have never had an issue(there are those that have and still do of course)

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by broadbandking

Broadbandings - isn't that fiber underground?

As far as a cabinet in the neighbourhood / area yes, then it's coax from there. I don't consider it to be fibre optic, it's cable, Fibre To The Node, hybrid fibre coax, it's not fibre optic broadband at all and that's a crappy marketing term that a wussy regulator with no idea what they are talking about agreed with.

You know that the USA has much higher cable coverage than we do. The first country to describe cable as fibre optic would be the UK, USA followed suit.

The Advertising Standards Authority are a waste of time, they appear to think that cable signals magic their way into the home. These are the guys who believe that electrical signals would rather go along steel than copper. You'll have BT advertising fibre optic broadband shortly too even though it's copper wire that comes into the house.