Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

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

With my Internet development hat on, I can fairly state that most users do not know they are being STMd. For example, it's like Windows OS users with slow systems who do not know that CrapCleaner/CCleaner will speed them up as a dose of syrup of figs does. Banks relied on ignorance too...

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.

Any restrictive practice removes "unlimited" if it causes deterioration in line speed - the 20Mb factor is about selling speed of service. I am indeed clutching a bunch of straws: each straw leading legal authority and statutory law.

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

I've been into restaurants in the States, China and other places. They have gondolas of free accompaniments of such things as salads. In the UK, the same chains do not - because greedy people gorge themselves on it, seemingly ignoring the spirit of the offering. Excess users should justifiably pay a bit more, or suffer traffic management, so regular users receive what they contracted. Just like in all walks of commerce, gas and electricity provision and so on. Nothing wrong or unfair about it.

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

I have offered an alternative corporate strategy to Virgin Media. It would overcome all the difficulties mentioned. It would enhance their market place, thus adding many millions to annual income. It would protect them from upcoming nationwide BT installations, thus sheltering their existing market. Most of all, it would be equitable to all. Unfortunately, the result was no response.

There are many countries who do not suffer the shenanigans resulting from Virgin Media's practices. China, South Korea and the USA included. I applaud the bravery of stance taken to justify VM but they are wrong, unethical, unlawful and there are sensible alternative methods - methods that include those who gorge themselves with downloads and torrent systems.

[suggsy]

Just to add my 2 penneth, and please excuse my ignorance as im a fairly newbie, but, i'm on 20mg virgin, just been using newsgroups for my downloading, (costs me an extra $30 p/month), when not being tm'd i get 2.33mb/s d/l speed stable, when tm'd it's more like 600kb/s, so all in all pretty damn good really although it does cost for newsgroups and newsreaders etc, plus i try to d/l most of my stuff after 11pm, sorry if this has been irrelevent but thought i'd input

Btw, good luck Mike A

[nfs6600]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

I have offered an alternative corporate strategy to Virgin Media. It would overcome all the difficulties mentioned. It would enhance their market place, thus adding many millions to annual income. It would protect them from upcoming nationwide BT installations, thus sheltering their existing market. Most of all, it would be equitable to all. Unfortunately, the result was no response.

.

As I said above, I would love to know. So what is this alernative?

There is never a fair way of doing things. What most deem to be fair, there will always be someone who deem it unfair. Under this logig VM can never win?

It's not a case of bravery in taking a stance with VM, but a case of seeing what is right for most users! Again, in my opinion.

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by suggsy

Just to add my 2 penneth, and please excuse my ignorance as im a fairly newbie, but, i'm on 20mg virgin, just been using newsgroups for my downloading, (costs me an extra $30 p/month), when not being tm'd i get 2.33mb/s d/l speed stable, when tm'd it's more like 600kb/s, so all in all pretty damn good really although it does cost for newsgroups and newsreaders etc, plus i try to d/l most of my stuff after 11pm, sorry if this has been irrelevent but thought i'd input

Not irrelevant but a prime example of what ordinary people perceive. Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day. What you state suggests you are receiving a service that VM and other ISPs charge a far smaller rate for. Can the Virgin guys correct me here: what is it, £37/month *(£20, XL) for 20Mb, £17 *(£14 L) for 10Mb and less by competitors for what this person is receiving?

Btw, good luck Mike A

Thanks!

*Corrections marked - thanks to BenMcr. I had been paying £37 for the 20Mb broadband element (TV and telephone pack were extra) when I came off and took this case.

[BenMcr]

Depending upon the distance from your serving node

Er? Why depending on the distance?

Originally Posted by Mike_A

£37/month for 20Mb, £17 for 10Mb and a huge lot less for what this person is receiving?

£20 for XL
£14 for L

when you have a Virgin phoneline

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by nfs6600

As I said above, I would love to know. So what is this alernative?

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value. Ex-Telewest engineers I bounced the concept off smiled in awe. Oh, and I have spoken with one major competitor who has a high degree of interest.

There are more than the obvious dangers to VM opposing and losing instead of fairly sorting out what is a very simple matter, contractually and technically. Repayment to a wide audience, loss of stock value and losing a major market lead to competitors to name three.

I have not approached the action without substantial preparation and strategy.

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day.

Distance is not relevant in a cable system, only ADSL.

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Distance is not relevant in a cable system, only ADSL.

That's what I thought.

And yet it was used as an excuse many times, including when Virgin Media engineers visited and carried out tests between client and engineers monitoring at VM. They said my system was "technically excellent" but the reasons for receiving 300k download were "throttling and distance from node". That was the first time I had heard the phrase (autumn, 2007). After several more months without improvement I formally complained (along with others) and, well, here we are. I cannot comprehend why visiting engineers and telephone support technicians would use that excuse (have it in writing too).

[weesteev]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value. Ex-Telewest engineers I bounced the concept off smiled in awe. Oh, and I have spoken with one major competitor who has a high degree of interest.

There are more than the obvious dangers to VM opposing and losing instead of fairly sorting out what is a very simple matter, contractually and technically. Repayment to a wide audience, loss of stock value and losing a major market lead to competitors to name three.

I have not approached the action without substantial preparation and strategy.

Mike Im sure you have done your research into this... but you start your thread with "Im taking Virgin to court becuase they changed my contract terms"

(which they didnt)

And then you state you have valid alternatives to a long standing bandwidth problem for Virgin (a problem shared by many cable co's the world over).

The options to improve bandwidth are thus...

• Apply SDV to the network to increase local capacity by taking broadcast TV channels to the edge routers for when they are required.
• Shut off Analogue
• Swicth to MPEG4 (potentially IPTV) and DVB-C2
• Complete the rollout of DOCSIS 3 and gain certification for upstream channel bonding from their CMTS providers Motorolla and Cisco.
• Improve their security system to prevent unidentified modems connecting to the network without Virgin's say so.
• Prioritise traffic to demanded services and target illegal P2P downloads.
• Finally cut off extreme downloaders and uploaders who are saturating their nodes.

If you look at examples in US of cable co's who have implemeted some of the above (Comcast and SDV for example), it doesnt fully resolve issues as you increase capacity the demand increases to match as you add more customers and they have more speed to play with (and download services become easier to access).

Your point about having "commercially sensitive" information will not be somethign new to Virgin, the networks and access team have worked for years on tight budgets and many system changes to provide the best service possible at all times, if there was a better way to do it then they would do it. 99% of the time money is the issue, your arguments about protecting the company with upcoming expansion of comapnies like BT's Fibre network are flawed as intial rollout will be to new build areas... and Openreach will sell access to companies like Virgin Media to help them recoup costs (and if the Governement get involved with funding its likely they will be forced to deliver LLU access on Fibre).

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do, crikey there are people in the company that are no doubt coming up with the same ideas as yourself and Virgin will no doubt contact you and thank you for your input but thats probably as far as it will go. You are not alone in your struggle, and STM is a very touchy issue, but the way you have approached this by coming on a public forum and threatning court action of changes to your contract (which is actually T&C's anyway) negates any further argument you have about "great ideas".

At the end of the day, all you will achieve out of Court action if it go's in your favour will be the option to disconnect if you are in a contract as it would no longer be valid if decided by a judge, do you expect them to turn off STM on your node? I just completely fail to understand the reasoning to your argument.

[nfs6600]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value.

Then I'm sorry but in my opinion you have no grounds at all in stating that the VM STM is unfair if you are not willing to state what would be the fairer option. You can't state that something is unfair if you have grounds to counter what is fair yet don't give out that information....

Which in my view means that at the end of the day, you are not looking for a better solution for the customer base at all or a fair system. But that of financial gain for yourself. If it were not for financial gain, then why not share?

[suggsy]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Not irrelevant but a prime example of what ordinary people perceive. Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day. What you state suggests you are receiving a service that VM and other ISPs charge a far smaller rate for. Can the Virgin guys correct me here: what is it, £37/month *(£20, XL) for 20Mb, £17 *(£14 L) for 10Mb and less by competitors for what this person is receiving?



Thanks!

*Corrections marked - thanks to BenMcr. I had been paying £37 for the 20Mb broadband element (TV and telephone pack were extra) when I came off and took this case.

'ordinary people' ?? i'm far from ordinary lol,

I live 11 miles from my ubr, also i dont know anyone who downloads faster than 2.33mb/s, (obvious exception being 50mg connection), i have a special price as i have been a long standing customer etc etc, i have 20mg b/b, tv without sports and movies, and landline phone for £57 p/m

ps, by 2.33mb/s that is actually top wack full speed for 20mg connection, or so i'm led to believe lol

Originally Posted by suggsy

'ordinary people' ?? i'm far from ordinary lol,

I live 11 miles from my ubr, also i dont know anyone who downloads faster than 2.33mb/s, (obvious exception being 50mg connection), i have a special price as i have been a long standing customer etc etc, i have 20mg b/b, tv without sports and movies, and landline phone for £57 p/m

ps, by 2.33mb/s that is actually top wack full speed for 20mg connection, or so i'm led to believe lol

you have the units wrong - a 20Mb/s line should be around 2.33 MB/s

- also newsgroups at $30 are expensive - have you tried the Astraweb offer - $11 including SSL

http://www.news.astraweb.com/special...FUU_3god4USFDQ

- if it is still available ...


<edit> sorry, topic

- wouldn't a case pursued in the Scottish Court system only apply in Scotland if found in favour of the plaintiff ??

[Mike_A]

=weesteev;34750684]Mike Im sure you have done your research into this... but you start your thread with "Im taking Virgin to court becuase they changed my contract terms"

(which they didnt)

I shall refrain revisiting that - suffice to mention perhaps you should reconsider the context of what I wrote.

What you say next is far more interesting.

[QUOTE]

And then you state you have valid alternatives to a long standing bandwidth problem for Virgin (a problem shared by many cable co's the world over).

The options to improve bandwidth are thus...

• Apply SDV to the network to increase local capacity by taking broadcast TV channels to the edge routers for when they are required.
• Shut off Analogue
• Swicth to MPEG4 (potentially IPTV) and DVB-C2
• Complete the rollout of DOCSIS 3 and gain certification for upstream channel bonding from their CMTS providers Motorolla and Cisco.
• Improve their security system to prevent unidentified modems connecting to the network without Virgin's say so.
• Prioritise traffic to demanded services and target illegal P2P downloads.
• Finally cut off extreme downloaders and uploaders who are saturating their nodes.

If you look at examples in US of cable co's who have implemeted some of the above (Comcast and SDV for example), it doesnt fully resolve issues as you increase capacity the demand increases to match as you add more customers and they have more speed to play with (and download services become easier to access).

Your point about having "commercially sensitive" information will not be somethign new to Virgin, the networks and access team have worked for years on tight budgets and many system changes to provide the best service possible at all times, if there was a better way to do it then they would do it. 99% of the time money is the issue, your arguments about protecting the company with upcoming expansion of comapnies like BT's Fibre network are flawed as intial rollout will be to new build areas... and Openreach will sell access to companies like Virgin Media to help them recoup costs (and if the Governement get involved with funding its likely they will be forced to deliver LLU access on Fibre).

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do, crikey there are people in the company that are no doubt coming up with the same ideas as yourself and Virgin will no doubt contact you and thank you for your input but thats probably as far as it will go. You are not alone in your struggle, and STM is a very touchy issue, but the way you have approached this by coming on a public forum and threatning court action of changes to your contract (which is actually T&C's anyway) you negates any further argument you have about "great ideas".

Your response as regards rollout and Openreach are well taken.

To start my answer, several years ago (perhaps 2003) Telewest Systems were down three days as a the result of the (I think) Red Flag virus. It was me who called them, as a courtesy, and told them how to overcome it (the put £30 on my account for the favour). You see, like Paddington Bear, they had their heads so heavily into the technical honey pot they couldn't see the approach to solution required. It is the same in the present case. VM are stuck looking too heavily into the technical option.

By analogy, your marketing department will know the concepts of marketing like brand, distribution and so on. These are things that national tourists organisations (NTOs) look at when trying to promote why their sun/sea/sand is better than a neighbours sites/interests/scenery. VM, and others, are looking in the wrong place with the wrong marketing mix and adaptation of technology to that mix. I appreciate all the technical wizardry you (VM and group) have looked at, but there is a much easier, cheaper and efficient approach.

At the end of the day, all you will achieve out of Court action if it go's in your favour will be the option to disconnect if you ar ein a contract as it would nolonger be valid if decided by a judge, do you expect them to turn off STM on your node? I just completely fail to understand the reasoning to your argument.

There are orders of specific implement sought, yes. These type of orders amount to requiring the contract to be obtempered as the court directs. I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.

[weesteev]

[quote=Mike_A;34750697]I shall refrain revisiting that - suffice to mention perhaps you should reconsider the context of what I wrote.

What you say next is far more interesting.

Your response as regards rollout and Openreach are well taken.

To start my answer, several years ago (perhaps 2003) Telewest Systems were down three days as a the result of the (I think) Red Flag virus. It was me who called them, as a courtesy, and told them how to overcome it (the put £30 on my account for the favour). You see, like Paddington Bear, they had their heads so heavily into the technical honey pot they couldn't see the approach to solution required. It is the same in the present case. VM are stuck looking too heavily into the technical option.

By analogy, your marketing department will know the concepts of marketing like brand, distribution and so on. These are things that national tourists organisations (NTOs) look at when trying to promote why their sun/sea/sand is better than a neighbours sites/interests/scenery. VM, and others, are looking in the wrong place with the wrong marketing mix and adaptation of technology to that mix. I appreciate all the technical wizardry you (VM and group) have looked at, but there is a much easier, cheaper and efficient approach.



There are orders of specific implement sought, yes. These type of orders amount to requiring the contract to be obtempered as the court directs. I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.

This is what im trying to say, your terms never changed, the Telewest T&C's stated that the service can be restricted upon higher usage, although it wasnt enforced it was always part of their initial terms.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.

Those originally agreed terms include the right for the company to manage it's network as it sees fit

Again I point you the provision that has been in Telewest terms and conditions since 2001

Telewest reserves the right to restrict access to the Service and to impose data traffic restrictions at its discretion, in order to implement new facilities, allow data retrieval and maintain Service levels

This means that this right has been there since Telewest started providing broadband services, so will have been in your original contract!

EDIT: as for notification, the original Telewest terms has that covered as well:

Where practicable you will be advised of any such measures by e-mail and/or via our Website within a reasonable timeframe.

So again, the original Telewest terms allow notification of measures to be put up on website - such as www.virginmedia.com/traffic. This website was avaliable BEFORE the Traffic Managment was officially introduced in May 2007