Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

As far as I see (others may correct me) non of those issues have anything to do with STM. STM doesn't involve packet loss and the inability to connect to websites. Other technical issues cause these problems

Wrong Jamie. All these issues kick in at precisely the times STM does. In tests, access to these services goes back to normal when STM goes off. The only conclusion one can draw from tests is that STM has a wide effect on a contracted person's ability to use the Internet as intended.

Tests are very easy to invoke using online speed test tools to get a general idea of the time at which line speed / bandwidth drops. Once these tests display a general time each day for the STM "kick-in" access to the services mentioned, say PartyPoker or some online gaming activity, can take place before and after this general time. The same can then be compared with common competitors like BT and Sky.

[Horace]

I can't imagine any outcome of this case that would benefit customers, VM are already burdened with huge debts, they don't really have spare money to dish out in compensation and anything that this costs them, either in legal bills or as a result of any ruling, just ends up with less money going into the services we pay for and a worse service and maybe changes in their traffic management to hard capping. I'm happy with my services, I'm happy and have been since the introduction, with STM ,since the alternatives are much worse.

I'd rather things stay exactly as they are with VM trying to get the most out of their network and pushing speeds and services upwards, they do pretty well as it is considering their dreadful finanical situation.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Fatec

Funnily, STM does not mentioned when you get their letters offering unlimited broadband, just says 'fair usage policy' oops STM isnt mentioned in there either, unless you know your looking for STM pages then you wont really find it, sorry but STM is NOT mentioned on ANY pages when your signing up, it's not in their FUP, no one tells you and you dont find out until your already capped.

What is says on the bottom of the adverts is:

Minimum computer requirements apply. Speed of internet connection assumes components working at optimum speed and capacity. Both cable and ADSL broadband are affected by user volume. Subscriber traffic management policy applies; Acceptable Use Policy applies to all speeds

Have to? funny, i've not come across anyone that does, infact, none of the agents who knock on our doors mention STM here, they blatantly deny that they use it.

Yes have to, if a particular agent/employee doesn't that is them, not VM company policy

And as for their 5% figure, it's well known it means a different 5% at any given time, so it affects their whole user database and this does bring into question their '20Mbit unlimited' ads.

Yes it is all of their customers - Virgin have never said any different. The 5% figure is based on that overall out of the several million customers no more than 5% of those customers will ever be affected by STM

[jamiefrost]

Originally Posted by Mike_A

Wrong Jamie. All these issues kick in at precisely the times STM does. In tests, access to these services goes back to normal when STM goes off. The only conclusion one can draw from tests is that STM has a wide effect on a contracted person's ability to use the Internet as intended.

I'd have to disagree, I regulary get STM'd and it never effects my ability to connect to websites. How does being limited to 5meg or what ever stop you from connecting. The average ADSL user would have the same issues.

It may be soemthing else but i don't see how having a speed limit applied would cause this.

JJ

[lymmranger]

Originally Posted by Horace

I can't imagine any outcome of this case that would benefit customers, VM are already burdened with huge debts, they don't really have spare money to dish out in compensation and anything that this costs them, either in legal bills or as a result of any ruling, just ends up with less money going into the services we pay for and a worse service and maybe changes in their traffic management to hard capping. I'm happy with my services, I'm happy and have been since the introduction, with STM ,since the alternatives are much worse.

I'd rather things stay exactly as they are with VM trying to get the most out of their network and pushing speeds and services upwards, they do pretty well as it is considering their dreadful finanical situation.

It would benefit everyone if all ISP`s were forced to be honest about what you are actually going to get.. it would make choosing your provider an easier task for a start!
Heavy users would pay more IF they got what they were paying for
marketing blurb like "unlimited" "download a movie in xxx minutes" is just out and out dishonesty.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Horace

I can't imagine any outcome of this case that would benefit customers, VM are already burdened with huge debts, they don't really have spare money to dish out in compensation and anything that this costs them, either in legal bills or as a result of any ruling, just ends up with less money going into the services we pay for and a worse service and maybe changes in their traffic management to hard capping. I'm happy with my services, I'm happy and have been since the introduction, with STM ,since the alternatives are much worse.

I'd rather things stay exactly as they are with VM trying to get the most out of their network and pushing speeds and services upwards, they do pretty well as it is considering their dreadful finanical situation.

So because a company owes massive debts you should be leniant towards them?
because they owe so much money, one could say that that is the reason why they don't and can't supply the high speeds they sell. feel the need to have to hide the fact that STM is in place.

If it was suggested that they just supply a speed they can supply such as 5MB they would argue that they would go out of business if they did that. but at the same time they are saying that we offer the higher speeds but with the hidden STM as that is how we can make money without actually having to provide the speed paid for.

I'm all for a company making money. but not when it means doing it in a way that can be seen as being deceitful and dishonest.

The question is why don't you want us to know about STM?
the answer is the deciding factor that unravels the use the use of the words Unlimited and Fastest when selling the product to the public.

[jamiefrost]

Are virgin not honest (accesabily aside) they do post exactly what their limits are

JJ

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Gary L

The question is why don't you want us to know about STM?
the answer is the deciding factor that unravels the use the use of the words Unlimited and Fastest when selling the product to the public.

Virgin comply with the OFCOM guidance

33. ISPs must use their best endeavours to set out clearly, and in a prominent place on their websites (e.g. within help or FAQs sections), information relating to their respective policies on fair usage; traffic management and traffic shaping to cover, at a minimum, the matters set out below.

Traffic management and traffic shaping
39. Where ISPs apply traffic management and shaping policies, they should publish on their website, in a clear and easily accessible form, information on the restrictions applied. This should include the types of applications, services and protocols that are affected and specific information on peak traffic periods.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Virgin comply with the OFCOM guidance

So they are going to say roughly what you are saying?

you the customer might think that we aren't being as open and upfront about STM, but we don't care what you think. as long as we are within the guidelines that's all that matters. we will carry on selling our product as Unlimited and being the fastest in the land. even if it is in some areas and only applies for a few minutes.

[BenMcr]

No that's not what I'm saying at all

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

No that's not what I'm saying at all

Well I think that's what they will say. and that is why they do it.
It all points to deceit and dishonesty on their part.

[Bonglet]

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

No ISP provides a contention ratio of 1:1 for home broadband no business model would support it and it's not needed.

Loading web pages and looking at emails does not required a 1:1 line, with general web browsing your connection is idile most of the time. Once you loaded the page thats it.

JJ

Point is though jamie people dont just use the net for looking at web pages and e-mail anymore hence the higher speed packages getting sold, if we did only do that the old 1 or 2mb line would be fine.

When people get a FREE upgrade (even though this is going to push the contention ratio down even more on isp's hardware) with vm it usaully comes at a cost to the customer hidden from view in a small print or a sneaky change to the t&c's that they never see.

My last FREE upgrade to 20mb came with FREE stm.
Tommorows FREE next tier or price reduction could come with a free application throttling, or higher stm, or phorm just to jiggle the profits of the company or save bandwith.

[Mike_A]

Originally Posted by jamiefrost

I'd have to disagree, I regulary get STM'd and it never effects my ability to connect to websites. How does being limited to 5meg or what ever stop you from connecting. The average ADSL user would have the same issues.

It may be soemthing else but i don't see how having a speed limit applied would cause this.

JJ

Jamie, maybe have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping. It explains the principles.

You may conclude in theory that throttling a connection of 20Mb to 5Mb means a drop in speed and access to 25%. It doesn't. There are various methods used to shape Internet traffic from a client, including packet delays through a FIFO system (First In, First Out). Now apply this to little Freddie who wants to play destroy the universe type games with his online chums. He sends an action command. It gets throttled so does not reach destination servers in time. Pingback from the gaming server results in a repeated instruction which also gets throttled, and so on. If luckless Freddie doesn't get the command through in time his universe falls apart. Meanwhile his mother, plays online bingo from another machine. She hits the number for the national jackpot - but the same thing happens. And his father, playing PartyPoker on another machine, suddenly finds he cannot respond with a bet to a top hand. In each case the packets are delayed, not on the basis of this one connection, but on the basis of a whole node or more of connections. In each case the game servers "time out" the player - they cannot hold the hold game up for one person. On the same node, Charlie the copyrights thief is busily downloading torrent movies for burning onto a DVD for sale at the local pub. He suffers the same but not with an immediately noticeable effect. So whilst Charlie copyright thief disappears to the pub to await his downloads, little Freddie's family have been subjected to torment and frustration. The effects upon them of "throttling" through packet delay are not 75% but considerably more. And that is only the result of the delay method of STM.

Bandwidth restriction is a contract breach that contains compounded effects. It will be more noticeable to some than others. Even so, it remains a contractual breach, a dishonest practice when compared to the original sale, and a deceitful practice when compared to the methods used to communicate what is happening. 75% capping means "up to" 25% service provision. It can also mean below 1%.

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

What is says on the bottom of the adverts is:

Minimum computer requirements apply. Speed of internet connection assumes components working at optimum speed and capacity. Both cable and ADSL broadband are affected by user volume. Subscriber traffic management policy applies; Acceptable Use Policy applies to all speeds

Funny, not on the advert i recieved this morning trying to temp me back with UNLIMITED in large letters.

Mine only mentions the acceptable usage policy, so does the last 5 i've gotten over the last month...

Yes have to, if a particular agent/employee doesn't that is them, not VM company policy

Don't care, the fact that i've never come across one that does shows the incompetence of the company and it's staff within.

Yes it is all of their customers - Virgin have never said any different. The 5% figure is based on that overall out of the several million customers no more than 5% of those customers will ever be affected by STM

While VM have never said different, they have hinted that it's a constant top 5% of their customer base, when in reality all their customers are affected.

Don't get me wrong, you give good information and all, but sometimes, admittedly, you sound like a brainwashed VM bod.

No offense

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Well I think that's what they will say. and that is why they do it.
It all points to deceit and dishonesty on their part.

Ok then, what about be broadband. They advertise an 'up to 24Mbit unlimited connection' for £17.50 - I get between 10 and 15Mbit for that price.

So my service is not 24Mbit nor according to everyone on here is it unlimited - because I cannot download at the speed advertised.

Same goes for Sky and every other ADSL provider out there