Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Would you mind posting OFCOM's answer in full?

Tricky, phone conversation.

I presume you have been told otherwise, and I'd welcome any reasons you might have been given as to why Virgin Media are exempt from these regulations.

[BenMcr]

I refer you back to my previous answer to this - that 34-38 form a different section to 39 within the Policy

So for Virgin Media you would read from 33 straight to 39

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

But it was bugging me. Virgin Media would have been involved in drawing up the code with OFCOM in the first place - so I'm pretty sure they would know which bits do and don't apply

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I refer you back to my previous answer to this - that 34-38 form a different section to 39 within the Policy

So for Virgin Media you would read from 33 straight to 39

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

But it was bugging me. Virgin Media would have been involved in drawing up the code with OFCOM in the first place - so I'm pretty sure they would know which bits do and don't apply

What makes you think that Virgin would have been involved in drawing up this code over other suppliers?

VM and their component companies have regularly shown contempt to regulators so I don't see why that'd miraculously change. Even if they are in violation I'm sure they'll PR and politic their way out of it anyway. As it's a voluntary code it's not like they even have to follow it to the letter.

Your previous response is your interpretation of the rules which may or may not be correct. In any event:

36. Where it is reasonably possible to do so, ISPs should provide a means by which users can measure their usage over the relevant billing period.

Virgin claim it's not reasonably possible, Ofcom being a bunch of politicians won't know better, that's that one dealt with.

37. ISPs in possession of a user’s email address should provide users with email notification when users exceed a usage limit or breach a fair usage policy which informs users about the precise consequences of doing so, e.g. additional costs, information on speed restrictions imposed etc.

'Should' not 'must' - that's that dealt with.

38. The ISPs should also consider providing advance notification to subscribers approaching a usage limit.

Yep 'consider' and decide not to, that's that dealt with.

So that part is a waste of time anyway, while VM may be in violation of the spirit they can point to the wording and say they are complying fully.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

What makes you think that Virgin would have been involved in drawing up this code over other suppliers?

Never said they were. All ISPs would have input in the wording and what the COP covered.

Your previous response is your interpretation of the rules which may or may not be correct.

I thought you said OFCOM gave you a 100% guarantee of which rules apply and which don't?

So that part is a waste of time anyway, while VM may be in violation of the spirit they can point to the wording and say they are complying fully.

And again - all those points come under a heading of:

Fair usage policies and usage limits

whereas Virgin operate a policy of Traffic management

which has only one clause which is

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.

Which they do at www.virginmedia.com/traffic

[Ignitionnet]

Ben it's actually getting somewhat boring - it's a fair use policy and/or usage limit even if Virgin describe it as Traffic Management. Break a pre-defined limited as listed in a fair / acceptable use policy and action is taken.

You remind me of Alex Brown claiming that VM had no shaping / throttling / etc, then saying that there was none of it as Subscriber Traffic Management was in use.

Either way I've better things to do than labour that point with you or anyone else. Nothing personal I just find this kind of verbal semantics that VM parade and which you are repeating rather dull.

Just as a reminder you said:

But it was bugging me. Virgin Media would have been involved in drawing up the code with OFCOM in the first place - so I'm pretty sure they would know which bits do and don't apply

Fairly clear from where I am, and I merely referenced your opinion, I was being nice rather than saying 'Ben you work in Customer Service for under 20k a year I doubt that qualifies you to interpret Ofcom regulations or be VM spokesperson to Cable Forum' - which is what you are trying to do right now.

Appreciate your helping people, don't appreciate your parroting of the company PR line, with that in mind I'll put you on my ignore list to avoid further and more heated disagreement.

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And again - all those points come under a heading of:

Fair usage policies and usage limits

whereas Virgin operate a policy of Traffic management

A good try, but ofcourse, total nonsense.

[The Hitman]

Ive been throttled after 1am in the morning. So where does this 5hrs 4pm to 9pm take effect in. The time thats stated and the time that your throttled does not add up

[moaningmags]

Originally Posted by The Hitman

Ive been throttled after 1am in the morning. So where does this 5hrs 4pm to 9pm take effect in. The time thats stated and the time that your throttled does not add up

If you hit the limit at 8:45pm, you'll be traffic managed until 1:45am.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Just as a reminder you said:

Yes I did - because the Code says this:

22. The Code will be subject to review by Ofcom from time to time in consultation with the signatories and others,

Now to me that says that the signatories (which is VM and others) have been involved in drawing up the code in the first place.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Fairly clear from where I am, and I merely referenced your opinion, I was being nice rather than saying 'Ben you work in Customer Service for under 20k a year I doubt that qualifies you to interpret Ofcom regulations or be VM spokesperson to Cable Forum' - which is what you are trying to do right now.

And since when did an opinion only matter if you earn enough money or on what type of job you do?

[The Hitman]

Originally Posted by moaningmags

If you hit the limit at 8:45pm, you'll be traffic managed until 1:45am.

Thats my arguement. It does not state that.It should state that you are traffic managed from 4pm till 2am depending on usage.

Its the same with the 10am to 3pm. You can lasp over that time as well. So in other words your throttled from (depends on usage ) 10.40am till 2am.

So if you want the best usage out of your 20mb connection. You have to get up at 2am and use it till 10.40am. Then twiddle yer thumbs and count sheep

Whats the fair usage in that?

[Toto]

This is going way off topic, and I am really wondering why the original author of this topic has failed to offer an update. Perhaps I wasn't wide off the mark in post #5?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And again - all those points come under a heading of:

Fair usage policies and usage limits

whereas Virgin operate a policy of Traffic management

which has only one clause which is


Which they do at www.virginmedia.com/traffic

You're starting to sound like you are Virgin media
it sounds to me that if that is the case that they think they don't come under anything because they call it something else, then it sounds like they are actually as deceitful as people seem to think they are.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

You're starting to sound like you are Virgin media
it sounds to me that if that is the case that they think they don't come under anything because they call it something else, then it sounds like they are actually as deceitful as people seem to think they are.

It's all smoke, mirrors and PR sadly, alongside the 'power of fibre' rubbish and all the rest of it. Shame to hear someone on here repeating it pretty much verbatim straight from the press releases and official statements though, we have VM's quite extensive PR network for that.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It's all smoke, mirrors and PR sadly, alongside the 'power of fibre' rubbish and all the rest of it. Shame to hear someone on here repeating it pretty much verbatim straight from the press releases and official statements though, we have VM's quite extensive PR network for that.

I'd guess that Ben is in all probability VM PR staff doing shift rotas on one PC.
Just kidding Ben

[cook1984]

I think the key point here is that VM cannot change the contract unless both parties agree. They could decline to offer you service if you don't agree to the new contract, however they never even notified me of any changes let along sent me a new contract to agree to.

This is a legally sound argument. The law governing contracts requires that all contracts be negotiable and that any changes must be agreed by both parties. That prevents people from forcing someone to agree to a contract or changing the contract in an unfair way (e.g. "your bill is not £100/month and you have no choice but to pay since the contract says minimum 12 months").