Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by 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").

It's also a grey area as to whether publishing any changes to terms and conditions is acceptable when only available to view on a website.
one can argue that it isn't sufficient and unfair. as you automatically agree to them without having to view them.

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.

You are starting to make VM sound like the STASI instead of just a company, who like any other company, will put the best gloss on their products with a view to getting more customers in order to maximise their profits. Or reduce their debt in VM's case.

To get back on subject, if the op really is suing virgin and if it ends up improving our customer experience then I'm all for it. It's all the other stuff he posted that I was having difficulty with.

The other point is, would it improve our customer experience? If VM removed stm (and I do wish they could) the service would improve for the heaviest of downloaders at the expense of other customers, myself included.

At the end of the day VM aren't going to remove stm in a hurry whilst they are gaining broadband customers. If people dont like it then they will have to move to a different company.

Unless the op really is suing VM and wins his case. Highly unlikely IMO, but then what do I know, I dont even watch 'Law and Order'.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ahardie

The other point is, would it improve our customer experience? If VM removed stm (and I do wish they could) the service would improve for the heaviest of downloaders at the expense of other customers, myself included.

At the end of the day VM aren't going to remove stm in a hurry whilst they are gaining broadband customers. If people dont like it then they will have to move to a different company.

VM's customer gain for broadband is pretty slow now dealing with that first point and nowhere near the growth rate of the competition.

No removal of STM doesn't mean service improvement for the heaviest downloaders, these can be dealt with under the existing AUP/FUP without the need for someone who uses 10GB a month but happens to use 5 of it in one evening. A large number of users are punished for the actions of a few under the current system just so that Virgin can continue to advertise 'unlimited downloads'.

The alternative is of course that Virgin do the required work to ensure that capacity is there.

I don't regard VM as the Stasi or whichever, I just tire of their non-stop PR offensive and blatant misinformation. I have no idea how extensive these things are in other industries as I'm a comms guy.

[cook1984]

Originally Posted by Gary L

It's also a grey area as to whether publishing any changes to terms and conditions is acceptable when only available to view on a website.
one can argue that it isn't sufficient and unfair. as you automatically agree to them without having to view them.

It is definitely not sufficient.

1. Even if TV/phone only subscribers had access to the web, VM do not signal the change in any way. Requiring clients to check a web site every day for updates is not acceptable. If you change a contract, you must inform the other party and they must agree to the changes.

2. You cannot automatically agree to a contract. You must specifically agree to it in some way that records your agreement (e.g. signing it). Otherwise instead of posting here I'd be sending random people letter's with a contract inside that says "By opening this letter you agree to pay me £100 a month for the rest of my natural life" and then suing them for breeching it.

[beeman]

Originally Posted by 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?

I suspect the reason we havent heard any updates is because the case is now in court http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ttish-law.html

and it appears hes already won a partical victory (scottish custmers are coveed by scottish law not english law as VM claim)

[*sloman*]

Oh Baby! I hope he wins and VM have to stop STM, Yes i know lots of people wont get their speeds but VM will a few choices

1. Upgrade there network or face 1000's of customers leaving
2. Do nothing 1000's of people and VM go bust
3. Only offer a maximum BB speed of 5mb

PS if the money from PHORM went back in to the network and not Neil's pocket i would be all for it!

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by beeman

I suspect the reason we havent heard any updates is because the case is now in court http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ttish-law.html

and it appears hes already won a partical victory (scottish custmers are coveed by scottish law not english law as VM claim)

I think the thing that will help this case in court is the proof that they originally said that it was due to 5% of people that were affecting other users and the reason for STM. this was changed within a month to just 3%, and then changed again within a month back to 5%.

Any higher than 5% is when questions can start being asked of Virgin by OFCOM etc, you could argue that 5% isn't the true figure as it has been claimed to be just 5% since May 2007 when STM was introduced.

That's almost 2 years at just 5%. no higher, and never over the questions being asked level. even though speeds have since got faster and the STM rules have been changed. that plus the many thousands of additional customers taken on adding to the load.

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

PS if the money from PHORM went back in to the network and not Neil's pocket i would be all for it!

You have proof of that of course?

[Mick Fisher]

Due to so called Light Touch Regulation most UK Businesses Generally and ISP's in particular have been shafting their Customers for decades.

It is, indeed, refreshing to see an ongoing Court Case that might provide a precedent that could, at last, be to the advantage of the eternally downtrodden consumer.

[BarFly]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

Oh Baby! I hope he wins and VM have to stop STM, Yes i know lots of people wont get their speeds but VM will a few choices

1. Upgrade there network or face 1000's of customers leaving
2. Do nothing 1000's of people and VM go bust
3. Only offer a maximum BB speed of 5mb

PS if the money from PHORM went back in to the network and not Neil's pocket i would be all for it!

Or option 4 : Keep STM, & send each customer a highly PR'd mailshot, which will have buried somewhere in it, literature advising them of STM, its time\bandwidth limits & the benefits its brings to the customer base, which will get binned without reading by the majority of people who receive it & negate any arguement about not keeping customers upto date with changes in their service.

I cant see any good coming from all of this anyway, we all want decent headline speeds, removing STM wont improve your ability to gain that, id rather have burst speed of 20mb for x amount of time\& manage my downloads to miss STM, rather than a top speed of 4/5mb which will flucatate as the day goes on anyway....

[marv69]

gl mike. i just wish more people would stand up to big companies but my gripe is mostly with car tax. :s

[Billy-Bob]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

PS if the money from PHORM went back in to the network and not Neil's pocket i would be all for it!

You've obviously fallen for the donkey crap that Phorm's PR machine have been trying to brainwash the public with for the past 12 months - namely, that the internet will not survive without being entirely paid for by advertising.

[Turkey Machine]

Originally Posted by Billy-Bob

You've obviously fallen for the donkey crap that Phorm's PR machine have been trying to brainwash the public with for the past 12 months - namely, that the internet will not survive without being entirely paid for by advertising.

It's done very well for the past 30 years, why should that change now?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Turkey Machine

It's done very well for the past 30 years, why should that change now?

Ask VM's CEO, it's what he says too, albeit in more verbose terms

[Wild Oscar]

Originally Posted by beeman

I suspect the reason we havent heard any updates is because the case is now in court http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ttish-law.html

and it appears hes already won a partical victory (scottish custmers are coveed by scottish law not english law as VM claim)

Perhaps he got fed up with being branded a fantasist and a liar!

good luck to him anyway ..