Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices - Page 27

12-04-2009, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild Oscar

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

good luck to him anyway ..

I was merely asking whether I was the only one who was sceptical of the op's claims, given that he was not only saying that he was taking action against VM but he also had a solution which would remove stm and make VM millions. As I appear to be in a minority of one, perhaps I was being over-sceptical and I apologise to the op and wish him luck.
I still doubt whether his action will improve the lot of the average customer as VM are heavily in debt and therfore unable to spend a lot of money upgrading their network. If he does have an answer to stm that will also make VM millions though, well that's a different matter.

Mick Fisher · 12-04-2009, 12:01

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they demand.

If VM had only given their Customers what they paid for.

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they advertised.

They probably wouldn't be in the mess that they are in today.

12-04-2009, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they demand.

If VM had only given their Customers what they paid for.

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they advertised.

They probably wouldn't be in the mess that they are in today.

If you are refering to VM's debt I think that has more to do with the history of cable and the way it was set up in this country. If cable had been set up with a virtual monoply like satellite instead of the mess of small companies operating it then perhaps they could have given Sky the competition they desperately need.

AndyCambs · 12-04-2009, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

I was merely asking whether I was the only one who was sceptical of the op's claims, given that he was not only saying that he was taking action against VM but he also had a solution which would remove stm and make VM millions. As I appear to be in a minority of one, perhaps I was being over-sceptical and I apologise to the op and wish him luck.
I still doubt whether his action will improve the lot of the average customer as VM are heavily in debt and therfore unable to spend a lot of money upgrading their network. If he does have an answer to stm that will also make VM millions though, well that's a different matter.

Call me a sceptic, but I have doubts that anyone has taken VM to court....

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they demand.

If VM had only given their Customers what they paid for.

If VM had only given their Customers the Services they advertised.

They probably wouldn't be in the mess that they are in today.

Unfortunately some customers want everything - for nothing...

Rone · 12-04-2009, 14:29

Well i'm happy to pay for a fair service, i dont [without raking it all up again] think the stm is very well set up.
Better than a download limit it certainly is, but cutting speed by a quarter on the 20meg for going over seems more than harsh.

AndyCambs · 12-04-2009, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rone

Well i'm happy to pay for a fair service, i dont [without raking it all up again] think the stm is very well set up.
Better than a download limit it certainly is, but cutting speed by a quarter on the 20meg for going over seems more than harsh.

Quite

I don't download much - the occasional podcast and usual webpages, emails etc. Why should my service deteriorate because someone in the same street is downloading huge files when we're both paying the same costs?

Maybe all the ISPs might consider charging per amount downloaded? That would be much fairer. (Bit like having a water/gas/electricity meter I guess...)

Gary L · 12-04-2009, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Quite

I don't download much - the occasional podcast and usual webpages, emails etc. Why should my service deteriorate because someone in the same street is downloading huge files when we're both paying the same costs?

Good point. why should your service deteriorate just because someone in the same street is using theirs? especially when you don't hardly use it and still notice a deterioration.

Virgin have measures already in place to combat those that might use it too much. it's called a fair use policy. they don't use it though on anyone individually. they just punish us all.

I think that will be good grounds in court too, as you could ask the question of why have 2 things as a means of monitoring or limiting a persons heavy useage, but only apply and use the one that is seen to punish everyone?

Ignitionnet · 12-04-2009, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Quite

I don't download much - the occasional podcast and usual webpages, emails etc. Why should my service deteriorate because someone in the same street is downloading huge files when we're both paying the same costs?

Maybe all the ISPs might consider charging per amount downloaded? That would be much fairer. (Bit like having a water/gas/electricity meter I guess...)

Most of the costs of providing the service are fixed, the increments with usage are minimal. It's potentially alright however it's massively abused by all ISPs who have implemented it, with a high fixed cost and extortionate per-GB charges and I don't see why VM would be any different. If you have issues with how much you pay the simple solution is to downgrade to a lower tier which better reflects your use than XL.

I quite agree with you though, why should your service deteriorate because someone in the same street is using their unlimited downloads XL broadband specifically mentioned as being:

Quote:

just the thing for lightning fast downloads

Indeed according to Virgin's 'The power of fibre optic' page:

Quote:

More great reasons to choose Virgin broadband

* Unlimited downloads*

It's the very first thing up there.

Surely someone using their service as advertised shouldn't degrade your occasional podcast and usual webapges? If you want to blame someone for that happening blame Virgin for overselling their network, not other customers who purchase and pay for 'unlimited downloads' from a service which has that as a very prominent selling point.

---------- Post added at 16:00 ---------- Previous post was at 15:58 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Unfortunately some customers want everything - for nothing...

Are you always this pro-VM and anti-customer? Two very anti-customer posts in one page? You're clearly ecstatic with your service to the point where you appear to feel it necessary to defend VM against other customers, some people aren't and even in some cases for very good reasons, that's life.

---------- Post added at 16:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

If you are refering to VM's debt I think that has more to do with the history of cable and the way it was set up in this country. If cable had been set up with a virtual monoply like satellite instead of the mess of small companies operating it then perhaps they could have given Sky the competition they desperately need.

What virtual monopoly was that? You do know why Sky is BSkyB, right?

Wild Oscar · 12-04-2009, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

I don't download much - the occasional podcast and usual webpages, emails etc. Why should my service deteriorate because someone in the same street is downloading huge files when we're both paying the same costs?

Well, your neighbor could say he's using what he's paid for, could he not?

Drefsab · 12-04-2009, 16:15

The thing that annoys me most about the whole traffic management system is that when I want a file off the internet I want it when I want it not on the 3rd tuesday of the month between the 15th and 59th second of the 15 hour of the day or what ever convoluted times they come up with next.

I work in the ISP industry so I don't expect a completely un-contended service. I pay for the XXL package because I will download large files at times, I beta test games, I work in IT so also regularly get iso's, I watch Iplayer and buy my online games buy digital distribution. All normal techy and legal usage and im willing to pay a reasonable price for it.

The worst thing is they say there's no traffic shaping but right now im doing about 20gig of downloading from servers in Manchester with multiple 100mbit links (and I know for a fact they arnt fully loaded because they are my private co-located servers). I was getting about 4000kb/s but all of a sudden im getting 1200kb/s which is strangely close to what id get if they capped the line at 25% of its normal speed like they do on all other STM lines.

There may be other reasons for it but it does make you think

Ignitionnet · 12-04-2009, 16:17

Sadly that's the rushed 50Mbit rollout for you - network wasn't properly maintained in the past and wasn't properly 'tuned' for the rollout. 50Mbit is a touch more sensitive to upstream disturbance than the other tiers.

12-04-2009, 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

What virtual monopoly was that? You do know why Sky is BSkyB, right?

I do remember something of the history of how BSkyB came about yes and I think my point still stands. BSkyB have had a monopoly of subscription based satellite broadcasting since the early nineties.

Ignitionnet · 12-04-2009, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahardie

I do remember something of the history of how BSkyB came about yes and I think my point still stands. BSkyB have had a monopoly of subscription based satellite broadcasting since the early nineties.

Though not a monopoly on subscription based TV. They have the competitor that is cable. There's also the various IPTV platforms.

FWIW I see your point to an extent however I don't see how this is relevant to Virgin Media's debt, a number of extremely overpriced acquisitions and bad business decisions are more responsible than Sky. I certainly don't see how it's relevant to STM. More relevant to that is lack of network maintenance / upgrade in the past and the pushing out of the 20M service prematurely.

AndyCambs · 12-04-2009, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Are you always this pro-VM and anti-customer?

conversely we could always ask why are your posts so anti-VM - but then that's getting personal.

Turkey Machine · 12-04-2009, 17:26

He knows more about the Virgin cable network than most, which is saying something around here.

In reality, Virgin Media are just like any other big ISP really - oversell the network, under-maintain it, put ridiculous limits on it, then claim it offers unlimited downloads (which on a technicality it does, but realistically doesn't) and the best service in the country. Waitasec, that's just Virgin Media. OOPS!

No thanks, given a choice I'd rather have Be, if they offered the service at my exchange(s).