Anyone actually been cut off/restricted because of the Detrimental Usage?

[Toto]

Originally Posted by cook1984

I'm amazed I don't have one yet. Unfortunately I do get throttled regularly because people living here like to use iPlayer in the evenings, so maybe the loss due to STM kneecapping keeps me under their unpublished and unknowable limit.

Why, so you can sue VM like you sued Davenport Lyons and won?

[cook1984]

Suing Virgin would be a lot harder than DL. DL's mistake was to drop the case when I challenged it, after causing me financial loss. Virgin have not cost me anything so far and the Small Claims Court can only be used to recover money owed or restore losses.

If I get one I will write back explaining their mistake. Have they ever actually cut anyone off? If they did I would sue for loss of income during the period where I had no internet connection. Actually that could be a long time because ADSL doesn't work on my BT line so I'm not sure what option there would be. Pay BT to put in a new line perhaps? FTTC isn't available here yet.

I am going to draft a complain to the ASA this evenings. They can't call it "unlimited" if they limit and eventually boot you off based on some arbitrary limit. If that fails might also write to the OCED and ask them to add "limited" as a synonym for "unlimited" since they apparently mean the same thing now. Kinda like flammable and inflammable.

[Midnight Tboy]

according to the first reply to my post, someone did get cut off

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...p/69958/page/2

I'm presuming if they 'suspend it' or 'cancel it' then you'll be out of their contract, and then within rights to cancel their other services etc. Mind, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they'd suspend it while still charging.

Like many (though I'm on 10mb), I wouldnt give a monkeys too much if they throttled it for rest of month at peak times once hit certain point - at least it would be usable in daytime......but its something THEY need to manage, not us, and not to BS us.

Even had to kick my son off his pc yesterday, when he was playing a game on it, to see he'd quit the game and had been watching away CITV programs in full on the pc (typically only half watching then clicking to each one).

It was months back now that had the letters, but no idea if after a few months of 'good behaviour' it gets reset....or if it just takes one more instance of p'ing them off to have them cut me off.

I "foolishly" use my ntlworld email address for work related stuff too....so there'd be a point about 'loss of earnings' I guess . Think I should start getting that work related email changed to something else like gmail methinks, as can't trust VM

[Toto]

Originally Posted by cook1984

Suing Virgin would be a lot harder than DL. DL's mistake was to drop the case when I challenged it, after causing me financial loss. Virgin have not cost me anything so far and the Small Claims Court can only be used to recover money owed or restore losses.

If I get one I will write back explaining their mistake. Have they ever actually cut anyone off? If they did I would sue for loss of income during the period where I had no internet connection. Actually that could be a long time because ADSL doesn't work on my BT line so I'm not sure what option there would be. Pay BT to put in a new line perhaps? FTTC isn't available here yet.

I am going to draft a complain to the ASA this evenings. They can't call it "unlimited" if they limit and eventually boot you off based on some arbitrary limit. If that fails might also write to the OCED and ask them to add "limited" as a synonym for "unlimited" since they apparently mean the same thing now. Kinda like flammable and inflammable.

Ah yes, but your claim about suing DL and winning was shot in the foot by the fact that the court you claimed to have filed a small claims in had never dealt with such a claim.

Honestly now, not all of us have short memories, and I would hate to see a thread like this descend into a ****ing contest that could give some people on here false hopes that they have a chance of resolving detrimental usage without actually adjusting their online behavior.

And by the way, you can't sue for loss of income - how can you, the residential service is for that alone, and claiming loss of income would only cement VM's claim of an abuse of its T&C's

You talk up a good argument there's no getting away from that, I'm not sure though how good your talking would be if you ever faced such a letter from VM.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by cook1984

If I get one I will write back explaining their mistake. Have they ever actually cut anyone off? If they did I would sue for loss of income during the period where I had no internet connection.

Which would fail at the first hurdle as you are not on a dedicated business service, plus if you were cut off it would because you had breached the Terms and Conditions so again another fail because oddly enough that is the service type that you have signed up for and agreed to just by continuing to pay for said service.

[photodude]

If they did I would sue for loss of income during the period where I had no internet connection.

Now that did make me laugh a lot. Come on, lets not be silly now, cos we know that is never going to happen, is it. Well, not unless you want Virgin to counter claim for fraudulent use of a domestic service, and the losses they incurred while you used their domestic service for business purposes LOL
Why do some people give out such bad info, to make it look like they have some overwhelming knowledge about such things.

[haileris]

Although I prefix this by saying "not a chance of it working", the more interesting angle would be if one stated that access to the internet was now a service that was a fundamental human right, as the UN did recently
http://www.care2.com/causes/human-ri...l-human-right/

If cable your only way of accessing the internet, and perhaps show that other suppliers were not able to provide you said service because of the dominance of VM in that area, then the UN would deploy peacekeeping troops in order to make sure you received your daily dose of iPlayer!

[qasdfdsaq]

You make a very good point regarding this fast developing area. It's interesting how this might pan out in the long run. If it turns out it is illegal to cut people's connection off even if they are breaking the law, one could imagine it would be even more illegal to cut people's connection off because of arbitrary commercial reasons. Yet conversely forcing companies to provide service at a loss to indivuduals who abuse it isn't going to fly either, but I'm not sure where the compromise is going to fall.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by haileris

Although I prefix this by saying "not a chance of it working", the more interesting angle would be if one stated that access to the internet was now a service that was a fundamental human right, as the UN did recently
http://www.care2.com/causes/human-ri...l-human-right/

If cable your only way of accessing the internet, and perhaps show that other suppliers were not able to provide you said service because of the dominance of VM in that area, then the UN would deploy peacekeeping troops in order to make sure you received your daily dose of iPlayer!

That's some damned fine stuff you're smoking there sir. Can you PM me with the info on where you got it. TIA.