ASA bans 'Stop the Broadband Con' campaign

[dave6x]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

The cost per customer should be decided on a 'what is actually recieved at the premises' basis rather than a 'what might be recieved if you live in the exchange or if your area wasn't over subscribed' basis.

After all, as far as I am aware, the quality or fit for purpose standard, is the purveyors sole responsibility. Why should ISP's get away with selling products of a not fit for purpose quality at full price.

I'd be happy with that as I'd be paying VM less than half of what I do now for my seriously contended 10Mb/s "fibre optic broadband". It hasn't always been like this, a few years ago it was rock solid, but has deteriorated to 2Mb/s - 5Mb/s at peak times!!!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by dave6x

I'd be happy with that as I'd be paying VM less than half of what I do now for my seriously contended 10Mb/s "fibre optic broadband". It hasn't always been like this, a few years ago it was rock solid, but has deteriorated to 2Mb/s - 5Mb/s at peak times!!!

It's very ironic isn't it that Virgin accuse other ISP's of conning people when their are customers of theirs getting nowhere near their advertised speed at peak times.

[BenMcr]

I'm getting a large sense of deja vu. I'm sure this thread is following exactly the same discussion as when the original ads came out

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

It's very ironic isn't it that Virgin accuse other ISP's of conning people when their are customers of theirs getting nowhere near their advertised speed at peak times.

And where is your proof Muppetman as Virgin gets far less complaints and more awards then anybody else and delivers speeds near their advertised speeds nearly all the time and the others deliver speeds nowhere near their so called claimed speeds.

[adzii_nufc]

The thing is with the people that don't get the advertised speeds is it all works off percentages.

For example if they stated 80% of 50mb subscribers hit the advertised speeds I'd find that acceptable knowing that we are miles away from problem-free broadband.

Then sky release figures of a mere 20% of customers get the advertised speeds which is unacceptable

The above are examples and in no way represent Virgin or Sky

And where is your proof Muppetman

He does not need proof as no broadband is fail-proof and there will always be complaints but I agree with what you are saying by delivering your evidence of Virgin's multiple awards and fewer complaints than other ISP's

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by dave6x

I'd be happy with that as I'd be paying VM less than half of what I do now for my seriously contended 10Mb/s "fibre optic broadband". It hasn't always been like this, a few years ago it was rock solid, but has deteriorated to 2Mb/s - 5Mb/s at peak times!!!

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

The thing is with the people that don't get the advertised speeds is it all works off percentages.

For example if they stated 80% of 50mb subscribers hit the advertised speeds I'd find that acceptable knowing that we are miles away from problem-free broadband.

Then sky release figures of a mere 20% of customers get the advertised speeds which is unacceptable

The above are examples and in no way represent Virgin or Sky



He does not need proof as no broadband is fail-proof and there will always be complaints but I agree with what you are saying by delivering your evidence of Virgin's multiple awards and fewer complaints than other ISP's

Couldn't have put that any better I'm not calling VM BB I get a rock solid 30mb consistently , I'm merely pointing out no ISP is perfect including VM. There will always be over contended areas and faults on any network.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

The thing is with the people that don't get the advertised speeds is it all works off percentages.

For example if they stated 80% of 50mb subscribers hit the advertised speeds I'd find that acceptable knowing that we are miles away from problem-free broadband.

Then sky release figures of a mere 20% of customers get the advertised speeds which is unacceptable

The above are examples and in no way represent Virgin or Sky



He does not need proof as no broadband is fail-proof and there will always be complaints but I agree with what you are saying by delivering your evidence of Virgin's multiple awards and fewer complaints than other ISP's

And here is the latest example of Virgin's superiority.


https://shop.virginmedia.com/broadba...explained.html

[BenMcr]

And https://shop.virginmedia.com/broadba...d-matters.html

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Couldn't have put that any better I'm not calling VM BB I get a rock solid 30mb consistently , I'm merely pointing out no ISP is perfect including VM. There will always be over contended areas and faults on any network.

I think VM's original point was, comparing 'up to' on ADSL with 'up to' on cable is like comparing apples with pears.

On ADSL, the 'up to' speed is the max achievable by the technology employed. Telling me I can get 'up to 8Mb' is like telling me I can go 'up to 200 mph' when I buy a Fiat 500, just because the technology (i.e. 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine) is capable of it. The hard fact is, the way the technology is deployed in a Fiat 500 means it's physically impossible for it to get anywhere near 200mph. Same goes for my own ADSL line. The kit in the exchange may use technology that can deliver 8Mb, but there is absolutely no way it can do that for me due to the physical qualities of my bit of the network (extreme line length).

VM, on the other hand, are selling you a service that is capable of going exactly as fast as it says it can, limited only by the congestion you may experience at any given time of day ... much as a motorway may at times get so busy that the effect is to limit the speed you can go.

[Gary L]

The thing that annoys me about Virgin is they are too smug. they come across as they'll use anything like this to their advantage. but what's worst is that they come across like an outfit that are really out to con you and it's all a front.
(this is just my opinion)

comparing connection speeds from a telephone provider to a cable 'fibre optic' provider? they know very well that a phone lines speed depends on how close to the exchange the customer is. don't insult our intelligence. peeelllleeeeaaaaasseeeeee!!!

oh and then you got the speed drops with cable after 5 or so minutes of using it.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think VM's original point was, comparing 'up to' on ADSL with 'up to' on cable is like comparing apples with pears.

On ADSL, the 'up to' speed is the max achievable by the technology employed. Telling me I can get 'up to 8Mb' is like telling me I can go 'up to 200 mph' when I buy a Fiat 500, just because the technology (i.e. 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine) is capable of it. The hard fact is, the way the technology is deployed in a Fiat 500 means it's physically impossible for it to get anywhere near 200mph. Same goes for my own ADSL line. The kit in the exchange may use technology that can deliver 8Mb, but there is absolutely no way it can do that for me due to the physical qualities of my bit of the network (extreme line length).

VM, on the other hand, are selling you a service that is capable of going exactly as fast as it says it can, limited only by the congestion you may experience at any given time of day ... much as a motorway may at times get so busy that the effect is to limit the speed you can go.

Nice analogy

How did you know I drove a Fiat 500 ;-)

Wishful thinking ... that is, I wish we had one.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Nice analogy

How did you know I drove a Fiat 500 ;-)

Because only a muppet would

[denphone]

Because only a muppet would



Is it Kermit by any chance.

[Mick Fisher]

The quality of a connection could be graded into Bands A, B, C and maybe D.

Based of the real world speed, packet loss and jitter to and from a remote server set up by the ISP.

Individule results could be averaged out to form a regional or area Band and charged accordingly until such time as conditions change, for better or worse.