Sky sets its lawyers on VM over internet ad campaign - Page 3

**Hugh** · 21-04-2011, 11:18

Carl, DABhand never stated they only chose the best areas, so you are raising a straw-man argument there.

re the ads - neither of you can prove it (unless you have access to a cached version), but it is rather impolite, imho, to state "Lucky for you because you can now say anything you like" - the same could be said of you.

carlwaring · 21-04-2011, 11:47

The difference being I believe the figures. I have no reason not to believe the figures therefore I don't need to prove anything. If anyone, including DABhand (who has a history of complaining about VM, don't forget!) can prove to me that the figures are not valid and correct then let's see the evidence.

I have no doubt that they use random samplings rather than everyone in the whole country, but to even suggest that they would not be entirely random and only concentrate on the "good" VM areas (which is what DABhand is claiming) is, IMO, completely bonkers.

**Hugh** · 21-04-2011, 12:56

Once again, you are raising a straw-man argument.

Dh stated

Quote:

So not every piece of the UK is tested about 25% is, that is not definitive proof of anything, just proves which areas they tested is doing well or not.

He did not state in this thread that "but to even suggest that they would not be entirely random and only concentrate on the "good" VM areas (which is what DABhand is claiming)" , unless, of course, you can show otherwise, as I cannot find that statement.

carlwaring · 21-04-2011, 13:14

Maybe not. But that's what he is trying to imply.

So 25% of the UK is randomly tested and these figures produced. Of course some areas are going to be worse, but of course some are also going to be better.

Dh's main contention is that these figures are not accurate. Well that's just tough. OFCOM accepts they're accurate. As does the industry; what with OFCOM being their regulator and all. Dh is simply un-happy that they show VM is actually better than he would like everyone to think they are.

There is a separate, straw-poll on this very forum, somewhere, where the vast majority of VM users are getting exactly the speed they are paying for. Okay, it's not statistically accurate but it is another poll suggesting that VM are actually doing okay.

None of this is, of course, anything to do with the original point of the thread. Which is that VM were not specifically attacking Sky or any other singular ISP. Yes, of course it was merely a campaign to show that VM users are more likely to get the headline speed they're paying for. A fact which is shown by the OFCOM report.

DABhand · 22-04-2011, 07:34

As I have said, and said elsewhere they are only accurate for the areas tested. The figures they give do not and will not show a true representation of the whole of the UK coverage, unless they actually start to test every single area that VM supplies to until then its not a 100% true representation.

Since you are making the claim that I am wrong and say Ofcom's findings are the true state of things, then you have to prove to me that it is indeed that.

And months ago we had this discussion, and we are back to the very same point, and i'll roughly repeat what I said before iirc.

The service is excellent? What about the people in student areas with oversubscription? (I know this was mentioned elsewhere here in another thread but there was plenty of threads etc about it on the official forums).

What about the people who wait months for a simple repair to happen so they can get a decent expected service?

What about the people who are now having lag issues in many online games and through services provided by consoles?

What about people with poor performances and getting a small percentage of bandwith they were promised to get "up to" 24/7?

I could go on listing the other examples...

But funny thing is, I said these months ago on the official forums, but yet they can still be used today. That is bad. So from the evidence provided by customers on the forum which there was a huge amount of. And from replies from the VM moderating team and some staff (some staff who were badly mannered imho), it can be cleary seen that Ofcom's findings do NOT show the true picture of what is going on.

So the onus is on you Carl to prove to me with proof from Ofcom that what they shown in that report is the true picture and for them to say how much in percentage of areas they covered that VM supplies to. If its below 50% then I won't accept it as true data.

And Carl, don't bold key words.. its very pedantic.

carlwaring · 22-04-2011, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by DABhand

As I have said, and said elsewhere they are only accurate for the areas tested.

Makes no difference. They will (I would hope) be statistically accurate for the whole of the UK.

Besides, they are the only figures available to anyone so they have tp be taken as accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DABhand

Since you are making the claim that I am wrong and say Ofcom's findings are the true state of things, then you have to prove to me that it is indeed that.

Actually, you'll find it's OFCOM that are claiming the figures are accurate so I don't have to prove anything. If you have a problem you should really take it up with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DABhand

The service is excellent?

Yes. Overall the service is excellent. As the OFCOM figures show. See also this straw poll and VM's own results.

This is not to say that they don't have some problems in some areas. No-one has ever said otherwise.

Quote:

I could go on listing the other examples...

You could but there's not a lot of point as I agree with you and have never tried to make out any different. However, see also this post.

However, these are the figures we have and that's that. I'm pretty sure that if they showed VM in a worse light we would not behaving this disagreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DABhand

And Carl, don't bold key words.. its very pedantic.

I used bold for emphasis only because such emphasis is lost when quoted as quotes are always italicised. Nothing more.

**Hugh** · 22-04-2011, 10:37

There appears to be some confusion between statistical analysis and reality (I cite election polls which are statistically accurate, but often do not represent the real state of play).

Statistic analysis is the best reflection given limited resources, but is not, imho, reality.

carlwaring · 22-04-2011, 10:43

Statistical analysis can (and is, or so I understand) very accurate. Also, it's the best we have unless you always want to ask every single person in the country individually every time

**Hugh** · 22-04-2011, 11:19

I think the phrase is "can be" - I think we have all seen how it can also not be (cf General Election polls...).

I agree it's the best we can hope for without complete sampling, but should not be taken as a mirror of reality, just an indicator thereof.

carlwaring · 22-04-2011, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree it's the best we can hope for without complete sampling, but should not be taken as a mirror of reality, just an indicator thereof.

Like I said, it's as good as we're going to ever get without a 'census'-type of thing. So the fact is that VM offer the closest you can get to any given "headline" speed.

Unless anyone can prove otherwise.

DABhand · 22-04-2011, 15:00

Carl one day you will realise that everything in Black and White is not necessarily Black and White

carlwaring · 22-04-2011, 16:17

And one day you will realise that VM aren't actually as bad as you like to make out; as proved by the evidence in this thread.

**Hugh** · 22-04-2011, 17:07

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Ignitionnet · 22-04-2011, 17:13

Are you talking about those annoying shades of grey again Hugh?

carlwaring · 22-04-2011, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Of course it is. VM aren't perfect and they aren't bad. I certainly have never said otherwise. My point has always been that, as the OFCOM figures are the only ones we have then they are the only ones we can use as a yard-stick.