New Acceptable Usage Policy from VM (discussion)

[Ignitionnet]

http://networkmanagement.comcast.net...mance-info.htm is interesting, be good to see Virgin do the same with regards to latency and upstream speeds rather than merely quoting the downstream statistics only.

[TokSik]

Having read right through this thread, I'm a bit shocked to see some of the comments where some of you expect everyone who has bought a service (it doesn't matter what speed or download level) to be "nice" to the other users on their street or that use the same contended line, by using these resources in a way that doesn't restrict others use of it.
Well bugger that. We're not living in a socialist republic where everyone gets the same of everything (except for those that are more equal than others). If I buy a service, I expect to get exactly what was advertised to me to induce me to buy it - not something that turns out to be a half arsed service that I should use "responsibly" for the administrative convenience of the firm that sold it to me. That's the equivalent of saying that anyone who's bought a car should only drive it at the speed the other road users prefer at the time they are using it (who might happen to be all grannies who prefer to drive at 10 mph on a 60 mph road).
If VM have advertised a service stating no download limits, no speed limits (up to the bought speed limit) and have omitted to inform the buyer that there may / will be a cap placed on the advertised download speed or quantity, then they are committing a criminal offence if they don't have the capacity to fulfil what they have sold, (by misleading the consumer into buying that service).
A trader who is guilty of an unfair commercial practice under the regulations (The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 1277)) has committed a criminal offence for which they can be fined and/or imprisoned. The offences are:-
1) one of the 31 specific unfair commercial practices
2) misleading actions
3) misleading omissions
4) aggressive practices
It isn’t good enough to expect someone (like some of the users of this forum) who has bought a service, to accept a service lesser than that they have paid for, by limiting their own usage to “help other people locally”.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TokSik

If VM have advertised a service stating no download limits, no speed limits (up to the bought speed limit) and have omitted to inform the buyer that there may / will be a cap placed on the advertised download speed or quantity, then they are committing a criminal offence if they don't have the capacity fulfil what they have sold, by misleading the consumer into buying that service.

I would point out that all Virgin's broadband services are sold with the following on ALL adverts and on the website:

Acceptable use policy: Acceptable use policy applies. Traffic Management operates from 4pm to 9pm and 10am to 3pm to ensure a consistent user experience.

[TokSik]

Yes, but "traffic management" is beginning to be applied outside those time limits. As an example. I was watching Frozen Planet in HD via BBC iPlayer last night and this was throttled down from 1.2 MB to 290KB at 1am this morning, making it stutter whilst it buffered the stream. And this has been happening regularly over the last few weeks.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TokSik

Yes, but "traffic management" is beginning to be applied outside those time limits. As an example. I was watching Frozen Planet in HD via BBC iPlayer last night and this was throttled down from 1.2 MB to 290KB at 1am this morning, making it stutter whilst it buffered the stream. And this has been happening regularly over the last few weeks.

That won't be traffic management

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

That won't be traffic management

Agreed

[TokSik]

when I occasionally download something during the day that's fairly big (I usually reserve my downloads to start after midnight), the speed is throttled to that very same speed once I go over about 2 gig. And I did test it with Broadband speed test v312.exe on 2 different machines.
So what else can it be other than traffic management (which is effectively marketing speak for throttling)?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TokSik

So what else can it be other than traffic management (which is effectively marketing speak for throttling)?

If people hit the STM policy during the evening the latest they will be released from it is 2am (if hit at 9pm on the dot)

So it could well be the Traffic Management policies ending in your area and the local capacity being eaten up.

For instance anyone who hit the policy at 8pm would be released at 1am

[TokSik]

That would still amount to a misleading omission on the part of VM when selling the service, if it was implied (as above in "Traffic Management operates from 4pm to 9pm and 10am to 3pm to ensure a consistent user experience") that such management would end at 9pm.
So it could still amount to a criminal offence !!

The point I'm making here is that to sell capacity that doesn't exist, is an unfair commercial practice under the regulations (i.e. capacity all being eaten up, so more has been sold than can be supplied)

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by TokSik

The point I'm making here is that to sell capacity that doesn't exist, is an unfair commercial practice under the regulations (i.e. capacity all being eaten up, so more has been sold than can be supplied)

I would point out that pretty much every residential broadband service in the UK suffers from congestion and contention at some point in the network

To expect a dedicated pipe level of service for the cost of a residential service is unrealistic

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

Would also point out that I not sure how the capacity of the network related to the AUP (which is what this thread is about) covering illegal and inappropriate use of the network

[Milambar]

People aren't asking for a dedicated pipe level of service. They are asking for a reasonable service., without unreasonable restrictions.

To wit, one that isn't congested to the point where the service is virtually unusable, as is the case in some areas of the UK.

So if you're going to say that kind of expectation is unrealistic, how do other countries manage to work around congestion issues? What level of congestion does it need to reach before you will admit that it is unfair?

[TokSik]

I would point out that pretty much every residential broadband service in the UK suffers from congestion and contention at some point in the network

We're not talking about other services, but about VM's service. But the same laws apply to them as well. If they are likewise selling non existent cpapcity, then they are likewise committing offences.

To expect a dedicated pipe level of service for the cost of a residential service is unrealistic

What we expect is for the contractual terms we signed up to are met in full. That doesn't mean a dedicated pipe level of service - it just means that VM need to update their hardware to provide the services they've sold, as sold to us - which is not unrealistic.

Would also point out that I not sure how the capacity of the network related to the AUP (which is what this thread is about) covering illegal and inappropriate use of the network

to quote from VM's own AUP - What is Virgin Media’s acceptable use policy?
Legal, honest, decent, truthful (SIC - shyeah right, by whom ?!!??)
That's activities that are:
.../ Or inconveniencing other internet users.
Capacity is affected by not having the hardware sufficient to meet the contractual terms sold to us. And then to impose a new AUP without re-negotiating the contractual terms sold (which is the requirement in law) is where the illegality comes in, because that bit about "inconveniencing other users" is a euphemism for "we ain't got the hardware capacity to meet our end of the contract" which in itself means that VM are trying to shift the blame for unlawfully selling capacity that doesn't exist, which then manifests itself as additional variations of the contracts already agreed in the form of new traffic shaping policies (again imposed without any form of negotiation).
So, the new AUP has a considerable effect on other policies being imposed, such as the Traffic Management policies, which is where it ties in with this discussion on the new AUP.

[AndyCalling]

Seriously folks, VM will be working round the clock to increase capacity ready for the Youview release. If they don't, their network will grind to a halt when normal usage includes watching HD IPTV most evenings.

Yes, hard usage caps are an alternative, but that would mean huge numbers of customers being treated as net abusers which would finish VM so that won't be happening. Not to mention the fact that trying to sell a service where normal usage is crippled or banned for most customers nationwide is certainly against the rules as well as being morally bankrupt. This is not something VM could ever concieve of doing without committing PR suicide, and as far as I am aware VM have not suggested they will go this route. It is only far fetched forum speculation.

Stop worrying.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by TokSik

when I occasionally download something during the day that's fairly big (I usually reserve my downloads to start after midnight), the speed is throttled to that very same speed once I go over about 2 gig. And I did test it with Broadband speed test v312.exe on 2 different machines.
So what else can it be other than traffic management (which is effectively marketing speak for throttling)?

congestion.

It is not unknown for VM services to be congested at dusk.

---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I would point out that pretty much every residential broadband service in the UK suffers from congestion and contention at some point in the network

To expect a dedicated pipe level of service for the cost of a residential service is unrealistic

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

Would also point out that I not sure how the capacity of the network related to the AUP (which is what this thread is about) covering illegal and inappropriate use of the network

got to correct you here ben.

It is very possible to sell a contended service that has no visible contention. It doesnt need to be a 1:1 service to do that.

I have lost count the amount of times I have had to point this out on forums.

A lot of users at any given time wont be using their connection, so 10:1 contention eg. doesnt mean 10% of speed.

So its very misleading for you to say either we have severe performance issues or buy a leased lined, there is most certianly something in between.

Perhaps its better to state its not realistic for VM to sell unlimited 100mbit for the price it does and to do so it has had to cut corners.

To me it looks clear whats going on, VM have decided (since approx oct 2010) that new capacity will no longer happen to relieve congestion and simply instead are relying on a combination of traffic management and moving users around in musical chairs fashion to spread the pain. New capacity and tech upgrades now seem limited to only supporting new products. So we will probably see eg. the upload bonding come just in time to support this 200/20 product that is due around the olympics.

---------- Post added at 08:35 ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 ----------

Originally Posted by AndyCalling

Seriously folks, VM will be working round the clock to increase capacity ready for the Youview release. If they don't, their network will grind to a halt when normal usage includes watching HD IPTV most evenings.

Yes, hard usage caps are an alternative, but that would mean huge numbers of customers being treated as net abusers which would finish VM so that won't be happening. Not to mention the fact that trying to sell a service where normal usage is crippled or banned for most customers nationwide is certainly against the rules as well as being morally bankrupt. This is not something VM could ever concieve of doing without committing PR suicide, and as far as I am aware VM have not suggested they will go this route. It is only far fetched forum speculation.

Stop worrying.

Depends on what the limit would be.

eg. a 250gig limit a month would likely be enough for 98-99% of customers. However since on any given UBR a single heavy user can cripple the performance a simple usage cap like that could prove very effective.

However I agree on your PR statement that VM will never drop unlimited unless forced to by a regulator.

[Dush]

Originally Posted by TokSik

The point I'm making here is that to sell capacity that doesn't exist, is an unfair commercial practice under the regulations (i.e. capacity all being eaten up, so more has been sold than can be supplied)

I agree with that completely. The problem is it's a national business that should be really a local business. So some regions like mine are oversubscribed and nothing will be done till April 2012, they should warn new customers of this. But with how competitive the market is they cannot afford to loose new customers.