Virgin Media to Double Broadband Speed

[cookster]

Originally Posted by jb66

dlink 615

Any that's good on 100M how?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by cookster

Any that's good on 100M how?

It's not particularly as it only has 100Mbit ports, but it was better than the G router the customer had before, which is why it was sent

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Er nope

Sorry Ben. I understand that as a member of VM staff you may not like it, but you can't argue with SOGA. It's what gives consumers rights, and stops them being bullied by big corporations.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Sorry Ben. I understand that as a member of VM staff you may not like it, but you can't argue with SOGA. It's what gives consumers rights, and stops them being bullied by big corporations.

Wasn't arguing about SOGA, I was saying you misread the thread, as you obviously did with my post

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

So the DIR-615 was a replacement for the standalone router, not because of any wireless issues with SuperHub as the customer already had the SuperHub in modem mode due to their existing setup

And why would VM send out a stand alone router if the shub could do the job, and was working correctly??

You have to remember Ben. I have a shub that works brilliantly, and I have no complaints with it. And neither does anyone I know who also have one. So I'm not one of the shub or VM haters. But I will make people aware of their legal rights when they do have problems.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Wasn't arguing about SOGA, I was saying you misread the thread, as you obviously did with my post

Which post??

I was quoting your post

Err nope

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

And why would VM send out a stand alone router if the shub could do the job, and was working correctly??

I doubt very much it was anything other than the customer was using an existing standalone router that Virgin had supplied that was no longer suitable, so it was easier as a call resolution to send another standalone router.

No great admission of anything other than that.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Which post??

I was quoting your post

Yes, that was 'er nope you read the other thread wrong' not 'er nope SOGA doesn't apply'

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I doubt very much it was anything other than the customer was using an existing standalone router that Virgin had supplied that was no longer suitable, so it was easier as a call resolution to send another standalone router.

No great admission of anything other than that.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:07 ----------

Yes, that was 'er nope you read the other thread wrong' not 'er nope SOGA doesn't apply'

Sorry but I don't believe that VM would send out a stand alone router to someone who had a shub, if the shub was working properly.

And yes SOGA does apply if the equipment doesn't do the job it is intended to do. And by that I'm not saying what some people on here want it to do, I'm saying what it is supposed to do.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Sorry but I don't believe that VM would send out a stand alone router to someone who had a shub, if the shub was working properly.

The agent was only able to do so because the customer had prevously had a standlone router, which is what the order was replacing. If the customer hadn't prevously had one then the system wouldn't allow it. As I said on the other thread, the agent didn't follow process anyway as the routers only came with a 2 year warranty, and the customer said themselves it was 4 years old

Before the SuperHub became standard the same system restriction was in place - you could only get it as a fault replacement if you already had one.

And yes SOGA does apply if the equipment doesn't do the job it is intended to do. And by that I'm not saying what some people on here want it to do, I'm saying what it is supposed to do.

Again, no comment made on SOGA

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The agent was only able to do so because the customer had prevously had a standlone router, which is what the order was replacing. If the customer hadn't prevously had one then the system wouldn't allow it. As I said on the other thread, the agent didn't follow process anyway as the routers only came with a 2 year warranty, and the customer said themselves it was 4 years old

Before the SuperHub became standard the same system restriction was in place - you could only get it as a fault replacement if you already had one.

Again, no comment made on SOGA

As I have said previously, don't VM actually own the equipment? If so then a warranty doesn't apply, as the equipment is leased from VM, and must be replaced if faulty.

I'm talking about shub's in general (or any other equipment supplied), and not just about an individual case.

It is often the case that large companies try and interpret the law to suit them. But when challenced, then they have to back down, or they will lose in court. Or even worse they will be prosecuted by Trading Standards. And on this SOGA is quite clear. The equipment must do what it is designed to do, otherwise it is unfit for purpose.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

As I have said previously, don't VM actually own the equipment? If so then a warranty doesn't apply, as the equipment is leased from VM, and must be replaced if faulty.

I'm talking about shub's in general (or any other equipment supplied), and not just about an individual case.

From VM's terms:

'equipment'
any telecommunications or other equipment we supply to you as an essential part of providing the services (including upgrades and replacements). This may include (but is not limited to) any cable modem, set-top box, cables and ducts. This does not include batteries or certain accessories which may purchase from us, nor does it include any equipment which you may purchase from a supplier recommended by us or an alternative supplier. This is referred to as 'additional equipment'.

The routers were classed as 'additional equipment' as they were not required for the broadband service to work, so were not classed as being owned by Virgin for the purposes of fault replacement, which is why they had their own seperate warranty period (Which was on the website when the routers were part of the service). Same as the Wireless USB adapter is 'additional equipment' now, so will not have an indefinate replacement period

It is often the case that large companies try and interpret the law to suit them. But when challenced, then they have to back down, or they will lose in court. Or even worse they will be prosecuted by Trading Standards. And on this SOGA is quite clear. The equipment must do what it is designed to do, otherwise it is unfit for purpose.

Again with SOGA. I've not made any comment about SOGA not applying to Virgin Media, so don't see why you are continually mentioning it

[Skie]

I dont think the provision of a service with 'rented' kit has ever really been clarified when it comes to SOGA (Well, SOGASA).

I would love to see someone do it though. VM need a black eye for continually claiming the superhub is any good wireless wise. Plenty of other places could do with one too, its unacceptable to supply rubbish kit for a service and make that kit the only avenue to use the service. And then hold you to a 12 month contract despite the obvious issues.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Skie

I dont think the provision of a service with 'rented' kit has ever really been clarified when it comes to SOGA (Well, SOGASA).

I would love to see someone do it though. VM need a black eye for continually claiming the superhub is any good wireless wise. Plenty of other places could do with one too, its unacceptable to supply rubbish kit for a service and make that kit the only avenue to use the service. And then hold you to a 12 month contract despite the obvious issues.

And this is where their t&c's wouldn't stand up in court.

I have a friend who is a BT engineer, and he says that the BT version of the shub isn't all it's made out to be either. But I haven't yet heard anyone complaining about them yet....but then I suppose most people don't complain about the shub either.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It's not particularly as it only has 100Mbit ports, but it was better than the G router the customer had before, which is why it was sent

"Only 100Mbit ports" is perfectly adequate for a 100mbit service.

The vast majority of 100mbit services around the world are sold on 100mbit ports. The only "issue" is that VM's idea of a 100mbit service is not actually 100mbit.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And you know that 100% how?

because I very much doubt it is going to have a problem achieving 60% of it's rated speed. The only thing which would stop it from doing that is if the physicaly capacity wasnt available on the 4 channels it was using.

I am 100% confident that it will do it and if you think it wont then I would love to have a friendly wager of it with you

[GavChap]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

"Only 100Mbit ports" is perfectly adequate for a 100mbit service.

The vast majority of 100mbit services around the world are sold on 100mbit ports. The only "issue" is that VM's idea of a 100mbit service is not actually 100mbit.

100Mbit ports will only get around 95Mbits, you wouldn't want people complaining they're missing out of 5Megs would you? :mrgreen:

Besides, VM seems to set their speeds slightly higher than the stated speeds, for instance 100Mbit is actually set at 110Mbit on the modem config so you do benefit from a router with gigabit ports.