Legal action taken against Virgin Media throttling practices [Archive]

Mike_A

10-03-2009, 19:51

Just spent some time reviewing posts - what an excellent forum!

Just to let people know that I have taken legal action against Virgin Media in the Scottish courts.

A long term customer with Telewest, my troubles began once VM took them over. After careful scrutiny, unilateral restriction of services is not allowed in my contract with VM. They cannot "throttle", "restrict" or "manage" my bandwidth at any time, for any reason, unless they show just cause, i.e. that they have notified me that I have done something wrong and shown why. It is the same for everyone.

As a developer of Internet services, with technically capable professional friends providing feedback about anything I am unsure of (very little), I have no doubt about my claim. Nor do Virgin Media, for they have admitted their practices. In spite of that, and receiving writs during last autumn, and although having internal and external legal professionals working for them, they had failed to lodge defences when the case first called on 4th March. The court gave them three weeks to provide me with defences.

The outcome of this case may have significant impact on reimbursement by Virgin Media for services contracted but not received.

I shall report progress. Meantime, I am interested in hearing from anyone who has taken logs of their service, and the times they experienced throttling.

There's obviously a lot of dissatisfaction about throttling. Curiously, no person has taken action in court before now. Perhaps this case will equalise the contractual relationship between VM and their customers. It's good for VM too, for with BT about to compete on even terms with their own cable network taking the "bully" out of the bullies will gain them a better client base.

BenMcr

10-03-2009, 19:54

Telewest's terms and conditions were replaced with Virgin's terms and conditions (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html) in Feb 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070214144746/allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html)

Those terms do allow for management of services

Section B4i

We reserve the right to monitor and control data volume and/or types of traffic transmitted via the interactive services on your Virgin TV and/or Internet access. In the event that you exceed any usage allowance applicable to your Internet access or your use does not comply with the 'acceptable use policy' which you can read on the Virgin Media website, we reserve the right (at our sole discretion) to reduce, suspend or terminate your Internet access. During any time of reduction or suspension, you will remain liable for the payment of your original level of Internet access charge. We also reserve the right (at our sole discretion) to re-grade your Internet access to a different speed and/or usage allowance at the appropriate charge. If we make such changes we will notify you as soon as possible.

Sirius

10-03-2009, 19:59

Telewest's terms and conditions were replaced with Virgin's terms and conditions in Feb 2007

Those terms do allow for management of services

Section B4i

We reserve the right to monitor and control data volume and/or types of traffic transmitted via the interactive services on your Virgin TV and/or Internet access. In the event that you exceed any usage allowance applicable to your Internet access or your use does not comply with the 'acceptable use policy' which you can read on the Virgin Media website, we reserve the right (at our sole discretion) to reduce, suspend or terminate your Internet access. During any time of reduction or suspension, you will remain liable for the payment of your original level of Internet access charge. We also reserve the right (at our sole discretion) to re-grade your Internet access to a different speed and/or usage allowance at the appropriate charge. If we make such changes we will notify you as soon as possible.

However if Virgin are that arrogant that they don't turn up in court to defend themselves then who knows what can happen. If they don't turn up then they deserve anything that the judge throws at them.

Mike_A

10-03-2009, 20:02

Ben...

No, they cannot do that. Once made, a contract is fixed in law unless both parties agree otherwise.

In any event, even with the terms you kindly set out, Virgin Media would have to show "just cause". In other words, they would require to account for their action, just like they need to account for telephone calls. They do not supply bandwidth/line speed accounting.

Put another way, if you were sold an expensive sports car capable of doing 200 miles per hour and it was throttled (pun intended) to 10% (20mph), you would rightfully be more than angry.

Sirius...

They lodged a notice of appearance a few minutes before their time was up. The court was very lenient in granting extra time.

Toto

10-03-2009, 20:09

leexgx

10-03-2009, 20:12

you want cable to do monthy download caps (over my dead body) like bt or other ISPs do that is very Bad idea i can download more in 1 day then what i can in 1 month on cable even with the throttling in place

quite sure thay have in there terms about throttling or something close to it

Toto

10-03-2009, 20:18

Hell, where's popper these days, I'm sure he'd have some words of encouragement for the O/P

Turkey Machine

10-03-2009, 20:24

Peter_

10-03-2009, 20:26

Toto

10-03-2009, 20:28

How can you pick a figure out of the air like 25% without any proof that is pure guesswork and conjecture.

Probably related to another poster who has a penchant for staggering, and unproven stats. ;)

Turkey Machine

10-03-2009, 20:30

How can you pick a figure out of the air like 25% without any proof that is pure guesswork and conjecture.

Exactly, but with so few VM customers registered to Cable Forum and so few who know how to use newsgroups, of course it's conjecture, but anything up to that figure is likely the real number because they sell a LOT of 10 and 20Mbit contracts! EDIT: It's even more likely since they actively withdrew selling 2Mbit as a service.

Easy Toto, I'm not dual-accounts here y'know. ;)

Toto

10-03-2009, 20:32

About time somebody took it to them. VM are the only UK broadband provider, I believe, actively throttling connections daily after a certain download limit. While others have a FUP and an acceptable monthly download limit on ADSL, Virgin don't, but they throttle those deemed "heavy" (they say the top 5% of users, I would reckon it's about 25% of the customer base). So all power to the OP for taking them to court, especially since according to him they changed the terms of the contract.

Hmmmm, wonder if I can take my credit card company to court for doing the same, with their ever fluctuating interest rates.............

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Exactly, but with so few VM customers registered to Cable Forum and so few who know how to use newsgroups, of course it's conjecture, but anything up to that figure is likely the real number because they sell a LOT of 10 and 20Mbit contracts! EDIT: It's even more likely since they actively withdrew selling 2Mbit as a service.

Easy Toto, I'm not dual-accounts here y'know. ;)

Hahah, well, thought it was worth a sly one on't side ;)

Peter_

10-03-2009, 20:38

Exactly, but with so few VM customers registered to Cable Forum and so few who know how to use newsgroups, of course it's conjecture, but anything up to that figure is likely the real number because they sell a LOT of 10 and 20Mbit contracts! EDIT: It's even more likely since they actively withdrew selling 2Mbit as a service.

Easy Toto, I'm not dual-accounts here y'know. ;)
If I answer the phone and you ask are you being traffic managed I can tell you in a couple of minutes and I can count on one hand how many times a week I get asked that question and most weeks it only includes my thumb.

Turkey Machine

10-03-2009, 20:42

If I answer the phone and you ask are you being traffic managed I can tell you in a couple of minutes and I can count on one hand how many times a week I get asked that question and most weeks it only includes my thumb.

Because not all customers ring up asking if they're being throttled.

It's a random figure, because the 5% that Virgin Media use in advertising is quite frankly a load of cow's excrement. I know that 5% of 8 million customers is a lot (400k), but it's likely to be more, especially with the new advertising push for 50Mbit, which we know will be throttled when it's rolled out nationwide.

EDIT: are you whydoineedatech in disguise? :)

Ignitionnet

10-03-2009, 20:43

Yep most people know so little about their 'fibre optic broadband' they don't even notice when they are STM'd. :)

rogerdraig

10-03-2009, 20:43

this is another one for unfair contracts

cant to doc at the moment will once the http://www.opsi.gov.uk (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/) site comes back

but basicaly a term is unfair if only one party gets to decide on a decision

so the fact they dont give you an opportunity to see why you are being managed before doing it on each occasion it would seem to be unfair especially as they dont provide a read out of what your data download upload amounts are at ( yes i know you can find ones on the web but realy they should at least provide this themselves )

will post the exact wording once i can get at the site lol

Martyn

10-03-2009, 20:55

i've only ever gotten problems when all these new "improvements" have been added.. the throttling is bad..

Peter_

10-03-2009, 20:59

Because not all customers ring up asking if they're being throttled.

It's a random figure, because the 5% that Virgin Media use in advertising is quite frankly a load of cow's excrement. I know that 5% of 8 million customers is a lot (400k), but it's likely to be more, especially with the new advertising push for 50Mbit, which we know will be throttled when it's rolled out nationwide.

EDIT: are you whydoineedatech in disguise? :)
I have seen the odd post with that username and it appears to be defunct and I have copied some info that was useful and re jigged them, but no not me.

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:05

Martyn

10-03-2009, 21:09

Throttling is for a reason. They limit you so that everyone can have a stable line. If everyone was unlimited downloads per day it would result in instability, and you wouldnt get the advertised connection speed. I would rather wait until 9PM so i can set the downloads off while i sleep then complain over something that isnt wrong.
service is unstable anyway.. and we shouldnt be punished for vms lack of service which they should supply without question.....

people getting limited during the day is uping there "co2 footprint" i guess we could get this limit removed, if we moaned enough to the govenment.. a 1 gig download that should take couple of minutes, takes hours.... vm don't pay my eletric bill, so im losing out any more...

back in the day of ntl, i signed onto the 10mb as it was a gaming package... with unlimited download.... then they soon updated it to 20m, and i've still never ever seen the speed of 20mb... not once.. i think im getting even less then 10mb would get..

progers

10-03-2009, 21:14

Probably related to another poster who has a penchant for staggering, and unproven stats. ;)

98.3726% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:17

service is unstable anyway.. and we shouldnt be punished for vms lack of service which they should supply without question.....

people getting limited during the day is uping there "co2 footprint" i guess we could get this limit removed, if we moaned enough to the govenment.. a 1 gig download that should take couple of minutes, takes hours.... vm don't pay my eletric bill, so im losing out any more...

back in the day of ntl, i signed onto the 10mb as it was a gaming package... with unlimited download.... then they soon updated it to 20m, and i've still never ever seen the speed of 20mb... not once.. i think im getting even less then 10mb would get..

Ok i admit VM oversell in a lot of areas. Back in the days of NTL, there werent the amount of internet users that there are now (I know it sounds stupid but its true, the amount of internet enabled households has probably doubled by now). But do you think they would DENY selling someone their services because its simply oversold? No because they need money.

Im on the 10meg and i get 9.9meg on speedtests (Servers 150+ miles away). I see no problem because my area where i am is almost empty.

Now lets imagine everyones limited to 2.5gb a day. You have 250 users in your area. 100 of them are torrent users and you're all on 10meg connections. Adverage download speeds would be 1mb/s. Making it around 100mb/s. Suddenly, everyones internet slows down in the area who isnt torrenting.
Traffic management = Overusers are throttled, line is stable again.
No management= Constant busy line making it almost unusable.

Would you rather have Management, or no management.
It would cost millions, if not billions to upgrade the whole infastructure of the UK the enable everyone to have unmetered cable connections.

BenMcr

10-03-2009, 21:19

Ben...

No, they cannot do that. Once made, a contract is fixed in law unless both parties agree otherwise.
Indeed. That is what section H is for. Part 2 specifically deals with changes to the terms and conditions.

Telewest also had a similar term http://help2.virginmedia.com/help/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_termsandconditions

We may amend or vary the terms of this Agreement from time to time by posting an amended version of these terms and conditions to our Website (and any such amendment or variation shall be effective on the fifth day following such posting). However you will have the right to terminate this Agreement if the changes are significant as described in paragraph 73

Martyn

10-03-2009, 21:29

I'd rather them update the backbone of the systems to beable to handle the new users, i hate getting trafficed, every time i do i send a letter of complaint, stating this wasnt in my contract when signed, i don't get a reply... only time i get replys is when i write them a crappy web form complaint, and i get someone calling me trying to fix the issue, an i keep telling them the issue isnt with me, its you. if they did the right thing and spend the extra day or two it would cost to get proper speeds, i live in ashford, kent.. it isnt a big area.. but when i first got ntl, i got the broad band, an it was rare then damn i wonder how i put up with the 128kbs... but ever since i had it, i'd always tell friends and family to get virgin, as you don lose speeds, maybe its my outside box thats out of date??? we had it since we first got it all? =-/

must be something they can do.. there just being lazy... its once of the tightest companys i know... that wait till the last minute to spend any money....Ok i admin VM oversell in a lot of areas. Back in the days of NTL, there werent the amount of internet users that there are now (I know it sounds stupid but its true, the amount of internet enabled households has probably doubled by now). But do you think they would DENY selling someone their services because its simply oversold? No because they need money.

Im on the 10meg and i get 9.9meg on speedtests (Servers 150+ miles away). I see no problem because my area where i am is almost empty.

Now lets imagine everyones limited to 2.5gb a day. You have 250 users in your area. 100 of them are torrent users and you're all on 10meg connections. Adverage download speeds would be 1mb/s. Making it around 100mb/s. Suddenly, everyones internet slows down in the area who isnt torrenting.
Traffic management = Overusers are throttled, line is stable again.
No management= Constant busy line making it almost unusable.

Would you rather have Management, or no management.
It would cost millions, if not billions to upgrade the whole infastructure of the UK the enable everyone to have unmetered cable connections.

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:34

Peter_

10-03-2009, 21:37

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:38

How come you are not using a Virgin modem or do you mean router.
Everything EXCEPT the modem (whitch is now the newest VM modem) is NTL equipment. (It was installed when NTL was first started)

Peter_

10-03-2009, 21:42

Everything EXCEPT the modem (whitch is now the newest VM modem) is NTL equipment. (It was installed when NTL was first started)
I thought you were one of the NTL customers who had bought their modems back in the day.

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:45

I thought you were one of the NTL customers who had bought their modems back in the day.

I first was on NTL for my internet. Then i switched to Sky Broadband a year later up until 6 months ago when i purchased VM. Everything on my line has been running fine no service problems except the install.

broadbandking

10-03-2009, 21:47

Well I say good luck to the OP but I don't see it going in anyway but Virgins sorry to be negative.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

I have seen the odd post with that username and it appears to be defunct and I have copied some info that was useful and re jigged them, but no not me.

I wonder what happened to him he was a nice bloke.

Martyn

10-03-2009, 21:51

I know they're tight but dont you think their a bit busy at the moment. Rolling out 50meg and upgrading alot of stuff anyways will most likely fix your problems if/when it does come to your area. It uses new technology.

All my equipment (Except modem) is NTL equipment. The box on my wall, the cables from my house to the green cabinet.

The one thing i can suggest is make sure you have the newest modem and dont stop bugging VM until they give you one.

Go to start > run > cmd > then type this
tracert bbc.co.uk

PM me the resultsMicrosoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Martyn>tracert bbc.co.uk
Tracing route to bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms cpc2-ashf1-0-0-cust212.asfd.cable.ntl.com [80.6.
68.213]
2 17 ms 7 ms 103 ms 10.245.240.1
3 11 ms 9 ms 10 ms asfd-t2cam1-a-ge92.network.virginmedia.net [80.3
.98.1]
4 11 ms 15 ms 8 ms asfd-t3core-1a-ge-010-0.network.virginmedia.net
[195.182.174.41]
5 133 ms 10 ms 10 ms pop-bb-a-ge-410-0.network.virginmedia.net [212.4
3.163.30]
6 14 ms 12 ms 22 ms nth-bb-b-as3-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.
172.13]
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 16 ms 23 ms 116 ms pos6-1.rt0.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.239.237]
9 16 ms 75 ms 16 ms 212.58.238.129
10 18 ms 16 ms 112 ms virtual-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk [212.58.224.138]
Trace complete.
C:\Users\Martyn>

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 21:53

Martyn

10-03-2009, 22:06

2 17 ms 7 ms 103 ms 10.245.240.1

This if im correct is part of the VM network. This may be why you have problems with the high latency meaning you cant get the full service speed. Ping it a few more times if you feel like it, see what you get.
ping -n 20 10.245.240.1
C:\Users\Martyn>ping -n 20 10.245.240.1
Pinging 10.245.240.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 10.245.240.1:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 0, Lost = 20 (100% loss),

idontpirate

10-03-2009, 22:08

Weird o_O contact VM and ask if they have oversold in your area. only way to find out. although if they say "LOL WE OVERSOLD BUT UPGRADE AND U CN GET RELI FAST SPEEDZ" just hang up

C:\Users\Martyn>ping -n 20 10.245.240.1
Pinging 10.245.240.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 10.245.240.1:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 0, Lost = 20 (100% loss),

Milambar

10-03-2009, 23:20

It will be interesting to see how this progresses, but I can't see the OP getting very far. Not because VM have covered their legal arse (my lawyer friend in America tells me that contracts which allow one party to vary the terms and conditons are on "shaky ground", and relies on one party having a larger legal budget than the other), but purely because VM have a larger legal budget than the OP.

BenMcr

10-03-2009, 23:32

The contract allows Virgin to vary the terms - however conversly if Virgin DO vary the terms and a customer doesn't wish to accept them, they have a right to cancel without penalty - as is stated in the T&Cs

If Virgin did not allow this THEN it would be shakey ground

So in regards to the OP, he had apportunity when Virgin's T&Cs were introduced in Feb 2007 to decide that he did not wish to abide by them.

Once however, he continued with services past the 30 days get out clause then the terms became part of his contract, including the bit about being able to manage the connection

---------- Post added at 23:32 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

Oh and I just found this in the Telewest terms (http://help2.virginmedia.com/help/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_termsandconditions )

34. Telewest reserves the right to restrict access to the Service and to impose data traffic restrictions at its discretion, in order to implement new facilities, allow data retrieval and maintain Service levels

broadbandking

10-03-2009, 23:46

Shame we are no longer Telewest o the good ol days

BenMcr

10-03-2009, 23:47

Either way - similar terms have been there since the Telewest days - so for the OP to say that it's VM is not legally correct

Turkey Machine

10-03-2009, 23:53

Telewest currently no longer exists as a residential broadband provider, as they are now a part of Virgin Media, so technically they do!

BenMcr

10-03-2009, 23:54

I know, but the way the OP is suggesting it is only VM that introduced the terms about managing the nework. They didn't

Why did the OP not take Telewest to court over clause 34 in their terms?

broadbandking

10-03-2009, 23:57

I know, but the way the OP is suggesting it is only VM that introduced the terms about managing the nework. They didn't

Why did the OP not take Telewest to court over clause 34 in their terms?

Telewest never really did anything about high users just had the terms there to keep people happy, Telewest was a very good ISP I never had a speed issue with them, unlike Virgin

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 00:00

That's not the point. The OP is trying to sue VM by saying that the term has been introduced and is detrimental to his service.

The clause has been in the Telewest terms from 12/06/2001.

Whether the company chooses to take advantage of that clause is another matter.

The OP chose to accept the Telewest terms and then the Virgin Media terms by continuing to be a customer.

The Traffic Managment has been in place for almost 2 years now - why did he not take VM to court earlier?

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 00:03

Never said it was the point Ben, whilst I see your point and the fact that you have outlined I understand the OP has no grouns to stand on I do wish him luck, because I can see Virgin really ****ing things up because they have a monopoly in the cable business and feel they can do whatever they feel like.

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 00:05

Interesting replies. Well, the on-topic ones. Please keep them coming for I welcome every fraction of input.

Some assumptions being made. Perhaps I should have mentioned that not only do I have considerable experience of representing in court but I have taken on much bigger players than Virgin Media. The government, for example, when I cut through debate by identifying the idea of, wrote and submitted a proposed bill which is now the Act of Parliament governing all late payment of business debt. I do not care about the size of the other side's wallets or the trickery they get up to, as very senior litigation practitioners have discovered.

What I care about is honesty and fairness.

Here, Virgin Media have bungled. They operate a practice knowingly and deliberately unfair to their clients, who they have sold to in the knowledge that their equipment cannot handle what they profess to sell (also fraud), and they take away what the client has paid for when in all fairness they should rebate pro-rata for service withheld.

To the ordinary person, the situation is wholly inequitable and unlawful. However, on a commercial basis, the longer they can get away with it the greater their income. That is why this case will soon be converted to a class action. Indeed, anyone here may join it (expense guestimate between Â£10-25 for paperwork and court lodgements). I should emphasise I am not touting - the subject seems to be of common interest to many here. It is akin to banks making excessive charges for what they do (I know, I know: they were eventually taken to task and forced to repay too).

As I mentioned, I welcome feedback. The references to VMs contract and how they implement it are wrong in law though. A contract is a treatise between two agreeing parties and must be fair and reflect what the parties intended. All but the most profoundly gentle or unaware people would not accept parts of an agreed service being withheld for no good reason or an excuse equivalent to "we're sorry, we've done too much business, we remove some of your service at the most important times, and we will continue to charge the same rate".

The matter is simple: if they vary the contract then a quid-pro-quo must be provided.

Welshchris

11-03-2009, 00:12

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 00:22

A contract is a treatise between two agreeing parties and must be fair and reflect what the parties intended.
When you took out broadband services with Telewest, what speed of service was in the contract you signed?

You say that Virgin cannot alter the terms of the contract, which also must mean the orginal product terms and service levels apply as well

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

And lets say the OP wins, manages to get lots of money out of Virgin Media - then what?

Virgin remove traffic managment and let everyone have a free for all?

Virgin downgrade everyones services to lower speeds that they can manage without STM?

I can't see any useful outcome apart from monitary.

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 01:09

Can I point out Ben that you are a member of VM staff posting regarding an ongoing court case involving your employer - bad idea, better to keep schtum.

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 01:12

Yes well thank you very much for that - you couldn't have put that on a private message maybe??!

At what stage has anything I posted inferred it is anything apart from my own personal view and/or from publicly accessable documents?

The Jackal

11-03-2009, 01:17

:knock: Great teamwork guys.

...... LMAO

moaningmags

11-03-2009, 01:25

Telewest had a fair usage policy although I never fell foul of it as a customer, nor did I ever see it enforced.
Virgin Media introduced STM in May of either 2006 or 2007, can't remember which year and can't be bothered to go find out.

If you've taken on a new contract in the last 12 months, then you have accepted the FUP and AUP including STM.

Sirius

11-03-2009, 06:42

My take on this is

I would sooner have STM than fixed limits. I don't think they will allow me a fixed limit of 900 gig each month. :Sprint:

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 09:10

:knock: Great teamwork guys.

...... LMAO

If you're referring to me I'm not VM staff :angel:

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------

Yes well thank you very much for that - you couldn't have put that on a private message maybe??!

At what stage has anything I posted inferred it is anything apart from my own personal view and/or from publicly accessable documents?

Perhaps but it was late.

The other bit isn't relevant. Of course it's not an official opinion but better to keep out of it.

---------- Post added at 09:10 ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 ----------

Telewest had a fair usage policy although I never fell foul of it as a customer, nor did I ever see it enforced.

It was enforced, Telewest were using STM way before the merger with ntl.

Stuart

11-03-2009, 09:22

I know, but the way the OP is suggesting it is only VM that introduced the terms about managing the nework. They didn't

Why did the OP not take Telewest to court over clause 34 in their terms?

Indeed. When I signed up (nearly ten years ago now). NTL also had similar terms.

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 09:41

NTL never had monthly limits did they

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 ----------

Yes well thank you very much for that - you couldn't have put that on a private message maybe??!

At what stage has anything I posted inferred it is anything apart from my own personal view and/or from publicly accessable documents?

Calm down mate he was only trying to help you.

leexgx

11-03-2009, 09:42

NTL before they became Virgin used to do Monthly caps and i found it a far better and fairer way.

C&W/NTL/virgin have never done monthy caps, if thay had i likely not be on there service
Virgin cant do montly caps unless thay are set Very high well above 250gb even then thay may lose customers, Virgin do not resell there lines so if customer goes thay get no money from them

My take on this is

I would sooner have STM than fixed limits. I don't think they will allow me a fixed limit of 900 gig each month. :Sprint:

i agree the STM is Far better then monthly caps (god knows if or how they STM 50mb as you would notice it when it droped to 10mb)

@others
alot of users on ADSL cant get even close to what Cable offers, apart form 50mb broadband (droping to 2mb for short time) i have Never really had any big problems with Virgin or NTL (i had 1 dead modem (old silver 120 one) and power level had to be adjusted once), but i guess it realy matters where you are on the cable network but should be far faster then ADSL at most times

this Court case will likely fail so your going to lose money (hopefuly)

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 09:45

Why hopefully the op is just fighting for what he thinks is right bit harsh really

LondonRoad

11-03-2009, 09:51

Why hopefully the op is just fighting for what he thinks is right bit harsh really

I agree. It's quite refreshing to hear of an individual willing to take on a big gun to right what they perceive to be an injustice. It's a bit more constructive than spending hours bumping your gums on CF. Fight the good fight and win or lose you can walk away with your head held high, wiser although possibly poorer. STM has never affected me but good luck with it anyway. ;)

Stuart

11-03-2009, 09:53

this Court case will likely fail so your going to lose money (hopefuly)

Bit harsh. The OP is only trying to get the service he is paying for.

leexgx

11-03-2009, 09:56

Virgin is the only high speed broadband in the uk, with no monthly download caps i do not want virgin to do that thay daily limits thay have in place are fine as thay are unless you Live at home + download alot or not on 50mb bb, still if you know your going to get STMed trigger it at 4pm so it comes off at 9-10pm

monthly caps are very bad in the uk as most of them are no more then 40gb, virgins way still alows you to do more then 100gb per day

its an pointless court case really as terms of agreement states that thay can do this or modify services, when Virgin taken over NTL you now on Virgin terms not NTL even so there is an line about changing stuff, an legal team has likey looked at it (thay norm do not use monkeys to make these terms of agreement)

The Jackal

11-03-2009, 10:19

My take on this is

I would sooner have STM than fixed limits. I don't think they will allow me a fixed limit of 900 gig each month. :Sprint:

I second/third this.

Just whack p2p users and we'll all be happier - I honestly don't mind, even if they're capped to 100kbps and more importantly cap their upload speed....all helps to aid a fluid network.

If you want downloads - Virgin Media has inherited a perfectly good usenet server.

psyfur

11-03-2009, 12:21

Can I point out Ben that you are a member of VM staff posting regarding an ongoing court case involving your employer - bad idea, better to keep schtum.

In gaming terms... WTFPWND!!! ;)

Sorry just had to post that.

dev

11-03-2009, 13:44

C&W/NTL/virgin have never done monthy caps, if thay had i likely not be on there service
Virgin cant do montly caps unless thay are set Very high well above 250gb even then thay may lose customers, Virgin do not resell there lines so if customer goes thay get no money from them

250Gb would be plenty for most people, anyone going over that would not be giving VM much of a profit so it would be beneficial to get rid of those customers.

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 15:39

Do you know how many people use Virgin Media UNLIMITED service for downloading ALOT is the answer which means that if Virgin got rid of them, then Virgin would lose one heck of a lot of customers most likely be 30% of customers

cripinuk

11-03-2009, 16:20

The problem isn't the STM its the ridiculously low level its set at,in these days off streaming media and multiple computers in a house hold its hit easily.I say keep STM but double the limits.I have two teenagers n a 11yr old plus me using it all at the same time,they need to meet reasonable levels for normal families...

Hugh

11-03-2009, 17:21

leexgx

11-03-2009, 17:25

250Gb would be plenty for most people, anyone going over that would not be giving VM much of a profit so it would be beneficial to get rid of those customers.

it take you 2-3 days to do 250gb so not really an good limit

The problem isn't the STM its the ridiculously low level its set at,in these days off streaming media and multiple computers in a house hold its hit easily.I say keep STM but double the limits.I have two teenagers n a 11yr old plus me using it all at the same time,they need to meet reasonable levels for normal families...

on 10mb service it is an little low
on 20mb service it be better if it was 5gb as it only take an 75% of an dvd size file to get STM or 20 mins if you can download at full speed for that time
if your on 20mb doing 3.4gb per day for norm use (upto 9pm any way) mite be high but as i sayed above 5gb be better for that service and up the 10mb one

going to nag at virgin next week as there is way to much packet loss on the 50mb service, on the 20mb one there there was no packet loss unless i was taxing my upload or trying to crash my router (2000 connections test p2p)

(need to stop posting in here now)

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 17:52

it take you 2-3 days to do 250gb so not really an good limit

Well no it takes you 2-3 days to do 250GB, even though I'm on 20Mbit it takes me over 6 months - still haven't hit that mark yet since September. 250GB is more than ample for my needs and would be a far preferable option to STM as I rarely require serious bandwidth but when I do it's in STM breaking bursts.

Toto

11-03-2009, 17:56

I have to wonder though, if this goes before a court, isn't the first thing that's going to be asked is why didn't you leave?

Or am I on the wrong track here?

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 17:58

Much as I hate to ruin the anti-cap club thoughts, VM budget my area with a contention ratio of about 75:1. On 20Mbit you can download 6TB/month. 1/75th of that is 80GB/month. 250GB/month is quite reasonable with that ratio in mind.

Even the anti-downloading dodgy material club have to run with the cap, to break STM one day is fairly easily done illegally, to break 250GB a month legally is quite tricky.

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

I have to wonder though, if this goes before a court, isn't the first thing that's going to be asked is why didn't you leave?

Or am I on the wrong track here?

Depends what the case was raised as.

on in an hour!

11-03-2009, 18:22

[QUOTE=leexgx;34749956]C&W/NTL/virgin have never done monthy caps, if thay had i likely not be on there service

unfortunately your quote above is wrong lee,in NTL days if say a 2meg user exceeded a certain limit they would be capped,then they could either pay to upgrade to a higher speed (with the limit on that speed,for the rest of the month) or stay capped.i know sirius will back me up on this if hes reading.;)

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 18:24

unfortunately your quote above is wrong lee,in NTL days if say a 2meg user exceeded a certain limit they would be capped,then they could either pay to upgrade to a higher speed (with the limit on that speed,for the rest of the month) or stay capped.i know sirius will back me up on this if hes reading.;)
Sorry - never happened AFAIK

They were going to do that end of 2005/early 2006 IIRC, and even trained the staff on the customer webpages and how it would all work. But it never actually got brought it

on in an hour!

11-03-2009, 18:30

[]

Sorry - never happened AFAIK

They were going to do that end of 2005/early 2006 IIRC, and even trained the staff on the customer webpages and how it would all work. But it never actually got brought it

so we are both in the same boat ben,we got the same brief,but as i wasnt a heavy user i never suffered from it,but as a service tech visiting subs complaining of slow speeds this was our official retort :)

nutellajunkie

11-03-2009, 19:24

end of the day, VM are liars and commercially this seems viable..
Using words to attract people, like unlimited, fiber optics, oh its all good, until you see the truth..

Im all for the OP, you go man! and if you win some bucks, I would like a postcard from the virgin islands ;)

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 20:00

fiber optics is true and so is the unlimited but if they said unmetred then that would be false

Milambar

11-03-2009, 20:10

Sorry, but the "fiber optics", in my opinion, is only PARTLY true. Its fiber optics to the street box (or node, as Ive seen some say here), not fiber optic to the home, which is what most people would assume from the advertising material.

weesteev

11-03-2009, 20:49

Ok am I missing something here, why is the OP comparing their contract with the comapnies T&C's?

You take a contract with Virgin Media for a set period of time for a service at a set price (or an offer price) after installation or change of a package. Acceptance of a cnatract is also classed as acceptance of company terms and conditions (if you were an ex-Telewest customer then if you have a copy of the Telewest Broadband T&C's they do also state that your connection may be managed).

The Terms and Conditions of this service state the companies obligation to you (and vice versa) as well as limits, restrictions, policies etc.

The T&C's clearly state that your connection may be managed under certain circumstances...

The T&C's also state that they can be amended at any time...

Im sorry but you agreed to abide by the companies terms and conditions which are pretty clear when it comes to this area. Court action is almost pointless I would say as any solicitor worth his salt should refer you firstly to your contractural obligation with the respective company and how their T&C's would regulate your case.

Surely also OFCOM would be used as a defence case seen as they are the regulator who essentially "proof read's" communication companies T&C's... as well as the many lawyaers from Virgins side which scrutinse all their communications and legal documentation before they are issued?

I dont want to rain on your parade but I think it is definatley worth while pointing out the difference between "Contract" and "Terms and Condtions of service", which are clearly two seperate thinsg altogether.

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 21:01

fiber optics is true and so is the unlimited but if they said unmetred then that would be false

I swear that's a piece of coax coming into my home ;)

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

The T&C's also state that they can be amended at any time...

Actually I'm quite sure that phrases like that have been found to be invalid in contracts as they are unfair. It's considered illegal for a company to be able to arbitrarily change the terms of a contract which is very much what that phrase translates to.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out but again VM employees should really consider not posting their opinions, all of which can be used in a court of law as they are not noted as being without prejudice.

EDIT: Here's proof of my comments above:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf

Variation clauses paragraph 1(j), (k), and (l) of Schedule 2
For example, the company may at any time vary or add to these conditions as it deems necessary.

When a contract is made, obligations are accepted in return for benefits. If one party can unilaterally change agreed terms, to its advantage, the balance of the transaction is lost. So a term is likely to be unfair if it gives the supplier the right at its discretion to force the consumer to accept changes to the bargain. A right to change any term in the contract, or to vary its core terms – the price or description of the product – is particularly open to objection.
Fairness, and the law, require that consumers get what they agreed to buy. Goods, in particular, must be of the agreed description and purpose, not just of 'equivalent quality'. A right to raise prices at discretion, where consumers are locked into the contract, is also highly suspect. Where the supplier's freedom to vary is more restricted, there may be no unfairness. Terms which allow only technical product modifications of no significance to the
consumer are usually acceptable. Even a right to make more substantial variations may be unobjectionable if the changes permitted are precisely specified, so consumers do effectively know what they are agreeing to. Alternatively, a variation clause that confers no real discretion, for instance, a right to raise prices in line with a published price index, may be fair.
Finally, and most importantly, any right to vary may be fair if the consumers can exit from the contract before being affected – but obviously adequate advance notice of the variation must be given and the consumer must not suffer any loss or significant inconvenience by cancelling.

Not quite as cut and dried as Virgin Media / then Telewest or ntl would have you believe, is it?

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 21:30

Blaze

11-03-2009, 21:37

The way I see it is, think of it like you're in a queue for something.

If someone uses up a load of time in the queue, itll be a slower wait for you.

Virgin dont limit how much you can download, just that if you download this amount within a set time period, youll be on a slower speed.

I dont think of it like you buy a car which can do 150mph and you can only go upto 130mph.

It might be because it doesnt bother me. I usually do big downloads either when im alsleep or when im out.

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 21:44

Not quite as cut and dried as Virgin Media / then Telewest or ntl would have you believe, is it?
Nor as you would have believe

Even a right to make more substantial variations may be unobjectionable if the changes permitted are precisely specified, so consumers do effectively know what they are agreeing to.
The changes of the Traffic Managment are and have been precisely specified at www.virginmedia.com/traffic (http://www.virginmedia.com/traffic)

Finally, and most importantly, any right to vary may be fair if the consumers can exit from the contract before being affected – but obviously adequate advance notice of the variation must be given and the consumer must not suffer any loss or significant inconvenience by cancelling.

Which is built into Virgin terms

Kursk

11-03-2009, 21:46

Thank you, Broadbandings, for your concise rebuff to what the Virgin Media and Telewest employees have stated on this forum. I am beginning to suspect they are using damage avoidance and obfuscation tactics.

The fact is that the term "unlimited" means just that, and not anything else as the Telewest employee has posted. So, be it contract, terms and conditions, or some other magic phrase Virgin Media want to mislead clients and potential clients about the one thing that shines in all their conduct so far, on and off list, is the obvious willingness to mislead people.

Additionally, whilst I am commenting generally, and not on the specifics of the case, some comments by Virgin Media and subsidiary company staff are bordering on something the court may wish to speak to Virgin Media about. Punitively.

I can well understand why Virgin Media would want to push someone off a case and protect their position viz-a-viz their constant deception.

They could, of course, be reasonable and fair to people. If they choose.

Hang on a minute Mike. The contributions over a long period of time of Virgin Media staff to this forum have been valuable and informative to the membership. I donâ€™t see it serves the readership to gag their opinion either directly or indirectly.

Free speech is more important than saving a few bob on that which is paid for internet, or any other, services. I think people should be allowed to express their views with impunity provided Cable Forumsâ€™ own rules are observed. It will enrich the discussion.

Let everyone and anyone share their personal views and donâ€™t beat them over the head for contributing to your interesting thread.

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 21:50

You misunderstand me, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, and what Virgin build into their terms is irrelevant if it's against guidelines.

Did Virgin permit customers to exit their contracts early without penalty?
Could cancelling Virgin Media services cause significant inconvenience?
Did Virgin give advanced notice prior to deployment of STM?

If any of the 3 above you can't answer appropriately you're potentially in strife.

nfs6600

11-03-2009, 21:53

They could, of course, be reasonable and fair to people. If they choose.

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all. :td:

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 21:55

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all. :td:

You really do believe VM's guff on STM I see ;)

STM is in place because VM when they rolled 20Mbit didn't have the bandwidth to support it, and have done thousands of upgrades since its' rollout to try and push towards having enough bandwidth to support the products they have been selling..

Nothing to do with heavy users at all, you don't like heavy users you boot them, VM just didn't have the bandwidth to offer 20Mbit on a fully unlimited basis. Heavy users cause the most problems but for the most part VM just didn't have the local bandwidth at the MAC domain level to handle the tiers of service they have been selling.

Who knows it may encourage VM to continue their upgrade programs in order to offer their full range of services with no STM, or to look into alternate management systems.

Unlimited is just a PR title, VM have been unable to sustain an unlimited service since the 20Mbit deployment and are fully aware of this, hence STM and why it was deployed alongside 20Mbit.

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 21:56

Kursk, you are quite correct. The staff concerned are, of course, entitled to provide opinions - and they are useful opinions. Debate has two sides. I did not intend to suggest otherwise. Apologies.

My tenor was meant to be more like a mirthful comment, the type of which is shared amongst friends in a pub, but writing doesn't always convey that. In that context, as with chatter about who the best of two football sides is, and given the obvious legal basis that people have to stick to a contract once agreed, their comments have a ring of either deception or wholesale misunderstanding of law {nudge nudge, wink wink - and David Beckham is a terrible footballer...}

Kursk

11-03-2009, 21:59

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 22:16

Which is why STM is in place!!?? Ok, lets say you win and VM are for instance forced to remove STM, the network goes t**s up and everyone then gets slow speeds during the peak times as a result of the heavy users hogging all the bandwidth. The network gets unstable and more people have problems as a result of your actions. Thank you very much indeed kind sir. You may have won your court case but you fluffed the network up for the vast majority of users who have no problems at all. :td:

You misunderstand what I am doing. I (and others joining the case) are saying that repayment must be made for service not delivered. If someone is on an unlimited package and receives less than that (because VM unilaterally take it away) then that someone should receive a quid-pro-quo rebate. If someone wants to download movies from China all day every day, then that's between them and their supplier. I agree that greedy users should face penalties but regular users should not suffer as a result - which is precisely what is happening.

Simply put, Virgin Media should not be selling in a way that overloads the technology they have available - locally, regionally or nationally. If they sell something they cannot deliver then that is fraud. I, and others like me, do not want to be defrauded. I do not mind STM so long as it is reasonable and aimed at those continuously overloading the system to excess.

Oh, and why should normal users pay for the excesses of others?

broadbandking

11-03-2009, 22:32

Broadbandings - isn't that fiber underground?

nfs6600

11-03-2009, 22:42

You misunderstand what I am doing.

What your doing (in my opinion) is opening up a whole can of worms for the customers out there who never have any problems at all as most never have any issues with regards to the STM policy - This is in my opinion, from what other posters have said on this board and others

It is unlimited broadband as there is no hard cap on how much you can download per month. Your clutching at straws my friend. I don't mean this in any offence but I hope that you lose this case and VM come out top trumps.

I agree that greedy users should face penalties but regular users should not suffer as a result - which is precisely what is happening.

This would also be unfair to the heavy users though, surely?

I do not mind STM so long as it is reasonable and aimed at those continuously overloading the system to excess.

Oh, and why should normal users pay for the excesses of others?

Agreed on this point. But also again, unfair to heavy users. You state you want the system to be fair. So that should mean fair to all users. Making it fair to the average user is singling out the heavy user, thus unfair still. So please, how can Virgin Media make a fair system without making any of the users being given the shoddy end of the stick?? I'd love to know :)

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

You really do believe VM's guff on STM I see ;)

Not so much a case of guff, more like I believe it to be the best way to keep the network in a stable state for most users.

Nothing to do with heavy users at all, you don't like heavy users you boot them

Problem, the heavy users are those who are on 20/50 tiers. Who are of course paying a premium price. You lose those you lose revenue, which in turn means you don't have as much cash to upgrade the network. Outcome? Poor network for all no matter what tier you're on

Who knows it may encourage VM to continue their upgrade programs in order to offer their full range of services with no STM, or to look into alternate management systems.

No STM would be the way forward without doubt. But what other management system would there be? Limit certain programs, p2p for example. To the OP's logic that would be unfair I think, and he wants it to be fair for all

Unlimited is just a PR title, VM have been unable to sustain an unlimited service since the 20Mbit deployment and are fully aware of this, hence STM and why it was deployed alongside 20Mbit.

Agreed on the PR title. However I can personally say my 20Mbit has never went lower than 16Mbit even at peak times. Infact most people I know have never had an issue(there are those that have and still do of course)

Ignitionnet

11-03-2009, 22:42

Broadbandings - isn't that fiber underground?

As far as a cabinet in the neighbourhood / area yes, then it's coax from there. I don't consider it to be fibre optic, it's cable, Fibre To The Node, hybrid fibre coax, it's not fibre optic broadband at all and that's a crappy marketing term that a wussy regulator with no idea what they are talking about agreed with.

You know that the USA has much higher cable coverage than we do. The first country to describe cable as fibre optic would be the UK, USA followed suit.

The Advertising Standards Authority are a waste of time, they appear to think that cable signals magic their way into the home. These are the guys who believe that electrical signals would rather go along steel than copper. You'll have BT advertising fibre optic broadband shortly too even though it's copper wire that comes into the house.

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 23:00

What your doing (in my opinion) is opening up a whole can of worms for the customers out there who never have any problems at all as most never have any issues with regards to the STM policy - This is in my opinion, from what other posters have said on this board and others

With my Internet development hat on, I can fairly state that most users do not know they are being STMd. For example, it's like Windows OS users with slow systems who do not know that CrapCleaner/CCleaner will speed them up as a dose of syrup of figs does. Banks relied on ignorance too...

It is unlimited broadband as there is no hard cap on how much you can download per month. Your clutching at straws my friend. I don't mean this in any offence but I hope that you lose this case and VM come out top trumps.

Any restrictive practice removes "unlimited" if it causes deterioration in line speed - the 20Mb factor is about selling speed of service. I am indeed clutching a bunch of straws: each straw leading legal authority and statutory law. :)

This would also be unfair to the heavy users though, surely?
I've been into restaurants in the States, China and other places. They have gondolas of free accompaniments of such things as salads. In the UK, the same chains do not - because greedy people gorge themselves on it, seemingly ignoring the spirit of the offering. Excess users should justifiably pay a bit more, or suffer traffic management, so regular users receive what they contracted. Just like in all walks of commerce, gas and electricity provision and so on. Nothing wrong or unfair about it.

Agreed on this point. But also again, unfair to heavy users. You state you want the system to be fair. So that should mean fair to all users. Making it fair to the average user is singling out the heavy user, thus unfair still. So please, how can Virgin Media make a fair system without making any of the users being given the shoddy end of the stick?? I'd love to know :)

I have offered an alternative corporate strategy to Virgin Media. It would overcome all the difficulties mentioned. It would enhance their market place, thus adding many millions to annual income. It would protect them from upcoming nationwide BT installations, thus sheltering their existing market. Most of all, it would be equitable to all. Unfortunately, the result was no response.

There are many countries who do not suffer the shenanigans resulting from Virgin Media's practices. China, South Korea and the USA included. I applaud the bravery of stance taken to justify VM but they are wrong, unethical, unlawful and there are sensible alternative methods - methods that include those who gorge themselves with downloads and torrent systems.

suggsy

11-03-2009, 23:06

nfs6600

11-03-2009, 23:13

I have offered an alternative corporate strategy to Virgin Media. It would overcome all the difficulties mentioned. It would enhance their market place, thus adding many millions to annual income. It would protect them from upcoming nationwide BT installations, thus sheltering their existing market. Most of all, it would be equitable to all. Unfortunately, the result was no response.

.

As I said above, I would love to know. So what is this alernative?

There is never a fair way of doing things. What most deem to be fair, there will always be someone who deem it unfair. Under this logig VM can never win?

It's not a case of bravery in taking a stance with VM, but a case of seeing what is right for most users! Again, in my opinion.

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 23:16

Just to add my 2 penneth, and please excuse my ignorance as im a fairly newbie, but, i'm on 20mg virgin, just been using newsgroups for my downloading, (costs me an extra $30 p/month), when not being tm'd i get 2.33mb/s d/l speed stable, when tm'd it's more like 600kb/s, so all in all pretty damn good really although it does cost for newsgroups and newsreaders etc, plus i try to d/l most of my stuff after 11pm, sorry if this has been irrelevent but thought i'd input :)

Not irrelevant but a prime example of what ordinary people perceive. Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day. What you state suggests you are receiving a service that VM and other ISPs charge a far smaller rate for. Can the Virgin guys correct me here: what is it, Â£37/month *(Â£20, XL) for 20Mb, Â£17 *(Â£14 L) for 10Mb and less by competitors for what this person is receiving?

Btw, good luck Mike A

Thanks!

*Corrections marked - thanks to BenMcr. I had been paying Â£37 for the 20Mb broadband element (TV and telephone pack were extra) when I came off and took this case.

BenMcr

11-03-2009, 23:22

Depending upon the distance from your serving node
Er? Why depending on the distance?

Â£37/month for 20Mb, Â£17 for 10Mb and a huge lot less for what this person is receiving?
Â£20 for XL
Â£14 for L

when you have a Virgin phoneline

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 23:25

As I said above, I would love to know. So what is this alernative?

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value. Ex-Telewest engineers I bounced the concept off smiled in awe. Oh, and I have spoken with one major competitor who has a high degree of interest.

There are more than the obvious dangers to VM opposing and losing instead of fairly sorting out what is a very simple matter, contractually and technically. Repayment to a wide audience, loss of stock value and losing a major market lead to competitors to name three.

I have not approached the action without substantial preparation and strategy.

Paul

11-03-2009, 23:27

Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day.
Distance is not relevant in a cable system, only ADSL.

Mike_A

11-03-2009, 23:36

Distance is not relevant in a cable system, only ADSL.

That's what I thought.

And yet it was used as an excuse many times, including when Virgin Media engineers visited and carried out tests between client and engineers monitoring at VM. They said my system was "technically excellent" but the reasons for receiving 300k download were "throttling and distance from node". That was the first time I had heard the phrase (autumn, 2007). After several more months without improvement I formally complained (along with others) and, well, here we are. I cannot comprehend why visiting engineers and telephone support technicians would use that excuse (have it in writing too).

weesteev

11-03-2009, 23:40

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value. Ex-Telewest engineers I bounced the concept off smiled in awe. Oh, and I have spoken with one major competitor who has a high degree of interest.

There are more than the obvious dangers to VM opposing and losing instead of fairly sorting out what is a very simple matter, contractually and technically. Repayment to a wide audience, loss of stock value and losing a major market lead to competitors to name three.

I have not approached the action without substantial preparation and strategy.

Mike Im sure you have done your research into this... but you start your thread with "Im taking Virgin to court becuase they changed my contract terms"

(which they didnt)

And then you state you have valid alternatives to a long standing bandwidth problem for Virgin (a problem shared by many cable co's the world over).

The options to improve bandwidth are thus...

Apply SDV to the network to increase local capacity by taking broadcast TV channels to the edge routers for when they are required.
Shut off Analogue
Swicth to MPEG4 (potentially IPTV) and DVB-C2
Complete the rollout of DOCSIS 3 and gain certification for upstream channel bonding from their CMTS providers Motorolla and Cisco.
Improve their security system to prevent unidentified modems connecting to the network without Virgin's say so.
Prioritise traffic to demanded services and target illegal P2P downloads.
Finally cut off extreme downloaders and uploaders who are saturating their nodes.

If you look at examples in US of cable co's who have implemeted some of the above (Comcast and SDV for example), it doesnt fully resolve issues as you increase capacity the demand increases to match as you add more customers and they have more speed to play with (and download services become easier to access).

Your point about having "commercially sensitive" information will not be somethign new to Virgin, the networks and access team have worked for years on tight budgets and many system changes to provide the best service possible at all times, if there was a better way to do it then they would do it. 99% of the time money is the issue, your arguments about protecting the company with upcoming expansion of comapnies like BT's Fibre network are flawed as intial rollout will be to new build areas... and Openreach will sell access to companies like Virgin Media to help them recoup costs (and if the Governement get involved with funding its likely they will be forced to deliver LLU access on Fibre).

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do, crikey there are people in the company that are no doubt coming up with the same ideas as yourself and Virgin will no doubt contact you and thank you for your input but thats probably as far as it will go. You are not alone in your struggle, and STM is a very touchy issue, but the way you have approached this by coming on a public forum and threatning court action of changes to your contract (which is actually T&C's anyway) negates any further argument you have about "great ideas".

At the end of the day, all you will achieve out of Court action if it go's in your favour will be the option to disconnect if you are in a contract as it would no longer be valid if decided by a judge, do you expect them to turn off STM on your node? I just completely fail to understand the reasoning to your argument.

nfs6600

11-03-2009, 23:42

Sorry friend, but that information has far too high a commercial value.

Then I'm sorry but in my opinion you have no grounds at all in stating that the VM STM is unfair if you are not willing to state what would be the fairer option. You can't state that something is unfair if you have grounds to counter what is fair yet don't give out that information....

Which in my view means that at the end of the day, you are not looking for a better solution for the customer base at all or a fair system. But that of financial gain for yourself. If it were not for financial gain, then why not share? :confused:

suggsy

11-03-2009, 23:44

Not irrelevant but a prime example of what ordinary people perceive. Depending upon the distance from your serving node, you should be getting 5-8 times that speed with no restriction at any time of day. What you state suggests you are receiving a service that VM and other ISPs charge a far smaller rate for. Can the Virgin guys correct me here: what is it, Â£37/month *(Â£20, XL) for 20Mb, Â£17 *(Â£14 L) for 10Mb and less by competitors for what this person is receiving?

Thanks!

*Corrections marked - thanks to BenMcr. I had been paying Â£37 for the 20Mb broadband element (TV and telephone pack were extra) when I came off and took this case.

'ordinary people' ?? i'm far from ordinary lol,

I live 11 miles from my ubr, also i dont know anyone who downloads faster than 2.33mb/s, (obvious exception being 50mg connection), i have a special price as i have been a long standing customer etc etc, i have 20mg b/b, tv without sports and movies, and landline phone for Â£57 p/m

ps, by 2.33mb/s that is actually top wack full speed for 20mg connection, or so i'm led to believe lol

homealone

11-03-2009, 23:52

'ordinary people' ?? i'm far from ordinary lol,

I live 11 miles from my ubr, also i dont know anyone who downloads faster than 2.33mb/s, (obvious exception being 50mg connection), i have a special price as i have been a long standing customer etc etc, i have 20mg b/b, tv without sports and movies, and landline phone for Â£57 p/m

ps, by 2.33mb/s that is actually top wack full speed for 20mg connection, or so i'm led to believe lol

you have the units wrong - a 20Mb/s line should be around 2.33 MB/s

- also newsgroups at $30 are expensive - have you tried the Astraweb offer - $11 including SSL

http://www.news.astraweb.com/specials/kleverig-11.html?gclid=CODD5MWInJkCFUU_3god4USFDQ

- if it is still available ...

<edit> sorry, topic ;)

- wouldn't a case pursued in the Scottish Court system only apply in Scotland if found in favour of the plaintiff ??

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 00:04

=weesteev;34750684]Mike Im sure you have done your research into this... but you start your thread with "Im taking Virgin to court becuase they changed my contract terms"

(which they didnt)

I shall refrain revisiting that - suffice to mention perhaps you should reconsider the context of what I wrote.

What you say next is far more interesting.

[QUOTE]And then you state you have valid alternatives to a long standing bandwidth problem for Virgin (a problem shared by many cable co's the world over).

The options to improve bandwidth are thus...

Apply SDV to the network to increase local capacity by taking broadcast TV channels to the edge routers for when they are required.
Shut off Analogue
Swicth to MPEG4 (potentially IPTV) and DVB-C2
Complete the rollout of DOCSIS 3 and gain certification for upstream channel bonding from their CMTS providers Motorolla and Cisco.
Improve their security system to prevent unidentified modems connecting to the network without Virgin's say so.
Prioritise traffic to demanded services and target illegal P2P downloads.
Finally cut off extreme downloaders and uploaders who are saturating their nodes.

If you look at examples in US of cable co's who have implemeted some of the above (Comcast and SDV for example), it doesnt fully resolve issues as you increase capacity the demand increases to match as you add more customers and they have more speed to play with (and download services become easier to access).

Your point about having "commercially sensitive" information will not be somethign new to Virgin, the networks and access team have worked for years on tight budgets and many system changes to provide the best service possible at all times, if there was a better way to do it then they would do it. 99% of the time money is the issue, your arguments about protecting the company with upcoming expansion of comapnies like BT's Fibre network are flawed as intial rollout will be to new build areas... and Openreach will sell access to companies like Virgin Media to help them recoup costs (and if the Governement get involved with funding its likely they will be forced to deliver LLU access on Fibre).

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do, crikey there are people in the company that are no doubt coming up with the same ideas as yourself and Virgin will no doubt contact you and thank you for your input but thats probably as far as it will go. You are not alone in your struggle, and STM is a very touchy issue, but the way you have approached this by coming on a public forum and threatning court action of changes to your contract (which is actually T&C's anyway) you negates any further argument you have about "great ideas".

Your response as regards rollout and Openreach are well taken.

To start my answer, several years ago (perhaps 2003) Telewest Systems were down three days as a the result of the (I think) Red Flag virus. It was me who called them, as a courtesy, and told them how to overcome it (the put Â£30 on my account for the favour). You see, like Paddington Bear, they had their heads so heavily into the technical honey pot they couldn't see the approach to solution required. It is the same in the present case. VM are stuck looking too heavily into the technical option.

By analogy, your marketing department will know the concepts of marketing like brand, distribution and so on. These are things that national tourists organisations (NTOs) look at when trying to promote why their sun/sea/sand is better than a neighbours sites/interests/scenery. VM, and others, are looking in the wrong place with the wrong marketing mix and adaptation of technology to that mix. I appreciate all the technical wizardry you (VM and group) have looked at, but there is a much easier, cheaper and efficient approach.

At the end of the day, all you will achieve out of Court action if it go's in your favour will be the option to disconnect if you ar ein a contract as it would nolonger be valid if decided by a judge, do you expect them to turn off STM on your node? I just completely fail to understand the reasoning to your argument.

There are orders of specific implement sought, yes. These type of orders amount to requiring the contract to be obtempered as the court directs. I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.

weesteev

12-03-2009, 00:07

I shall refrain revisiting that - suffice to mention perhaps you should reconsider the context of what I wrote.

What you say next is far more interesting.

[quote]

Your response as regards rollout and Openreach are well taken.

To start my answer, several years ago (perhaps 2003) Telewest Systems were down three days as a the result of the (I think) Red Flag virus. It was me who called them, as a courtesy, and told them how to overcome it (the put Â£30 on my account for the favour). You see, like Paddington Bear, they had their heads so heavily into the technical honey pot they couldn't see the approach to solution required. It is the same in the present case. VM are stuck looking too heavily into the technical option.

By analogy, your marketing department will know the concepts of marketing like brand, distribution and so on. These are things that national tourists organisations (NTOs) look at when trying to promote why their sun/sea/sand is better than a neighbours sites/interests/scenery. VM, and others, are looking in the wrong place with the wrong marketing mix and adaptation of technology to that mix. I appreciate all the technical wizardry you (VM and group) have looked at, but there is a much easier, cheaper and efficient approach.

There are orders of specific implement sought, yes. These type of orders amount to requiring the contract to be obtempered as the court directs. I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.

This is what im trying to say, your terms never changed, the Telewest T&C's stated that the service can be restricted upon higher usage, although it wasnt enforced it was always part of their initial terms.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 00:08

I want the connection on, with the originally agreed terms in place.
Those originally agreed terms include the right for the company to manage it's network as it sees fit

Again I point you the provision that has been in Telewest terms and conditions since 2001 (http://help2.virginmedia.com/help/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_termsandconditions )

Telewest reserves the right to restrict access to the Service and to impose data traffic restrictions at its discretion, in order to implement new facilities, allow data retrieval and maintain Service levelsThis means that this right has been there since Telewest started providing broadband services, so will have been in your original contract!

EDIT: as for notification, the original Telewest terms has that covered as well:

Where practicable you will be advised of any such measures by e-mail and/or via our Website within a reasonable timeframe.So again, the original Telewest terms allow notification of measures to be put up on website - such as www.virginmedia.com/traffic (http://www.virginmedia.com/traffic). This website was avaliable BEFORE the Traffic Managment was officially introduced in May 2007

suggsy

12-03-2009, 00:09

you have the units wrong - a 20Mb/s line should be around 2.33 MB/s

- also newsgroups at $30 are expensive - have you tried the Astraweb offer - $11 including SSL

http://www.news.astraweb.com/specials/kleverig-11.html?gclid=CODD5MWInJkCFUU_3god4USFDQ

- if it is still available ...

<edit> sorry, topic ;)

- wouldn't a case pursued in the Scottish Court system only apply in Scotland if found in favour of the plaintiff ??

you have the units wrong - a 20Mb/s line should be around 2.33 MB/s
(i thought that was what i said, but deff what i meant, sorry,) and thanks for astraweb link i will look into it, but i use giganews with newsleecher and thought it was the best one, but maybe not

Sorry Mike for thread hacking, i slapped the back of my hand

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 00:12

'ordinary people' ?? i'm far from ordinary lol,

I live 11 miles from my ubr, also i dont know anyone who downloads faster than 2.33mb/s, (obvious exception being 50mg connection), i have a special price as i have been a long standing customer etc etc, i have 20mg b/b, tv without sports and movies, and landline phone for Â£57 p/m

ps, by 2.33mb/s that is actually top wack full speed for 20mg connection, or so i'm led to believe lol

lol - I see now. Looks like you are quoting wrong (loosely "20Mb divided by 8 bits + 1 "parity" bit equates to what you state, which would be around 2.33MB). If not, then it drives a coach and horses through the distance from UBR argument for cable.

I too had a special price of about the same - as a long standing customer. Reduced from over Â£80.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 00:16

I too had a special price of about the same - as a long standing customer. Reduced from over Â£80.
But wouldn't that be a change to your original contract, which you say they cannot do?

suggsy

12-03-2009, 00:18

lol - I see now. Looks like you are quoting wrong (loosely "20Mb divided by 8 bits + 1 "parity" bit equates to what you state, which would be around 2.33MB). If not, then it drives a coach and horses through the distance from UBR argument for cable.

I too had a special price of about the same - as a long standing customer. Reduced from over Â£80.

Cool, but i dont understand why im tm'd at this hour of midnight when ive only downloaded about 2 gig today, sorry again thats for another thread, but when at full speed i download a typical 700mb file in around 5 or 6 mins and the leecher shows 2.33 speed :)

nfs6600

12-03-2009, 00:21

But wouldn't that be a change to your original contract, which you say they cannot do?

Mike, Ben has a great point here. When did you get this special price??

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 00:24

Those originally agreed terms include the right for the company to manage it's network as it sees fit

Again I point you the provision that has been in Telewest terms and conditions since 2001 (http://help2.virginmedia.com/help/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_termsandconditions )

This means that this right has been there since Telewest started providing broadband services, so will have been in your original contract!

EDIT: as for notification, the original Telewest terms has that covered as well:

So again, the original Telewest terms allow notification of measures to be put up on website - such as www.virginmedia.com/traffic (http://www.virginmedia.com/traffic). This website was avaliable BEFORE the Traffic Managment was officially introduced in May 2007

Yes, have that covered. See my previous post about Paddington Bear.

Ben and other VM people, I do appreciate the considerable effort you have spent attempting to explain VM's stance. It appears to me you have set it out with endeavour and accuracy from the point of view VM staff are accustomed, trained and experienced in. That, I have to say, is commendable. Unfortunately, it does not equate with law (for Scottish law a good read of Walker on contract will quickly assist; English law is little different on the subject at hand). Between you, you have neatly set out the technical practices and obstacles and how VM interpret contract. My thanks. If only the great many of your colleagues were so enthusiastic...

Ben: again thanks for your feedback as regards change of contract. This is called variance. It does not make a new contract but comprises a mutually agreed varying after both sides have entered into a process leading to variance. Apologies if this sounds technical but law is far more abstract than the logic of technology. I prefer the simple right/wrong, on/off boolean logic, but law operates through evolution. I think that there's a saying that goes, "If ever you want to maintain respect for sausages and law, it's unwise to watch them in the making". :)

nfs: ages ago, maybe 2006/7 when VM were doing their takeover thingy.

nfs6600

12-03-2009, 00:27

You have failed to comment back on both Ben and myself questions...... no wait, two of mine now.

danielf

12-03-2009, 00:28

Ok, I haven't read the entire thread, but surely the original contract will state that VM/NTL/whatever can change the terms of the contract (and when they do this you can get out if you're locked in)? It seems to me that this would be normal (and even understood) practice in any contract that is not negotiated for a specified amount of time.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 00:38

Ben and other VM people, I do appreciate the considerable effort you have spent attempting to explain VM's stance. It appears to me you have set it out with endeavour and accuracy from the point of view VM staff are accustomed, trained and experienced in. That, I have to say, is commendable. Unfortunately, it does not equate with law (for Scottish law a good read of Walker on contract will quickly assist; English law is little different on the subject at hand). Between you, you have neatly set out the technical practices and obstacles and how VM interpret contract. My thanks. If only the great many of your colleagues were so enthusiastic...
Excuse me - at what point have I explained Virgin's stance? Only Virgin can do that.

What I have posted in my own view on the terms and conditions laid out on the website - nothing to do with Virgin training, opinion, policy or anything else. I would have arrived at the same opinion no matter who I worked for.

And surely if a company is registed in England and Wales then it is that contract law that would apply, not Scottish law?

In fact the original Telewest terms specifically state:

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law

---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:29 ----------

Ok, I haven't read the entire thread, but surely the original contract will state that VM/NTL/whatever can change the terms of the contract (and when they do this you can get out if you're locked in)? It seems to me that this would be normal (and even understood) practice in any contract that is not negotiated for a specified amount of time.
Indeed it does. Virgin have to give 30 days notice of any change to the Terms or prices etc, and the customer has at that stage a right to cancel without penalty.

This section is made quite clear - Section J

Similar sections apply in all service agreements I have seen/been party to as a customer

It was section 63 in the original Telewest terms which the OP wants to return to

63. We may amend or vary the terms of this Agreement from time to time by posting an amended version of these terms and conditions to our Website (and any such amendment or variation shall be effective on the fifth day following such posting). However you will have the right to terminate this Agreement if the changes are significant as described in paragraph 73.

73. If, during the Minimum Period, we either increase our Charges by more than 10% (or, if greater, the then prevailing rate of inflation) or make significant changes to the Services, you may terminate this Agreement by giving us at least 30 days notice in writing. If you do not give us notice of your intention to terminate within 30 days of notification to you of such changes you will be deemed to have accepted the increase in Charges and/or the changes to the Service.

danielf

12-03-2009, 00:45

Indeed it does. Virgin have to give 30 days notice of any change to the Terms or prices etc, and the customer has at that stage a right to cancel without penalty.

This section is made quite clear - Section J

Similar sections apply in all service agreements I have seen/been party to as a customer

That's what I thought. And I would think this would blow this whole case out of the courts? On what basis does the OP want his original contract installed?

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 00:55

Excuse me - at what point have I explained Virgin's stance? Only Virgin can do that.

What I have posted in my own view on the terms and conditions laid out on the website - nothing to do with Virgin training, opinion, policy or anything else. I would have arrived at the same opinion no matter who I worked for.

Not saying you are representing VM - just commended you on putting forward in debate the stance generally taken by VM.

And surely if a company is registed in England and Wales then it is that contract law that would apply, not Scottish law?

No - you are referring to jurisdiction. Registration status is irrelevant. A good point though, for the basis of jurisdiction is the first hurdle in any case. Jurisdiction generally flows from the place a contract is made, especially if made in a person's home. It can be a thorny issue and result in leading substantial submissions in law each supported by legal authority from other cases. In this case, jurisdiction is a clear cut issue that I have well prepared for. To put it another way, if BT sold you a service in England but had in their terms that jurisdiction and law was that of Inner Mongolia, the English courts would be slow to refer it there without proof that the selling party went to great lengths to explain the precise nature of jurisdiction. In my experience most salespeople have little idea of the true meaning of the term, let alone explain it.

---------- Post added at 00:55 ---------- Previous post was at 00:47 ----------

That's what I thought. And I would think this would blow this whole case out of the courts? On what basis does the OP want his original contract installed?

To this, and Ben's previous post on the subject, there was no variance. VM did not go through the steps to vary, nor take a fair and mutually amicable approach. They would also have required to offer arrangements and alternatives, none of which followed. What Virgin Media instead practised towards many is a grossly unfair, unreasonable and unwelcome change in a crucial part of the service without reasonable explanation, if any. That approach has long been considered unlawful.

Once again, a service provider cannot offer a quantum of service and then restrict it simply because they have oversold in comparison to their means to operate that service. There's an element of restitution involved. Oh, and they must be reasonable.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 00:57

VM did not go through the steps to vary, nor take a fair and mutually amicable approach.
The right to manage the service was in your original contract - there has been no variation in your terms!

They would also have required to offer arrangements and alternatives, none of which followed
Your alternative was to find another provider, if you did not like the service changes Virgin were proposing

I find it interesting that you seemed to have not minded or taken legal action about the previous variences in your contract when it applied either to price changes (which again you would have been given no alternative) or speed increases in your favour.

What Virgin Media instead practised towards many is a grossly unfair, unreasonable and unwelcome change in a crucial part of the service without reasonable explanation
They posted a full explanation as to why, when and how they were doing it on the website before it was introduced - a copy of which can be found here http://web.archive.org/web/20070516073154/allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html

Posting this would have complied with the original Telewest terms

beeman

12-03-2009, 01:05

And surely if a company is registed in England and Wales then it is that contract law that would apply, not Scottish law?

Funny that i thought VM are incorperated (regerestered) in the United States, that dosnt mean US law's apply ;)

In fact the original Telewest terms specifically state:

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law
These lines you see in contracts are as legally dubious as terms allowing change of contract. Infact English law (dont know about scottosh law as would apply in this case) specifically overites these terms.

ie if sitting in my living room in england and i buy something in america, the supplyer breaks english law (but NOT american) i can still take them to court and win in the english court. The trouble would bee applying the judgement (actually collecting my money).

MovedGoalPosts

12-03-2009, 01:07

danielf

12-03-2009, 01:08

To this, and Ben's previous post on the subject, there was no variance. VM did not go through the steps to vary, nor take a fair and mutually amicable approach. They would also have required to offer arrangements and alternatives, none of which followed. What Virgin Media instead practised towards many is a grossly unfair, unreasonable and unwelcome change in a crucial part of the service without reasonable explanation, if any. That approach has long been considered unlawful.

Once again, a service provider cannot offer a quantum of service and then restrict it simply because they have oversold in comparison to their means to operate that service. There's an element of restitution involved. Oh, and they must be reasonable.

I can sort of see what you're hinting at, but I can't see your case. For one, there's the time scale. You're looking to reinstate a contract from years back. Times have changed, and I don't see how a judge could determine what is reasonable now. The other thing is the terms you agreed to. You've consented to them being able to amend the terms of service, which they have. According to these terms you have the right to terminate the contract without penalty, and you haven't.

It seems to me your case is doomed to fail, and to be honest, I hope it does, because if you succeed it may mean that any customer with a gripe can hold the rest to ransom over some ancient contract they never signed.

MovedGoalPosts

12-03-2009, 01:14

Putting things in laymans terms, it's worht noting the basics outlined on the Consumer Direct (http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/think_of/unfair-contracts) website.

The test of fairness is probably the most critical and includes:

Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

So, is STM necessary to protect legitimate commercial interests, and thus in the interest of the consumer?

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 01:18

Yes, Virgin Media aka Telewest / NTL have had terms in their contract purporting to allow revisions. But does that term muster scrutiny to the courts?

On the same principle, the concept of STM, capping, throttling or indeed restricting certain types of communications on a service purported to be unlimited, might also be considered by the courts to be an unfair term of contract.
Not saying a test in court wouldn't be useful

Personally, my issue is the outcome the OP is expecting.

What he is asking for is not full re-instatement of his original contract but partial re-instatement based on one part of the service - the Traffic Managment.

This request seems to be based on the fact that the ability to vary the terms is unfair.

Surely if a court rules that the right to vary the terms is unfair, and re-instatement was required - this would be full and complete reinstatement

This means the OP could end up with a unlimited, free from STM 1Mbit line (depending when the original service was taken out). You can't have it both ways.

danielf

12-03-2009, 01:20

Putting things in laymans terms, it's worht noting the basics outlined on the Consumer Direct (http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/before_you_buy/think_of/unfair-contracts) website.

The test of fairness is probably the most critical and includes:

So, is STM necessary to protect legitimate commercial interests, and thus in the interest of the consumer?

Yes, said the judge. Why should the average customer pay for a couple of morons raping their connection 24/7?

beeman

12-03-2009, 01:41

Not saying a test in court wouldn't be useful

Personally, my issue is the outcome the OP is expecting.

What he is asking for is not full re-instatement of his original contract but partial re-instatement based on one part of the service - the Traffic Managment.

This request seems to be based on the fact that the ability to vary the terms is unfair.

Surely if a court rules that the right to vary the terms is unfair, and re-instatement was required - this would be full and complete reinstatement

This means the OP could end up with a unlimited, free from STM 1Mbit line (depending when the original service was taken out). You can't have it both ways.

The difference here is change of terms for duel benifit (ie upgrading custmers from 1 mb to 10mb benifits the custmer directly (for obvious reasons) and benifits the company (for marketing and retention reasons).

or the change of terms for a 1 sided benifit for example STM company gets benifit (cheaper bandwith/peering costs) custmer gets no actual benifit.(im not saying they did or not change the terms just using it as an example).

example 1 would bee a perfictly acceptable change of terms as both partys are benifitting equally (though if you think the marketing benifits outweigh your speed increase then you may still have a case :P)

example 2 would almost deffenatly bee concidered and unfair change of terms as the benifit is purly1 sided with the other party now LOOSING someof the service they contracted for.

Bonglet

12-03-2009, 02:31

[snip]

Surely if a court rules that the right to vary the terms is unfair, and re-instatement was required - this would be full and complete reinstatement

This means the OP could end up with a unlimited, free from STM 1Mbit line (depending when the original service was taken out). You can't have it both ways.

You cant have it in both ways indeed and whenever vm increased speed it was usually a FREE upgrade just like with 20 mb and other tiers of days gone by.

Not once did i recieve or have i had a new contract through my door as a customer from telewest or vm since 2000 stating which parts of the contract they were going to change OR ammend, no matter how much they plaster this on there website im still not informed to check this website, so as an ordinary user how do i know what they are changing.

The above quote is also true since the vm rebrand of stm policy and download limits on unlimited no information given out or recived by myself that my broadband would be limited,what times, what days e.t.c.

I applaud the op for doing what he is doing hopefully as rob and others have said it will settle the matter once and for all.

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 03:10

The real debate here, at least in England and Wales since Scottish Law can be slightly different, is whether or not, since Virgin Media are selling their services to consumers, the terms of their contract are fair.

Yes, Virgin Media aka Telewest / NTL have had terms in their contract purporting to allow revisions. But does that term muster scrutiny to the courts?

On the same principle, the concept of STM, capping, throttling or indeed restricting certain types of communications on a service purported to be unlimited, might also be considered by the courts to be an unfair term of contract.

As far as I know these are not matters yet tested in court. People can argue what they like about the wording of contracts and their merits. However legislation, particularly contract law can require the courts to look more closely. One would hope that the legal people at the likes of Virgin Media have thoroughly vetted their contracts, and other practices, against consumer and other case law.

I applaud the OP for his efforts towards bringing some legal clarity via the courts to the UK broadband industry as a whole. Whatever the outcome, the concerns over legality of caps, throttling and similar resurface periodically and it's time both consumer and provider had a definitive view so this can finally be put to bed.

Well, Rob has identified the principle ethic of the case.

As with all branches of philosophy, an initial rule arises from a proposed theory. The rule is evolved by those who would stand on the shoulders of precedent makers. On the same basis, there sometimes arises in society a wrong so plainly apparent that it needs some sort of dispute resolution. These days, government intervention or courts are preferred over drawn swords and ale-house fisticuffs.

This forum has adeptly exposed dissatisfaction with the VM approach: viz, unilateral variance of contract and service restrictions sold as unlimited. Too many people have complained.

The principle ethic of the case is to explore in legal terms for the first time the rule or rules of law by which ISPs should abide by in the light of fairness and consumer protection. Win or lose, the result is that those coming after me[1] can evolve the principles of what is and is not fair practice within, after all is said and done, supply of a new technology of remarkable scope and power.

[1] I do not mean armies of disgruntled VM staff ;)

graf_von_anonym

12-03-2009, 03:28

I'm curious as to what remedy the original poster seeks.

I think there's still a question here as to the actual issue. Admittedly, it's late, and while it may have been explicitly stated I'm not sure as to whether it's "variation within contract" or "implementation of STM" that's the core problem.

In terms of contract law I'm sure that variation within terms and conditions has been tested in the courts before, probably most recently in general terms with regards to bank charges, but I'd wager there's precedent for "unilateral" variation within ancillary documents upon which contract is effectively predicated, wherein provision of services (in this case) is constrained by a subsidiary agreement.

In terms of STM, I do agree that there are other regimes which could be adopted, but for the most part the Virgin system does fulfil its objectives. The issue could be drawn with those objectives, which is to say that the seemingly punitive aspect of it is somewhat harsh. Though it is enough to say that peak usage in peak times can affect other customers negatively, so throttling a connection until outwith peak times will have a negative effect on one user and a positive effect on others. Virgin can only attempt to keep as many customers happy as possible. I can state with some confidence that no ISP in the world* can provide its full stated line speed to all of its customers simultaneously, and Virgin Media's policies are designed to accomodate usage on that basis.

I'm also curious as to what other remedy the original poster has sought. I trust, though I cannot be sure, that before resorting to the courts in what I assume to be a civil action he sought redress through Virgin's own complaint process, then, with specific reference to contractual terms through OFCOM or some other ombudsman? If not then I fear that Virgin's argument may be that his dispute itself falls outwith his contract, as he did not follow provisions therein for dispute resolution.

Of course, I'm secretly Richard Branson.

* With some provision for variation where what is provided is a leased line or similar trunking level connection. No consumer ISP would be more accurate, but even then most business providers don't. In fact, I would hazard a guess that there simply isn't enough internet for all internet users to use their connection to maximum.

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 03:47

dgardner

12-03-2009, 05:00

How long has STM been running?
I think it has been for at least 18 months so aren't you
deemed to have accepted it?
If you were still in your first year you would have accepted the STM
If outside you can cancel if not happy.

AndyCambs

12-03-2009, 05:35

Personally with the cost of the litigation (and it ain't gonna be with legal aid), I doubt very much that there is any - and it's all hot air...

Maggy

12-03-2009, 07:37

Well I'm sure we will hear if there is a successful outcome.

However will we hear if the outcome is unsuccessful?

I'll be interested either way.:)

Turkey Machine

12-03-2009, 10:04

Hold on, on the last page it basically said "if you say nothing, you agree to a new contract". I don't think that's gonna hold up in court personally.....

piggy

12-03-2009, 10:06

thid is only my opinion

i do applaud people who champion peoples rights, but in this case i do think its someone with to much time on there hands, perhaps another failed academic?

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 10:17

Hold on, on the last page it basically said "if you say nothing, you agree to a new contract". I don't think that's gonna hold up in court personally.....
Would you prefer 'if you say nothing then we assume you don't want the new terms, but as we going to introduce them, then we are going to have to disconnect your services after giving you the required notice?'

A company couldn't function if they had to wait for several million customers to sign and return documentation every time the prices or terms changed!

Anyway, it's not a new contract in the sense that most people assume (i.e. a new minimum term) they agree to, but a change in the terms - with an option to exit that contract without penalty if they do not accept the new terms. The minimum contract period remains as originally agreed

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

Just as a follow up about whether a variation term is fair:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311cons-annexes.pdf

Original term judged unfair:

Sky may at any time vary or add to these Conditions as it deems
necessary.

Action taken and judged to be fair:

New term: [Sky may] change or add to Conditions … for security, legal or
regulatory reasons … We will give you at least one month's notice of any
changes or additions. We will not use this right to vary the terms of any
special offer which applies to you … you may end this contract at any
time … by giving one month's notice, if we tell you … we are going to
change these conditions.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft311cons.pdf

Such a term is more likely to be found fair if:

there is a duty on the supplier to give notice of any variation,
and a right for the consumer to cancel before being affected
by it, without penalty or otherwise being worse off for having
entered the contract.

And (when talking about price changes)

Any kind of variation clause may in principle be fair if consumers
are free to escape its effects by ending the contract. To be
genuinely free to cancel, they must not be left worse off for
having entered the contract, whether by experiencing financial
loss (for instance, forfeiture of a prepayment) or serious
inconvenience, or any other adverse consequences

MovedGoalPosts

12-03-2009, 10:55

Ignitionnet

12-03-2009, 11:54

Yes, said the judge. Why should the average customer pay for a couple of morons raping their connection 24/7?

They shouldn't of course. Virgin can take specific action against this 'couple of morons' who are using a service sold to them as unlimited in this manner or ensure they have sufficient capacity to avoid a congestion state if it's such an issue.

The flip side is also that customers whose usage was previously very moderate and generally light can be throttled by STM for a fairly normal burst of traffic, so yes the average customer is paying for said 'morons' and in any event that usage is the use of the product as described (unlimited downloads at 2 / 10 / 20Mbit depending on tier).

See what I did there? :angel:

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

This means the OP could end up with a unlimited, free from STM 1Mbit line (depending when the original service was taken out). You can't have it both ways.

Actually yes you can, it would not be reinstatement it would be declaration that any terms considered unfair are not applicable. :angel:

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 ----------

Although standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs, they must also take account of your interests and rights by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

When will this new policy be launched?

We'll start moderating the heaviest users' service at the same time we roll out the new speed increases for Broadband XL customers.

The explanation of why STM was being deployed is not valid as it's fiction. It was deployed to calm down bandwidth utilisation and permit the 20Mbit uplift before the necessary upgrades had been made. It continues to be deployed to reduce demands on the bandwidth to each area. I'm saying that as fact because that's exactly what it is, a number of areas, especially Telewest, received hundreds of node splits to try and get the capacity in place, STM allowed the product to be deployed before this work had been completed.

Anyway, I'm not a judge and I have no idea exactly what I judge would adjudicate, nor do I want to be an armchair lawyer, I'll leave that to others ;)

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 12:06

Ben: Excellent points. I cannot go too deeply into them because to do so could place me in a position that a judge may want to penalise me for. I can generalise though.

First, I go back again to the essence of a contract made between two parties. In the sense of supply of a service, let's say electricity, if a provider unilaterally restricts supply then the client does not pay for the portion not received. If, although they can supply, the excessive use by others becomes a supposed reason for restriction, and they continued to charge as though the supply had been made, they would be forced to refund.

Now, to deal with a predominant theme of this thread, contracting with an ISP becomes a way of life. The contract of provision not only allows access to websites and other sources of information. It provides access to social intercourse like chat and forums for communication with others. It provides access to leisure pursuits such as gaming. It provides access to online shopping for holidays and goods. It provides access to academic and personal research such as for health. It provides access to banking and movement of funds. In short, it becomes a wallet containing keys to a way of life, as a physical wallet holds bank cards, driving licence and contact details. If a thief approached in the street or in the home and removed some or all of the contents of a physical wallet then it would involve law and penalties.

There is no difference between the foregoing scenario and removal of Internet service. Accordingly, when an ISP imposes unilateral, uninformed, unaccounted and imbalanced conditions upon a regular user under any excuse not the essence of the originally agreed contract then, inevitably, that is an unfair practice.

Now to your OFT authorities.

Given the foregoing, you seem to have taken them out of context. These OFT references display that the terms in themselves are okay - but not the abuse of them.

It appears, overall, that your thrust of a customer being able to take the choice to go elsewhere is invalid. ISP services vary widely in different areas. To suggest a contract term allows someone to go elsewhere, or alternatively accept restrictive practices, is to ignore a fundamental right and freedom. That fundamental right is contained in Article 8 of what is generally referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights. It is now adopted within UK statute and well rehearsed in a great number of court and employment tribunal cases. It's legislates that everyone shall have the right to respect for their correspondence. Virgin Media's approach, if you are right, flies in the face of that.

Magilla

12-03-2009, 12:06

Yes, said the judge. Why should the average customer pay for a couple of morons raping their connection 24/7?

They shouldn't, but they're not paying becuase of the morons (a rather objectional term considering the package they've been sold), they're paying because VM can't support their current customer base.

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 12:26

thid is only my opinion

i do applaud people who champion peoples rights, but in this case i do think its someone with to much time on there hands, perhaps another failed academic?

Thanks - I found that quite funny, especially coming from someone named Piggy. Read the whole thread as regards my ability to achieve. I work productively about 16 hours a day, seven days a week. I do so because I have a passion to launch a project which will help many others around the world.

Admittedly, I have spent far more time on this thread than originally intended but it's worthwhile. I have learned a lot about the extent of the issue I have taken up. Also, if I am to take a precedent case it seems to me honourable to respond to those willing to provide feedback. Not sure how long I can keep it up but the two distinct factions for and against restriction of service make for a lively debate. :) A truly remarkable forum with obviously capable people and enjoyable too! Not many like that around.

Mattey

12-03-2009, 12:32

Er? Why depending on the distance?

Â£20 for XL
Â£14 for L

when you have a Virgin phoneline

Wish my broadband L costed Â£14, Rang up about it & they basically said nope no can do & I'm stuck at L for Â£25. I do have a Virgin Phoneline, had one since 10 years ago.

The best I could get is Â£25 for L, Â£11 for Phone & M TV package for free.

So Â£36 for something less than other customers are getting, that is great!.:rolleyes:

Now onto the topic at hand, I don't mind the STM really it is a lot better than having a monthly cap that is for sure. Although it would be nice to have the limits raised a little bit, Trying to stream legal sources after 4pm is a mission cause of STM. Makes me not bother in the end cause it is too slow.

I see STM as a bad thing for big families that all use the Internet at the same time, as those limits will soon be hit & most families I know of ask why is my internet so slow?!?! you've been throttled mate, what the hell is throttling they ask & when I explain to them what it is they feel let down by it. But obviously they should have looked into the terms e.t.c before they signed up.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 12:41

First, I go back again to the essence of a contract made between two parties. In the sense of supply of a service, let's say electricity, if a provider unilaterally restricts supply then the client does not pay for the portion not received.
If you don't have the service with Virgin because you haven't paid your bill, Virgin credit you back the lost period

If, although they can supply, the excessive use by others becomes a supposed reason for restriction, and they continued to charge as though the supply had been made, they would be forced to refund.
You example is flawed. With electricity, you pay for what you use - with internet use you pay a flat service fee.

Therefore the business model is completely different - and very few people would be prepared for ISP to charge for usage!

Now, to deal with a predominant theme of this thread, contracting with an ISP becomes a way of life. The contract of provision not only allows access to websites and other sources of information. It provides access to social intercourse like chat and forums for communication with others. It provides access to leisure pursuits such as gaming. It provides access to online shopping for holidays and goods. It provides access to academic and personal research such as for health. It provides access to banking and movement of funds. In short, it becomes a wallet containing keys to a way of life, as a physical wallet holds bank cards, driving licence and contact details. If a thief approached in the street or in the home and removed some or all of the contents of a physical wallet then it would involve law and penalties.
Even if I accept that (which honestly I don't) STM does not stop any of the above happening. If you have been managed you can still send e-mails, do online banking, shopping, research and everything else you have just mentioned.

However where ISPs have a hard usage cap (such as TalkTalk) - THEN it would do as you describe above.

But (and in general - not directly in view of this discussion) you can live your life without the internet, just as you can live without a phone/mobile/TV.

Unlike water there is no right to an internet service.

There is no difference between the foregoing scenario and removal of Internet service.
There is by a very wide margin!

Now to your OFT authorities.

Given the foregoing, you seem to have taken them out of context. These OFT references display that the terms in themselves are okay - but not the abuse of them.

The context is taken from the OFT consulation on unfair terms - which is what I thought we were discussing

So it is either fair to vary the terms or it isn't.

It appears, overall, that your thrust of a customer being able to take the choice to go elsewhere is invalid. ISP services vary widely in different areas.
Yes they do, but that does not invalidate the choice given to go elsewhere.

To suggest a contract term allows someone to go elsewhere, or alternatively accept restrictive practices, is to ignore a fundamental right and freedom.
That is exactly what the right of freedom is. You don't want/like what company A is doing, then you go to company B/C/D/E/Z

That fundamental right to freedom is contained in Article 8 of what is generally referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights. It is now adopted within UK statute. It's legislates that everyone shall have the right to respect for their correspondence. Virgin Media's approach, if you are right, flies in the face of that.
Oh please. Human Rights law for this? Human Rights law says you must have a unrestricted broadband service? Really?!!!

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 12:55

Oh please. Human Rights law for this? Human Rights law says you must have a Unlimited broadband service? Really?!!!

Again, with respect [pun], you are missing the point, as with most of your response. If you contract to an unlimited service (exceptions already dealt with throughout thread] then that is the contract - therefore human rights law does play a part in setting up the legal argument where the supplier is in the public communications domain.

Why do VM people try to obfuscate issues? {Nudge, wink...}

Unlike with most other services, going elsewhere with ISPs can lead to major changes and time expenditure. Take, for example, where the client uses the ISP's email services provided as part of the package. There may be a great number of people to notify about the change, as in my case and others entering the action. Access to forums and the like of MSN need amending because passwords are matched to email address for login and security purposes. There's a whole bunch of work involved in changing ISP. It is not like changing most other types of service provider. So when an ISP like Virgin Media frustrates a contract through restrictive practices the choice to go elsewhere can never be equated with general consumer choice. The client has a right for the agreement to be kept, not forced into an unthinkable series of hoops to get what they had already contracted by attempting to go elsewhere. And if they do go elsewhere? They get bombarded with telephone calls and letters by Virgin Media, each attempting to encourage the client to go back - and it doesn't stop, even with requests to desist.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 13:12

Again, with respect [pun], you are missing the point, as with most of your response. If you contract to an unlimited service (exceptions already dealt with throughout thread] then that is the contract - therefore human rights law does play a part in setting up the legal argument where the supplier is in the public communications domain.
The contract you signed was for a residential service with a clause that allows the company to introduce restrictions/management if/when needed.

At no stage does the contract or the terms specifiy an unmanaged service.

For that you would be looking at leased line/point to point services.

Unlike with most other services, going elsewhere with ISPs can lead to major changes and time expenditure. Take, for example, where the client uses the ISP's email services provided as part of the package. There may be a great number of people to notify about the change, as in my cases and others entering the action. Access to forums and the like of MSN need amending because passwords are matched to email address for login and security purposes. There's a whole bunch of work involved in changing ISP.
Indeed there is, but that applies under any circumstance. Having to do work to change does not invalidate the change itself!

lymmranger

12-03-2009, 13:23

It seems tome that if this case proceeds to a full and concluded trial then hopefully :-
1/ We should all finally get to know (in english) what we can and cannot do and how much it will cost
2/ ISP`s will have to re brand their products according to 1/ above
3/ I can get back to work instead of spending over 1 hour (enjoyably) reading this thread..... well done everyone best thread so far!

possible 4/ - The OP will reinvent the net with a cheaper and faster and UNLIMITED UNMANAGED connection

;)

Matth

12-03-2009, 18:13

One problem in the "variation of terms" seems to be in the notification of such changes. Does anyone other than active forum participants or frequent visitors to certain areas of the VM site know what STM is, until they hit the "why is it going slow" issue and maybe discover it is STM, or possibly just get fed up with it going slow and go elsewhere.

Current STM levels on some tiers are also a detrimental change compared to the genuine "fair usage" of earlier times. STM is now a part of service delineation, rather than an abuse prevention, and needs to be featured far more prominently in documentation if they are gong to continue using it in this manner.

watzizname

12-03-2009, 18:17

Virgin Media have been quite clever about putting the detail of things like STM separate from the main terms of contract. That leaves the contract terms less lkely to need specific alteration since they simply refer to the policy written down elsewhere. I can't remember ever being formally told about a change in STM, capping or other policy. Vrigin media and it's predecessors use the add on policies to deal with those. I wonder whether the court's examination of the fairness of STM under contract law will hold that there was no need to properly notify consumers of the policy change. And burying it in a link from a website, which even when I know I'm lookinng for it i can't easily find, cannot possibly be deemed to have given consumers proper notice.

Anyone say nail on the head..

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a torch."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Gary L

12-03-2009, 19:21

Virgin is the only high speed broadband in the uk, with no monthly download caps

No they are not.
If you are not sure about something then find out first before it goes to print.
if you are sure you are right about something then expect to be told that you are wrong about it after it was printed.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

Yes, said the judge. Why should the average customer pay for a couple of morons raping their connection 24/7?

What you might call rape, the couple of morons might call a fiddle.
You might not like girls. doesn't mean everyone should turn gay :)

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Hold on, on the last page it basically said "if you say nothing, you agree to a new contract". I don't think that's gonna hold up in court personally.....

Not when they are only available to view on a website, and not delivered to you in a letter.
is it because they are an internet company that they assume that they are legally covered by this?

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

New term: [Sky may] change or add to Conditions … for security, legal or regulatory reasons … We will give you at least one month's notice of any changes or additions. We will not use this right to vary the terms of any
special offer which applies to you … you may end this contract at any
time … by giving one month's notice, if we tell you … we are going to
change these conditions.

Virgin have not informed anyone about the original introduction of STM. nor the change of the original terms of STM.
they are the only company I know that only publish changes to T&C's on a website. on the assumption that you have an internet connection to read them.

It's unfair, and I think could also be found as illegal if challenged.

with a bit of luck the arrogance might bankrupt them once and for all LOL

joglynne

12-03-2009, 19:34

<snip>

Virgin have not informed anyone about the original introduction of STM. nor the change of the original terms of STM.
they are the only company I know that only publish changes to T&C's on a website. on the assumption that you have an internet connection to read them.

It's unfair, and I think could also be found as illegal if challenged.

with a bit of luck the arrogance might bankrupt them once and for all LOL

Just a small point but I would say that if you are being effected by VMs STM then it's more than an assumption that VM are supplying your BB and that you would have access to their website. :shrug:

Gary L

12-03-2009, 19:36

Just a small point but I would say that if you are being effected by VMs STM then it's more than an assumption that VM are supplying your BB and that you would have access to their website. :shrug:

How do you know you are being effected by something that you didn't know existed?

I can see the day in court where the judge says have you even informed anyone about STM and the change of policy you made to it at a later date?

No.
but it is mentioned on our website. somewhere.....

So it'll only be seen mostly by new people that might be thinking of having you as an ISP?

No. only if you were given clues as to its whereabouts on our site.

So it's actually intentionally hidden from view then?

Yes. even I can't find it but I've got a link to it on my desktop at work if you want me to email it to you?

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 19:37

Not when they are only available to view on a website, and not delivered to you in a letter.
is it because they are an internet company that they assume that they are legally covered by this?
Virgin Terms and Conditions haven't changed since Feb 2007 - and those terms they sent out to all customer in writing in the normal post as part of the 'Welcome to Virgin Media' pack

Virgin have not informed anyone about the original introduction of STM. nor the change of the original terms of STM.
they are the only company I know that only publish changes to T&C's on a website. on the assumption that you have an internet connection to read them.
The STM is published on a website, because it applied to an internet service!!

Any changes to prices or to core Terms and Conditions ARE sent out in writing and not just published on the website!

Gary L

12-03-2009, 19:43

The STM is published on a website, because it applied to an internet service!!

It's the judge you've got to convince that that sentence makes sense, and is also legal. not me.
He'll want to know why it's not in the post and only on the website when it's something that affects the customers connection.

Any changes to prices or to core Terms and Conditions ARE sent out in writing and not just published on the website!

I'll have to blame the postman then. like everyone else.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 19:51

It's the judge you've got to convince that that sentence makes sense, and is also legal. not me.
He'll want to know why it's not in the post and only on the website when it's something that affects the customers connection.
I'm with be broadband and I have had nothing in the post from them - apart from the router.

All Terms and Conditions, contracts and invoices have been delivered online

Same for the Dell PC I bought. I didn't get confirmation of my order in writing until I took delivery of the PC itself

I'll have to blame the postman then. like everyone else.

And if it came to it Virgin would be able to prove any variation of the T&Cs were sent to you in writing

beeman

12-03-2009, 19:55

Virgin Terms and Conditions haven't changed since Feb 2007 - and those terms they sent out to all customer in writing in the normal post as part of the 'Welcome to Virgin Media' pack

The STM is published on a website, because it applied to an internet service!!

Any changes to prices or to core Terms and Conditions ARE sent out in writing and not just published on the website!

i have NEVER ONCE recieved ANY terms from VM or NTL. infact the ONLY terms ive ever received was from cambridge cable. My last contact was in september 07 when i upgraded to the VIP package. The only thing ive ever signed is the occational insterlation conformation (ie confirming the insterlation was complete, and had nothing about the terms of service on it).

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 19:56

As I said all customers were sent a welcome pack in January 2007. The terms have not been altered since then

beeman

12-03-2009, 20:00

i never recieved such a pack. infact it was in febuary 07 that i got my v+ (then called TVDrive) and all the info i got then (the install confirmation) was still in NTL name.

the ONLY thing close to what your saying i received was a single page letter informing me that the name on the direct debit is changing and i "dont have to do anything"...

And if it came to it Virgin would be able to prove any variation of the T&Cs were sent to you in writing

Proof of postage is NOT proof of delevery

Gary L

12-03-2009, 20:03

I'm with be broadband and I have had nothing in the post from them - apart from the router.

All Terms and Conditions, contracts and invoices have been delivered online

I'm with Be too. and any changes to the terms and conditions are sent to me by email.

Same for the Dell PC I bought. I didn't get confirmation of my order in writing until I took delivery of the PC itself

Not even to the email you may have given them?

And if it came to it Virgin would be able to prove any variation of the T&Cs were sent to you in writing

Apart from lying. how would they manage that trick?

broadbandking

12-03-2009, 20:19

i never recieved such a pack. infact it was in febuary 07 that i got my v+ (then called TVDrive) and all the info i got then (the install confirmation) was still in NTL name.

the ONLY thing close to what your saying i received was a single page letter informing me that the name on the direct debit is changing and i "dont have to do anything"...

Proof of postage is NOT proof of delevery

But once posted its out Virgin hands so there for not Virgin's problem.

Milambar

12-03-2009, 21:06

None the less, I believe that the UK legal system requires proof of delivery, not proof of postage. Thats why we're advised to send legal documents by recorded delivery. Virgin is not exempt from this.

Think about it. If I was to send you a summons to a civil suit, and because of a post hiccup, you never recieved it, and proof of posting was acceptable, then I could secure a default judgment without you ever having a chance to defend yourself, because you never knew it was happening. Therefore, legal documents have to be sent with proof of delivery. Thats recorded delivery.

Proof of postage is not proof of delivery.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 21:21

I'm with Be too. and any changes to the terms and conditions are sent to me by email.
I know, but that is online - which you say isn't legal, not in writing through the post

Not even to the email you may have given them?
Still online

Apart from lying. how would they manage that trick?
Well, exactly how Virgin sent it I'm not sure, but when I've worked for companies in the past and had to send mailshots out there would be the letter itself, a list of the people it was sent to, and when it was sent.

If this contained legal information - such as a change to the terms and conditions, then I'm sure it would need to be retained, to prove that reasonable efforts were made to contact all customers in regards to the change

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 21:24

Any changes to prices or to core Terms and Conditions ARE sent out in writing and not just published on the website!

That, sir, is patently untrue. I have a full file of all correspondence since 2003 from, first, Telewest, and then Virgin Media once they took over. I have not received a single written notice of change to terms and conditions.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 21:26

Then for whatever reason you did not recieve one. I saw the welcome packs that were sent, and enough people complained recieving 'stuff from a company called Virgin Media when I'm with ntl/telewest' that I know they were sent

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 21:37

Any changes to prices or to core Terms and Conditions ARE sent out in writing and not just published on the website!

and...
I know, but that is online - which you say isn't legal, not in writing through the post

Well, exactly how Virgin sent it I'm not sure, but when I've worked for companies in the past and had to send mailshots out there would be the letter itself, a list of the people it was sent to, and when it was sent.

There's high degree of inconsistency there Ben, given the confirmatory "ARE" on your post in the last thread page.

I had until now taken on board what you wrote. Indeed, I followed up various matters with people in the industry and learned litigation practitioners, as well as referencing my personal library of legal references. It's okay, and welcome, to place conjecture forward in a debate if it's qualified as such.

Are all Virgin Media staff brainwashed into a VM gratifying state of mind? I don't like the lack of diplomacy in having to say it, but it appears that much of your post feedback is unfounded. If VM follow that stance as a matter of course then they are, in many directions, on shaky ground.

As a matter of interest, I note by your name you are with Sky/Be. As a Virgin Media group employee, why not with VM?

Gary L

12-03-2009, 21:40

I know, but that is online - which you say isn't legal, not in writing through the post

I'm not saying it's illegal to put them online. I'm saying it could be illegal that Virgin don't and haven't informed people of changes to the T&Cs. they just change them but don't tell you that the 30 days is now started.

With Be you are told that you will be notified of any changes by email. and are.
Virgin say that you will be notified. but they don't notify you. they just change them and expect you to go and have a look every now and then. just incase you might not like them and to make sure the 30 day clock hasn't started without you being told it has.

Well, exactly how Virgin sent it I'm not sure, but when I've worked for companies in the past and had to send mailshots out there would be the letter itself, a list of the people it was sent to, and when it was sent.

If this contained legal information - such as a change to the terms and conditions, then I'm sure it would need to be retained, to prove that reasonable efforts were made to contact all customers in regards to the change

Can anyone say they have a letter or any correspondence from Virgin stating that the T&Cs have been changed. STM has been introduced. changes to the STM policy have been made?

No.

BenMcr

12-03-2009, 22:13

and...

There's high degree of inconsistency there Ben, given the confirmatory "ARE" on your post in the last thread page.
No there isn't.

If Virgin decide to change the Terms and Conditions - which are detailed here - www.virginmedia.com/legal (http://www.virginmedia.com/legal) - then all customers will be informed in writing - just as they are when they changed them last time - in February 2007.

I also know that when Virgin wrote to XL customers explaining about the price changes in May 2007, based on copies of the letter that have been posted online in the past - there was also a mention that there would be an introduction of traffic managment and a link to the site where the full policy was detailed.

I would expect it would have also been included in the other price change letters sent to other customers at the same time - but I can't verify at this stage if they were

But has already been posted multiple times - the introduction of STM is covered by an existing clause in the Terms and Conditions - that existed before STM was introduced

I had until now taken on board what you wrote. Indeed, I followed up various matters with people in the industry and learned litigation practitioners, as well as referencing my personal library of legal references. It's okay, and welcome, to place conjecture forward in a debate if it's qualified as such.
And what point are you trying to make there?

Are all Virgin Media staff brainwashed into a VM gratifying state of mind? I don't like the lack of diplomacy in having to say it, but it appears that much of your post feedback is unfounded. If VM follow that stance as a matter of course then they are, in many directions, on shaky ground.
You are stating your own personal view on a forum that is neither a legal forum or in anyway connected to Virgin Media

I am doing exactly the same. I have also already said that my posts are my own personal view

As a matter of interest, I note by your name you are with Sky/Be. As a Virgin Media group employee, why not with VM?
That is none of your business and also irrelevant.

broadbandking

12-03-2009, 22:20

Thats a bit snotty Ben, Mike the only reason I can see why Ben is not with VM is because he doesnt live in a cable area.

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 22:25

Thats a bit snotty Ben, Mike the only reason I can see why Ben is not with VM is because he doesnt live in a cable area.

That's what I wondered and why I asked. I had assumed Manchester (by his name) was all cabled up. One alternative is that Virgin Media staff don't like being throttled so go elsewhere for better line speed/service - regardless of any discounts. {Sorry, couldn't resist}

Peter_

12-03-2009, 22:29

As a matter of interest, I note by your name you are with Sky/Be. As a Virgin Media group employee, why not with VM?

The are many members of staff who do not live in a Cable enabled areas and therefore are unable to enjoy the benefits offered by a staff package at a nominal fee.

The is no other reason that most members of staff would not take advantage of such a deal if it was actually available to them where they live.

Limmer

12-03-2009, 22:58

After reading through all of this post and everyone’s input, there can only really be one reasonable outcome to this.

Ben and Mike need to get a room.

Seriously though, good luck Mike. I for one can see where you are going with this and hope to see common sense prevail, even though I don't exceed my limits or have issues with speed.

Mike_A

12-03-2009, 23:15

After reading through all of this post and everyoneâ€™s input, there can only really be one reasonable outcome to this.

Ben and Mike need to get a room.

Seriously though, good luck Mike. I for one can see where you are going with this and hope to see common sense prevail, even though I don't exceed my limits or have issues with speed.

lol. Thank you.

The irony in all this is that I never exceeded my limits either. At the most about 50-70 research PDFs for postgraduate students during dissertation season. I willingly, and freely helped them. I never downloaded movies and only ever downloaded music when I needed to learn a tune. Having pointed all this out in 2007 and many times in 2008, asking VM to see reason, I took legal action as a last resort. All they needed to do was charge within a reasonable percentage for what I was receiving, which was often below 10Kb/s on the top package. Intransigence has seen many a corporate fall.

VM can still resolve the matter. If they valued long term high-paying customers, they would. It's so easy.

Milambar

12-03-2009, 23:29

While its one thing to discuss VM and VM policies, I draw the line when it comes to personal attacks on the VM staff who help out here.

Benmcr is one of the most knowlegable and helpful persons on this forum. However, he doesn't make VM policies, he just abides by them. To indirectly attack him simply because he doesn't use VM's internet services for which there could be any number of reasons, I find offensive, and as such, I will no longer participate in this thread.

moaningmags

12-03-2009, 23:36

Benmcr is one of the most knowlegable and helpful persons on this forum. However, he doesn't make VM policies, he just abides by them. To indirectly attack him simply because he doesn't use VM's internet services for which there could be any number of reasons, I find offensive.

I fully agree with that, I don't know of any other member as helpful, consistent or knowledgeable in the advice he gives.

LondonRoad

12-03-2009, 23:59

I fully agree with that, I don't know of any other member as helpful, consistent or knowledgeable in the advice he gives.

Fullly agree. Ben's knowledge is 2nd to none (although I didn't get a VM welcome pack either so don't put your neck on the line when Royal Mail are involved).
I'm following this debate with interest and the last post from MikeA was untypical of him so far in this thread. I'm sure if these two intelligent men were having this discussion over a pint in a bar that would have been a throwaway line from Mike that would have been brushed aside by now. Get back on track, cut out the personal stuff.;)

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 00:41

I'm sorry if my response was though of as rude - the same for Mike's question

But honestly, I'm more than slightly fed up of being asked about why I don't have VM services

In any company there going to be people that have competitors services - including a shed load of Sky employees who have got Virgin ;)

I wouldn't read anything into it - and it certainly has no bearing on what I think of Virgin's products - I would much rather have the Samsung V+ over the Sky+HD box any day of the week!

Welshchris

13-03-2009, 01:01

I still think daily\Monthly caps are a better way of controlling heavy users.

They should have a strict policy that if u then hit ur monthly allowance ur STM'd for the rest of the remaining month.

a 300GB cap on 20mb would be ample for most users.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 01:11

a 300GB cap on 20mb would be ample for most users.
Can you even download 300Gb in less than 24 hours on a 20Mbit connection if there was no STM?

---------- Post added at 01:11 ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 ----------

According to this calculator http://www.numion.com/Calculators/Bytes.html

You could only 276Gb on a 25Mbit connection in 1 day

Although it says that 1000 bytes are in a kilobyte for download calculations

graf_von_anonym

13-03-2009, 01:41

Are all Virgin Media staff brainwashed into a VM gratifying state of mind?

Yes. I have found nothing but rampant pathalogical boosterism amongst Virgin Media staff. Of course, were it not for the brave Political Officers who ensure there is no deviation within the cadres then it is possible that retrenchist backsliders would see the message weakened, but at all times staff are motivated! Stirring songs in their mouths, hatred for the customers in their hearts, and the tickling sensation of nine millimetre loyalty ever on the back of their necks.

I'm still not certain what you want from Virgin Media though. Some form of redress it's clear, but could you clearly state what it is that you seek?

Welshchris

13-03-2009, 01:48

Can you even download 300Gb in less than 24 hours on a 20Mbit connection if there was no STM?

---------- Post added at 01:11 ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 ----------

According to this calculator http://www.numion.com/Calculators/Bytes.html

You could only 276Gb on a 25Mbit connection in 1 day

Although it says that 1000 bytes are in a kilobyte for download calculations

i meant a 300GB a month cap.

OLDo

13-03-2009, 02:48

Firstly, I applaud Mike for taking on this fight.

While there has to be a balance between delivery costs and service quality, traffic management activities need to be more clearly defined, as they have the potential to, and infact do (as is clearly evident on this forum) impact the whole user base, not just those deemed to be "excessive downloaders". VM's line about traffic management being beneficial to 95% of their customers is therefore up for debate. That is unless we represent only those pesky 5%, which i highly doubt. ;) (Why don't VM penalise consistently heavy transfer users by implementing throttling only after a period of excessive usage on successive days?)

I'm unable to host a 12 person game on Call of Duty: World at War (on the PS3 console) without it kicking everyone out half way through (this is with no other load on the WAN link). I know various people who are able to host these games flawlessly on ADSL connections that provide (in some cases) less than half the bandwidth of my 20Mbit cable connection. So bandwidth isn't the problem. Nor is my connection according to VM Tech Support who assure me my connection is fine. My ping response times which range wildy between 15ms and 50ms (with the odd spike to 70ms) to bbc.co.uk are apparently "within normal limits", dispite the fact that a healthy connection should show much stabler latency statistics. Response times to my default gateway vary wildly between 6ms and 30ms (..it's only one hop!).
Is this gaming problem down to STM, and the fact that the game uses P2P UDP traffic? Is it down to over subscription on my UBR? I'll never know because they can't tell me what's going on behind the scenes in their network at the time of failure.

Providers should be forced to provide realtime information on traffic management (or anything that might affect ones ability to achieve their stated service level), on a per customer basis, so that we could easily differentiate between a poor performing connection, and a managed connection.

lymmranger

13-03-2009, 08:41

hear hear OLDo

I too download sporadically and in no way "batter" my connection
I am so far unaffected by any form of STM

BUT

I also have no idea what vm consider reasonable

As stated earlier I think it is time that EVERY ISP was forced to CLEARLY state what you can and cant do and how much it will cost

All ISP`s - vm included, advertise the benefits of choosing the speed of your package by stating how quickly you can download a music track or movie
.........clearly STM (however fair/unfair) policies (and caps for that matter) blow those (advertised)speeds into insignificance. All ISP`s dangle a big fat juicy carrot such as "unlimited" "speed" etc, once the great unwashed sign up and are locked into contract we find that the carrot is in fact a cardboard cutout of a mouldy cabbage

I must state that I personally have nothing but praise for the vm service I have recieved so far BUT I am old enough to have experienced several ISP`s over the years - They are all as bad as each other.
I suspect that the underlying problem is "lack of infrastructure - but how is that the customers problem???? - if we pay for unlimited xxxMeg connections then that is what we should get. Unlimited means UNLIMITED!
I would like CLARIFICATION - as Alexander says "simples"

arcamalpha2004

13-03-2009, 08:55

Indeed. That is what section H is for. Part 2 specifically deals with changes to the terms and conditions.

Telewest also had a similar term http://help2.virginmedia.com/help/getContent.jspx?page=h_services_termsandconditions

We may amend or vary the terms of this Agreement from time to time by posting an amended version of these terms and conditions to our Website (and any such amendment or variation shall be effective on the fifth day following such posting). However you will have the right to terminate this Agreement if the changes are significant as described in paragraph 73

Ben you do not seem to understand, with due respect ;), a contract has to be fair, anyone can challenge a contract in court, it is then for the district judge to decide if that contract is fair, I thought you would know that :)

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 09:14

Ben you do not seem to understand, with due respect ;), a contract has to be fair, anyone can challenge a contract in court, it is then for the district judge to decide if that contract is fair, I thought you would know that :)
What I'm trying to point out is that the term has been in place for almost 8 years - and in all that time neither the OP or anyone else has objected to it.

Surely time has to be a factor in this. If STM had been brought in and then the OP and others had immediately brought legal action then I could understand it

Or if Virgin did not allow people exit from the contracts to find an alternative I would understand it

But with the clause being there for 8 years, and STM being in place for 2 years without anyone doing so, personally (and in no way the view/policy/training or anything else of Virgin Media) I can't see this having any legs.

Gary L

13-03-2009, 09:31

Or if Virgin did not allow people exit from the contracts to find an alternative I would understand it

People don't know STM is there. Virgin could say you're too late to cancel now it's been going on for 2 years.
It's unfair that they didn't tell anyone. and it will be seen as unfair in court.
it has to be. a judge could see it as it was

But with the clause being there for 8 years, and STM being in place for 2 years without anyone doing so, personally (and in no way the view/policy/training or anything else of Virgin Media) I can't see this having any legs.

At the very least they could be made to inform all their customers about STM. in my opinion that is the last thing they want you to know. they don't want you to know that your speed will be reduced after 20 or so mins of use.
they wouldn't get anyone to sign up if they knew that.

A clause can be in any contract for any lengh of time. it could have been in there for the last 50 years and was only now put into action.
but you need to tell people that it's now in action. otherwise it is unfair. especially when it's kept as quiet as possible that it's now there.
Virgin is no different to any company when unfair contract terms apply. and they won't be seen as such when challenged.

Some people don't want to download non stop and some people do. some people just want a near enough constant 10/20MB connection. not a connection that is a lot less for a few hours after using it for a few minutes.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 09:44

Gary L

13-03-2009, 10:02

A link to the Traffic Managment policy is on the Sales Website under the 'Need to Know' (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/help/index.html) section. AFAIK there is also a link at the end when you place the order online

There is also a link at www.virginmedia.com/customers (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers)

They are not prominent. we can argue all day amongst each other about whether it should or not be, and whether it's the customers or Virgins responsibility to either know or inform.
Virgin and even you can say it's there. but the truth is it's hidden amongst the Fastest the Unlimited and the enticing sign up prices

In addition, all agents when selling/upgrading/downgrading broadband have to tell customers as part of the Broadband Honesty Statement as per the OFCOM code of practice

In my experience that just isn't happening. just like entering a new 12 month contract without being told isn't happening.

lymmranger

13-03-2009, 10:07

Magilla

13-03-2009, 10:41

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 10:45

Yes. I have found nothing but rampant pathalogical boosterism amongst Virgin Media staff...

I'm still not certain what you want from Virgin Media though. Some form of redress it's clear, but could you clearly state what it is that you seek?

Slightly unfair Baron Von, for most VM support staff seem to have a willingness to try and help (although there are also some rude and devious ones). What seems to pervade VM operations is policy which appears as indoctrination, the competent substitute in layman terms of which is brainwashing (the persistent fluid massage of the brain's amygdala, hippocampus, basal ganglia and other short to medium term memory centres with a distinct piece of information meant to enter the unconscious mind).

Ben et al do seem to try and help by putting forward a point of view as a basis for clients to attempt to understand what is going on from VM's perspective. That's great, and probing that point of view will assist get to the root of what is obviously a service delivery problem. In my case, and with a certain jocular elfism, I probed Ben's use of Be - especially as its operation and terms are superior to what VM in fact deliver. Probed elsewhere too.

For "I", below, read all those in what will be converted to a class action...

But what do I want? The service I paid very high rates for. I do not want a service never higher (during times of normally expected use) than someone who is paying for the low or medium bandwidth service (which VM engineers confirmed at my premises). At times I receive substantially less service delivery than paid for I want a rebate because I have overpaid, mostly because of what amounts to deception by VM. And if I succeed in the court action, I want VM to abide by the court orders - to provide the service contracted, the side effect of which is no capping without clear accounting and reason for why they are doing so. If they cannot deliver line speed in the area, and that means they can only ever offer something not beyond a middle or low package level, then that's what I should pay and it gives me the opportunity to get better elsewhere - along with about 200 people in the area who will follow.

What does that mean in layman terms? [The following are taken from recent direct research and direct research done between 2007 and 2008. It contains the pursuits of others, not only me]

I want to know that I can play PartyPoker and other games for two hours in the evening without the tiny packets of data taking 30 seconds to get through or even dropping the connection completely (especially when I have the best hand and there's money on the table). I want to be able to get my web developer forum messages, and respond to them, without it taking an age to load each one. I want to be able to read research materials (av. 2-10MB PDFs) from the ATHENS research repository for my own works and when helping postgraduate students. If I wanted to, I would like to be able to access BBC News online with some degree of clarity (I get a faster service when in China - and that's where the government blocks access to BBC). I want to be able to watch online webcasts of technical seminars. I want to upload developed pages to website hosts. I want my emails (VM decided to delete all mine, including some important ones). There's more, lots more. These are ALL low usage items. All these were compared with BT and Sky basic services, which beat VM for speed not just in my local area but other areas tested.

In summary upon what I want, I want a court order for repayment equivalent to the amounts of service not received and which was capable of delivery. I want a court order for VM to supply the services contractually agreed but without trickery, deception, excuse or obfuscation. I want a declaration that VM have operated and continue to operate an unfair policy.

In other words, I want what was contractually agreed. Frankly, I don't give a damn if VM have oversubscribed comparative to equipment capabilities, nor if the service drops at peak periods because of heavy traffic, or VMs excuses about contract: when it changed, what it is, how it operates, where they shoved it (I have some suggestions) - I want what I paid for. If that's impossible, then I want to pay for the service that is possible.

What I don't want is some unethical gremlin-like, self-righteous, excuse-making company to blatantly rob me of what I am due by standing sufficient staff on their cables so the poor little packets of data become exhausted trying to squeeze through the remaining tiny gap, reaching me in a pickled sweat. I want nice people within a nice supplier who doesn't cheat.

There you go Baron Graf :)

LondonRoad

13-03-2009, 10:51

What I don't want is some unethical gremlin-looking, self-righteous, excuse-making company to blatantly rob me of what I am due by standing sufficient staff on their cables so the poor little packets of data become exhausted trying to squeeze through the remaining tiny gap, reaching me in a pickled sweat. .

I think from a technical perpective it doesn't work like that so you may want to exlude that description from your submissions. :D

gremlin looking ? MikeA you're losing it.:):disturbd:

So was it a royal flush that kicked all this off? ;)

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 10:58

I think from a technical perpective it doesn't work like that so you may want to exlude that description from your submissions. :D

gremlin looking ? MikeA you're losing it.:):disturbd:

So was it a royal flush that kicked all this off? ;)

1) Depends on the judge :p:

2) You've seen Gremlins the movie, yes? You've seen Sir Richard on television, yes? ;)

3) More like the change of life.

Thanks for the laugh...

AbyssUnderground

13-03-2009, 11:47

As stated earlier I think it is time that EVERY ISP was forced to CLEARLY state what you can and cant do and how much it will cost

I fully agree.

VM state "xxMbps unlimited" when in fact its only unlimited at that speed until STM kicks in then its 75% less! That in itself, as I keep saying in other posts, is blatant lying and deception and should not be allowed.

If they advertised it as, for example 5Mbps with 20Mbps burst, that would be fine, no arguments! But they advertise 20Mbps unlimited, which it is not.

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 12:20

There is so much disharmony over this issue I have informed the BBC Watchdog program and understand the Office of Fair Trading will watch this debate unfold.

Accordingly, if people have direct experiences (or particular knowledge) they could help many others by posting relevant information for these two bodies to see.

Fatec

13-03-2009, 12:26

A link to the Traffic Managment policy is on the Sales Website under the 'Need to Know' (http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/help/index.html) section. AFAIK there is also a link at the end when you place the order online

There is also a link at www.virginmedia.com/customers (http://www.virginmedia.com/customers)

Funnily, STM does not mentioned when you get their letters offering unlimited broadband, just says 'fair usage policy' oops STM isnt mentioned in there either, unless you know your looking for STM pages then you wont really find it, sorry but STM is NOT mentioned on ANY pages when your signing up, it's not in their FUP, no one tells you and you dont find out until your already capped.

In addition, all agents when selling/upgrading/downgrading broadband have to tell customers as part of the Broadband Honesty Statement as per the OFCOM code of practice

Have to? funny, i've not come across anyone that does, infact, none of the agents who knock on our doors mention STM here, they blatantly deny that they use it.

And as for their 5% figure, it's well known it means a different 5% at any given time, so it affects their whole user database and this does bring into question their '20Mbit unlimited' ads.

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 12:34

What does that mean in layman terms? [The following are taken from recent direct research and direct research done between 2007 and 2008. It contains the pursuits of others, not only me]

I want to know that I can play PartyPoker and other games for two hours in the evening without the tiny packets of data taking 30 seconds to get through or even dropping the connection completely (especially when I have the best hand and there's money on the table). I want to be able to get my web developer forum messages, and respond to them, without it taking an age to load each one. I want to be able to read research materials (av. 2-10MB PDFs) from the ATHENS research repository for my own works and when helping postgraduate students. If I wanted to, I would like to be able to access BBC News online with some degree of clarity (I get a faster service when in China - and that's where the government blocks access to BBC). I want to be able to watch online webcasts of technical seminars. I want to upload developed pages to website hosts. I want my emails (VM decided to delete all mine, including some important ones). There's more, lots more. These are ALL low usage items. All these were compared with BT and Sky basic services, which beat VM for speed not just in my local area but other areas tested.

As far as I see (others may correct me) non of those issues have anything to do with STM. STM doesn't involve packet loss and the inability to connect to websites. Other technical issues cause these problems

Do virgin provide any guarantees with regards to web email? Honestly I wouldnt trust any web based email service for important emails.

I agree every IPS should provide details of this sort. I know what Virgin will do to my account and I am prepared to accept it.

Does this mean all ISP should charge on a pro-rata basis upon the actual speed achieved. It's a hard business model to get working and would probably result in increase in costs for most people to subsidies everyone who does not get the average speed.

The only way to get a 'guaranteed' speed is to get a 1:1 leased line. Which not many people will be able to afford.

Bonglet

13-03-2009, 12:41

If the only way to get the speed is through a leased line that means that vm are indeed mis-selling the product does it not?.

You dont advertise an unlimited 20mb connection when you cannot provide it or any other tier.

All vm have to do is aggregate the figures find out what everyone CAN achive and then sell that product at that constant non detremental speed not say this is XXmb but you wont see much of it.

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 12:45

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 12:45

As far as I see (others may correct me) non of those issues have anything to do with STM. STM doesn't involve packet loss and the inability to connect to websites. Other technical issues cause these problems

Wrong Jamie. All these issues kick in at precisely the times STM does. In tests, access to these services goes back to normal when STM goes off. The only conclusion one can draw from tests is that STM has a wide effect on a contracted person's ability to use the Internet as intended.

Tests are very easy to invoke using online speed test tools to get a general idea of the time at which line speed / bandwidth drops. Once these tests display a general time each day for the STM "kick-in" access to the services mentioned, say PartyPoker or some online gaming activity, can take place before and after this general time. The same can then be compared with common competitors like BT and Sky.

Horace

13-03-2009, 12:47

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 12:50

Funnily, STM does not mentioned when you get their letters offering unlimited broadband, just says 'fair usage policy' oops STM isnt mentioned in there either, unless you know your looking for STM pages then you wont really find it, sorry but STM is NOT mentioned on ANY pages when your signing up, it's not in their FUP, no one tells you and you dont find out until your already capped.
What is says on the bottom of the adverts is:

Minimum computer requirements apply. Speed of internet connection assumes components working at optimum speed and capacity. Both cable and ADSL broadband are affected by user volume. Subscriber traffic management policy applies; Acceptable Use Policy applies to all speeds

Have to? funny, i've not come across anyone that does, infact, none of the agents who knock on our doors mention STM here, they blatantly deny that they use it.
Yes have to, if a particular agent/employee doesn't that is them, not VM company policy

And as for their 5% figure, it's well known it means a different 5% at any given time, so it affects their whole user database and this does bring into question their '20Mbit unlimited' ads.
Yes it is all of their customers - Virgin have never said any different. The 5% figure is based on that overall out of the several million customers no more than 5% of those customers will ever be affected by STM

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 12:54

Wrong Jamie. All these issues kick in at precisely the times STM does. In tests, access to these services goes back to normal when STM goes off. The only conclusion one can draw from tests is that STM has a wide effect on a contracted person's ability to use the Internet as intended.

I'd have to disagree, I regulary get STM'd and it never effects my ability to connect to websites. How does being limited to 5meg or what ever stop you from connecting. The average ADSL user would have the same issues.

It may be soemthing else but i don't see how having a speed limit applied would cause this.

JJ

lymmranger

13-03-2009, 12:58

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:02

I can't imagine any outcome of this case that would benefit customers, VM are already burdened with huge debts, they don't really have spare money to dish out in compensation and anything that this costs them, either in legal bills or as a result of any ruling, just ends up with less money going into the services we pay for and a worse service and maybe changes in their traffic management to hard capping. I'm happy with my services, I'm happy and have been since the introduction, with STM ,since the alternatives are much worse.

I'd rather things stay exactly as they are with VM trying to get the most out of their network and pushing speeds and services upwards, they do pretty well as it is considering their dreadful finanical situation.

So because a company owes massive debts you should be leniant towards them?
because they owe so much money, one could say that that is the reason why they don't and can't supply the high speeds they sell. feel the need to have to hide the fact that STM is in place.

If it was suggested that they just supply a speed they can supply such as 5MB they would argue that they would go out of business if they did that. but at the same time they are saying that we offer the higher speeds but with the hidden STM as that is how we can make money without actually having to provide the speed paid for.

I'm all for a company making money. but not when it means doing it in a way that can be seen as being deceitful and dishonest.

The question is why don't you want us to know about STM?
the answer is the deciding factor that unravels the use the use of the words Unlimited and Fastest when selling the product to the public.

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 13:03

Are virgin not honest (accesabily aside) they do post exactly what their limits are

JJ

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:08

The question is why don't you want us to know about STM?
the answer is the deciding factor that unravels the use the use of the words Unlimited and Fastest when selling the product to the public.
Virgin comply with the OFCOM guidance (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/copbb/copbb/)

33. ISPs must use their best endeavours to set out clearly, and in a prominent place on their websites (e.g. within help or FAQs sections), information relating to their respective policies on fair usage; traffic management and traffic shaping to cover, at a minimum, the matters set out below.

Traffic management and traffic shaping
39. Where ISPs apply traffic management and shaping policies, they should publish on their website, in a clear and easily accessible form, information on the restrictions applied. This should include the types of applications, services and protocols that are affected and specific information on peak traffic periods.

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:14

Virgin comply with the OFCOM guidance (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/copbb/copbb/)

So they are going to say roughly what you are saying?

you the customer might think that we aren't being as open and upfront about STM, but we don't care what you think. as long as we are within the guidelines that's all that matters. we will carry on selling our product as Unlimited and being the fastest in the land. even if it is in some areas and only applies for a few minutes.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:18

No that's not what I'm saying at all

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:21

No that's not what I'm saying at all

Well I think that's what they will say. and that is why they do it.
It all points to deceit and dishonesty on their part.

Bonglet

13-03-2009, 13:21

No ISP provides a contention ratio of 1:1 for home broadband no business model would support it and it's not needed.

Loading web pages and looking at emails does not required a 1:1 line, with general web browsing your connection is idile most of the time. Once you loaded the page thats it.

JJ

Point is though jamie people dont just use the net for looking at web pages and e-mail anymore hence the higher speed packages getting sold, if we did only do that the old 1 or 2mb line would be fine.

When people get a FREE upgrade (even though this is going to push the contention ratio down even more on isp's hardware) with vm it usaully comes at a cost to the customer hidden from view in a small print or a sneaky change to the t&c's that they never see.

My last FREE upgrade to 20mb came with FREE stm.
Tommorows FREE next tier or price reduction could come with a free application throttling, or higher stm, or phorm just to jiggle the profits of the company or save bandwith.

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 13:25

I'd have to disagree, I regulary get STM'd and it never effects my ability to connect to websites. How does being limited to 5meg or what ever stop you from connecting. The average ADSL user would have the same issues.

It may be soemthing else but i don't see how having a speed limit applied would cause this.

JJ

Jamie, maybe have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping. It explains the principles.

You may conclude in theory that throttling a connection of 20Mb to 5Mb means a drop in speed and access to 25%. It doesn't. There are various methods used to shape Internet traffic from a client, including packet delays through a FIFO system (First In, First Out). Now apply this to little Freddie who wants to play destroy the universe type games with his online chums. He sends an action command. It gets throttled so does not reach destination servers in time. Pingback from the gaming server results in a repeated instruction which also gets throttled, and so on. If luckless Freddie doesn't get the command through in time his universe falls apart. Meanwhile his mother, plays online bingo from another machine. She hits the number for the national jackpot - but the same thing happens. And his father, playing PartyPoker on another machine, suddenly finds he cannot respond with a bet to a top hand. In each case the packets are delayed, not on the basis of this one connection, but on the basis of a whole node or more of connections. In each case the game servers "time out" the player - they cannot hold the hold game up for one person. On the same node, Charlie the copyrights thief is busily downloading torrent movies for burning onto a DVD for sale at the local pub. He suffers the same but not with an immediately noticeable effect. So whilst Charlie copyright thief disappears to the pub to await his downloads, little Freddie's family have been subjected to torment and frustration. The effects upon them of "throttling" through packet delay are not 75% but considerably more. And that is only the result of the delay method of STM.

Bandwidth restriction is a contract breach that contains compounded effects. It will be more noticeable to some than others. Even so, it remains a contractual breach, a dishonest practice when compared to the original sale, and a deceitful practice when compared to the methods used to communicate what is happening. 75% capping means "up to" 25% service provision. It can also mean below 1%.

Fatec

13-03-2009, 13:26

What is says on the bottom of the adverts is:

Minimum computer requirements apply. Speed of internet connection assumes components working at optimum speed and capacity. Both cable and ADSL broadband are affected by user volume. Subscriber traffic management policy applies; Acceptable Use Policy applies to all speeds

Funny, not on the advert i recieved this morning trying to temp me back with UNLIMITED in large letters.

Mine only mentions the acceptable usage policy, so does the last 5 i've gotten over the last month...

Yes have to, if a particular agent/employee doesn't that is them, not VM company policy

Don't care, the fact that i've never come across one that does shows the incompetence of the company and it's staff within.

Yes it is all of their customers - Virgin have never said any different. The 5% figure is based on that overall out of the several million customers no more than 5% of those customers will ever be affected by STM

While VM have never said different, they have hinted that it's a constant top 5% of their customer base, when in reality all their customers are affected.

Don't get me wrong, you give good information and all, but sometimes, admittedly, you sound like a brainwashed VM bod.

No offense :p:

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:29

Well I think that's what they will say. and that is why they do it.
It all points to deceit and dishonesty on their part.
Ok then, what about be broadband. They advertise an 'up to 24Mbit unlimited connection' for Â£17.50 - I get between 10 and 15Mbit for that price.

So my service is not 24Mbit nor according to everyone on here is it unlimited - because I cannot download at the speed advertised.

Same goes for Sky and every other ADSL provider out there

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:33

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:36

No. we've done this argument many times before.
ADSL has always been "up to" the maximum they provide. depending on many factors which they state. such as line length.
In that case no ADSL provider should advertise as unlimited - because they are limited by line length

With cable you are sent a config file for whatever speed you are paying for. it is then artificially restricted by Virgin. it wan't restricted by natural means such as line length, but means administered by Virgin themselves.
One rule for the goose, one for the gander then?

If the industry/OFCOM allows limited ADSL providers to advertise as Unlimited - even thought you cannot download as much as they say you can - why should a different rule apply for cable?

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:38

In that case no ADSL provider should advertise as unlimited - because they are limited by line length

One rule for the goose, one for the gander then?

If the industry/OFCOM allows limited ADSL providers to advertise as Unlimited - even thought you cannot download as much as they say you can - why should a different rule apply for cable?

You are just talking nonsense now.
Be is Unlimited. you can download as much as you want at the speed your line supports. without any restrictions put in place made by BE in altering your speed and such after a certain amount is downloaded.

If you now want to move on to the next route of downloading as much as you want. and you still can with Virgin but at a reduced speed from the original speed. then don't bother :)

broadbandking

13-03-2009, 13:42

Bonglet

13-03-2009, 13:43

broadbandking

13-03-2009, 13:45

When you first sign up though they give you an average of what speed you will be getting 10-15mb is really really good especially when you can use it during normal hours and all weekend without stm and not wait untill some ungodly hour to get some sort of resembeling speed.

Bit ironic your stance with vm when you dont have there service generally so you cant see it from the average users side.

Ben has always looked at it from a company side tho not a user

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:47

When you first sign up though they give you an average of what speed you will be getting 10-15mb is really really good especially when you can use it during normal hours and all weekend without stm and not wait untill some ungodly hour to get some sort of resembeling speed.

When I log in to my Be members page. it states my expected speed will be about 10MB. I actually get 18MB.

Bit ironic your stance with vm when you dont have there service generally so you cant see it from the average users side.

I know :)

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 13:48

Ok then, what about be broadband. They advertise an 'up to 24Mbit unlimited connection' for Â£17.50 - I get between 10 and 15Mbit for that price.

So my service is not 24Mbit nor according to everyone on here is it unlimited - because I cannot download at the speed advertised.

Same goes for Sky and every other ADSL provider out there

I've waited patiently for this one to come up Ben. Look at the terms and conditions of Be and compare it with VM's. Be are far more up front. And that ratio of 10/25 to 15/25 is explained by Be's clear statement as to distance from exchange, amongst other things. They have a clear TM policy statement and the conditions under which they will impose it. Most of all, though, they do not reduce everyone to "up to" 25% at the times when most ordinary home users would want to use the Internet.

I have pointed this out in a further debating probe of your commendable attempts to defend VM's contract. You, though, and although subject to VM discounts as an employee, have subscribed with Be, a firm who have more favourable terms and delivered overall service according to contract. You have not stated that you use Be because there is no VM connection in your area, nor that you would switch to VM if you could. Whilst your justification of the VM contract and communications is commendable it seems to fail on the grounds of complaints by vast numbers of VM clients of unfair selling, restriction of delivery and what appears to be your own vote to use another provider.

Not criticising you for doing what you are entitled to do, just that in the circumstances it is extremely difficult to side with your point of view on this subject.

As an aside, I would have difficulty going with Be because their call centre is in Bulgaria. I find it difficult to believe that a company could efficiently service from so far away and with such a widely differing cultural landscape. As with all things relating to service delivery (I've been stung), I would need convincing.

Gary L

13-03-2009, 13:51

As an aside, I would not go to Be because their call centre is in Bulgaria. I find it difficult to believe that a company could efficiently service from so far away and with such a widely differing cultural landscape.

They speak velly gud englash, it's just their names that are gibberish.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:51

As the data is unlimited as there no set limit thats why ISP's get away with it but if they said unmetred speed then they would be in trouble not saying I like STM just purely pointing out why OFCOM let ISP's use unlimited
I think that is crucial bit on this

For the industry Unlimited = no set usage cap/limit in a month

For Customers (and the OP) Unlimited = Unmetered

Mr_SEO

13-03-2009, 13:52

hi... sorry to hear that as a virgin media customer you had to go to the court... this is disgusting act from Virgin Media...

Over the past few day I myself have had the nastiest experiences from Virgin Media. I have been with them for over 8 months but as you know over the past month my 10Mbps service went too slow, so I called Virgin Media and asked for advice. The agent advised me to upgrade my broadband to 20Mbps.

3 days later I called virgin media again to upgrade my 10mbps to 20mbps for another Â£4 a month. But a week later I received a letter saying that my contractual terms has been renewed, this meant since I upgraded the service to 20mbps, my contract with virgin media restarted for another 12 months. But Virgin Media did not inform me or clarify that my contract would restart if I upgrade my broadband. And even this amendment was stated at the back of the letter. Contractual amendements regarding the length are extremely to customers and these should have good visibility. And my new payments were badly explained with final price stated at all.

I know this may not help you but we together can stop this injustice by Virgin Media. Virgin Media can not treat it's customers like slaves and this will be tolerated in our society. I have already started to print out distribute some printing in my area advising people of my experience. I also have had quite a few replies and phone calls. Please let me know if there's any way we can help you.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 13:53

Bonglet

13-03-2009, 13:59

[snip]
As an aside, I would have difficulty going with Be because their call centre is in Bulgaria. I find it difficult to believe that a company could efficiently service from so far away and with such a widely differing cultural landscape. As with all things relating to service delivery (I've been stung), I would need convincing.

At least its closer than india mike :angel:.

---------- Post added at 13:59 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Oh and although again it is on no relevence - my use of be is purley because I can't get VM cable.

Currently I am considering switching to VM ADSL - now that the LLU has been done and they don't have to rely on the BT network

That would be a suprise saying as how vm adsl has harsher unlimited limits on adsl than cable :confused:.

Fatec

13-03-2009, 14:03

I think that is crucial bit on this

For the industry Unlimited = no set usage cap/limit in a month

For Customers (and the OP) Unlimited = Unmetered

Just to be annoying :D

As VM force an artificial limit on the users, this in turn will restrict the throughput to which a user can use, thus limited the amount of data in said times, thus a set usage cap/limit a mount.

**You could say 20Mbit has a set limit anyway by the nature of the connection, but again, artificial!**

:angel:

Ignitionnet

13-03-2009, 14:04

Virgin comply with the OFCOM guidance (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/copbb/copbb/)

33. ISPs must use their best endeavours to set out clearly, and in a prominent place on their websites (e.g. within help or FAQs sections), information relating to their respective policies on fair usage; traffic management and traffic shaping to cover, at a minimum, the matters set out below.

Traffic management and traffic shaping
39. Where ISPs apply traffic management and shaping policies, they should publish on their website, in a clear and easily accessible form, information on the restrictions applied. This should include the types of applications, services and protocols that are affected and specific information on peak traffic periods.

Ben,

You forgot these ones:

36. Where it is reasonably possible to do so, ISPs should provide a means by which users can measure their usage over the relevant billing period.

37. ISPs in possession of a userâ€™s email address should provide users with email notification when users exceed a usage limit or breach a fair usage policy which informs users about the precise consequences of doing so, e.g. additional costs, information on speed restrictions imposed etc.

36 - Virgin have a massive data store and the facility to measure usage via IOS robustly has been present for years as demonstrated elsewhere. Virgin could certainly supply this data to customers it would be a trivial amount of additional storage if they don't have it already, and could be linked to the existing self-care system.

37 - Ditto, Virgin have both an initial non-Virgin email address and supply one of their own upon connection, no reason they can't do this either.

Those debating the advertising of 'unlimited' the ASA permit it so long as a certain % of customers do not fall foul of the FUP.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 14:04

That would be a suprise saying as how vm adsl has harsher unlimited limits on adsl than cable :confused:.
Doesn't bother me

Fatec

13-03-2009, 14:04

Oh and although again it is on no relevence - my use of be is purley because I can't get VM cable.

Currently I am considering switching to VM ADSL - now that the LLU has been done and they don't have to rely on the BT network

Even though they cap you for a full week if you go over their pultry limit :erm:

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 14:05

Please let me know if there's any way we can help you.

Thanks. I know it doesn't help but I understand your frustrations. Restricting one level of service to encourage transfer to another level of service is called "upward selling" or "VAB" (value added business).

I have written to Virgin. I shall await their responses or defences to the action before taking the matter further. The next step is to start debate on wider public access sites like Facebook, communicate with very senior government ministers, and progress to the stage of press releases and interviews. It is fair and reasonable to allow VM to settle the dispute amicably for all.

What astonishes me is the amazing incompetence of VMs marketing department. They have an opportunity here to brand and roll out a campaign that would bring in customers, not cause angst amongst those they have. I've taught enough marketing postgraduates to know how easy it is for VM to move forward more positively than relying on lawyers and customer service personnel.

Ignitionnet

13-03-2009, 14:05

Doesn't bother me

Cool, so you've no problems with being limited to 512kbps then in turn 80kbps if you break limits which are not shown anywhere as they just cream the top off the userbase, IE one week 10GB gets you nailed, the next it could be 5GB, depending on how busy the Internet is?

Mr_SEO

13-03-2009, 14:05

Oh and although again it is on no relevence - my use of be is purley because I can't get VM cable.

Currently I am considering switching to VM ADSL - now that the LLU has been done and they don't have to rely on the BT network
BenMcr, I don't think it's the best for you to switch to Virgin Media. You will be stuck with them for life. Just read the posts... or at least my posts... Hope it helps...

Fatec

13-03-2009, 14:07

This is why i give up on the UK completely, companies can do what they like, everybody here gets shafted and just takes it, even without lube.

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 14:08

Point is though jamie people dont just use the net for looking at web pages and e-mail anymore hence the higher speed packages getting sold, if we did only do that the old 1 or 2mb line would be fine.

When people get a FREE upgrade (even though this is going to push the contention ratio down even more on isp's hardware) with vm it usaully comes at a cost to the customer hidden from view in a small print or a sneaky change to the t&c's that they never see.

My last FREE upgrade to 20mb came with FREE stm.
Tommorows FREE next tier or price reduction could come with a free application throttling, or higher stm, or phorm just to jiggle the profits of the company or save bandwith.

I agree people do more than browse and look at emails but I don't consider that STM is sneaky or hidden it's available for all to see. Changes in STM are not changes in T&C's, if the T&C's state that Virgin can restrict usage as they see fit then doing so is not changing the T&C's.

JJ

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 14:11

Ben,

You forgot these ones:
No I didn't - those two apply to services where specified traffic management policies do not apply - such as BT/TalkTalk etc where they have a set limit and the customer may not be able to keep track over a full bill period when they have hit it.

As I've said before - if Virgin were to e-mail a customer it is quite likely they would already be out the managment period by the time they recieved the e-mail

If they weren't all it would contain is the Traffic Managment policy.

As for e-mails, enough customers have no e-mail recorded and/or do not use it make it worthless

---------- Post added at 14:11 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Anyway, this thread has certainly moved off the original topic which was the ability of Virgin to vary the contracts

Mr_SEO

13-03-2009, 14:16

[QUOTE=Mike_A;34751862]Thanks. I know it doesn't help but I understand your frustrations. Restricting one level of service to encourage transfer to another level of service is called "upward selling" or "VAB" (value added business).

I completely agree with you. I work for business and I think Virgin Media must have the most incompetent marketing department. You can never ever run a business when your customers are forced to stay with you.

I was with bethere for about few months, they have only 3 months contract in place. When I called to them cancel, they did it straight away. They did not offer me any service. later I received an email saying that we respect your decision and hope you come back to us. And there hope was right because as soon as I get out of Virgin Media's slavery, I will right away go back to them.

I think Virgin Media should consider reorganizing their marketing strategy and replacing their marketing team. I'm sure that guys in the streets selling "Big Issue" can do a better job than them! Sorry if it sounds a rude but if you think about it then you will understand.

Bytheway thanks for advise regarding writing a letter to my local MP. I will do this tonight.

Does anyone know of any campaign on face book against virgin media's illegal actions?

Ignitionnet

13-03-2009, 14:17

No I didn't - those two apply to services where specified traffic management policies do not apply - such as BT/TalkTalk etc where they have a set limit and the customer may not be able to keep track over a full bill period when they have hit it.

Oh I see, so these regulations don't apply to Virgin. I'm a bit confused as the Ofcom code mentions Fair Use Policies, which is the exact phrase that appeared on VM advertising. Perhaps so long as it's referred to as 'Subscriber Traffic Managment Policy' or 'Acceptable Use Policy' that means it's not applicable.

I have asked Ofcom to clarify this matter for me and will get back to you.

As I've said before - if Virgin were to e-mail a customer it is quite likely they would already be out the managment period by the time they recieved the e-mail

If they weren't all it would contain is the Traffic Managment policy.

As for e-mails, enough customers have no e-mail recorded and/or do not use it make it worthless

Oh that's alright then, if they'd be out of the period and the mail wouldn't have much in it it's fine to ignore that bit and claim compliance.

Gary L

13-03-2009, 14:18

As I've said before - if Virgin were to e-mail a customer it is quite likely they would already be out the managment period by the time they recieved the e-mail

If they weren't all it would contain is the Traffic Managment policy.

As for e-mails, enough customers have no e-mail recorded and/or do not use it make it worthless

You should forward these excuses to Virgin to use in court.
You can add the one about not wanting to waste paper informing people, and saving it to sell them stuff instead.

BenMcr

13-03-2009, 14:22

I have asked Ofcom to clarify this matter for me and will get back to you.
Cool thanks

Oh that's alright then, if they'd be out of the period and the mail wouldn't have much in it it's fine to ignore that bit and claim compliance.
No what I'm trying to point out is that if you get a mail going 'You have been traffic managed' when it applies to 3 days ago, it isn't much use.

The clause in the OFCOM rules is so that if use say 40Gb of data and then are managed for the rest of the month, then you know that - so the e-mail would have more relevance

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 14:24

I still fail to see the difference between getting STM'd to 5meg and paying 20meg on cable and paying 24/16 meg and only geting 8meg on ADSL.

Even after reading the pages on traffic shaping still don't see how STM can cause web pages not to load etc.

If max out my STM'd connect downloading why can I still connect to every web site with no losses.

JJ

Ignitionnet

13-03-2009, 14:26

Cool thanks

No what I'm trying to point out is that if you get a mail going 'You have been traffic managed' when it applies to 3 days ago, it isn't much use.

The clause in the OFCOM rules is so that if use say 40Gb of data and then are managed for the rest of the month, then you know that - so the e-mail would have more relevance

That's not up to you or Virgin Media to interpret to be honest, and is just an excuse. If Ofcom want active reporting to customers as part of the voluntary code that's what they'll get, be it for shaping for 5 hours or 5 weeks.

Anyway I've asked the question so we'll see how it goes.

Bonglet

13-03-2009, 14:28

No it hasnt moved off topic the topic is throttling practices dont try and get the thread locked because you dont like loosing debate :P.

Bt/Talk talk have a set limit over a full bill period i.e monthly? well we have a DAILY set limit with no way to track it even when you download nothing and fall foul of stm all over the bill period too no difference.

Its up to virgin media to get customers e-mail and inform them of throttling, the customer is getting a provided service therefore the service provider has to get details of how to inform that customer not the other way around.

Ignitionnet

13-03-2009, 14:28

I still fail to see the difference between getting STM'd to 5meg and paying 20meg on cable and paying 24/16 meg and only geting 8meg on ADSL.

Sign up to Be / O2 / Sky and they'll automatically offer you the chance to downgrade to the lowest product that matches your performance, they will also give you an estimated speed before you commit, as required by the guidelines they are signed up to, so yes there's quite some difference.

Mr_SEO

13-03-2009, 14:32

sorry BROADBANDINGS..... but are you trying to say that Virgin Media does not offer you down grade if you don't receive that service... This is absolutely ridiculous. They should get shut down for this..... That's it, Virgin Media has gone too far with abusing customers and system... we all must do something about it.

jamiefrost

13-03-2009, 14:40

So what about every one on the lowest tiers that still get no where near the up to limit.

Been a customer for ages so I don't know about how new customers are informed but the STM limts are clearly defined by Virgin.

JJ

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

sorry BROADBANDINGS..... but are you trying to say that Virgin Media does not offer you down grade if you don't receive that service... This is absolutely ridiculous. They should get shut down for this..... That's it, Virgin Media has gone too far with abusing customers and system... we all must do something about it.

Not recieving the advertised limit (STM aside) on cable is a different issue than on ADSL as it's not a function of distance to the exchange.

If you sign up to 20 meg and Virgin can't supply it after what ever fixes they try you can cancel the contract. Would this be possible on ADSL if I pay for 8meg told I should get 4 but only get 3?

JJ

Mike_A

13-03-2009, 14:48

At least its closer than india mike :angel:.

Spoke to a call centre in India once and asked if what I heard was a motor boat outside. "No", said the operator: "I have a stutter".

Gary L

13-03-2009, 14:49

If you sign up to 20 meg and Virgin can't supply it after what ever fixes they try you can cancel the contract. Would this be possible on ADSL if I pay for 8meg told I should get 4 but only get 3?

Most of the time ADSL providers under estimate what speeds you will get. happens all the time on the Be forums where people are getting faster speeds than what was estimated.

Horace

13-03-2009, 15:05

So because a company owes massive debts you should be leniant towards them?
because they owe so much money, one could say that that is the reason why they don't and can't supply the high speeds they sell. feel the need to have to hide the fact that STM is in place.

If it was suggested that they just supply a speed they can supply such as 5MB they would argue that they would go out of business if they did that. but at the same time they are saying that we offer the higher speeds but with the hidden STM as that is how we can make money without actually having to provide the speed paid for.

I'm all for a company making money. but not when it means doing it in a way that can be seen as being deceitful and dishonest.

The question is why don't you want us to know about STM?
the answer is the deciding factor that unravels the use the use of the words Unlimited and Fastest when selling the product to the public.

As far as I'm concerned they didn't hide it, I knew about it before I was ever affected by it and there's been plenty of other restrictions in force before STM, even if it's been down to congestion. STM just attempts to balance the congestion between customers.
I've had plenty of opportunities to cancel out of contract and indeed could cancel right now, I've always known about the clause that allows them to restrict broadband as I would if I signed up with any broadband provider. It's a common clause to allow them to protect their services against abuse.

AndyCambs

13-03-2009, 15:37

Mr_SEO

13-03-2009, 15:45

If I am a normal user, and don't download that much to impact others, but like the fast speeds for those things I do download - when I do get poor quality service because someone other user is downloading terrabytes of information - can I have a refund or sue them for the degraded service?
Yes you can sue them. Although virgin media does make you sign on terms and conditions but these terms and condition must be in line with standards set by the government. Virgin Media has laid out their terms in extreme side of it. At this moment legal experts are looking into if Virgin media intereperted goverment guideline correctly.

Every company would have their terms and conditions but at the end of the day, these terms and conditions must always be in line and comply with government rules and regulations, furthermore now days European Regulations also apply to the U.K. This means if a company interprets their terms and condition wrongly and but makes you sign on them or something that was not recommended or mentioned in the government or the European body guidelines, then that contract is void. Hence you can sue the company. Believe me out there, there is a lot of hate for Virgin Media. So if you dig, you will a lot supporters... Or you can even just post leaflets in your area or display them on your local shops. if you had a bad service or internet then someone else in you must be experiencing this too. So you will get a lot of support.

I know you will think this should not happen as the companies are quite smart, but believe me it happens to a lot of companies and in fact many of them do to gain profit. But it only gets noticed by the general public.

Gary L

13-03-2009, 15:50

As far as I'm concerned they didn't hide it, I knew about it before I was ever affected by it and there's been plenty of other restrictions in force before STM, even if it's been down to congestion. STM just attempts to balance the congestion between customers.

I don't think there be so much congestion if they didn't supply such high speeds and didn't over subscribe in certain areas. I think they can balance it all they like, but take some blame yourself and not make the paying customer feel guilty for using it as the reason why others have to suffer.

I've had plenty of opportunities to cancel out of contract and indeed could cancel right now, I've always known about the clause that allows them to restrict broadband as I would if I signed up with any broadband provider. It's a common clause to allow them to protect their services against abuse.

How come you get so many chances? I would have thought if you have accepted it before now then you can't think again later. especially as you said you've known about STM some time ago.

It might be there to protect them from abuse, but it can be used to protect them from not being able to squeeze more people on at the expense of the already paying people.