New Traffic Management Policy

So to clarify the new capped speed on 30 Mbit will be changed from 15 Mbit to 18 Mbit and not 12 Mbit?

yes you keep 60%.

So VM made more generous, I wonder how people in oversubbed areas think about that.

Nice.

As an example, a size: XL customer on our 60Mb service can download 5,000MB between 5pm and 10pm on a weekday before they are traffic managed.

It would also have been nice to have all the thresholds noted for everyone to see. AFAICS, the above "example" is the only one provided.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

yes you keep 60%.

So VM made more generous, I wonder how people in oversubbed areas think about that.

nothing as upstream is still capped at 75% (downstream is not the issue with VM) so when the STM is activated, they will still have the issue if they are still in an single channel upstream area and the area is congested, once dual channel is enabled it should be a lot better pings should drop back to normal once they get around to enabling dual upstream channels in areas where its not been done yet

its still unlimited (if you call 1000GB per month unlimited as one of my customers got an letter for doing over 1000gb over 2-3 months i guess they noticed, he did download loads of 1080p stuff, well it was 1300gb, 1100gb and 1400gb, as newsbin shows logs showed)

Edited by leexgx (Thu 28-Mar-13 03:53:43)

instead of talking about how much you download during these periods why not calculate how long it will take to reach the threshold before you are throttled. Surely this is more important concerning %'s of true available bandwidth.

It sort of defeats the object of having a high speed connection if your balls are being clipped for maxing out your connection for an hour a day

Edited by Stanman_24 (Thu 28-Mar-13 09:17:34)

In reply to a post by Stanman_24:

instead of talking about how much you download during these periods why not calculate how long it will take to reach the threshold before you are throttled. Surely this is more important concerning %'s of true available bandwidth.

It sort of defeats the object of having a high speed connection if your balls are being clipped for maxing out your connection for an hour a day

Because most people aren't sitting on Usenet trying to stay in sync with their favourite Blu Ray group, they're streaming media now, so a data rate is appropriate, not to mention there's no guarantee of hitting the exact rate.

Keep the Linux ISOs out of peak time and for the most part all should be well.

yeah I am old skool usenet m8

I don't think "time at full speed" is a particularly useful measure. The main thing that sends me over the cap is downloading HD movies from Sky On Demand and they don't go at anything like full whack (or even the capped speed). So how would I convert that to a "time at full speed" measure? I suppose if you're constantly maxing out your connection then it might be useful but how many people do that?

Some people just hog the network and slow it down for others.

good point !

Interesting to know how many people do max out their connections !

I always avoid using torrents in the evening anyway. Given that most ISP networks are vulnerable to congestion in the evening I reckon it is anti-social to hog the network between 5 and 10.

I am more concerned that it may be relatively easy to trigger throttling just by gaming and streaming movies all evening. Any thoughts on how much I would download if, for example, two different users around my house streamed from Love Film or Netflix or using XBMC? Given that most people subscribe to super fast broadband so they can stream films it would be very remiss of VM to throttle them!

Another question. How long will it be before torrenting will be limited to a determined minority? All the major ISPs have been ordered to block torrent indexing sites such as Kickass Torrents and Torrent Reactor. At the moment sites such as Isohunt have not been touched and you can get around the block at Come in, but this will not last. What would be the point of traffic management if hardly anyone can torrent?

The answer to that question, in the case of VM, may be that the network is so vulnerable to over subscription and ordinary evening use that traffic management will be needed anyway.

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Mar-13 08:12:14)

Work on a good stream being 4 Meg so two for two hours would 7.2 GB. Gaming playeg BF3 is only 100 to 200MB

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Work on a good stream being 4 Meg so two for two hours would 7.2 GB. Gaming playeg BF3 is only 100 to 200MB

So, for using my superfast broadband for what it is meant for I am likely to be throttled? Two people in my house streaming two separate movies is a frequent scenario. On a 100Mb connection we get absolutely no problems buffering. It is instant. I think that is responsible use of our connection especially in an evening when my family are most able to use the internet for entertainment. If an ISP cannot deliver a service that allows responsible usage it should not be an ISP. Any sign of slow buffering resulting from throttling I will be making a formal complaint. We pay enough after all!

If buffering is worse then the throttling is broke, i can watch a single hd stream on 6Meg connection with no buffering.

IMO it would be very foolish for VM not to throttle certain customers. I recently lost a lot of data when one of my hard drives failed. My connection was throttled for a short time after exceeding 1000gb for a few weeks. Even when my connection was throttled I had no problem streaming netflix at "super HD" on 3 different computers/tv whilst other people downloading and utorrrent.

I think VM's policy is fair and even whilst throttled has a perfectly usable connection.

I don't think it is fair

How is it not fair?

As far as I am concerned its not designed to be maxed out 24 hours a day.

If you want that sort of connection get a leased line installed.

so your saying that only people with leased lines can download as much as they want

defeats the object of adsl/dsl

are we going back to the 0800 56k days of a 1 hour cut off ?

Absolute rubbish!! So you saying it is the object of broadband to leave the connection maxed out 24x7?

I can't speak for the other guy , but people trying to download the internet every day is what ruins it for those people who want to use it for more latency critical applications.

I have the option of 100MBit cable here ( no fttc as yet) but I remember my last dalliance with cable and thats when people could get 10 Mbit max. I won't go down that road again as VM don't seem to care that there are a couple of greedy [censored] maxing out the shared bandwidth so long as they can use their "unlimited " headline.

In reply to a post by kamelion:

I can't speak for the other guy , but people trying to download the internet every day is what ruins it for those people who want to use it for more latency critical applications.

I have the option of 100MBit cable here ( no fttc as yet) but I remember my last dalliance with cable and thats when people could get 10 Mbit max. I won't go down that road again as VM don't seem to care that there are a couple of greedy [censored] maxing out the shared bandwidth so long as they can use their "unlimited " headline.

The exact reason they now throttle these users.

you can interpret it however you like

why not cap instead of throttle

throttling opens up a whole can of worms that they don't have to justify concerning levels of service

Id much rather be throttled than capped because I do not incur further charges or have my internet cut off 3/4 of the way through the month.

I do not understand what you are talking about even when my connection has been throttled it is still significantly faster than most peoples connections operating at full speed. So what is the problem?

ADSL and DOCSIS (the system VM use) are shared services whereas a leased line runs directly from a business premises (usually) to a carrier point of presence which will have larger capacity or even multiple backhaul links from it that your average street cabinet will not have but the exchange might.

However companies are happy to pay far more for their connectivity than the average consumer.

Traffic management is therefore necessary to prevent those who want to max out their connection from causing other people's connections to slow though it does not always work out that way.

In the same way if you work within a company using a corporate LAN and tried to do what you dd on your home connection I can pretty much guarantee that sooner or later a member of your IT staff or your boss would be by your desk asking you to desist because your activity was slowing the network down.

Post deleted by Sadoldman

I haven't got a problem! I am just pointing out what you are saying makes no sense and is incorrect!! Any need is resorting to the use of obscenities?

Edited by deleted (Sun 31-Mar-13 11:27:58)

Totally unacceptable language for our forums....first and last warning.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

In reply to a post by kamelion:

I can't speak for the other guy , but people trying to download the internet every day is what ruins it for those people who want to use it for more latency critical applications.

I very rarely bother to comment on the digest I get every day from here. I think it's about 4 years since I joined.

I am having a good laugh at the con-ability of the Virgin fan club.

Virgin advertise speeds that they cannot supply. Virgin 'throttle' 'unlimited' services.

It is not up to customers of a product to be fair. It is up to the supplier to take all problems into account and supply a volume of product that is needed.

So that we can be clear about what Virgin is doing..... tarahhh! ..... a metaphor.

If you go into a restaurant and order a steak, you don't get served half a steak because they don't have enough to go around..... I hope, but with some restaurants check the DNA...

It's the same with Virgin. If they are at capacity in an area they should close sales until they can 'upgrade'.

It is really very simple and effective. It results in happy customers and with 'supply and demand' the product becomes more wanted and gains a higher 'value'.

I think that Virgin could probably charge 10% to 20% higher prices than they now do IF they actually supplied what people paid for.

There is a time when 'Fair Use' becomes 'Fraud' and Virgin may not be there yet but.....

They would also regain customers like myself for the premium products. Our current 30mb is more stable and provides what we pay for our 100mb was cutting out regularly and a lot of the time was slower than the 30mb is now.

Business 101 - you have to provide what you sell.

OK so I'll shut up for another year or so, being yet again peeved at being called a Troll or even a 'glove puppet' (whatever that is). I honestly will not be unaffected by the Virgin fan clubs abuse.

Above all be happy, life is far too short,

And Happy Easter, Eoster or whatever you celebrate today! Chocolate eggs and roast chicken always improve the Wa.

Jon

If you go into a restaurant and order a steak, you don't get served half a steak because they don't have enough to go around..... I hope, but with some restaurants check the DNA...

No , the restaurant informs the customers that the steak is off but instead you can have fish. The expectation is that not everyone will order steak in the same way that not everyone uses the internet for creating a collection of blu ray titles.

If you pay £5 for your steak you shouldn't be too disappointed when you don't get fillet

so it is oki for him troll me around the forums

but you give me a first and final warning

wow this is how you treat members of 11 years

no wonder your forum looks in decline

I see what you mean.

Unfortunately I am a modern Brit' who does complain if my food is not up to scratch and have even dared to deduct the service charge when treated badly.

If I paid for a decent steak and was given a bit of fish I would not be happy and make my feelings known.

Virgin oversells and gives 'half portions' because we (their customers) have let them get away with it.

Unfortunately they are still the best game in town here and definitely a little more honest than BT.

I have not tried sky but have no interest in TV, let alone packages of channels that would bore me rigid.

BTW. I haven't got the facilities to experience BlueRay and like most haven't got the eyesight to know the difference. I do have a wife who likes to remain in contact with her vast family in the USA and we do use Vonage regularly which is a lot cheaper than Virgin's cost cutting package....

I do sometimes wish that this was Germany where under supplied customers would have been picketing Virgin offices demanding refunds for years.

Perhaps I'm just jealous of Virgin, if only I could have supplied 250 letterheads to a ream I would have made a fortune!

It's probably old age and the change in weather getting into the joints that makes me peeved with Virgin at the moment - oddly enough my connection has been perfect since I signed up for a 'sam knows' box, even better than the 'good' connection since downgrading. I know of one other who posted the same experience on these very boards, of course it's a coincidence......

Happy whatever, back to the evening nap for me, I just couldn't avoid doing you the courtesy of responding to your humorous fish metaphor.

Jon

You seem dance around the point never actually putting any substance into your argument. I am not "trolling" you I just think you fail to understand that broadband is a service with a contention ratio. I am unsure on current contention ratios but when first launched ADSL had a 50:1 for home users and 20:1 for business users. This means potentially 50 users were sharing my 512kbps connection. That is the whole reason bandwidth reliant customers can not just get away with having a broadband connection and have a leased line which cost £x000's per year. Anyway I think im going round in circles on this point.

Virgin are upgrading their network at present im pretty sure it has more to do with that than you posting sam knows....

I suspect some might find my first post somewhat contentious.

When VM advertise what they sold me as UNLIMITED and that I can use as much as I want then that is what I will attempt to use.

If on the other hand they advertised my service as no worse than for example a 1/20th share of a certain amount of bandwidth with no caps then that is what I would expect to get.

My expectations are in line with their advertising.

I understand their need for contention ratios as they should understand that certain users that use a lot when grouped with those that don't will also result in everyone being relatively happy.

The general consensus seems to be that only those people using torrents etc are creating an issue for others and that what they do is illegal.

I have in the past used 10+ TB a month without going anywhere near a torrent site and would be quite happy for any inspection of my group of computers that are connected ..... There are no illegal downloads here. I just use my connection differently than most and have more computers connected than most...It is possible to do this in a wholly legal way.

In using as above I let VM cap the download rate through the day which was fine with me and made little difference due to the poor 5Mb upload rate not supporting the download rate.

The upload cap in the evenings was a different matter and needed intervention on my part to prevent hitting their limit

There seems to have been a downloadcentric speed race rather than a provision of infrastructure to match the claims VM make.

If only they too could say that the poor performance of their network only effected the 2.5% of their customers that they claim are effected by and were in receipt of their unreasonable use letters. Does this then make theirs an unreasonable network?

I have been reading their new caps and timings and restrictions page http://help.virginmedia.com/system/selfservice.contr... and it will not make a lot of difference. Any user can still hit their limits in around half an hour of use at the advertised rate sold to them by VM so their claim of "As much as you like when you like" seems also to be a falsehood. although they are trialling something newer still it seems.

Lastly, When I undertake internet use as described above I can get most of it done in around 12 or so hours if I actually got what was originally advertised in the way of connection speed. This would mean that I could undertake most of the "work" overnight. The fact that I am lucky to achieve 50% of the advertised rate except for the period 2am to 8am, due seemingly to contention issues, means that the work has to continue into the day thus effecting the use of others. So, my fault or theirs in a scenario like this?

It's very simple and VM are wrong.

It's advertised as Unlimited but it isn't.

It's adevrtised as 60MB (as an example) but it isn't if two people in my house watch a HD stream.

VM stated that 96% of people wouldn't likely hit the TM threshhold. If that's the case why put the restrictions in instead of just capping the 4% that affected the network. The statistic was removed because it didn't support the TM policy.

The actual fact of the matter is that their network is stupidly oversubscribed now and they need to do something about it to the detriment of others.

I have also proven to them that the TM system is faulty in the way it records data useage and handles upstream traffic.

VM are simply devious. The TM tables created are simpy absurd. I understand them but if my wife or parents were referred to them they wouldn't have a clue.

shut up will you

your going on and on and on

and yes you are trolling, simply following me around the forums arguing with me is a form of trolling

What do you have to substantiate your claim of their network being so oversubscribed?

Do you think that you should be able to get the full 60mbps whenever you want?

Most cars can achieve more than 70 mph. You can go faster but expect to be slowed by others observing the speed limit. If the person exceeding the limit crashes then this will cause untold congestion for others.

Why the few feel it necessary to download the internet (legally) they do cause problems for others.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

What do you have to substantiate your claim of their network being so oversubscribed?

Do you think that you should be able to get the full 60mbps whenever you want?

Check their forums. In my 12 years of DSL I have never seen so many threads of oversubscription. Even their 3G network has been throttle to 2mbps.

Yes - I should be able to get 60mbps whenever I want - that was what was advertised. As it turns out I didn't ask for 60mbps. I started at 30mbps and it was doubled. I would prefer for VM to have left me and others on sustainable products.

VM got greedy. They could have left the speeds as they were instead of doubling it and probably doubled the useage limits which for many households that stream Netflix, iplayer etc would have been ideal as when I\they then want to download my Steam game we would not be affected either.

Be, Sky, Bulldog, Nildram all managed to do it. They gave me an estimated speed. My connection achieved it anytime of the day.

People have to stop with the lame anologies of cars\speed etc as well as they are redundant when you compare broadband to the capacity differences of the national grid. The national grids variable capacity is far greater than that of the network infrastructure here in the UK but it copes. You could argue that's because it's pay per Kwh and therefore that is how you should pay for the internet useage - per GB. Fair enough then - that will stop all those idiots using full capacity all the time and the networks would be far better off for it.

I was there at a friends house when the Virgin engineer rang up his network guys wondering why my friends shiny 20 mbit service was only seeing 4 mbit and was told (he had it on speaker) "you wont get any more than that the UBR is oversubscribed"

I can't see it having changed much since then

Do you not realise that these services have a contention ratio? So no you don't have the right to complain if you don't always get 60mbps!!

Do you not realise that if the number of people sharing exceeds the planned contention ratio then the oversubscribed ubr described in the above post will never, during the normal times that folks expect to use the connection, be capable of achieving the advertised rate..

Further, according to Ofcom's code of practice:

27. For services such as cable broadband where the main cause of disparity between headline speed and actual throughput speed may be network capacity limitations, ISPs must provide all consumers as early as practicable within the sales process, and in any event before consumers are asked for personal financial details, with information that actual throughput speeds during peak hours may be lower than at other times of the day where this is material. Specifically, where peak time speeds are likely to be more than 10% below the headline speed of the service, the ISP must indicate the throughput speed that is likely to be achieved during peak times.

I submit that during the sign up process of the case above there was no such communication and that the degree of reduction was so far in excess of 10% that the engineer was surprised too

Edited by deleted (Tue 02-Apr-13 01:19:19)

@worldofadsl

I really do hate to contradict you but I do.

If a supplier enters into a contract to supply an item and then doesn't supply it (I hasten to add knowing at the time the contract was entered in to that they couldn't) it's called fraud.

The old charge used to be 'Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'.
Yes I hear you comment about 'Terms and conditions' - I'm afraid Consumer Law also protects against Unfair terms and conditions.

Simply Virgin are selling more than they can provide. That is at best dishonest and may even be Criminal. It's time there was an open investigation into the selling practices of ISPs. In the same way as the Banks were forced to pay back 'insurance' ISPs should be forced to pay back for their under-provision.

Don't worry employees will probably be taken on by whoever buys them from the receiver.

Jon

P.S. The last time I had a discussion like this it was in the old days of NTL hourly cut off dial up. NTL actually had employees monitoring discussion boards to 'fire fight' complainers......

P.P.S. My connection improved after ordering a Sam Knows monitoring box NOT after posting about it, it was another who posted about the same circumstance here and was treated with the same discourteous slight implying possible paranoia - obfuscation is not really on.

Edited by deleted (Tue 02-Apr-13 10:12:57)

But a single user would get the maximum advertised but no matter what the advertising regulators say it is still an "UPTO SERVICE".

Cars, motorways and speed are not lame anologies.

And I stated the "pay per usage" ages ago and was shot down because that idea was draconean. Was that lame? It would stop all the users staying on-line 24x7 downloading HD content that they probably can't tell the difference between SD and HD anyway.

Most ISPs are just as greedy as VM. They are just battling with BT with regard to advertising the fastest speed in the UK.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

But a single user would get the maximum advertised but no matter what the advertising regulators say it is still an "UPTO SERVICE".

Obfuscation old chap.

If you had read what I had posted I was commenting on the 'unlimited' nature of the service.

Is shouting really necessary?

Wasn't it the German propaganda minister who invented the concept of shouting loud enough and long enough and people will believe?

I prefer the 'You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

BTW I honestly believe that Virgin are the best value ISP, I just hate miss-selling. If Virgin was a small company Trading Standards would be crawling all over them and they would have gone bankrupt from their legal bills. They don't need all the games and tricks.

The simple answer is to stop selling before the capacity is oversold.

They do know what their capacity is as they 'throttle' and 'cap' which should not be necessary if they were honest.

Jon

P.S. Perhaps you could explain your Idea that it is other user's fault that you don't get what you pay for and not Virgin's for overselling in the first place.

P.P.S. I don't use P2P and download a few Gb a day by FTP through my connection so we are really allies trying to get what we need. I just know you are blaming the wrong people who are only trying to get what they pay good money for.

Where is you evidence that the ubr is oversubscribed?

ADSL had upto 50 people sharing the 512kbps when first launched. Which potentially could make it slower than dial up. Not 100% sure what the current contention ratio on home user products is.

You are talking about a leased line here not broadband. VM are selling a shared product so how can you moan if you are not always able to max out your connection?

Do you actually understand the difference between a leased line and broadband?!?! Do you know the price difference?

This argument is crazy and people need to realise that you get what you pay for. Broadband is cheap because it is a shared service.

When have I ever said I don't get what I pay for?

I said that it is correct throttle users who simply want to download the internet. There are not many of these heavy users who are not downloading illegal content.

I also don't agree with people hosting high bandwidth servers over a broadband connection.

I think the issue most have is the way VM advertises and promises so much.

You sell on speed, and many people getting the highest speed a lot of the time, then it will attract those who want to use the speed, rather than just check their web mail and shop on Amazon.

Watching night after night of TV via lovefilm and netflix mean you don't have to be a bandwidth junkie to use a lot of data these days.

It was never 50 people sharing 0.5 Meg. It would have been more like 200 sharing 2 Meg, or a few thousand sharing 34 Mbps in the early days.

The differences in how contention ratios behave between cable and DSL has been a debate that has never ended since DSL was rolled out and not just in the UK.

I said that it is correct throttle users who simply want to download the internet. There are not many of these heavy users who are not downloading illegal content.

So what is the point of having 100mb over 20mb ?

Do you honestly think your broadband connection will be faster browsing web pages or video streaming ?

Video streaming uses a small buffer over udp ports as a result of no error correction so having a higher bandwidth connection will benefit you for about 10-30 seconds before you stream, so it is negligible once again whatever virgin media package you have regardless of what they advertise.

Your defeating the object of having 100mbit or 60 mbit or 30 mbit if you think that downloading content off the internet should be throttled.

for example you download bf3 from steam on your 120mbit connection but then get throttled 1/3 of the way through and then get upset as you have to wait even longer to play with your friends. That is the exact reason why I left virgin media in the first place because when you want to download content of a substantial size you will have to play by their rules.

You prolonged attitude concerning throttling of downstream / upstream is the exact reason why many of us rather stay on 21cn adsl2+ then move over to virgin media. but remember this does not discount the current problems in many areas of the country concerning contention rather than throttling.

How do you know if you are being throttled or if it s a contention issue?. How do you differentiate between the two when you ring up technical support based india?. If it does get resolved how long do you have wait ?.

Another reason why I stay away from virgin media.

I really don't understand why you are getting so het up.

No customer has to take into account the problems of a supplier. It really is that simple.

Virgin sell one service and then supply one that is inferior.

It is not my (or your) responsibility to take into account customers who 'download the internet' it is theirs.

Neither of us has a contract with the downloaders, we have one with Virgin. I only have the contract with them to supply internet services. Your contract (or contracts) may be for internet supply or other areas of Law including employment.

Customers rely on the expertise of their supplier, it would be totally unreasonable to expect customers to be experts in the internet. In fact if Virgin make that assumption, why haven't I ever been given a test to qualify me as a customer?

I do object to your attempting to categorise anyone who disagrees with your somewhat biased viewpoint as either un educated (even stupid) or a cheapskate.

You see, I don't have to be an internet expert or a spendthrift to be a Virgin customer they happily take my money every month. I might even say that they cater for the stupid customer with their script based Indian call centres and questionable description of product capability.

I pay full whack for a service that has only worked properly since I signed up for a Sam Knows box and expect to get what I pay for.

I really do wish you had been one of my customers when I ran a business, life would have been so much simpler and more profitable - the only problem being my own business ethics, I didn't lie to, cheat or steal from customers.

Please calm down, you are almost convincing me you are a Virgin employee paid by results. There is really no need for things to get out of hand. We agree about the problem but not about responsibility and cause that is all.

Be happy,

Jon

Is the contention ratio applied at the exchange on DSL?

It used to be contended at the ISP (and congested at the exchange) but since BT did away with the old technology and moved on to digital networks they are contended at the node I believe.

There used to be a lot of discussion in the entanet forum about lack of bandwidth and they even had a page where you could check how much was being used.

This meant some ISPs used to have "bad boy pipes" where all the heavy users were connected and had to fight it out amongst themselves

Edited by deleted (Tue 02-Apr-13 18:56:04)

I don't think users downloading content should be throttled. There are people who spend their days just downloading anything and everything they can off torrent and Usenet sites. One person I know half the time does not even get round to watching everything they have downloaded. These are the type of users who should be throttled in my opinion.

At the end of the day even while throttled my connection is exceedingly faster than yours so your example of downloading bf3 is flawed to say the least.

Some people are just never happy unless they are moaning or complaining. In 10 years Ive had to phone them on two occasions and you say I am the one with too much time on my hands.

That is a great idea.

Im not getting het up I just think its unreasonable to pay peanuts and expect a leased line level of service.

THIS IS SHOUTING.

I uppercased the term "UPTO".

As you didn't specify "unlimited" I was under the assumption you were on about the max speed that VM advertise then don't give due to their oversubcribed network.

They don't have an upper limit so are therefore unlimited. They have an artificial limit due to TM, but even Sky have a limit. Max speed 24x7 per month has a limit.

Why are you defining the service that Virgin offer as 'leased line'?

How Virgin supply what they sell is of no interest whatsoever to the vast majority of their customers, including me.

The peanuts comment is a bit rich. Even in the States ISPs charge less than here. In most of Europe (if not all) connections are faster and cheaper.

120mb download with a tiny fraction upload from Virgin costs more than a server on a Dutch farm with 1GB up and down....

Accusing people of being uneducated, cheapskates and trying to make out they want something for nothing only works if they don't know their facts.

You may wonder about my knowledge of retail LAW. It comes from running retail businesses for a few decades. I note you have also had problems with another poster who lists their occupation as retail manager.

Basically you are being contradicted by people who have some knowledge of trading law in the UK.

Please try to understand that the logistical problems of Virgin have nothing whatsoever to do with their contracts to supply the services they advertise. If they can't supply they shouldn't advertise and sell them.

I really do not comprehend why when you have had things explained to you patiently you don't check what you are being told. The HM Gov site has numerous pages on Trading Law.

The reason people complain about Virgin is that they seem to be getting away with a lot of things that smaller, less technical, suppliers wouldn't be allowed to, They waffle about 'contention' and similar twaddle and blind the authorities with pseudo-science.

The simple fact is that they are selling something that they know they cannot supply.

BTW - The price charged is not relevant.

Be Happy,

Jon

Why are you defining the service that Virgin offer as 'leased line'?

Im not actually the opposite, I think some users are getting the two services mixed up.

How Virgin supply what they sell is of no interest whatsoever to the vast majority of their customers, including me.

99% of people I know with Virgin is happy with their service and the speed they receive. Most people when their service is up and working don't feel the need to post telling everyone about this.

The peanuts comment is a bit rich. Even in the States ISPs charge less than here. In most of Europe (if not all) connections are faster and cheaper.

Evidence please....

120mb download with a tiny fraction upload from Virgin costs more than a server on a Dutch farm with 1GB up and down....

Unlimited dedicated bandwidth 1gig up and down - wow! Sounds very unlikely...

You may wonder about my knowledge of retail LAW. It comes from running retail businesses for a few decades. I note you have also had problems with another poster who lists their occupation as retail manager.

Basically you are being contradicted by people who have some knowledge of trading law in the UK.

Please try to understand that the logistical problems of Virgin have nothing whatsoever to do with their contracts to supply the services they advertise. If they can't supply they shouldn't advertise and sell them.

I really do not comprehend why when you have had things explained to you patiently you don't check what you are being told. The HM Gov site has numerous pages on Trading Law.

I know about the basics of trading, contract and retail law but in my opinion you are talking apples and oranges. I have also read into certain aspects of the law and don't feel Virgin are breaking any laws or even coming close to bending them.

Are you trying to say I don't like people who work in retail? What utter rubbish I have not even read your profile. Why do people take debating so personal.

I receive the service advertised and it actually exceeds my expectations.

If you feel Virgin are in breach of the contract you have with them please post the appropriate points of claim, leave them, take them to court and see what a judge thinks.

The reason people complain about Virgin is that they seem to be getting away with a lot of things that smaller, less technical, suppliers wouldn't be allowed to, They waffle about 'contention' and similar twaddle and blind the authorities with pseudo-science.

What a poor comparison because a small ISP would not be able to do the level of advertising virgin can. Also please support your claim with some evidence... You are on the borderline of claiming some sort of foul play here....

The simple fact is that they are selling something that they know they cannot supply.

BTW - The price charged is not relevant.

The simple fact is that the price is relevant because if I wanted 100mbit of dedicated unlimited bandwidth id go and get the "Big red internet" package installed from Virgin not have a cable modem on their DOCSIS3 network.

You demand evidence and yet provide none - isn't that from 'Board tricks 101' circa 1995?

I wrote quite clearly that I do not get what I pay for. You seem to doubt that? Do you think I am lying?

I compared Virgin with a Duch origin server farm (incidentally including 3tb storage) and you imply again that I am a liar?

The problem with this type of bad service from people like Virgin is that there are always people who will defend their favorite company which is often the one they work for. NTL were famed for this as I am pretty sure from your comments that you are old enough to remember.

If you can try to take in what I am writing please try to understand that all I and anyone else wants from Virgin is what they advertise - UNLIMITED access. If people pay for it they are entitled to it.

Perhaps you can explain why Virgin should be allowed to advertise something as unlimited and then limit it.

Contention, capping and throttling are all forms of limiting an unlimited service. If that wasn't enough they have a 'Fair use Policy'.

It's all really about being honest. It's not about all the technical twaddle.

Be Happy,

Jon

P.S. May one ask that if you are so sure 99% of Virgin customers are happy, why do you feel so driven to attack those who complain?

The USA and Canada charge quite high prices for internet access - here's an example of offerrings from Bell Canada which is the cable company my friend in Toronto has to use.

http://www.bell.ca/Bell_Internet/Internet_access You might notice that they all have fixed bandwidth limits although you can get unlimited for an extra $10 if you take cable tv , landline and mobile telephone.

USA is equally expensive, particularly in out of city areas due to lack of competition http://www.att.com/u-verse/shop/index.jsp?shopFilter...

We are quite lucky in the UK to have so much choice in providers .

What do you want me to provide evidence of? You the one making all these comments about USA etc. When I know from going out there it is actually very expensive in a lot of parts of the states.

Its not that I think you are lying its that I think you have an unrealistic view of what you should get for you money and seem to have some view that the grass is greener on the other side. I don't understand what your point is about the Dutch server farm? I said I don't believe anyone provides a 1gig up and down backbone (dedicated bandwidth). Please provide a link?!

Since when do VM have a cap on any of their products? You think their product should have no contention? Get real! All broadband work on the basis of users not all maxing their lines out at the same time.

The traffic management throttle is part of their fair use policy which they do not hide... so what is your problem? VM provide unlimited access as far as I am concerned within the realms of normal use and even if you do abuse the service you can still use it as a reduced speed at certain times.

In reply to a post by kamelion:

The USA and Canada charge quite high prices for internet access - here's an example of offerrings from Bell Canada which is the cable company my friend in Toronto has to use.

http://www.bell.ca/Bell_Internet/Internet_access You might notice that they all have fixed bandwidth limits although you can get unlimited for an extra $10 if you take cable tv , landline and mobile telephone.

USA is equally expensive, particularly in out of city areas due to lack of competition http://www.att.com/u-verse/shop/index.jsp?shopFilter...

We are quite lucky in the UK to have so much choice in providers .

Exactly.

what ?

you cannot put virgin media and other companies who use BT's local loop as a comparison


the infrastructure is vastly different for a start !

In reply to a post by Stanman_24:

So what is the point of having 100mb over 20mb ?

Simple answer to that is: multiple users, you'll struggle to get more than a couple of HD video streams working concurrently over a 20mb connection. This sort of use should definitely be prioritised above downloads.

In reply to a post by Stanman_24:

for example you download bf3 from steam on your 120mbit connection but then get throttled 1/3 of the way through and then get upset as you have to wait even longer to play with your friends. That is the exact reason why I left virgin media in the first place because when you want to download content of a substantial size you will have to play by their rules.

If we consider that bf3 is around 20GB (I have no idea what bf3 is or how big it is but I'm guessing it is a game and so will be around that sort of size) then your argument is a bit of a dud. During the day you'll be able to download that without hitting any limits in 20 to 30 minutes, and in the evening peak you'd be able to download it in less than 45 minutes even when throttled for the entire download. (Of course those timings assume that the Steam servers can provide the data quick enough to max out your line which may not be the case for a new release, i.e. when you are most eager to get going.)

What are you talking about?

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

What do you want me to provide evidence of?

Simple really.

Virgin sell an 'Unlimited Service' - I hope that you will agree with that?

For all the reasons you have, not so patiently, explained, Virgin limit that service by the means you have described - We are agreed that it is only common sense that Virgin have to use these measures at the prices they charge. I totally agree with you.

Virgin are Experts in Internet access provision - I hope we can agree with this?

Most of Virgin's customers rely on Virgin's expertise - I hope we can agree with this?

Virgin's customers are not experts and rely on the expertise of Virgin - You may have difficulty agreeing with this?

Therefore Virgin sells a product that even amateurs know they cannot provide to customers who trust their expertise.

Q.E.D. IF (and it is a big IF) your defense of Virgin is based on fact, i.e. They cannot supply an unlimited service. You and not I are accusing them of Fraud.

Personally I believe that they have been miss-managed and over-sold their product by error and should apologize and get on with running a business under more experienced ownership.

I do apologize for being so stupid as to fall into the comparison trap that you so expertly laid for me. I must be getting old and it's many years since the wife and I played board games with 'people'.

As to providing a link to the family's server and proving payment - get real, I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night.

For comparison between the USA and the UK I relied on the incredulous reaction of our kids and grandkids in the States when they compare prices between Cities - yes I know about the patchy provision we have an elderly aunt on dial up in Northern California BUT she only pays $149 a year. No I will not give you her name address and telephone number - I probably wouldn't if you were the Pope let alone a Virgin fan club member.

I must thank you for providing so many technical reasons why Virgin cannot supply what they advertise and sell.

Jon

If you cannot compare Virgin Media with other broadband in the UK that does not use DOCSIS who should they be compared with?

The SmallWorld and WightCable services?

If you go by your logic the service is limited by the speed restriction of the package. VM provide an unlimited download service which they provide. At no point do they try and hide their TM so again I ask what is the problem?

I have taken the following quotes from their broadband sales page VM 100mbit compare

Download speeds may be affected by Traffic Management measures from time to time and heavy users may experience a temporary reduction in download speed during these periods.

Downloads without hidden charges: Acceptable Use Policy applies. Traffic Management operates from 4pm to 9pm and 10am to 3pm, to ensure a consistent user experience.

Acceptable use policy applies. Download speeds may be affected by Traffic Management measures from 9am to midnight. Heavy users may experience a temporary reduction in download speed during these periods, however, users can continue to download without any interruption or charge at the reduced speeds, and are not subject to a monthly download limit. Traffic management measures are in place to ensure a consistent user experience and impact only the heaviest users.

What do you mean $149 for dial up we had free dial up 15 years ago in this country?

In reply to a post by foxuk:

As to providing a link to the family's server and proving payment - get real, I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night.

For comparison between the USA and the UK I relied on the incredulous reaction of our kids and grandkids in the States when they compare prices between Cities - yes I know about the patchy provision we have an elderly aunt on dial up in Northern California BUT she only pays $149 a year. No I will not give you her name address and telephone number - I probably wouldn't if you were the Pope let alone a Virgin fan club member.

While I generally agree with your position that VM sell a 'Unlimited' service with limits, this has been deemed acceptable by the ASA. In the same way that the ASA doesn't insist that 'Free' means you don't have to pay for it. It is not something I like but it is something we can't realistically do anything about.

However, your comments above are incredibly obtuse, I too would love more details on this Dutch hosting provider that can provide 1Gb symmetric truly unlimited internet access for less than VM charge. I'm not asking for a link to your specific server, just a link to the company that provides this kind of service. Likewise, if you have any links to US service providers that provide truly unlimited access at comparable speeds to VM it would assist your argument.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

In reply to a post by foxuk:

As to providing a link to the family's server and proving payment - get real, I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night.

For comparison between the USA and the UK I relied on the incredulous reaction of our kids and grandkids in the States when they compare prices between Cities - yes I know about the patchy provision we have an elderly aunt on dial up in Northern California BUT she only pays $149 a year. No I will not give you her name address and telephone number - I probably wouldn't if you were the Pope let alone a Virgin fan club member.

While I generally agree with your position that VM sell a 'Unlimited' service with limits, this has been deemed acceptable by the ASA. In the same way that the ASA doesn't insist that 'Free' means you don't have to pay for it. It is not something I like but it is something we can't realistically do anything about.

However, your comments above are incredibly obtuse, I too would love more details on this Dutch hosting provider that can provide 1Gb symmetric truly unlimited internet access for less than VM charge. I'm not asking for a link to your specific server, just a link to the company that provides this kind of service. Likewise, if you have any links to US service providers that provide truly unlimited access at comparable speeds to VM it would assist your argument.

I'm sorry but there is not a chance in hell any company provide a dedicated 1 gig up and down truly unlimited service for cheaper than VM provide their 100/120mbit package.

As far as his statements about the USA he has already said his Aunty pay $149 for dial up. We can get broadband in this country a lot cheaper than what she is paying for dialup.

Edited by deleted (Wed 03-Apr-13 11:10:42)

Thank you for again totally ignoring what I posted and replying with a lot of contractual twaddle.

Can I try an easier question for you?

Is it possible for Virgin to supply an UNLIMITED service?

It is a really simple question. Go on be a devil. One word will do. An honest answer without prevarication.

You can do it. I have faith in you.

Jon

P.S. I have no knowledge of Virgin ever providing a free dial up service and I've been a customer for many many years. BTW. Aunty had to dig her own trench for the phone line 40 years ago as well..... see what you can make of that by twisting it.

P.P.S. The wife thinks you may be referring to Virgin's free internet where they only charged for the phone call at 1p per minute...... I mentioned only yesterday how easy it was to run up bills of over £100 a month..... Before you ask I am not going to search the attic to find the old bills to prove my claim you will just have to take my word that i 'over-used' a dial-up connection and drove everyone mad because they couldn't phone me.

I have an unlimited service because I could set things upto download and leave my connection maxed out for an entire month and I would not incur any charges. So where is the limit?

Are you talking about the throttle they would probably apply? Well that is nothing clearly not advertised and nothing I don't know about.

So again I ask where is the limit on your product?

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

In reply to a post by foxuk:

As to providing a link to the family's server and proving payment - get real, I may have been born at night but it wasn't last night.

I too would love more details on this Dutch hosting provider that can provide 1Gb symmetric truly unlimited internet access for less than VM charge. I'm not asking for a link to your specific server, just a link to the company that provides this kind of service. Likewise, if you have any links to US service providers that provide truly unlimited access at comparable speeds to VM it would assist your argument.

I think he may be referring to his seedbox. There are quite a few companies that provide this service for reasonable rates but you can't compare that to a domestic ISP.

Edited by deleted (Wed 03-Apr-13 11:37:57)

Talk about apples and oranges. Even if he is talking about seedbox there are multiple servers on each connection its not dedicated.

In reply to a post by Daemon66:

However, your comments above are incredibly obtuse, I too would love more details on this Dutch hosting provider that can provide 1Gb symmetric truly unlimited internet access for less than VM charge.

Sorry you must just have missed my answer - I already apologised for being side tracked from the subject of limiting an unlimited service. I can apologise to everyone individually if required. BTW I am sitting here feeling even happier about our dedicated family server.

Yes the ASA have made many questionable decisions in the past possibly including the one about Virgin.

The thing is we can do something about it in the same way that the people who were miss-sold insurance did. I just wish that compensation had been backdated a few decades further.....

The simple fact is that Virgin are limiting an unlimited service.

I fell for the same obfuscation as the ASA by straying away from the fact into comparison which is the tactic used by virgin in it's current and previous incarnations.

Yes I may have used statements that I should have realised would be questioned and I have apologised for that. I have sinned, I have sinned greatly. But no I'm not posting links to anything connected with my family on an open forum.

I hope that is finished now or should I turn on the web cam and commit hari-kiri (sepuku)?

Jon

P.S. CLUE - the provider isn't Dutch, I never said who the provider was just the location of the server farm.

I'm not asking for information about you, your family or your families server. I just said that there is no way on this earth you have a dedicated 1gig unlimited backbone for the same price or less than what you pay for VM.

I still want you to tell us how your service is limited? and Why if the service is so poor why you continue to be a customer?

@worldofadsl

I'm afraid that I've already said that I will no longer be sidetracked by you and will not supply you with any personal information.

I have already answered both your questions in previous posts.

Why do you need to attack me? The simple questions remain unanswered by you not me.

The service is limited and has to be for reasons you have explained at length.

Virgin sell an unlimited service.

Jon

P.S. IF (and it is a BIG IF) you had actually read what I had posted you would realise that my complaint is with Virgin's apparent dishonesty which could possibly be fraud and NOT with the present service I receive. I just don't like liars. I have even bought 'fresh produce' from a major supermarket knowing it wasn't what I would call fresh BUT like Virgin it was the best game in town at that time.

P.P.S. You haven't raised the price of eggs yet as an answer that's why I included the veggie bit!

No, he definitely said Dutch, not French so it can't be seedhost.

But as you say, this is hardly comparable to a subscriber line based service anyway.

Why do you keep putting up this smoke screen about not releasing personal information. I do not want any personal information!!!

I'm not attacking you I am just questioning your rather wild statements.

How are VM lying? If their traffic management was hidden I would agree with you entirely.

@worldofadsl

Unfortunately the thread is about New Traffic Management Policy NOT me.

We have very different ideas about what the word hidden means.

I think a link located in the small print at the bottom of the advertisement is really a definition of hidden to any reasonable person.

I see as well. I am not to take being called a liar or being accused of making 'wild statements' as a personal attack. Does this come from the Virgin book of fair play and honesty? Perhaps it's just your idea of what is acceptable? It does come quite close to your idea of what Virgin should be allowed to do to customers without any complaint from them.

The way that you attack anyone who has an alternate view of things makes me think you could even be a Taxi Driver..... gawds I'll probably get banned for that insult!

Jon

P.S. Keep smiling I am. And a big thank you for confirming what a great deal I got on the server. It really is as unbelievably good as I thought.

P.P.S. Are you by any chance the guy who keeps emailing me about bank accounts you hold for a Nigerian princess? If so contact me again I've lost your address and now realise how believable your circumstances are.

P.P.P.S. The P.P.S. is called satire and that IS protected in English and Welsh Law

In reply to a post by foxuk:

@worldofadsl

Unfortunately the thread is about New Traffic Management Policy NOT me.

We are debating the traffic management policy.

We have very different ideas about what the word hidden means.

I think a link located in the small print at the bottom of the advertisement is really a definition of hidden to any reasonable person.

It is mentioned in detail at 3 separate points on the broadband page on VMs site. It is not only printed in the small print at the bottom but in the main site text aswell. I would hardly call that hidden.

I see as well. I am not to take being called a liar or being accused of making 'wild statements' as a personal attack. Does this come from the Virgin book of fair play and honesty? Perhaps it's just your idea of what is acceptable? It does come quite close to your idea of what Virgin should be allowed to do to customers without any complaint from them.

The way that you attack anyone who has an alternate view of things makes me think you could even be a Taxi Driver..... gawds I'll probably get banned for that insult!

Im not a taxi driver anymore I did become one during a period of unemployment rather than sit on my backside on benefits.

P.S. Keep smiling I am. And a big thank you for confirming what a great deal I got on the server. It really is as unbelievably good as I thought.

I am currently researching purchasing server space and you are living in a dream world. It going to cost £x0000's per annum.

In reply to a post by worldofadsl:

I am currently researching purchasing server space and you are living in a dream world. It going to cost £x0000's per annum.

Oh no it doesn't.....

Jon

P.S. Advice on Servers 1) Don't take the first offer. 2) Google searches for 'cheap server' don't work 3) Even when you've got the best offer you can find, you haven't 4) There's lots of cheap space on server farms 5) It's not a good idea to make Tory comments about sitting about on the dole 6) You have to be friendly and likeable 7) Just realised you don't qualify.....

P.P.S. Sure I'm going to give you full details, because I'm so helpful and you're so likeable. As I said 'At night but not last night' - still waiting for the Nigerian bank account details

P.P.P.S. - Should 'Taxi Driver' now read 'Virgin Employee'? I thought being 'Taxi Driver' was some sort of slang title for something or other...... Thank you for the correction you had me a little 'confused' for a while.

P.S. Advice on Servers 1) Don't take the first offer. 2) Google searches for 'cheap server' don't work 3) Even when you've got the best offer you can find, you haven't 4) There's lots of cheap space on server farms 5) It's not a good idea to make Tory comments about sitting about on the dole 6) You have to be friendly and likeable 7) Just realised you don't qualify.....

This is complete madness im not even arguing with you anymore. Do you not realise you are just making yourself look rather silly.

You can not get 1gig up and down of limitless (uncontended, unrestricted, etc) bandwidth. SIMPLES!

Why do you keep going on about your personal details? That is just a smokescreen for your bull comments and for the record I am not a virgin employee.

VM want to give you that impression however I am far from convinced.

I think its very simply excessive overselling combined with a policy that has upgrades lag behind growth too much.

But according to you I am silly anyway for not bowing down and praising your great Virgin god.

Be I silly or truthful,
I may be a fool,
But I have a server,
That's righteously cool!

Let's compare notes?

You know every line of the Virgin website by heart.
You 'debate' heatedly with anyone who dares to criticise Virgin.
You answer every critical post and even chase people with PMs.
Etc., etc. etc.

AND you're not even getting Paid

At least I can be silly in rhyme!

Be Happy, I am!

Jon

P.S. The thing is I've been waiting for you to post that all your stuff was an April fool. I just couldn't believe that people would swallow such twaddle.

P.P.S. I don't have an ego problem..... I don't have a problem descending to a silly level to make things equal.

I only know whats on the virgin site because I went on to see what all this false advertising, lies, etc. As it turns out the traffic management policy is clearly advertised on their site and not hidden as you claim.

Please link to the provider of the mythical server/bandwidth provider?

Who am I chasing by PM about Virgin? Nobody! I questioned personal insults by PM.

Virgin Media own the market they are in so my argument is how can you compare them ?

I simply stated their advertising is misleading and they never promote the Traffic management policy when you go through the stages of signing up, that in my eyes alone is misleading

I signed up to IDnet I knew that I would be charged if I downloaded over 100gb a month

where does it state with virgin media that if I downloaded a certain amount my connection will be penalised to roughly half what it should be ?, where does it clearly state that during the signing up stage !

Why dont you pro virgin media posters go through the stages of signing up and click on their terms and conditions link concerning their traffic management policy, It goes to a 404 unavailable page

why not click on their live chat java applets and watch what appears on your screen when they greet you, only company to offer you fibre optic broadband when clearly they have been warned about misleading advertising.

this is indefensible and clearly they are getting away with it

In reply to a post by Stanman_24:

Virgin Media own the market they are in so my argument is how can you compare them ?

I simply stated their advertising is misleading and they never promote the Traffic management policy when you go through the stages of signing up, that in my eyes alone is misleading

I signed up to IDnet I knew that I would be charged if I downloaded over 100gb a month

where does it state with virgin media that if I downloaded a certain amount my connection will be penalised to roughly half what it should be ?, where does it clearly state that during the signing up stage !

Why dont you pro virgin media posters go through the stages of signing up and click on their terms and conditions link concerning their traffic management policy, It goes to a 404 unavailable page

why not click on their live chat java applets and watch what appears on your screen when they greet you, only company to offer you fibre optic broadband when clearly they have been warned about misleading advertising.

this is indefensible and clearly they are getting away with it

What market do Virgin media own? You can compare Virgin with any broadband isp on a number of key factors in my opinion being:

1) Speed
2) Latency
3) Reliability


It states it clearly that if you are a heavy user your connection will be throttled.

I think its funny you moan about Virgin yet you sign up to ADSL which at most gives you 24mbps with a monthly CAP of 100gb.

where does it state with virgin media that if I downloaded a certain amount my connection will be penalised to roughly half what it should be ?, where does it clearly state that during the signing up stage !

ermmmmm in the terms and conditions you agree to.........

this is indefensible and clearly they are getting away with it

well clearly ive provided a defense...

Obviously you have not tried the traffic management link on the product pages, which appears broken currently.
Have informed Virgin Media, only really becomes news if they leave it like that for days.

Beyond that, some people are being overly defensive and others overly combative, so I suggest people calm down, take a breath and count to ten before posting in the future.

your are a liar !

Sign up to virgin media and show me at what stage do they clearly state their traffic management policy and how it affects you.

Your clearly going off subject here and I am becoming highly suspicious of your motives.

I signed up to virgin media without properly investigating their traffic management policy. When I tried to find out the link was broken.

So I carried on signing up and never tried to find out what it meant.

It was only until Andrew posted on the forums about a reduction of throttling did I clearly understand how it affected me.

I also cancelled the contract and surprisingly had a phone call off an engineer confirming the visit only to be told that I had cancelled and no longer required it. Needless to say he was aggressive with me on the phone and simply hung up.

What are you suspicious of?

Your inability to open your eyes and read a bit of small print does not make me a liar.

In reply to a post by Stanman_24:

I signed up to virgin media without properly investigating their traffic management policy. When I tried to find out the link was broken.

So I carried on signing up and never tried to find out what it meant.

See what I mean your fault not theirs.

I also cancelled the contract and surprisingly had a phone call off an engineer confirming the visit only to be told that I had cancelled and no longer required it. Needless to say he was aggressive with me on the phone and simply hung up.

You sure his attitude was nothing to do with the way you spoke to him?

I stand corrected your not a liar

Must have been updated the past 10 days or so as I wasn't offered this when I signed up

In reference to store.virginmedia.com/checkout/confirm-order:

The legal stuff
Here are all the terms and conditions around setting up your new services. All you have to do is read them through and then tick the box below to let us know that you�re happy with them.
Virgin Media general terms and conditions

Here�s all the important legal stuff to do with your Virgin Media services.

Terms and conditions.

Statement about broadband speed
It�s worth knowing that the actual speed of your Virgin Broadband might vary from the speed advertised, especially during peak times (5pm-11pm). Speed can vary for lots of reasons, like the number of people online or our Traffic Management policies. To find out more about broadband performance, read our FAQs.
I accept all of the terms and conditions and have read the statement about broadband speed.

Edited by Stanman_24 (Wed 03-Apr-13 17:15:45)

Come on, be sensible and calm down.

Just because I think that even though Virgin are the best of a bad lot they are a lying cheating bag of doo dah there is no need to get flustered and all het up.

Take some advice from an old man. Not everyone will agree with you all the time.

Repeating the same old same old twaddle isn't going to make you any more believable to me. The Virgin Emperor's clothes are somewhat transparent......

To be quite honest I am regretting having not set up a new ID before replying to your posts on your Virgin Heroes. I don't like you knowing the regular ID let alone any other details about anything I may have or be supplied.

I may be daft and probably a bit silly BUT do you really expect me to believe that you spend all this time and effort defending Virgin and don't get paid to do it.

If you think I would spoil a relationship with anyone by giving you a link you are very much mistaken. I have much too much respect for people to take the risk of inflicting you on them.

Now as my grandchildren would say 'Take a chill pill' and try not to obsess so much about Virgin.

Jon

That has been there since at least December 2012 when I last placed an order.

In reply to a post by foxuk:

If you think I would spoil a relationship with anyone by giving you a link you are very much mistaken. I have much too much respect for people to take the risk of inflicting you on them.

Oh I see you would upset them by potentially giving them more business. This hosting company gets better by the minutes. 1) They sell things for less than they pay for them and 2) they punish their customers for telling anyone else about their service. haha!

I think you deliberately didn't understand my post.

I wouldn't tell you about something sold by my worst enemy let alone a company that I like.

Perhaps if you stopped being so 'difficult' and aggressive you might get pointed in the right direction by someone who is new to you. I am sure that anyone who knows you is pointing you at companies who will charge you £Ks a month. You are the sort of 'customer' that no business needs or wants.

I am now a little worried that you even know I am a Virgin customer.... knowing the country that I live in is dangerous enough information for you to know about me.

Jon

P.S. Still waiting for the Nigerian account details.

In reply to a post by foxuk:

I think you deliberately didn't understand my post.

I wouldn't tell you about something sold by my worst enemy let alone a company that I like.

Perhaps if you stopped being so 'difficult' and aggressive you might get pointed in the right direction by someone who is new to you. I am sure that anyone who knows you is pointing you at companies who will charge you £Ks a month. You are the sort of 'customer' that no business needs or wants.

I am now a little worried that you even know I am a Virgin customer.... knowing the country that I live in is dangerous enough information for you to know about me.

Jon

P.S. Still waiting for the Nigerian account details.

What part of your post was I meant to understand that I didn't?

I'm the sort of customer that no company would want? Who is the person who is moaning? Why do you feel the need to make this personal and insult me. The worst I have said to you is that you was that the statement you made was quite silly.

Companies will quote me £Ks per month because that is the going rate not your fairytale dreamland service.

Oh dear you really are loosing it now.

I see that you apply the same system of judgement to your own comments as you do to those of your Virgin heroes.

In other words you can post any insult, and accuse anyone of anything and if anyone objects you get even more 'personal'. But you are so clever that you cover your own personal insults with accusations directed at your 'target'...... Boring!

This is an example of how to insult someone - Were you bullied in school? Does the internet provide you with the protection that you need to gain the courage to speak back to the 'big boys'? Now that's how to insult someone - the trick is to say just enough so that they worry about how much else you could have worked out.

I am still waiting for a ****rational**** explanation of how it is reasonable for Virgin to limit an 'Unlimited' service.

Jon

P.S.I am sure that if you do a google search you will find some information on 'Board tactics for Dummies' later than the 1995 version you seem to be working from. Things have moved on since dial up!

The rational is simple, asa/cap/bcap say it is ok so long as any limits/ throttling are moderate. Could dig out the news from 2012 or was it 2011 tgat this was covered in

What personal insults?

No I wasn't bullied in school haha.

There is no rational explanation because the service does not have a limit. If it was limited there would be a cut off point I can leave my connection downloading all month with no extra charges or without risk of being cut off.

As far as the service have contention... every broadband isp in this country provides a contended broadband service.

This is getting silly now. Started out as a rational discussion and has turned into "you said, he said". It was interesting at first but its going to go to "my dad is bigger than your dad" soon and then where will we be?

Downloads aren't limited on virgin cable. You can download as much as you want; maybe not as fast as you want but who gets everything they want ?

In reply to a post by kamelion:

Downloads aren't limited on virgin cable. You can download as much as you want; maybe not as fast as you want but who gets everything they want ?

Finally some sense being spoken.

I doubt you'll ever get a straight answer out of that other guy, but http://www.seedhost.eu/dedicated-server.php do appear to offer some very, very good deals for server hosting. I've no experience of them myself though and the fact that you'd be sharing hosting space with a load of seedboxes (probably distributing illegal material) would concern me - you could become an innocent casualty of a shutdown/block notice.

Im looking for a corporate level product anyway and you aint going to get that for less than the price of VM whatever dream world foxuk lives in.

I think VM are vulnerable if talktalk go the same way as BT, sky and co. The ASA usually dont like ruling out against multiple isp's but if VM are left alone selling unlimited with throttles then they vulnerable to a advertising claim in my opinion.

On a 50mb connection download is a theoretical 22.5GB per hour. After a pathetic 5GB over 5 hours you are throttled. That's a couple hours of HD. It's nothing. It's 5%. At 5% utilisation they see fit to throttle. That's just not acceptable.

It's the same on the 100mb service.

I don't think any company should be allowed to advertise unlimited and have any traffic management that cuts in before a constant 20% utilization as a bare minimum. At any less than this it is clear that the issues are down to lack of infrastructure not users' habits. If users are using more bandwidth then put the infrastructure in place and stop adding more and more customers in already congested areas. If you cannot provide the service you are advertising at a certain price then stop advertising it or increase the price so that the service lives up to the advertising.

I also think it is poor of VM not to offer an un traffic managed unlimited product. I'd happily pay more to get a product that suits my needs ie unlimited so I can recover a broken computer without it taking weeks rather than hours. I'd pay extra to have it. Most of the time I wouldn't need it but when I do it is infuriating to be traffic managed to the point you can't use it for legitimate activity.

when i was on 20mb bb the STM was annoying, but on 60mb or 100/120mb bb not so much even at 25mb-50mb speeds its still much faster then what an BT line could provide

you can still download 12-13 GB an hour you not been limited on the amount you can download (unless your going nuts downloading over 1000gb each month then you mite get an letter or an call)

i am mostly fine with the STM my self but not to happy about the TM of Usenet (there TM for p2p seems to have no affect)

i agree the STM on the upstream is little hash (triggering the STM on upload or download STM's both of them)

all i say is be happy they do not cap it to something like 250gb-500gb per month like in the USA, whould i be really happy if VM had no STM yes but due to there network setup it needs to be done (Openreach do it at there exchanges when the backhaul pipes are running hot, every ones speed drops to keep packet loss away)

In reply to a post by leexgx:

i agree the STM on the upstream is little hash (triggering the STM on upload or download STM's both of them)

It shouldn't. If it does there's a fault. The enforcement of STM is done on a per-service flow basis. Upstream and downstream are separate service flows.

Though probably find high upload users are often high download users at the same time.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by leexgx:

i agree the STM on the upstream is little hash (triggering the STM on upload or download STM's both of them)

It shouldn't. If it does there's a fault. The enforcement of STM is done on a per-service flow basis. Upstream and downstream are separate service flows.

guess i need to test it again last time i got STM to trigger, it STM both upload and download, i test it later on

Quite!

That should have changed in early 2012 as I remember. New versions of CMTS software.

In reply to a post by teabelly:

I'd happily pay more to get a product that suits my needs ie unlimited so I can recover a broken computer without it taking weeks rather than hours. I'd pay extra to have it.

Check out their 'Big Red Internet' products for true unlimited service, it does indeed cost more but it is also totally unlimited as per your needs.

As for VM advertising 'unlimited' on their consumer priced products, the only way we are ever going to get that stopped is by continuing to complain to the ASA, nothing posted on these boards is going to make one iota of difference.

I shall be complaining to the ASA. You can't describe something as unlimited and reduce service at such low levels of usage.

I'd be interested to know anyone on the plusnet fibre service which is also described as unlimited and whether they have the same issues.

Fibre is due locally soon so jumping ship is a likely possibility.

Moderate restrictions are allowed, only if you describe a service as Totally Unlimited are no restrictions allowed.

So as per update to news item if people feel that the 40% restriction for those triggering it is not moderate then complain at next advert. Though I do not that unlimited is not so heavily featured as it used to be

BT have been pointing the finger at VM for some time in their adverts by saying that "unlike some" they will never slow you down. I don't know what shaping is done on BT these days but those adverts infer none. If in fact they do use shaping then they are more in breach than VM are by claiming to never slow you down...

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495...

Is traffic management used to manage congestion in particular locations? No
Is traffic management used in relation to heavy users? No

Interesting tables on that page. I like the one that says:
Is traffic management used during peak hours? Yes
But then fails to tick any of the boxes to detail what type.

It does seem to contradict all the other assertions they make on that page, so probably just a typo.

That certainly seems to say that unlimited is unlimited with no shaping applied and it that is the case their adverts are true.

Moderate is a vague term andrew and its my view VM restrictions are not moderate.

The ASA have got themselves in a mess here, totally unlimited and unlimited are basically the same thing. But somehow they are treated differently by the ASA.

But cutting speeds by 40% at a low usage isnt moderate throttling. I have to be fair myself been victim of VMs STM few times accidently, not downloading anything particurly huge vbut due to how much they oversell their network and how close the burst speeds are to the shared capacity VM it seems are having to be aggressive on throttling. Watching netflix in HD eg. will likely trigger STM.

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

BT have been pointing the finger at VM for some time in their adverts by saying that "unlike some" they will never slow you down. I don't know what shaping is done on BT these days but those adverts infer none. If in fact they do use shaping then they are more in breach than VM are by claiming to never slow you down...

BT dont shape now but they do in my view have some form of priotisation in place.

They have a QoS that priotises assured traffic, meaning for that to work other traffic is depriotised. I have had variable speeds during peak, yet when executive complaints start checking my line the connection is suddenly perfect at peak. an hour after a call to me saying they closing my case the connection resets and the variable peak performance is back as if the QoS flag has been swapped again. With that said tho the varying speeds on BT are not in VMs league, its still generally 40+ mbit at peak and no affect on latency/jitter/upload.

No protocol based shaping on BT either now. They removed it in February. Except for customers on old contracts.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

BT dont shape now but they do in my view have some form of priotisation in place.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

No protocol based shaping on BT either now.

Well either they do have some prioritisation/shaping (to me the terms are synonymous) or they don't. Their website says they don't and I think you are saying you can't actually prove that they do so I reckon they probably don't.

As we both know VM's Achilles heel is upstream so their puny local upstream capacity can't tolerate 24x7 torrent seeding which is why they have and admit to having p2p shaping. The real problem though is that it clearly doesn't work and circumventing it is fairly easy - especially NNTP downloading. The fallback of STM simply isn't harsh enough to solve the issue so you see many segments of the VM network "traffic managed" by congestion. Their pretty poor peering can naff things up for those not blessed with a couple of torrent freaks in their street.

I said a year back that I thought VM's days were numbered - BT's FTTC roll out may save them by siphoning off devoted downloaders of the internet if that is not truly unlimited. I can only hope that is so as I really don't trust the local Openreach clods to provide me with decent or indeed any FTTC. My address now isn't on the BT database at all - possibly in retaliation at me cancelling after their no-show for the Infinity install but more likely incompetence. As my cable is still behaving I really don't feel like battling again to get their useless system to recognise that fibre really is available to me. I certainly wouldn't go through any non-automated order process as that would knockout the possibility of cashback.

I've got a very good deal on a Spanish server that sounds better than yours.

Smug.

Terms and Conditions make up part of the contract. Whether they are clearly stated at sign up time is no defence to the signee not having read them.

protocol based shaping isnt the only shaping that exists.

Basically if you buy a BT product now thats marked as unlimited all traffic will not be specifically throttled regardless of how much you use and the traffic type, sorry for the confusion.

The QoS thing is to do with their assured traffic and isnt really a throttle.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 15-Apr-13 08:04:27)

Sky Player doesn't use any resource guarantees. The only assured traffic on the network is the voice traffic, which is a tiny amount of bandwidth.