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.