Is virgin the best?

Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the same
price.

I'm looking for a non-12month contract.

I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.

thanks

"ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the
> same price.
>
> I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>
> I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
> reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.

"Best" isn't something that can easily be quantified. To a lot of people,
"best" is cheapest. However a poor service means you might be more
frustrated.

i.e. "I bought a 42" Pioneer plasma TV for £2299.

"Mine is better, I got a 42" Diarama plasma for £800 so it's better.

etc etc...

Or "I got a 512k connection from Zen for £24.99 a month".

"I got one from CPW and it's free!"*







*unless you want to do more than browse the web now and again and send and
receive the odd email

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> of Mon, 22 May
2006 14:27:29 in uk.telecom.broadband, ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the same
>price.
>
>I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>
>I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
>reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.

YMMV but I believe you are comparing:
virgin: Up to 8 Mbps; 6 GB download allowance; Free activation (but "we
do reserve the right to apply a £50 cancellation charge if your service
is cancelled within 12 months of activation")
with
zen: 256 Kbps; uncapped allowance; 47 UKP activation.

zen support is provided in Lancashire; I don't know about virgin.

I chose the zen 256K service. I upgraded to 512 in the short window when
both old and new service levels were available. Since then I have had no
trouble with a 128Kbps radio stream; before that, it was unusable from
about 16.00 each day.

I would only need higher speed for a video stream. Assuming a 2Mbps
stream, virgin's monthly allowance (48000Mb) would be used in 400
minutes. (I am assuming 1GB is 8Gb and 1Gb is 1000Mb rather than the
1024Mb which would be more natural to anyone with a notion of binary
arithmetic.)
--
Walter Briscoe

Thanks for the info.

I'm only using the net for radio and usual web stuff, and the occasional
video.

I am surprised by the virgin info about cancellation charge, as they state
on their site no 12mo contract. A bit worrying that...

I called Zen and someone answered quickly, seemed knowledgeable. Virgin has
a 50p/min charge.

So are you saying that I don't need faster download than 256?

Would I not notice the difference in speed between this and the 'faster'
service.


Thanks






"Walter Briscoe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)> of Mon, 22 May
> 2006 14:27:29 in uk.telecom.broadband, ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the
>>same
>>price.
>>
>>I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>>
>>I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
>>reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.
>
> YMMV but I believe you are comparing:
> virgin: Up to 8 Mbps; 6 GB download allowance; Free activation (but "we do
> reserve the right to apply a £50 cancellation charge if your service is
> cancelled within 12 months of activation")
> with
> zen: 256 Kbps; uncapped allowance; 47 UKP activation.
>
> zen support is provided in Lancashire; I don't know about virgin.
>
> I chose the zen 256K service. I upgraded to 512 in the short window when
> both old and new service levels were available. Since then I have had no
> trouble with a 128Kbps radio stream; before that, it was unusable from
> about 16.00 each day.
>
> I would only need higher speed for a video stream. Assuming a 2Mbps
> stream, virgin's monthly allowance (48000Mb) would be used in 400 minutes.
> (I am assuming 1GB is 8Gb and 1Gb is 1000Mb rather than the 1024Mb which
> would be more natural to anyone with a notion of binary arithmetic.)
> --
> Walter Briscoe

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
(ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa) wrote:

> *Subject:* Is virgin the best?
> *From:* "ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> *Date:* Mon, 22 May 2006 14:27:29 +0100
>
> Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for
> the same price.
>
> I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>

What speed / price / restrictions (if any) are you requiring?

We have 512K Uncapped at £20.00 per month on a monthly contract, subject
to a one off connection fee of £50.00 plus VAT.


Leslie
www.icukhosting.co.uk

On 22 May 2006 15:50, "ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am surprised by the virgin info about cancellation charge, as they state
>on their site no 12mo contract. A bit worrying that...

There are lots of ISPs with no 12 month contract nowadays. Just check the
lists of them at www.net4now.com and you can see maybe 50% mention 1 month
or 3 month, and the other 50% are 12 month... Where they don't charge the
activation "up front" the majority will charge it as an admin fee and have
a note to that effect. Pipex is another with similar policy.

However the BT Wholesale fee is 40 +VAT and paid by the ISP so they have
to cover it somehow, and a 12 months contract is most common. Were you
hoping to sign up and pay no activation fee, but switch in 3 months?

Virgin did that a while ago, but must have been fed up with people using it
as a "stepping stone" to get to other ISPs without paying for activation.

depends what you mean as best, but as a Virgin user I can recommend them.
Service is good, reliability is good. Only used the support once about 2.5
years ago and spoke to someone who knew what they were on about (makes a
change). I've had 2 speed upgrades for free and am awaiting my ADSL max
upgrade for free. I'm on the Plan 1 @ £24.99.

Make of that what you will, but yeah they are good, IMO.


"ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the
> same price.
>
> I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>
> I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
> reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.
>
> thanks
>
>

"ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Zen offer only 256K for £17.99, while virgin offer high speeds for the
> same price.
>
> I'm looking for a non-12month contract.
>
> I was going to go for Pulsenet but as they don't answer their phones, and
> reading many bad reports, I'm looking elsewhere.
>
> thanks


I was with Virgin until very recently - been with ''em for dial-up, and
stayed with them when our local exchange was asdl'd.

However, it's a damn good job that I didn't need their tech support because
the one time I did ring them (to confirm an outage) I waited for what seemed
like several months for the phone to be answered - and then had a slightly
less intelligent conversation with one of their 'doids than could be enjoyed
with from a half-witted chimpanzee on ecstasy.

What finally pushed me (I'm an idle sod) into ceasing to give them 25 quid
for I meg was a letter from NTL 'abuse' team - warning me about my language
on a newsgroup.

I used the word 'bloody' ( gasp...swoon)

Honestly. (and that was on a group were four letter obscenities are common.)
For my sin I had a email from some pubescent wanker at NTL - followed by a
stern letter warning me about my wickedness.

I've heard before that NTL are prissy censorious CUNTS - and know I now that
it's true.

So, that's £300 per annum less for them - and a faster connection for me at
almost half the price.

In short, Virgin were OK before NTL got their dirty paws on them - now I
wouldn't touch 'em with the proverbial barge pole.

Particularly if you want to use the word 'bloody' on Usenet.

In message <(E-Mail Removed)> of Mon, 22 May
2006 15:50:59 in uk.telecom.broadband, ZZZZZZZZZaaaaaaaaaaaa
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Thanks for the info.

You're welcome!

>
>I'm only using the net for radio and usual web stuff, and the occasional
>video.
>
>I am surprised by the virgin info about cancellation charge, as they state
>on their site no 12mo contract. A bit worrying that...

It is really hard to buy anything other than a pig in a poke.

>
>I called Zen and someone answered quickly, seemed knowledgeable. Virgin has
>a 50p/min charge.

Useful information!

>
>So are you saying that I don't need faster download than 256?
>
>Would I not notice the difference in speed between this and the 'faster'
>service.

I don't know. For email, news, most http stuff and 32K radio, I find
line speed irrelevant. If "the occasional video" is streamed, you need a
fast line; if a download, the time is inversely proportional to
linespeed assuming that the data source can keep up with the demand. I
spent several months selecting an ISP before settling on zen. I had
chosen demon but their 19.99UKP service does not include news and they
neglected to staff their sales phone or provide a call on Monday
message. Be prepared to make a wrong decision. In this newsgroup, you
will find several names for which few have praise.

LLU - local line unbundle - is potentially useful as the suppliers are
not retailing BT wholesale services. I found the following useful:

In message <43c74cd7$0$1467$(E-Mail Removed)> of Fri,
13 Jan 2006 06:46:45 in uk.telecom.broadband, Peter M
<us-(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>Walter Briscoe wrote:

[snip]

>> How do I identify ISP's using LLU from easynet at Moorgate?
>
>Check the www.ADSLguide.org 'news archive' search for LLU, Easynet, or
>perhaps LLUStream and you might build a list of ISPs, then visit any
>ISP web sites and enter your phone number, to see if they offer a
>connection, or will 'log your interest'. Good luck. Peter M.

[back to message <(E-Mail Removed)> ]
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Walter Briscoe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...

[complete message snipped]

<rant>
Pardon me for a curmudgeon!

There are 2 styles common in answering news posts.
In one, the original message is trimmed and the response is interleaved
in context.
In the other, the response is prefixed to a copy of the original
message.
I prefer the former style because most messages can be read in isolation
and there is a reduction in bandwidth. Please look at the result of the
second style in http://groups.google.com/. I suggest you might try this
thread which can currently be found with
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...=en&as_epq=&as
_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=uk.telecom.broadband&as_usub ject=%22is+virgin+the+b
est%3F%22&as_uauthors=&lr=lang_en&as_qdr=&as_drrb= b&as_mind=1&as_minm=5&a
s_miny=2003&as_maxd=23&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2006&safe =off>

One of my "Favorites" is a specialisation of Google Groups Advanced
Search which returns 100 rather than 10 messages at a time and attempts
to filter out languages other than English. It is
<http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?num=100&lr=lang_en> I put the
URL inside angle brackets as many news readers will then recognise it as
a single unit even if they split it on several lines. If yours does not,
I try to put it on one line as:
<http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?num=100&lr=lang_en>

P.S. I note that another poster says that NTL objects to vulgar abuse in
news postings. Can somebody post the URL - universal resource locator -
of their AUP - Acceptable Use Policy, please? I had a beef with demon's
AUP some time ago. They objected to files containing text being inserted
into postings to text newsgroups - I used them for program source where
the ruling line length was greater than 72 bytes. OTOH, they allowed
people to post in both html and text. This always struck me as mostly a
gratuitous waste of bandwidth.
<\rant>
--
Walter Briscoe

On Mon, 22 May 2006 18:31:41 +0100, NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Virgin did that a while ago, but must have been fed up with people using it
>as a "stepping stone" to get to other ISPs without paying for activation.

Surely if Virgin provided an acceptable level of service, people would
have no need to switch?

A little worrying this as we've just signed a relative to Virgin due
to the low cost (they're only going to use basic web/email) and 1
month contract, the idea being that if they do prove unreliable we'll
cancel or switch. There's no obvious details of this charge on their
site (I've now found other references to it though) and we would have
used a much more reputable provider such as Zen if we'd known.

Should we need to cancel and they attempt to charge, I've made sure we
have screen shots of their site to present in small claims court. I
suggest others do the same, or preferably avoid these shysters
altogether.

Rgds
Jonathan