Virgin pull your finger out

They still haven't put the information about the throttling on the
signup page.
The page where new customers go to signup with them.
Go to that page as a new customer looking for an ISP, and you can click
on all the links, and you just won't find anything at all mentioning the
throttling.

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=2

It's hidden away in the "Need To Know?" tab.
'Need to know?' that's a question, a choice... why not 'Need to know!'
It's all down to trust.
Someone is obviously not putting the information about the throttling in
front of prospective customers intentionally, and it just mounts to lies
and deceipt from not doing so.
Virgin Media is becoming a company that cannot be trusted, when they do
things like this, and the attitude they have towards customers stinks.

Gonz wrote:
> They still haven't put the information about the throttling on the
> signup page.
> The page where new customers go to signup with them.
> Go to that page as a new customer looking for an ISP, and you can
> click on all the links, and you just won't find anything at all
> mentioning the throttling.
>
> http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=2
>
> It's hidden away in the "Need To Know?" tab.
> 'Need to know?' that's a question, a choice... why not 'Need to know!'
> It's all down to trust.
> Someone is obviously not putting the information about the throttling
> in front of prospective customers intentionally, and it just mounts
> to lies and deceipt from not doing so.
> Virgin Media is becoming a company that cannot be trusted, when they
> do things like this, and the attitude they have towards customers
> stinks.

Actually its not hidden away, it is quite clearly visible in the list of
topic on the right hand side (of the Need to know page). There is quite a
lot of text explaining their position and why they have implemented it. I
dont agree with it, but the info is there. True its not written in big bold
letters on the first page. However this is no diferent from other ISPs who
are not upfronmt about their service. How many ISPs still advertise an
"unlimited" download service, when its not actually unlimited? This is a
bigger problem than throttling. At least Virgin have dedicated a page tp
this area, where as most have just given it a sentance in the small print.

http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...t/traffic.html

"XPUser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:46419869$0$8719$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gonz wrote:
>> They still haven't put the information about the throttling on the
>> signup page.
>> The page where new customers go to signup with them.
>> Go to that page as a new customer looking for an ISP, and you can
>> click on all the links, and you just won't find anything at all
>> mentioning the throttling.
>>
>> http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=2
>>
>> It's hidden away in the "Need To Know?" tab.
>> 'Need to know?' that's a question, a choice... why not 'Need to
>> know!'
>> It's all down to trust.
>> Someone is obviously not putting the information about the throttling
>> in front of prospective customers intentionally, and it just mounts
>> to lies and deceipt from not doing so.
>> Virgin Media is becoming a company that cannot be trusted, when they
>> do things like this, and the attitude they have towards customers
>> stinks.
>
> Actually its not hidden away, it is quite clearly visible in the list
> of topic on the right hand side (of the Need to know page). There is
> quite a lot of text explaining their position and why they have
> implemented it. I dont agree with it, but the info is there. True
> its not written in big bold letters on the first page. However this
> is no diferent from other ISPs who are not upfronmt about their
> service. How many ISPs still advertise an "unlimited" download
> service, when its not actually unlimited? This is a bigger problem
> than throttling. At least Virgin have dedicated a page tp this area,
> where as most have just given it a sentance in the small print.
>
> http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...t/traffic.html

It all comes down to the fact that they don't want people signing up to
know about the throttling.
I wud think that a lot of those thinkin of signin up with them, think
that they are a no restrictions, download to your hearts content, not
limited in anyway, etc...
They probly think this from all the junk through the door, and the TV
ads telling them that.

You can say that they don't have to put the throttling up in big
letters.
But for them to say the same thing, and not be upfront and tell people,
but hide it out the way, means that they really are goin out of their
way to deceive.

When people are tellin them to put it on the front page, and they are
sayin no we don't want to...
What can they say to the question of 'why not?'

Gonz wrote:
> "XPUser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:46419869$0$8719$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Gonz wrote:
>>> They still haven't put the information about the throttling on the
>>> signup page.
>>> The page where new customers go to signup with them.
>>> Go to that page as a new customer looking for an ISP, and you can
>>> click on all the links, and you just won't find anything at all
>>> mentioning the throttling.
>>>
>>> http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=2
>>>
>>> It's hidden away in the "Need To Know?" tab.
>>> 'Need to know?' that's a question, a choice... why not 'Need to
>>> know!'
>>> It's all down to trust.
>>> Someone is obviously not putting the information about the
>>> throttling in front of prospective customers intentionally, and it
>>> just mounts to lies and deceipt from not doing so.
>>> Virgin Media is becoming a company that cannot be trusted, when they
>>> do things like this, and the attitude they have towards customers
>>> stinks.
>>
>> Actually its not hidden away, it is quite clearly visible in the list
>> of topic on the right hand side (of the Need to know page). There is
>> quite a lot of text explaining their position and why they have
>> implemented it. I dont agree with it, but the info is there. True
>> its not written in big bold letters on the first page. However this
>> is no diferent from other ISPs who are not upfronmt about their
>> service. How many ISPs still advertise an "unlimited" download
>> service, when its not actually unlimited? This is a bigger problem
>> than throttling. At least Virgin have dedicated a page tp this area,
>> where as most have just given it a sentance in the small print.
>>
>> http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html...t/traffic.html
>
> It all comes down to the fact that they don't want people signing up
> to know about the throttling.
> I wud think that a lot of those thinkin of signin up with them, think
> that they are a no restrictions, download to your hearts content, not
> limited in anyway, etc...
> They probly think this from all the junk through the door, and the TV
> ads telling them that.
>
> You can say that they don't have to put the throttling up in big
> letters.
> But for them to say the same thing, and not be upfront and tell
> people, but hide it out the way, means that they really are goin out
> of their way to deceive.
>
> When people are tellin them to put it on the front page, and they are
> sayin no we don't want to...
> What can they say to the question of 'why not?'

How are virgin different from any other ISP, with regards to this?

At the end of the day they are a business, and ALL businesses, not just
Virgn, will not shout about parts of the product that might put users of.
Surely you must have heard of "small print" ALL comapnies use small print,
how is this any different? I think you have to get real, and accept
businesses will employ these tactics. They are within the law.

I have just been to the sky site, they are advertising their MAX package as
unlimited, yet there is no asterisk next to unlimited. With an explanation,
stating, that unlimited is actually a lie, it is not unlimited, a FUP
applies.

Ask yourself this, if you were in running the Virgin broadband dept, would
you write about traffic management on the first page, or do it on a
different page? The answer is a no-brainer, you would do it on a different
page. If you wouldnt, I wouldnt start a business as you will obviously not
do very well.

Ok, let's forget all that...

How about this one?
When Virgin Media, the great big cable broadband company, say publically
that 350Mb in the 21st century is way too much for a customer of theirs,
or any potential customer of theirs, to want to have.

You have to stand back and say, are these people serious about this
internet thing, or what?
The answer wud probly be, no... and WTFinell are they doin, tellin
everyone and their ISP. that they are havin problems like this for?

Gonz wrote:
> Ok, let's forget all that...
>
> How about this one?
> When Virgin Media, the great big cable broadband company, say
> publically that 350Mb in the 21st century is way too much for a
> customer of theirs, or any potential customer of theirs, to want to
> have.
> You have to stand back and say, are these people serious about this
> internet thing, or what?
> The answer wud probly be, no... and WTFinell are they doin, tellin
> everyone and their ISP. that they are havin problems like this for?

On this point I agree with you to an extent. 350MB for a home user is
excessive...for business maybe not. If I was Virgin I would be sending out
the message that we are doing some R&D that will hopefully provide our
customers with speeds in the region of 350Mb. Tell everybody that you are
at the forefront of BB technology in the UK, and everyone else is playing
catchup. This is basic business sense.

Dont get me wrong I do not think Virgin are perfect far from it. I used to
be with NTL, as it was..and moved to sky. There are a lot of things wrong
with Virgin, that hopefully, for their sake, with new management will be
sorted out. I had virgin TV for a while, and switched to sky. Sky tv is by
far, way better than virgins offering. The NTL BB service was very good,
never had a problem over 4/5 years I had it. Same goes for the phone service
The CS side of the business was pants...hence the reason (and cheap sky BB
offer) for leaving. I was still being billed for the tv service 5 months
after I left....it makes me laugh now...but at the time it was fustrating.

"XPUser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4641c045$0$8727$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gonz wrote:
>> Ok, let's forget all that...
>>
>> How about this one?
>> When Virgin Media, the great big cable broadband company, say
>> publically that 350Mb in the 21st century is way too much for a
>> customer of theirs, or any potential customer of theirs, to want to
>> have.
>> You have to stand back and say, are these people serious about this
>> internet thing, or what?
>> The answer wud probly be, no... and WTFinell are they doin, tellin
>> everyone and their ISP. that they are havin problems like this for?


> On this point I agree with you to an extent. 350MB for a home user is
> excessive...for business maybe not. If I was Virgin I would be
> sending out the message that we are doing some R&D that will hopefully
> provide our customers with speeds in the region of 350Mb.

You've really lost me here... ???

> Dont get me wrong I do not think Virgin are perfect far from it. I
> used to be with NTL, as it was..and moved to sky. There are a lot of
> things wrong with Virgin, that hopefully, for their sake, with new
> management will be sorted out. I had virgin TV for a while, and
> switched to sky. Sky tv is by far, way better than virgins offering.
> The NTL BB service was very good, never had a problem over 4/5 years I
> had it. Same goes for the phone service The CS side of the business
> was pants...hence the reason (and cheap sky BB offer) for leaving. I
> was still being billed for the tv service 5 months after I left....it
> makes me laugh now...but at the time it was fustrating.

I can confirm that I have read, and can understand this bit )

Gonz wrote:

> Ok, let's forget all that...
>
> How about this one?
> When Virgin Media, the great big cable broadband company, say publically
> that 350Mb in the 21st century is way too much for a customer of theirs,
> or any potential customer of theirs, to want to have.

They don't say any such thing. That's is in any case the daily 'quota' *at full
speed* on the entry level service. That amounts to > 10GB in a month which is
over twice the maximum I've ever downloaded on an ADSL Max service (which runs
at full speed btw) with an ISP that has no bandwidth throttling or traffic
shaping (Idnet). I regularly get 5-6Mbps on thinkbroadband's speed test with
Idnet.

Their 4 meg service gives you 750MB @ full speed which is 24GB a month. That
would cost me £25 from Idnet yet Virgin are giving me the rough equivalent for
£8.50.

Looking at Idnet's pricing, they seem to be charging ~ £10 per 30GB at the
higher usage levels. Virgin's XL package includes 90GB of full speed downloads
which alone is worth £30 by that reckoning and unlimited downloads at 5Mbps
which is still faster than most ppl get with ADSL !

What's the problem ?

Graham

XPUser wrote:

> On this point I agree with you to an extent. 350MB for a home user is
> excessive...

Hey, I managed to d/l 300MB on one day in mid-April. :~)

Graham

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> XPUser wrote:
>
>> On this point I agree with you to an extent. 350MB for a home user
>> is
>> excessive...
>
> Hey, I managed to d/l 300MB on one day in mid-April. :~)

I just did it in around 4 mins.
On my un-throttled, un-restricted, 17Mb BE connection )