Skip Navigation


Virgin Media claims 9 out of 10 people confused by advertising
Thursday 02 September 2010 10:44:30 by Andrew Ferguson

Virgin Media is wading into the current round of broadband speed battles with research by ICM. The research indicates some nine out of ten people find broadband advertising misleading and some 67% are frustrated with providers who fail to deliver on promises.

The survey which talked to 1000 people, showed that price followed by speed are the prime drivers when choosing an ISP. What is unknown is what broadband providers these people were using. If it was a representative split of the UK broadband landscape, roughly 20% of those surveyed should be using a Virgin Media cable broadband service. In theory cable customers should be happier, since there are none of the issues with regards to telephone line length, which is the largest factor in people not reaching their 'up to' speed.

To help inform its customers Virgin Media now plans to publish the typical average speed received by 66% of customers over 24 hours. These will be published each month for its 10Mbps, 20Mbps and 50Mbps services on the website http://www.virginmedia.com/speedhonesty. The testing is carried out by customers who have opted to run a Samknows performance testing device in their home.

It is not totally clear whether the Virgin Media National products will be included too. The use of M/L/XL for the national product names means some may confuse them with the cable products that use similar naming (Virgin Media cable services pass just under half the households in the UK). In the press release Virgin appears to gloss over its own DSL based products that suffer from the same degree of speed loss due to line length as all other DSL providers. In a survey of one, when trying to order a Virgin Media National product it claimed a speed of 5 to 6Mbps right now on my line, while BT Wholesale estimated 5Mbps. What is odd is that while it lists the UK average speed as 6.5Mbps, the estimate was considered 'Great news! Your phone line is lovely and speedy'. Strange that something that is below average is lovely and speedy, confused - I'm sure some people would be. Virgin Media it seems needs to do some more communication between its various business units.

Cable broadband products which are a mixture of fibre and coax will always have an advantage speed wise compared to DSL products. With DSL, even if the providers had no contention/congestion, only around 78% of lines would connect at 5Mbps or faster.

It is good to see a provider trying to communicate speeds better to users, but at the end of the day, typical and average figures do not explain to an individual why something like paid for video download onto their games console is taking a long time, or why one site is faster than another. The whole speed issue is complex and for too long was glossed over. In the days of fixed speed broadband lines there was little issue, but now with products ranging from 0.1Mbps through to 100Mbps on sale in the UK, users are bound to be confused. Many will assume a webpage that takes 10 seconds to load on a 0.5Mbps connection, would be many times faster on a 10Mbps connection (in theory 20 times faster) and while it will be faster, the protocol (HTTP) behind webpages results in lots of small chunks of data, so you might only see a doubling in loading speed.

Comments

Posted by whatever2 over 6 years ago
"With DSL, even if the providers had no contention/congestion, only around 78% of lines would connect at 5Mbps or faster."

That's hardly a damning statement... 80% of people connect at 70% of the top speed, or better.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
Statistical analysis of fixed rate products like VM cable is fine, because the throughput can be compared to the fixed rate and it's all very clear.

Doing the same for variable rate ADSL products is more complex and will outsmart most of us. Should the results be normalised for link speed, for example, and expressed as % of sync speed ?

Are VM going to stop calling coax fibre and stop saying their ADSL is completely different to other providers, to reduce confusion ? Hypocrites !
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
So they are saying that 66% of their users are using the Samknows special sauce to monitor their speed stats? Can't be right surely?
Posted by whatever2 over 6 years ago
What like BT don't Herdwick?

"BT Infinity is our new fibre optic broadband"

(sssh, it has a bit of coax as well...)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
They don't use coax :) But yeah they were following in Virgin's (well we got away with it) footsteps
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Are VM going to stop calling coax fibre and stop saying their ADSL is completely different to other providers, to reduce confusion ? Hypocrites !"

Are BT going to stop calling their FTTC fibre and stop pretending their ADSL2+ is superior? EVEN bigger hypocrites.

I say well done to virgin its a start atleast to trying to be more honest about ACTUAL speed, minor but a start.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"They don't use coax :) But yeah they were following in Virgin's (well we got away with it) footsteps"

Even more hypocritical when it was BT that had issues with Virgin calling their services "fibre". Didnt BT even complain to the ASA... Now thats a hypocrite for you. 'Virgin, do as we BT say not as we intended to do anyway.'
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'd trust the figures more if they came direct from Samknows to be honest with a break down of numbers of testers and their regions, from what I understand there is a lot of congestion in some areas of the Virgin network, I wonder if there's feedback from these areas or just the ones that work well
Posted by Rocklett over 6 years ago
Got to love the Virgin URL 'speedhonesty'. I'd like to know how they managed to type that with all their fingers & toes crossed! :)
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
If it isn't fibre right to the home then it isn't fibre broadband. Its copper or coax fed by fibre. The ASA wouldn't listen to complaints about this by saying 'the majority of the line length is fibre'. The same applies to all broadband in that case. I think there is a lot of bull going on. I don't think anyone has got a grip on this yet. Joe Public is getting more confused. And we still don't have next generation access. The telcos are still sweating the copper.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:Not really. BT thought it was wrong and they complained. The ASA decided it was okay. BT accept the judgement and decide to use the term themselves.

Not everyone sticks to their opinion when corrected you know. Sometimes you accept the alternative viewpoint and use it yourself.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@cyber:For once I agree with everything you wrote. This is just marketing/PR crap that as with all such means diddly squat.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
FTTC is next gen CD if you can't see that well... I dunno. The generation of broadband we have now is this gen, FTTC is the next generation of broadband provision. Its not a case of "sweating the copper" its a case of no-one will pay the billions it will cost to provide FTTH. Would you rather they take the "Well if we can't fibre all the way to the home we won't do anything, we'll stick with ADSL" approach?
Posted by KarlAustin over 6 years ago
lolol, Virgin saying about mis-leading advertising. Yes the ASA is to blame, but if Virgin are trying to claim the moral high-ground then they should withdraw their claims about fibre broadband.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
WHen Virgin Media publish the typical "average speed received by 66% of customers over 24 hours", how do they define speed? Are they talking about the actal throughput on individual lines, allowing for the potential heavy contention on the coax and backhaul, or some other measure that gives a false impression of higher speed?
Posted by wirelesspacman over 6 years ago
"diddly squat"

Such a lovely expression! Wonder where it's origins are? Have known it for donkey's years, but not where it came from.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB:Not really. BT thought it was wrong and they complained. The ASA decided it was okay. BT accept the judgement and decide to use the term themselves."

Oh i see, lets extend that further shall we. Ill go complain about a pot hole in a road caused by a big lorry. Council say its not deep enough to be deemed a nusiance.... Does that mean i should now be allowed to go make similar sized pot holes in the roads? Thats what BT did, complained about something someone did, and then did the exact thing they complained about.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"FTTC is next gen CD if you can't see that well... I dunno. The generation of broadband we have now is this gen...."

That made me laugh..... Virgin current gen = 50Mb BT FTTC next gen = 40Mb..... Oh i see the next generation is slower, how silly of me.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 I will agree with one valid point you make and thats "I understand there is a lot of congestion in some areas of the Virgin network, I wonder if there's feedback from these areas or just the ones that work well" Id also question that, not just from Virgin but any ISP that is planning on using this new "open" speed advertising method.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Ok.. more specifically BT's next generation then. As for the reporting yeah... speed honesty or cooking the books? Also I wouldn't say 66% is the majority of their customers. 90% sure, 66% isn't much over half to be fair. Why would a potential Virgin customer care if Joe Bloggs in Sheffield gets 46Mb on his 50Mb connection when they live in Manchester? If Samknows could make available stats in your area, well that would be more honest, if there's nothing to hide... make it available.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Anyone remember the samknows report not long ago which said that the average for VM50Mb was only 35Mb.... wonder where they are getting this new 46Mb average speed from then...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Interestingly if I go here:- http://www.speedtest.net/global.php#0,3,4 and click on "Your Location" it shows Carphone Warehouse top at 5.97 followed by BT on 4.66 and Virgin second from bottom on 2.98 (and yes I lived in a cabled area)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I do Tark I do.. funny how they don't refer to that. :) That is what I was questioning in the first place, this 66% because I think CB pointed on that the published Samknows only had a handful of Virgin customers in the test?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:Your analogy is flawed. Who said anything about making new potholes? Here's a better analogy. Council B complains that neighbouring council A is not filling in dangerous potholes. The government says that council A is meeting it's legal responsibility. From that point on council B stops filling in as many potholes and lowers its standards to match.

That's not hypocrisy.

BT thought they'd caught VM doing something they shouldn't. The 'regulator' said not. From that point on the terminology becomes available to everyone.
Posted by otester over 6 years ago
I'd still take 50Mb even if the speed only turned out to be 30Mb.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
But it's all semantics. The technology and implementation makes consistency and accuracy difficult. Makes it far too complicated for mere advertising. Even regulars like us argue over it.

Add to that the usual exaggeration and spin of the typical marketroid and you have a load of old cobblers.

As for 'Diddly squat' - he's a well known S/F film director :D
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Wonder if someone will invent/roll-out location based advertising services before there is a full fibre roll-out lol.

Then we will have people complaining about privacy issues and people complaining who use VPN's.... woo!
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 6 years ago
"invent/roll-out location based advertising services", dont bother it has already been invented. If based on IP address alone it is often out but take a peek at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotargeting
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB:Your analogy is flawed."
No it isnt ill break it down for you as obviously you need help....
I go complain (the i being BT) about a pot hole in a road caused by a big lorry. (pot hole = fibre claims, Big lorry = VM)
Council (or ASA) say its not deep enough (or lying enough) to be deemed a nusiance.... CONT
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Does that mean i (I as in BT) should now be allowed to go make similar sized pot holes (that being similar fibre claims, and similar sized being speed claims) in the roads (roads being the adverts)? Thats what BT did, complained about something someone did, and then did the exact thing they complained about. Very easy to follow, even for a BT defender.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
You don't need any analogies, Virgin made what BT and others see as a false claim. The ASA said it was fine so when it came to BT's turn they also made the same claim because the ASA said if the majority of the provision is fibre you can call it fibre broadband, that is even easier to follow.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Stop defending BT fibre claims and moaning about virgins claims..... As cyberdoyle basically said they are both as bad as each other. Anyone that defends BTs fibre claims and say its ok as someone else did it, is an idiot..... Is murder ok if someone else gets away with it> Or to tune it down a bit what about FRAUD is that ok for someone else if another gets away with it? Especially when you claim that FRAUD is bad in the first place and should be outlawed. Talk about dumb!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I think CB pointed on that the published Samknows only had a handful of Virgin customers in the test?"

I did indeed point out at the time there were different sized groups for each ISP so you couldnt compare in all cases :)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Woooah.... come back to reality. I've said before they are both wrong for claiming its fibre broadband, I'm not saying what BT have done is right I'm saying I can see why they have done it, because the ASA let it fly. And what are you talking about fraud are you mixing me up with someone else here? You seem to have gone off on a capslock/name calling tangent :|
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Yeah sorry i thought you may of ended up thinking that post was aimed at you, it wasnt. It was more for Andruec and anyone who is/was trying to say its ok for one company to do something just because another did in the first place. We both posted at about the same time so again i appologise for you thinking it was aimed at you, it wasnt.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Infact you cant even say BTs fibre claims according to the ASA are fine as unlike Virgin i dont believe BTs fibre claims have been challenged yet, have they?? That is what the ASA is there for to look at advertising claims INDIVIDUALLY not go oh we let it fly for x company so have free reign and go crazy with advert abuse.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Someone could in theory challenge BTs fibre claims and in their case (though unlikely) it be totally upheld, their system is different to Virgins just for starters. Virgins sync at speeds 'fibre like'... and speeds which they advertise...... Do BTs??? Just because virgins ads were ruled ok doesnt mean BTs would be (though personally i say ban the lot of em LOL)
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
CB - Out of curiosity, how would you like them to advertise...

"NEW BT PRODUCT X - Get whatever damn speed you can, maybe less and occasionally a lot less"

:)
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Ta - The connection speed typically stays constant whereas the throughput varies, and that's not due to the ADSL - correct?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@ TaRkADaHl nope id prefer honesty from all the big suppliers.
@ Somerset, I thought all BT services were subject to DLM and the sync rate can increase or decrease as well as the throughput of that line. If we are going to advertise based on just sync or connection rates Virgins ads are then to your rules technically fine. Bts on the other hand wouldnt be, and despite what you may think even i would say thats unfair to BT. Make them all advertise the typical minimum and maximum throughputs and make them prove those figures before they advertise them i say.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Testing like has been happening at Samknows/Ofcom is a start, not perfect but a start atleast. Lets see if others follow suit.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:I didn't say it was okay - I said it wasn't hypocritical. It would only have been hypocritical if BT had used the term *before* complaining to the ASA.

I agree that both companies are wrong to use the term from a technical POV but BT is not being hypocritical.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
(cont'd) and no your analogy is still wrong. BT didn't create their service in order to call it fibre. Therefore your comments about 'going off and making holes' is irrelevant.

The holes are already there. This is about how you describe those holes and by inference which ones you choose to repair (although repairing is again irrelevant to the discussion).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Virgin didnt create their service to call it fibre, they didnt call it fibre for years. It was only when they did BT complained, and obviously it was Hypocritical of them to do so... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypocritical NOTHING to do with who did what first.
If they held any belief only a part fibre service should not be advertised as fibre they wouldnt be doing the same thereself..... Both as bad as each other and ANYONE taking one companies side/defence or whatever you wish to call it is fatuous (AKA silly, stupid, idiotic etc) at best.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Seriously i didnt think i also had to explain what Hypocritical also meant :rolleyes:
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
One problem a real fibre service does not have is external interference. EMI from all sorts of sources causes a lot of problems for twisted pair especially (coax less so).
I'd say this was a great step in the right direction, and Virgin should be congratulated for using an external and objective speed tester to show people what they will probably get (on cable, anyway).
Who knows, next ISPs might start having to show the entire range of connection speeds their customers have, that'd be good.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
My point about EMI is that it can cause dropouts and very slow throughput even with a high line speed, and because it can be intermittent ISPs often can't see it and generally aren't able to do much about it.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But Elbobbo I would prefer the stats straight from Samknows not just some summary of "something" It might as well be a powerpoint pie chart.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:Hypocritical of which one?

I know what hypocritcal means but now I'm unclear which of the two you think is accusing the other of doing something it itself has done.

VM uses the term 'fibre'.
BT doesn't think it should so it complains.
The ASA says it's okay.
BT accept the ruling and that 'fibre' is acceptable.
BT start to use the term themselves.

Where is the hypocrisy?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
It's called changing your mind in the light of new evidence. Something you often seem to have great difficulty doing.

I used to tell people that hybrid cars couldn't improve fuel consumption for an efficient driver. Now I know that's not the case so I tell people that hybrid cars can reduce anyone's fuel consumption.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite - it just means I've learnt and changed my opinion.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Try reading the link as to what the word means.
VM uses the term 'fibre'. (CORRECT)
BT doesn't think it should so it complains. (CORRECT AND FAIR ENOUGH... SO FAR)
The ASA says it's okay. (NO ISSUE THERE CORRECT)
CONT....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT accept the ruling and that 'fibre' is acceptable. (Ah problem, they obviously didnt think it was acceptable though or why complain in the first place? So they had a moral opinion on Virgins ads...)
BT start to use the term themselves. (Thus showing they are hypocritics... a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs..... Thats BT stating they dont think a service should be called fibre and then calling their own service fibre when it isnt.)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Oh and actually also as i pointed out just because the ASA said yes Virgins ads are ok, doesnt give BT free reign to copying their adverts. No challenge has been launched yet AFAIK that BTs service isnt "fibre". The ASA is there to individually look at adverts. Virgin can prove (1)their service syncs at 50Mb, (2)has fibre in it and (3) delivers fibre like sync speed. BT can only prove one of those things the way i see it so maybe a complaint to the ASA is in order i think. Get their hypocrite fibre ads banned along with their "in an instant" ads.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
There is no evidence BTs service is fibre by ASA terms until it is challenged. Something you have great difficulty comprehending. Hybrid cars dont improve fuel efficiency, they give more miles because the engine is a hybrid system (thats why the ads now mention MPGs and not how "fuel efficent" they are. The ASA have looked into that also. Infact i thing it was covered in part on here long ago.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
lol (1) BT can prove it syncs at 40Mb less overheads (2) Yes it has fibre in it (3) What the hell is fibre like sync speeds? :)

What would you suggest BT called it, "Fibre Based Broadband" because the majority of it is fibre.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"Fibre Based Broadband"

Could call it that already on the ADSL Copper network... all backhaul and everything is Fibre so its only bending the truth a little :P
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"lol (1) BT can prove it syncs at 40Mb less overheads (2) Yes it has fibre in it (3) What the hell is fibre like sync speeds? :)

What would you suggest BT called it, "Fibre Based Broadband" because the majority of it is fibre."

(1) no it doesnt not for everyone unlike virgin.
(2) Yep thats what they can prove (i said they could prove one point)
(3) Fibre like sync speed, IE greater than ADSL sync rates, which BT FTTC will NOT ALWAYS do.
I suggest they call it what it is, a FTTN service.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
True true so

ADSL - Fibre Based Broadband
FTTC - Even more Fibre in your Fibre Based Broadband
FTTP - Totally 100% Fibre apart from the cable from the NTE to your router.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Everything will be explained in the complaint to the ASA GMAN99 when i find time to write about their latest advertising goof. We will soon then see if they can call there service the same as another company does wont we.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh and your average joe will know what FTTN is then when its advertised?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"True true so

ADSL - Fibre Based Broadband
FTTC - Even more Fibre in your Fibre Based Broadband
FTTP - Totally 100% Fibre apart from the cable from the NTE to your router."

BTs so called fibre is none of them its FTTN, you asked me what they should call it, and from a technical standpoint that is what it is. It doesnt always sync at peak rate, it has no fixed sync rate (unlike virgin) and doesnt constantly deliver more than what ADSL2+ can. It is entirely possible a user would see no benefit switching an ADSL2+ service to BTs so called fibre.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Oh and your average joe will know what FTTN is then when its advertised?"

Not my problem, the average joe doesnt know what fibre is either, thats why they think what BT advertise is fibre, when it isnt. Up to the company advertising to be clear what the product is so their problem.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I luvs the law the ASA has to follow :D
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"It is entirely possible a user would see no benefit switching an ADSL2+ service to BTs so called fibre" Don't be stupid. If you are close enough to the exchange to get great sync speeds you expect to get less when your only syncing to the cab? And we've all been round the block on FTTN/FTTC you call it FTTN everyone else in the UK calls it FTTC so feel free to name it as you wish it doesn't alter anything as far as anyone else is concerned.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
..cont

And why are you so hung up on sync speeds, surely its the speed the customer gets what matters. I don't care if Virgin sync at 50Mb they don't always get it as the Samknows report of last year shows all too well.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Part of the ASAs ruling on the great is virgin fibre debate took into consideration the sync speed, so you may not care, but rules do. As BTs service doesnt always sync at full speed it is clearly a different service and should be named differently. Ill explain it all to the ASA and mention previous ruling about "fibre" advertising dont worry GMAN99.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Esatate agent ads claim other were slower and half the world were online...... BANNED
Downloads in an instant...... BANNED
Fibre claims hopefully also soon..... BANNED
End of line!
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I didn't realise the sync speed was taken into consideration for it to be called fibre broadband.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Im trying to find the official ASA decision it should be online in PDF format, but that was definately part of the reason they were allowed... Found some evidence here that backs me up and my memory probably being correct...
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4022-virgin-media-to-avoid-unachievable-speed-claims.html
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
QUOTE last paragraph on that story "Virgin won't fade away from exuberant advertising claims however as their cable broadband services, which they market as fibre optic broadband, will continue to be listed at its full 50Meg speed, as is their right as this speed is achievable between your home and Virgin's equipment. Whether defining it as 'fibre optic broadband' is right when it's actually a fibre-coax hybrid network is of course an open debate."

We all now know based on that the ASA said fine... BTs FTTC though syncs at an UPTO rate doesnt it ;) Time to challenge it i think LOL
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/2/Virgin-Media-Ltd/TF_ADJ_43928.aspx Nothing about sync speeds, the whole issue around the term "fibre broadband" was relating to the amount of fibre and copper used, nothing to do with sync speeds or speeds at all.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Right found one decision which i have argued with others on in the past... Virgin Media is the uks fastest broadband.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2009/7/Virgin-Media-Ltd/TF_ADJ_46509.aspx

So that puts to bed that little arguement from BT fans ive had in a few recent news items about BT having limited FTTH trials.

Just got to find the one about fibre adverts now and why they were deemed allowed to call it fibre...... Not looking good for BT and my complaint haha
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I've saved you the time
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
So your complaint will consist of... well.. nothing. :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Er did you read that link you posted....
Virgin in defence to points 2, 3. & 6. Virgin said that, while distance had a noticeable effect on customer speeds, that was not an issue for cable broadband. They said they were not limited by distance because they distributed active signal amplifiers throughout their network to ensure that the necessary signal level was delivered to the customer. They said the design of the network ensured that all customers received sufficient signal level to operate their cable broadband service at its maximum advertised speed,
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
and that all customers would receive approximately the same signal level regardless of where they lived. Virgin submitted documentation that detailed the technical specification of the modems they supplied to their cable broadband customers. They said the test results contained in those documents showed that their modems did not cause speed depreciation on the cable broadband network.

Can BT prove all that? Er no they cant
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
If i challenge BT on the same points as items 2,3, 6 in that link you point to, BT will fail.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Especially item 2.......
2. Twelve listeners believed the use of a copper-coated wire (a copper wire connection) into the home could cause speed depreciation.

That clearly does happen on BT FTTC, the more copper in a BT service the poorer its speed, even an idiot knows that
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BTs copper isnt coaxil either is it so it needs a ruling on there copper bits as its not the same.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Challenge away then :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Ill also mention this in the letter...
http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/1/21/comment-bt-virgin-media-fiber-based-broadband-comparison/

LOL they are screwed :D Ill mention so many points to their Infinity ads atleast one will be upheld, and then thats the end of their 'fibre' ads
Get used to it, BT fanboys have yourselfs to blame im sick of the defending on here, so rather than argue now ill just stop the BT lies myself, then gloat.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I can't wait.. please let us know how it goes ;o)
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
The Virgin website hugely overestimates the speeds possible on our line; actual possible is 1.7Mbps however the Virgin site seems to think 3.5Mbps is likely (compare with AAISP who think that 1Mbps is likely, and who are closer and erring on the side of caution not wishful thinking!).
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
Having actual average speeds to compare is great, though: for the customer there might seem to be a comparison to be made between 24Mbps ADSL2+ and 20Mbps cable, but only one of those is going to run anywhere near 20Mbps for most people, the other being closer to 4Mbps: there is no real comparison which is what VM are getting at. "Up to" speeds are almost meaningless.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I can't wait.. please let us know how it goes ;o)"
The site will probably pick up on it ;) like they do most of the ASA decisions regarding any of the big ISPs

@MarkHampshire agreed and so has the ASA previously.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Up to speeds are meaningless, but average speeds are also meaningless unless they can somehow focus the adverts down to your specific steet.

The national average may well be 6.5Mb or whatever it is, and if they advertise that, what about the folk that get 256k or the ones that get 23Mb.

They are both as meaningless as each other, country wide statistics just don't cut it on copper ADSL.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
They don't cut it on cable either. Whatever tech is used the only speeds the potential customer cares about are the ones in their immediate area not in the neighbouring city or county or other end of the country.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Am I the only one to find the implied suggestion from Virgin that anyone not buying cable is presumably either stupid or has been duped objectionable? What a great way to win new customers!

What about those of us that are not in cable areas? Or those of us that don't believe that the current cable offers are competitive with FTTC given the lamentable upstream speeds currently on offer with cable?

NB I note that they only seeem to be focusing on download speeds at present, is this something to do with not being competitive on upload?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
New_L it does strike me that these days everything that comes from Virgin in the press is all about getting digs at the competition, I really do think they are getting worried, because as things move on and the FTTC rollout grows and more ISP's jump on board they'll have multiple ISP's being able to give comparable speeds and I would expect better prices. At the moment no-one can touch them on speed, but that is all about to change...
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
.... its not just one competitor (BT) either it will be Sky, BE, Orange, they'll go from having no speed competitors to plenty. They know it and I'm sure they are worried which is why we are now seeing a lot of shouting in the press about how rubbish everyone else is... while they can.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"They don't cut it on cable either. Whatever tech is used the only speeds the potential customer cares about are the ones in their immediate area not in the neighbouring city or county or other end of the country. "

Agreed which is why all virgin cable fibre products sync at the same rates.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Interesting to see you're calling them cable fibre products now, thought you disagreed with this terminology? Anyway, do all Virgin cable broadband products deliver the same throughput (ie those with the same nominal downstream speeds) across the various cable networks?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I do disagree but virgin have been given the right to use the term BT havent do try to keep up.
Doesnt relate to throughput, read previous ASA rulings, relateds to sync.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
In addition Virgin have proven to the ASA customers get the same signal level, again that doesnt happen on ADSL or BTs FTTC service. I thought i explained very clearly why its a different product and why it should not be allowed to use the same terminology, thankfully i dont have to explain it to a bias individual like you but an organisation which judges on individual advertising.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Letter written with evidence BTs products are not unlimited as they claim (proof delivered with links to usage letters people have had, scanned and uploaded, along with links to BT own forums and staff stating the unlimited option is 100gig) proof provided not everyone syncs the same rate on BT FTTC, proof provided the product is different to virgins and therefore can not use the same advertising term "fibre" to describe it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Letter goes into several other points about BTs TV and newspaper ads and some of the claims on their website about their FTTC product, all it takes is for one of them to be upheld, watch the news here in coming months :D Ive had enough of BT defenders and Naff broadband in this country, time to put a stop to some of the dishonesty.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Proud to say i was part of the reason that estate agent ad got banned which i moaned about a few times on this site, before it got banned, time to get some of their other claims banned as well.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
"Doesnt relate to throughput, read previous ASA rulings, relateds to sync"

Surprisingly I think you jumped to conclusions here. My question didn't mention ASA, the article is about misleading speed claims, if Virgni really want to avoid misleading anyone they ought to quote actual throughput achieved by customers as this will begin to show the effect of backhaul and cable contention on their systems.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
They dont have to quote throughput, try reading the ASA adjudications on their fibre product. All down to signal and sync.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
BT dont quote throughput either so your arguement is void unless you are saying BT should also do the same?
Cant wait until the ASA uphold one of the 23 points i make about advertising of BTs FTTC product.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
You've missed the point. I know they don't have to quote throughput, however if they really wanted to show meaningful speed information to customers they should - upstream as well as downstream.

Like I said, nothing to do with ASA, Ofcom or anyone else's rules, just suggesting that the current proposals from Virgin don't really cut it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Better to do something than nothing, so Virgin again better than BT in the regard you question them on.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Really? What about upload speeds?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
The fact that you have so much hatred and waste so much time hating them is worrying, is it your only quest in life as it seems to be very important to you. As I say... Good luck. So when you complain to the ASA do they tell you if your specific complaints are valid if not how do you know you were/will be part of anything? All the best with your ongoing but saddening campaign. :)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Really? What about upload speeds? "
Yep BT dont do that either
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Good luck. So when you complain to the ASA do they tell you if your specific complaints are valid if not how do you know you were/will be part of anything?"

You sometimes get a letter back after the decision has been made informing you if your complaint has or has not been upheld, it depends on how many complaints they get, if its only a handfull you do often hear back, if hundreds complain not so much. I have a previous one when i moaned about something relating to sky (dont even remember fully what it was now lol) but i helped get that dishonest (whatever it was) banned also.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"All the best with your ongoing but saddening campaign. :)"

Yeah cos its sad to not want to see dishonesty from any company banned and much better to listen to fanboy dribble like your own.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Hide the shares fanboys, hide them nooooooowww
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
But hang on. The Virgin advertised speeds are meant to be real world achievable speeds based on independent speed tests, so that data is about as valid as it could be for comparison. Let's see BT do the same with ADSL2+ 24Mbps and see what percentage of headline speeds people are getting there.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
If 78% of lines connect at 5Mbps or faster, which I find frankly unbelievable by a very long way, why is the average less than 4Mbps?
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 - I fail to see how VM could be worried. Downstream capability is still the main key performance indicator by a mile, and BT have already stated they don't even intend to try and compete with VM until at least 2015. The rapidity of the rollout of FTTC coupled with BT's auto-renewing contracts suggests to me that BT are the "scared" party here.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"........Let's see BT do the same with ADSL2+ 24Mbps and see what percentage of headline speeds people are getting there."

BT wont do it for any of their products be it ADSL or FTTC because none come close to delivering the advertised speed in throughput for most people.
BT fans will be in for a shock in a few months no doubt when the ASA have time to maul over some of the ripe stuff ive written to them about. May be a nice Xmas gift for BT... BANNED, BANNED and some more BANNED
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Hell for most of BTs products it doesnt even sync at the advertised rates in the ideal, infact UPTO 8Mb is nothing of the sort and has never syncd at 8Mb due to "magical line training" and so called "overheads"... The same goes for their FTTC and is also in the letter.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@Mark, its not about a speed race, Virgin customers have already shown there's very little demand for 50Mb never mind beyond. I'm talking about any ISP being able to deliver speeds of up to 40Mb in Virgin's backyard which they can't do at the moment but will be able to over the coming months/years, so... they should be concerned.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@CB Its sad because your not the average complainer that hears something on the radio and disagrees, it seems to be your lifes goal and consumes a great deal of time and anger which is why I say its saddening.
Posted by basil2744 over 6 years ago
No point getting confused....It is a classic con..!!
Posted by xb0xguru over 6 years ago
Quick question (as I've not been a VM customer for a number of years). Aside from 50Meg, do they still cap your speed after x amount of data?
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 - I suspect that like everything else, the pace of progress will accelerate. If, in 10 years, 100Mbps is normal then Virgin Media will be able supply 400Mbps no problem. BT, on the other hand, won't have a broadband product to sell, just a dated narrowband product (up to 40Mbps). That should worry them.
Posted by roughbeast over 6 years ago
Posted by xb0xguru 23 minutes ago
Quick question (as I've not been a VM customer for a number of years). Aside from 50Meg, do they still cap your speed after x amount of data?

Nah VM don't traffic manage 50Mb. I never get less than 50Mb even at peak times. Usually around 52Mb.

Pleased to see VM confidently publishing its stats. Now they are already rolling out 10:1 down up ratio and then 100Mb later they have every reason to be confident. Some good advertising wouldn't go amiss though if they want to overcome the lies we get from BT and Sky.

Posted by roughbeast over 6 years ago
Sorry xb0xguru misread yer post. Yes VM do cap speed on all products less than 50Mb, though this doesn't seem to have reduced their average stats much. I wonder if they will cap 50Mb after 100Mb comes out.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@Mark, 10yrs is a long time. I would like to hope a rollout of FTTP would be underway by then
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@Mark, its not about a speed race, "

No its about the dishonest advertising of those speeds
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
@roughbeast where is the demand for 100Mb though? There's very little demand for 50Mb?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB Its sad because your not the average complainer that hears something on the radio and disagrees, it seems to be your lifes goal and consumes a great deal of time and anger which is why I say its saddening."

Your "lifes goal" which consumes alot of your time seems to be defending BT, i find that quite saddening. Only difference is my time has a purpose. Youdont have issues with the ASA maybe agreeing with me also do you?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Nope I'm not defending anyone, I have no preference of any provider. I just look at what I see and tell it how I see it, if you don't like that.. I'm sorry
Posted by roughbeast over 6 years ago
Slightly off subject. The broadband test here in TBB still doesn't seem to be very VM friendly. Although the user interface has been improved I still get readings wildly adrift from what I consistently get when I test on speedtest.net. If TTB, a site with authority, can't get speed measurement right, we can hardly expect users to correctly assess their own ISP or anybody elses.

[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/942301250.png[/IMG][/URL]
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
What do you get on TBB roughbeast? there was a big whoo-haarr months back when Virgin said speedtesters couldn't measure their 50Mb BB as it was too fast and TBB stepped up and showed them there's could.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Very nice roughbeast, funny speedtest is acceptable for BT fanboys to measure FTTC speeds but not Virgins LOL
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
What are you on about Carpetburn? Can you even read? His speedtest.net result looks great he's saying the TBB one isn't. Your certainly on one today.

I said speedtesters, not speedtest.net, less haste.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Oh i see you said speedtesters, and you think TBB is the only accurate one Too bad that doesnt give an accurate reading of roughbeasts speed, it doesnt for mine either (Under estimates it to the tune of about 2-3Mb). So no idea why you are insisting he tests here, cos for many it isnt accurate.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB "Under estimates it to the tune of about 2-3Mb"

How do you know which test is accurate for your line? Have you run a test with a protocol analyser, and compared the results with various software speed testers over a statistically valid period?
Posted by roughbeast over 6 years ago
I get about 25Mb on TBB tests, never more than 30Mb and often less than 20Mb. This is unacceptable.

I can't remember when I got less than 50Mb on speedtest.net London server, any time of day.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Roughbest, do you have anything else real world to test on? What about newsgroups do you download from them as they are a good indication of just how fast your connection is. If NG's and Speedtest.net show your at 50Mb or just over I'd be trusting those two figures
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Sorry.. beast.. not best :o
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"Have you run a test with a protocol analyser, and compared the results with various software speed testers over a statistically valid period?"

CB doesn't believe in scientific method... even when the samknows testing showed VM's 50Mb product to only average 35Mb during the day he said it was impossible for FTTC (40Mb) to possibly be faster.

Regardless if its improbable, its not impossible.

Another person who confuses factual evidence with personal opinion... god they are fun to wind up.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"How do you know which test is accurate for your line? "

Because i know what speed i get when i download a big file....... What sort of dumb question is that? speedtest.net is more accurate for measuring my lines speed.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Ignore them roughbeast they are clutching at straws again, even an idiot knows what max speed they can download at. Ergo Obviously you, i and anyone with sense know what a speed test should report.
Their brains need a speed test if anything
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Staff here will even admit the java speedtest isnt always accurate, thats why they also offer this.....
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/

Dont try to tell the clueless that though it will confuse them more.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@ TaRkADaHl i believe in scientific methods, ive never said anything bad about the test tube you came from. Sorry that may not be factual, i confuse that with personal opinion as you point out.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/" I can't speak for anyone else but I don't rate that either I get between 120-190Kb/s if I download the 1Gb file. From a news server 350Kb/s pretty much constant.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB "Because i know what speed i get when i download a big file....... What sort of dumb question is that?"

Actually you know ver little from that given there may be performance issues affecting teh server, contention on the line etc. I take it from your response that you have not used any proper test equipment to guage the speed of your line, are relying on estimates from software speed testers and taking a view on which you believe to be more acurate.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Contd.

Nothing wrong with that, but hardly a sound basis from which to criticise someone else that has a different preference, as the experiences that informed their opinion will be different to yours.

They are just as likely as you to be right if neither of you have confirmed your respective hypotheses through accurate testing.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Actually you know ver little from that given there may be performance issues affecting teh server, contention on the line etc"

My service doesnt suffer contention you fool its not a BT based product. And im pretty sure i can tell the difference between a download going at full speed from a site and one that doesnt, what happens on your BT tripe is another story, me i know exactly what my line can do.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote""http://www.thinkbroadband.com/download/" I can't speak for anyone else but I don't rate that either I get between 120-190Kb/s if I download the 1Gb file. From a news server 350Kb/s pretty much constant."

Must be issues with your ISP, who are they? Maybe you should ask in the forums for help LOL
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@New_Londoner, maybe you should remove the speedtest.net signature in ya forum profile if it isnt accurate LOL
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Tsk another day another bunch of replies from the serial two BT fanboy cretins
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
"My service doesnt suffer contention" - really? So no contended backhaul? How do you know without using proper testing equipment?

"im pretty sure i can tell the difference between a download going at full speed from a site and one that doesnt" Again really? That is not an accurate test though!
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Contd.

Remember you ventured an opinion about the accuracy of one software speed tester over another, cirticising someone else's opinion, I simply asked what you based that view on.

I'm a bit surprised if its nothing more than what you've offered above, does not appear to be based on any sort of measurement at all.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB "maybe you should remove the speedtest.net signature in ya forum profile if it isnt accurate"

Bear in mind that I have not offered any opinion about the accuracy of any of the speed tests, however you have.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"Must be issues with your ISP, who are they? Maybe you should ask in the forums for help LOL " My speeds are fine everywhere else, even a cretin wouldn't raise a case for a single website
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"even a cretin wouldn't raise a case for a single website"

I'm sure CB would complaint to Ofcom though :)

Find some way to blame BT....
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Ill repeat for serial numpty number one "MY SERVICE doesnt suffer any contention" see if you can spot the errors in your multi follow up dribble.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote""even a cretin wouldn't raise a case for a single website"

I'm sure CB would complaint to Ofcom though :)

Find some way to blame BT.... "

From the amount of BT staff and shareholders here trying to defend they already know its their fault
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
I take it from your non-response that you don't have any evidence to support your contention (pun intended) that one software speed tester is more accurate than another.

Fair enough, but I don't believe you shoudl then criticise another for suggesting a different point of view. Better to acknowledge that it is your opinion (ie not a fact), and allow others to hold a different opinion.

You disagreeing with them does not make them wrong unless you have facts to back up your opinion as per earlier post.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
PS Helpful if you (and others) could avoid resorting to abusive comments when unable to answer a question.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"
I take it from your non-response that you don't have any evidence to support your contention (pun intended) that one software speed tester is more accurate than another."

No no evidence at all, i have no idea of my line speed or what a tester should report, just like you obviously if you think all testers are equal
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
MY SERVICE has no contention, you do comprehend the difference between that and what you babbled on about dont you?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Many thanks for your continuing ability to illuminate the debate with constructive comments.

Since you ask, I'm quite clear of the various meanings of the word contention, including the one most relevant to this discussion. I'm also familiar with the difference between opinion and fact, happy to provide a link for each if you're interested.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - does that mean you have dedicated bandwidth from your premises all the way through the internet to each server you access, including thinkbroadband?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
NO it means MY SERVICE doesnt suffer contention.

Not my fault if he doesnt understand what that means.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
To be fair, on the evidence of your above posts, my knowledge of network contention far outweighs your knowledge of how to assess the relative accuracy of software speed testers.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
MY SERVICE suffers no contention, if your knowledge outweighs mine you would be able to comprehend that simple statement.
My speed is consistant 24/7. I dont use BT based internet.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.