I agree, if you buy a car from a garge that can do " up to " 200mph, but it will only ever go 20mph, then you would ask for your money back. The same " up to " princible applies here. If they had advertised 30 mbs and charged you for 30mbs, and you got 20mbs then all would be ok. However Virgin Mediocre have used the " Up to 200mbs " slogan to miss-sell the service, without the infrastructure to support it, and over-charge on that basis. Therefore it is infair, false and I would have thought illegal to do so, at beat it is morally wrong.
They can prove you can get the speed though. Overnight. Not when the majority of people want to use their connections however.
The general infrastructure is there, just not the peak time infrastructure required.
Again they are covered here, it's all in the small print. Morally wrong though that I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All posts made are personal opinions as I do not work for VirginMedia. Kudo's a post if you find it useful and want to say thanks Mark a post as a helpful answer if it answers your question
I'm very close to leaving myself; Raised an issue back in September where I was getting awful speeds. This is September 2015 by the way.
Area is over utilised. Code is: F003839144 - originally raised by the engineer who visited in September and been fobbed off with a 10% discount for the remaining year (which they didn't add on this month ironically!).
I'm honestly this close to moving to sky *pinches air*. With their broadband and Sky Q its an attractive proposition.
I don't even get decent speeds during the day, up to 160mb? Lucky if I get 40 in the dead of day; I work from home fortunately, so I get to look at the speeds quite regularly.
Put it like this, if you went to a petrol forecourt and bought your self a full tank of petrol and you only receive a quarter of a tank, you wouldn't be happy either.
I've always accepted peak time slow down as it should be expected, it is just the amount of slowdown that is unacceptable. The system of people signing up and not knowing what kind of speeds they will get at peak times doesn't allow people to make an informed decision. When you sign up you should be able to choose between providers based on speeds and prices. At the moment the current system doesn't allow people this to make a decision and that is what is really misleading. Customers gets a bad deal and it just doesn't make sense. The regulators really need to sort this out as it doesn't make sense to force people into a contract not knowing what it is they are signing up too. I think even using words as up too they wouldn't be able to defend 1mb on a 200mb connection as reasonable. Courts would have to decide what was considered reasonable even with the vague terminology.
I am in a Virgin Over Utilised Area - F003476231 - Never Ending Fault.
Parki79 wrote: I think even using words as up too they wouldn't be able to defend 1mb on a 200mb connection as reasonable. Courts would have to decide what was considered reasonable even with the vague terminology.
I agree, "Up to" is such a vague term and should never have been allowed to be used, much better to have gone with a minimum with a contract get out if it couldn't be supplied. Get rid of the 10% of customers attaining headline speeds rubbish as well and make it the average for your area with off-peak and peak time capability and it becomes a much fairer playing field.
Well nearly a year after leaving Virgin Mediocre, I got a call from them asking me to come back ....LOL. Funny they never bothered to get in touch all the time I was with them suffering 20mbs but paying for 200mbs. Anyhoo, I can only say that I have had no issues whatsoever with Sky, I get 30mbs all day ( and night ), line rental and TV allfor £35 per month. far more stable than VM's system. I cant comment on the customer service ,never needed to contact them, but I do know how poor Virgins is, and the mis-selling of services continues. Good luck to all that stay here, remeber you can always move, contract or not, they breal the contracts by mis-selling the service, dont pay for something they cannot achieve.
Hi , I think that you have done the right thing and just moved , I was with sky and moved to vm. There tv box and navigation is just so slow and my family always moan it's not as good as sky . My response was the 200mb speed for there Xbox and PS4 with iPad etc but the erratic service and now the 2 mb at peak times 😳. With no fix until December if they don't push it forward that is I have decided to go back to sky even though it's 10 to 20mb speed . At least it works and there is no deception and lack of efficiency on upgrades to oversubscribed users for area.
Watching Rip-off Britain today, apparently only 1 in 10 have to receive somewhere near the advertised speed for the advertising agency to be ok with this. However Which are putting pressure on and apparently this is to be reviewed. Its ridiculous that BB providers can sell 80% under the expected speeds and for this to be ok. If you are looking at moving to Sky, go to their live chat, we got a great deal, £35 per month for all 3 services, and a stable 30mbs at all times, with 2 gamers in the house had no complaints unlike our time with Virgin. VM need a reality check.
The main problem is VM see it as a Pxxxing up the wall competition, rather than saying you can/will get 30mbs, they brag about something that isnt achievable, then use the get out clause of " Up to 200mbs ". So why not say up to 500mbs, 600mbs 1000mbs, its all " up to ", and still as achievable.
Is was with VM before it was VM, when it was NTL .... but under VM, its just got worse and worse.
If your in Area 31, forget it, you will never hit 200mbs, but they will still charge you for it.