I was thinking the same thing now or could we all contact Watchdog or something? This is getting out of hand. The patch they keep touting won't fix the issue only put a mask on it to make it look better.
Please do, because I'm also a gamer, and moved to VM for the additional download speed and upload speed I was getting from BT, however it made my very stable ping of 9ms (took some work to get it to that low and stay there never changing unless my line maxed out) to a minimum of 18ms (if I'm lucky I might get 9ms at 3am when I play) but generally about 23ms, and then in game this rises to about 45ms, now in another thread I had a discussion with a guy who linked some university study about perception of ping in a game etc... because he disagreed I could feel/sense the difference between 20ish-45ms and being sat at 80+ms, if you're a serious gamer you do, you notice it because you click and wait for the action to occur rather than it being seamless when your ping is lower - so if you're going to reply saying something like that, don't bother, I notice it and I won't bother responding to someone if they do lol.
But Virgin's lack of transparancy around the Intel Puma6 issue is HUGELY infuriating, given that a very very very simple fix is just allow end users to use their own CPE (equipement), do I want to pay £200 for a decent cable modem? Ofc I don't, but when you see graphs of SuperHub2ACs vs SuperHub3s the difference is night and day. when they DO comment its ALWAYS a fix is coming, and not fix ever arrives, I'm just about to hit my 24months with VMB and really don't want to renew but want the upload that the connection can offer as I know I'll only get 6mb on BT so I may have no choice. I just can't get my head round why VM don't just let customer use their own stuff to fix the problem, because tbh the vast majority of people probably don't know, don't care, and are unaware that this problem exists because they don't neccessarily use the upload bandwidth in the same way nor require a low stable ping.
I have been wondering for a while if enough people clubbing together on the forum, and either making a very public display via social media that the problems not being fixed (almost 2 years IS enough time to fix this) or make enough noise that Ofcom really will intervene - Ideally the outcome would be this, Ofcom force Virgin to allow end users the choice of CPE (since there is no reason why they don't), and force them to stop taking on any additional customers until they've resolved their 'local congestion issues' that from what I can tell, everyone ever thats been/is a customer suffers from on a semi-regular basis, and thats not what I pay VM for....if I wanted that kind of service I'd goto Talk Talk where they push traffic at peak times out to somewhere in the US meaning pings go up to the 500ms odd mark.
If the congestion issue really was such an issue why don't other ISPs suffer anywhere near as bad from it? Just need to go look at thinkbroadbands monthly speed ratings with the highs and lows to see VM's network is over subscribed as is.
The network topology of a cable network puts it at much greater risk of suffering peak time speed issues compared to VDSL services (BT/Sky etc). There is a lot more bandwidth sharing involved on cable networks.
VM is getting better, on average across the country they're now reaching the advertised speeds at peak time, except on VIVID 200 (not Gamer) which falls marginally below to 192Mb on average. This is a lot better than 18-24 months ago when only the 50Mb reached the advertised speed at peak time. There are still some terrible areas but they seem to be getting on top of the utilisation issues at last.
The Hub 3, as much as it has problems, does help with load balancing by spreading the load across 24 downstream channels (total bandwidth pool of 1200Mb) instead of only 8 (total bandwidth of 400Mb). This is probably why VIVID 200 still struggles to meet the average speed, a lot of users will still be on the Hub 2 whereas 200 Gamer and 300 require the Hub 3.
I can't see there being much that they can do but it is worth a shot. I'd urge people to make complaints and take it through to deadlock, rejecting the insulting compensation that VM try to offer you. I had three phone calls effectively pleading me to resolve the issue for £30.00. The more people that do this, the more pressure VM will get on them to resolve the two year old issue one way or another.
@Hendrado Please do. I'm not far enough along to get deadlock yet. But I feel it will go that far. I'd love to see what your result is. Got off the phone with customer service yesterday, i'm always patient and nice even with the apparent language barrier. But it gets a little frustrating to have the same thing repeated to you over and over when you've already proven it's wrong.
Also to the guy who keeps getting deleted. Just use the thread with thousands of replies on the matter as evidence.
Sorry for the additional post but i was wondering if anyone has filed a complaint with Ofcom? I'm just going through the details now but fed up paying for a service which is not working as it should.
OFCOM only care that what is being advertised matches what is provided, VM never claimed the latency to be of any specific level they only ever advertise the speeds, so unless you're getting significantly below the maximum advertised speeds there isn't much they can really do, latency isn't guaranteed and won't even be listed in your contract at all because its not something they can ever actually guarantee
"OFCOM only care that what is being advertised matches what is provided, VM never claimed the latency to be of any specific level they only ever advertise the speeds, "
1) VM have specifically advertised their network as suitable for gaming (this, for example), and even have the audacity to name some of their packages with the name "gamer". The fact that the company specifically make no guarantees in their T&Cs doesn't get them off the hook that they have promised, in their marketing that their network is suitable for gaming, when it clearly is not. That is also a breach of the ASA guidelines for advertising, should anybody have the energy to explain to the ASA (in words of three syllables or less) why VM is not suitable for gaming.
2) I have no doubt that VM T&Cs would be laughed out of court (if it ever got that far) under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 2015. Essentially the VM T&Cs bind you to pay their bills, but offers no promise of any standard of service or speed whatsoever. And we can see in these forums many cases where VM are taking the money for high speed connections, and yet delivering worse than a mediocre Openreach connection.
From CMA guidance: "A term is unfair ‘if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer’. The fairness test thus includes the following main elements: significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and good faith.". Now, I'd say that a contract that locks me, makes no promises for speed or quality of connection, and requires me to pay, regardless of the standard of service offered is an imbalance in rights - all upside for Verminmedia, all downside for the consumer. It is unfortunate that Ofcom are so totally, staggeringly useless as a regulator - slow, timid, ineffectual, incompetent, and captured by the industry they are supposed to be regulating.