Virgin Media Community

[TonyJr]

Thank you John for putting it that way. I was starting to getting very annoyed having to read a child-like shouting competition rather than an informative discussion over the last few days. If you want to stamp your feet, please do it elsewhere!

Tony

[ksim]

---

@TonyJr wrote:

Thank you John for putting it that way. I was starting to getting very annoyed having to read a child-like shouting competition rather than an informative discussion over the last few days.

Sorry Tony, but what informative discussion you want? do we have any information from VM? or will we continue creating rumors ourselves?
Like after trial VM decided:

1) DSLite is bad and they will go Full DS, also that will show everyone in LG that brits are different!
2) they decided that /64 prefix is too small and updating everything to give /48.
3) Every user will get a high-level technician to manage their firewall rules.
4) CGNAT will never happen in VM, they are inventing new technology.
5) and no one even need IPv6 and single-threaded protocol 41 as "IPv4 is all you need"

Is that informative enough? Is it helping anyone? or just lies circulating over and over here (except 2, that's a new one I've made)?

If you want to stamp your feet, please do it elsewhere!

---

This thread lost any informative sense ages ago, there is no movement in IPv6 support in VM, I am using the topic to practice my writing skills (English is not my native language as you sure noticed), can't think of a better place.

[ksim]

---

@jem101 wrote:

The truth is that (probably) none of us are privy to what VM's plans are (assuming they have any) - and on that basis anything any of us say is no more more than idle speculation.

then we have done, no idea why you decided to speculate on things you do not know.

[Morgaine]

I think this comment by m1maj is one of the most insightful in recent times because it gets to the heart of the matter:

I think we have now reached the point that the regulators should step in. I don't think a company should be allowed to advertise its service as offering the Internet if it doesn't offer IPv6 connectivity alongside IPv4. They should have to declare their service as "legacy only" or "obsolescent" or some such.

The point that Virgin is not offering a full IP service is well made.  But there is also another reason why regulators should step in.

VirginMedia's monopoly in cable has had a clear negative impact.  Unlike the UK's highly competitive markets in DSL and mobile, Virgin's monopoly in cable provides it with no competition on this medium at all, and as a result the company pays no attention to the networking needs of its users and ignores what this is doing to Britain's networking competitiveness in the wider world.  This is especially true for our position versus Europe, where the leading countries are now reaching 50% IPv6 deployment.

Virgin refuses to speak to us here, and going around in circles with IPv6 denialists who have no interest in educating themselves is a complete waste of time.  It has become necessary to request the regulators in communications, business, and advertising accuracy to step in.  Involving the media will probably help as well, in particular the business media which should be dismayed at VM's failure to capitalize on IPv6's far greater opportunities.

[Morgaine]

I think we have now reached the point that the regulators should step in. I don't think a company should be allowed to advertise its service as offering the Internet if it doesn't offer IPv6 connectivity alongside IPv4. They should have to declare their service as "legacy only" or "obsolescent" or some such.

[cje85]

Someone already tried the regulators but neither Ofcom or the ASA consider IPv6  to be as vital as a few on here.

https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/4631522-ipv6-is-optional-according-to-asa-and-ofcom.html?f...

[Morgaine]

The regulators do at least speak to us, unlike the willfully non-communicating Virgin Media.  The issue can be explored with them in far more depth, and we have additional recourse through our members of Parliament.

In addition, times they are a-changing.  As we have officially left the EU pending only deal-making until the end of the year, on the 1st January 2021 we are officially in heightened competition with the countries of the EU bloc.  Virgin Media's never-ending deferral of IPv6 is making us uncompetitive with world progress in advanced networking, and that is going to have serious consequences for the country.  It is a strong reason for regulators, politicians and media to examine the issue with fresh eyes.

It should surprise nobody that we are in this situation.  It is how one would expect a monopoly in cable to behave.

[VMCopperUser]

Is it due to a monopolistic type of company, or one that's just grown too large without learning to adapt quickly?

The loss of corporate customers might be a big deal, but once that becomes a issue they will adjust to that quickly I would imagine.

Bear in mind that up until perhaps a year or so ago, you could still find staff saying that it's not an issue as there's enough IPv4 addresses for customers to use - showing a huge lack of knowledge about what IPv6 is and the wider problems that it fixes.

It is laughable in that I just came back from the USA, where there's no cell service, broadband, nor dialup access any longer.  Yet if I drive to the nearest public internet location I could get 2~ meg speeds WITH IPv6 connectivity.  The headline speeds are what sells a product, and I fear that's why there's no view of it being important for Virgin to roll out IPv6.

Funding for things like the USO should be restricted to ISP's who deliver only full transit services.  I don't see why public money should be going towards a incomplete service. BT and Sky have both had it now for about 4~ years, so perhaps they should push that in adverts, that might kick TT and VM into doing something.

[Morgaine]

VMCopperUser:  I couldn't agree more.  All of your points above are spot on.

Providing a full transit service is after all intrinsically part of net neutrality, despite the topic usually being more focused on neutrality of media services.

USA doesn't have our problem of a single provider in cable though, and huge american cable ISPs like Comcast have long provided IPv6.  This prevents IPv6 deployment in the US from stagnating just because a single cable monopolist is dragging its feet, so today's US deployment stands at a healthy 36.7%.

In contrast, IPv6 deployment in the UK began to plateau once Sky and BT completed their IPv6 rollouts, and it's been bumping around the mid-20%'s ever since.  That is unavoidable when one of our "Big Three" ISPs refuses to play its part.  The knock-on effect on our industry and commerce has been nothing short of appalling, and I can understand UK companies' reticence --- why should they implement IPv6 with any urgency when the millions of regular folks on Virgin Media will not be able to reach their IPv6 servers?

VM is single-handedly responsible for this nationwide predicament, because residential ISPs create a dependency for all online businesses.  I'm sure that the company knows this, but based on present evidence after nearly 10 years of detailed encouragement by their community, I have to conclude that they do not care that their choices prevent the nation from becoming leaders in a massively powerful enabling technology.

[cje85]

You need to try and convince Ofcom and the ASA that VM's lack of IPv6 is such a dreadful national scandal, then perhaps something might change.

Taken from the other forum, their current view is:

"The ASA rejected that complaint on the basis that: Most consumers wouldn't consider IPv6 as part of their purchase decision, therefore it won't affect what ISP they go with. 

OFCOM have rejected it on the basis that IPv6 is entirely optional in the UK and they regard IPv4 as sufficient."

[Morgaine]

cje85: I replied to your message right after you linked the ThinkBroadBand thread, but on reflection perhaps it wasn't obvious that I was making a reply, my bad.

I won't repeat the spiel, but in summary, (i) we can at least talk to regulators, and (ii) times they are a-changing.  On 1st January 2021 we are officially in heightened competition with the countries of the EU bloc.  It is a strong reason for regulators, politicians and media to examine the issue with fresh eyes.