That's pretty rich from BT
BT to Vermin Media
"Hullo? Pot here. Kettle; you''re black"
Virgin Media has been placed on the naughty step by the UK's advertising watchdog following two separate complaints from rival telcos BSkyB and BT. The cable company was berated by BSkyB for misleadingly implying that Sky Sports had been included in Virgin Media's advertised price for its "Big Kahuna Bundle". Broadcasting …
don't be silly, the companies know that ASA is there for the plebs' peace of mind, ASA knows it's there for the plebs' peace of mind, and the plebs know it too. Plebs can do fuckall about it, ASA cares fuckall about it (guss why), and the media companies all lie through their teeth. Next week: Virgin complaining about BT ad, and the week after Sky complaining about...
Because invariably you then need a Virgin phone line to get anything near the advertised price (except that is never includes the £15.99 line rental).
At least BT have a reason for the phone line to deliver the broadband, Virgin are literally using it to make them seem competitive and giving themselves a healthy profit to boot.
"Why do Virgin Media bother with these misleading ads, when all they need to do is say the following:
We're not BT, and you won't need their line."
Because, my dear AC, on pure like for like plays there's always someone a fair bit cheaper than Virginmedia when you look beyond the introductory offers, even when you allow for BT's line rental cash cow. And because Virginmedia offer rubbish routers that aren't really fit for purpose. And because under the Cable Cowboy they've run a series of price hikes to piss customers off.
I had to put in a complaint to Virgin Media about their email campaign which was offering the Big Kahuna bundle for only £X more than I currently pay.
Unfortunately for them maths was not their strong point as I worked it out that it would have actually cost £X+Y more (can't remember the figures but Y>5).
I made the mistake of reading one of the many junk mails they drop through my letterbox when they first announced this new package, and remember thinking "woah, that's quite a good deal".
Then I read the small print and realised they were comparing packages without line rental, making it pretty much what their old deal was just with a new name and associated 12 month contract lock-in. No thanks.
This post has been deleted by its author
"how do you return the letters? when there's no return address? :("
You know that red cylinder with a letter sized slot in it? Stick it in there.
Then the people who posted it through your letter box can decide how they want to deal with it. If they get enough returns they'll start insisting on a returns address (and charging the originator) but it's their problem.
You know that red cylinder with a letter sized slot in it? Stick it in there.
Then the people who posted it through your letter box can decide how they want to deal with it.
Unfortunately, the people who posted it through my letter box don't give a flying monkey about it when they sort what's in them red cylinders. No return address - straight into the bin.
Recently got my free upgrade from 120Mbps to 150Mbps from Virgin Media. Click along to speedtest.net last night (9pm, so peak usage time) and it benched at 149.93Mbps. Must say I can't grumble on that aspect of the service. Since I don't watch movies or paid sports channels, they do what I want them to very well :)
That's still a fairly restricted number, and of known servers. If you use other speed testing services eg
http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk
then I certainly get different and far slower speeds.
My day to day usage feels more like the broadbandspeedchecker 50 Mb indication than the speedtest.net 100 Mb claim.
I've got FTTC - then an O/H in copper.
What pees me off is that there is another green box really close to me but under the rules - despite all the cables ending up at the same place - BT are not allowed to use it.
With Speedtest I get a better ping from Germany than a server five miles up the road.
I'd still like someone to slap virgin media over their claims of a fibre optic broadband service... Just the same as BT's FTTC offering, the last mile is copper...
Quite. Especially since they claim to be X times faster than BT, which suggests they're refering to cable modem service which over a coax to the house so it is not fibre all the way.
Mind you nothing wrong with the bit of coax, beats BT's rotten twisted pair anyway. ...
Hey VM now that you do DOCSIS 3, can I have 24x8 channels please?
"Get it all for just £30 a month for the first six months."
I've no idea how much that would cost me.
Ofcom should not permit this type of thing without the advertiser also saying what the cost after six months is, and preferably the contact length too. And it should include line rental in all prices, which I bet it doesn't.
Installation fees need not be paid.
Just tell them to come and take the whole lot away because you are going freeview/NowTV with another ISP.
Next thing you know you are talking to customer retention agent, and the installation is free and you will have a £10 per month discount on the already cheap offer.
I've not understood to this day why BT et all are able to advertise their broadband using the up-to slogan. I'd be interested to know how many people are actually limited to the advertised speed and the what is the average. At least Virgin has been decent in that aspect - 62mbps on 60mbps service.
VM bundles however - bad riddence. Dropping TV and phone ASAP. Who needs it when you can get HD freeview, most channels offer online catchup services, and PVRs are getting cheaper with bigger storage.
I don't like their set top box either: A friend had one and half the EPG is missing in favour of advertising about crappy virgin "must-have" programming and services. You can't see what is actually on, and the VM stuff is "sticky" at the top of the listings so you're constantly in danger of clicking on the damn thing by mistake.
Freeview rules! Add a "smart TV" (there's an oxymoron for you!) which has built-in catch-up apps from the Beeb, C4 etc and you're good to go. Usually able to plug in a USB stick if you're desperate, though you can usually only record what you're watching as AFAIK there aren't too many twin-tuner TVs out there.
Still utter bollocks - I don't live at the exchange, and neither does anybody else.
They know the exact bandwidth their existing customers are getting, so should be forced to state the range of speeds one should expect to get, and not the theoretical maximum you might possibly manage to get if you happened to plug your modem directly into the DSLAM.
(After all, if you were that close you wouldn't be using a modem anyway)
BEfore I left due to them being acquired by scum, my previous ISP used to publish the 'speed' any given customer could expect to get the moment you put in your postcode, and they even offered to cancel your subscription with no charges if you didn't get it.
Why exactly won't every ISP do that?