Virgin wifi paying for 150, only equipped to receive 100

Takmon

Bardy123 wrote: »

I'm not bothered about doing a speed test, it's the fact that their equipment wasn't capable of providing 150 ever because it was only capable of 100. Its like buying a 900cc motorbike then finding out its engine has been restricted to 500cc. It is not the 900cc motorbike you thought you were getting. Despite the fact that a 900cc motorbike can do 140mph. You never tried to do 140mph because the roads are restricted to 70mph. It's not to do with the 140 speed it's the power that was restricted.

A speed test takes 30 seconds to complete and the motorbike comparison isn't comparable because a speed test at 150 Mbps is not illegal :rotfl: .
Considering it is so easy to do a speedtest and you were not bothered it seems pointless making a complaint about it now. Also when you consider you only seem to use Wi-Fi so likely wouldn't have ever used the full 150 Mbps i don't see why you would go on this package if your saying a 100 Mbps package would have been cheaper.

You also need to get your facts straight; in the OP you said it wasn't "designed" for the faster speed so could have got it. Now your saying it wasn't "capable" of getting it at all. In reality you don't have a clue what speed you were getting and didn't really care so your just seeing a chance to grab some money from a complaint.

Bardy123 wrote: »

we were told that the hub was not designed to accept speeds of 150 only 100.

cajef

Bardy123 wrote: »

I'm not bothered about doing a speed test, it's the fact that their equipment wasn't capable of providing 150 ever because it was only capable of 100.

But if you had done a wired speed test when you were first supplied with the equipment four years ago you would have found out you were not getting the quoted speeds and could have had done something about it then rather than finding out four years later and now complaining about it.

cranford

Not sure how you arrive at you would like your £3000 back. Presumably for 4 years you were happy with the service. I was on a speed of 100 previously then 200, back to 100 and now on 500 because of the package deals but it makes no difference to me.
So can you quantify how you suffered for 4 years?
In terms of cash, VM's current BB tariffs show a difference of £5 per month between 100 and 150 so even assuming you did not have bundle discounts the most VM would have gained over 4 years would have been £240. But as other posters have said the time to complain was 4 years ago.

[Deleted User]

cranford wrote: »

Not sure how you arrive at you would like your £3000 back. Presumably for 4 years you were happy with the service. I was on a speed of 100 previously then 200, back to 100 and now on 500 because of the package deals but it makes no difference to me.
So can you quantify how you suffered for 4 years?
In terms of cash, VM's current BB tariffs show a difference of £5 per month between 100 and 150 so even assuming you did not have bundle discounts the most VM would have gained over 4 years would have been £240. But as other posters have said the time to complain was 4 years ago.

I think the £3,000 was a hypothetical amount based on his very peculiar motorcycle analogy.

[Deleted User]

cranford wrote: »

the most VM would have gained over 4 years would have been £240.

I doubt the Ombudsman would/will award even this amount.

jb66

The Superhub 1 initially did 120mb then 152mb. When the superhub 2 came out they then limited the issue of sh1s to 100meg or less customers.

Customers on 150 and 200 then got a superhub 2.