I am sure it is just a glitch, and all of the various Virgin Newsnet
channels that were available up until this past weekend will re-appear.  I
am certain their apparent disappearance has nothing to do with the original
postings below.  If this newsgroup channel also disappears then maybe it
will be time to resort to other methods of Internet publication.  You see, I
believe you need to have the opportunity to read the original posting.

As you read below, be advised that after giving Virgin a final opportunity
to revert me, someone saw sense and I was put back to my original service.
I am still awaiting a refund.  This will be pursued, if necessary through
the small claims court.  I will keep readers posted.

THE ORIGINAL POSTING:

"The original posting on four of the Virgin. Newsnet channels, all of which
no longer appear in the Usenet listings:

Anyone thinking of upgrading to an 8Mbps service with Virgin or indeed
anyone else read below and take note and avoid being deluded by  hollow
advertising!  The fact is and it is a fact, that if you do upgrade to  8
Mbps, only a minority of people will be able to experience significantly
higher speeds in line with those advertised - the remainder, allegedly, are
bank rolling the provider!  I am one of the unfortunates who thought he as
 getting an upgrade when in fact all I got was a very inferior service which
I believe is simply a down grade:

 "I have a complaint that has not been resolved by customer services.  As a
result I shall be closing my account.  Last month I upgraded from Plan 3 to
Plan 1.  With Plan 3 I consistently experienced connections around 0.85Mbps,
after I had upgraded to Plan 1 I my average access had in fact dropped  to
0.3-0.4 occasioning 0.6-0.8 and on 'odd' occasions even slightly higher.
During a period of [Virgin/BT monitored] testing even speeds of 3Mb were
recorded but these were neither consistent or the norm and in any event 3Mb
is very close to 1Mb and very far from up to 8 Mb particularly given the
 price differential of £10 per month compared with my previous service.  I
asked customer services to revert my account to Plan 3 and provide me with a
refund of the expenditure incurred since purchasing the upgrade, which
clearly it isn't, an upgrade.  I was advised I could not change my plan back
and could not receive a refund but that I may receive a gesture of goodwill
payment but it is unlikely to be the full amount - this very clearly is not
in line with the Sale of Goods Act  1979.  Through all the testing, advise
from one of the technical team (whose comments via the [Virgin] chat
portal  I have on file) I had concluded and had it confirmed to me that the
issue
 was one of QoS and contention (and the reason why the technical help
operator himself felt compelled to revert to a the 1Mb service) and so I
considered it to be very straight forward - I have not received the service
I have paid for, get a refund and go back to the service I was otherwise
happy with.  But I have not been allowed to, I can't even revert via the
virgin web site, as it is forbidden to change package down the scale.  So,
and we are getting to the end here, I have been left with no option but to
take my patronage elsewhere.  I DO require a refund of the difference
between my old package and the funds paid to date for the new plan.  If you
are unable to provide me with a full refund of the difference please advise
me why not in order, when I submit my complaint to Trading Standards, copy,
the Office of Fair Trading and the Internet Ombudsmen, your comments may be
fairly recorded."



The following adds further insight into the issues arising:



Following complaints by NTL and members of the public, the Advertising
Standards Authority (www.asa.org.uk
<http://www.adslguide.org.uk/jump.asp?url=http://www.asa.org.uk) has this
morning published an adjudication against Bulldog Communications regarding
its advertising of an "up to 8 meg" Broadband service as part of the "The
gate is open" campaign.

The complainants made the argument that only a small number of users (NTL
argued 35%) within a very short distance (3 km) of the telephone exchange,
would be able to receive speeds close to 8 Mbps, and that beyond this the
speed drop was significant due to the line quality not being capable of
delivering faster services with the current technology being used.

Bulldog responded by saying their advertising was designed in line with
previous ASA judgements using the words "up to" to indicate the top speed
might not be achieved by all users, and indicated that over half of users
achieved speeds of 6 Mbps or more. The Broadcast Advertising Clearance
Centre agreed with Bulldog's comments.

Despite this, the ASA upheld the complaints against Bulldog disagreeing that
the words "up to" were sufficient indication to consumers that the top speed
might not be possible on their lines for services up to 8 Mbps. They stated
that the "up to" reference for services up to 2 Mbps was adequate, because
the fall-off was smaller than for 8 Mbps services. The ASA asked Bulldog to
"indicate prominently" in future advertising that top speeds varied
significantly (with distance from the exchange).

Although this particular judgement applies to Bulldog, it is a clear signal
to the entire broadband industry that the way services are advertised need
to be clearer and as such this is going to benefit consumers."