Virgin Media missleading advertising.

Banned
.

Something I've noticed from them all the time, but today just got another "welcome back" letter from them.

£14 pm for Broadband, TV and Phone.

It then says underneath, when you have virgin phone for £11pm.


So shouldn't it say

£14 pm for Broadband and TV

When you take Virgin Phone for £11pm?

They can hardly claim the £14pm includes a phone service, when you have to pay £11 extra for it!

How do ofcom let them get away with it?



.

25 Comments

I hate Virgin but they have massive hoopholes in their services.


not that i exploit any

I love asking questions like this when the salesmen call with their well-rehearsed blurb.

Original Poster Banned

strike;4592901

I hate Virgin but they have massive hoopholes in their services.



Haha.... Yes I know all about those!:roll: To be fair, If I WAS able to get the TV and broadband for £14 without the phone, I would. I never use my BT phone, so I'm not gonna pay them for it as well. (I wouldnt give up my BT line as I need that for my BeThere ADSL)

Predikuesi;4592925

I love asking questions like this when the salesmen call with their … I love asking questions like this when the salesmen call with their well-rehearsed blurb.



Id imagine they've been asked it! Probably say "good point - I'll convey that back to the advertising dept."

Yeah - Virgin, who also advertise themselves as having the fastest broadband in the UK. Not counting hours during in which you're throttled, the hideous oversubscription of the service, their P2P-slaughtering traffic shaping or Be's 24mbit service, from which I've topped 2.5MB/s on newsgroups, natch.

Original Poster Banned

dxx;4592991

Yeah - Virgin, who also advertise themselves as having the fastest … Yeah - Virgin, who also advertise themselves as having the fastest broadband in the UK. Not counting hours during in which you're throttled, the hideous oversubscription of the service, their P2P-slaughtering traffic shaping or Be's 24mbit service, from which I've topped 2.5MB/s on newsgroups, natch.



Yeh true, though they are not the only ones on that. "Unlimited" Bwhahahahaha

Nice speeds....... My connection is 16.5Mb, but I only get about 1.5MB/s

Yes they are allowed to advertise the phone line rental separately. It's to keep price comparisons fair with BB providers that use BT lines. Otherwise BT could send its customers advertising saying BB is only £10 say but another service provider using BT lines would have to say £20. So the BT one looks cheaper? Well as it will cost you £21 then no. So ofcom let you leave the line rental out as long as it mentioned in the advert.

Original Poster Banned

GAVINLEWISHUKD;4593040

Yes they are allowed to advertise the phone line rental separately. It's … Yes they are allowed to advertise the phone line rental separately. It's to keep price comparisons fair with BB providers that use BT lines. Otherwise BT could send its customers advertising saying BB is only £10 say but another service provider using BT lines would have to say £20. So the BT one looks cheaper? Well as it will cost you £21 then no. So ofcom let you leave the line rental out as long as it mentioned in the advert.



I've got no problem with advertsing the phone line seperately.... its including it in the price of £14 thats not right since its not included!!!

I understand the point you are making though. Just think its clearly false advertising.

I don't see what is so misleading, I have had the same leaflet and it states the same deal as on the website.

Broadband size L , Television size M , Phone size M for £14 , when you take a Virgin phone line for £11 per month.

I'm astonished to find you think that is misleading people, could it be any clearer?

Just found out I can get their 50mb service now.
Only cost £2 extra as well.

Original Poster Banned

Lynchy;4593144

I don't see what is so misleading, I have had the same leaflet and it … I don't see what is so misleading, I have had the same leaflet and it states the same deal as on the website.Broadband size L , Television size M , [COLOR="Red"]Phone size M[/COLOR] for £14 , when you take a Virgin phone line for £11 per month.I'm astonished to find you think that is misleading people, could it be any clearer?



Er. Yes. It should say Broadband and TV for £14 when you take a phone line for £11 The reference to the phone shouldnt be there in the £14 "offer". And the leaflet I have must be different.... Doesnt mention anything about M and L etc and the phone payment reference isnt even on the same line!

guv;4593254

Er. Yes. It should say Broadband and TV for £14 when you take a phone … Er. Yes. It should say Broadband and TV for £14 when you take a phone line for £11 The reference to the phone shouldnt be there in the £14 "offer". And the leaflet I have must be different.... Doesnt mention anything about M and L etc and the phone payment reference isnt even on the same line!



Well not exactly as your way only says you get BB and TV if you pay £11 line rental but you will get BB, TV and phone.

Yes it's all silly there just making the headline look the best within the guidelines. But you know what it meant.

Original Poster Banned

Lynchy;4593144

I don't see what is so misleading, I have had the same leaflet and it … I don't see what is so misleading, I have had the same leaflet and it states the same deal as on the website.Broadband size L , Television size M , Phone size M for £14 , when you take a Virgin phone line for £11 per month.I'm astonished to find you think that is misleading people, could it be any clearer?



The letter within states in big bold letters as a heading:

"Futoristic Broadband, TV and [COLOR="Red"]Phone[/COLOR] for an old fashioned price of £14 a month"

The leaflets cover says the same.

It should say

"Futoristic Broadband, TV and Phone for an old fashioned price of £25 a month"

Or

"Futoristic[COLOR="Red"] Broadband, and TV[/COLOR] for an old fashioned price of £14 a month when you subscibe to the phone service for and extra £11 a month"

Original Poster Banned

GAVINLEWISHUKD;4593296

Well not exactly as your way only says you get BB and TV if you pay £11 … Well not exactly as your way only says you get BB and TV if you pay £11 line rental but you will get BB, TV and phone.Yes it's all silly there just making the headline look the best within the guidelines. But you know what it meant.



Yes, I know what they meant..... and thats to make it look more attractive than it actually is. Thats why Im saying its missleading.

any hints on the 'massive loopholes' then please??

Virgin used to mention the full price until Richard Branson was having big problems with Sky when they cut out Skyone from Virgins service a couple years back.

Due to this, Sky started advertising heavily mentioned their price which seemed lower and then it mentions in the small print that you must pay an additional £11 line rental to BT, which then seemed cheaper than Virgins price which included the BT charges, thusly losing custom over Skys legal wording.

I think they managed to go around this loophole purely because the £11 isn't there fees, but BT charge anyone to run through their phonelines.

Hope that clears it up but I completely agree with you Guvvy... they should be more accurate with there wording. :thumbsup:

The £11 line rental charge is mandatory as Virgin have to rent the lines from BT.

Virgin don't see it as a charge by them but a charge to BT which has to be paid.

Mecoconuts;4594011

The £11 line rental charge is mandatory as Virgin have to rent the lines … The £11 line rental charge is mandatory as Virgin have to rent the lines from BT. Virgin don't see it as a charge by them but a charge to BT which has to be paid.



Only in non cable areas.

Original Poster Banned

££ JASE ££;4593581

any hints on the 'massive loopholes' then please??



Google "the box virgin"

realfriendlyman;4593941

Virgin used to mention the full price until Richard Branson was having … Virgin used to mention the full price until Richard Branson was having big problems with Sky when they cut out Skyone from Virgins service a couple years back.Due to this, Sky started advertising heavily mentioned their price which seemed lower and then it mentions in the small print that you must pay an additional £11 line rental to BT, which then seemed cheaper than Virgins price which included the BT charges, thusly losing custom over Skys legal wording.I think they managed to go around this loophole purely because the £11 isn't there fees, but BT charge anyone to run through their phonelines.Hope that clears it up but I completely agree with you Guvvy... they should be more accurate with there wording. :thumbsup:



The big difference though. Sky dont take the £11 for a BT phone line - so there is no need for them to mention anything apart from "BT Phone line required" Virgin OTOH take £25 for something they advertise as costing £14.

All I am suggesting is they are not being upfront - and mentioning Broadband, TV and phone in the same line for £14 is missleading.

guv;4593024

Yeh true, though they are not the only ones on that. "Unlimited" … Yeh true, though they are not the only ones on that. "Unlimited" BwhahahahahaNice speeds....... My connection is 16.5Mb, but I only get about 1.5MB/s



1.5MB isn't at all bad. although, it does bring up the one good point of Virgin, which is that it's kind-of unfair the way that you and i pay the same amount each month, but i get a faster service just because my house is nearer the exchange than yours.

i wonder how many people there are that choose what house they'll live in based on how close they are to thee nearest exchange.

Original Poster Banned

Mecoconuts;4594011

The £11 line rental charge is mandatory as Virgin have to rent the lines … The £11 line rental charge is mandatory as Virgin have to rent the lines from BT. Virgin don't see it as a charge by them but a charge to BT which has to be paid.



Cant see this has anything to do with it tbh. If someone is using Virgin ADSL service (with a BT line), they wont be getting broadband and TV. Its a different scenario.

If they advertise "Virgin ADSL broadband" for £14 with a BT line (or whatever) there are no issues AFAICS

Virgin Media and dodgy advertising never! ]clicky

guv;4593254

Er. Yes. It should say Broadband and TV for £14 when you take a phone … Er. Yes. It should say Broadband and TV for £14 when you take a phone line for £11 The reference to the phone shouldnt be there in the £14 "offer". And the leaflet I have must be different.... Doesnt mention anything about M and L etc and the phone payment reference isnt even on the same line!



The reference to the phone should be there as it is not just a phone line on its own, it is size m which entitles you to free calls to any landline at weekends, it is a package above just the bog standard line rental, not really that difficult to understand is it ?...or am I missing something ?


Paddy_o_furniture;4594111

Virgin Media and dodgy advertising never! ]clicky



you could find many of those for sky too, these things are always happening, depends who you are searching for doesnt it

Original Poster Banned

Lynchy;4596912

The reference to the phone should be there as it is not just a phone line … The reference to the phone should be there as it is not just a phone line on its own, it is size m which entitles you to free calls to any landline at weekends, it is a package above just the bog standard line rental, not really that difficult to understand is it ?...or am I missing something ?



Obviously.

There is no reference to "M" or anything else.

Ive posted exactly what it says. Go reread it.

i wonder how many people there are that choose what house they'll live in … i wonder how many people there are that choose what house they'll live in based on how close they are to thee nearest exchange.



Interesting point there. I am moving from a Virgin Media area (20MB Broadband which I get and have been getting for around 2 years with very little in the way of the problems others seem to be experiencing) to an adsl exchange in the centre of London which is totally over subscribed, has full LLU services but none I can access, with a date of March 2010 before anything can be done about it. I will be paying £22 a month for an ADSL unlimited 4MB connection.

I had no choice in the matter, its where the OH lives, but if I could pay £37 for Virgin 20MB BB there I would gladly pay it. The likes of Bethere (who I have been with) and others who provide decent services ARE, as was rightly pointed out, totally dependant on many factors (Line length, attenuation, equipment at the exchange, contention etc) whereas VM im ny experiences (when it works) does give you 20MB (even if it is not when you might want it down a line that is totally serviceable by just the one company.

It might be more expensive but I personally feel that VM BB is by far the better deal if it is in your area.

I think Virgin BB has the advantage it is less likely to kill you than Virgin Trains.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. I want to talk about the WEATHER no politics no religion19047132
    2. Do cheeky drivers annoy you when they park outside your house and leave it …2240
    3. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7767346
    4. What would be HELL to you?2634

    See more discussions