View Full Version : Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
http://seekbroadband.com/focus/2008/03/13/ispwatch/broadband-speeds-the-user-experience-of-advertised-vs-actual/
According to them, Sky deliver speeds closer to, or on the speeds they advertise, with Virgin media being second.
This is a joke, right? We all know that the technicalities of both networks mean that Sky simply CANT deliver the speeds the promise... and Virgin should be closer to fulfilling that obligation!
Is this just a case of p*ss poor surveys, people not knowing what they are on about, or consumers lying about their speeds?
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 17:59
and Virgin should be closer to fulfilling that obligation!
But they are not.
I get 13 and a half meg out of 16 for a tenner a month, its not traffic shaped and it does what it does no matter the time of day or day of the week or depending on how much i downloaded at 4am this morning, THAT'S why its better than Virgin.
Sky is simply a better product because its closer to the advertised speed most of the time, not to mention the fact is a SHEDLOAD cheaper.
But they are not.
Sky is simply a better product because its closer to the advertised speed most of the time, not to mention the fact is a SHEDLOAD cheaper.
Sky broadband is not a better product at all. It might be cheaper as a standalone product, but that's because its crap anyway and I can verify that because I have tried it along with many people I know who also state they have had no end of trouble with their Sky broadband. It really is pants. But if you pay peanuts for such a product then you cannot really expect a good overall product.
grabbi... It's conflicting information because according to Broadbandchoices - Virgin Media is in the top spot for speed.
Btw: http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/virgin-media-regains-the-top-spot-100308.html
The problem is with that word should..
Cable has the advantage that, unlike, ADSL, the users get the same speeds regardless of whether they are 10 metres from the UBR or 10 miles. ADSL (and ADSL 2+) are limited in that they slow down with longer distances. Cable also, theoretically, has the advantage that Virgin's fibre network gets closer to the users (who have access to cable) than any other ISPs. This means, theoretically, they can carry higher speeds.
LLU ADSL providers (Sky, Be etc) have the advantage that their network is newer (less upgrading to do), and they have fewer subscribers in some areas.
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 18:27
Sky broadband is not a better product at all. It might be cheaper as a standalone product, but that's because its crap anyway and I can verify that because I have tried it along with many people I know who also state they have had no end of trouble with their Sky broadband. It really is pants. But if you pay peanuts for such a product then you cannot really expect a good overall product.
grabbi... It's conflicting information because according to Broadbandchoices - Virgin Media is in the top spot for speed.
Btw: http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/virgin-media-regains-the-top-spot-100308.html
Another unbiased view from Moderator Mick.
"Its crap because my mates say so", i dont know how i could begin to refute such a castiron claim as that.
---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------
The problem is with that word should..
Cable has the advantage that, unlike, ADSL, the users get the same speeds regardless of whether they are 10 metres from the UBR or 10 miles. ADSL (and ADSL 2+) are limited in that they slow down with longer distances. Cable also, theoretically, has the advantage that Virgin's fibre network gets closer to the users (who have access to cable) than any other ISPs. This means, theoretically, they can carry higher speeds.
LLU ADSL providers (Sky, Be etc) have the advantage that their network is newer (less upgrading to do), and they have fewer subscribers in some areas.
Exactly and it also doesnt help Virgin that they implement "limiting" features on their network either.
Virgin BB should be better, it is on paper if you ignore cost, but in practice its lacking and pricey.
Another unbiased view from Mick.
Laughable - You know why? Because your views are never biased are they ? - pull the other one for crying out loud. :monkey:
"Its crap because my mates say so", i dont know how i could begin to refute such a castiron claim as that.
Well the cast iron proof is there in front of you... :dozey: :dunce:
Clue: http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/virgin-media-regains-the-top-spot-100308.html
Sky way behind in terms of delivering overall speed-end of.
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 18:31
Sky way behind in terms of delivering overall speed-end of.
Aye, If you exclude the other survey which says otherwise, by over 4000 users.
Exactly and it also doesnt help Virgin that they implement "limiting" features on their network either.
Sky also have a AUP do they not?
Virgin BB should be better, it is on paper if you ignore cost, but in practice its lacking and pricey.
This is a load of Rubbish and you know it.
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 18:37
Sky also have a AUP do they not?
Your not suggesting that the Sky AUP is a restrictive as VM's are you?
This is a load of Rubbish and you know it.
Sky Max
Unlimited monthly usage allowance. Fair use policy applies. Requires a Sky TV subscription.
16Mbps Unlimited 12mth(s) £10.00 p/month £150.00 a year
Not Traffic shaped, not time of day limited (download speeds are higher / downloads penalised at certain times), speeds stable.
Cable Broadband size: XL. Now £29 per month for the first six months.
£37 per month thereafter. Up to 20Mb and no download limits with free Broadband Extras - exclusive content worth over £35 a month.
20Mbps Unlimited 12mth(s) £29.00 p/month £426.00 a year
Traffic shaped, time of day limited (download speeds are higher / downloads penalised at certain times), speeds vay wildly.
Incidentally those figures are from the site linked in the first post.
Your not suggesting that the Sky AUP is a restrictive as VM's are you?
It could be? Who knows, who cares - its about reliability and sadly Sky is lacking and has been proven to be.
When Sky has 2 million more customers then come back to me and say Sky won't implement traffic management on its network.
How would you know which was restrictive you are not a VM customer? - Or are you Just coming out with your one sided crap again? Oh wait, yes you are. No surprise there then. :rolleyes:
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 18:44
It could be? Who knows, who cares - its about reliability and sadly Sky is lacking and has been proven to be.
How would you know which was restrictive you are not a VM customer? - Or are you Just coming out with your one sided crap again? Oh wait, yes you are. No surprise there then. :rolleyes:
LOL, Your the one that asked? :D Your VERY aggrivated tonight Mick, perhaps a cup of tea would help.
Wheres your proof about reliability by the way?
LOL, Your the one that asked? :D
Wheres your proof about reliability by the way?
:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:
Easy - Cable vs ADSL. Cable beats ADSL any day.
TheBlueRaja
13-03-2008, 18:50
Like i said - Proof?
From the article (http://seekbroadband.com/focus/2008/03/13/ispwatch/broadband-speeds-the-user-experience-of-advertised-vs-actual):
Varley continues, “there are many variables that affect broadband speeds, distance from the exchange, contention, line quality and so on. It is a challenge to be able to factor all these into a calculation that gives you a reliable idea of the actual speed an individual connection will achieve.â€Â
So difficult that SamKnows Mapping (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/mapping/mapping.php) have cracked it!
(Have a look and see what speeds you'd be getting with ADSL/ADSL2+)
(Thanks for your work, Sam!)
Cobbydaler
13-03-2008, 19:09
Your not suggesting that the Sky AUP is a restrictive as VM's are you?
Sky Max
Unlimited monthly usage allowance. Fair use policy applies. Requires a Sky TV subscription.
16Mbps Unlimited 12mth(s) £10.00 p/month £150.00 a year
Not Traffic shaped, not time of day limited (download speeds are higher / downloads penalised at certain times), speeds stable.
Cable Broadband size: XL. Now £29 per month for the first six months.
£37 per month thereafter. Up to 20Mb and no download limits with free Broadband Extras - exclusive content worth over £35 a month.
20Mbps Unlimited 12mth(s) £29.00 p/month £426.00 a year
Traffic shaped, time of day limited (download speeds are higher / downloads penalised at certain times), speeds vay wildly.
Incidentally those figures are from the site linked in the first post.
Conveniently forgetting the cost of a BT line again.... ;)
lostandconfused
13-03-2008, 19:14
If i live in or next door to the exchange and didnt pay £1.50 for my 20mb connection then I would probably go with sky too as it is cheaper and could offer a similar speed as cable.
But As i dont live next door to an exchnage and dont know the quality of the line ill stick with cable
Ummm... Your not gonna lock this topic, are you? I have a feeling some people are going to want to read it, but I dont want it to end up in the garbage pile with other Flamed topics...
---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------
Conveniently forgetting the cost of a BT line again.... ;)
hehe. Brilliant...
I tried the SamKnows thing, and heres what I got:
ADSL available at ~6.5Mbps
ADSL2+ available at ~16Mbps
Cable services available
611m away from the exchange...
Waste of time...
ADSL available at ~5Mbps
ADSL2+ available at ~6Mbps
Cable services available
Like i said - Proof?
Cable vs ADSL - Cable comes out winning hands down, that is proof enough. :rolleyes:
It tells me I can get cable when I know I can't :D
Hey guys
Hang on while i get my deck chair from the shed and a cold one out of the Fridge :D
Hey guys
Hang on while i get my deck chair from the shed and a cold one out of the Fridge :D
Careful you might get a targetted ad for Beaches. :LOL:
It could be? Who knows, who cares - its about reliability and sadly Sky is lacking and has been proven to be.
When Sky has 2 million more customers then come back to me and say Sky won't implement traffic management on its network.
How would you know which was restrictive you are not a VM customer? - Or are you Just coming out with your one sided crap again? Oh wait, yes you are. No surprise there then. :rolleyes:
Isnt that the point though, Sky dont have 2 million more customers so they dont implement it. Thats like saying, you go blind and then come and tell me you cant see anything, well Im not blind and I can see.
At the end of the day both of you are arguing over something thats not going to have a winner. Some people have bad experiances with Sky, some have it with Virgin, why try and out do each other one this one, you cant change peoples 'facts' on a bad service.
Careful you might get a targetted ad for Beaches. :LOL:
Nice one :tu:
Isnt that the point though, Sky dont have 2 million more customers so they dont implement it. Thats like saying, you go blind and then come and tell me you cant see anything, well Im not blind and I can see.
At the end of the day both of you are arguing over something thats not going to have a winner. Some people have bad experiances with Sky, some have it with Virgin, why try and out do each other one this one, you cant change peoples 'facts' on a bad service.
The point I am trying to raise is that Sky have one third the amount of BB customers Virgin Media has.
Also about your other point about trying to out do TBR's views. I am not trying to out do, if someone posts inaccurate information or tries to make blanket statements based on their own experience and noones elses, then I am going to come in and correct those inaccuracies. Let's make no mistake, TBR loves Sky and I have no problem with that, I have the problem where its being said Sky BB is a better product, when its quite clearly not as per the obvious pros and cons about the technologies between Cable vs ADSL.
I love the assumption that Sky don't limit traffic, must give my mate on Sky's BB network management team again, and wait for the BluRaja to register with Virgin Broadband :)
Losttheplot
13-03-2008, 20:13
Sky's bundled TV package is so much better than Virgins though. Virgin seem to have almost given up with its TV services and are willing to play second fiddle. The only channels that Virgin encode themselves are VOD and BBC HD. Even BBC HD is a decode and re-code, all other channels are taken from satellite and rate shaped. Rate shaping can never mean picture quality is as good as sky's. They can't economically take any other sky HD channels due to their short sighted use of MPEG2 HD.
If the rumour that Virgin are selling its Flextech channels is true then Virgin really do seem to be content in being an ISP. TV is an after thought. I hope they don't sell flextech and at least offer some resistance/competition to Sky.
A Virgin 1 channel can only be a good thing if it lasts.
Sky's bundled TV package is so much better than Virgins though. Virgin seem to have almost given up with its TV services and are willing to play second fiddle. The only channels that Virgin encode themselves are VOD and BBC HD. Even BBC HD is a decode and re-code, all other channels are taken from satellite and rate shaped. Rate shaping can never mean picture quality is as good as sky's. They can't economically take any other sky HD channels due to their short sighted use of MPEG2 HD.
If the rumour that Virgin are selling its Flextech channels is true then Virgin really do seem to be content in being an ISP. TV is an after thought. I hope they don't sell flextech and at least offer some resistance/competition to Sky.
A Virgin 1 channel can only be a good thing if it lasts.
What has Sky TV got to do with this thread????
Nedkelly
13-03-2008, 20:19
I live in small close some are on adsl and others are on cable .My friend across the road left cable and went to sky he is on the 16meg and because we live a long way from the exchange he is lucky if he gets 6 to 7 meg .My neighbour is on BT he gets about the same .Both have had BT out to check the line and the have confirmed this because they live to far from the exchange .I am on 20 meg and the worst i have got is 11 meg and the best after the reseg was 19 .There is always going to be the spilt who is faster my farther in law lives in the country on a farm and the best he can get is 512k if he is lucky and only bt will give him a service :)
Losttheplot
13-03-2008, 20:26
What has Sky TV got to do with this thread????
The point i didn't make very well is that virgin seem to be sitting back and relying on its BB as the be all and end all solution.
At home I also have Sky BB. Upto 8 M and I get above 7.
7M is more than enough for me and more than enough for most people who only surf. So overall I think higher speeds will only appeal to the minority who need to download at the highest speed possible all the time.
I don't think BB is the most appealing thing to most Sky or virgin customers.
The point i didn't make very well is that virgin seem to be sitting back and relying on its BB as the be all and end all solution.
At home I also have Sky BB. Upto 8 M and I get above 7.
7M is more than enough for me and more than enough for most people who only surf. So overall I think higher speeds will only appeal to the minority who need to download at the highest speed possible all the time.
I don't think BB is the most appealing thing to most Sky or virgin customers.
OK
I live in small close some are on adsl and others are on cable .My friend across the road left cable and went to sky he is on the 16meg and because we live a long way from the exchange he is lucky if he gets 6 to 7 meg .My neighbour is on BT he gets about the same .Both have had BT out to check the line and the have confirmed this because they live to far from the exchange .I am on 20 meg and the worst i have got is 11 meg and the best after the reseg was 19 .There is always going to be the spilt who is faster my farther in law lives in the country on a farm and the best he can get is 512k if he is lucky and only bt will give him a service :)6 to 7 Mb is faster than traffic shaped 20 Mb. I'm guessing they pay considerably less than £37 p/month too.
6 to 7 Mb is faster than traffic shaped 20 Mb. I'm guessing they pay considerably less than £37 p/month too.
Not everyone suffers from Traffic shaping, so this negates that guess.
But overall VM is faster than Sky - Broadbandchoice's speed league tells us so. Plus the Cable vs ADSL pros and cons thus cable being a far more reliable solution.
Don't quote me on it but I am pretty sure 20Mb is no longer £37 per month either.
I'm paying £18.50pm for 20mb
Mick Fisher
13-03-2008, 21:42
Not everyone suffers from Traffic shaping, so this negates that guess.
But overall VM is faster than Sky - Broadbandchoice's speed league tells us so. Plus the Cable vs ADSL pros and cons thus cable being a far more reliable solution.
Don't quote me on it but I am pretty sure 20Mb is no longer £37 per month either.
£37.00 is what I get charged every month as an existing loyal customer.
Tezcatlipoca
13-03-2008, 22:09
Sky broadband is not a better product at all. It might be cheaper as a standalone product, but that's because its crap anyway and I can verify that because I have tried it along with many people I know who also state they have had no end of trouble with their Sky broadband. It really is pants. But if you pay peanuts for such a product then you cannot really expect a good overall product.
It's not cheap because it's "pants", it's cheap because Sky subsidise it, plus as well as the subsidy I think offering LLU broadband costs them less than re-selling BTWholesale ADSLMax services (hence the re-sold BTWholesale "Sky BB Connect" costs people more than the LLU Sky BB).
I've had Sky Broadband for just over a year now, & it has been far from crap for me.
The only problem I had was due to the crappy phone wiring & extensions in my flat (since sorted). Not anything to do with Sky.
I can't get more than 8mbps, although I'm on the £10/month upto 16mbps "Max" service, but that's down to my line length. Still happy to pay the £10 charge though, for the higher upload & unlimited usage compared to "Base" & "Mid" (& the lack of STM on all of them is good).
I've never had to phone Sky BB CS about anything.
I had ntl cable broadband for about 5 years, before moving to a non-cabled area.
The service itself was usually solid with a consistent speed, but I did have to contact TS & CS a fair few times over various problems (couple of strange outages; a random case of my modem's MAC being unregistered; phone ping-pong between CS & TS when I was being billed for 2mbps yet only receiving 1mbps; etc....). Sometimes CS & TS were helpful, sometimes they were appallingly bad.
You could easily find many people here at CF, & elsewhere, who would emphatically claim that VM's broadband is crap, pants, etc. & who would say that they have had no end of trouble with their VM broadband.
That doesn't mean VM broadband is crap/pants for everyone, just as some people finding Sky BB to be crap/pants does not mean that it actually is for everyone.
globalart4u
13-03-2008, 22:24
well i do not like virgin as i have intermittent connection - when it was ntl every six months there was an outage then fine and i could use it at 4am in the morning no problem. with virgin 4am no connection how can that be? between 6pm and 9pm intermitten connection every single day. i refuse to phone anymore as the charges are horrendous and sorry am not made of money and they say it is nothing to do with virgin has to be my pc but i check it on my pc and my two laptops and still intermittent. then i just looked at the price of customer service calls so we have decided to call up and find out how long it will take bt to connect us and then we will cancel all three exntl lines and my business lines. virgin is crap and their customer service is so bloody expensive and useless. it is working just now but in 10 minutes time i will be kicked out. my neighbours who were going to take virgin will no longer consider it with all the broadband problems i have been having over the last months
Mine's £37 monthly :(
Same here.
tweetypie/8
14-03-2008, 01:04
But they are not.
I get 13 and a half meg out of 16 for a tenner a month, its not traffic shaped and it does what it does no matter the time of day or day of the week or depending on how much i downloaded at 4am this morning, THAT'S why its better than Virgin.
Sky is simply a better product because its closer to the advertised speed most of the time, not to mention the fact is a SHEDLOAD cheaper.
had sky and thought it was total crap!!.
skyblueheroes
14-03-2008, 07:22
It all comes down to choice and what service you are prepared to accept and pay for.
For me its ADSL. Better, faster (in some cases), more flexible and much, much better customer service.
Had one problem with Pipex in about 4 or 5 years. Are you saying that I would have had that kind of service from VM ? Doubt it.
PAYNEARDO
14-03-2008, 08:05
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth
Mine's £37 monthly
Same here.
So was I but noticed if I get a phone line at £11 per month, I will then pay £20 a month for XL broaband. I didn't beleive it!! but after a couple of calls to customer service to check it and make sure it will stay like that, during the duration of the new 12 month contract I had had to sign. They said yeas, all I need to pay is £30 installation and then £31 a moth. £6 a month cheaper for XL broadband with a phoneline thrown in. They also said I get unlimted calls for what I was paying then £37. :)
And cable is better than ADSL !! - I did that check and all i could get was 4.5 MB which is is no where near my 20 MB I get. Ok sometimes it has "glitches" but more often than not I am well in to double figures with the speed thing. :)
Also noticed somebody said SKy is cheaper which I think is also wrong; £10 a month broadband + £16 a month for the very basic channel set + £11 (guessed this price but made it the same as VM's) BT line rental = £37 a month (but with TV, which I don't really need)
VM = £20 a month broadband (XL 20 MB) + £11 phone rental = £31 a month (OK no TV but what if I only want freeview and don't want all the repeat channels !! :). also sure VM will do a basic package cheap. :)
Perfect Choice
14-03-2008, 08:26
For me it is an easy decision, ADSL can only provide me 3MB where I am based on the edge of Nottingham (BT speed tester result), even if cable doesn't quite hit its declared limit of 10MB, it will be significantly better than what I can achieve from ADSL. For those living reasonably close to an ADSL enabled exchange then there is a case to be made, however if VM really do get their act together in achieving 10MB with the 4 to 10MB upgrade programme, that will give them a distinct advantage over ther majority of broadband players until ADSL2+ (24MB) is widely available, and then VM will have the 50MB option avalable for those speed freaks out there!
smeagoly1
14-03-2008, 09:32
For me it's not who can provide the highest download speeds. It's consistency of pings, and service up time. There is nothing worse than in the middle of a game then pooooof you need to reset your modem! or no connection for 5 - 10 mins.
Both camps have their pro's and cons. For me constant 20meg was just a waste of time and money, I don't need 20Mbs 24/7 I'm either at work or asleep most of that time.
But a constant reliable connection and response is a must, not sure between the two who can get the greater percentage.
Also noticed somebody said SKy is cheaper which I think is also wrong; £10 a month broadband + £16 a month for the very basic channel set + £11 (guessed this price but made it the same as VM's) BT line rental = £37 a month (but with TV, which I don't really need)
VM = £20 a month broadband (XL 20 MB) + £11 phone rental = £31 a month (OK no TV but what if I only want freeview and don't want all the repeat channels !! :). also sure VM will do a basic package cheap. :)You forgot to include the call charges to VM... you need to add on an extra tenner a month for calling their premium rate phone number ;)
Perfect Choice
14-03-2008, 12:20
Funny I don't see that on my bill, is it because my link is reliable so I don't have to ring BB support for a fault I've caused?
Kellargh
14-03-2008, 13:04
Coverage is an issue as well isn't it? (Lol bringing that up because I want cable but it's not in my area) *sob*
This is a joke, right? We all know that the technicalities of both networks mean that Sky simply CANT deliver the speeds the promise...
Neither can VM.
and Virgin should be closer to fulfilling that obligation!
You would imagine so, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in reailty. Sundays and evenings I usually get around 630kbs from my 4M service.... improves as users go to bed.
Is this just a case of p*ss poor surveys, people not knowing what they are on about, or consumers lying about their speeds?
Too many customers for the network to support effectively, hence such a draconian cap limit for STM.
You forgot to include the call charges to VM... you need to add on an extra tenner a month for calling their premium rate phone number ;)
Not everyone has to call them in a month - And they are good enough to refund the cost of the call if you ask them to.
PAYNEARDO
14-03-2008, 15:53
You forgot to include the call charges to VM... you need to add on an extra tenner a month for calling their premium rate phone number ;)
I have never phoned them, just come on here instead it makes more sense ;):)
Dave9946
14-03-2008, 16:12
How on earth can such a poll rate sky better for internet?. Did that poll actually question customers who live more than 3 miles from an exchange?, I very much doubt it. As I know several who are between 3 & 6 miles from the exchange. And the 4 who have tried for anything over a 2mb deal have not really noticed the speed increase, but certainly noticed the price increase
I'd love to know what percentage of sky customers who have or tried internet off them are outside the limit of distance where they have no physical chance of getting a 8mb connection?. Bet you these stats are never included in a sky poll are they?. Sorry an apparent independent poll!.
TheBlueRaja
14-03-2008, 16:32
LOL, you've got to love this thread, lets look at some more Facts as opposed to "my mate says" or "it simply is" eh Mick.
According to the link (http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/virgin-media-regains-the-top-spot-100308.html) provided by some posters claiming VM is the fastest on average your getting, again on average, 11Mbps on a 20mbps connection.
For that its a full 37 quid a month.
Sky - well, its dependant on location (as is VM) and distance from exchange, but lets say on average with Max the 10 pounds 16mbps package that you get an average of 8mbps (even though i get 13mbps).
Now thats a whopping extra 3 meg for an extra 27 pounds per month. Even IF you take into account BT line rental its still WAY cheaper.
Defending this service is laughable.
Defending this service is laughable.
You defending Sky all the time is becoming extremely boring. :zzz:
TheBlueRaja
14-03-2008, 16:44
You defending Sky all the time is becoming extremely boring. :zzz:
Perhaps because im proving you wrong. If you put some time into your answers as opposed to resorting to childish responses maybe you'd get some respect.
Until then i'll just keep proving you wrong.
---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------
Also lets take another look at the same website linked above, Sky takes third in the Heavyweight (upto 24mbps), First in the Cruiser Weight (upto 8mbps) and second in the Welter Weight (upto 2mbps).
Given that VM provide 2, 4 or 20 meg options and most people take 8 or above these days your not exactly providing much competition given Skys 8 meg offering is only a fiver and the 16 meg offering is only a tenner.
Perhaps because im proving you wrong.
You haven't proved anything to me. Sky BB is not better product than VM BB-end of.
If you put some time into your answers as opposed to resorting to childish responses maybe you'd get some respect.
I haven't made any childish responses. Oh and I don't want any respect from you either- I doubt there is many that respect your one sided opinons. Respect? You - you don't know the meaning of the word.
Until then i'll just keep proving you wrong.
You don't know how to prove things - You only add your opinions and cast them off as though they were facts. :dunce::dozey:
TheBlueRaja
14-03-2008, 16:50
You haven't proved anything to me. Sky BB is not better product than VM BB-end of..
You don't know how to prove things - You only add your opinions and cast them off as though they were facts. :dunce::dozey:
LOL!!! Within the same post too... Dear god man.
alferret
14-03-2008, 16:50
I went and installed a comp and BB for my brother last weekend.
He opted for Sky's 16mb package.
He lives RM17 5** about 3\4 mile from exchange as the crow fly's and probrably 1 1\4 mile line lengh.
He is getting through usenet "astraweb" 16+mb the full advertised speed.
Speednet.com shows 5.5mb\sec and the one for this site shows just a smidging over 4mb.
I was and still am truely stunned at the speed he gets from sky considering he is not sitting on top of the exchange.
His speeds are not a 1 off, while on the phone during this week he has been downloading and at any time I have asked him for his current speed its never been lower than 15-15.5mb.
TheBlueRaja
14-03-2008, 17:02
I went and installed a comp and BB for my brother last weekend.
He opted for Sky's 16mb package.
He lives RM17 5** about 3\4 mile from exchange as the crow fly's and probrably 1 1\4 mile line lengh.
He is getting through usenet "astraweb" 16+mb the full advertised speed.
Speednet.com shows 5.5mb\sec and the one for this site shows just a smidging over 4mb.
I was and still am truely stunned at the speed he gets from sky considering he is not sitting on top of the exchange.
His speeds are not a 1 off, while on the phone during this week he has been downloading and at any time I have asked him for his current speed its never been lower than 15-15.5mb.
He probably needs a new master socket.
LOL!!! Within the same post too... Dear god man.
Yes dear god, tell TBR how to hold a debate properly.
I haven't cast my opinions as though they were my own facts - I have proven through the broadbandchoices links and told you about the Cable vs ADSL techy bits, thus cable being more reliable than ADSL, which you certainly know about.
You might feel Sky BB is a better product than VM BB but it is not a proven fact, its your opinion but its not proven fact, so stop classing it as one. This is the difference between my posts and yours. :dozey:
TheBlueRaja
14-03-2008, 17:19
Yes dear god, tell TBR how to hold a debate properly.
I haven't cast my opinions as though they were my own facts - I have proven through the broadbandchoices links and told you about the Cable vs ADSL techy bits, thus cable being more reliable than ADSL, which you certainly know about.
You might feel Sky BB is a better product than VM BB but it is not a proven fact, its your opinion but its not proven fact, so stop classing it as one. This is the difference between my posts and yours. :dozey:
Mick, you wouldnt know the meaning of debate if you looked it up on Wikipedia, in fact you'd probably edit the article to say "Mick won u looze!"
Have a look at every one of my responses, i refer to pages provided by other posters in defence of their argument and supply my own, i point out Sky is cheaper then justify it by posting the proof.
I then compare VM BB services, the whole range, to Sky BB services using a link to a site provided by a person defending VM by using the same site.
Now have a look at your responses, "My mate says", "Sky BB is not better product than VM BB-end of..", "Cable vs ADSL - Cable comes out winning hands down, that is proof enough."
I've also not resorted to any of the underhand and downright cowardly conduct you've been hitting me with out of view of this threads posters.
Seriously, your starting to look like a fool.
Mick, you wouldnt know the meaning of debate if you looked it up on Wikipedia, in fact you'd probably edit the article to say "Mick won u looze!"
Don't start to turn this around on me. Your the one who is incapable of accepting the fact that Sky BB is not a better product than VM even when it has been proven to you.
Have a look at every one of my responses, i refer to pages provided by other posters in defence of their argument and supply my own, i point out Sky is cheaper then justify it by posting the proof.
So what if Sky is cheaper, it doesn't make it a better product. This is not proof that one service is better than the other. :rolleyes:
I then compare VM BB services, the whole range, to Sky BB services using a link to a site provided by a person defending VM by using the same site.
:zzz:
Now have a look at your responses, "My mate says", "Sky BB is not better product than VM BB-end of..", "Cable vs ADSL - Cable comes out winning hands down, that is proof enough."
Seriously, your starting to look like a fool.
:zzz:
Aww, now it boils down to insults, the truth hurts doesn't it that you cannot hold a debate properly - thanks for proving it even more to me. Thank you and goodnight. :D
dilli-theclaw
14-03-2008, 17:55
This has gone far enough, Mick - if TBR is winding you up maybe put him in ignore?
TBR perhaps do the same for Mick.
Anymore off-topic and potentially insulting posts may well result in infractions being issued.
And yes that does go for anyone making the post.
Please try and respect each others opinion even if you do not agree with it.
This "discussion" re Sky (ADSL) and cable can go on forever. IF you live near to an exchange ADSL can offer the advertised speeds, BUT if you are like me and live a few miles from the exchange cable wins hands down!
In my case BT could not deliver a decent/reliable dial-up on it's lines, NTL could. When NTL offered BB I stuck with them and am very happy with the service.
No ONE solution covers all circumstances, it all boils down to what suits the user! No need to fall out over it!
Dave9946
14-03-2008, 19:48
I'm not to sure of the total way BB on cable works etc, or even half of it lol. But correct me if I'm wrong or do not other factor come into play with the BT line ASDL or what ever it's called these days.
Dont BT split areas or even streets (if they are large) into kind of clusters. Meaning there are so many connections on a cluster or a single connection to the exchange for broadband (sorry if I have the termanology wrong, but hope you know what I mean ).
As I recall this kind of information from several years ago when I first started to get into broadband. It's kind of if there are 30 people in a cluster and several are heavy downloaders it effects the speeds for the remainder.
Whilst the person on the next street is on full speeds on the same deal simply down to no heavy downloaders in the same cluster?.
Was this or is this the same case now?. As I recall, whatever the termanology, it being the case several years ago!. And this sort of matter would certainly effect performance polls if they are set in certain areas only?.
MovedGoalPosts
14-03-2008, 20:01
I believe you are in fact referring to contention.
Domestic broadband services, whether using ADSL over BT type lines, or cable, ultimately have some level of shared bandwidth. Initially on ADSL this used to be 50 : 1 i.e. 50 users could share the bandwidth of one exchange point. Better services offered 20 :1. I believe (but don't know for certain) that cable effectively had a contention of 20:1 so was less affected by heavy users. Many of those ratios could have changed as newer technologies have been deployed.
zing_deleted
14-03-2008, 20:12
Sky BB maybe great but the TV boxes they keep fobbing me off with are not .Im not on my 5th box at least in 12 months
If that site "www.samknows.com" adsl measuring feature is accurate I am really suprised at the short range adsl really is. According to that I would get a maximum of 6 mb on adsl 2. I checked where the building was and considered this was just a 5-10 minute walk from my house! When people kept mentioning the distance ADSL reaches I really never expected it to be this short.
I would side with the discussion that says "some people have great connection, some have bad connection with Virgin Media so opinions would vary allot on this subject. Also I have never had ADSL in this area so cannot have an opinion on that side. I do admit the upside and downside to cable is that it reaches ALOT further than adsl so has has alot more consumers and maybe too many consumers for the companies own good :)
sky BB is crap...
3 family members having decided that cheaper was better decided to go for sky and now they cant keep a constant connection for more than 5 minutes before they get disconnected for a bit. How long that "bit" is varies from a few seconds up to a good 30 minutes.
It could just be that all 3 were just darn unlucky...but at least in the last 6 years of being with telewest/virgin I have very rarely ever had a disconnection. I would much rather be throttled back with the speed than loose my connection every few seconds. Even the slow speed rarely ever happens to me, so im quite happy with the service im getting.
sky BB is crap...
3 family members having decided that cheaper was better decided to go for sky and now they cant keep a constant connection for more than 5 minutes before they get disconnected for a bit. How long that "bit" is varies from a few seconds up to a good 30 minutes.
It could just be that all 3 were just darn unlucky...but at least in the last 6 years of being with telewest/virgin I have very rarely ever had a disconnection. I would much rather be throttled back with the speed than loose my connection every few seconds. Even the slow speed rarely ever happens to me, so im quite happy with the service im getting.
I had the same problem with disconnections, turning off UPnP solved it for me:
http://www.skyuser.co.uk/forum/sky-broadband-tutorial-section/15044-instructions-turn-off-upnp.html
[Admin Edit:-(Off-topic Remarks deleted)]
Cable is better than ADSL in an ideal world. We all know that.
There are many reasons why ADSL can underperform that are not specific to Sky.
Long lines, bad wiring, bad installation etc. The latter is very common with Sky as the router is often installed after the TV box, which itself is noisey.
Still for some people Sky is better when you factor in costs (assuming they already have Sky TV), and for others it isn't.
Not sure what the big deal is here? I'm surprised at the attitude of some mods TBH.
Not sure what the big deal is here? I'm surprised at the attitude of some mods TBH.
Just because I am a mod/admin - doesn't mean I am not entitled to my opinions and I will correct those people who consistantly spout rubbish when it has been proven that VM BB is a much better product than Sky BB.
You cant prove something is better than another (thats a qualitive statement), it doesnt say precisely what is being measured. So two people can argue about 'better' all day long.
You can prove something is faster (quantative), you can prove something is cheaper (quantative), you can prove something is more reliable. again quantative looking at (uptime). , or has more bandwidth. Cable comes out on top for most of these things except price. That is a very important metric for some people when it comes to deciding if something is better value. You can chose to ignore that metric and therefore win your argument :)
I still expect moderators to be able to see and understand another POV, and maybe even aspire to the definition of the word 'moderate'.
I still expect moderators to be able to see and understand another POV, and maybe even aspire to the definition of the word 'moderate'.
What you expect moderators to do on other forums is your business, but if you expect moderators to keep quiet, not say anything or not get involved in threads, you are on the wrong forum. Btw, I am not a moderator, I'm an Admin/Co Owner/Founder of this website. So I think I should be able to say what I want within reason, hmm just like everyone else really. ;)
Also - I will not see a point of view from someone who shows consistently that they have one sided opinions and cast them off as facts. Also - I haven't broken any rules so don't know what your talking about when it comes to the last point you made and I will reiterate that I am still entitled to my opinion whether I am on the team or not.
I am not casting my opinion off as a fact, I wouldn't say it otherwise. I am stating that it is a proven fact that VM BB is a far superior product to Sky BB in many ways. The link with broadbandchoices and the fact that cable beats ADSL hands down, should tell people so, just stating Sky BB as a better product, just because its ones person agenda all the time to defend Sky, is wrong and I will correct such inaccuracies.
So far we have had the cost thrown into the argument. Traffic management and the cost to call Tech support. The cost might be steep but I believe that could come down and has been reduced already for 20Mb, not everyone gets Traffic managed. As for calling Tech support, not everyone needs to call them.
Another reason people might not want Sky is perhaps people would prefer not to pay into the coffers of a Murdoch owned franchise.
Another reason people might not want Sky is perhaps people would prefer not to pay into the coffers of a Murdoch owned franchise.
And that is my reason. I don't like a business who's owner has been proven to be able to influence the political power in this country with his ownership of Newspapers and News channels.
Those on this forum who are happy to knock readers of his papers and watchers of his news channels have to admit that his readership are a large percentage of the voters who religiously vote for what ever party his papers say are to be SUPPORTED at the next election. BTW i have nothing to do with his papers or news channels because of who owns them.
BTW
My daughter has SKY broadband due to being OFF NET for Virgin and ask her just what a crock her connection is at a night time ?. She lives 500 meters from the Stanley Street Exchange in Warrington and only gets 3 meg, Sky blame BT, BT blame Sky, She will be moving to a new house this year and one of the decision points as to its location is that its in a VM ON NET area for broadband.
You cant prove something is better than another (thats a qualitive statement), it doesnt say precisely what is being measured. So two people can argue about 'better' all day long.
That is a very important metric for some people when it comes to deciding if something is better value. You can chose to ignore that metric and therefore win your argument :)
Spot on! :tu:
I will correct those people who consistantly spout rubbish when it has been proven that VM BB is a much better product than Sky BB.
Oh joy, VM's #1 fanboy!
Just been reading back on some of your previous posts Mick, and I have to say that I FEEL that if any normal member was to act like you you have in the past, the'd be banned quicker than they could say "I.P. ban"
Im sorry if this post offends you, but as freedom of speech is at an all-time high here recently, just thought I'd have my say, no need to be offended or angry, after all, this is just my oppionion and if you dont value that as much, then it should not turn into much! :)
Peace out!
Not everyone has to call them in a month - And they are good enough to refund the cost of the call if you ask them to.
I havent phoned CS or TS in over 5 years.
My service has been excellent.
VM CAN be hell on earth.
I have over the last year had a period of complete and utter crap when it comes to broadband from VM. It took them nearly 5 months to sort an over subscription problem and 3 letters of complaint to the Chief Executives office.
My service on the whole is fine now and i have been given assurances that it will stay that way. I don't like ADSL or its derivatives "i have a very good knowledge of both ADSL and CABLE having worked on both at a high level including fault finding and installation/commissioning".
VM's biggest problem is that they tend to push the self destruct button from time to time, IE
Releasing upgrades before the network is ready for them.
They are about to SPY on your every move on the Internet "which will send me to the ADSL camp even when i know how crap it can be".
They don't have and don't care about linear HD,
VM need to start to listen to their customers instead of sitting in an ivory tower watching the world go by through sound proof windows.
VM could be the ultimate when it comes to Broadband but they keep letting ADSL company's get the jump on them with products at prices to GO and in variants that VM cannot match because they don't listen the needs of there customers.
So which would i have
Cable every time except if they introduce this Spying on us then i will have to bite my lip and go with a product the is inferior in my eyes but is not leaking my every move to a spy-ware company
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/34.png
Not bad for a Saturday Afternoon
Oh joy, VM's #1 fanboy!
Just been reading back on some of your previous posts Mick, and I have to say that I FEEL that if any normal member was to act like you you have in the past, the'd be banned quicker than they could say "I.P. ban"
Im sorry if this post offends you, but as freedom of speech is at an all-time high here recently, just thought I'd have my say, no need to be offended or angry, after all, this is just my oppionion and if you dont value that as much, then it should not turn into much! :)
Peace out!
Careful, the word you put between "#1" and "!" is one of the provocative words on this forum. ;)
Careful, the word you put between "#1" and "!" is one of the provocative words on this forum. ;)
lol I wasnt aware this would cause much offence at all :(
lol I wasnt aware this would cause much offence at all :(
Oh take my word for it you will be sent to hell for that one :LOL:
Oh joy, VM's #1 fanboy!
I disagree that I am one of them - I have made my share of criticisms of them over the years - but I will defend a product where certain facts exist and I shouldn't be classed as one of the above just because I am do defend certain facts about any one company. At the end of the day - This is a Cable orientated website.
Just been reading back on some of your previous posts Mick, and I have to say that I FEEL that if any normal member was to act like you you have in the past, the'd be banned quicker than they could say "I.P. ban"
No they wouldn't - You see I know how to conduct myself in threads and stay confined within the rules which I will repeat, I haven't broken. Yes I am quite openly discussing my view on this - but its not against the rules okay.
I purchased NTL internet, phone and TV while it was still NTL. I purchased 2MB internet speed. Now it's Virgin Media and I still have 2MB internet speed, but it never downloads anything close to that.
The max. speed it downloads at is 240KBps.
sky tried to put a 16mb connection to my line for about 4 months, they said it would not work, they tried 8mb, they said it would not work, i went to orange, they got the net online within a week, although they sucked and the connection speed was pathetic (600k connection on an upto 8mb package, even though my line could handle upto 5.5mb, but thats a whole diff story) so i went to virgin, best move ever, alot faster than orange n more reliable than sky
but thats just my experience, ive had nothing but bother from adsl, but cable has never failed me once.
oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)
sky tried to put a 16mb connection to my line for about 4 months, they said it would not work, they tried 8mb, they said it would not work, i went to orange, they got the net online within a week, although they sucked and the connection speed was pathetic (600k connection on an upto 8mb package, even though my line could handle upto 5.5mb, but thats a whole diff story) so i went to virgin, best move ever, alot faster than orange n more reliable than sky
but thats just my experience, ive had nothing but bother from adsl, but cable has never failed me once.
oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)
Are you getting your Mb and your MB mixed up?
I have a 4MB line, and consistently get 3.86Mb/s (485MB/s) on downloads.
Are you getting your Mb and your MB mixed up?
I have a 4MB line, and consistently get 3.86Mb/s (485MB/s) on downloads.
Quick way to solve this.. Hauzer perform a speed test above and post the results in this thread if you will please.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 13:36
No they wouldn't - You see I know how to conduct myself in threads and stay confined within the rules which I will repeat, I haven't broken. Yes I am quite openly discussing my view on this - but its not against the rules okay.
Yet he's now suspended, you still haven't justified ANY of your views and your still claiming that your defending a product "where certain facts exist" but yet don't provide ANY of these facts or justifications for your opinions to back up your claim.
Yet he's now suspended,
Well he did use the forbidden word but he got suspended because of other offences which totted up his Infraction points. It wasn't me who acted on him anyway. Infact why I am telling you this? It's none of your business. - But for your information, I didn't use the forbidden word, so don't know what your complaining about yet again.
you still haven't justified ANY of your views and your still claiming that your defending a product "where certain facts exist" but yet don't provide ANY of these facts or justifications for your opinions to back up your claim.
I don't need to justify anything to you - I could say I am playing by your rules, i.e You defend Sky to the hills and cast them off as facts, so nothing you have said convinces me either, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But the fact remains technologically, Cable is better than ADSL any day, end of story.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 13:49
Well he did use the forbidden word but he got suspended because of other offences which totted up his Infraction points. Infact why I am telling you this? It's none of your business. - But for your information, I didn't use the forbidden word, so don't know what your complaining about yet again.
I don't need to justify anything to you - I could say I am playing by your rules, i.e You defend Sky to the hills and cast them off as facts, so nothing you have said convinces me either, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But the fact remains technologically, Cable is better than ADSL any day, end of story.
Like i've said on 3 occasions now - prove it.
Right throughout this thread i have provided links to the facts i have been discussing to back up my claims and justify what i have said, but you've provided nothing other than claims and doing exactly what you've done above, simply state a supposition and then claim you don't have to justify it.
Everyone in this thread is welcome to look back through and verifty what i say.
Well he did use the forbidden word
Great. We have forbidden words. Well done CF :rolleyes:
Like i've said on 3 occasions now - prove it.
I said end of story ok? Just learn to accept the fact that the technologies between cable and adsl, cable comes out winning, everyone knows this, its just you being in denial that nothing can possibly beat your precious Sky. :rolleyes:
---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------
Great. We have forbidden words. Well done CF :rolleyes:
I suggest you read the announcement made many months ago.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/90/33615046-antagonism-and-negativity-towards-forum-members.html#post34316318
Now back on topic please.
Also - I will not see a point of view from someone who shows consistently that they have one sided opinions and cast them off as facts.
But surely you must be able to see that is exactly what you're doing with comments like this:
Sky broadband is not a better product at all. It might be cheaper as a standalone product, but that's because its crap anyway and I can verify that because I have tried it along with many people I know who also state they have had no end of trouble with their Sky broadband. It really is pants.
But surely you must be able to see that is exactly what you're doing with comments like this:
Well I did actually say I could be playing by TBR rules. Do keep up.
Because this is exactly what he does in every single Sky vs VM thread.
Are you getting your Mb and your MB mixed up?
I have a 4MB line, and consistently get 3.86Mb/s (485MB/s) on downloads.
ah i didnt type them correctly, but you must be able to clearly see what i mean by this, damn, people in here are so moody at times.
Well I did actually say I could be playing by TBR rules. Do keep up.
Because this is exactly what he does in every single Sky vs VM thread.
But TBR has been consistently providing information to back up his point of view throughout this thread. You may not agree with him but at least he's trying to put forward a coherent argument. Making comments such as 'it's crap anyway' and 'it really is pants' doesn't really add much to the debate.
But TBR has been consistently providing information to back up his point of view throughout this thread. You may not agree with him but at least he's trying to put forward a coherent argument. Making comments such as 'it's crap anyway' and 'it really is pants' doesn't really add much to the debate.
He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal. We all know which is better technology wise or are we just arguing because its me trying to make the point, you always seem to crawl out of the woodwork to bait me, nice try, hasn't worked though.
He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal. We all know which is better technology wise or are we just arguing because its me trying to make the point, you always seem to crawl out of the woodwork to bait me, nice try, hasn't worked though.
I agree that cable is the better technology but, if you're within reasonable distance of the exchange, I'd say Sky is the better service due to the price, lack of traffic shaping, and the fact that VM seem to have so many problems delivering their advertised speed.
See that's an example of someone giving their opinion and then backing it up with reasons for having that opinion. You say you're part owner of this forum, surely you want people to have sensible and constructive debates on it? You've just done exactly the same thing in your last post, dismissing TBR links with the comment "He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal." It's really not worth trying to have a debate if that's going to be your attitude - why not state your reasons why you think he hasn't backed anything up or why you think those links mean "jack all"?
I agree that cable is the better technology but, if you're within reasonable distance of the exchange, I'd say Sky is the better service due to the price, lack of traffic shaping, and the fact that VM seem to have so many problems delivering their advertised speed.
You see you throwing up conditions that not every VM BB customer suffers and its only cheaper with Sky if you have all other products with it as well.
I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.
Guess I'll just have to switch to my VM connection if I want the speed because I know I can rely on a consistent overall speed.
See that's an example of someone giving their opinion and then backing it up with reasons for having that opinion. You say you're part owner of this forum, surely you want people to have sensible and constructive debates on it? You've just done exactly the same thing in your last post, dismissing TBR links with the comment "He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal." It's really not worth trying to have a debate if that's going to be your attitude - why not state your reasons why you think he hasn't backed anything up or why you think those links mean "jack all"?
Because as I said - I might be playing by TBR's rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads.
In my experience and I've been with virgin for about 18 months is virgin is about as bad as it gets.
In my experience and I've been with virgin for about 18 months is virgin is about as bad as it gets.
I agree its not a pefect service for all and many have problems. Me included. But I know I have a reliable product over ADSL.
I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.
Guess I'll just have to switch to my VM connection if I want the speed because I know I can rely on a consistent overall speed.
Well that's better, at least your putting forward some reasons for your opinion rather than silly one line put downs. But what would you say if I posted my statistics (which happen to be very good) and used that as evidence that Sky broadband is excellent? You have to look at the bigger picture.
Because as I said - I might be playing by TBR's rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads.
And as I've already said that is factually incorrect. Read through the thread. TBR has consistently provided reasons for his opinion. This is the first time you've posted anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. You can't just post one line statements such as 'it really is pants' and not expect people to question you on it (well I suppose you can as you're part owner of this forum but you'll just end up looking rather silly).
I agree its not a pefect service for all and many have problems. Me included. But I know I have a reliable product over ADSL.
I imagine sky is awful but as far as the experience I have had with ADSL over virgin I can honestly say i have never had as many problems with anyone as I have had with virgin. I am on baguley6 and my internet hasn't worked properly for 12 months. I know people are going to play the well why haven't you left card but the fact is i don't have the option! I live too far away from my telephone exchange. I was in th process of moving house until virgin assured me it would be fixed on the 19th march. Now they have cancelled the upgrade.
My friend let me use his flat and I put be broadband in there and I have not had one problem with it. It runs at 12 meg and doesn't drop.....ever! Well in 3 months it hasn't dropped anyway.
Personally i hate being with virgin and everyday i have to use the internet i know I am going to have to fight just to try and use it
Well that's better, at least your putting forward some reasons for your opinion rather than silly one line put downs. But what would you say if I posted my statistics (which happen to be very good) and used that as evidence that Sky broadband is excellent? You have to look at the bigger picture.
I have tried Sky BB - perhaps you missed this point and the connection speeds were dire to say the least.
And as I've already said that is factually incorrect. Read through the thread. TBR has consistently provided reasons for his opinion. This is the first time you've posted anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. You can't just post one line statements such as 'it really is pants' and not expect people to question you on it (well I suppose you can as you're part owner of this forum but you'll just end up looking rather silly).
And as I have said those reasons are not a valid piece of evidence to back up his claim Sky BB is better than VM BB. Stop going over old ground.
I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.
BT *IS* Crap and heavily congested. From the exchange back to the net.
Many better choices (even using ADSLMax)
I purchased NTL internet, phone and TV while it was still NTL. I purchased 2MB internet speed. Now it's Virgin Media and I still have 2MB internet speed, but it never downloads anything close to that.
The max. speed it downloads at is 240KBps.
2MB doesnt mean its going to download 2MB per second
Theres a distinct different between a megabyte and a megabit.
So you're getting your 2MB service at full speed.
ah i didnt type them correctly, but you must be able to clearly see what i mean by this, damn, people in here are so moody at times.
I wasn't trying to correct you, I was just unclear, especially when you stated "oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)", as 240kbp/s is not ok for a 2Mb line, but 240Kbp/s would be - as I stated in my previous post, I download on a 4Mb line just under 4Mb.
I have tried Sky BB - perhaps you missed this point and the connection speeds were dire to say the least.
The point I was making is just because your experience of Sky Broadband was poor it doesn't necessarily follow that 'it really is pants'. Similarly, just because my experience of Sky broadband is good, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is good for everyone. Your argument seems to have been reduced to 'my Sky broadband was bad so it must be a terrible service'. It really is very poor.
And as I have said those reasons are not a valid piece of evidence to back up his claim Sky BB is better than VM BB. Stop going over old ground.
Yes and the way you proved those reasons were not a valid piece of evidence was '"He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal.". This really is utterly pointless isn't it? You seem to have no idea whatsoever how to go about constructing an argument. I really can't be bothered anymore.
You seem to have no idea whatsoever how to go about constructing an argument.I really can't be bothered anymore.
I have a fair idea how to constuct a debate - I am just taking on board other peoples rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads. Something you keep failing to pick up. But nevermind.
I am not really interested in what you can or cannot be bothered with. I know, the fact remains - Cable is better than ADSL. Thus VM BB is a better product than Sky BB.
I wasn't trying to correct you, I was just unclear, especially when you stated "oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)", as 240kbp/s is not ok for a 2Mb line, but 240Kbp/s would be - as I stated in my previous post, I download on a 4Mb line just under 4Mb.
i dont see how anyone could be unclear of what i meant just because i put the wrong cased letter, the numbers speak for themselves, but i was just tryin to explain to that other guy that infact it was HE that was confused about bits and bytes, i just explained it in a more english manner to him than that, but im not here to argue with people like alot of people here seem to be, so this is the last post in this thread for me! :sleep:
P.S Cable for the win :p
P.S Cable for the win :p
That's the spirit, you know it makes sense. :angel: :p:
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 15:59
You see you throwing up conditions that not every VM BB customer suffers and its only cheaper with Sky if you have all other products with it as well.
I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps
Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.
Guess I'll just have to switch to my VM connection if I want the speed because I know I can rely on a consistent overall speed.
Because as I said - I might be playing by TBR's rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads.
Here's two speed tests i just completed right now.
Firstly - the CableForum Speedtest
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:46:15 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 5531 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 7688 ms = 133.2 KB/sec, approx 1098 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5422 ms = 188.9 KB/sec, approx 1557 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11015 ms = 185.9 KB/sec, approx 1532 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1428 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
Now - www.speedtest.net
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/31.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Looks like that old Virgin network is slowing us Sky subscribers down again, remember folks £10pm.
---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------
Oh, do us a favor Mick, do the same tests back to back on your VM connection will you?
Here's two speed tests i just completed right now.
Firstly - the CableForum Speedtest
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:46:15 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 5531 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 7688 ms = 133.2 KB/sec, approx 1098 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5422 ms = 188.9 KB/sec, approx 1557 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11015 ms = 185.9 KB/sec, approx 1532 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1428 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
Now - www.speedtest.net
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/31.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Looks like that old Virgin network is slowing us Sky subscribers down again.
Or the fact that Sky BB is just crap anyway and unreliable - I've done both tests the speed for both is practically the same...
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/32.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:01:07 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 4300 ms = 238.1 KB/sec, approx 1962 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 4492 ms = 228 KB/sec, approx 1879 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 4283 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 9063 ms = 226 KB/sec, approx 1862 Kbps, 1.82 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1918 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:05
Or the fact that Sky BB is just crap anyway and unreliable - I've done both tests the speed for both is practically the same...
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/32.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:01:07 UTC
Test 1: 1024K took 4300 ms = 238.1 KB/sec, approx 1962 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 4492 ms = 228 KB/sec, approx 1879 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 4283 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 9063 ms = 226 KB/sec, approx 1862 Kbps, 1.82 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1918 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps
Why does your ISP say Virgin Media?
Why does your ISP say Virgin Media?
Um - Because I am on a Virgin Media connection perhaps .... oops:
The speedtest I did earlier was on a BT ADSL connection. I've switched to VM since then.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:11
Um - Because I am on a Virgin Media connection perhaps .... oops:
ANd its VERY close to 2mbps there, almost like its capped.
So are you saying you ONLY have ADSL Mick?
Interestingly I got similar results to TBR - 1.5-2Mbps on the first one and 6.5Mbs on the 2nd (my connection is up to 8Mbs).
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:14
Interestingly I got similar results to TBR - 1.5-2Mbps on the first one and 6.5Mbs on the 2nd (my connection is up to 8Mbs).
The plot thickens.
ANd its VERY close to 2mbps there, almost like its capped.
No - It's at 2Mb because that is the speed tier connection I have with Virgin Media.
So are you saying you ONLY have ADSL Mick?
Nope. I'm connected to a Cable Modem with VM and a Wireless router with BT ADSL.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:19
No - It's at 2Mb because that is the speed tier connection I have with Virgin Media.
Nope. I'm connected to a Cable Modem with VM and a Wireless router with BT ADSL.
Hold on, your posting results in a forum discussing speeds and saying ADSL is "crap" (your words) then post speed results from a speed tester showing 2mbps connections in an attempt to show how poor it is THEN tell us its because thats the speed teir your on on VM!!!!!! AFTER i rumble it!
Thats blatantly lying in order to further your argument. What the hell are you playing at Mick?
Also, why not post your CableModem results too?
Hold on, your posting results in a forum discussing speeds and saying ADSL is "crap" (your words) then post speed results from a speed tester showing 2mbps connections in an attempt to show how poor it is THEN tell us its because thats the speed teir your on on VM!!!!!! AFTER i rumble it!
Eh - You have rumbled nothing. I have never said in this thread that I was on a 20Mb connection.
Thats blatantly lying in order to further your argument. What the hell are you playing at Mick?
I haven't lied anywhere.
Also, why not post your CableModem results too?
I just did several posts up. You are clearly not keeping up - please do.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:29
Eh - You have rumbled nothing. I have never said in this thread that I was on a 20Mb connection.
I haven't lied anywhere.
I just did several posts up. You are clearly not keeping up - please do.
Fair enough, i thought you were comparing your BT ADSL connection. Appologies.
However, it looks like your SpeedTest is knacked.
Fair enough, i thought you were comparing your BT ADSL connection. Appologies.
However, it looks like your SpeedTest is knacked.
It's not knackered though because the speed results for both tests in my case, are practically the same.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:35
But your capped at 2meg?
But your capped at 2meg?
Yes my connection limit is 2Mb but that is because I am on a 2Mbps connection I don't see what point your trying to make?
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 16:55
Yes my connection limit is 2Mb but that is because I am on a 2Mbps connection I don't see what point your trying to make?
Both myself and another poster get massively different results using another speed test and you dont have the ability to test yours properly with a 2 meg connection.
Both myself and another poster get massively different results using another speed test and you dont have the ability to test yours properly with a 2 meg connection.
Why don't I get the ability to test mine properly?.. What is needed to test ones own connection speed regardless if its 20Mbps or 2Mbps? I still don't follow. :confused:
Here's two speed tests i just completed right now.
Firstly - the CableForum Speedtest
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:46:15 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 5531 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 7688 ms = 133.2 KB/sec, approx 1098 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5422 ms = 188.9 KB/sec, approx 1557 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11015 ms = 185.9 KB/sec, approx 1532 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1428 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps
Now - www.speedtest.net
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/31.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Looks like that old Virgin network is slowing us Sky subscribers down again, remember folks £10pm.
---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------
Oh, do us a favor Mick, do the same tests back to back on your VM connection will you?
Note to self. complain to VM about how slow my connection is :)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/30.png
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 17:06
Why don't I get the ability to test mine properly?.. What is needed to test ones own connection speed regardless if its 20Mbps or 2Mbps? I still don't follow. :confused:
Well either there is a problem when testing at over 2mbps as we both had similar results or there is a problem when coming in from other ISP's.
Its upto you what you decide to do.
---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------
Note to self. complain to VM about how slow my connection is :)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/30.png
Nice, but then your extra 7 Meg costs you another 27 quid a month - WHEN it works at that speed all time.
Im not denying that cable has the ability to be better than ADSL, and im in no doubt, because i've seen them, that people on here get more than what i get, but its not as stable and speeds fluctuate wildly from day to day or even within the same day. Which is why Sky IS coming out on top during the surveys, its more consistent on average. (see link at the start of the thread).
What im saying is that on average VM customers on the top package get 11mbps, on Sky its around 8mbps. VM costs 37 quid a month, Sky costs a tenner.
Even if you include BT line rental its still 17 quid cheaper, for that you can chuck in the Sky Base pack and get telly too and it'll still work out 50p less than you pay for broadband alone.
Yeah but as already said TBR - not everyone wants to pay into the coffers of a Murdoch owned franchise. Not when someone has the *apparent* ability to control the press.
The cost differences doesn't make one product better than another. I have all four services from VM and paying £40 for the lot and I also have a V+ box too, like to see Sky do all that, oh wait a minute they cannot, they don't offer a mobile service.
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 17:20
Yeah but as already said TBR - not everyone wants to pay into the coffers of a Murdoch owned franchise. Not when someone has the *apparent* ability to control the press.
The cost differences doesn't make one product better than another. I have all four services from VM and paying £40 for the lot and I also have a V+ box too, like to see Sky do all that, oh wait a minute they cannot, they don't offer a mobile service.
Your on 2 meg though and its still works out more.
Sky BB base - Free (2meg - same as you)
BT Line rental, 10.50
Sky+ with Base Pack - 16 quid.
So all that is cheaper than your 40 quid a month, spend the extra 14 quid on Pay as you go.
But were not comparing other services here, were comparing broadband and the top BB package from Sky is, at most, including the requirement for Sky Telly and BT line rental 36.50 a month for the top package. Your paying 37 quid a month ON TOP of your services for the top BB package.
Otherwise its a free, (base upto 2meg), 8 meg for a fiver or a tenner for upto 16 meg if you don't include that.
Nice, but then your extra 7 Meg costs you another 27 quid a month - WHEN it works at that speed all time.
Bet you it don't. Not going to discuss my bill with you, However i pay a lot less than £10.00 for my 20 meg ;)
There are admins on this forum who now me personally who will back me up on that as well
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 17:28
Bet you it don't. Not going to discuss my bill with you, However i pay a lot less than £10.00 for my 20 meg ;)
There are admins on this forum who now me personally who will back me up on that as well
Fair enough - your robbing VM or you work for them, normal VM customers do pay 37 quid a month though.
Fair enough - your robbing VM or you work for them, normal VM customers do pay 37 quid a month though.
what ever.
Still slow i see
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/29.png
BTW you are not Niel by any chance are you. He was in love with Sky as well :LOL:
I have the 20mb with VM for £18.50pm
Test 1 with CF Speedtest...
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:25:37 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 7422 ms = 138 KB/sec, approx 1137 Kbps, 1.11 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 6718 ms = 152.4 KB/sec, approx 1256 Kbps, 1.23 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 6485 ms = 157.9 KB/sec, approx 1301 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 12906 ms = 158.7 KB/sec, approx 1308 Kbps, 1.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1251 Kbps, 1.22 Mbps
Test 2 with speedtest.net...
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/28.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Test 3 the Newsgroups
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4e4d55607a.gif
[Admin Edit: Image turned to link due to size.]
TheBlueRaja
15-03-2008, 17:36
I have the 20mb with VM for £18.50pm
Test 1 with CF Speedtest...
Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:25:37 GMT
Test 1: 1024K took 7422 ms = 138 KB/sec, approx 1137 Kbps, 1.11 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 6718 ms = 152.4 KB/sec, approx 1256 Kbps, 1.23 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 6485 ms = 157.9 KB/sec, approx 1301 Kbps, 1.27 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 12906 ms = 158.7 KB/sec, approx 1308 Kbps, 1.28 Mbps
Overall Average Speed = approx 1251 Kbps, 1.22 Mbps
Test 2 with speedtest.net...
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2008/03/28.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Test 3 the Newsgroups
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4e4d55607a.gif
[Admin Edit:-Image turned to link due to size]
:shocked: Somethings wrong there i think mate, did you close your NG connections before testing?
Ye all tested one at a time.
webcrawler2050
15-03-2008, 17:49
The point being Sky may *apear* to be *Winning* when in reality they arn't. I know that, every other person on this forum knows that. Any one who has Tech knowledge knows that.
Sky ARE NOT winning as you put it.. I think you will VM ARE. The reasons???
Sky have done what they done best, cheat. They did it with the telly because they where worried and scared and down the same thing with BB - they under cut prices, so some people being stupid, go wow nice price, when its not about the price. But some it is.
heres a good example - if you order your bed just based on price, then the likely hood is people will buy the cheapest one and the results will be, bad back, dont sleep, blah blah blah, where as if you shop around and still get a good price and spend that little more, then the likely hood is you will sleep wont have a bad back etc..
The same theory applies to BB - You base on price and you WILL NOT get anywhere close to the speed, not a sausage, nadda, zilche!
Where as if you pay that little more, you will get the speed if not close. You get Fibre, you get so much more than Sky can offer!
The problem is, people in this country and greedy gits and all they think about is money! The same theory, applies to web hosting, people see the 45-9034785093478GB of space for $2.00 a month and jump up and down.
My point being "The Blue Raja" SHUTUP!
I really dont mind paying what I pay for BB because I have almost everything in one place, phone, bb, mobile, And telly shortly.
Too many people blamm poor speeds on VM when in reality its probably there poor ability to setup a network and router correctly.
Lets look at some prices shall we:
SKY
Telly = 6 Mixes + Movies = £38 + sky + £99 One Time or Sky HD + £199.99 One time
BB = A good speed 8MB = £5.00 Per month + £30.00 Activation Fee (YOU WONT GET 8MB) If you are an exisiting customer.
Phone Fixed Line = £11.50 Line Rental (PAID TO BT) £5.00 a month for "Unlimited" Calls
One off fee = £129.99
TOtal Monthly =
Virgine Media -
3 for £65
20 MB Broadband - No Bandwith Limit
Telly - £75 One off for Equivalent to Sky + & SKy HD
Phone - £18.95 a month Inclduing unlimited calls - Included above.
one of fee £75 + £10.00 installation. = £85.00
Total = £65 + £85.00 one off
My Point exactly!
Fair enough - your robbing VM or you work for them, normal VM customers do pay 37 quid a month though.
Not all they don't - VM are doing mega deals at the moment - Customers can get 20Mb for £10 a month for three months then it reverts to £20 after that if taken with a phone line as well.
But Sky could charge 50p for their BB - I wouldn't put my money into the coffers of someone who apparently known to influence the media.
webcrawler2050
15-03-2008, 18:12
Not all they don't - VM are doing mega deals at the moment - Customers can get 20Mb for £10 a month for three months then it reverts to £20 after that if taken with a phone line as well.
But Sky could charge 50p for their BB - I wouldn't put my money into the coffers of someone who apparently known to influence the media.
Exactly, the word FREE worries me personally - I see that as a con to "steal" customers.
Exactly, the word FREE worries me personally - I see that as a con to "steal" customers.
I see it as a "loss leader" - many companies do it.
Otherwise its a free, (base upto 2meg), 8 meg for a fiver or a tenner for upto 16 meg if you don't include that.
@TBR -- perhaps you could offer me some advice?
I'm on the point of leaving VM (purely because of Phorm) and have started looking around at ADSL providers.
I've been very happily getting around 3.9Mbs (on a 4Mb connection) so I should get slightly better speeds from ADSL (SamKnows Mapping (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/mapping/mapping.php) reckons I would get around 5.5Mbs).
How much would Sky + BT charge me for just <8Mbs?
(I have no use for either a landline telephone service or TV.)
Plus I've exchanged countless emails with O2 to try to establish if they'd be likely to have a problem with my normal (100GB) monthly downloads and they couldn't tell me.
(Would you believe they expect me to dump cableBB, get a BT line installed and sign-up with them only to get jumped on for high usage a month later?)
So I'd also appreciate any real-life examples of high usage that Sky found excessive.
TIA
@TBR -- perhaps you could offer me some advice?
I'm on the point of leaving VM (purely because of Phorm) and have started looking around at ADSL providers.
I've been very happily getting around 3.9Mbs (on a 4Mb connection) so I should get slightly better speeds from ADSL (SamKnows Mapping (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/mapping/mapping.php) reckons I would get around 5.5Mbs).
How much would Sky + BT charge me for just <8Mbs?
(I have no use for either a landline telephone service or TV.)
Plus I've exchanged countless emails with O2 to try to establish if they'd be likely to have a problem with my normal (100GB) monthly downloads and they couldn't tell me.
(Would you believe they expect me to dump cableBB, get a BT line installed and sign-up with them only to get jumped on for high usage a month later?)
So I'd also appreciate any real-life examples of high usage that Sky found excessive.
TIA
While you are waiting for TBR. You cannot have Sky Broadband without a BT phone. ADSL needs a phone line to work.
And whose to say Sky won't implement Phorm on their systems ... ;)
webcrawler2050
15-03-2008, 20:33
Eactly -- Mick can we close this - its getting stupid now!
While you are waiting for TBR. You cannot have Sky Broadband without a BT phone. ADSL needs a phone line to work.
I appreciate that, Sirius.
I'm grumpy enough having to get a BT line installed, the last thing I want is BT or anyone else offering me an unwanted "phone service", ie. calls.
Basically I was highlighting that I am not interested in a multi-service bundle.
And whose to say Sky won't implement Phorm on their systems ... ;)
Apparently they are looking in to implementing it or something similar. Shame because Theblueraja is going to leave them if they do. Judging by the following quote anyway.
I am very interested in this companies actions as i would like to see it crash and burn, its a blatant breach of privacy and akin to building up a personal profile of somebody's interests, hobbies, wealth and habits.
Apparently they are looking in to implementing it or something similar. Shame because Theblueraja is going to leave them if they do. Judging by the following quote anyway.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34507825-post1240.html
MovedGoalPosts
16-03-2008, 02:46
I'm beginning to wonder if there is any merit in this thread remaining open.
I don't care how active I have been in this thread now I will not tolerate personal remarks or insults aimed in my direction. And you say I cannot debate properly - Least I don't lower myself to insulting people. The offending posts have been deleted.
This thread is going to close now following on from Rob's post above. I am the only team member around so I am going to act, anyone who has a problem. Hardlines.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.