Cable Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?! (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33629878)

c_r 15-03-2008 15:55
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507477)
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507477)
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).

jimrobo 15-03-2008 16:02
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507480)
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

Mick 15-03-2008 16:03
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_r (Post 34507482)
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by c_r
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.

lordy 15-03-2008 16:12
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507477)

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)

boroboi 15-03-2008 16:12
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hauzer (Post 34507427)
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.

Hugh 15-03-2008 16:22
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT2kX (Post 34507457)
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.

c_r 15-03-2008 16:30
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507485)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507485)
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.

Mick 15-03-2008 16:35
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_r (Post 34507500)

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.

CT2kX 15-03-2008 16:44
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34507496)
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

Mick 15-03-2008 16:48
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT2kX (Post 34507508)

P.S Cable for the win :p
That's the spirit, you know it makes sense. :angel: :p:

TheBlueRaja 15-03-2008 16:59
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507477)
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/...2008/03/31.png

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?

Mick 15-03-2008 17:02
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507513)
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/...2008/03/31.png

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/...2008/03/32.png

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 17:05
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507519)
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/...2008/03/32.png

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?

Mick 15-03-2008 17:09
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507520)
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 17:11
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507524)
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?

c_r 15-03-2008 17:13
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
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 17:14
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_r (Post 34507528)
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.

Mick 15-03-2008 17:16
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507526)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
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 17:19
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507532)
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?

Mick 15-03-2008 17:23
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507536)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
Thats blatantly lying in order to further your argument. What the hell are you playing at Mick?
I haven't lied anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
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 17:29
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507540)
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.

Mick 15-03-2008 17:33
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507542)
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 17:35
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
But your capped at 2meg?

Mick 15-03-2008 17:47
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507546)
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 17:55
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507553)
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.

Mick 15-03-2008 17:57
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507558)
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:

Sirius 15-03-2008 17:58
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507513)
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/...2008/03/31.png

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/...2008/03/30.png

TheBlueRaja 15-03-2008 18:06
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507561)
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34507562)
Note to self. complain to VM about how slow my connection is :)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...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.

Mick 15-03-2008 18:14
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
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 18:20
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507576)
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.

Sirius 15-03-2008 18:23
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507567)

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 18:28
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34507585)
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.

Sirius 15-03-2008 18:32
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507591)
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/...2008/03/29.png


BTW you are not Niel by any chance are you. He was in love with Sky as well :LOL:

Enuff 15-03-2008 18:33
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
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/...2008/03/28.png

Test 3 the Newsgroups

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4e4d55607a.gif

[Admin Edit: Image turned to link due to size.]

TheBlueRaja 15-03-2008 18:36
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enuff (Post 34507598)
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/...2008/03/28.png

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?

Enuff 15-03-2008 18:42
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Ye all tested one at a time.

webcrawler2050 15-03-2008 18:49
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
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!

Mick 15-03-2008 19:07
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507591)
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 19:12
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507643)
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.

Hugh 15-03-2008 19:23
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by webcrawler2050 (Post 34507650)
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.

ceedee 15-03-2008 21:08
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja (Post 34507580)
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 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

Sirius 15-03-2008 21:23
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedee (Post 34507771)
@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 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.

Mick 15-03-2008 21:31
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
And whose to say Sky won't implement Phorm on their systems ... ;)

webcrawler2050 15-03-2008 21:33
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Eactly -- Mick can we close this - its getting stupid now!

ceedee 15-03-2008 21:42
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34507783)
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.

ahardie 15-03-2008 22:24
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 34507796)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The blueraja
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.

Sirius 16-03-2008 00:01
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahardie (Post 34507822)
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/34...-post1240.html

MovedGoalPosts 16-03-2008 03:46
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
I'm beginning to wonder if there is any merit in this thread remaining open.

Mick 16-03-2008 09:41
Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 
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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:26.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum