Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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?

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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*

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

Neither can VM.

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.

Too many customers for the network to support effectively, hence such a draconian cap limit for STM.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

I have never phoned them, just come on here instead it makes more sense ;):)

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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!.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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 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.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

You defending Sky all the time is becoming extremely boring. :zzz:

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

You haven't proved anything to me. Sky BB is not better product than VM BB-end of.

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.

You don't know how to prove things - You only add your opinions and cast them off as though they were facts. :dunce::dozey:

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

LOL!!! Within the same post too... Dear god man.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

He probably needs a new master socket.

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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:

Re: Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!
 

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.