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

http://seekbroadband.com/focus/2008/...sed-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?

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

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.

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

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/vi...ot-100308.html

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

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.

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

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 ----------

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.

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

Laughable - You know why? Because your views are never biased are they ? - pull the other one for crying out loud. :monkey:

Well the cast iron proof is there in front of you... :dozey: :dunce:

Clue: http://www.broadbandchoices.co.uk/vi...ot-100308.html

Sky way behind in terms of delivering overall speed-end of.

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

Aye, If you exclude the other survey which says otherwise, by over 4000 users.

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

Sky also have a AUP do they not?

This is a load of Rubbish and you know it.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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?

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

:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:

Easy - Cable vs ADSL. Cable beats ADSL any day.

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

Like i said - Proof?

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

From the article:

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.�

So difficult that SamKnows Mapping have cracked it!
(Have a look and see what speeds you'd be getting with ADSL/ADSL2+)

(Thanks for your work, Sam!)

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

Conveniently forgetting the cost of a BT line again.... ;)