Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyCambs
Just checked the Sky pages about their version of events with Virgin Media.
http://www.sky.com/portal/site/skyco...ntentid=646110
They refer to "upto 16Mb per month. I'm not sure how many people are likely to be able to get this speed - I live about 3 miles from the exchange, and checking on www.broadbandchecker.com it shows that I should get
So a more fair comparison would be
Virgin Media's television and 2MB Broadband (that's twice as fast as Sky could manage) for £20 per month.
You can't compare Upto speeds which are very very dependant on where you live. |
I been arguing this point on adslguide for a while, the up to marketing trick on adsl is nothing but misleading, but it seems the ASA have been fooled and now anyone who complains gets a template reply that looks like its been cut and pasted from a BT view point.
---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J
3km isn't that close, the majority of people are within 3km of their exchange, and you have to be way closer than that to get 16Mbit 
---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------
Some people in heavily congested cable areas might claim that cable's speeds also depend on where you live. It seems that VM are trying to promote themselves as being able to guarantee speeds which they cannot.
Anyway the Sky thing does say 'up to', doesn't promise anything and does state..
http://check.skybroadband.com/
http://check.skybroadband.com/onnet.aspx
If you want to compare 2Mbit products Sky do offer one, free of charge, albeit with a usage limit.
At the end of the day though it's all rhetoric from both sides, if you take the press releases of either that seriously you need to back off a bit, they'll both merrily pick out the best case scenario to look better than the other.
It's called... PR 
Take it at its' face value at your extreme peril  |
Well if I was virgin I would be doing the same, sky (and all adsl isps) shouldnt be allowed to use the words up to for their product because for many people up to 16mbit isnt accurate like up ot 8meg isnt accurate for adsl1, to make it even worse its a majority not minority that wont achieve those speeds so when they say it "may" slow down if too far from exchange it really should be it "probably will" slow down if too far from exchange. If the ASA slam virgin for saying garuanteed speeds I expect virgin may be expecting this and have their reply asking them how to diffierentate from adsl, if adsl can get away with bending the truth so much that it snaps then virgin should be able to get away with saying garuanteed based on the modem synch speed.
---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J
BT thing is a guesstimate based on records of line lengths, and I'm pretty sure it actually says 'at least' not 'up to' on its' checker responses.
I'm actually 100% positive infact.
It claimed 6Mbit+ for me at 1.4km, I got 8 comfortably.
According to BT Wholesale, your line should be able to support a 6Mbps or greater ADSL connection via ADSL Max.
|
line quality, and the route of the line to her house could be very bad.
I get 4mbit (almost stable) on my 1.6km straight line distance.
A friend gets 4.5mbit (stable) on his 3.7km straight line distance.
His daughter gets 6mbit on 4.1km straight line distance.
The answer is BTs local loop network is inconsistent, depending on where you are different quality cables and joints may be used affecting performance and its vulnerable to interference.