Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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 |
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
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.