Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Please understand. th, I'm not defending CW and his annoying deflection from VM. It doesn't matter in this thread that we take most other advertising material with a pinch of salt - so his point was pointless - as usual.
But I can't agree with you entirely on BT/Sky fibre product offer being better than VM's.
As you know, I have both VM and Infinity. When I was on 40/10 I got 38/8. When they doubled the frequency, I'm lucky to get 55/10. So the copper run is still a gotcha for distances of 300m or more. hen I got upgraded earlier this month from 50 meg to 100 meg, I got/get the 100 meg. The architecture sees to that.
There is an argument (that I've used before too) that BT's fibre is new and adequately capacious. Now that VM are renewing fibre in their upgrade programme, this BT advantage falls away.
I do agree with you that VM can be fairly criticised for a shameful marketing trick of offering to double speeds on a faster timetable than they actually knoew would be possible, simply to counter BT's speed doubling on Infinity. That was cynical, misleading unworthy.
|
agreed but thats the only thing that seems to be holding BT/Sky back. Is this a case of rules being in place to cap or a techy distance issue? either way as soon as thats sorted with FTTP? BT/Sky will have a massive advantage. fibre quality is in BT/Skys corner as we know.
BT/Sky non VM lack the ability to bang out 76down/19up to everyone due to distance and VM lack capacity to bang out full whack speeds to everyone with utilization/capacity issues. does it balance out?