Sky misleading information - Page 3

themelon · 01-03-2007, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

Where did you get the stat most people are within 3km of their exchange?

I'm 'pretty sure' on the Ofcom website it says 17% of people are within 2km. But i would have been surprised if 50% of people are within 3km. Maybe it is the case though.

MOST people actually live more than 3km from the exchange. As per OFCOM in the UK 86% of people live within 5Km http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060426a
17% live within 2km its unlikely that 50% (or most) will be within 3Km

When you consider that there are 6 BT exchanges in Stoke on Trent. Stoke on Trent consists of 5 towns and is quite spread out covering roughly 8 square miles of urban spraul!, the line distance is never as short as the crow flies and an average line distance from an exchange in a city is about 3km (only 1.8 miles). I only live about 2-3 miles from the exchange now but cannot get more than 512k Broadband on ADSL, I have lived in one house where I could see the central Stoke on Trent exchange but could still only get less than 1Mb broadband. BT said the cable was more than 2Km them so there must have been reel round a pole somewhere.

In my experience ADSL is so hit an miss. If you can get it and it works its probably great but if it doesnt and their are line issues it is a total waste of space. A lot of the BT infastructure is so old it really can not cope, it can barely cope with a decent phone line for some.

rtj70 · 01-03-2007, 23:28

I used to live opposite the Didsbury (M20) BT exchange. When broadband first came out could not get it as "not near a converted exchange" but it was. Just checked and it's down as about 4Mbit/s on BT's website -old phone number kept by current occupants. Straight line it's about 100 yds so a big reel of cable somewhere.

Give me cable anyday. I know max speeds not guaranteed but I get 4Mbit/s all the time from good fast sites.

**Paul** · 01-03-2007, 23:53

Phone lines don't travel in straight lines

rtj70 · 02-03-2007, 00:04

Doh. That was my point. If you live opposite a BT exchange and they don't think you can get fast speeds then living a couple of miles away not promising.

Chrysalis · 03-03-2007, 01:02

please believe me when I say 3km isnt short, the 17% under 2km probably gives you a good idea of chances of decent performance.

Carl J · 03-03-2007, 08:45

I'm completely bemused by that as the average performance seen on LLU seems to disagree. According to Ofcom then 17% of people will have a loop length sub 3km and a line attenuation under 35-40.

The line stats, etc, that I've seen disagree with that though perhaps I haven't seen the best subset.

Ah well Ofcom have better data than I do you'd hope so I'll have to concede that one

Amusingly the loudest complainer of ADSL performance here is one of that 17% but has a pants line

On the upside the majority of the UK can get 4Mbit+ according to BT, which is 'decent' performance in my opinion, contrary to what some might say.

Paul K · 03-03-2007, 08:48

You can have as short a length of line as possible between you and the exchange but if the line quality is bad or the equipment at each end of the line is not up to the job then you will get rubbish speeds no matter how close you live to your exchange.
ADSL can be very hit and miss and sometimes it just seems a bit of a lottery as to if you have a good speed or not. I know lots of people who get really good speeds from ADSL and I also know lots that have dial up speeds for no known reason.

Carl J · 03-03-2007, 08:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

ADSL can be very hit and miss and sometimes it just seems a bit of a lottery as to if you have a good speed or not. I know lots of people who get really good speeds from ADSL and I also know lots that have dial up speeds for no known reason.

Then they may want to get onto their ISPs, BT have a clear set of guidelines for ADSL speeds and what is considered a fault condition. If ISPs can't be bothered to raise faults with BT they deserve the elbow

Downloads · 04-03-2007, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl J

On the upside the majority of the UK can get 4Mbit+ according to BT, which is 'decent' performance in my opinion, contrary to what some might say.

I'd agree, i think 4meg is a pretty decent average, no ones fault that people live at the back end of no where!

---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by themelon

MOST people actually live more than 3km from the exchange. As per OFCOM in the UK 86% of people live within 5Km http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060426a
17% live within 2km its unlikely that 50% (or most) will be within 3Km

When you consider that there are 6 BT exchanges in Stoke on Trent. Stoke on Trent consists of 5 towns and is quite spread out covering roughly 8 square miles of urban spraul!, the line distance is never as short as the crow flies and an average line distance from an exchange in a city is about 3km (only 1.8 miles). I only live about 2-3 miles from the exchange now but cannot get more than 512k Broadband on ADSL, I have lived in one house where I could see the central Stoke on Trent exchange but could still only get less than 1Mb broadband. BT said the cable was more than 2Km them so there must have been reel round a pole somewhere.

In my experience ADSL is so hit an miss. If you can get it and it works its probably great but if it doesnt and their are line issues it is a total waste of space. A lot of the BT infastructure is so old it really can not cope, it can barely cope with a decent phone line for some.

I thought that was the case, was trying to remember the % of people within 5km as i saw it on both BT and old NTLs presentations ages ago. Can only hope the government take pitty on 50% of the Nation and start laying infrastructure for them! (That was a joke btw)

NTLVictim · 05-03-2007, 10:55

Slightly off at a tangent, whatever happened to broadband by satellite?

If it's viable, why haven't Sky pursued it?

brundles · 05-03-2007, 10:58

Hasn't the problem with that always been that there is no decent return path?

For all the complaints about 384Kbps upstream, image being stuck with a 56k modem providing all your upstream capability.

Chrysalis · 06-03-2007, 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl J

I'm completely bemused by that as the average performance seen on LLU seems to disagree. According to Ofcom then 17% of people will have a loop length sub 3km and a line attenuation under 35-40.

The line stats, etc, that I've seen disagree with that though perhaps I haven't seen the best subset.

Ah well Ofcom have better data than I do you'd hope so I'll have to concede that one

Amusingly the loudest complainer of ADSL performance here is one of that 17% but has a pants line

On the upside the majority of the UK can get 4Mbit+ according to BT, which is 'decent' performance in my opinion, contrary to what some might say.

LLU performance disagrees because many LLU providers full stop to provision long lines. That might have a slight factor.

I just state facts these are not made up figures.

Its a fact the majority get below advertised speeds on adsl due to the nature of the technology so I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by shooting me down other then to sell adsl for your employer by misleading people.

---------- Post added at 03:16 ---------- Previous post was at 03:15 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl J

Then they may want to get onto their ISPs, BT have a clear set of guidelines for ADSL speeds and what is considered a fault condition. If ISPs can't be bothered to raise faults with BT they deserve the elbow

yes its 400kbit, rather low. although users often get way below this been throttled by their isps etc. and nothing is done about it.

---------- Post added at 03:18 ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downloads

I'd agree, i think 4meg is a pretty decent average, no ones fault that people live at the back end of no where!

Not everyone with poor lines lives in the sticks it affects many people in city areas.

Give you a hint I am walking distance from a major city centre.

---------- Post added at 03:19 ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Slightly off at a tangent, whatever happened to broadband by satellite?

If it's viable, why haven't Sky pursued it?

latency would be the major factor.

AndyCambs · 06-03-2007, 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Not everyone with poor lines lives in the sticks it affects many people in city areas.

Give you a hint I am walking distance from a major city centre.

So am I, and I'd struggle to get 2MB here.
That's why I think that Sky should only use the lowest Virgin Media Broadband speeds as comparison in its advertising.

Morden · 06-03-2007, 20:34

Lines not capped where I am and I have downloaded 15 GB in last 5 days :-

06-03-2007, 20:39

Indeed nice speeds ready for my online version of tonights stargate to start