Sky Broadband

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Richy99

which is £11 so its £21 for line and upto 16meg internet

Upto being the operative words. Unless you live in, on top, or adjoining an exchange, then it's unlikely that you're likely to get even close to that. Out of interest I checked what my maximum speed would be - a paltry 1MB, which is half the slowest speed that Virgin Media offer. Okay, so you don't always get the full 2, 4 or 10MB offered by VM, but you're going to get much closer to the advertised speed with them than Sky.

[Central]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Upto being the operative words. Unless you live in, on top, or adjoining an exchange, then it's unlikely that you're likely to get even close to that. Out of interest I checked what my maximum speed would be - a paltry 1MB, which is half the slowest speed that Virgin Media offer. Okay, so you don't always get the full 2, 4 or 10MB offered by VM, but you're going to get much closer to the advertised speed with them than Sky.

I dont live on top or in my exchange and I cant see it from my house but I get 19mb.

Whats your point?

[NTLVictim]

Be, how far away are you from the exchange, point to point? I'm trying to get an idea about what I could expect

[dcclanuk]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Upto being the operative words. Unless you live in, on top, or adjoining an exchange, then it's unlikely that you're likely to get even close to that. Out of interest I checked what my maximum speed would be - a paltry 1MB, which is half the slowest speed that Virgin Media offer. Okay, so you don't always get the full 2, 4 or 10MB offered by VM, but you're going to get much closer to the advertised speed with them than Sky.

Where can we chk our max speed on adsl?

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Upto being the operative words. Unless you live in, on top, or adjoining an exchange, then it's unlikely that you're likely to get even close to that. Out of interest I checked what my maximum speed would be - a paltry 1MB, which is half the slowest speed that Virgin Media offer. Okay, so you don't always get the full 2, 4 or 10MB offered by VM, but you're going to get much closer to the advertised speed with them than Sky.

Yea right!

NTL 10MB = 4.5 - 7MB in my area!

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by Martie07

sorry to gatecrash this post, but would anyone with Sky be willing to ping+trace and IP for me? im looking for isp's with good latency to move to.

If someone is willing please pm me!

As per my previous post, here's my latency with UKOnline, a part of the Sky family, Sky latency may be higher depending on your line.


Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.116] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.116: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.116:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 8ms, Maximum = 8ms, Average = 8ms

Bit high tonight, usually 6-7... probably the wireless.

[Central]

Originally Posted by NTLVictim

Be, how far away are you from the exchange, point to point? I'm trying to get an idea about what I could expect

Well according to Sam Knows I am 262 metres and according to Be my line is 756 metres

[Carl J]

Straight line here 550m, line is over 1.4km and I sync up at over 20Mbit which allows me to download at over 2200kB/s.

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.224.83] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 212.58.224.83: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.83: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.83: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=247
Reply from 212.58.224.83: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=247

Ping statistics for 212.58.224.83:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 6ms, Maximum = 7ms, Average = 6ms

There's a download running on another PC so only speed testing around 10Mbit at the mo

[Paul K]

Line distance is only one factor in the speed issue (as a SKY employee I'm sure you know this already) and things like exchange equipment, quality of line, quality of equipment on the line and congestion all play a part in ADSL speeds.

[talklifeforums]

I actually got sky and currently am with bulldog but not entirely happy with them specially there billing and customer services and i so wanna go to sky but they dont do static ip as i am running website from home and than they got 40gb limit which isnt really very good for me, i may move to them if they start doing static ip.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Be*

Well according to Sam Knows I am 262 metres and according to Be my line is 756 metres

you would be able to see if clear line of sight then

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Line distance is only one factor in the speed issue (as a SKY employee I'm sure you know this already) and things like exchange equipment, quality of line, quality of equipment on the line and congestion all play a part in ADSL speeds.

quality of line is a big factor.

for carl j to get 20mbit on a 1.4km line is very unusual and is not the norm but of course it is possible, BTs local loop network seems to be of very inconsistent quality, what people should be aware of tho his direct route is just over half a km.

Some lines have alimiumn others have thin copper, some have poor joints, some have poor exchange equipment, some have interference all of which will reduce performance.

On my line I observed the following behaviour to give you an idea of how exchange equipment can affect synch speed.

Initially 7000kbit on 6db noise margin, fast mode noise bursts during office hours.
After lift and shift (move to diff line card port but same dslam) 6400kbit synch speed same noise bursts.
After cease and reprovide (different dslam) 6400kbit synch speed, much reduced upstream synch strength (down from over 1000kbit to 700kbit introducing lower noise margin and errors on upstream) and noise bursts now happen at weekends as well but still daytime only.

As I understand it plugging into a dslam isnt like plugging in a network cable they have to attach the naked wires and judging from my experience its entirely possible to get a poor connection. My attenuation also changed every time they moved me around in the exchange as well. Currently my upstream attenuation is lower then before with the reduced upstream performance which doesnt make sense at all.

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

for carl j to get 20mbit on a 1.4km line is very unusual and is not the norm but of course it is possible, BTs local loop network seems to be of very inconsistent quality, what people should be aware of tho his direct route is just over half a km.

A lovely way to put a negative spin on the fact my line is very good and I get 20Mbit at 1.4km

Some lines have alimiumn others have thin copper, some have poor joints, some have poor exchange equipment, some have interference all of which will reduce performance.

Some have none of the above

On my line I observed the following behaviour to give you an idea of how exchange equipment can affect synch speed.

Initially 7000kbit on 6db noise margin, fast mode noise bursts during office hours.
After lift and shift (move to diff line card port but same dslam) 6400kbit synch speed same noise bursts.
After cease and reprovide (different dslam) 6400kbit synch speed, much reduced upstream synch strength (down from over 1000kbit to 700kbit introducing lower noise margin and errors on upstream) and noise bursts now happen at weekends as well but still daytime only.

That's you, you're one of over 8 million DSL connections in the UK on one of over 5,000 enabled exchanges

As I understand it plugging into a dslam isnt like plugging in a network cable they have to attach the naked wires and judging from my experience its entirely possible to get a poor connection. My attenuation also changed every time they moved me around in the exchange as well. Currently my upstream attenuation is lower then before with the reduced upstream performance which doesnt make sense at all.

That'd be the jumpering you're referring to, which is generally very good as it's done with precision tools. Not many links done with a soldering iron anymore but yes they are done occasionally in old exchanges. Though it's nicely arranged you have a copper connection with cable too, albeit a coax cable which is shielded. You do get the noise of both youself and anyone else who shares that combined link to the fibre node after all as they are combined, while with DSL you have a dedicated cable and bandwidth right to the DSLAM.

Of course you didn't mention that in your DSL bashing.

Please do carry on. DSL bad, cable good.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Line distance is only one factor in the speed issue (as a SKY employee I'm sure you know this already) and things like exchange equipment, quality of line, quality of equipment on the line and congestion all play a part in ADSL speeds.

Sky is capitals now? News to me.

Anyway yes I'm aware of this however on LLU the quality of the equipment at the exchange is normally fairly well known, and congestion on Sky LLU, unlike cable, doesn't happen

[Chrysalis]

I am not dsl bashing I am just been realistic.

When I moved over to adsl my expectations were too high, people read you get 20mbit and may think well I got 1.3km on samknows I will be fine. Even a 1.3km real distance not straight line will most likely get considerably below 20mbit so there is no point making people think otherwise.

The truth is the vast majority of lines are over 2km.
The vast majority of people will not get 16mbit on skys service.
The vast majority of people will not get 7.15mbit on BTs service.
Some people will get very good speeds on sky, I have never said otherwise.
It is more of a gamble then cable unless you already know for sure how other lines perform on your postcode.
Sky is cheap and probably the best value adsl service around providing you in one of their LLU areas.

So thats my viewpoint it isnt entirely negative at all but realistic.

The dedicated cable offers what advantage? if reduced noise remember there is crosstalk and I think you would find it hard to argue that a long poor quality 30 year old copper cable even if dedicated would have less noise then a short newer shared cable.

So we have established on very short lines xDSL is possibly a superior technology and on longer,poorer lines it is inferior, most lines are not very short meaning as a rule of thumb xDSL is inferior.

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I am not dsl bashing I am just been realistic.

When I moved over to adsl my expectations were too high, people read you get 20mbit and may think well I got 1.3km on samknows I will be fine. Even a 1.3km real distance not straight line will most likely get considerably below 20mbit so there is no point making people think otherwise.

The truth is the vast majority of lines are over 2km.
The vast majority of people will not get 16mbit on skys service.
The vast majority of people will not get 7.15mbit on BTs service.
Some people will get very good speeds on sky, I have never said otherwise.
It is more of a gamble then cable unless you already know for sure how other lines perform on your postcode.
Sky is cheap and probably the best value adsl service around providing you in one of their LLU areas.

So thats my viewpoint it isnt entirely negative at all but realistic.

My points exactly - Sky's upto 8MB is misleading to most of the general public.

[Central]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

My points exactly - Sky's upto 8MB is misleading to most of the general public.

What part of upto is misleading. If people fail to read that bit then thats there fault. They have never guaranteed 8mb