Sky misleading information

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Can I please draw your attention to the following:

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php?...nt=3&contry=

Shows a higher average speed for Sky Broadband / Easynet than either of the former components of VM, as do the figures at

.

Thanks Carl - my area shows NTL - which is now Virgin Media of course - as the top speed - thats for the town and county too.

Are you a Sky employee then?

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Carl J

You were fine till you typed $ky, not really the way to have your comments taken seriously, and actually the majority of urban and suburban lines are capable of 8Mbit+ over ADSL2+, and the vast majority capable of over 4Mbps.

Can I please draw your attention to the following:

http://www.speedtest.net/global.php?...nt=3&country=

Shows a higher average speed for Sky Broadband / Easynet than either of the former components of VM, as do the figures at

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/2978.html

Sky 3,340 Kbps
Virgin Media (cable) 2,978 Kbps

Bearing in mind that customers of both will vary from 2Mbit/s upwards, and that Sky customers will go as low potentially as 512kbps.

Those are only averages though. It takes no account of the VM split in customers between those on 2MB (more likely given the deal packages) and those on 10MB. It also makes no distinction between speed tests done on LLU (with those on the paid LLU being more likely to try a speed test) and those without LLU.

The problem with averages is that for a survey like that there are way too many factors to take into account.

The area I live in proves that - TW averages 5MB while Sky only averages 4. How does that compare with the 3.4 and 3?

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Thanks Carl - my area shows NTL - which is now Virgin Media of course - as the top speed - thats for the town and county too.

Are you a Sky employee then?

Excellent, then potentially for you it's the best choice That withstanding my point remains. The free Sky package is only 2Mbit and there will be a lot of customers not on ADSL2+.

Point is that lines that can do 10Mbit aren't as uncommon as you might think

Me an employee? No, I just have that custom title for the entertainment value

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Originally Posted by brundles

Those are only averages though. It takes no account of the VM split in customers between those on 2MB (more likely given the deal packages) and those on 10MB. It also makes no distinction between speed tests done on LLU (with those on the paid LLU being more likely to try a speed test) and those without LLU.

The problem with averages is that for a survey like that there are way too many factors to take into account.

The area I live in proves that - TW averages 5MB while Sky only averages 4. How does that compare with the 3.4 and 3?

Erm I'd say TW score 2Mbit higher and Sky 0.6Mbit higher

Yes of course there are many factors I was merely using that data to counter some points regarding performance.

If Sky's customers take a higher average speed that just suggests that Virgin's higher speed packages are overpriced and Sky are better at upselling. Telewest were better with upselling than ntl as well as I remember.

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Erm I'd say TW score 2Mbit higher and Sky 0.6Mbit higher

Yes of course there are many factors I was merely using that data to counter some points regarding performance.

If Sky's customers take a higher average speed that just suggests that Virgin's higher speed packages are overpriced and Sky are better at upselling. Telewest were better with upselling than ntl as well as I remember.

Not really - with a 2GB cap on Skys 2MB package, it tells you that people aren't worried about how quickly something downloads but just that they want it to always work. More people are likely to take the VM 2MB package than the Sky one - especially with the Sky sales rep busy upselling saying "Oh, but 2GB isn't very much, you'd be much better off with this 8MB on a 40GB cap just in case"

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by brundles

Not really - with a 2GB cap on Skys 2MB package, it tells you that people aren't worried about how quickly something downloads but just that they want it to always work. More people are likely to take the VM 2MB package than the Sky one - especially with the Sky sales rep busy upselling saying "Oh, but 2GB isn't very much, you'd be much better off with this 8MB on a 40GB cap just in case"

Well no, the fact that the 2Mbit is free, the 8 costs a fiver more and the 16 a tenner more and the target audience are I'd guess far more to do with it than the caps on the services.

Anyway I haven't a clue and can't speak for people who take the packages, however I would be interested in your thoughts as to why Telewest had a far better upsell rate on broadband than ntl prior to merger.

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Well no, the fact that the 2Mbit is free, the 8 costs a fiver more and the 16 a tenner more and the target audience are I'd guess far more to do with it than the caps on the services.

It may be £0/£5/£10, but that's on top of the rest of the package. People have done the maths over and over on here and other forums and found that the overall prices don't general fluctuate too much between them. Sometimes VM will be cheaper sometimes Sky will be cheaper. The bottom line is you have to go for the top Sky package to achieve something the bottom VM package gives you: Unlimited downloads.

Originally Posted by Carl J

Anyway I haven't a clue and can't speak for people who take the packages, however I would be interested in your thoughts as to why Telewest had a far better upsell rate on broadband than ntl prior to merger.

I don't work for either company so couldn't really say. A few random thoughts that might contribute though:
- TW were known for better customer service than NTL which implies better training. Makes sense that would also apply to the sales side.
- NTL were known for congestion issues more than TW including traffic shaping/management. TW could offer the higher traffic rates without the caps. I'm hoping (possibly naively!) that in time VMs approach of marketing edge and service differentiation instead of continuous cost cutting to balance the books will have the congestion stuff resolved (which IMO is a result of cost cutting meaning the company turned to a fire-fighting approach rather than a forward-planning approach).

As many people on here have already said, NTLs name is like mud. TW had a better reputation (for a reason) and so would find it easier to upsell.

[Downloads]

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

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.

[Chrysalis]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Well no, the fact that the 2Mbit is free, the 8 costs a fiver more and the 16 a tenner more and the target audience are I'd guess far more to do with it than the caps on the services.

Anyway I haven't a clue and can't speak for people who take the packages, however I would be interested in your thoughts as to why Telewest had a far better upsell rate on broadband than ntl prior to merger.

2, 8 and 16 MB all of course subject to availability.....
you might pay for 16, but as we've already discussed only get 1MB (well for most of the population).

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

2, 8 and 16 MB all of course subject to availability.....
you might pay for 16, but as we've already discussed only get 1MB (well for most of the population).

Well no. You think that's the case, it isn't

[keltik]

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.

the point is that sky will provide you with 16MB if you can get it. sky cant help it if your line is old, or you live too far away from the exchange. if you sign up for 16MB and your line can only handle 1MB then all youll get is 1MB on that line. Sky isnt a phone company, thats why their BB service suffers, because of the poor quality of some BT lines. But remember, the cable companies are phone companies, not TV companies...

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

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..

very true, Virgin are capping the speed of their BB at peak times, Sky arent.

Like i said, Sky will give you 16MB, its just up to whether or not your line will let you have it all...

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Originally Posted by brundles

you have to go for the top Sky package to achieve something the bottom VM package gives you: Unlimited downloads.

dont forget the fair usage policy, not quite unlimited...

[allanprg]

Virgin are not capping the BB at peak times. Only if there are some people doing excessive and heavy downloading. I'm on 2mb. The same 2mb day and night. I do some downloading but mainly surf net and watch streaming video. Of course there are areas which are over subscribed. These areas will notice a downgrade in speed in peak times. That was the case here until the UBR was upgraded.

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by allanprg

Virgin are not capping the BB at peak times. Only if there are some people doing excessive and heavy downloading. I'm on 2mb. The same 2mb day and night. I do some downloading but mainly surf net and watch streaming video. Of course there are areas which are over subscribed. These areas will notice a downgrade in speed in peak times. That was the case here until the UBR was upgraded.

A very long thread in this forum suggests otherwise.

[keltik]

yep, Ive been told they are capping the speeds, I cant remember to what speed, but its supposed to be happening.

[concepttwenty20]

i think so