Wait, Wait, Wait... Sky's beating VM?!

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Like i've said on 3 occasions now - prove it.

I said end of story ok? Just learn to accept the fact that the technologies between cable and adsl, cable comes out winning, everyone knows this, its just you being in denial that nothing can possibly beat your precious Sky.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Great. We have forbidden words. Well done CF

I suggest you read the announcement made many months ago.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/90...l#post34316318


Now back on topic please.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mick

Also - I will not see a point of view from someone who shows consistently that they have one sided opinions and cast them off as facts.

But surely you must be able to see that is exactly what you're doing with comments like this:

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.

Originally Posted by c_r

But surely you must be able to see that is exactly what you're doing with comments like this:

Well I did actually say I could be playing by TBR rules. Do keep up.

Because this is exactly what he does in every single Sky vs VM thread.

[CT2kX]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Are you getting your Mb and your MB mixed up?

I have a 4MB line, and consistently get 3.86Mb/s (485MB/s) on downloads.

ah i didnt type them correctly, but you must be able to clearly see what i mean by this, damn, people in here are so moody at times.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well I did actually say I could be playing by TBR rules. Do keep up.

Because this is exactly what he does in every single Sky vs VM thread.

But TBR has been consistently providing information to back up his point of view throughout this thread. You may not agree with him but at least he's trying to put forward a coherent argument. Making comments such as 'it's crap anyway' and 'it really is pants' doesn't really add much to the debate.

Originally Posted by c_r

But TBR has been consistently providing information to back up his point of view throughout this thread. You may not agree with him but at least he's trying to put forward a coherent argument. Making comments such as 'it's crap anyway' and 'it really is pants' doesn't really add much to the debate.

He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal. We all know which is better technology wise or are we just arguing because its me trying to make the point, you always seem to crawl out of the woodwork to bait me, nice try, hasn't worked though.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mick

He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal. We all know which is better technology wise or are we just arguing because its me trying to make the point, you always seem to crawl out of the woodwork to bait me, nice try, hasn't worked though.

I agree that cable is the better technology but, if you're within reasonable distance of the exchange, I'd say Sky is the better service due to the price, lack of traffic shaping, and the fact that VM seem to have so many problems delivering their advertised speed.

See that's an example of someone giving their opinion and then backing it up with reasons for having that opinion. You say you're part owner of this forum, surely you want people to have sensible and constructive debates on it? You've just done exactly the same thing in your last post, dismissing TBR links with the comment "He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal." It's really not worth trying to have a debate if that's going to be your attitude - why not state your reasons why you think he hasn't backed anything up or why you think those links mean "jack all"?

Originally Posted by c_r

I agree that cable is the better technology but, if you're within reasonable distance of the exchange, I'd say Sky is the better service due to the price, lack of traffic shaping, and the fact that VM seem to have so many problems delivering their advertised speed.

You see you throwing up conditions that not every VM BB customer suffers and its only cheaper with Sky if you have all other products with it as well.

I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps

Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.

Guess I'll just have to switch to my VM connection if I want the speed because I know I can rely on a consistent overall speed.

Originally Posted by c_r

See that's an example of someone giving their opinion and then backing it up with reasons for having that opinion. You say you're part owner of this forum, surely you want people to have sensible and constructive debates on it? You've just done exactly the same thing in your last post, dismissing TBR links with the comment "He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal." It's really not worth trying to have a debate if that's going to be your attitude - why not state your reasons why you think he hasn't backed anything up or why you think those links mean "jack all"?

Because as I said - I might be playing by TBR's rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads.

[jimrobo]

In my experience and I've been with virgin for about 18 months is virgin is about as bad as it gets.

Originally Posted by jimrobo

In my experience and I've been with virgin for about 18 months is virgin is about as bad as it gets.

I agree its not a pefect service for all and many have problems. Me included. But I know I have a reliable product over ADSL.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mick

I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps

Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.

Guess I'll just have to switch to my VM connection if I want the speed because I know I can rely on a consistent overall speed.

Well that's better, at least your putting forward some reasons for your opinion rather than silly one line put downs. But what would you say if I posted my statistics (which happen to be very good) and used that as evidence that Sky broadband is excellent? You have to look at the bigger picture.

Originally Posted by Mick

Because as I said - I might be playing by TBR's rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads.

And as I've already said that is factually incorrect. Read through the thread. TBR has consistently provided reasons for his opinion. This is the first time you've posted anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. You can't just post one line statements such as 'it really is pants' and not expect people to question you on it (well I suppose you can as you're part owner of this forum but you'll just end up looking rather silly).

[jimrobo]

Originally Posted by Mick

I agree its not a pefect service for all and many have problems. Me included. But I know I have a reliable product over ADSL.

I imagine sky is awful but as far as the experience I have had with ADSL over virgin I can honestly say i have never had as many problems with anyone as I have had with virgin. I am on baguley6 and my internet hasn't worked properly for 12 months. I know people are going to play the well why haven't you left card but the fact is i don't have the option! I live too far away from my telephone exchange. I was in th process of moving house until virgin assured me it would be fixed on the 19th march. Now they have cancelled the upgrade.

My friend let me use his flat and I put be broadband in there and I have not had one problem with it. It runs at 12 meg and doesn't drop.....ever! Well in 3 months it hasn't dropped anyway.

Personally i hate being with virgin and everyday i have to use the internet i know I am going to have to fight just to try and use it

Originally Posted by c_r

Well that's better, at least your putting forward some reasons for your opinion rather than silly one line put downs. But what would you say if I posted my statistics (which happen to be very good) and used that as evidence that Sky broadband is excellent? You have to look at the bigger picture.

I have tried Sky BB - perhaps you missed this point and the connection speeds were dire to say the least.

Originally Posted by c_r

And as I've already said that is factually incorrect. Read through the thread. TBR has consistently provided reasons for his opinion. This is the first time you've posted anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. You can't just post one line statements such as 'it really is pants' and not expect people to question you on it (well I suppose you can as you're part owner of this forum but you'll just end up looking rather silly).

And as I have said those reasons are not a valid piece of evidence to back up his claim Sky BB is better than VM BB. Stop going over old ground.

[lordy]

Originally Posted by Mick

I'm currently surfing on my BT ADSL connection - The speed should be at least near 8Mb. Speed test just done:-

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:33:01 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 12825 ms = 79.8 KB/sec, approx 658 Kbps, 0.64 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 8183 ms = 125.1 KB/sec, approx 1031 Kbps, 1.01 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 9553 ms = 107.2 KB/sec, approx 883 Kbps, 0.86 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 21567 ms = 95 KB/sec, approx 783 Kbps, 0.76 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 839 Kbps, 0.82 Mbps

Edit: I don't live far from the exchange at all.

BT *IS* Crap and heavily congested. From the exchange back to the net.
Many better choices (even using ADSLMax)

[boroboi]

Originally Posted by Hauzer

I purchased NTL internet, phone and TV while it was still NTL. I purchased 2MB internet speed. Now it's Virgin Media and I still have 2MB internet speed, but it never downloads anything close to that.

The max. speed it downloads at is 240KBps.

2MB doesnt mean its going to download 2MB per second

Theres a distinct different between a megabyte and a megabit.

So you're getting your 2MB service at full speed.