sky vs virgin media - Page 2

Chad · 24-02-2011, 00:03

Same old SKY, there's a positive spin for everything. I'd be more impressed if they actually had the balls to openly compare Virgins VIP50 package with their own equivalent. That's when we'd see who does actually offer the best value in terms of broadband, HD multiroom etc. There will be a time, in the very near future, when the HD channel gap closes and SKY's ageing technology is exposed.

SKY, believe in better? Is it just me or is anyone else getting tired of SKY trying to blow smoke up our tail pipes?

24-02-2011, 00:58

I've never understood 'believe in better' just seems a strange thing to say after the name of your product.

jtaylor06 · 24-02-2011, 02:33

Maybe the believe in better is a subliminal message referring to 'Believe in Virgin, it's better'

johnathome · 24-02-2011, 04:08

I had to laugh at the BB comparison! We wont slow you down....no matter how much you use. With a FUP of 2GB!! wotta con!

It even has a * next to the VM BB and says FUP applies! VM dont charge extra, unlike sky

Peter_ · 24-02-2011, 06:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderlips

looking forward to see what the virgin media staff on these forums have to say about it !! lol

It is down to personal choice nothing more.

pabscars · 24-02-2011, 10:16

A nice try from Sky to compare like for like but you can clearly see it isn't the case.

I wonder why they didn't compare Vm's 20Mbps to their Unlimited package?

At the end of the day its about choice, for me who has recently signed up for Sky's services due to Vm failing to resolve outstanding issues with my broadband and TV its good to try and alternative ISP and compare like for like.

I've not had the Sky broadband installed yet so can't comment on that too much, but the TV picture quality knocks spots off VM so far, In standard definition on my 40 inch Toshiba I don't see any pixelation and blocky issues on sky yet some of VM's channels are borderline unwatchable at times, in particular ITV2+1. I can't comment on HD yet because I'm not paying extra for the privilege (one of the downsides with Sky as VM give you this for nowt)

Just getting back to the broadband, speaking with next door and running some tests on their Sky Unlimited Broadband, they only get about 5 to 6 Mbps download speed (due to our distance from the exchange) but the Jitter is nice and low at 1 to 2 ms at Peak times.

Vm's Jitter is anywhere from 4ms to 40ms but generally for me over 20ms which coupled with an upstream packet loss issue makes gaming extremely laggy and frustrating even on 50Mbps.

I've asked my neighbour over the last 6 months how many times have they had drop outs on their Sky BB and the answer was none, and he also replied with "we have 3 laptops on 24/7 in our house, and the lad is upstairs playing Black Ops on his PS3, all with no issues so far".

Personally I cant play Black Ops on my PS3 as its tooooooo laggy, and I get lag in every single FPS style game I play across both PS3 and XBox platforms.

So take from this what you will, this is just one perspective, but If my VM's services were better (quality wise) I would pick them hands down over Sky as both me and the Mrs love On Demand and the V+ functionality etc.

24-02-2011, 10:29

Ha Ha sky are doing what sky always do not exactly like for like is it.

I would love to see sky get anywhere near the speeds they compare with here, in my area broadband over a phone line is as follows 1.5 mb ADSL,and 2mb ADSL 2 maximum,sky would not even be able to offer a quarter of the 10mb vm currently does in my area (i am on broadband L). Still at least i could console myself with the marks and spencers vouchers.

On the tv front i get more channels then i could possibly watch now and the picture quality on the v+ is great certainly as good if not better then friends who have sky.

greyposter · 24-02-2011, 10:36

Virgin pictures are no better or worse than 'Sky',from my experience.

Marcus125 · 24-02-2011, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyposter

Virgin pictures are no better or worse than 'Sky',from my experience.

I would disagree, Skys HD beats Virginmedias HD. But VM's SD beats Skys SD.

I don't know much but I think satellite is a pretty efficient way of sending the signal. Cable has to many things that could potentially degrade the signal unless all things are working perfectly.

I also believe VM have re-encode MPG4 to MEPG2 before broadcast. Probably very wrong though.

Digital Fanatic · 24-02-2011, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus125

I would disagree, Skys HD beats Virginmedias HD. But VM's SD beats Skys SD.

I don't know much but I think satellite is a pretty efficient way of sending the signal. Cable has to many things that could potentially degrade the signal unless all things are working perfectly.I also belive VM have re-encode MPG4 to MEPG2 before broadcast. Probably very worng though.

All wrong as usual.

Marcus125 · 24-02-2011, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

All wrong as usual.

Well there ya go. It was just something I think was covered during a TELCO course at Telford college of Arts and TECHNOLOGY.Signal leak and other WRONG things like that.

kop32 · 24-02-2011, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

All wrong as usual.

And your facts behind your "all wrong as usual" are........

Peter_ · 24-02-2011, 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by kop32

And your facts behind your "all wrong as usual" are........

Why not ask the correct question so you get a answer.

Marcus125 · 24-02-2011, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Why not ask the correct question so you get a answer.

When it comes to VM staff sometimes it seems there is no correct question. All we need to know is the answer they give is correct and thats that!

Peter_ · 24-02-2011, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus125

When it comes to VM staff sometimes it seems there is no correct question. All we need to know is the answer they give is correct and thats that!

You already know that I will endeavour to give the correct answer even to you.