Sky starting to challenge Virgin Media as second largest provider

[craigj2k12]

Can you name any advantages VM has over Sky? Besides headline speeds (which you cant reach to a lot of sites due to congestion) there isnt any

[denphone]

l reach my headline speeds perfectly fine as do many others but of there is going to be a certain amount of congestion in certain areas but that applys to all broadband providers not just Virgin.

[craigj2k12]

Peering points was my main point, most users struggle to pull 1Mbit from youtube in the evenings

[denphone]

It seems BT don't share you confidence about Sky's network.

Customers told us that they wanted to be able to enjoy catch-up TV, streamed films and other bandwidth-eating applications without having to worry about going over their limit or being slowed down by their ISP.

Unlike Sky, we’re extremely confident that our network can stand up to the extra bandwidth demands from totally unlimited products everywhere across the UK

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...nlimited-at-bt

[craigj2k12]

Not to mention:

• No STM
• No protocol shaping
• Mostly uncongested network
• Congestion is resolved in less than a month, in some cases a week or 2
• Constant low ping rates
• No jitter to be seen
• Far better upload speeds
• Ability to stream online video
• Stable CPE
• Separate modem and router

Obviously there are more less significant reasons, but as VMs advantage has only one bullet point (headline speed) which is invalidated by the fact most of the peering points are at capacity, I still dont see what advantage VM has

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:52 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

It seems BT don't share you confidence about Sky's network.

LOL

As I have mentioned yes there is congestion at some exchanges, however this is being resolved within less than a month. As QTX mentioned in another thread, every ISP is going to see congestion at some point, the matter is how they deal with it, VM seem to just delay the resolution date for months, and years until useage dies down, then close the ticket, which of course is re-opened weeks later etc etc

Besides the huge list of exchanges that were raised as overutilised a week or so ago, and given fix dates of early, mid or late February (all within a month) the only other example I have seen from Sky was utilisation over christmas, complained about on the forum, raised by a Sky rep on the Friday, with a fix date of the following Monday, which was then delayed until the Tuesday, and was closed that day, with the fault being fixed, customer happy.

As I say, its often VMs way to give a 3 to 6 month initial fix date, which then gets delayed by another 6 months and on and on

[denphone]

Well Craig we could go round the mulberry bush again and again here and lets just say we each have our own opinions which differ considerably.

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Not to mention:

• No STM
• No protocol shaping
• Mostly uncongested network
• Congestion is resolved in less than a month, in some cases a week or 2
• Constant low ping rates
• No jitter to be seen
• Far better upload speeds
• Ability to stream online video
• Stable CPE
• Separate modem and router

Just to be pedantic but sky have a hub ,a very good hub and having used BT's and VM's it is by far the best

As I've said before - competition is good, it makes those involved raise their game, which benefits the customer.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by denphone

Well Craig we could go round the mulberry bush again and again here and lets just say we each have our own opinions which differ considerably.

You have to understand I have no bias here, I dont work for, or own any of the companies involved, I just have experience using both ISP's and using my experience, coupled with others (friends, family and forum folks) is what I am basing my argument on.

So with regards to going round the mulberry bush, we might as well, I would be interesting in seeing what your opinion is

The only other thing I can think besides headline speed is the TV bundle. I have no idea the comparison between sky and VM, as I have always just used freeview. But based on broadband alone, Sky (and even BT) blow VM out the water. I also think regarding BT's announcement this morning about their useage policy and throttling will be the basis of their marketing strategy against VM

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Not sure why that's as suprise when they could provide services to 25 million homes and VM can only provide services to 12 million?

Wrong?

VM could provide services to 25 million homes too.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Don't VM also have a 'National' service which uses BT phone lines ?

Exactly

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Top banana

Yes but don't think it has many customers

Now why do you think that is? Seeing as it has the same "coverage", which negates your whole point completely

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:23 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Still proves your point about coverage wrong

Exactly.

If VM's off-net service was any good, it would in itself be a challenger to the likes of Sky, BT, and all the other "big" xDSL ISPs

---------- Post added at 00:24 ---------- Previous post was at 00:23 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Skys FTTC service is lightyears ahead of Virgins cable service

---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was at 00:24 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Not to mention:

• Mostly uncongested network

You can't really do an apples to apples comparison on that, the part of the "network" that sees most congestion problems on VM does not exist on Sky. Sky do not own or operate that part of their network.

• Congestion is resolved in less than a month, in some cases a week or 2

Core network congestion on VM (the only part Sky has any control over) is resolved pretty much just as quickly. I've never seen core network issues on VM last over a month.

• Constant low ping rates

Ermm...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35531120-post51.html

Notice how his opinion of "decent" on Sky is nearly 40ms minimum. The worst on VM (when the network isn't broken) is 26ms, that's in the most northern reaches of their network in Scotland.

[/devil's advocate]

Consider yourself derped.

Originally Posted by denphone

l think the simple fact is no matter what Sky does with its broadband in the next few years it still has a awful way to go to match Virgin network and thats a fact which is undisputed no matter how much some people want to tell us differently.

Hi,

3 or 4 years ago what you say may of had some weight, but these days Sky's FTTC offering is matching Infact exceeding the speed that 85% of virginmedia customers choose and is unmanaged. By the end of 2013 Sky should be offering 100mb fibre broadband to more customers than virginmedia can.

Virginmedia have the problem of being seen as the dinosaur in this market.

---------- Post added at 00:39 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Wrong?

VM could provide services to 25 million homes too.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------


Exactly

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------


Now why do you think that is? Seeing as it has the same "coverage", which negates your whole point completely

---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was at 00:23 ----------


Exactly.

If VM's off-net service was any good, it would in itself be a challenger to the likes of Sky, BT, and all the other "big" xDSL ISPs

---------- Post added at 00:24 ---------- Previous post was at 00:23 ----------




---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was at 00:24 ----------


You can't really do an apples to apples comparison on that, the part of the "network" that sees most congestion problems on VM does not exist on Sky. Sky do not own or operate that part of their network.


Core network congestion on VM (the only part Sky has any control over) is resolved pretty much just as quickly. I've never seen core network issues on VM last over a month.


Ermm...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35531120-post51.html

Notice how his opinion of "decent" on Sky is nearly 40ms minimum. The worst on VM (when the network isn't broken) is 26ms, that's in the most northern reaches of their network in Scotland.

[/devil's advocate]

Consider yourself derped.

If only you knew the amount of equipment, the amount of customers and the increase of capacity that is currently being added to sky's Internet product both ADSL and FTTC right now you would be amazed. The fact it is happening so fast is unprecedented, it has never happened before and will never happen like this again. Do not think for 1 second that the maximum resources are not being directed at sky's network 7 days a week currently. The grown forecasts for 2012 were beaten by August. What some providers call 1 years profit sky are spending in a matter of months.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Exactly.

If VM's off-net service was any good, it would in itself be a challenger to the likes of Sky, BT, and all the other "big" xDSL ISPs.

VM have never pushed their xDSL offering, it's not their core business and it's slow, when VMs USP is speed.

Why would they bother.......they don't.

However, this will all change when they start to deliver their off-net National Fibre Broadband.

I don't know when they'll start to market it, but the first 270 BT exchanges are scheduled to be done in July.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Top banana

Not sure why that's as suprise when they could provide services to 25 million homes and VM can only provide services to 12 million?

Not quite. With their Virgin National service, Virgin cover every area served by an ADSL connection.

Originally Posted by Qtx

That is the exact same reason many were switching their broadband from Virgin to Sky. Any problems like that will get sorted out by Sky quickly, where with virgin in can take up to a year or longer

You hope Sky will fix it quickly. They don't seem to have had capacity issues before so we have no idea how they'll handle them.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Stuart

You hope Sky will fix it quickly. They don't seem to have had capacity issues before so we have no idea how they'll handle them.

They have actually had similar issues in the past, before fibre. There were congested exchanges, they listed the exchanges affected and listed approx fix times. Can't recall how far in the future they actually did fix them though, I wasn't into xDSL at the time

[Chrysalis]

sky's past fixes have been done in under 3 months.