Sky Broadband

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Carl J

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

Of course, the service provided by Sky can (along with other DSL providers) suffer due to line quality and they can also suffer where their service interfaces with BT, as even in LLU lines, BT do get involved even if it's purely just to allow access to the exchange.

For instance, when I applied to Be, BT flagged a possible problem on my line and stopped the upgrade. It took THREE calls to BT to persuade them that Be is not an LLU provider and that therfore, me speaking to BT wholesale would not only be pointless, but it wouldn't be possible, as BT wholesale don't speak to end customers. It took a further three alls to find out what the problem was, and eventually get someone to fix it (the problem was, they had my connection down as hardwired, not socketed).

That's also without taking into account any line quality issues.

I am not saying Virgin is perfect. Far from it. They can still suffer line quality issues, and also have bad customer service, but in all my years as a customer, I've never had as bad service from NTL (as they were) as I have from BT.

The upside of an LLU connection is that, as Carl says, they don't suffer congestion as badly as Cable.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Be*

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

well the up to analogy traditionally maens you can use it up to that speed, fairly simple. Like if you can buy a car that does upto 150mph if pushed it should reach that speed, not random cars that can do something in between 0 and 150mph. If you brought a car that could do up to 150mph but it only maxed out at 50mph on the motorway I think you wouldnt be very happy.

On cable broadband the up to speeds are because of contention but at off peak times everyone should be able to achieve the up to speed. This is where the confusion is with adsl, the up to speed has a different meaning and is misleading.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Of course, the service provided by Sky can (along with other DSL providers) suffer due to line quality and they can also suffer where their service interfaces with BT, as even in LLU lines, BT do get involved even if it's purely just to allow access to the exchange.

For instance, when I applied to Be, BT flagged a possible problem on my line and stopped the upgrade. It took THREE calls to BT to persuade them that Be is not an LLU provider and that therfore, me speaking to BT wholesale would not only be pointless, but it wouldn't be possible, as BT wholesale don't speak to end customers. It took a further three alls to find out what the problem was, and eventually get someone to fix it (the problem was, they had my connection down as hardwired, not socketed).

That's also without taking into account any line quality issues.

I am not saying Virgin is perfect. Far from it. They can still suffer line quality issues, and also have bad customer service, but in all my years as a customer, I've never had as bad service from NTL (as they were) as I have from BT.

The upside of an LLU connection is that, as Carl says, they don't suffer congestion as badly as Cable.

I agree, although my ntl service was poor at least NTL admitted it was poor, compensated me and tried to fix it. With BT its a case of tough luck we know there is noone else that can give you broadband so take it or leave it. I dont use BT as an isp but they are the wholesale provider, there is nothing my isp can do about my line likewise an LLU provider would also be powerless.

[Central]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

well the up to analogy traditionally maens you can use it up to that speed, fairly simple. Like if you can buy a car that does upto 150mph if pushed it should reach that speed, not random cars that can do something in between 0 and 150mph. If you brought a car that could do up to 150mph but it only maxed out at 50mph on the motorway I think you wouldnt be very happy.

Thats a bad example. I do get what you saying. Trust me. But a car does not have restrictions like a ADSL line may.

[Chrysalis]

you right if it did it would soon be all over the news and people boycotting the car manufacturer, one reason adsl is allowed to continue like this is because most people are unaware they not even getting the rated speeds. They see its faster then dialup and thats enough to keep them satisfied, users like me and you who check out our router stats and browse these type of forums are a minority.

Cable is also guilty to a lesser extenct with some areas having very heavy congestion and the peak time throttling they are trialling.

But sky broadband for the cost I think is good value, for the vast majority of people its good enough.

[Central]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you right if it did it would soon be all over the news and people boycotting the car manufacturer, one reason adsl is allowed to continue like this is because most people are unaware they not even getting the rated speeds. They see its faster then dialup and thats enough to keep them satisfied, users like me and you who check out our router stats and browse these type of forums are a minority.

Cable is also guilty to a lesser extenct with some areas having very heavy congestion and the peak time throttling they are trialling.

But sky broadband for the cost I think is good value, for the vast majority of people its good enough.

I think if the restrcitions of ADSL could be lifted they would be. But sadly they cant. Longer the line weaker the signal.

[Chrysalis]

Its not a restriction its a incapability to deliver due to ancient infrastructure used. The likes of sky cant do anything about it only BT can. It can be fixed its not impossible it needs local loop investment to shorten the copper loops with fibre to cabinets.

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Its not a restriction its a incapability to deliver due to ancient infrastructure used. The likes of sky cant do anything about it only BT can. It can be fixed its not impossible it needs local loop investment to shorten the copper loops with fibre to cabinets.

Which sadly is tricky due to BT being forced to unbundle any fibre they lay by both Ofcom and European law at a price decided by the government. BT have been wanting to do it for a while but with the current regulatory environment actively discouraging such investment it's not likely for a while.

What with VM going into chapter 11 and swapping the company in return for the money used to build the networks they need all the help they can get, clearly.

Just something to bear in mind when doing the comparisons between BT and cable. Both had original networks paid for by someone else, one is required to provide service (Universal Service Obligation), required to open that network up to others to provide their own services, and has the prices and conditions of both unbundling and interconnections controlled by government even to the point where the contention ratios that it can run its' DSL products at at an exchange level are controlled. The other one, erm, has no obligations to provide service, no obligation to allow access to its' network, no outside control of its' prices or conditions of provision of service.

Trying to exempt, as was done in http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6335949.html for the German incumbent telco causes a law suit from Europe.

So really why would a company want to invest billions when they can sit on their ass and milk the status quo for a while knowing that investing those billions will cause them to take a hit on their profits rather than increase them.

BT - the UK telecomms charity.

The Chapter 11 was over four years ago, and was before NTL and Telewest merged, and then the take-over of Virgin Mobile and the re-branding.

That's like blaming BT for any problems O2 have now (even though they are owned by Telefonica) because in 2002 BT owned BT Cellnet.

btw, I agree with you re BT - I think there is enough competition now (but the Operators wanting LLU probably wouldn't agree).

[Carl J]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The Chapter 11 was over four years ago, and was before NTL and Telewest merged, and then the take-over of Virgin Mobile and the re-branding.

That's like blaming BT for any problems O2 have now (even though they are owned by Telefonica) because in 2002 BT owned BT Cellnet.

btw, I agree with you re BT - I think there is enough competition now (but the Operators wanting LLU probably wouldn't agree).

Ummm I'm saying nothing about the effect it had on their service merely that the end result is that the debt for equity swap meant that the current company didn't pay for its' network. Try reading more closely before coming out with the perhaps?

Originally Posted by Me

What with VM going into chapter 11 and swapping the company in return for the money used to build the networks they need all the help they can get, clearly.
...
Both had original networks paid for by someone else

[Pea-Pod]

When these companies say you need to have a BT line to be able to take up their broadband. How do you get that BT line, do you have to physically sign over to BT and become a customer of theirs?

It's just I am still paying £17.99 for 1MB broadband. I have an old PACE box that won't go higher than 1MB and everytime I have called up to request a change to a new Samsung box they say either they have not got any available or they don't offer that exchange anymore. Also an engineer even advised me to call and request a Stand Alone Cable modem to be fitted seperately, but they won't do that either.

So I'm thinking of switching over to SKY. I've been wanting to go for HD anyway.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Just something to bear in mind when doing the comparisons between BT and cable. Both had original networks paid for by someone else.

Forgive me if my knowledge isn't great, but who is this someone else that paid for the cable network?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Carl J

Which sadly is tricky due to BT being forced to unbundle any fibre they lay by both Ofcom and European law at a price decided by the government. BT have been wanting to do it for a while but with the current regulatory environment actively discouraging such investment it's not likely for a while.

What with VM going into chapter 11 and swapping the company in return for the money used to build the networks they need all the help they can get, clearly.

Just something to bear in mind when doing the comparisons between BT and cable. Both had original networks paid for by someone else, one is required to provide service (Universal Service Obligation), required to open that network up to others to provide their own services, and has the prices and conditions of both unbundling and interconnections controlled by government even to the point where the contention ratios that it can run its' DSL products at at an exchange level are controlled. The other one, erm, has no obligations to provide service, no obligation to allow access to its' network, no outside control of its' prices or conditions of provision of service.

Trying to exempt, as was done in http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6335949.html for the German incumbent telco causes a law suit from Europe.

So really why would a company want to invest billions when they can sit on their ass and milk the status quo for a while knowing that investing those billions will cause them to take a hit on their profits rather than increase them.

BT - the UK telecomms charity.

Sad to say I dont disagree with you, only recently the chairman of ofcom made a silly statement saying fiber isnt a stable technology and the argument for fiber to the cabinet is weak. Thats about as close as recommending against investment as you can get,

---------- Post added at 03:11 ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The Chapter 11 was over four years ago, and was before NTL and Telewest merged, and then the take-over of Virgin Mobile and the re-branding.

That's like blaming BT for any problems O2 have now (even though they are owned by Telefonica) because in 2002 BT owned BT Cellnet.

btw, I agree with you re BT - I think there is enough competition now (but the Operators wanting LLU probably wouldn't agree).

Ofcoms game isnt working, its generated some competition in the cities with LLU providers fighting for profiteable exchanges but left everyone else with only BT as a provider and lower level of service which BT is forced to provide due to regulation (higher bw costs etc.) Not everyone in city areas has it good either due to the restrictions on investment many lines are poor quality. One of the worst things that have happened is the BT openreach breaking away from BT, openreach now only get a pittance in revenue per line but are responsible for the local loop which is in desperate need of investment.

To give you idea of result of this regulation.

Ceasing adsl used to be free, now has a fee because LLU providers had a fee meaning everyone has to pay it, if isps dont pass on charge to customers they have to take hit in profit or add to monthly subs.
Harder to resolve faults as customers cant speak to openreach directly.
More red tape in general within BT.

There is a thread on adslguide now where it seems sky could soon be in trouble with trading standards, no idea how much truth is in this but apperently they selling adsl2+ on exchanges knowing that they wont be provisioning it due to lack of dslam ports and then providing adsl1 and telling customers there is no capacity in the exchange.

---------- Post added at 03:12 ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Downloads

Forgive me if my knowledge isn't great, but who is this someone else that paid for the cable network?

I remember ntl didnt exist when cable was laid here, cable was laid by various regional networks who I think ntl and telewest brought out. Diamond cable laid it here.

[Downloads]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I remember ntl didnt exist when cable was laid here, cable was laid by various regional networks who I think ntl and telewest brought out. Diamond cable laid it here.

Yeah i knew the answer, he was saying something incorrect.

BT had a network paid for by the public.

Virgin had a network paid for by lots of smaller companies who all merged and bought each other out. It would be more accurate to say Virgin paid for their own network, not by someone else.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Carl J

So really why would a company want to invest billions when they can sit on their ass and milk the status quo for a while knowing that investing those billions will cause them to take a hit on their profits rather than increase them.

BT - the UK telecomms charity.

Without at least one part of the regulatory framework (the enforced access to lines) based upon it's reported performance, I suspect BT wouldn't as co-operative as it apparently is.

[Darrenp]

Originally Posted by Downloads

Forgive me if my knowledge isn't great, but who is this someone else that paid for the cable network?

Eurobell laid all the cable down here in Plymouth prior to becoming Telewest.