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

Originally Posted by CT2kX

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.

I wasn't trying to correct you, I was just unclear, especially when you stated "oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)", as 240kbp/s is not ok for a 2Mb line, but 240Kbp/s would be - as I stated in my previous post, I download on a 4Mb line just under 4Mb.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

The point I was making is just because your experience of Sky Broadband was poor it doesn't necessarily follow that 'it really is pants'. Similarly, just because my experience of Sky broadband is good, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is good for everyone. Your argument seems to have been reduced to 'my Sky broadband was bad so it must be a terrible service'. It really is very poor.

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

Yes and the way you proved those reasons were not a valid piece of evidence was '"He hasn't backed anything up. Those links mean jack all. He's provided one or two links - big deal.". This really is utterly pointless isn't it? You seem to have no idea whatsoever how to go about constructing an argument. I really can't be bothered anymore.

Originally Posted by c_r

You seem to have no idea whatsoever how to go about constructing an argument.I really can't be bothered anymore.

I have a fair idea how to constuct a debate - I am just taking on board other peoples rules when it comes to VM vs Sky threads. Something you keep failing to pick up. But nevermind.

I am not really interested in what you can or cannot be bothered with. I know, the fact remains - Cable is better than ADSL. Thus VM BB is a better product than Sky BB.

[CT2kX]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I wasn't trying to correct you, I was just unclear, especially when you stated "oh, and Hauzer, 240kbp/s is actually ok for a 2mb line, 2mb is the connection, not the download rate, if you want 2mb download rate, you need a 20mb line (or around that size anyway)", as 240kbp/s is not ok for a 2Mb line, but 240Kbp/s would be - as I stated in my previous post, I download on a 4Mb line just under 4Mb.

i dont see how anyone could be unclear of what i meant just because i put the wrong cased letter, the numbers speak for themselves, but i was just tryin to explain to that other guy that infact it was HE that was confused about bits and bytes, i just explained it in a more english manner to him than that, but im not here to argue with people like alot of people here seem to be, so this is the last post in this thread for me!

P.S Cable for the win :p

Originally Posted by CT2kX

P.S Cable for the win :p

That's the spirit, you know it makes sense.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.



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

Here's two speed tests i just completed right now.

Firstly - the CableForum Speedtest

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:46:15 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 5531 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 7688 ms = 133.2 KB/sec, approx 1098 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5422 ms = 188.9 KB/sec, approx 1557 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11015 ms = 185.9 KB/sec, approx 1532 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1428 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps

Now - www.speedtest.net



Looks like that old Virgin network is slowing us Sky subscribers down again, remember folks £10pm.

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------

Oh, do us a favor Mick, do the same tests back to back on your VM connection will you?

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Here's two speed tests i just completed right now.

Firstly - the CableForum Speedtest

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:46:15 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 5531 ms = 185.1 KB/sec, approx 1525 Kbps, 1.49 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 7688 ms = 133.2 KB/sec, approx 1098 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 5422 ms = 188.9 KB/sec, approx 1557 Kbps, 1.52 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 11015 ms = 185.9 KB/sec, approx 1532 Kbps, 1.5 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1428 Kbps, 1.4 Mbps

Now - www.speedtest.net



Looks like that old Virgin network is slowing us Sky subscribers down again.

Or the fact that Sky BB is just crap anyway and unreliable - I've done both tests the speed for both is practically the same...



Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:01:07 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 4300 ms = 238.1 KB/sec, approx 1962 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 4492 ms = 228 KB/sec, approx 1879 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 4283 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 9063 ms = 226 KB/sec, approx 1862 Kbps, 1.82 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1918 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Mick

Or the fact that Sky BB is just crap anyway and unreliable - I've done both tests the speed for both is practically the same...



Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:01:07 UTC

Test 1: 1024K took 4300 ms = 238.1 KB/sec, approx 1962 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 4492 ms = 228 KB/sec, approx 1879 Kbps, 1.83 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 4283 ms = 239.1 KB/sec, approx 1970 Kbps, 1.92 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 9063 ms = 226 KB/sec, approx 1862 Kbps, 1.82 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1918 Kbps, 1.87 Mbps

Why does your ISP say Virgin Media?

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Why does your ISP say Virgin Media?

Um - Because I am on a Virgin Media connection perhaps ....

The speedtest I did earlier was on a BT ADSL connection. I've switched to VM since then.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Mick

Um - Because I am on a Virgin Media connection perhaps ....

ANd its VERY close to 2mbps there, almost like its capped.

So are you saying you ONLY have ADSL Mick?

[c_r]

Interestingly I got similar results to TBR - 1.5-2Mbps on the first one and 6.5Mbs on the 2nd (my connection is up to 8Mbs).

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by c_r

Interestingly I got similar results to TBR - 1.5-2Mbps on the first one and 6.5Mbs on the 2nd (my connection is up to 8Mbs).

The plot thickens.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

ANd its VERY close to 2mbps there, almost like its capped.

No - It's at 2Mb because that is the speed tier connection I have with Virgin Media.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

So are you saying you ONLY have ADSL Mick?

Nope. I'm connected to a Cable Modem with VM and a Wireless router with BT ADSL.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Mick

No - It's at 2Mb because that is the speed tier connection I have with Virgin Media.



Nope. I'm connected to a Cable Modem with VM and a Wireless router with BT ADSL.

Hold on, your posting results in a forum discussing speeds and saying ADSL is "crap" (your words) then post speed results from a speed tester showing 2mbps connections in an attempt to show how poor it is THEN tell us its because thats the speed teir your on on VM!!!!!! AFTER i rumble it!

Thats blatantly lying in order to further your argument. What the hell are you playing at Mick?

Also, why not post your CableModem results too?

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Hold on, your posting results in a forum discussing speeds and saying ADSL is "crap" (your words) then post speed results from a speed tester showing 2mbps connections in an attempt to show how poor it is THEN tell us its because thats the speed teir your on on VM!!!!!! AFTER i rumble it!

Eh - You have rumbled nothing. I have never said in this thread that I was on a 20Mb connection.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Thats blatantly lying in order to further your argument. What the hell are you playing at Mick?

I haven't lied anywhere.

Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja

Also, why not post your CableModem results too?

I just did several posts up. You are clearly not keeping up - please do.