PDA

View Full Version : cable broadband - value for money??!


tvout
12-02-2007, 22:24
Hi all,

I've been on the 4mb Blueyonder/Virgin Media broadband service for about a year, was on 2MB before that, 1MB before that etc (as they upgraded...)
My gf's family has recently got the Sky broadband for £10 a month, it's the 16MB unlimited (up to) which due to their distance from the exchange is 4mb...
Their broadband seems just as quick as mine and they have unlimited downloads as well. They do have problems with it going dead in the evenings or grinding to a standstill. That maybe the Netgear router (going from Netgear to Linksys was the best decision ever for me!!)...
Overall though, they seem to have generally good broadband for only £10 a month and I'm paying £25...
Mine seems generally more reliable but still suffers slowness at peak times I think (definitely notice a difference between about 7pm and 3am!).

Does anyone think that £25 for 4MB is overpriced?

I noticed also that Virgin Media offer broadband via an exchange at up to 8MB for £17.99...
Am I totally confused on this whole issue? Why is cable broadband so much more expensive for what seems to be slower speeds?

AbyssUnderground
12-02-2007, 22:44
The ADSL infrastructure runs over existing copper, however the cable network has to be laid seperately in the street. This costs a huge amount of money, hence the increase in price and (in my case) reliability.

Nikesh
12-02-2007, 22:47
With Sky, it all depends on the quality of the phone line and how far you live from the local exchange.

Virgin Media are offering:
Up to 8Mb for non-cabled areas.
Up to 4Mb for cabled areas.

You are more likely to get a reliable connection and faster speed from being in a cabled area.

Edit:

AbyssUnderground beat me to it. ;)

tvout
12-02-2007, 22:56
Good points. :o)
Do the ADSL networks get much spent on upgrading them at all? How about the exchanges?

Paul K
12-02-2007, 23:07
Only when needed to be honest, no provider will spend money where they don't have to otherwise shareholders get upset ;)

MovedGoalPosts
12-02-2007, 23:12
Realistically the local loop (the bit from the exchange to the property) will have the least investment from BT. But that's much the same as for the cable companies. Once it's laid they don't want to replace unless there is a proven problem.

Equipment at exchanges will get investment, much the same as the cable co's will invest in their UBRs. As each technology plays catch up with the other, these are the areas where upgraded kit makes a practical difference at an almost economic cost.

B3rti
12-02-2007, 23:14
cable broadband was polled to be 3 times faster than similar line with bt's adsl network i saw it in one of the advertisements for telewest a few months ago, i very rarely get any slow speeds during peak times well i mean sometimes it drops to about 1000kbps give or take 50 or so but nothing major and thats over the Ex-Telewest System.

tvout
13-02-2007, 00:10
So in a sense an 'up to 8MB' ADSL connection would probably realistically perform about as well as a 4mb cable.

I'm wondering how much they get away with this 'up to' term that gets used frequently for ADSL...

I take it cable is purely '4mb' or '10mb' as set on the downstream and less so considered to be 'up to'....it's more reliably running at that speed...

I'd like to see what the Sky 16mb service would be like for someone who has it (close enough to the exchange)...how frequently that speed might be reached...?

(One other turn off for me for Sky is their routers being supplied with special Sky firmware and WPA-PSK set - only way of really changing it all to re-flash it. For me WPA-PSK is no good as a couple of my network devices (Nintendo DS's included) don't support it...)

DABhand
13-02-2007, 01:15
Only when needed to be honest, no provider will spend money where they don't have to otherwise shareholders get upset ;)

Pretty much any company is the same, why spend money on upgrades when its not needed at that time, only to balls it up when it is :P

tvout
13-02-2007, 22:53
I still don't understand though how cable wouldn't suffer from peak time usage where many people in one area would slow it down as with ADSL on BT Lines? That's one thing they said to me is that the more people in one neighbourhood with ADSL broadband will cause more slowdown but cable doesn't suffer from this?
Am I right in thinking the speed is the same for all Telewest users, that distance from UBRs etc doesn't make any difference?

Nikesh
13-02-2007, 23:02
Yes, the speed does drop slightly if your area is over subscribed.

Am I right in thinking that distance from UBRs etc doesn't make any difference?

I think that's correct. :)

RUSTY
14-02-2007, 11:18
moved from AOL after nine years, fed up with BT attitude as to who was fault it was on the phone line from pole to house ntl first class so far on 2mg

Carl J
14-02-2007, 11:28
The ADSL infrastructure runs over existing copper, however the cable network has to be laid seperately in the street. This costs a huge amount of money, hence the increase in price and (in my case) reliability.

Hmmm that doesn't really hold water when you remember the debt for equity swaps that both ntl and Telewest did :)

Yes, the speed does drop slightly if your area is over subscribed.

Speed drops like a tank in the Atlantic when an area is genuinely oversubbed ;)

Do the ADSL networks get much spent on upgrading them at all? How about the exchanges?

Yep and yep. Though you do sometimes wonder :rolleyes:

As a genuine rule of thumb if you can get LLU ADSL, apart from Carphone Warehouse, at the same or a better speed than that which you want from cable I'd take the LLU as it should offer more consistent speeds with no shaping or throttling, this is due to the way LLU works at the moment and the strong competition. You'll also get it at a better price point than cable. Otherwise take cable.

Generally cable will be superior to a BT Wholesale (non-LLU) supplied ADSL service.