PDA

View Full Version : Thats me, I`m off to Sky.


SMG
23-06-2011, 23:52
The last 5 months have been hell. Every night my V+ box downloads new software about 1am. Box freezes. Every time it happens when I`m fast forwarding a programme. Then I have to wait till the damned box settles down, & re start the programme. Virgin knows about the issue, no cure on the horizon at all. Had 3 new boxes & none will record whilst a program is paused, my box is full of "Failed" recordings.

My 10 meg broadband used to stable at 5.5 meg, never had much more. Over the last few months, between 4 & 11pm, I`m lucky if I can even log on. "Time out" messages & a speed of .4 meg. Virgin finally admitted they were using "Traffic management" to give everyone a fair share.

So much for 10 meg. Then, when I phone disconnections, they tell me that Sky will not exceed 2 meg, no matter what, utter bull crap. My 4 neighbours, all get between 7 & 18 meg, on sky.

So, a call to sky got me: 8 to 10 meg broadband, unlimited downloads. Free line rental for 12 months with free evening & weekend calls.
Sky + with HD, full entertainment pack, no installation costs, no extras.
All for the sum of £31.75 a month, 12 month contract.

I have come to the opinion that all Branson does, is stick his "Virgin" name on someone else's product, & charge extra for it.

My broadband is now far better & faster, TV is light years ahead of the V+ freezer box, & I get all the channels Virgin charge extra on their XL pack.

Virgin admit they can not compete & their price would be about £15 dearer. If I`m going to be throttled & choked, I don't see why I should pay more for it.

Maggy
23-06-2011, 23:55
Well let us know how it works out..and you will pop back in and see us even when you switch?:)

SMG
24-06-2011, 00:14
Of course Maggy, & if Sky dont live up to their promises, I will let everyone know!:)

Lord Nikon
24-06-2011, 00:48
I wouldn't advise it, my parents are 6 weeks into their sky 3 month introductory trial and the sagemcom modem sky are supplying currently hasn't managed to stay working for more than 5 consecutive minutes. Sky also won't provide you the details so you can use your own kit, and reserve the right to disconnect you if you try. They also don't give you your username or password you would have to hack their modem to retrieve it. Looking at sky's own forums there's over 1500 posts on the matter and no current sign of resolution.

Charliedontsurf
24-06-2011, 00:59
If you were on the 10Mb line you wont really lose out by going to skyBB, But if you can only get Sky connect than you maybe better off sticking to Virgin.

I know someone with Sky connect and its crap., I also know a few with SkyLLU and its pretty good and they seem to get around 12Mb-18Mb for £7.50 a month.

adzii_nufc
24-06-2011, 07:42
Wait till you see sky at peak times then. Their tv setup is superior but the broadband is a disaster. See below the different deals people get for different situations, chances are VM will ring you back and offer you a better deal. Th question is how much is your sky bill going to be after the discounts wear off. Mine started at £60pm and as you can see below...doubled

My sky setup.

SKY + HD
Movies
Sports
Entertainment

2meg broadband
Phone line

£120 a month


Current setup after a phonecall.

2x V+HD boxes
50mb broadband
All available channels
Phone line
500 minute sim card.

£100

They also don't give you your username or password

Assuming you were talking about the router... the username is Admin and the password is Sky

Lord Nikon
24-06-2011, 08:48
No, I mean for configuring your own router rather than the shiny black sagemcom doorstop they give you. Incidentally admin and sky are all lower case ;) Sky refuse to let the customer bring their own hardware, so you are forced to use their equipment which even they are struggling to make work, support is a joke. Even VM at their worst aren't as bad as sky are currently. It's taken 6 weeks so far to get to the point my parents are at currently with Sky, that point being waiting for tier 2 to get in touch and waiting for network services to try to push a firmware update to a router that doesn't actually stay online long enough to receive a firmware update. However they won't send out a new router without being paid for one.

I now have to wait 'between 48 and 72 hours' for a callback from sky tier 2 regarding this, though apparently they are currently a couple of days behind, so anything up to a week before I can even find out if they will consider replacing a faulty router.

In the interim my parents haven't been able to access the internet for more than 5 consecutive minutes since the 5th of may.

denphone
24-06-2011, 08:56
Some people will think they going to be better off with Sky but as far as l am concerned l will never go to them or as the old saying says better the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

pgnl
24-06-2011, 08:58
I've had VM/Telewest BB for around ten years, Sky has just been enabled at our local exchange so I thought I would switch phone from BT to Sky as well, so in real terms it's costing me less than £7.50pm extra compared to what I was paying in line rental and all calls to BT. Plus at the moment, the first three months are free.

I am on VM Broadband large so 10mb and really hate their STM policy. Sky is totally unlimited I get around 11mb (this varies according to how far you are from the phone exchange, you may need to make some phone wiring changes and do some research). In the four weeks I've had it, it's been rock solid and I've downloaded loads at peak times.

I am not sure I will get rid of VM just yet, but as an internet addict £7.50pm is not too much extra to pay for totally unlimited.

By the way I have found the Sky Sagemcom 2304 with latest firmware fine, although I have switched off the wireless and use home plugs. You are supposedly locked to their router though, although some do use other ones, its against Sky's T&C's.

I am pretty happy with it to be honest.

Patrick

Charliedontsurf
24-06-2011, 09:15
Wait till you see sky at peak times then. Their tv setup is superior but the broadband is a disaster. See below the different deals people get for different situations, chances are VM will ring you back and offer you a better deal. Th question is how much is your sky bill going to be after the discounts wear off. Mine started at £60pm and as you can see below...doubled

My sky setup.

SKY + HD
Movies
Sports
Entertainment

2meg broadband
Phone line

£120 a month





That a lie isn't it......

Skyworld+HD is £62 so no way were you paying SKY £58 just for your phone line and broadband to make a total of £120.

broadbandking
24-06-2011, 09:24
That a lie isn't it......

Skyworld+HD is £62 so no way were you paying SKY £58 just for your phone line and broadband to make a total of £120.

Have you looked at his bills, maybe Sky gave him a deal, don't be so rude.

adzii_nufc
24-06-2011, 09:31
4 Mar 2011 D/D SKY DIGITAL - 113.77

5 Apr 2011 D/D SKY DIGITAL - 168.46 (£30 PHONE BILL)

5 May 2011 D/D SKY DIGITAL - 131.92

Seems the bill should have been much much cheaper and I've been conned for a full year...

Charliedontsurf
24-06-2011, 12:27
Have you looked at his bills, maybe Sky gave him a deal, don't be so rude.

So for just 1 sky box with sky world and skyBB he was paying over £110?

I don't believe it for 1 second, maybe a few multiroom boxes etc, but not for one box with broadband.

TJS
24-06-2011, 18:11
Have fun.

qasdfdsaq
25-06-2011, 05:16
Thing is, Sky is one of the only two or three truly unlimited ISPs in the UK. VM isn't.

Toto
25-06-2011, 07:03
Thing is, Sky is one of the only two or three truly unlimited ISPs in the UK. VM isn't.

Sky is, for the moment!

Some loyal Sky users may soon regret Sky's unlimited policy.

denphone
25-06-2011, 07:57
Thing is, Sky is one of the only two or three truly unlimited ISPs in the UK. VM isn't.

And Virgin's broadband is fibre optic and is far superior to Sky's paltry offering.

thewanted
25-06-2011, 08:17
And Virgin's broadband is fibre optic and is far superior to Sky's paltry offering.

It's about as 'fibre optic' as BT's FTTC product.

pgnl
25-06-2011, 08:18
Thing is, Sky is one of the only two or three truly unlimited ISPs in the UK. VM isn't.

Exactly and if you've got Sky already and a normal BT phone line only £7.50 pm if you switch calls to them as well.

To stay on topic -we are talking about Broadband here and not TV.

Patrick

denphone
25-06-2011, 08:58
It's about as 'fibre optic' as BT's FTTC product.

l am afraid Sky's broadband will and always remain a very poor imitation of Virgin's far superior service.

Maggy
25-06-2011, 11:53
Exactly and if you've got Sky already and a normal BT phone line only £7.50 pm if you switch calls to them as well.

To stay on topic -we are talking about Broadband here and not TV.

Patrick

Actually SMG the OP is switching both..:)

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:06
l am afraid Sky's broadband will and always remain a very poor imitation of Virgin's far superior service.


I'm afraid you're wrong.

Sky will be using fiber via Openreach where available and like VM it may never cover the whole country but will probably match the number of homes passed as VM.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:11
I'm afraid you're wrong.

Sky will be using fiber via Openreach where available and like VM it may never cover the whole country but will probably match the number of homes passed as VM.

All i know at the moment is any other provider can only offer me a maximum of 1.5 mb over ADSL Bt have confirmed thats the case probably not enough to even stream you tube on.!

If you look at the BT website its going to be a long rollout,and also sky will have to pay BT for the use for the new network so it may not be cheap.

As far as i know BT will probably not match speeds VM can offer over cable,so denphone quite possibly is right on this one.Just had a look at BT infinity as they call it and BT sell it as up to "40mb" certainly not 100mb or 50 mb even.

denphone
25-06-2011, 12:17
I'm afraid you're wrong.

Sky will be using fiber via Openreach where available and like VM it may never cover the whole country but will probably match the number of homes passed as VM.

You will have to wait a long while for that yet and also don't expect it to be cheap.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

All i know at the moment is any other provider can only offer me a maximum of 1.5 mb over ADSL Bt have confirmed thats the case probably not enough to even stream you tube on.!

If you look at the BT website its going to be a long rollout,and also sky will have to pay BT for the use for the new network so it may not be cheap.

As far as i know BT will probably not match speeds VM can offer over cable,so denphone quite possibly is right on this one.

As we know Virgin are trialing new speeds all the time so by the time BT do it Virgin will still be far ahead.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:20
You will have to wait a long while for that yet and also don't expect it to be cheap.[COLOR="Silver"]



2012 in my area. An as for speeds I think VM have taught us all 1 thing, A good 10 or 20Mb line beats a crap 50Mb in the real world. As for price, if its good and works as should I would pay £40 for 15Mb.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:21
You will have to wait a long while for that yet and also don't expect it to be cheap.

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------



As we know Virgin are trialing new speeds all the time so by the time BT do it Virgin will still be far ahead.

Yes i agree on that denphone as i just posted BT sell their fibre version called infinity at up to 40 mb,so even they cannot match virgins speeds at present,so even if sky re-sell it they would only be able to offer an up to same as BT.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:25
Yes i agree on that denphone as i just posted BT sell their fibre version called infinity at up to 40 mb,so even they cannot match virgins sppeds at present,so even if sky re-sell it they would only be able to offer an up to same as BT.

BT are doubling speeds Q2 2012 including doubling upload, so I imagine a 80Mb/16Mb.

denphone
25-06-2011, 12:28
2012 in my area. An as for speeds I think VM have taught us all 1 thing, A good 10 or 20Mb line beats a crap 50Mb in the real world. As for price, if its good and works as should I would pay £40 for 15Mb.

And Virgin beat Sky's pitiful speeds and rented system hands down every time and that is a fact.

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------

BT are doubling speeds Q2 2012 including doubling upload, so I imagine a 80Mb/16Mb.

And by that time Virgin customers will probably be able to get 300 or 400Mbs

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:30
And Virgin beat Sky's pitiful speeds and rented system hands down every time and that is a fact.

My 50Mb VM tells me different compared to my neighbours 18Mb sky line. Although Skys CONNECT service is useless.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

And Virgin beat Sky's pitiful speeds and rented system hands down every time and that is a fact.

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



And by that time Virgin customers will probably be able to get 300 or 400Mbs

I really hope thats not true. Can't VM just lock the speeds down and get on top of the network without having to cripple it at peak times.

I don't want or need 200Mb, 50 is probably spot on WHEN IT WORKS WELL.

denphone
25-06-2011, 12:31
My 50Mb VM tells me different compared to my neighbours 18Mb sky line. Although Skys CONNECT service is useless.

Then perhaps it is not set up properly.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:34
Then perhaps it is not set up properly.

LOL, Its setup correctly and works ok from 12am untill 7am then slowly gets worse until 6pm. It then stays quite poor until 12am.

The kids use it in the evening for facebook/youtube/xboxlive nothing to taxing but it seems to much for our 50Mb.

Right now for example my youngest is trying to watch Skyplayer via xbox in there room and its buffering every 30 seconds. I rebooted everything tried a long ethernet cable but nothing works. Luckily with a Sky box I can use a magiceye from the box in my bedroom.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:35
BT are doubling speeds Q2 2012 including doubling upload, so I imagine a 80Mb/16Mb.

Will their infinity product be dependant on exchange distances still i wonder?

Or offer the speed regardless,our area is down for quarter 1 2012,but if it relies on exchange distances may not be much of an improvement.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:37
Will their infinity product be dependant on exchange distances still i wonder?

Or offer the speed regardless,our area is down for quarter 1 2012,but if it relies on exchange distances may not be much of an improvement.

No BT's infinity service runs to a cabinet in your street just like Virginmedia.

The worst thing about VM is at quiet times on the network you get a glimpse of what could be, and it could be fantastic......When they arent over managing it.

denphone
25-06-2011, 12:39
LOL, Its setup correctly and works ok from 12am untill 7am then slowly gets worse until 6pm. It then stays quite poor until 12am.

The kids use it in the evening for facebook/youtube/xboxlive nothing to taxing but it seems to much for our 50Mb.

Right now for example my youngest is trying to watch Skyplayer via xbox in there room and its buffering every 30 seconds. I rebooted everything tried a long ethernet cable but nothing works. Luckily with a Sky box I can use a magiceye from the box in my bedroom.

Well l think there is definetely a problem somewhere but other people on the forum would know more then me.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:40
No BT's infinity service runs to a cabinet in your street just like Virginmedia.

So exchange distances will not matter then.If so sounds ok when its up and running and gives us at least some choice in our area should i decide to look around,at the moment vm are the only game in town where i am as speeds over ADSL are so poor.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:42
Well l think there is definetely a problem somewhere but other people on the forum would know more then me.

Yeah thanks for the concern but I think I know how to setup a basic home-network. I have a VMNG300 into a router and various devices wireless and wired.

I have my wireless on a clear channel checked via inSSIDer and ethernet cable as back up if needed. My powerlevels are within range and speedtest and pingtest show good results and low jitter at quiet times.

Tracerts also show good results at off peak times.

jb66
25-06-2011, 12:43
So exchange distances will not matter then.If so sounds ok when its up and running and gives us at least some choice in our area should i decide to look around,at the moment vm are the only game in town where i am as speeds over ADSL are so poor.

Distance does matter, its upto40meg, you might only get 20 if you far away from the cabinet as they still use copper wires

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 12:46
So exchange distances will not matter then.If so sounds ok when its up and running and gives us at least some choice in our area should i decide to look around,at the moment vm are the only game in town where i am as speeds over ADSL are so poor.

We shouldnt have to move providers VM should sort out any problems EG- XBOXLIVE and YOUTUBE.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Distance does matter, its upto40meg, you might only get 20 if you far away from the cabinet as they still use copper wires

What do VM use from the cabinet to the home?

jb66
25-06-2011, 12:47
We shouldnt have to move providers VM should sort out any problems EG- XBOXLIVE and YOUTUBE.

How can they sort out xboxlive or youtube unless its their fault?

denphone
25-06-2011, 12:47
Yeah thanks for the concern but I think I know how to setup a basic home-network. I have a VMNG300 into a router and various devices wireless and wired.

I have my wireless on a clear channel checked via inSSIDer and ethernet cable as back up if needed. My powerlevels are within range and speedtest and pingtest show good results and low jitter at quiet times.

Tracerts also show good results at off peak times.

l am sure you are very capable of setting things up.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:47
Distance does matter, its upto40meg, you might only get 20 if you far away from the cabinet as they still use copper wires

Thanks jb66, i thought they might do 1 am about 4.5-5 miles away from the exchange currently and BT/SKY or any other ADSL provider can only offer up to 1.5 mb maximum on an up to 20mb connection,so it may not be too promising then even when rolled out.

jb66
25-06-2011, 12:51
We shouldnt have to move providers VM should sort out any problems EG- XBOXLIVE and YOUTUBE.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------



What do VM use from the cabinet to the home?

Co-ax cable, its much thicker and works in a completely diferent way. So if your 200m away form cab you'll still get your full 50meg (might need RG11 cable though :))

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Thanks jb66, i thought they might do 1 am about 4.5-5 miles away from the exchange currently and BT/SKY or any other ADSL provider can only offer up to 1.5 mb maximum on an up to 20mb connection,so it may not be too promising then even when rolled out.

No it will be promising as they will run the wires to your roadside cab

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

[/COLOR]With Virgin, your line will always connect at 50meg but you may not get this speed due to congestion in the Virgin network. With BT's 40meg Infinity service, your line may not connect at this 40meg speed due to distance from the road side cabinet, and you may also suffer congestion within BT's network.

richard1960
25-06-2011, 12:56
Co-ax cable, its much thicker and works in a completely diferent way. So if your 200m away form cab you'll still get your full 50meg (might need RG11 cable though :))

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------



No it will be promising as they will run the wires to your roadside cab

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

[/COLOR]With Virgin, your line will always connect at 50meg but you may not get this speed due to congestion in the Virgin network. With BT's 40meg Infinity service, your line may not connect at this 40meg speed due to distance from the road side cabinet, and you may also suffer congestion within BT's network.

Ok thanks for that bit of info,my connection where i live via virgin media has always been rock solid,so as they say "if it aint broke".

Not sure how far BTS roadside cabinet is from us but it cannot be that far,it would take something amazing though for me to change broadband suppliers from vm.

Jameseh
25-06-2011, 13:28
Even when Virgin Media throttle your connection, your still getting better than any ADSL ISP can provide.

denphone
25-06-2011, 13:37
Even when Virgin Media throttle your connection, your still getting better than any ADSL ISP can provide.

Its like comparing Virgin's Harrods in one corner and Sky;s Poundland in the other corner.

Digital Fanatic
25-06-2011, 14:23
http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html


It's official. Our industry watchdog, Ofcom, received fewest complaints about our broadband and phone services - that's fewer than Sky, BT or Talk Talk.

Of course, while we’re happy Ofcom received fewer complaints from our customers, we won’t be completely happy until they have none.

Source: Ofcom, "Telecoms Complaints", April 2011. Fixed-line telephony and broadband providers with a market share of 5% or above.


Ofcom rates us fastest

It's official. OFCOM have released their 2011 broadband speed test results and for the third year running it shows Virgin Media is the UK's fastest broadband. To celebrate, we're offering free installation worth £40 on our up to 30Mb broadband and up to 50Mb broadband.

denphone
25-06-2011, 14:26
http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html

Absolutely agree.

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 14:58
What about a VM 10mb customer who streams a HD movie via their smart tv between 4-9pm , after 1500mb their connection suddenly gets throttled down to 2.5mb , Sky's 7.50 unlimited service doesn't have these restrictions , so headline speed is not always the main factor. Their are many Sky subscribers who get an unlimited service with speeds of more than 10mb admittedly there are those who also get under. It's really all down to were you live and what speed Sky can offer you and also what you use the Internet for.

ErnieBean
25-06-2011, 15:15
Some people will think they going to be better off with Sky but as far as l am concerned l will never go to them or as the old saying says better the devil you know then the devil you don't know.

Surly no company can be worse than VM

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html

Well that's amazing.

for three weeks i have logged my download speed

it OK early morning 7 AM its 30 Meg
but slows down as the day progresses
down to 7 Meg at 7 PM
and that is every day, fortunately I only use it during the day
and even Google goes very slow also

denphone
25-06-2011, 15:16
Surly no company can be worse than VM

Well l do not know how you have got your perception of Virgin Media from as 99.9 per cent of people would disagree with your viewpoint on this.

markie1966
25-06-2011, 16:01
Well l do not know how you have got your perception of Virgin Media from as 99.9 per cent of people would disagree with your viewpoint on this.

get real...you should take a trip to the official forum pages to see what people are suffering with VM.....speed is NOT the issue...latency and lag and reliability are

go count the number of posts from gamers stating how laggy their connections are

go count the number of posts stating that youtube stutters

go count the complaints about the tivo service

you outta pull that tongue out of an embarrassing place and get real

yes ....sky is almost as bad...yes bt is almost as bad....but VM plainly has got to the point where its becoming a joke

btw as one of the posters said....give me a rock steady reliable connection over speed anyday....speed is all well and good but if the bandwidth isnt there then it gets slower and slower as others have posted about

one other thing...sky and bt are starting to take fttp....if that gives a reliable gaming platform then theres going to be a mass exodus from virgins flaky gaming network

denphone
25-06-2011, 16:28
get real...you should take a trip to the official forum pages to see what people are suffering with VM.....speed is NOT the issue...latency and lag and reliability are

go count the number of posts from gamers stating how laggy their connections are

go count the number of posts stating that youtube stutters

go count the complaints about the tivo service

you outta pull that tongue out of an embarrassing place and get real

yes ....sky is almost as bad...yes bt is almost as bad....but VM plainly has got to the point where its becoming a joke

btw as one of the posters said....give me a rock steady reliable connection over speed anyday....speed is all well and good but if the bandwidth isnt there then it gets slower and slower as others have posted about

one other thing...sky and bt are starting to take fttp....if that gives a reliable gaming platform then theres going to be a mass exodus from virgins flaky gaming network

Whilst not disputing that some customers will have problems these are in a very very tiny minority and overall 99.9 per cent of customers are extremely happy and you also have to remember that most people who post will always have something negative to complain about with these services and also where did get the impression that Sky's and BT'S service will be better because it won;t be as in matter of fact it will be much worse.

TJS
25-06-2011, 16:31
get real...you should take a trip to the official forum pages to see what people are suffering with VM.....speed is NOT the issue...latency and lag and reliability are

go count the number of posts from gamers stating how laggy their connections are

go count the number of posts stating that youtube stutters

go count the complaints about the tivo service

you outta pull that tongue out of an embarrassing place and get real

yes ....sky is almost as bad...yes bt is almost as bad....but VM plainly has got to the point where its becoming a joke

btw as one of the posters said....give me a rock steady reliable connection over speed anyday....speed is all well and good but if the bandwidth isnt there then it gets slower and slower as others have posted about

one other thing...sky and bt are starting to take fttp....if that gives a reliable gaming platform then theres going to be a mass exodus from virgins flaky gaming network

Its a complaint forum. out of about 4 million users its next to nothing.

I have several friends on sky broadband and its appalling. and I highly doubt that sky will ever venture into FTTP and BT are only doing it small scale to a few locations in the country.

also the acceptable usage policy on 10 mb/s is now 3 GB http://www.virginmedia.com/images/tm-table-fu-large.jpg

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------

Whilst not disputing that some customers will have problems these are in a very very tiny minority and overall 99.9 per cent of customers are extremely happy and you also have to remember that most people who post will always have something negative to complain about with these services and also where did get the impression that Sky's and BT'S service will be better because it won;t be as in matter of fact it will be much worse.

I can back this up after 6 years with BT.

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 16:32
Its a complaint forum. out of about 4 million users its next to nothing.

I have several friends on sky broadband and its appalling. and I highly doubt that sky will ever venture into FTTP and BT are only doing it small scale to a few locations in the country.

also the acceptable usage policy on 10 mb/s is now 3 GB http://www.virginmedia.com/images/tm-table-fu-large.jpg

So it's still less than streaming an HD movie , I agree re FTTP , Sky will at some point use BTs FTTC which will offer most people ample speeds the fact is the majority just don't need 100mb and figures back this up.

denphone
25-06-2011, 16:33
Its a complaint forum. out of about 4 million users its next to nothing.

I have several friends on sky broadband and its appalling. and I highly doubt that sky will ever venture into FTTP and BT are only doing it small scale to a few locations in the country.

also the acceptable usage policy on 10 mb/s is now 3 GB http://www.virginmedia.com/images/tm-table-fu-large.jpg

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:29 ----------



I can back this up after 6 years with BT.

Some people will think the grass is greener on the other side but it most definitely isn't.

TJS
25-06-2011, 16:35
So it's still less than streaming an HD movie , I agree re FTTP , Sky will at some point use BTs FTTC which will offer most people ample speeds the fact is the majority just don't need 100mb and figures back this up.

Which figures are these?

And from my point of view the 10 mb service is basically for the older generation who just check emails now and then. the 30 mb package would be better for a majority of people which can work out pretty cheap if you go with one of the bundle packages :p:

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 16:43
Which figures are these?

And from my point of view the 10 mb service is basically for the older generation who just check emails now and then. the 30 mb package would be better for a majority of people which can work out pretty cheap if you go with one of the bundle packages :p:

You seem to be getting very of defensive of VM , I'm not saying their BB is bad I was merely making the point that Sky's BB unlimited service may be preferable to some due to traffic management issues. VM 30mb plus service are excellent services although some gamers tend to disagree , this doesn't bother me as I don't game to much , and the figures to backup not everyone needs 100mb are VM's own just look how many take 50mb or above in comparison to 10mb. Why would someone who only wants to check emails pay VM 12.50 when they could get a line and BB from talk talk , Sky , Plusnet for not much more for both. The traffic management says it kicks in after 1500mb between 4-9pm.

Like I say as a 30mb customer I agree that VM faster services are generally pretty good.

Digital Fanatic
25-06-2011, 16:58
VM is also the least complained about service, percentage wise in a major survey by Ofcom... that itself speaks volumes about VM service. ;)

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 17:02
VM is also the least complained about service, percentage wise in a major survey by Ofcom... that itself speaks volumes about VM service. ;)

Indeed it is DF , I'm not calling the service was merely stating the potential pitfall of Traffic management at the peak time of 4-9pm on the 10mb service. Cable will always have superior speeds to ADSL which is now showing it's age , I'm just looking forward to my area being upgraded for BT infinity whenever that may happen , it's anyone's guess though whether other companies will gain use of fibre.

denphone
25-06-2011, 17:04
VM is also the least complained about service, percentage wise in a major survey by Ofcom... that itself speaks volumes about VM service. ;)

You have stated exactly why Virgin are the best all round company.:clap::clap:

jb66
25-06-2011, 17:04
Ok sky's top broadband package can sometimes be on par with virgins lowest package :)

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 17:06
Ok sky's top broadband package can sometimes be on par with virgins lowest package :)

Yes in a nutshell , however that lowest package has the highest percentage of VM BB subscribers ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/28/virgin-media-beats-expectations-households

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 17:17
Some people will think the grass is greener on the other side but it most definitely isn't.

I think people just want to feel they are getting value for money. Some feel Virginmedia offers value for money others feel sky or BT offer value for money.

I happen to think Sky is better value having been with sky for probably 8 years and moving to VM on vip50 about 6 months ago I realised for what I want Sky is better value. For others VM is better value.

I have managed to cancel the TV service and return to sky and got rid of the phoneline, now just get rid of VM internet....

Milambar
25-06-2011, 18:53
[QUOTE=jb66;35263414]Co-ax cable, its much thicker and works in a completely diferent way. So if your 200m away form cab you'll still get your full 50meg (might need RG11 cable though :))[COLOR="Silver"]

I wish people would stop saying that distance doesn't matter with cable, because it actually does. It may not be as critical as with ADSL, but it is still a factor determining speeds.

Three years ago, or there-abouts, I was having a horrible job staying connected, and when I was, I got sub-56k speeds. A number of engineers were sent out to investigate, and they all told me the same thing, that I lived too far from the nearest cabinet, and I probably shouldn't have been sold the service at all.

If I recall correctly, it took the intervention of someone from these very forums, to organize "networks" to repull a "thicker" cable. Since then, its not given me a peep of trouble. But yeah, distance does matter.

Mick Fisher
25-06-2011, 19:20
If you are lucky and for whatever reasons you can get services from VM at a satisfactory price and quality then you have every reason to think they are a great Company to be with.

However if you are unlucky and for whatever reason all the services you can obtain from VM are flaky from a degree to plain unusable and you have had to frequently deal with their absolutely appalling Indian Support Center, I would forgive anyone who thought VM were the Telco from Hell.

I am convinced the reason they garnered less complaints is simply because most will not waste their time calling India and those that do are just fobbed off or hung up on and so no notes appear on the account.

From my experience the only way to get sensable service is to threaten to leave.

So far, over the years, I have had to cancel the TV and Phone as they became unusable and a succession of engineers failed to improve things. Only the BB seemed worth keeping but with the introduction of the so called superhub even that is now marginal. Hopefully the Modem Mode update will help otherwise I will be looking to join the OP in finding pastures new.

Maggy
25-06-2011, 19:29
Or you could just call at 8 in the morning..and get a usually wide awake CS or Tech located in the UK..

TJS
25-06-2011, 19:34
[QUOTE=jb66;35263414]Co-ax cable, its much thicker and works in a completely diferent way. So if your 200m away form cab you'll still get your full 50meg (might need RG11 cable though :))[COLOR="Silver"]

I wish people would stop saying that distance doesn't matter with cable, because it actually does. It may not be as critical as with ADSL, but it is still a factor determining speeds.

Three years ago, or there-abouts, I was having a horrible job staying connected, and when I was, I got sub-56k speeds. A number of engineers were sent out to investigate, and they all told me the same thing, that I lived too far from the nearest cabinet, and I probably shouldn't have been sold the service at all.

If I recall correctly, it took the intervention of someone from these very forums, to organize "networks" to repull a "thicker" cable. Since then, its not given me a peep of trouble. But yeah, distance does matter.

SMG
25-06-2011, 19:59
As the O.P, I would like to clarify the reason why I decided to give Sky a go. The service I have from VM is poor. Overall, through the country, it may be excellent, but mine is poor. I have been with cable since the cable was laid in my street, I have been a regular, & faithful customer, yet I am paying top whack for a service, which new customes get for half price.

As a loyal customer, I expect to be given a better deal than a new customer, & I expect the service to work. But that is not the case.

Sky TV is a better service. No question.
Sky broadband offers me all I want from a provider.
All at a much lower price than Virgin.

I cant comment yet on Skys broadband, I hear, & read, horror stories from both services, so, I decided to switch & see for myself.

Now if Sky`s broadband is rubbish, or worse than my VM, I may switch back, satisfied in the knowledge that I have tried them both. Also, as neither Sky, or VM give existing customers any loyalty bonus, I may switch each year, one to the other, & get the new deals both these providers peddle.

One further note, this "Fiber Optic" rubbish. Even if fiber optics is used, my broadband is provided by a co-axial cable, which means that even if fiber optic is used somewhere in the link, my cable becomes a bottleneck.

All providers lie through their teeth to sign you up, so if I`m going to get a rotten service, why pay more for it? I will update & post my progress, good or bad.

pgnl
25-06-2011, 20:05
I think people just want to feel they are getting value for money. Some feel Virginmedia offers value for money others feel sky or BT offer value for money.

For my sins I actually have both. Sky TV downstairs for 14 years, just added Sky Phone line rental and Sky Broadband. I have also been with VM or Telewest Broadband as it was for over 10 years and have V+ XXL upstairs in the bedroom. I like to try stuff.. :)

My VM BB L is and always has been rock solid, but I really hate VM pricing policy, everyone seems to pay a different price for the same thing, you don't tend to get that as much with Sky. I was attracted to their broadband because its truly unlimited and I like to download stuff during the evening, as you know VM STM policy kicks in early on BBL.

I'm not a huge fan of Mr Murdochs empire either, but there are benefits to both, if you're not prepared to pay £38pm for 50Mb unlimited broadband, Sky Broadband is a reasonably priced option worth considering...

Patrick

markie1966
25-06-2011, 20:06
If you are lucky and for whatever reasons you can get services from VM at a satisfactory price and quality then you have every reason to think they are a great Company to be with.

However if you are unlucky and for whatever reason all the services you can obtain from VM are flaky from a degree to plain unusable and you have had to frequently deal with their absolutely appalling Indian Support Center, I would forgive anyone who thought VM were the Telco from Hell.

I am convinced the reason they garnered less complaints is simply because most will not waste their time calling India and those that do are just fobbed off or hung up on and so no notes appear on the account.

From my experience the only way to get sensable service is to threaten to leave.

So far, over the years, I have had to cancel the TV and Phone as they became unusable and a succession of engineers failed to improve things. Only the BB seemed worth keeping but with the introduction of the so called superhub even that is now marginal. Hopefully the Modem Mode update will help otherwise I will be looking to join the OP in finding pastures new.

quite agree....what certain people dont realise is that when a problem crops up u have to deal with customer services in india....no offense to them but they are just reading off a script....the customer services arent the best in the world
as for the superhub....ever since they introduced that piece of c*** people have been having problems left right and center...and its only the ones that have problems that get to find out how bad VM customer services really are...thats why those lucky ones that never see a problem dont complain

denphone
25-06-2011, 20:07
As the O.P, I would like to clarify the reason why I decided to give Sky a go. The service I have from VM is poor. Overall, through the country, it may be excellent, but mine is poor. I have been with cable since the cable was laid in my street, I have been a regular, & faithful customer, yet I am paying top whack for a service, which new customes get for half price.

As a loyal customer, I expect to be given a better deal than a new customer, & I expect the service to work. But that is not the case.

Sky TV is a better service. No question.
Sky broadband offers me all I want from a provider.
All at a much lower price than Virgin.

I cant comment yet on Skys broadband, I hear, & read, horror stories from both services, so, I decided to switch & see for myself.

Now if Sky`s broadband is rubbish, or worse than my VM, I may switch back, satisfied in the knowledge that I have tried them both. Also, as neither Sky, or VM give existing customers any loyalty bonus, I may switch each year, one to the other, & get the new deals both these providers peddle.

One further note, this "Fiber Optic" rubbish. Even if fiber optics is used, my broadband is provided by a co-axial cable, which means that even if fiber optic is used somewhere in the link, my cable becomes a bottleneck.

All providers lie through their teeth to sign you up, so if I`m going to get a rotten service, why pay more for it? I will update & post my progress, good or bad.

Its not fiber optic rubbish as it has proved time and time again way superior to Sky's copper wire system.

Maggy
25-06-2011, 20:09
Lets have less of the bickering about Sky or VM being better products.Remember everyone's experiences are different.

SMG
25-06-2011, 20:20
Its not fiber optic rubbish as it has proved time and time again way superior to Sky's copper wire system.


Can you explain the difference between Skys copper wire rubbish, & my current Virgin Media copper wire?

kstone
25-06-2011, 20:42
I'm just dropping VM now.

Internet has been great, but the Set top boxes and general user interface are far from great. Never felt happy with the channel surfing, I pined for my SKY interface of 8 years back.

Have SKY HD now..
Much better

----

On a side note, Both VM and SKY will have to up their game this year.

Lots of independants coming through supplying High Speed Braodband.
On the tail of this, Video over IP.

You don't need to be an operator anymore to get content to the customer (anyone checked blinkbox out?).


With regards to Fibre to the Home.

SKY, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk etc etc... They all know this is the requirment for tommorows services.
They are all doing it.

muppetman11
25-06-2011, 20:56
I currently have VM XL BB 30mb and cable M phone , costing me 13.90 phone + 18.50 BB = 32.40 , I have been monitoring my Internet habits and basically browse the Internet , email and use bits of Internet video ( YT , Sky Player , Iplayer etc) if I switch to Sky BB and Sky Talk my bill is 12.25 phone and 7.50 BB = 19.75 saving me 12.65 a month. Sky have estimated my line capable of 8mb meaning all the tasks above should be ok with the added bonus of being able to use Anytime+.

I already have Sky World , ESPN and Sky3D and I must say the TV is far superior with Sky especially channel range, TIVO looks good however I'm not keen on the 3.00 a month charge.

jb66
25-06-2011, 20:58
[QUOTE=jb66;35263414]Co-ax cable, its much thicker and works in a completely diferent way. So if your 200m away form cab you'll still get your full 50meg (might need RG11 cable though :))[COLOR="Silver"]

I wish people would stop saying that distance doesn't matter with cable, because it actually does. It may not be as critical as with ADSL, but it is still a factor determining speeds.

Three years ago, or there-abouts, I was having a horrible job staying connected, and when I was, I got sub-56k speeds. A number of engineers were sent out to investigate, and they all told me the same thing, that I lived too far from the nearest cabinet, and I probably shouldn't have been sold the service at all.

Rg11 is thicker cable

If I recall correctly, it took the intervention of someone from these very forums, to organize "networks" to repull a "thicker" cable. Since then, its not given me a peep of trouble. But yeah, distance does matter.

Rg11 is thicker cable

Maggy
25-06-2011, 21:01
I'm just dropping VM now.

Internet has been great, but the Set top boxes and general user interface are far from great. Never felt happy with the channel surfing, I pined for my SKY interface of 8 years back.

Have SKY HD now..
Much better

----

On a side note, Both VM and SKY will have to up their game this year.

Lots of independants coming through supplying High Speed Braodband.
On the tail of this, Video over IP.

You don't need to be an operator anymore to get content to the customer (anyone checked blinkbox out?).


With regards to Fibre to the Home.

SKY, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk etc etc... They all know this is the requirment for tommorows services.
They are all doing it.

*and how are they supplying the service.Whose systems are they using?

denphone
25-06-2011, 21:15
Can you explain the difference between Skys copper wire rubbish, & my current Virgin Media copper wire?

Its obvious you are not connected to Virgin's fibre optic network and maybe where you live does not have a connection to the fibre optic network.

SMG
25-06-2011, 22:20
We can only try different services to find the best available for the money. Its clear some get super BB from Virgin, & thats great, but not everyone shares their good fortune.

I want the service I pay for, & thats all. VM are not delivering it, so I`m off to Sky, if they fail, I`l try something else. The more competition the better as far as I`m concerned. New technology may bring fantastic speeds, like fiber optics, but I`m still on a co-ax cable, so it doesn't help me very much.

The technical pros & cons don't really interest me, I`m just an ordinary guy who wants to surf at a reasonable pace, watch TV without the box freezing, & pay a reasonable amount for it.

Charliedontsurf
25-06-2011, 22:25
We can only try different services to find the best available for the money. Its clear some get super BB from Virgin, & thats great, but not everyone shares their good fortune.

I want the service I pay for, & thats all. VM are not delivering it, so I`m off to Sky, if they fail, I`l try something else. The more competition the better as far as I`m concerned. New technology may bring fantastic speeds, like fiber optics, but I`m still on a co-ax cable, so it doesn't help me very much.

The technical pros & cons don't really interest me, I`m just an ordinary guy who wants to surf at a reasonable pace, watch TV without the box freezing, & pay a reasonable amount for it.

This is the ultimate point!

We don't care if VM offer 400Mb, we just want a service that works and works well. One thing Virginmedia have done is make people realise that a 100Mb service is no better than a 15Mb service if its over sold and throttled/managed to the point of it being useless.

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 07:07
And Virgin's broadband is fibre optic and is far superior to Sky's paltry offering.
It's not superior to anything if they disconnect you for using "too much"

And there are several metrics on which Sky are better than VM. Headline speed isn't everything.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 ----------

l am afraid Sky's broadband will and always remain a very poor imitation of Virgin's far superior service.
Incorrect. Sky is already better in some ways, and VM are better in others. As FTTC LLU rolls out Sky is likely to become even better at the few things VM is good at.

---------- Post added at 05:05 ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 ----------


As far as i know BT will probably not match speeds VM can offer over cable,so denphone quite possibly is right on this one.Just had a look at BT infinity as they call it and BT sell it as up to "40mb" certainly not 100mb or 50 mb even.
Up to 40 was the safe/conservative initial speed. Last I heard they're about to roll out up to 80mb.

---------- Post added at 05:08 ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 ----------


As we know Virgin are trialing new speeds all the time so by the time BT do it Virgin will still be far ahead.
Currently VM have 50/1.5 in my area, and 50/5 by next March. BT will have 40/10 in my area by September, up to 6 months ahead of VM's 50/5. How's that "far ahead"? In fact, how's VM "ahead" or "superior" at all, in any way?

In fact, BT might even have 80/20 available here before VM gets 50/5 working, let alone 100/10. So quit talking out your behind.

---------- Post added at 05:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 ----------

Yes i agree on that denphone as i just posted BT sell their fibre version called infinity at up to 40 mb,so even they cannot match virgins speeds at present,so even if sky re-sell it they would only be able to offer an up to same as BT.
Again, download speed isn't everything. In terms of upload speed and ratio, Sky/O2/Be have been far better than VM for years, and VM still haven't finished catching up. Upload on their 50mb service remains inferior to O2's 20mb service in some areas and will continue to be inferior until spring next year.

---------- Post added at 05:12 ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 ----------

And Virgin beat Sky's pitiful speeds and rented system hands down every time and that is a fact.

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------



And by that time Virgin customers will probably be able to get 300 or 400Mbs
Wrong on both counts. BT Infinity is just about ready here, and VM don't even have an estimated date for 50/5 to become available yet, let alone 100. 300-400? Lol.

---------- Post added at 05:13 ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 ----------

Then perhaps it is not set up properly.
Or, you're talking out your ass and VM's service is far from perfect.

---------- Post added at 05:19 ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 ----------

Even when Virgin Media throttle your connection, your still getting better than any ADSL ISP can provide.
Again, wrong.

ADSL ISPs can already provide me with 16-32mbps without FTTC, with FTTC that will be in the 30-60mbps range (actual RL speed, not headline marketed speed). Headline speeds are 24-48mbps on DSL and 40-80 on VDSL. On an interesting side note, the majority of "Up to 40mbps" FTTC (BT Infinity) lines sync at 39mbps, suggesting the technology should be able to deliver far closer to the headline speeds when given a better backbone network.

VM's connection when throttled range from 0.5mbs (minimum) up to a maximum of 7.5mbps.

And again, lets not forget download speed isn't the only indicator of a decent connection, VM's throttled upload speeds range from 64kbps (min) to 1.5mbps (max), ADSL gives me 1.5-3.0mbps, VDSL will do 8-16mbps shortly.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 ----------

What about a VM 10mb customer who streams a HD movie via their smart tv between 4-9pm , after 1500mb their connection suddenly gets throttled down to 2.5mb , Sky's 7.50 unlimited service doesn't have these restrictions , so headline speed is not always the main factor. Their are many Sky subscribers who get an unlimited service with speeds of more than 10mb admittedly there are those who also get under. It's really all down to were you live and what speed Sky can offer you and also what you use the Internet for.
Finally, someone who has some sense.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------

Well l do not know how you have got your perception of Virgin Media from as 99.9 per cent of people would disagree with your viewpoint on this.
Wrong again. You != 99.9% of people.

---------- Post added at 05:23 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------

get real...you should take a trip to the official forum pages to see what people are suffering with VM.....speed is NOT the issue...latency and lag and reliability are

Indeed. While many people have speed problems, even if they don't there's plenty of other things that can go wrong on cable and don't on xDSL. Latency, jitter, and consistency are all things VM used to score pretty much worst in the UK on. I've not seen the latest report but I don't see it being much better, up to average perhaps.

---------- Post added at 05:25 ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 ----------

also the acceptable usage policy on 10 mb/s is now 3 GB http://www.virginmedia.com/images/tm-table-fu-large.jpg.
VM's AUP is undefined and can be anything they want. The STM threshold has nothing to do with the AUP. Whether you hit the STM threshold or not they can still disconnect you for over-use if they feel like it.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 ----------

Some people will think the grass is greener on the other side but it most definitely isn't.
Some people are able to cross the fence and make their own judgements.

---------- Post added at 05:28 ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 ----------

VM is also the least complained about service, percentage wise in a major survey by Ofcom... that itself speaks volumes about VM service.
Mainly because most people don't care about how fast their internet is but rather only if it's working or not - which on xDSL can often be affected by factors outside the ISP's control. VM also use shielded cable, which helps.

---------- Post added at 05:41 ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 ----------

VM is also the least complained about service, percentage wise in a major survey by Ofcom... that itself speaks volumes about VM service.


Now if you actually read the report, you'd see that two of what many consider are the best xDSL ISPs aren't included (O2/Be) nor are Orange, Kingston, Zen, etc. In fact, none of the top 10 rated (as listed by ISPReview) are included, and VM are only compared to 3 others.

Also, by "major survey" I think you mean "the first of what we intend to develop into a series of quarterly complaints publications. The initial data is relatively limited in scope and we propose to develop the approach over time." (Ofcom's own words)

You'll also find in the notes:


• The data only covers telecoms complaints that consumers have chosen to report to Ofcom, therefore it does not represent total complaints consumers have had with their providers. As such it can only provide a partial picture of complaints by provider.

• Contact with Ofcom may reflect the relative quality of complaints handling services, as well as the quality of service received. In which case, companies with poor complaints handling processes may feature more prominently than those with good complaints handling processes.
I.E. The data doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the broadband connection provided (there are other reports for that); more about the complaints handling process (aheheheheh!)

---------- Post added at 05:43 ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 ----------

I can back this up after 6 years with BT.
Personal opinion. Lets see some actual facts shall we?


---------- Post added at 05:55 ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 ----------

I wish people would stop saying that distance doesn't matter with cable, because it actually does. It may not be as critical as with ADSL, but it is still a factor determining speeds.

Three years ago, or there-abouts, I was having a horrible job staying connected, and when I was, I got sub-56k speeds. A number of engineers were sent out to investigate, and they all told me the same thing, that I lived too far from the nearest cabinet, and I probably shouldn't have been sold the service at all.

If I recall correctly, it took the intervention of someone from these very forums, to organize "networks" to repull a "thicker" cable. Since then, its not given me a peep of trouble. But yeah, distance does matter.
When distance is long enough to cause a service degradation on cable, it's a fault, not a gradual (and normal) degradation as it does in DSL. So in other words, distance is not supposed to be a factor determining your speed on cable, either you get full speed or VM will not connect you at all. Anything in between is a fault and should not happen.

---------- Post added at 05:59 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------

So far, over the years, I have had to cancel the TV and Phone as they became unusable and a succession of engineers failed to improve things. Only the BB seemed worth keeping but with the introduction of the so called superhub even that is now marginal. Hopefully the Modem Mode update will help otherwise I will be looking to join the OP in finding pastures new.
Surprisingly, given Ofcom's data, other companies are actually worse at handling complaints than VM. I'd be curious to see how the Superhub affects numbers in the long run though - VM complaints more than doubled between last October and January, with a slight dip in February, but still remain double that seen in October.

---------- Post added at 06:02 ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 ----------

quite agree....what certain people dont realise is that when a problem crops up u have to deal with customer services in india....no offense to them but they are just reading off a script....the customer services arent the best in the world
as for the superhub....ever since they introduced that piece of c*** people have been having problems left right and center...and its only the ones that have problems that get to find out how bad VM customer services really are...thats why those lucky ones that never see a problem dont complain
Again, seeing as VM are getting fewer complaints proportionally, they would seem to have better complaint resolution processes in place than Sky, even despite their offshore support. Something I find hard to believe, but hey, I talk facts not opinionated speculation.

---------- Post added at 06:04 ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 ----------

Its not fiber optic rubbish as it has proved time and time again way superior to Sky's copper wire system.
Evidence please.

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 ----------

Its obvious you are not connected to Virgin's fibre optic network and maybe where you live does not have a connection to the fibre optic network.
LOL. All VM cable to an actual consumer's house is copper. Nobody has a direct connection the fibre optic network. He may not be connected to the fibre optic network but then neither are you, or anybody else. Try google HFC to figure out how cable works. In fact, do you even know what a fibre connector looks like? Take a gander at the back of your cable modem. There isn't one.

---------- Post added at 06:07 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------

This is the ultimate point!

We don't care if VM offer 400Mb, we just want a service that works and works well. One thing Virginmedia have done is make people realise that a 100Mb service is no better than a 15Mb service if its over sold and throttled/managed to the point of it being useless.
Yup. Correct.

OK so enough of the subjective rambling. Lets take an objective look at some solid data to compare VM to Sky. Most of the following is based on information in Ofcom's March report, with a few snippets from other independant parties.

On 50mb cable, only 7% of customers get average speeds in the same interval as their top (peak) speed, whereas on 40mbit FTTC, 60% did. Lol. OK so that was very selective and not particularly useful. But more seriously, VM wins just about all categories of pure download speed measurements, except vs. FTTC where they only have one nationwide package that beats it. They've finally improved capacity issues and are no longer the worst for peak time speed loss. But funny enough, peak time congestion on Sky still remains lower than every single one of VM's packages

Now, lets talk download speeds. Over 70% of users are on either a 20/24mbps ADSL connection or a 10mbps VM cable connection. Around 95% of VM customers are on the 10mbps package (own calculations, based on OFCOM data). These packages are by far the most popular and also similar in both price and performance, so lets compare these. These are all "unlimited" packages, most of which are truly unlimited while VM's is not. 99% of all customers are on a 24mbps package or below; only around ~3% or less are on BT's 40mb, VM's 50mb, and VM's 20mb combined.

Comparing only unlimited packages, including phone line:
BT - £38 (39% more)
VM - £27.40 (from August)
Talktalk - £27.10 (1% less)
Be - £27.00 (2% less)
O2 - £20-£25.00 (9-17% less)
Sky - £21.25 (22% less)

These do not take into account contract length or any introductory offers. As seen, VM is the most expensive aside from BT. As they are unlimited packages, light users will pay even less on any provider other than VM, VM do not give you a choice in the matter. VM and Sky customers may pay less by taking a TV package. O2 customers get a £5 reduction if they have an O2 mobile.

Comparing speeds (Overall and peak time averages, then compared to VM at peak time):
BT - 8.7 - 8.5 (10% slower)
VM - 9.7 - 9.4
TT - 9.3 - 9.0 (4% slower)
Be/O2 - 11.6 - 11.0 (17% faster)
Sky - 8.8 - 8.7 (8% slower)

In addition, this data is based on light users only, and given that VM apply more speed controls and limits to their package than any of the other ISPs, heavy users will suffer more on VM than comparable DSL products. While paying more.

So, in comparing Sky to VM on these figures alone, the vast majority of people will get better value on Sky than VM (8% less speed on Sky while paying 22% less). Heavier users will benefit more. Alternatively, if available, switching to Be will get you a 17% higher speed while paying 2% less than on VM (and net you a better upload too), again truly unlimited and with no traffic shaping. Only 3% of people are on a tariff high enough that this is no longer the case. So in terms of download speed value, VM loses to everyone except BT and TalkTalk.

In other metrics, VM still have the worst speed loss going from multithreaded to singlethreaded tests, i.e. you are more likely to get closer to your full speed on xDSL when doing one thing at a time than on cable. VM still have the slowest upload speeds when looking at comparable packages, though this will change as the upload uplift progresses. Though even then, the main (10mbps) cable package will not beat the main (20-24mbps) DSL packages, only match them.

In terms of actual web page loading speed, VM's 10mb is slower than O2/Be, the same or slightly faster than BT/Sky, and much faster than Talktalk.

In terms of latency/ping, VM is worse than O2/Be and about the same as BT, and slightly beating Sky & Talktalk.

VM's packet loss is up to twenty times worse than Sky, while averaging ten times worse than BT and five times higher than Talktalk.

Upstream jitter on VM remains about 4x worse on average than all other providers, and 4-8x worse at peak time, while downstream jitter is about twice as bad on VM than everyone else (though remains fairly low).

VM's DNS servers are faster than all other major providers, though DNS lookups fail 2.5x more often at peak time on VM than BT or Talktalk.

So, in an overall comparison between the VM and Sky packages that the vast majority of people are on:

Speed - VM slightly faster, VM wins
Price - Sky considerably cheaper, Sky wins.
Peak time congestion - VM much worse, Sky wins.
Traffic shaping - VM much worse, Sky wins
STM/capping - Sky has none, Sky wins
FUP usage limits - Sky has none, Sky wins
Single-stream penalty - VM worse, Sky wins
Browsing speed - Same - draw
Ping - Sky slightly higher, VM wins
Jitter - VM much worse, Sky wins
Packet loss - VM much worse, Sky wins
DNS lookup - VM faster, but also fails more. Draw.

Sky 8 - VM 2.

The two factors VM win on would be beaten if compared to O2/Be, making it Be 10 - VM 0.

kstone
26-06-2011, 07:33
*and how are they supplying the service.Whose systems are they using?

http://www.hyperoptic.com
http://www.gigaclear.com/

Here are two examples...

The main method is going to be Fibre all the way to the customer, but there is the possibility to deliver FTTCab also (there own or jumping on BTs network).

https://www.bethere.co.uk/
You also have the likes of Fujitsu looking at their own 'extensive' network.

It's going to be a broadband race and the consumer should be the winner.

Examples of independant 'content providers'..
http://www.velocity1.co.uk/residential

Interesting times ahead.

denphone
26-06-2011, 10:13
It's not superior to anything if they disconnect you for using "too much"

And there are several metrics on which Sky are better than VM. Headline speed isn't everything.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 ----------


Incorrect. Sky is already better in some ways, and VM are better in others. As FTTC LLU rolls out Sky is likely to become even better at the few things VM is good at.

---------- Post added at 05:05 ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 ----------


Up to 40 was the safe/conservative initial speed. Last I heard they're about to roll out up to 80mb.

---------- Post added at 05:08 ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 ----------


Currently VM have 50/1.5 in my area, and 50/5 by next March. BT will have 40/10 in my area by September, up to 6 months ahead of VM's 50/5. How's that "far ahead"? In fact, how's VM "ahead" or "superior" at all, in any way?

In fact, BT might even have 80/20 available here before VM gets 50/5 working, let alone 100/10. So quit talking out your behind.

---------- Post added at 05:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 ----------


Again, download speed isn't everything. In terms of upload speed and ratio, Sky/O2/Be have been far better than VM for years, and VM still haven't finished catching up. Upload on their 50mb service remains inferior to O2's 20mb service in some areas and will continue to be inferior until spring next year.

---------- Post added at 05:12 ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 ----------


Wrong on both counts. BT Infinity is just about ready here, and VM don't even have an estimated date for 50/5 to become available yet, let alone 100. 300-400? Lol.

---------- Post added at 05:13 ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 ----------


Or, you're talking out your ass and VM's service is far from perfect.

---------- Post added at 05:19 ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 ----------


Again, wrong.

ADSL ISPs can already provide me with 16-32mbps without FTTC, with FTTC that will be in the 30-60mbps range (actual RL speed, not headline marketed speed). Headline speeds are 24-48mbps on DSL and 40-80 on VDSL. On an interesting side note, the majority of "Up to 40mbps" FTTC (BT Infinity) lines sync at 39mbps, suggesting the technology should be able to deliver far closer to the headline speeds when given a better backbone network.

VM's connection when throttled range from 0.5mbs (minimum) up to a maximum of 7.5mbps.

And again, lets not forget download speed isn't the only indicator of a decent connection, VM's throttled upload speeds range from 64kbps (min) to 1.5mbps (max), ADSL gives me 1.5-3.0mbps, VDSL will do 8-16mbps shortly.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 ----------


Finally, someone who has some sense.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------


Wrong again. You != 99.9% of people.

---------- Post added at 05:23 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------


Indeed. While many people have speed problems, even if they don't there's plenty of other things that can go wrong on cable and don't on xDSL. Latency, jitter, and consistency are all things VM used to score pretty much worst in the UK on. I've not seen the latest report but I don't see it being much better, up to average perhaps.

---------- Post added at 05:25 ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 ----------


VM's AUP is undefined and can be anything they want. The STM threshold has nothing to do with the AUP. Whether you hit the STM threshold or not they can still disconnect you for over-use if they feel like it.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 ----------


Some people are able to cross the fence and make their own judgements.

---------- Post added at 05:28 ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 ----------


Mainly because most people don't care about how fast their internet is but rather only if it's working or not - which on xDSL can often be affected by factors outside the ISP's control. VM also use shielded cable, which helps.

---------- Post added at 05:41 ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 ----------




Now if you actually read the report, you'd see that two of what many consider are the best xDSL ISPs aren't included (O2/Be) nor are Orange, Kingston, Zen, etc. In fact, none of the top 10 rated (as listed by ISPReview) are included, and VM are only compared to 3 others.

Also, by "major survey" I think you mean "the first of what we intend to develop into a series of quarterly complaints publications. The initial data is relatively limited in scope and we propose to develop the approach over time." (Ofcom's own words)

You'll also find in the notes:

I.E. The data doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the broadband connection provided (there are other reports for that); more about the complaints handling process (aheheheheh!)

---------- Post added at 05:43 ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 ----------


Personal opinion. Lets see some actual facts shall we?


---------- Post added at 05:55 ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 ----------


When distance is long enough to cause a service degradation on cable, it's a fault, not a gradual (and normal) degradation as it does in DSL. So in other words, distance is not supposed to be a factor determining your speed on cable, either you get full speed or VM will not connect you at all. Anything in between is a fault and should not happen.

---------- Post added at 05:59 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------


Surprisingly, given Ofcom's data, other companies are actually worse at handling complaints than VM. I'd be curious to see how the Superhub affects numbers in the long run though - VM complaints more than doubled between last October and January, with a slight dip in February, but still remain double that seen in October.

---------- Post added at 06:02 ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 ----------


Again, seeing as VM are getting fewer complaints proportionally, they would seem to have better complaint resolution processes in place than Sky, even despite their offshore support. Something I find hard to believe, but hey, I talk facts not opinionated speculation.

---------- Post added at 06:04 ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 ----------


Evidence please.

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 ----------


LOL. All VM cable to an actual consumer's house is copper. Nobody has a direct connection the fibre optic network. He may not be connected to the fibre optic network but then neither are you, or anybody else. Try google HFC to figure out how cable works. In fact, do you even know what a fibre connector looks like? Take a gander at the back of your cable modem. There isn't one.

---------- Post added at 06:07 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------


Yup. Correct.

OK so enough of the subjective rambling. Lets take an objective look at some solid data to compare VM to Sky. Most of the following is based on information in Ofcom's March report, with a few snippets from other independant parties.

On 50mb cable, only 7% of customers get average speeds in the same interval as their top (peak) speed, whereas on 40mbit FTTC, 60% did. Lol. OK so that was very selective and not particularly useful. But more seriously, VM wins just about all categories of pure download speed measurements, except vs. FTTC where they only have one nationwide package that beats it. They've finally improved capacity issues and are no longer the worst for peak time speed loss. But funny enough, peak time congestion on Sky still remains lower than every single one of VM's packages

Now, lets talk download speeds. Over 70% of users are on either a 20/24mbps ADSL connection or a 10mbps VM cable connection. Around 95% of VM customers are on the 10mbps package (own calculations, based on OFCOM data). These packages are by far the most popular and also similar in both price and performance, so lets compare these. These are all "unlimited" packages, most of which are truly unlimited while VM's is not. 99% of all customers are on a 24mbps package or below; only around ~3% or less are on BT's 40mb, VM's 50mb, and VM's 20mb combined.

Comparing only unlimited packages, including phone line:
BT - £38 (39% more)
VM - £27.40 (from August)
Talktalk - £27.10 (1% less)
Be - £27.00 (2% less)
O2 - £20-£25.00 (9-17% less)
Sky - £21.25 (22% less)

These do not take into account contract length or any introductory offers. As seen, VM is the most expensive aside from BT. As they are unlimited packages, light users will pay even less on any provider other than VM, VM do not give you a choice in the matter. VM and Sky customers may pay less by taking a TV package. O2 customers get a £5 reduction if they have an O2 mobile.

Comparing speeds (Overall and peak time averages, then compared to VM at peak time):
BT - 8.7 - 8.5 (10% slower)
VM - 9.7 - 9.4
TT - 9.3 - 9.0 (4% slower)
Be/O2 - 11.6 - 11.0 (17% faster)
Sky - 8.8 - 8.7 (8% slower)

In addition, this data is based on light users only, and given that VM apply more speed controls and limits to their package than any of the other ISPs, heavy users will suffer more on VM than comparable DSL products. While paying more.

So, in comparing Sky to VM on these figures alone, the vast majority of people will get better value on Sky than VM (8% less speed on Sky while paying 22% less). Heavier users will benefit more. Alternatively, if available, switching to Be will get you a 17% higher speed while paying 2% less than on VM (and net you a better upload too), again truly unlimited and with no traffic shaping. Only 3% of people are on a tariff high enough that this is no longer the case. So in terms of download speed value, VM loses to everyone except BT and TalkTalk.

In other metrics, VM still have the worst speed loss going from multithreaded to singlethreaded tests, i.e. you are more likely to get closer to your full speed on xDSL when doing one thing at a time than on cable. VM still have the slowest upload speeds when looking at comparable packages, though this will change as the upload uplift progresses. Though even then, the main (10mbps) cable package will not beat the main (20-24mbps) DSL packages, only match them.

In terms of actual web page loading speed, VM's 10mb is slower than O2/Be, the same or slightly faster than BT/Sky, and much faster than Talktalk.

In terms of latency/ping, VM is worse than O2/Be and about the same as BT, and slightly beating Sky & Talktalk.

VM's packet loss is up to twenty times worse than Sky, while averaging ten times worse than BT and five times higher than Talktalk.

Upstream jitter on VM remains about 4x worse on average than all other providers, and 4-8x worse at peak time, while downstream jitter is about twice as bad on VM than everyone else (though remains fairly low).

VM's DNS servers are faster than all other major providers, though DNS lookups fail 2.5x more often at peak time on VM than BT or Talktalk.

So, in an overall comparison between the VM and Sky packages that the vast majority of people are on:

Speed - VM slightly faster, VM wins
Price - Sky considerably cheaper, Sky wins.
Peak time congestion - VM much worse, Sky wins.
Traffic shaping - VM much worse, Sky wins
STM/capping - Sky has none, Sky wins
FUP usage limits - Sky has none, Sky wins
Single-stream penalty - VM worse, Sky wins
Browsing speed - Same - draw
Ping - Sky slightly higher, VM wins
Jitter - VM much worse, Sky wins
Packet loss - VM much worse, Sky wins
DNS lookup - VM faster, but also fails more. Draw.

Sky 8 - VM 2.

The two factors VM win on would be beaten if compared to O2/Be, making it Be 10 - VM 0.

Well name those metrics in which you think Sky wins as thats utter nonsense.

TJS
26-06-2011, 10:17
Again, wrong.
[QUOTE=qasdfdsaq;35263744]
ADSL ISPs can already provide me with 16-32mbps without FTTC, with FTTC that will be in the 30-60mbps range (actual RL speed, not headline marketed speed). Headline speeds are 24-48mbps on DSL and 40-80 on VDSL. On an interesting side note, the majority of "Up to 40mbps" FTTC (BT Infinity) lines sync at 39mbps, suggesting the technology should be able to deliver far closer to the headline speeds when given a better backbone network.

VM's connection when throttled range from 0.5mbs (minimum) up to a maximum of 7.5mbps.

And again, lets not forget download speed isn't the only indicator of a decent connection, VM's throttled upload speeds range from 64kbps (min) to 1.5mbps (max), ADSL gives me 1.5-3.0mbps, VDSL will do 8-16mbps shortly.


Complete and utter bull :) all variations of ADSl unless your using synchronised lines, max out at 24 Mb/s and 3mb/s upload is a figure you just pulled out of your behind.

also if you can achieve such speeds on just normal DSL why have you even ever bothered signing up to bt. :dozey:

denphone
26-06-2011, 10:23
It's not superior to anything if they disconnect you for using "too much"

And there are several metrics on which Sky are better than VM. Headline speed isn't everything.

---------- Post added at 05:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 ----------


Incorrect. Sky is already better in some ways, and VM are better in others. As FTTC LLU rolls out Sky is likely to become even better at the few things VM is good at.

---------- Post added at 05:05 ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 ----------


Up to 40 was the safe/conservative initial speed. Last I heard they're about to roll out up to 80mb.

---------- Post added at 05:08 ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 ----------


Currently VM have 50/1.5 in my area, and 50/5 by next March. BT will have 40/10 in my area by September, up to 6 months ahead of VM's 50/5. How's that "far ahead"? In fact, how's VM "ahead" or "superior" at all, in any way?

In fact, BT might even have 80/20 available here before VM gets 50/5 working, let alone 100/10. So quit talking out your behind.

---------- Post added at 05:10 ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 ----------


Again, download speed isn't everything. In terms of upload speed and ratio, Sky/O2/Be have been far better than VM for years, and VM still haven't finished catching up. Upload on their 50mb service remains inferior to O2's 20mb service in some areas and will continue to be inferior until spring next year.

---------- Post added at 05:12 ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 ----------


Wrong on both counts. BT Infinity is just about ready here, and VM don't even have an estimated date for 50/5 to become available yet, let alone 100. 300-400? Lol.

---------- Post added at 05:13 ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 ----------


Or, you're talking out your ass and VM's service is far from perfect.

---------- Post added at 05:19 ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 ----------


Again, wrong.

ADSL ISPs can already provide me with 16-32mbps without FTTC, with FTTC that will be in the 30-60mbps range (actual RL speed, not headline marketed speed). Headline speeds are 24-48mbps on DSL and 40-80 on VDSL. On an interesting side note, the majority of "Up to 40mbps" FTTC (BT Infinity) lines sync at 39mbps, suggesting the technology should be able to deliver far closer to the headline speeds when given a better backbone network.

VM's connection when throttled range from 0.5mbs (minimum) up to a maximum of 7.5mbps.

And again, lets not forget download speed isn't the only indicator of a decent connection, VM's throttled upload speeds range from 64kbps (min) to 1.5mbps (max), ADSL gives me 1.5-3.0mbps, VDSL will do 8-16mbps shortly.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 ----------


Finally, someone who has some sense.

---------- Post added at 05:20 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------


Wrong again. You != 99.9% of people.

---------- Post added at 05:23 ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 ----------


Indeed. While many people have speed problems, even if they don't there's plenty of other things that can go wrong on cable and don't on xDSL. Latency, jitter, and consistency are all things VM used to score pretty much worst in the UK on. I've not seen the latest report but I don't see it being much better, up to average perhaps.

---------- Post added at 05:25 ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 ----------


VM's AUP is undefined and can be anything they want. The STM threshold has nothing to do with the AUP. Whether you hit the STM threshold or not they can still disconnect you for over-use if they feel like it.

---------- Post added at 05:26 ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 ----------


Some people are able to cross the fence and make their own judgements.

---------- Post added at 05:28 ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 ----------


Mainly because most people don't care about how fast their internet is but rather only if it's working or not - which on xDSL can often be affected by factors outside the ISP's control. VM also use shielded cable, which helps.

---------- Post added at 05:41 ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 ----------




Now if you actually read the report, you'd see that two of what many consider are the best xDSL ISPs aren't included (O2/Be) nor are Orange, Kingston, Zen, etc. In fact, none of the top 10 rated (as listed by ISPReview) are included, and VM are only compared to 3 others.

Also, by "major survey" I think you mean "the first of what we intend to develop into a series of quarterly complaints publications. The initial data is relatively limited in scope and we propose to develop the approach over time." (Ofcom's own words)

You'll also find in the notes:

I.E. The data doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the broadband connection provided (there are other reports for that); more about the complaints handling process (aheheheheh!)

---------- Post added at 05:43 ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 ----------


Personal opinion. Lets see some actual facts shall we?


---------- Post added at 05:55 ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 ----------


When distance is long enough to cause a service degradation on cable, it's a fault, not a gradual (and normal) degradation as it does in DSL. So in other words, distance is not supposed to be a factor determining your speed on cable, either you get full speed or VM will not connect you at all. Anything in between is a fault and should not happen.

---------- Post added at 05:59 ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 ----------


Surprisingly, given Ofcom's data, other companies are actually worse at handling complaints than VM. I'd be curious to see how the Superhub affects numbers in the long run though - VM complaints more than doubled between last October and January, with a slight dip in February, but still remain double that seen in October.

---------- Post added at 06:02 ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 ----------


Again, seeing as VM are getting fewer complaints proportionally, they would seem to have better complaint resolution processes in place than Sky, even despite their offshore support. Something I find hard to believe, but hey, I talk facts not opinionated speculation.

---------- Post added at 06:04 ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 ----------


Evidence please.

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 ----------


LOL. All VM cable to an actual consumer's house is copper. Nobody has a direct connection the fibre optic network. He may not be connected to the fibre optic network but then neither are you, or anybody else. Try google HFC to figure out how cable works. In fact, do you even know what a fibre connector looks like? Take a gander at the back of your cable modem. There isn't one.

---------- Post added at 06:07 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------


Yup. Correct.

OK so enough of the subjective rambling. Lets take an objective look at some solid data to compare VM to Sky. Most of the following is based on information in Ofcom's March report, with a few snippets from other independant parties.

On 50mb cable, only 7% of customers get average speeds in the same interval as their top (peak) speed, whereas on 40mbit FTTC, 60% did. Lol. OK so that was very selective and not particularly useful. But more seriously, VM wins just about all categories of pure download speed measurements, except vs. FTTC where they only have one nationwide package that beats it. They've finally improved capacity issues and are no longer the worst for peak time speed loss. But funny enough, peak time congestion on Sky still remains lower than every single one of VM's packages

Now, lets talk download speeds. Over 70% of users are on either a 20/24mbps ADSL connection or a 10mbps VM cable connection. Around 95% of VM customers are on the 10mbps package (own calculations, based on OFCOM data). These packages are by far the most popular and also similar in both price and performance, so lets compare these. These are all "unlimited" packages, most of which are truly unlimited while VM's is not. 99% of all customers are on a 24mbps package or below; only around ~3% or less are on BT's 40mb, VM's 50mb, and VM's 20mb combined.

Comparing only unlimited packages, including phone line:
BT - £38 (39% more)
VM - £27.40 (from August)
Talktalk - £27.10 (1% less)
Be - £27.00 (2% less)
O2 - £20-£25.00 (9-17% less)
Sky - £21.25 (22% less)

These do not take into account contract length or any introductory offers. As seen, VM is the most expensive aside from BT. As they are unlimited packages, light users will pay even less on any provider other than VM, VM do not give you a choice in the matter. VM and Sky customers may pay less by taking a TV package. O2 customers get a £5 reduction if they have an O2 mobile.

Comparing speeds (Overall and peak time averages, then compared to VM at peak time):
BT - 8.7 - 8.5 (10% slower)
VM - 9.7 - 9.4
TT - 9.3 - 9.0 (4% slower)
Be/O2 - 11.6 - 11.0 (17% faster)
Sky - 8.8 - 8.7 (8% slower)

In addition, this data is based on light users only, and given that VM apply more speed controls and limits to their package than any of the other ISPs, heavy users will suffer more on VM than comparable DSL products. While paying more.

So, in comparing Sky to VM on these figures alone, the vast majority of people will get better value on Sky than VM (8% less speed on Sky while paying 22% less). Heavier users will benefit more. Alternatively, if available, switching to Be will get you a 17% higher speed while paying 2% less than on VM (and net you a better upload too), again truly unlimited and with no traffic shaping. Only 3% of people are on a tariff high enough that this is no longer the case. So in terms of download speed value, VM loses to everyone except BT and TalkTalk.

In other metrics, VM still have the worst speed loss going from multithreaded to singlethreaded tests, i.e. you are more likely to get closer to your full speed on xDSL when doing one thing at a time than on cable. VM still have the slowest upload speeds when looking at comparable packages, though this will change as the upload uplift progresses. Though even then, the main (10mbps) cable package will not beat the main (20-24mbps) DSL packages, only match them.

In terms of actual web page loading speed, VM's 10mb is slower than O2/Be, the same or slightly faster than BT/Sky, and much faster than Talktalk.

In terms of latency/ping, VM is worse than O2/Be and about the same as BT, and slightly beating Sky & Talktalk.

VM's packet loss is up to twenty times worse than Sky, while averaging ten times worse than BT and five times higher than Talktalk.

Upstream jitter on VM remains about 4x worse on average than all other providers, and 4-8x worse at peak time, while downstream jitter is about twice as bad on VM than everyone else (though remains fairly low).

VM's DNS servers are faster than all other major providers, though DNS lookups fail 2.5x more often at peak time on VM than BT or Talktalk.

So, in an overall comparison between the VM and Sky packages that the vast majority of people are on:

Speed - VM slightly faster, VM wins
Price - Sky considerably cheaper, Sky wins.
Peak time congestion - VM much worse, Sky wins.
Traffic shaping - VM much worse, Sky wins
STM/capping - Sky has none, Sky wins
FUP usage limits - Sky has none, Sky wins
Single-stream penalty - VM worse, Sky wins
Browsing speed - Same - draw
Ping - Sky slightly higher, VM wins
Jitter - VM much worse, Sky wins
Packet loss - VM much worse, Sky wins
DNS lookup - VM faster, but also fails more. Draw.

Sky 8 - VM 2.

The two factors VM win on would be beaten if compared to O2/Be, making it Be 10 - VM 0.

How you can say Sky is better at broadband then Virgin is utterly beyond me as on all these issues you are talking through Sky's rose tinted glasses and perhaps this will open your eyes as well as down the track Virgin will be even further ahead in broadband speeds.

http://www.newsonnews.net/cable/9356-virgin-media-s-100mb-broadband-now-available-in-over-four-million-uk-homes.html

Maggy
26-06-2011, 10:43
http://www.hyperoptic.com
http://www.gigaclear.com/

Here are two examples...

The main method is going to be Fibre all the way to the customer, but there is the possibility to deliver FTTCab also (there own or jumping on BTs network).

https://www.bethere.co.uk/
You also have the likes of Fujitsu looking at their own 'extensive' network.

It's going to be a broadband race and the consumer should be the winner.

Examples of independant 'content providers'..
http://www.velocity1.co.uk/residential

Interesting times ahead.

First of all in those first two sites there is no indication of which areas in the country are being served..it's very vague..selected areas in 2011.The Gigaclear site does say this.

Gigaclear will launch service in selected areas of the UK in 2011. If you think that Gigaclear is a service that your community is ready for now, then do get in touch with us.

Which indicates that this is not going to be available to anything more than communities that are prepared to pay for installation to their community.Could be an expensive undertaking for individuals..
Neither site is being upfront about costs either...
Laying cable is an expensive business and anyone joining the business now will be up against the fact that VM already have their system laid and running.Even VM are reluctant to expand unless the finances are right..

I suggest that the solutions being offered here are designed and aimed for the rural communities that are not being serviced by the present big boys.

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 10:58
How you can say Sky is better at broadband then Virgin is utterly beyond me as on all these issues you are talking through Sky's rose tinted glasses and perhaps this will open your eyes as well as down the track Virgin will be even further ahead in broadband speeds.

http://www.newsonnews.net/cable/9356-virgin-media-s-100mb-broadband-now-available-in-over-four-million-uk-homes.html

Den your getting hung up to much on speed , most people don't need anything like them speeds. In 2010 VM had only 16% taking 20mb or higher.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/28/virgin-media-beats-expectations-households

The simple fact is it really depends with ADSL on proximity to the exchange , my parents are VM BB subscribers as the best speed ADSL can offer them is around 1mb. Sky report they can offer me 8mb and for my Internet use that's more than enough , like I say I guess it's what you do on the Internet what will be the deciding factor in what tier or service you need.

denphone
26-06-2011, 11:06
Den your getting hung up to much on speed , most people don't need anything like them speeds. In 2010 VM had only 16% taking 20mb or higher.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/28/virgin-media-beats-expectations-households

The simple fact is it really depends with ADSL on proximity to the exchange , my parents are VM BB subscribers as the best speed ADSL can offer them is around 1mb. Sky report they can offer me 8mb and for my Internet use that's more than enough , like I say I guess it's what you do on the Internet what will be the deciding factor in what tier or service you need.

l am not getting hung up on speeds as every customer is different but l am just stating the fact that Virgins broadband is the best and far superior to Sky's broadband which is alright for some people but at the end of the day they will never get anywhere near Virgin's superior broadband network and that is a fact that no one can dispute.

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 11:12
l am not getting hung up on speeds as every customer is different but l am just stating the fact that Virgins broadband is the best and far superior to Sky's broadband which is alright for some people but at the end of the day they will never get anywhere near Virgin's superior broadband network and that is a fact that no one can dispute.

Other companies know they need to move on from ADSL after all there will always be those customers after top speed services thats why trials are ongoing

http://skyhispeedbb.com/pages/faqs/

http://www.talktalk-labs.com/trials/fibre-to-the-home-announcement/

Maggy
26-06-2011, 12:05
l am not getting hung up on speeds as every customer is different but l am just stating the fact that Virgins broadband is the best and far superior to Sky's broadband which is alright for some people but at the end of the day they will never get anywhere near Virgin's superior broadband network and that is a fact that no one can dispute.

They can and they will.

I think it is time to agree to disagree and give SMG his hijacked thread back..

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 12:37
They can and they will.

I think it is time to agree to disagree and give SMG his hijacked thread back..

Really Maggy J how do you believe they'll do it ? I believe there may well be a deal struck to use BTs FTTC but im no Internet expert.

denphone
26-06-2011, 12:39
Really Maggy J how do you believe they'll do it ? I believe there may well be a deal struck to use BTs FTTC but im no Internet expert.

It's nice to see Muppetman alway's defending Rupert.

SMG
26-06-2011, 12:50
Like I said earlier, the technology doesn't interest or impress me much, I just want a reasonable & reliable service at a reasonable cost. I cant comment much on Sky's broadband yet, it may turn out to be a big mistake swapping providers, but unless I try for myself, I`l never know.

I do know Virgin has not delivered, others say Sky are worse. I`m committed to experience the difference first hand & I just hope it works out OK. At least my bank balance will be happier.

Digital Fanatic
26-06-2011, 13:02
Like I said earlier, the technology doesn't interest or impress me much, I just want a reasonable & reliable service at a reasonable cost. I cant comment much on Sky's broadband yet, it may turn out to be a big mistake swapping providers, but unless I try for myself, I`l never know.

I do know Virgin has not delivered, others say Sky are worse. I`m committed to experience the difference first hand & I just hope it works out OK. At least my bank balance will be happier.

Good luck.. hope it works out for you. :)

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 13:03
Like I said earlier, the technology doesn't interest or impress me much, I just want a reasonable & reliable service at a reasonable cost. I cant comment much on Sky's broadband yet, it may turn out to be a big mistake swapping providers, but unless I try for myself, I`l never know.

I do know Virgin has not delivered, others say Sky are worse. I`m committed to experience the difference first hand & I just hope it works out OK. At least my bank balance will be happier.

I personally agree mate so long as the speed they can offer you will suffice for what you need it to do ,then you can only give it a try , I'm considering moving my phone and BB over when my 30mb BB contract expires as I've realised I just don't need 30mb speeds as I basically just browse , email and use bits of Internet video , sky are estimating 8mb for me so this should be ample for all those functions. I'm currently paying 18.50 for BB and 13.90 for phone with weekend calls so total is 32.40 with Sky I will pay 12.25 and get evening calls included as well as weekend and 7.50 for unlimited BB so total is 19.75 a whopping 12.65 saving and I already have Sky+HD with Sky World , Sky3D and ESPN.

nn012
26-06-2011, 13:08
I currently have VM XL BB 30mb and cable M phone , costing me 13.90 phone + 18.50 BB = 32.40 , I have been monitoring my Internet habits and basically browse the Internet , email and use bits of Internet video ( YT , Sky Player , Iplayer etc) if I switch to Sky BB and Sky Talk my bill is 12.25 phone and 7.50 BB = 19.75 saving me 12.65 a month. Sky have estimated my line capable of 8mb meaning all the tasks above should be ok with the added bonus of being able to use Anytime+.

I already have Sky World , ESPN and Sky3D and I must say the TV is far superior with Sky especially channel range, TIVO looks good however I'm not keen on the 3.00 a month charge.

And yet instead of watching these extensive range of extra channels you now have you seem to be spending more time here on the forums telling us how wonderful the world of Sky is :rolleyes:

Also, on Sky you're paying an extra £10.25 a month to receive the same channels, the £3 TiVo fee is peanuts in comparison and provides something useful. And finally, I've used Anytime+, I found the content range to be disappointing and the picture quality atrocious. There's also the siphoning off of the little bandwidth the majority of Sky BB users get in order to use it. The grass isn't always greener on the other side ;)

SMG
26-06-2011, 13:14
On a footnote to this, I didn't know the Sky box was connected to the router, as well as the phone line. I did ring Sky to ask if they had a router with 5 ports, not 4, (I use 3 PC`s around the house & a CCTV box), they said they didn't have anything to suit, so they are sending me a wireless attachment for the Sky box.

Apparently this connection is only needed for the interactive function. They also gave me a £50.00 credit for the inconvenience.:)

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 13:31
And yet instead of watching these extensive range of extra channels you now have you seem to be spending more time here on the forums telling us how wonderful the world of Sky is :rolleyes:

Also, on Sky you're paying an extra £10.25 a month to receive the same channels, the £3 TiVo fee is peanuts in comparison and provides something useful. And finally, I've used Anytime+, I found the content range to be disappointing and the picture quality atrocious. There's also the siphoning off of the little bandwidth the majority of Sky BB users get in order to use it. The grass isn't always greener on the other side ;)

Why the personal attack ?

It's ok for you to tell us how wonderful VM is but how dare anyone mention another company. Quote me and question me on anything , but let's not get into arguing after all it's only Internet and TV not a replacement heart.

nn012
26-06-2011, 13:45
Why the personal attack ?

It's ok for you to tell us how wonderful VM is but how dare anyone mention another company. Quote me and question me on anything , but let's not get into arguing after all it's only Internet and TV not a replacement heart.

Sorry it was nothing personal or an enticement for argument (hence the smiley), but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed your subtle Sky marketing over here ever since you got their services. With this being CableForum are you surprised to see posts praising VM? Also, if you check my other posts I'm not always praising VM, they have a lot of faults too but the difference is I try to be neutral, have no allegiance to a particular service provider and will post praise only where it's due. :-)

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 13:52
And yet instead of watching these extensive range of extra channels you now have you seem to be spending more time here on the forums telling us how wonderful the world of Sky is :rolleyes:

Also, on Sky you're paying an extra £10.25 a month to receive the same channels, the £3 TiVo fee is peanuts in comparison and provides something useful. And finally, I've used Anytime+, I found the content range to be disappointing and the picture quality atrocious. There's also the siphoning off of the little bandwidth the majority of Sky BB users get in order to use it. The grass isn't always greener on the other side ;)

Sorry it was nothing personal or an enticement for argument, but I'm sure I'm not the onl one to have noticed your subtle Sky marketing ever since you got their services. With this being CableForum are you surprised to see posts praising VM? Also, if you check my other posts I'm not always praising VM, they have a lot of faults too but the difference is I try to be neutral, have no allegiance to a particular service provider and will post praise only where it's due.

No probs mate , I still have VM BB and phone and the 30mb has been faultless my only reason for considering Sky BB is after a usage study we generally don't download to much so maybe Sky BB and phone would be better value , however I agree the grass isn't always greener. I'm sorry if you feel I'm marketing for Sky as I am not , otherwise Rupe would owe me some money :D As for allegiance neither do I , in the last four years I've had BT , Sky , VM and back to Sky I'm a right tart :D

Charliedontsurf
26-06-2011, 13:56
<snip>

Also, on Sky you're paying an extra £10.25 a month to receive the same channels, the £3 TiVo fee is peanuts in comparison and provides something useful. <snip>

If you're a VM customer with Tivo and Movies in HD then you're paying £10 a month anyhow. £3 for Tivo and £7 for premium HD.you also get less HD and are paying for the ability to press record. Sky dropped the sky+ fee for subscribers, now its time VM dropped the TIVO fee.

denphone
26-06-2011, 13:57
No probs mate , I still have VM BB and phone and the 30mb has been faultless my only reason for considering Sky BB is after a usage study we generally don't download to much so maybe Sky BB and phone would be better value , however I agree the grass isn't always greener. I'm sorry if you feel I'm marketing for Sky as I am not , otherwise Rupe would owe me some money :D As for allegiance neither do I , in the last four years I've had BT , Sky , VM and back to Sky I'm a right tart :D

Jam or the female variety.:D:D;):D:D

Mick Fisher
26-06-2011, 13:58
Or you could just call at 8 in the morning..and get a usually wide awake CS or Tech located in the UK..
And why should I have to jump through hoops in order to get a decently trained support agent who can speak English.

And what about the people who are on their way to work or at work, what should they do.

You can spin it any way you want Maggie but VM's support when you are unfortunate enough to get stuck with offshore is abysmally useless.

denphone
26-06-2011, 14:01
If you're a VM customer with Tivo and Movies in HD then you're paying £10 a month anyhow. £3 for Tivo and £7 for premium HD.

For less HD and the ability to press record. Sky drop the fee to sky+ for subscribers, now its time VM dropped the TIVO fee.

And why should they stop the fee it as you are getting a far superior box with far more depth to it then Sky's box and and with far more scope for the future in added functionality and other extra features.

nn012
26-06-2011, 14:05
If you're a VM customer with Tivo and Movies in HD then you're paying £10 a month anyhow. £3 for Tivo and £7 for premium HD.you also get less HD and are paying for the ability to press record. Sky dropped the sky+ fee for subscribers, now its time VM dropped the TIVO fee.

The £3 fee is for the rich metadata the TiVo provides, not for recording (hence the additional £5 on TiVo M+ and L). Nevertheless, I would love to see the £3 fee removed but doubt it will go anytime soon with the TiVo being marketed as a premium service. It will most likely happen when everyone has been migrated to TiVo. As for the £7 Sky HD fee, that's out of VM's hands and I'm sure their profit margins take a hit when they give this away free on VIP50 and VIP100.

Charliedontsurf
26-06-2011, 14:06
And why should they stop the fee it as you are getting a far superior box with far more depth to it then Sky's box and and with far more scope for the future in added functionality and other extra features.

When you're watching a movie on Sky movies HD with 5.1 sound on and a crystal clear picture do you care your box has Tivo?

Watching the F1 right now on BBC1-HD does it matter that my box doesnt have Tivo?

How many hours a week do you watch the EPG for? We all have super smart phones but if it doesnt make clear calls it goes back. Tivo has a picture quality issue and you're paying extra for an inferior picture.

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 14:07
The £3 fee is for the rich metadata the TiVo provides, not for recording (hence it being £8 on M+ and L). Nevertheless, I would love to see the £3 fee removed but doubt it will go anytime soon with the TiVo being marketed as a premium service. It will most likely happen when everyone has been migrated to TiVo. As for the £7 Sky HD fee, that's out of VM's hands and I'm sure their profit margins take a hit when they give this away free on VIP50 and VIP100.

Hopefully VM TV subscribers should benefit soon as Sky are supposed to be dropping the HD charge per box on Sky , so surely this should be the same with VM.

denphone
26-06-2011, 14:13
When you're watching a movie on Sky movies HD with 5.1 sound on and a crystal clear picture do you care your box has Tivo?

Watching the F1 right now on BBC1-HD does it matter that my box doesnt have Tivo?

How many hours a week do you watch the EPG for? We all have super smart phones but if it doesnt make clear calls it goes back. Tivo has a picture quality issue and you're paying extra for an inferior picture.

There is a slight picture problem with some customers at the moment but apart from that Tivo's box knocks spot's off Sky's increasingly outdated box.

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 14:13
When you're watching a movie on Sky movies HD with 5.1 sound on and a crystal clear picture do you care your box has Tivo?

Watching the F1 right now on BBC1-HD does it matter that my box doesnt have Tivo?

How many hours a week do you watch the EPG for? We all have super smart phones but if it doesnt make clear calls it goes back. Tivo has a picture quality issue and you're paying extra for an inferior picture.

I will say this about TIVO , once the niggles are sorted it has potential . I had an overall good experience using a friends , I'm not bothered about apps as I to have a TV what has all these but with TIVO it's wish lists and clever software where the potential lies.

markie1966
26-06-2011, 14:15
l am not getting hung up on speeds as every customer is different but l am just stating the fact that Virgins broadband is the best and far superior to Sky's broadband which is alright for some people but at the end of the day they will never get anywhere near Virgin's superior broadband network and that is a fact that no one can dispute.

superior network??? if it was a superb network no-one....and i mean NO-ONE...would have any faults or be on forums trying to find answers to problems
and its not just VM im targeting here...but all isp's
im guessing you only use the internet to browse and email...cos you obviously dont play games
if VM is sooooo superior then could you please explain my attached winmtr results to the game servers i play....go on i dare you to explain it
look in the % column....thats the % of packets lost on vm' superior network

Charliedontsurf
26-06-2011, 14:15
There is a slight picture problem with some customers at the moment but apart from that Tivo's box knocks spot's off Sky's increasingly outdated box.


Assuming my sky box is out dated, when I'm watching TV what am I missing out on? NOTHING.

I just want a reliable box with good picture and sound quality, thats what I get.

You on the other hand will be missing lots of HD channels and the ALL IMPORTANT sky sports red button.(I couldnt live without it)

muppetman11
26-06-2011, 14:20
Question for SMG

Was it congestion in your area what have been causing you slow speeds ? I must admit I've been lucky here my 30mb maxes out all times of day on speediest.net and it's never cut off but I understand where your coming from it's frustrating when you have frequent problems.

denphone
26-06-2011, 14:23
Assuming my sky box is out dated, when I'm watching TV what am I missing out on? NOTHING.

I just want a reliable box with good picture and sound quality, thats what I get.

You on the other hand will be missing lots of HD channels and the ALL IMPORTANT sky sports red button.(I couldnt live without it)

The Sky red button is coming soon and by the end of the year Virgin will have nearly as many HD channels as Sky and also remember Virgin customers have a far superior on demand service compared to Sky's poor on demand offering and then also have a superior broadband service and add Tivo to that and l know which one is the best provider.

richard1960
26-06-2011, 14:26
The Sky red button is coming soon and by the end of the year Virgin will have nearly as many HD channels as Sky and also remember Virgin customers have a far superior on demand service compared to Sky's poor on demand offering and then also have a superior broadband service and add Tivo to that and l know which one is the best provider.

If you look on the net denphone the red button content on sky sports is usually being streamed anyway, i found this out recently as sky did not provide Red Button even on non TiVo boxes for some cricket matches.:)

TJS
26-06-2011, 14:30
superior network??? if it was a superb network no-one....and i mean NO-ONE...would have any faults or be on forums trying to find answers to problems
and its not just VM im targeting here...but all isp's
im guessing you only use the internet to browse and email...cos you obviously dont play games
if VM is sooooo superior then could you please explain my attached winmtr results to the game servers i play....go on i dare you to explain it
look in the % column....thats the % of packets lost on vm' superior network

Thats issues with your local section of the network; the network as a whole is superior :) & I have no issues with games at all

markie1966
26-06-2011, 14:45
Thats issues with your local section of the network; the network as a whole is superior :) & I have no issues with games at all

its not local at all....its the whole "superior" network
any fool can look at that graph and tell its all thru VM's "superior" network cos every node up to the games servers is ON VM's network
and if you dont have issues then ur one of the lucky ones
just because u dont have issues and i do, does that mean i cant complain about it???
get real....its VM's problem and it needs to get fixed
all comes down to what a few of us have stated on here....its NOT about speed...its about RELIABILITY...its about good CUSTOMER SERVICES
i had better gaming on the old ntl 512 kb speed than what im getting now thru 30mb via the supercrud

TJS
26-06-2011, 14:48
its not local at all....its the whole "superior" network
any fool can look at that graph and tell its all thru VM's "superior" network cos every node up to the games servers is ON VM's network
and if you dont have issues then ur one of the lucky ones
just because u dont have issues and i do, does that mean i cant complain about it???
get real....its VM's problem and it needs to get fixed
all comes down to what a few of us have stated on here....its NOT about speed...its about RELIABILITY...its about good CUSTOMER SERVICES
i had better gaming on the old ntl 512 kb speed than what im getting now thru 30mb via the supercrud

No but if you remember back I showed you several graphs pinging the exact same location.

I got fine results because the local network that i connect to (Stoke-On-Trent) is working flawless as of now; the local network where you connect wherever that could be is most likely the cause of packet drops

markie1966
26-06-2011, 15:07
No but if you remember back I showed you several graphs pinging the exact same location.

I got fine results because the local network that i connect to (Stoke-On-Trent) is working flawless as of now; the local network where you connect wherever that could be is most likely the cause of packet drops

it starts at the 3rd node....which is VM's Leeds...therefore its not local as im in northern ireland

Charliedontsurf
26-06-2011, 15:15
The Sky red button is coming soon and by the end of the year Virgin will have nearly as many HD channels as Sky and also remember Virgin customers have a far superior on demand service compared to Sky's poor on demand offering and then also have a superior broadband service and add Tivo to that and l know which one is the best provider.

Did you watch the new show Mildred Pierce last night? Its gonna be good really looking forward to the rest of the series.

It seems were both happy with our current providers. An just like you say you will never have Sky I will never have VMTV. When I have the ViP50 package I found the ondemand to be a joke.

I've also seen you say you havent had sky in your home for a long time so your opinion of sky may be out dated. I had ViP50 from the end of 2010 through to Febuary 2011,...

denphone
26-06-2011, 15:16
Did you watch the new show Mildred Pierce last night? Its gonna be good really looking forward to the rest of the series.

Its not my type of show.;)

Charliedontsurf
26-06-2011, 15:25
Its not my type of show.;)

Thats a shame its really well written and is getting rave reviews everywhere, although its not some bigbang explosion tripe. Its more likely to be enjoyed by a more cultured viewer.

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 15:27
Complete and utter bull :) all variations of ADSl unless your using synchronised lines, max out at 24 Mb/s and 3mb/s upload is a figure you just pulled out of your behind.

also if you can achieve such speeds on just normal DSL why have you even ever bothered signing up to bt. :dozey:
https://www.bethere.co.uk/web/beportal/linebonding

---------- Post added at 14:27 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

l am not getting hung up on speeds as every customer is different but l am just stating the fact that Virgins broadband is the best and far superior to Sky's broadband which is alright for some people but at the end of the day they will never get anywhere near Virgin's superior broadband network and that is a fact that no one can dispute.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I've listed 8 objectively measured factors in which Sky wins over VM. You've come up with not a single hard fact, period.

TJS
26-06-2011, 15:28
Complete and utter bull :) all variations of ADSl [COLOR="Red"]unless your using synchronised lines, max out at 24 Mb/s and 3mb/s upload is a figure you just pulled out of your behind.

also if you can achieve such speeds on just normal DSL why have you even ever bothered signing up to bt. :dozey:

https://www.bethere.co.uk/web/beportal/linebonding

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 15:31
I do know Virgin has not delivered, others say Sky are worse. I`m committed to experience the difference first hand & I just hope it works out OK. At least my bank balance will be happier.
On a national level, Sky have slightly slower download speeds for most people and slightly higher pings. However their jitter and packet loss are an order of magnitude lower than on VM, as is their peak time congestion as I've already mentioned. Not everyone will get a better service but the odds are on your side.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

TJS,

So bonding means I'm pulling figures out my behind?

denphone
26-06-2011, 15:35
https://www.bethere.co.uk/web/beportal/linebonding

---------- Post added at 14:27 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------


Wrong, wrong and wrong. I've listed 8 objectively measured factors in which Sky wins over VM. You've come up with not a single hard fact, period.


No, no ,no l do not need to come out with 8 answers to your ridiculously un-objectively measured factors as not a single one of them stands up and thats a fact.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Thats a shame its really well written and is getting rave reviews everywhere, although its not some bigbang explosion tripe. Its more likely to be enjoyed by a more cultured viewer.

Yes l like a bit of culture myself.;):D

TJS
26-06-2011, 15:36
On a national level, Sky have slightly slower download speeds for most people and slightly higher pings. However their jitter and packet loss are an order of magnitude lower than on VM, as is their peak time congestion as I've already mentioned. Not everyone will get a better service but the odds are on your side.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

TJS,

So bonding means I'm pulling figures out my behind?

You never stated bonding in the post you just said that you can achieve those speeds. and why would you pay £66 plus 2 line rental costs just so you can maybe achieve up to 44 mb.

and if it works so well then why have you ever bothered with virgin?

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 15:40
No, no ,no l do not need to come out with 8 answers to your ridiculously un-objectively measured factors as not a single one of them stands up and thats a fact.


They're all from Ofcom's national monitoring report, which you so happily quote on VM's behalf earlier. If you're too lazy to even actually state a single reason you think VM's better, you're clearly just a lame ass troll.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

You never stated bonding in the post you just said that you can achieve those speeds. and why would you pay £66 plus 2 line rental costs just so you can maybe achieve up to 44 mb.

and if it works so well then why have you ever bothered with virgin?
Do I have to state every single minute technical detail of each tariff option available? Because if so, I didn't state it ADSL2+ or ITU G.992.5 Annex M either, because none of them were relevant to the point. I said it's available. It's available. Period.

Why would you pay £66? Because for some people service quality is more important than headline speeds, I've said this about five times now but you still can't seem to get it into your head.

Why did I bother with Virgin? Because I got a huge discount plus the promise of 5mbps upload speeds, which so far they've failed to deliver (and they probably won't deliver until my contract's up). Not that I care, because I have four different internet connections here, including the VM one.

TJS
26-06-2011, 15:43
They're all from Ofcom's national monitoring report, which you so happily quote on VM's behalf earlier. If you're too lazy to even actually state a single reason you think VM's better, you're clearly just a lame ass troll.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------


Do I have to state every single minute technical detail of each tariff option available? Because if so, I didn't state it ADSL2+ or ITU G.992.5 Annex M either, because none of them were relevant to the point. I said it's available. It's available. Period.

Why would you pay £66? Because for some people service quality is more important than headline speeds, I've said this about five times now but you still can't seem to get it into your head.

Why did I bother with Virgin? Because I got a huge discount plus the promise of 5mbps upload speeds, which so far they've failed to deliver (and they probably won't deliver until my contract's up). Not that I care, because I have four different internet connections here, including the VM one.

The fact its over 2 lines is quite a major detail. also what need do you have for 4 connections and how many lines have you got to your house if thats the case

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 15:51
Well, no, it's not a major detail. You pay for a service, you get that service. It makes no difference to the end consumer what that service is provided over (unless of course the bonding device at the end is unchangeable and broken - i.e. the Superhub). You could argue VM's higher services are provided over 2 lines and 4 channels, is that a big deal? Would anyone even care? No. You click "Buy", engineer turns up and installs what you asked for. You get internet. What's on the other end of the CPE isn't your property or your concern.

As for me, I've got 2 lines going into the house (1 cable, one DSL) and 2 wireless connections.

markie1966
26-06-2011, 15:55
No, no ,no l do not need to come out with 8 answers to your ridiculously un-objectively measured factors as not a single one of them stands up and thats a fact.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------



Yes l like a bit of culture myself.;):D

the OFCOM figures ARE facts....you know FACTS- something that you have yet to produce...every post u put up HASNT one fact in it... if you had any facts otherwise u would argue your case instead of "VM is superior"...is that all you can come up with??
and im still waiting on you to explain my packetloss on the so called "superior network"

alwaysabear
26-06-2011, 16:00
The Sky red button is coming soon and by the end of the year Virgin will have nearly as many HD channels as Sky and also remember Virgin customers have a far superior on demand service compared to Sky's poor on demand offering and then also have a superior broadband service and add Tivo to that and l know which one is the best provider.

Den is this really you:confused: Do you really believe we will have lots of new HD channels by the end of the year, I would love it to be true, but because of the delays on content this year I cannot see it happening.:(

denphone
26-06-2011, 16:01
the OFCOM figures ARE facts....you know FACTS- something that you have yet to produce...every post u put up HASNT one fact in it... if you had any facts otherwise u would argue your case instead of "VM is superior"...is that all you can come up with??
and im still waiting on you to explain my packetloss on the so called "superior network"

Theres nothing to explain to the anti Virgin brigade and thats a fact.

TJS
26-06-2011, 16:01
Well, no, it's not a major detail. You pay for a service, you get that service. It makes no difference to the end consumer what that service is provided over (unless of course the bonding device at the end is unchangeable and broken - i.e. the Superhub). You could argue VM's higher services are provided over 2 lines and 4 channels, is that a big deal? Would anyone even care? No. You click "Buy", engineer turns up and installs what you asked for. You get internet. What's on the other end of the CPE isn't your property or your concern.

As for me, I've got 2 lines going into the house (1 cable, one DSL) and 2 wireless connections.

How have you got 4 internet connections over 1 dsl line then

denphone
26-06-2011, 16:06
Den is this really you:confused: Do you really believe we will have lots of new HD channels by the end of the year, I would love it to be true, but because of the delays on content this year I cannot see it happening.:(

l think Virgin were wanting to roll out the Tivo fully first and then in the next 6 months add quite a few more HD channels as their aim is up to 80 in the next couple of years l think.

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 16:07
How have you got 4 internet connections over 1 dsl line then

Like I said, one cable, one dsl, two wireless. 1 + 1 + 2 = 4.

markie1966
26-06-2011, 16:08
Theres nothing to explain to the anti Virgin brigade and thats a fact.

im NOT anti virgin....if i was anti virgin i wouldnt have been with a customer since the 512kb days
i just want VM to fix the damn network so it works properly for everyone....surfers and gamers alike
and im STILL waiting on you to explain why theres packetloss on the "superior" network....if your not going to answer it would explain that you know nothing about "facts"

TJS
26-06-2011, 16:08
Like I said, one cable, one dsl, two wireless. 1 + 1 + 2 = 4.

But you should'nt be able to run more then 1 isp at a time over a phoneline? :S

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 16:14
Four connections. Four lines. Four ISPs. One ISP per line.

Which part do you not understand?

TJS
26-06-2011, 16:18
Well, no, it's not a major detail. You pay for a service, you get that service. It makes no difference to the end consumer what that service is provided over (unless of course the bonding device at the end is unchangeable and broken - i.e. the Superhub). You could argue VM's higher services are provided over 2 lines and 4 channels, is that a big deal? Would anyone even care? No. You click "Buy", engineer turns up and installs what you asked for. You get internet. What's on the other end of the CPE isn't your property or your concern.

As for me, I've got 2 lines going into the house (1 cable, one DSL) and 2 wireless connections.

SMG
26-06-2011, 16:22
Question for SMG

Was it congestion in your area what have been causing you slow speeds ? I must admit I've been lucky here my 30mb maxes out all times of day on speediest.net and it's never cut off but I understand where your coming from it's frustrating when you have frequent problems.

I have no idea. Each time VM check my line they say my line is fine & quote a speed. The engineers who have called both say the speed is terrible, & report back to VM. Then I get a call saying my modem will be changed, (For the 3rd time) & my box will be changed (Again for the 3rd time). I`m spending my life on the phone or waiting for engineers who obviously cant improve matters. I`ve just had enough.

My cable has been in use since it was installed many years ago, my Internet & box were fine, then I had the new V+ HD box fitted, & since then things have gone downhill.

qasdfdsaq
26-06-2011, 16:32
TJS, thanks for making your posts unquotable so it's exceptionally hard to reply.

Since you don't seem to understand:

As for me, I've got 2 lines going into the house (1 cable, one DSL) and 2 wireless connections." (emphasis yours).

Two wired connections. And two wireless connections. 2 + 2 = 4. (emphasis mine)

I don't need to have more than 1 ISP down the phone line, I have 3 other connections.

1 cable line. One internet connection (1)
1 phone line. Add another one internet connection. (1) + (1)
2 wireless connections. Add another two internet connections. (1) + (1) + (2)

(1) + (1) + (2) = 4

Is it the math or the words you don't understand? Shall I draw you a picture?

Maggy
26-06-2011, 16:36
OK time to get back on topic everyone and cease the pointless bickering.

As I see it SMG says he's leaving to try Sky.He promises to tell us how it goes.I think the next entry should be about how he got on with the install not this endless spat about Sky versus Virgin Media.

SMG
29-06-2011, 18:42
My sky TV & broadband is now up & running, it was very easy to setup.

The TV menu is obviously different, in some ways better, in others not as good as V+. I certainly get a lot more of the channels I want to watch. I must be perfectly honest, although I have the HD channels, I cannot see the difference, I musn`t have "HD" eyes.

Broadband. My speed is 4095meg, measured by the router itself, its only half the "expected" speed of 8meg, but is adequate for my needs. Its stable, with no traffic management, & the readings have remained constant over the last 24 hours.

I have my upstairs PC still on Virgin, my Lounge PC on Sky.

At 5.25pm, my (10meg) Virgin broadband speed is 1.7meg, obviously due to the management. In fact, my Sky BB is 4.095meg. I still get "Timed out" on Virgin, but Sky.....the websites pop up immediatly.

At the moment there is no comparison on value, Sky wins hands down, but I will be monitoring my speeds from now on. Sky did phone me at 4pm today, to ask if I was satisfied with the install, I told them I was dissapointed with the speed, so they are attempting to increase it & will call me back later on.

TJS
29-06-2011, 19:06
My sky TV & broadband is now up & running, it was very easy to setup.

The TV menu is obviously different, in some ways better, in others not as good as V+. I certainly get a lot more of the channels I want to watch. I must be perfectly honest, although I have the HD channels, I cannot see the difference, I musn`t have "HD" eyes.

Broadband. My speed is 4095meg, measured by the router itself, its only half the "expected" speed of 8meg, but is adequate for my needs. Its stable, with no traffic management, & the readings have remained constant over the last 24 hours.

I have my upstairs PC still on Virgin, my Lounge PC on Sky.

At 5.25pm, my (10meg) Virgin broadband speed is 1.7meg, obviously due to the management. In fact, my Sky BB is 4.095meg. I still get "Timed out" on Virgin, but Sky.....the websites pop up immediatly.

At the moment there is no comparison on value, Sky wins hands down, but I will be monitoring my speeds from now on. Sky did phone me at 4pm today, to ask if I was satisfied with the install, I told them I was dissapointed with the speed, so they are attempting to increase it & will call me back later on.

Care to show a few speedtest/pingtest results and set up a think-broadband monitor for comparison? :)

Mick Fisher
29-06-2011, 19:24
Nice to hear you are pleased with your new services. :)

AndyCalling
29-06-2011, 19:38
My boss has just installed Sky internet so I've read a bit about it and it turns out you get set to sync at 4meg initially whilst they assess your line. In about 10 days they should start to adjust it and hopefully you'll go up.

SMG
29-06-2011, 20:26
OH MY GOD, sky have just phoned back, they asked me to check my speed...............16meg!!!! Web pages are poppin up before I finish clicking the mouse!!

I was gobsmacked, I asked "How the ", he said they can tinker with the speed at their end & that my cable will take a 16 meg connection. He said It may fluctuate a bit but stabilise at 16 meg.

AND, he gave me a further £40 credit!

Maggy
29-06-2011, 20:34
Glad you are pleased.:)

muppetman11
29-06-2011, 20:40
My boss has just installed Sky internet so I've read a bit about it and it turns out you get set to sync at 4meg initially whilst they assess your line. In about 10 days they should start to adjust it and hopefully you'll go up.

Yeah I agree with that , I've also read the same and a friend has Sky BB and his connection did the same.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

OH MY GOD, sky have just phoned back, they asked me to check my speed...............16meg!!!! Web pages are poppin up before I finish clicking the mouse!!

I was gobsmacked, I asked "How the ", he said they can tinker with the speed at their end & that my cable will take a 16 meg connection. He said It may fluctuate a bit but stabilise at 16 meg.

AND, he gave me a further £40 credit!

You must have a decent line , my speed estimate from Sky is 8-10mb , when I had BT on ADSL+ it was always around 6-7mb , my attenuation was 39.

SMG
29-06-2011, 20:41
Thanks Mick, Maggy, I will keep monitoring my broadband & TV service & keep the thread up to date.


Muppetman, My line was installed quite a few years ago, but the pole & green box are opposite my house, about 50 yards away. I fitted the Modem / Router in my leccy cupboard alongside the meter & BT master socket. My network cables run from there all round the house. My wireless connection is very weak, but I dont use wireless, so Im not realy bothered.

muppetman11
29-06-2011, 21:08
Thanks Mick, Maggy, I will keep monitoring my broadband & TV service & keep the thread up to date.


Muppetman, My line was installed quite a few years ago, but the pole & green box are opposite my house, about 50 yards away. I fitted the Modem / Router in my leccy cupboard alongside the meter & BT master socket. My network cables run from there all round the house. My wireless connection is very weak, but I dont use wireless, so Im not realy bothered.

Glad your enjoying it , I may give it a go as 8-10mb is ample for me.

SMG
29-06-2011, 21:14
Thanks Muppetman, As I said in earlier posts, I was satisfied with 4 meg, as long as I can surf, & download bits at a reasonable pace, I`m happy, I want a steady broadband servive & value for money, thats all.

Mick Fisher
29-06-2011, 21:27
OH MY GOD, sky have just phoned back, they asked me to check my speed...............16meg!!!! Web pages are poppin up before I finish clicking the mouse!!

I was gobsmacked, I asked "How the ", he said they can tinker with the speed at their end & that my cable will take a 16 meg connection. He said It may fluctuate a bit but stabilise at 16 meg.

AND, he gave me a further £40 credit!
:woot:

qasdfdsaq
30-06-2011, 04:37
I do tend to find BT's speed estimates to be off by a factor of two (i.e. if it says to expect 8mb you get about 14-16). Not sure about Sky's but by the looks of this it's a similar ballpark.

Glad to see you're getting a decent speed. There's only a few things they can tinker with to improve your speed remotely, namely SNRM and interleaving, though turning off the initial "settling down" speed cap obviously helps too :P

Aside from during the initial speed ranging, DSL can adapt to fluctuating noise and line quality by re-synching at different speeds, so it might drop to a lower, more stable speed if neccessary, but it usually won't drop by more than ~20% off your top speed.

SMG
23-07-2011, 18:10
Just to update this thread, my broadband is great, every day, its rock solid at 13.1 meg. No problems at all. My sky tv is excellent, & I could not be more pleased.

One thing I originally failed to mention, is VOIP. I use the internet for my home phone system, with Virgin, it was virtually unuseable, now, its as clear as any landline.

muppetman11
23-07-2011, 18:20
Just to update this thread, my broadband is great, every day, its rock solid at 13.1 meg. No problems at all. My sky tv is excellent, & I could not be more pleased.

One thing I originally failed to mention, is VOIP. I use the internet for my home phone system, with Virgin, it was virtually unuseable, now, its as clear as any landline.

Glad your enjoying it mate , I'm liking my Sky+HD service and may consider there BB , only problem is my estimated speed is 8-10mb.

SMG
23-07-2011, 18:35
Glad your enjoying it mate , I'm liking my Sky+HD service and may consider there BB , only problem is my estimated speed is 8-10mb.

One operator told me the same, 8 - 10 meg. Sky do say if you dont get the expected speed you can cancell the contract. 13 meg is fast enough fo me.

Hugh
23-07-2011, 18:40
Pleased for you - well done.

Never say never
23-07-2011, 18:50
Glad your enjoying it mate , I'm liking my Sky+HD service and may consider there BB , only problem is my estimated speed is 8-10mb.

If sky are estimating 8-10 I bet you will actually sync at 15Mb and get 13-14Mb. The reason I say this is because if the say a possible 8-10 then you must be on there LLU. An that nearly always offer a fair bit more then they say.

Mick Fisher
23-07-2011, 19:23
Just to update this thread, my broadband is great, every day, its rock solid at 13.1 meg. No problems at all. My sky tv is excellent, & I could not be more pleased.

One thing I originally failed to mention, is VOIP. I use the internet for my home phone system, with Virgin, it was virtually unuseable, now, its as clear as any landline.
Nice to hear. :)

I too am more than pleased with my sky tv. :)
Perfectly happy with my BT landline. :)
But less than happy with my remaining 30meg VM BB service that spontaneously reboots itself many times each day. :(

Never say never
23-07-2011, 19:28
Nice to hear. :)

I too am more than pleased with my sky tv. :)
Perfectly happy with my BT landline. :)
But less than happy with my remaining 30meg VM BB service that spontaneously reboots itself many times each day. :(

I fear you're in the same boat as me. We have a VM connection, they wont let us leave...Just sit tight and be strong lol, your VM contract will end one daylol.

New to cable
23-07-2011, 20:43
Just to update this thread, my broadband is great, every day, its rock solid at 13.1 meg. No problems at all. My sky tv is excellent, & I could not be more pleased.

One thing I originally failed to mention, is VOIP. I use the internet for my home phone system, with Virgin, it was virtually unuseable, now, its as clear as any landline.

Ohhh god how I miss sky. I had Sky broadband at 18Mb an it ran flawlessly for all applications. Sky told me to expect 13-15Mb but I got 18Mb.

TJS
23-07-2011, 20:51
Ohhh god how I miss sky. I had Sky broadband at 18Mb an it ran flawlessly for all applications. Sky told me to expect 13-15Mb but I got 18Mb.

Why did you leave then. :dozey:

Nopanic
24-07-2011, 10:36
Ohhh god how I miss sky. I had Sky broadband at 18Mb an it ran flawlessly for all applications. Sky told me to expect 13-15Mb but I got 18Mb.

Why did you leave then. :dozey:

good question ...

Maggy
24-07-2011, 10:43
Happy for everybody here with their Sky.:)

colin25
24-07-2011, 11:12
I am happy too :D

They said 8-10, I get about 12.

i have (but soon not) 50mb from virgin, but as i got it for gaming, and it wasn't doing it for me, switched to sky. Surfing and chatting doesn't need 50mb

SMG
11-09-2011, 00:01
Just another update on this thread. I`m still getting 13.1 Meg & my downloads are excellent. Still a happy bunny. VM keep sending me info & asking me to return. No thanks.:td:

TJS
11-09-2011, 09:57
Just another update on this thread. I`m still getting 13.1 Meg & my downloads are excellent. Still a happy bunny. VM keep sending me info & asking me to return. No thanks.:td:

Great. and may I ask what the point of this post is. also it'd of been t least slightly more useful if you'd included speedtest results. but that's besides the point.

I'm getting 49 - 50 mb/s and have been consistently for the last 6 months. 13 mb/s is somewhat less than impressive.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/09/31.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/09/32.png

Hugh
11-09-2011, 10:14
I think that the point of the post was to update pople with progress, or issues if any.

SMG didn't get the service he wanted from VM, moved provider, and told us he would provide updates - which he has done; he was getting 400k on his 10Mb line, which is why he moved - 13mb is an improvement on that.....

I am pleased that he is happy with his services, whoever the provider is.

Sirius
11-09-2011, 10:27
I am pleased that he is happy with his services, whoever the provider is.

Agreed.

When someone moves because they think its greener on the other side its always nice to find it was for them :)

I am still waiting for a local provider being able to beat what i get from my present provider.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/09/33.png

colin25
11-09-2011, 10:50
Ditto on me and moving.

I only play Black ops, and the 50mb from virgin wasn't worth the money. It wasn't helping lag (in fact worse than current). My sky is circa 12mb, upload about 0.88 and game play is as good (if not better).

I don't need speed apart from online gaming...so switched.

But i know others are power users, or just like to have the fastest. Not wrong, just your choice.

Ignitionnet
11-09-2011, 12:22
Great. and may I ask what the point of this post is. also it'd of been t least slightly more useful if you'd included speedtest results. but that's besides the point.

I'm getting 49 - 50 mb/s and have been consistently for the last 6 months. 13 mb/s is somewhat less than impressive.

Pointing out the obvious there are other metrics than raw download speed to consider within a connection. Gamers care about jitter which is something VM figures poorly in on the statistics, some people who want higher upload speeds and don't have them available from VM find solace in BT Infinity's 40Mb/10Mb deal along with its superior jitter.

It could be asked what the point of your post is, other than to pop up and say 'VM are great and I'm happy, ner-ner.'

Horses for courses, one size doesn't fit all, etc. I have dumped VM's 50Mb in the past for a lower jitter, more reliable but 1/3rd the download speed service and would have done so again if it weren't for there being no option of a satellite dish due to poor reliability, dubious upload speeds and poor jitter.

EDIT: I suspect his 13Mb Sky service is rather better performing than my 50Mb service pinging a device that is less than 20 miles away.

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.244.66] with 32 bytes of data:
Ping statistics for 212.58.244.66:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 15ms, Maximum = 55ms, Average = 30ms

Firmsky
11-09-2011, 14:15
Ive been with Virgin for Bb for quite some time now and just checked Sky for a like for like basis and it would come to around £95 for the same package, more HD channels but less tuners and slower BB speed. It would also cost £149 for a 1Tb box plus £199 for a recording box as my extra box plus £10 initial set up for my telephone line, quite a bit of money for a new customer to stump up.

Doesn't really make me want to switch tbh! I pay £101 for the VIP 50 pack.

Out of interest the Sky website gave an indictation my access line would support 7-14.3Mbps? Bit of a large margin? What would this mean in reality?

colin25
11-09-2011, 14:18
Ive been with Virgin for Bb for quite some time now and just checked Sky for a like for like basis and it would come to around £95 for the same package, more HD channels but less tuners and slower BB speed. It would also cost £149 for a 1Tb box plus £199 for a recording box as my extra box plus £10 initial set up for my telephone line, quite a bit of money for a new customer to stump up.

Doesn't really make me want to switch tbh! I pay £101 for the VIP 50 pack.

Out of interest the Sky website gave an indictation my access line would support 7-14.3Mbps? Bit of a large margin? What would this mean in reality?

Distance from exchange mostly...the little elves that carry the broadband like to suck some of the energy..so farther away from the exchange, the more they suck :D

Firmsky
11-09-2011, 14:35
Distance from exchange mostly...the little elves that carry the broadband like to suck some of the energy..so farther away from the exchange, the more they suck :D

So is 7 the minimum I'd be looking at?

colin25
11-09-2011, 15:08
So is 7 the minimum I'd be looking at?

If it were only that simple.

I'm just under 2km from exchange, and I get about 12mb,...but it is not about straightline..it is the distance of the line..and that can be a bit longer.

http://www.dslzoneuk.net/distance.php

the above links tells you straighline distance

But speed also depends on condition of your line.

Firmsky
11-09-2011, 15:36
If it were only that simple.

I'm just under 2km from exchange, and I get about 12mb,...but it is not about straightline..it is the distance of the line..and that can be a bit longer.

http://www.dslzoneuk.net/distance.php

the above links tells you straighline distance

But speed also depends on condition of your line.

Thanks for confirming that Colin, I would like a better jitter for gaming but also need the fast download speeds only Virgin can offer.

Until BT roll out fibre 7meg is not fast enough.

Many thanks for your reply and I'm glad your enjoying your services provided by Sky.

qasdfdsaq
11-09-2011, 17:38
So is 7 the minimum I'd be looking at?
Yeah, though you'll more likely get between 12 and 16. Most of those things underestimate to avoid disappointment (and cover their asses)

Blairhoyle
11-09-2011, 20:01
Great. and may I ask what the point of this post is. also it'd of been t least slightly more useful if you'd included speedtest results. but that's besides the point.

I'm getting 49 - 50 mb/s and have been consistently for the last 6 months. 13 mb/s is somewhat less than impressive.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/09/31.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/09/32.png

btw I have a 50 meg package and whenever I download big files the highest I get is 1.7mb/sec :confused:

TJS
11-09-2011, 20:19
btw I have a 50 meg package and whenever I download big files the highest I get is 1.7mb/sec :confused:

Strange, I almost always get flat out; what os are you using?

Blairhoyle
11-09-2011, 20:52
Strange, I almost always get flat out; what os are you using?

os?

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Windows XP

TJS
11-09-2011, 21:16
os?

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Windows XP

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/50mbsupport/optimisation.php

Might be some use to you.

muppetman11
11-09-2011, 21:21
Just another update on this thread. I`m still getting 13.1 Meg & my downloads are excellent. Still a happy bunny. VM keep sending me info & asking me to return. No thanks.:td:

I'm on day 3 of line training and my router sync has just upped to 9160 my attenuation is 39db and my SNR is currently 10.5db so I'm not sure what speed it will settle at.

Blairhoyle
12-09-2011, 20:21
http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/50mbsupport/optimisation.php

Might be some use to you.

thanks

kwikbreaks
13-09-2011, 10:49
I'm on day 3 of line training and my router sync has just upped to 9160 my attenuation is 39db and my SNR is currently 10.5db so I'm not sure what speed it will settle at.What happens when you reboot it? Default noise margin on most ADSL setups is 6dB. If it resynced at 6dB I would expect to see you with 12Mbps at least.

The real question is why is it sitting at 10.5dB? That suggests you maybe have a considerable variation in noise level (a big decrease in noise level since it was last synced or DLM has imposed a high target because of past instability) It suggests to me that you've done nothing about ring wire removal which is pretty much essential to get the best from ADSL.

=== update ===
If that is with Sky you maybe have little to worry about as I think they go for active DLM and start you off at an artificially low speed.

I had a line close to 39dB and got ~ 12Mbps on it.