Are Sky false advertising if claim 8meg but cap at 6meg?

Soldato
Joined
18 Apr 2003
Posts
2,684
Location
England
For years I got 5000kbps down 1200up, then Sky took over BE & got 4000 down 1100 up.
I tell them I can get 5000 down, so they un-cap it & now get 4800 down but upload is now capped at 800.
I ask them why upload is now capped & they say because I'm getting more download now & am only allowed a certain amount :eek:
Hmm, so I'm only allowed 5800kbps maximum? Or around 5mbits up/down.

I thought 8mbits is what you pay for with pretty much any unlimited broadband? Is this false advertising or are they just ripping people off by cramming more into the DIP ratio?
Do Sky advertise 8mbits?

Oh, the ping with BE was an amazing 17 but now its capped at 40.

Guess its time to go fibre (not with Sky).
 
It's probably just ADSL profiling issues that are causing your download and upload sync differences.

They advertise "up to" speeds. No company advertises a definite "you will get this speed".
 
Up to speeds or average, I thought that was the case.

What shocked me was I'm only allowed a certain amount of bandwidth with Sky even though the phone line can provide more speed.
 
Up to speeds or average, I thought that was the case.

What shocked me was I'm only allowed a certain amount of bandwidth with Sky even though the phone line can provide more speed.

This usually happens when you're on the wrong IP Profile. However, it could be because of stability reasons. The line could support a higher speed, but the stability may be reduced when running at it.
 
I'm a firm believer that the internet should be charged fairly and treated like any utility ie gas water etc, if you can only get 1meg in your area then you should be charged accordingly, if there are other means of faster broadband ie satellite or 4g via a router then government funding should help community's in these areas instead of rolling out super fast broadband in areas where there's already affordable virgin and screwing over others thanks to the monopoly that is Bt.
 
i doubt they are "capping" you. the speed is dependent on what your router will sync at, at the target snr. maybe you were on a snr9 profile and they moved you to the 6 profile manually and you may have been on a snr3 profile with Be. sky use interleaving so that will increase ping times and lose abit of speed.
really though why dont you post your line stats before accusing them of capping you at a lower speed.
 
Yes, probably is the profile they're using not providing the speed the line can give.
It normally connects at snr 6db at 4500 down, then I telnet the snr to 3db & get 4850 down.
I know the line can manage 5000/1200 stable as it has for years before Sky, just annoying a Sky tech bod saying on the phone I'm only allowed a certain amount of bandwidth, so I could have 4094/1150 if I wanted I suppose.

Looking for a more professional ISP now there is fibre in the street.
 
I'm a firm believer that the internet should be charged fairly and treated like any utility ie gas water etc, if you can only get 1meg in your area then you should be charged accordingly, if there are other means of faster broadband ie satellite or 4g via a router then government funding should help community's in these areas instead of rolling out super fast broadband in areas where there's already affordable virgin and screwing over others thanks to the monopoly that is Bt.

You're assuming it costs less to deliver an ADSL service that syncs at 6Mb than one that syncs at 18Mb.

It also sounds like you want broadband charging to consist of a standing charge and then a charge per 'unit' of usage. No thanks.
 
I'm a firm believer that the internet should be charged fairly and treated like any utility ie gas water etc, if you can only get 1meg in your area then you should be charged accordingly, if there are other means of faster broadband ie satellite or 4g via a router then government funding should help community's in these areas instead of rolling out super fast broadband in areas where there's already affordable virgin and screwing over others thanks to the monopoly that is Bt.

That's an badly thought out idea. I can only infer that you are suggesting it as you would personally save some money. Either that or you work for the FCC and like the bribes you are getting from Verizon etc.

The utility analogy doesn't stack up. The equivalent of charging by available bandwidth would be charging for water and gas based on the available pressure. Shoveling/Routing bits down some cable can't be compared to physical delivery of an item like water or gas.

As for pricing per unit, that's just crackers. Not even the Mobile companies can justify that any more.
 
Yes, probably is the profile they're using not providing the speed the line can give.
It normally connects at snr 6db at 4500 down, then I telnet the snr to 3db & get 4850 down.
I know the line can manage 5000/1200 stable as it has for years before Sky, just annoying a Sky tech bod saying on the phone I'm only allowed a certain amount of bandwidth, so I could have 4094/1150 if I wanted I suppose.

Looking for a more professional ISP now there is fibre in the street.

sky wont lower your upload speed so when its added to your download speed it equals 6000 and let you vary it like 5500down 500up 4800down 1200up. if that is what they said, they were talking rubbish. we all know what isp's technical support is like.. they dont really know much about it other than tell you to restart your modem :D:D also remember interleaving will give a lower sync speed.
have you tried to re-sync your modem at 4-5am as just before to just after sunrise is the best time to get the most speed.

yes get fibre if you can! everything downloads soooooooooooooooo fast :D
 
Yeah the tech support did sound a bit err not adequate.

Oh yes with fibre I may get Netflix at 1080p, ooh better than paying much more to watch 22% adverts at 1080i.
 
Back
Top Bottom