BT v Virgin
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
In a thread in Sky's own forum a good while back.
I had a 40/10 on FTTC connection for nearly 2yrs then dropped to 35/7 due to cabinet being maxed out for FTTC.
Sky FTTP York for one just google sky fttp.
That's not a congested network, that's crosstalk that is an issue on all FTTC providers and will be addressed by vectoring. The impact is also massively different - it's a slight reduction in sync, not loads of packet loss and high latency that makes using your connection a challenge.
The York fibre deployment was a trial and Sky haven't announced any plans to expand their FTTP deployment any further.
The York fibre deployment was a trial and Sky haven't announced any plans to expand their FTTP deployment any further.
Sky not announcing anything about future FTTP deployment at this moment as they looking into FTTH as well, Sky won't improve FTTC speeds as FTTP or FTTH is the way forward.
Ah vectoring this was talked about a couple of years ago by sky and its no where in sight, if it is it has not helped me.
I would be vey surprised if Sky spent any more money improving sky fibre FTTC its out dated it was just a cheap version of FTTP a quick solution to improve broadband speeds.
Outside of York, Sky currently only offer whatever Openreach can sell them (except where they could choose to take FTTP but don't). They have no ability to invest in FTTC because it's not their equipment in the first place. The York FTTP trials didn't pass the economics test - Sky are a mass-market retail player and broadband is a price-sensitive product, they need to offer something good enough that doesn't give customers a reason to look elsewhere, and currently FTTC ticks that box.
I agree that FTTP is (ultimately) the future, but Sky are not currently "going over to it" any more than the entire market is going to shift in that direction at a glacial pace.
I agree that FTTP is (ultimately) the future, but Sky are not currently "going over to it" any more than the entire market is going to shift in that direction at a glacial pace.
FTTP isn't better, it has the potential to be better - that's not the same thing. Also Virgin doesn't have FTTP (excluding commercial installs/trials), depending on the area fibre will run to the cab or the bomb in the pit, it's then copper all the way to the premises. All ISP's are over subscribed, if everyone decided to max every connection they'd be unable to cope, same with most service provision -if everyone picked up the phone and dialled 999 at the same time the system would grind to a halt in seconds.
As far as ISP's go Sky is no worse than the other options, they're generally better, other than the (frustrating) hardware choices and the partial MER implementation that they chucked a U turn on.
As above, there are no reports of any congestion issues on Sky fibre. If anything, they're one of the best providers.
So that's what, 3.5 MB per second?
I know I started this thread by saying I'm switching from BT to Virgin, however I was getting about 69MBps with BT. Surely, you would want to do the opposite to me and switch to BT?
Have I missed something? (Due sense of impending fear and dread beckons )
Look up the difference between bits and bytes.So that's what, 3.5 MB per second?
I know I started this thread by saying I'm switching from BT to Virgin, however I was getting about 69MBps with BT. Surely, you would want to do the opposite to me and switch to BT?
Have I missed something? (Due sense of impending fear and dread beckons )
MB is Megabyte
Mb it Megabit
69Mb is about 8.5MB.
Look up the difference between bits and bytes.
I just did and it's 3.2MBps. So it looks like you maths is poo!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?saf...i13i10k1j0i13i10i30k1j0i13i5i30k1.hanB6hPGtYE
I just did and it's 3.2MBps. So it looks like you maths is poo!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?saf...i13i10k1j0i13i10i30k1j0i13i5i30k1.hanB6hPGtYE
Wut? 69 Mbps is just over 8.5MBps.
So that's what, 3.5 MB per second?
I know I started this thread by saying I'm switching from BT to Virgin, however I was getting about 69MBps with BT. Surely, you would want to do the opposite to me and switch to BT?
Have I missed something? (Due sense of impending fear and dread beckons )
26mbps is my average download on steam, fast.com and speedtest.net come back at 220mbps.
So that's what, 3.5 MB per second?
I know I started this thread by saying I'm switching from BT to Virgin, however I was getting about 69MBps with BT. Surely, you would want to do the opposite to me and switch to BT?
Have I missed something? (Due sense of impending fear and dread beckons )
Na I think it was Glanza who has mis-written the Mbps/MBps differences tbf. He said '26mbps' since VM fixed the network. I'd wager a tenner he meant 26MB/sec (i.e. 208Mbps on a 200 meg package). Therefore you don't need to worry. As I said in a post above when I replied to you Sliver, I also get a sold 26-27 MB/sec from VM no matter what time of day or night. That's over wifi too.
You got 69Mbps from BT, note the small 'b'.
Cheers. I thought there was something rotten in Denmark when I was challenged by him on my poor maths.
Virgin have been perfect for me. I always get the full 200 download, and upload seems to hover between 10 and 12. Never have any problems with it, but depends entirely on your area I guess.
Edit: Well I say 200, but it normally goes above that when I try any speed tests. Why is this? Is it accurate at all?
Edit: Well I say 200, but it normally goes above that when I try any speed tests. Why is this? Is it accurate at all?
VM give you the 'overheads' as on top, so your connection/sync rate is actually well in excess of 200Mbps (around 222Mbps iirc). As such if you're on a decent install, in a decent area and the CAB you're connected to and your tap within it is also decent then you'll often get more. They do this (over supply) so that even if there are mild issues or whatever you still get as close to the 200 they sold you as possible.
Oh that's pretty decent then! Cheers.