Re: Sky broadband

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:25:43 +0000, Bob Smith wrote:
> I have been looking into the Sky unlimited broadband package, and it
> seems too good to be true. Cheaper, faster UL and DL (though I will
> probably only get the 8mb down I get now because my line guestimate is
> 7mb) and no usage limits.
>
> So given the fact that if something seems too good to be true, it isn't,
> where is the catch? Do they have a creative definition of the words
> "totally" and "unlimited", one that doesn't include traffic shaping or
> port blocking perhaps?
>
> Is anyone on the unlimited package?
yup, we've got it. The only catch AFAICS is you have to sign up for the
TV channels, too. That adds another £18/month and nearly trebles the price.
There's very little worth watching on the Sky channels ATM. FX has some
good stuff - occasionally.
If we could dump the telly and just keep the BB, we would but it's a pre-req.
for getting their BB service :-(

On 16/01/2010 10:59, pete wrote:
> If we could dump the telly and just keep the BB, we would but it's a pre-req.
> for getting their BB service :-(

murdoch is watching you. Be careful what you type.

--
Adrian C

On 16/01/2010 11:54, Adrian C wrote:
> On 16/01/2010 10:59, pete wrote:
>> If we could dump the telly and just keep the BB, we would but it's a
>> pre-req.
>> for getting their BB service :-(
>
> murdoch is watching you. Be careful what you type.

Which really answers the OP's question.
Murdoch has thrown money into Sky Broadband on the understanding that it
will get a good name and people will flock to it, at the same time
taking out a Sky TV subscription - which is what he's really after.
Look on the broadband bit as a "loss-leader", as employed regularly by
supermarkets to get you into the store and buy other stuff.
From all accounts, it's a pretty good service - if you want Sky TV,
that is...

George

"Bob Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:XYj4n.294$(E-Mail Removed)2...
> George Weston wrote:
>> On 16/01/2010 11:54, Adrian C wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2010 10:59, pete wrote:
>>>> If we could dump the telly and just keep the BB, we would but it's a
>>>> pre-req.
>>>> for getting their BB service :-(
>>>
>>> murdoch is watching you. Be careful what you type.
>>
>> Which really answers the OP's question.
>> Murdoch has thrown money into Sky Broadband on the understanding that it will get a good name and people will flock to it, at the
>> same time taking out a Sky TV subscription - which is what he's really after.
>> Look on the broadband bit as a "loss-leader", as employed regularly by supermarkets to get you into the store and buy other
>> stuff.
>> From all accounts, it's a pretty good service - if you want Sky TV, that is...
>>
>> George
>
> Yes, I did find myself looking at the HD and sky+ boxes - I am not going to upgrade though. I already have Sky, so if the BB is a
> loss leader, I may as well partake.

The days when being with Tiscali was a life sentence have long gone.
I received my MAC by text before I had finished the call to their CS.

Just make it clear to them that there is zero prospect of them retaining you.
--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%