Re: Sky broadband

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:25:43 +0000, Bob Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob

Yup, and it appears to do exactly what it says on the tin - no traffic
shapping/choking,

Because I take various things from Sky - Sky+ and phone line I pay 10
quid per month for my broadband.

I joined the Sam Knows performane monitoring scheme and the last stats
available were:

Line Speed Down

Last test 15.35 Mb
Average 11.54

Line Speed Up

Last test 0.8 Mb
Average 0.73 Mb

Latency

Last test 41.37
Average 43.80

Address Look Up speed

Last test 36.83
Average 48.93

Not really had any problems, so can't comment on the quality of the
support Sky offer, but taking everything into account, i.e. TV,
telephone and broadband.

Just remembered, lost telephone service twice, and each time it proved
to be an external fault, reported it to Sky and BT came along and
fixed it - last time it happened was fixed on a Saturday.

--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

"Petert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:25:43 +0000, Bob Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Bob
>
> Yup, and it appears to do exactly what it says on the tin - no traffic
> shapping/choking,
>
> Because I take various things from Sky - Sky+ and phone line I pay 10
> quid per month for my broadband.
>
> I joined the Sam Knows performane monitoring scheme and the last stats
> available were:
>
> Line Speed Down
>
> Last test 15.35 Mb
> Average 11.54
>
> Line Speed Up
>
> Last test 0.8 Mb
> Average 0.73 Mb
>
> Latency
>
> Last test 41.37
> Average 43.80
>
> Address Look Up speed
>
> Last test 36.83
> Average 48.93
>
> Not really had any problems, so can't comment on the quality of the
> support Sky offer, but taking everything into account, i.e. TV,
> telephone and broadband.
>
> Just remembered, lost telephone service twice, and each time it proved
> to be an external fault, reported it to Sky and BT came along and
> fixed it - last time it happened was fixed on a Saturday.
>

Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 16/01/2010 17:24, Graham. wrote:

> Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
> and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts
>

Sky roadside cabinets?

--
Adrian C

Graham. wrote:
> Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
> and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts

I assume you mean Virgin/NTL ?

Agreed on the flimsy cabinets, but I suspect it's the installers leaving
one latch undone. A quick survey of the cable cabinets in my village
shows at least 50% with the door insecure - the bottom latch doesn't
seem to be secured. Or maybe it's a design flaw ?

"Gaius" <bin@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:4b52040e$0$2528$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Graham. wrote:
>> Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
>> and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts
>
> I assume you mean Virgin/NTL ?

Don't mind me, I've been contributing to a thread about VM on ukt.
It's hard to multitask. Must be my age.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:24:59 -0000, "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>
>Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
>and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts

I think you'll find Sky don't have any street furniture - they rely on
LLU so use BT's more robust cast iron cabinets. I know NTL/Virgin use
the pressed steel variety around here.

--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

"Petert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:24:59 -0000, "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
>>and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts
>
> I think you'll find Sky don't have any street furniture - they rely on
> LLU so use BT's more robust cast iron cabinets. I know NTL/Virgin use
> the pressed steel variety around here.

I know, I know. As per my previous post, got confused with another thead about NTL!

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:27:29 -0000, "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>"Petert" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:24:59 -0000, "Graham." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Their mild steel roadside cabinets seem to be easier to prise open
>>>and vandalise compared with BTs more solid counterparts
>>
>> I think you'll find Sky don't have any street furniture - they rely on
>> LLU so use BT's more robust cast iron cabinets. I know NTL/Virgin use
>> the pressed steel variety around here.
>
>I know, I know. As per my previous post, got confused with another thead about NTL!

Oops, sorry, didn't spot the other posts
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

In uk.telecom.broadband, on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:28:53, Petert wrote:

>Oops, sorry, didn't spot the other posts

You can blame that on google groups perhaps.

--
Jim Crowther

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:00:59 +0000, Jim Crowther
<Don'(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In uk.telecom.broadband, on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:28:53, Petert wrote:
>
>>Oops, sorry, didn't spot the other posts
>
>You can blame that on google groups perhaps.

I'm sure I could if I used google groups, but as i use Agent then it's
down to me not paying attention :-(
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)