Is Sky "really" bad?

I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but is
it really that bad?

I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I subscribe
to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV package and
Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line (no calls
package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead of the 120
that other phone providers charge.

This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...

Unless others know better!

Help me decide, please

tim

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:57:27 -0000, "tim...."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but is
>it really that bad?
>
>I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I subscribe
>to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV package and
>Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line (no calls
>package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead of the 120
>that other phone providers charge.
>
>This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>
>Unless others know better!
>
>Help me decide, please
>
>tim
>
>

I've has Sky as my BB provider since around 2007 (it may be 2008) and
i can count the number of problems I've had on one hand (and still
have a couple of fingers left)
The service appears to be solid and the speed (around 15 meg) is
stable.
Others will doubtless let you know of their experiences
--
Cheers

Peter

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

On 30/11/2010 20:57, tim.... wrote:
> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but is
> it really that bad?
>
> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I subscribe
> to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV package and
> Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line (no calls
> package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead of the 120
> that other phone providers charge.
>
> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>
> Unless others know better!
>
> Help me decide, please
>
> tim

You can buy a half-litre can of Frosty Jack 7.5% "cider" at Bargain
Booze for 95p, and one or two cans will probably achieve the desired
result.
So why doesn't everyone flock to buy it?

Or put another way:
"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey".
John Ruskin.

I rest my case...

George

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:08:42 +0000, Peter wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:57:27 -0000, "tim...."
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but is
>>it really that bad?
>>
>>I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I subscribe
>>to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV package and
>>Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line (no calls
>>package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead of the 120
>>that other phone providers charge.
>>
>>This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>>
>>Unless others know better!
>>
>>Help me decide, please
>>
>>tim
>>
>>
>
> I've has Sky as my BB provider since around 2007 (it may be 2008) and
> i can count the number of problems I've had on one hand (and still
> have a couple of fingers left)
> The service appears to be solid and the speed (around 15 meg) is
> stable.
> Others will doubtless let you know of their experiences

Yeah, wot he said!

I've been using Sky BB for many years and can also report a mainly
reliable service. The few problems I've experienced (apart from Skys
initial bungling of DLM which made the service virtually unusable
for the two weeks after they started it) have generally been attributed
to BTs wires, not to Sky.

Their call centre is just as crap as everyone else's but luckily the
number of times I've had to deal with it has been mercifully low.

--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/30...2220025002.php

tim.... wrote:
> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid,
> but is it really that bad?
>
> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I
> subscribe to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic
> TV package and Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for
> my phone line (no calls package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40
> pounds to install instead of the 120 that other phone providers
> charge.
> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>
> Unless others know better!
>
> Help me decide, please
>
> tim

Up until July this year I had a VirginMedia 10MB connection which was very
reliable but which cost £20pm. Have since been with Sky ADSL2+ and their
Talk Unlimited (Line Rental still with BT) calls package and am getting
14983 Downstream Connection speed, 961 Upstream Connection speed and
typically 11000 (down) kbps and 800 kbps (up) via
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/ . Router is D-Link DSL-2640S. Rock
steady connection and broadband cost of just a tenner a month!

Just to add, Openreach are currently in my street, laying new fibre
circuits. Good to know that much higher BT Infinity and VirginMedia speeds
are available to me at a cost, but my needs are more than well met by Sky,
certainly for the forseeable future. Sky Support can be a bit of a curate's
egg, but certainly no worse than VirginMedia's and I've hardly needed to
call them since the install.
--
aa

"tim...." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to
> avoid, but is it really that bad?
>
> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I
> subscribe to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic
> TV package and Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for
> my phone line (no calls package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40
> pounds to install instead of the 120 that other phone providers
> charge.
>
> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>
> Unless others know better!
>
> Help me decide, please

They seem to get quite good ratings:

http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/customer-satisfaction/

IME it's best to use surveys like the above instead of asking on
usenet or internet forums - as you'll only get a handful of opinions
rather than a survey like the above of several thousand.

--
Andy

"George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 30/11/2010 20:57, tim.... wrote:
>> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to
>> avoid, but is
>> it really that bad?
>>
>> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I
>> subscribe
>> to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV
>> package and
>> Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line
>> (no calls
>> package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead
>> of the 120
>> that other phone providers charge.
>>
>> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>>
>> Unless others know better!
>>
>> Help me decide, please
>>
>> tim
>
> You can buy a half-litre can of Frosty Jack 7.5% "cider" at Bargain
> Booze for 95p, and one or two cans will probably achieve the desired
> result.
> So why doesn't everyone flock to buy it?
>
> Or put another way:
> "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
> little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
> price only are this man's lawful prey".
> John Ruskin.
>
> I rest my case...

Ah yes, the "You get what you pay for" argument, which allows
supermarkets to sell exactly the same eggs as both "economy" and
"standard", with the standard ones about 30% more expensive. Which
allows branded clothing manufacturers to sell clothing made in the
same third world sweatshops with the same materials as supermarket
brands but at 4 times price.

Not that more expensive products aren't sometimes better, of course
they often are, but the assumption that they must be better cos
they're more expensive is something only mugs believe (some even
refuse to buy things which are "too cheap"!)

In general it seems that the price/quality ratio increases with price,
often a product which is 10% better is 50% more expensive.

--
Andy

"Andy Pandy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "tim...." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but
>> is it really that bad?
>>
>> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I
>> subscribe to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV
>> package and Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone
>> line (no calls package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install
>> instead of the 120 that other phone providers charge.
>>
>> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>>
>> Unless others know better!
>>
>> Help me decide, please
>
> They seem to get quite good ratings:
>
> http://www.uswitch.com/broadband/customer-satisfaction/
>
> IME it's best to use surveys like the above instead of asking on usenet or
> internet forums - as you'll only get a handful of opinions rather than a
> survey like the above of several thousand.

Whilst in principle you might be right, with only 8 companies in the survey
it isn't very representative.

And I don't give any extra points for that stupid "pop up" "social
networking" link box that I can't get rid of, that obliterates the names of
the final three! (And FWIW this is not the first time that I have had a
complaint about the lazy way that Uswitch presents its information)

tim

"Woody" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:68yJo.244514$(E-Mail Removed)2...
> My daughter - who then lived in MK - had Sky and was satisfied with it. If
> your exchange has Sky unbundled then it may be worthwhile (look at
> www.samknows.com to find out.)
>
> However the downside is that you are beholden to one telephone service
> provider which can charge whatever it likes for the calls. Also the ADSL
> comes in on a BT line (check whether the rate Sky are quoting includes
> line rental or not) so if there is ever a problem there is always the risk
> of demarcation in fixing it.

call costs are not an issues. The packge includes all off peak (UK) calls
and I don't make enough peak ones to worry about the charges.

tim

"tim...." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've seen a few posts suggesting that Sky is the BB service to avoid, but
is
> it really that bad?
>
> I'm moving to a new apartment that is wired for satellite and if I
subscribe
> to Sky - phone, calls and BB I can get the lot, plus basic TV package and
> Sky+ for only 9 pounds more than I currently pay for my phone line (no
calls
> package) and BB. Plus it only costs 40 pounds to install instead of the
120
> that other phone providers charge.
>
> This looks like an offer that I can't refuse...
>
> Unless others know better!
>
> Help me decide, please
>
> tim
>

Would you trust them as your ISP?
http://www.techcentral.ie/article.aspx?id=15654