Virgin Media speeds

anyone know if when they bring out the 16Mb speed.
Will there only be 2Mb/4Mb/16Mb packages to choose from?

Big drop from 16Mb to 4Mb, if that's the case.

I think its 20MB and is purely a move to try and hurt Sky. The battle of the
big boys might actually bring some benefits to consumers.

Dan wrote:
> I think its 20MB and is purely a move to try and hurt Sky. The battle
> of the big boys might actually bring some benefits to consumers.

Until Virgin reduce their prices it wont be much of a battle. Their 20Mb
service costing £37 compared to the 16Mb service for £10 from sky. A
no-brainer to be honest. Dont forget the extra £4 a month Virgin charge if
yo dont pay by DD. Also both services are quoted speeds as "up to". Not
sure why Virgin are though.

XPUser wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > I think its 20MB and is purely a move to try and hurt Sky. The battle
> > of the big boys might actually bring some benefits to consumers.
>
> Until Virgin reduce their prices it wont be much of a battle. Their 20Mb
> service costing £37 compared to the 16Mb service for £10 from sky. A
> no-brainer to be honest. Dont forget the extra £4 a month Virgin charge if
> yo dont pay by DD. Also both services are quoted speeds as "up to". Not
> sure why Virgin are though.

With Be offering unlimited ADSL2+ for £24 I fail to see how Virgin's offer can
be seen as particularly attractive even ignoring Sky for the moment.

Graham

XPUser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Also both services are quoted speeds as "up to". Not
: sure why Virgin are though.

I believe that, while for ADSL based Internet speed depends on distance from
the Exchange, cable speeds are dependent on the network use by other users who
share the same cable "segment"

Eeyore wrote:
> XPUser wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>> > I think its 20MB and is purely a move to try and hurt
>> > Sky. The battle of the big boys might actually bring
>> > some benefits to consumers.
>>
>> Until Virgin reduce their prices it wont be much of a
>> battle. Their 20Mb service costing £37 compared to the
>> 16Mb service for £10 from sky. A no-brainer to be
>> honest. Dont forget the extra £4 a month Virgin charge
>> if yo dont pay by DD. Also both services are quoted
>> speeds as "up to". Not sure why Virgin are though.
>
> With Be offering unlimited ADSL2+ for £24 I fail to see
> how Virgin's offer can be seen as particularly attractive
> even ignoring Sky for the moment.
>
> Graham

Hang on everybody, there is nothing to stop Virgin actually supplying
their 20Mb service, if they put enough investment into their
infrastructure, whilst everybody else can only state an up to speed as
they are dependent on the LLU network & that makes a big difference.
Just how many people are on upto 8Mb & not getting it let alone 16Mb
or even higher.

Take that into concideration before comparing. If I needed a 20Mb
connection (as long as the FUP is reasonable) I'd be with Virgin as
they should be able guarantee that speed, yeah I know they won't but
if they don't it will be their problem & not another companies, unlike
the rest...

kraftee wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>> XPUser wrote:
>>
>>> Dan wrote:
>>> > I think its 20MB and is purely a move to try and hurt
>>> > Sky. The battle of the big boys might actually bring
>>> > some benefits to consumers.
>>>
>>> Until Virgin reduce their prices it wont be much of a
>>> battle. Their 20Mb service costing £37 compared to the
>>> 16Mb service for £10 from sky. A no-brainer to be
>>> honest. Dont forget the extra £4 a month Virgin charge
>>> if yo dont pay by DD. Also both services are quoted
>>> speeds as "up to". Not sure why Virgin are though.
>>
>> With Be offering unlimited ADSL2+ for £24 I fail to see
>> how Virgin's offer can be seen as particularly attractive
>> even ignoring Sky for the moment.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Hang on everybody, there is nothing to stop Virgin
> actually supplying their 20Mb service, if they put enough
> investment into their infrastructure, whilst everybody
> else can only state an up to speed as they are dependent
> on the LLU network & that makes a big difference. Just
> how many people are on upto 8Mb & not getting it let
> alone 16Mb or even higher.
> Take that into concideration before comparing. If I
> needed a 20Mb connection (as long as the FUP is
> reasonable) I'd be with Virgin as they should be able
> guarantee that speed, yeah I know they won't but if they
> don't it will be their problem & not another companies,
> unlike the rest...

Oh well I was beaten to the point sorry I'll creep back to my pill box

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:47:14 +0100, "kraftee"
<Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:



> yeah I know they won't but
>if they don't it will be their problem & not another companies, unlike
>the rest...
>
Now that IS guaranteed you won't get it after 4 PM you will be lucky
to get 1Mb ,I had a 4Mb connection with them but from 4PM onwards
every day the speed was DELIBRATLY throttled to well below 1Mb. Until
all the lies a member of staff was telling came out regarding no
throttling was taking place " The Register" exposed them
God bless them so By was told what to do with their cable. Now getting
no less then 6Mb on a up to 8Mb connection from BT and it is only a
couple of quid more than what lying Blueyonder was charging .

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:47:14 +0100, "kraftee"
> <Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>> yeah I know they won't but
>>if they don't it will be their problem & not another
>>companies, unlike the rest...
>>
> Now that IS guaranteed you won't get it after 4 PM you
> will be lucky to get 1Mb ,I had a 4Mb connection with
> them but from 4PM onwards every day the speed was
> DELIBRATLY throttled to well below 1Mb. Until all the
> lies a member of staff was telling came out regarding no
> throttling was taking place " The Register" exposed them
> God bless them so By was told what to do with their
> cable. Now getting no less then 6Mb on a up to 8Mb
> connection from BT and it is only a couple of quid more
> than what lying Blueyonder was charging .

I know what you mean from the early days when I was with NT(hel)L. I
was always at 75% of the supposed speed I was supposedly supplied & it
never got any better & for 9 months of the year the contention was
ridiculous.

My point was, Virgin has no excuse. All the network is theirs, if
there is a problem with it they will have to deal, whilst any (sorry
make that 98%) of DSL services depend on the aged LLU to enable top
speeds to be given. I know of streets within 1Km of the exchange
being unable to have any service & another exchange where at around
the same distance you are lucky to get anything over 512Kb, but as
there are no problems with the telphoney side of things nothing will
be done about the cabling. There lays the rub, comparing the 2
services just doesn't work at many levels.

kraftee wrote:

>
>
> I know what you mean from the early days when I was with NT(hel)L. I
> was always at 75% of the supposed speed I was supposedly supplied & it
> never got any better & for 9 months of the year the contention was
> ridiculous.
>
> My point was, Virgin has no excuse. All the network is theirs, if
> there is a problem with it they will have to deal, whilst any (sorry
> make that 98%) of DSL services depend on the aged LLU to enable top
> speeds to be given. I know of streets within 1Km of the exchange
> being unable to have any service & another exchange where at around
> the same distance you are lucky to get anything over 512Kb, but as
> there are no problems with the telphoney side of things nothing will
> be done about the cabling. There lays the rub, comparing the 2
> services just doesn't work at many levels.
>
>

Unlike Virgin on LLU. My mates connection drops to about 100k at peak
times but that is cos BT's Walworth Exchange is shown RED on capacity.
Hopefully upgraded on 6th April but everyone on any ISP on that exchange
must be getting same problem.
I know it's not his account as I connected with anothers details at his
place and the same.

We are all dependent on BT!!

Mike

(Sorry Kraftee - don't mean to dis you, just BT)