What are my options

I�m an existing orange/EE customer who has the phone and broadband package from Orange but also a mobile phone user with them as well.
I decided that I�d look into upgrading my broadband package to the FTCC, and went into my local EE shop to see what the options are.
I was told that my line speed check showed a speed of some 66mb, and considering I�m on about 10mb now is was pleasing information to find out.
As we talked over the packages on offer to me and how I used the broadband it was thought best to have the cheapest package which is capped at 40gig downloading per month, but I was told that I would still be able to have a speed of 66m, and as I was already an EE customer it would cost just £5 to upgrade. So we agreed on a date to have the BT engineer call � 18th April, and that was all we had to do.
However 2 days before I was due to be upgraded I was looking on the EE website and started to realised that what I had been told by the EE shop and what was being shown on the EE website about my download speed did not add up. EE website showed I could get up to 34mb with a 40 gig max. I questioned this with Orange broadband customer services and was told to check my information with the shop who I signed up with and if need be give them a call while I was in the shop. My next step was to call the shop who reassured me that I would get up to 66mb even though I was on the cheapest package available.
Anyway, the day of the install to upgrade my phone line arrives and no BT engineer arrives! So phone orange who said they knew the engineer was due as it showed up on their booking systems but for some unknown reason had not been transfer over to BT, so � the first available date I was given is 26th April. While I was talking to customer services I asked for further information about my line speed and what I should and should not get, I was told that because I was having the 40gig download capacity then my line speed would have a max of around 45mb, and I should go back to the EE shop who I signed up with and let them know what is going on.
I straight away phoned the shop and explained to them what had happened and what Orange and said, I was then put on hold while some discussion went on. I was then told that whoever had sold me the EE broadband had got it wrong about what my line speed should be�.
I�ve not even moved onto the new FTCC package yet but I�m wondering if I should bother at all. I am actually wondering if I had been mis-sold as well.

The package also costs £10/mth more than standard broadband, not £5, so you may want to check this out asap.

In reply to a post by millar_keith:

I was told that because I was having the 40gig download capacity then my line speed would have a max of around 45mb

If you are put on their advertised package, you will get about 38 Meg. It is still far faster than what you get now on ADSL, so it's your call whether it is worth it.

What you were told in the shop is blatantly wrong, unless they have some means of offering special unadvertised packages. That you will need to take up with the shop.

You won't have been mis-sold until you take up their offer and then find it's not what they promised. Trouble is you now know the truth of the matter .

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

The package also costs £10/mth more than standard broadband, not £5, so you may want to check this out asap.

I've just re-checked with EE directly, and it's £15 a month + plus £14 line rental - this includes the discount given to current orange customers. So it's £29 all in.
My current package cost £15 a month + plus £14 line rental... So in effect I'm upgrading my package for the same price - the cheapest package that EE offer for Fibre BB is the same price as their dearest package for the home phone/broadband. The main difference that I can see is that the Fibre package is includes off-peak calls against all inclusive calls on the normal phone/broadband package.

At the end of the day, you are considering regrading your package, regardless of what you were on before.

If you only need off-peak calls, then fibre costs you £15/mth but non-fibre costs £5/mth and this is the cost comparison you need to make.

In addition, although EE may have told you 40GB is sufficient for your needs, you may want to give more information and allow other helpful users here to assess it more impartially and accurately. (If anyone in your household uses iPlayer or TV on demand/catchup, I wouldn't be confident of staying within that limit for example.)

I would decide quickly, because knowing EE, trying to cancel the order now - despite the misinformation in-store about speeds - may be easier said than done.

Thank you Vimto_Girl for your reply.
We don't use iPlayer or catch up TV, to be honest its something that does not appeal to us, but I do understand what your saying about staying within our monthly limit. I'm mainly interested in getting a fast BB speed more than anything else so I think that even though I was given wrong information from the EE shop i'm now looking at improving my line speed from about 10mb to 40mb at no extra cost - which is not too bad of a deal.
I don't think i'd be cancelling at this late stage - I just hope the BT engineer turns up this time!

Thanks, I understand what you say - your outgoings will remain the same.

However, I do wonder why are you turning down £120/yr free on a plate in favour of a 40Mbps connection vs 10Mbps, if you are not doing any streaming or major downloading in the first place? General internet browsing is not going to be noticeably faster.

I've always thought these kind of fibre packages are in a no-mans land, but maybe I'm missing something...

I respect your choice though, enjoy it, good luck with the installation.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

However, I do wonder why are you turning down £120/yr free on a plate in favour of a 40Mbps connection vs 10Mbps, if you are not doing any streaming or major downloading in the first place? General internet browsing is not going to be noticeably faster.

Neither is it going to consume anywhere near 40GB, even with some moderate streaming. I barely hit 10GB with that type of usage, and most of that is TBB speedtests .

What OP is turning down tho' is the Anytime Calls. I do wonder why he has it now but can do w/out it on the new package.

I think its a case of using the mobile phone more in the future than using the landline during peak rate times - We have 2 mobiles with EE and never get close to the minutes allowed per month, but I think that's going to change!

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Neither is it going to consume anywhere near 40GB, even with some moderate streaming. I barely hit 10GB with that type of usage

But: usage is proportional to bitrate.

40GB a month @ 10Mbps = less than 20 mins/day (i.e. not sufficient usage limit to accommodate a moderate amount of TV streaming)

40GB a month @ moderate summed household total of 90 mins/day TV streaming = less than 2Mbps (i.e. not sufficient bitrate to necessitate fibre in the first place for most lines)

The bitrates used for iPlayer and other catchup TV on the Sky Box are near-broadcast. 1 hour of SD every day equals about 30GB/month and 1 hour of HD about 90GB/month.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

But: usage is proportional to bitrate.

40GB a month @ 10Mbps = less than 20 mins/day

I never seen such invalid reasoning! The flaw in your logic is the assumption that the connection is passing actual data, which is what the usage limit is about, at 100% of the full sync speed all the time 24/7. Most of the time it isn't!

If what you contend is true, than how would you explain that I'm connected for at least 6 hours each day at 20 Meg Sync Speed doing browsing, gaming and occasional streaming yet never exceeding 10GB per month? On your calculation I would be consuming 83% throughput x 20 Mb/s / 8 bits x 3600 secs x 6 hrs x 30 days = 1345 GB per month.

Also watching 1 hour TV each and every day is not particularly moderate, more regular. Anyway OP wasn't interested in streaming.

All in all, you vastly exaggerate the issue for the OP.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

I never seen such invalid reasoning! The flaw in your logic is the assumption that the connection is passing actual data, which is what the usage limit is about, at 100% of the full sync speed all the time 24/7. Most of the time it isn't!

You have misunderstand what I wrote, and the whole point.

The point is, that if you need to upgrade to fibre to get >10Mbps download, you can not download at that rate for more than 20 mins/day and stay within 40GB/month. So the question posed is what you are actually downloading that you need so fast.

I only asked the OP if anyone in the household streamed TV because in my experience it puts the 40GB limit in jeapoardy. I don't agree that I exaggerated anything or was scaremongering, and I was only asking for more information.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

If what you contend is true, than how would you explain that I'm connected for at least 6 hours each day at 20 Meg Sync Speed doing browsing, gaming and occasional streaming yet never exceeding 10GB per month? On your calculation I would be consuming 83% throughput x 20 Mb/s / 8 bits x 3600 secs x 6 hrs x 30 days = 1345 GB per month.

I never contended any such thing. Again, some degree of understanding the point being made is needed: you can do it because your streaming bitrate is so low that it does not demand fibre in the first place.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

The bitrates used for iPlayer and other catchup TV on the Sky Box are near-broadcast. 1 hour of SD every day equals about 30GB/month and 1 hour of HD about 90GB/month.

I hour iPlayer HD programme = about 1GB, the 720p VBR compression will be about 2500Kbps average peaking at 3500Kbps. I think 3GB for a 1 hour iPlayer HD video would push the bit rate to ~7500Kbps and hence the streaming rate up to 10000Kbps in order to allow for the variable bit rate (VBR.) An iPlayer speed/diagnostic test suggests 3500Kbps is just about adequate to stream HD.

Perhaps you should amend your post otherwise it could be very misleading for readers of this forum?

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

I never contended any such thing.

Yes you did by saying "usage is proportional to bitrate" without qualifying it. Usage varies with whatever you are doing and changes all the time. It is not connected to the sync speed other than being limited by it.

Also implying that you would use up your 40GB / month usage limit within 20 mins /day by running at full speed all the time, again regardless of what you were doing. Who runs at full speed for protracted periods? Certainly not the OP and myself.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

The bitrates used for iPlayer and other catchup TV on the Sky Box are near-broadcast. 1 hour of SD every day equals about 30GB/month and 1 hour of HD about 90GB/month.

I hour iPlayer HD programme = about 1GB, the 720p VBR compression will be about 2500Kbps average peaking at 3500Kbps. I think 3GB for a 1 hour iPlayer HD video would push the bit rate to ~7500Kbps and hence the streaming rate up to 10000Kbps in order to allow for the variable bit rate (VBR.) An iPlayer speed/diagnostic test suggests 3500Kbps is just about adequate to stream HD.

Perhaps you should amend your post otherwise it could be very misleading for readers of this forum?

No. Your evidence is based around iPlayer through the BBC website or desktop program. Sky's service is very different (and it looks it). The service shows each program's size - and one hour of HD is usually between 2.5-3.5GB.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

I never contended any such thing.

Yes you did by saying "usage is proportional to bitrate" without qualifying it.

I'm sorry that you thought "bitrate" in a discussion of video streaming referred to broadband sync speed?

There is plenty of qualification and context in the rest of the post and the preceding post, again - read it again, maybe eventually you'll get there : )

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

Sky's service is very different (and it looks it).

Why introduce the Sky Box and the excessive figures of the Sky service when (a) OP is not even interested in streaming and (b) nobody has even suggested streaming from Sky rather than the more usual means of TV catch-up via a browser?

Another red herring!

Sorry must have misread your post when you mentioned iPlayer and the Sky Box in the same sentence. However that's some bit rate that your talking about there for 720p H.264 if a 1 hour video can be ~3GB.

720p can be compressed very successfully to 5000Kbps VBR H.264 - however1080p would probably need 8000Kbps VBR for "broadcast quality" although the studio would require a 35Mbps minimum...

Edited by 4M2 (Tue 23-Apr-13 02:00:55)

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

I'm sorry that you thought "bitrate" in a discussion of video streaming referred to broadband sync speed?

There was no discussion of video streaming until you introduced it in that post. Until then the discussion was on usage in general and, again, OP insisted he was not interested in it. So why harp on it?

Define your terms when you introduce them and then, maybe, eventually others will get where you imagine you are.

Rather than talking to EE shop or phone customer service and getting unverified and misleading info about the fibre packages and the speeds they will give you, you could see this in writing directly from your Member Centre on the Orange website: Change your home package

EDIT: I agree tho' that with your current usage you will gain nothing, or at most marginally, by switching to fibre, together with the disadvantage of having a monthly cap placed on your usage.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Tue 23-Apr-13 03:28:47)

if they need unlimted later on they can always switch to the £20 plan if you do go over and if you want little more upload/download speed £25,

but once you're past 15mb your not going to notice it much unless there is 5-6 users streaming HD stuff at the same time and wifi typically is not fast enough once you get past 30mb any way unless all your devices are N stuff (even if they are you tend to have to be in the same room to get the higher speeds on wifi)

i would recommend keeping a lookout on how much data you are using as it is very easy to use data fast when you got an high speed connection (uploading counts towards the cap as well)

it is little bad on the point that the rep in store was little misinformed or lied about the speed you may be getting, orange are norm OK with stuff like this (guess it depends where you live if they are pushing for sales or keeping customers happy)

Edited by leexgx (Tue 23-Apr-13 05:30:41)

Its only 6.5 Mbps, so yes will be a good quality HD file.

It is also why Sky use download rather than stream, as this improves quality.

NOTE if you are watching a live show where they are uplinking using satellite usually that uplink has a 25 Mbps limit, a broadcast from the couried tape might actually give a better quality picture.

What's the normal broadcast bit rate over satellite or cable these days - is it about 15Mbps for 1920x1080 HD?

Its in the range 9 to around 13 I think, have not looked at the transponder records for a while.

Thanks Andrew

It's amazing what can be done with1080p H.264 compression - e.g. by comparison a SD 576i/p DVD-video using the MPEG-2 codec would need the maximum 10Mbps for best quality.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Rather than talking to EE shop or phone customer service and getting unverified and misleading info about the fibre packages and the speeds they will give you, you could see this in writing directly from your Member Centre on the Orange website: Change your home package

Yes i agree i should have looked on the members centre at Orange, but at the time i was walking down the local high street and just wanted to talk to someone face to face

Sorry your thread got hijacked into an arcane technical discussion of streaming, in which you expressed no interest.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Sorry your thread got hijacked into an arcane technical discussion of streaming, in which you expressed no interest.

Not a problem... i don't mind at all

In reply to a post by 4M2:

What's the normal broadcast bit rate over satellite or cable these days - is it about 15Mbps for 1920x1080 HD?

For satellite - average video rate is usually anywhere between 7Mbps and 20Mbps, and mainly depends on the channel. Averaged video bitrates over the past 3 calendar days:

BBC One HD: 8444 kbit/s
BBC Two HD: 7293 kbit/s
ITV HD: 10269 kbit/s
C4 HD: 8968 kbit/s
C5 HD: 10202 kbit/s
Sky News HD: 14774 kbit/s
Sky Sports 1 HD: 18289 kbit/s
Sky Premiere HD (movies): 7631 kbit/s
Nat Geo HD: 9567 kbit/s

(Recorded shows are delivered almost exclusively on HDCAM SR - 440Mbps prior to offline encoding (mostly) - and shouldn't have passed through any damaging perceptual codec or dipped under 100Mbps in grading or post-prod. The HDCAM bitrate cannot be compared as it is not the broadcast codec of course. The majority of OBs are from connected venues and delivered via fibre as uncompressed 1.5Gb/s HD-SDI - where satellite or microwave links need to be used in some part or the whole chain, the common standards agreed by the major UK broadcasters dictate 45Mbps H.264 or 60Mbps MPEG2.)

Thanks vimto_girl that's really interesting

I recall sometime ago that there was a issue whether studios could accept footage shot with a Canon 5D mark II still camera - 1080p 38Mbps H.264 - and I believe it was found to be acceptable in certain circumstances.

Apologies again for misunderstanding your post regarding the iPlayer and HD bit rates/file sizes.

Sports is higher because to do live encoding with a single pass you need a higher bit rate generally.

When you can analyse and multipass encode material you can use lower bit rates while in theory maintaining quality of picture.

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Apologies again for misunderstanding your post regarding the iPlayer and HD bit rates/file sizes.

No worries, thanks.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Sports is higher because to do live encoding with a single pass you need a higher bit rate generally.

When you can analyse and multipass encode material you can use lower bit rates while in theory maintaining quality of picture.

Absolutely, goes without saying - and when deciding the output of a channel, I'm sure this is a major factor - combined with the fact sports/motion is less efficient/more difficult to encode with H.264

However, at the end of the day, the BBC have many live shows - and their output is still around the average of the channel, and Sky Sports (eg F1 HD) has many recorded shows and their output is still around the average of the channel.

Still, bitrates should only be used for comparisons with caution - it's a mug's game to assess quality by the easily obtainable number. It is interesting though that iPlayer on the Sky platform is near-broadcast bitrate with the same programmes. The hidden subtext is that these bitrates are all broadband-capable. The discussion may be arcane for some, but TV streaming is one of the biggest challenges and opportunities for the broadband market, and will be a game-changer in years to come.

For sports and any footage that includes fairly rapid movement then 50fps (50p) or 59.94fps (60p) will probably become the norm.

Are UK sports currently shot and transmitted interlaced (50i) in order that movement looks smoother allowing for the end user's monitor or LCD/plasma TV to de-interlace?

No salesman can tell you really what broadband speed your line will achieve, you will only find out the line capability when it is connected with FTTC (fibre to the cabinet).

Information from EE/Orange
If you join our 40 Mb service, you will typically receive up to 38 Mb/sec. Those joining our 80 Mb service will typically received up to 76 Mb/sec.

http://help.ee.co.uk/system/selfservice.controller?C...

https://broadband.ee.co.uk/home.do

In reply to a post by 4M2:

Are UK sports currently shot and transmitted interlaced (50i) in order that movement looks smoother allowing for the end user's monitor or LCD/plasma TV to de-interlace?

Sports HD broadcasts in the UK are 1080/25i (ie 50 interlaced fields) - just like pretty much all HD broadcasts. Temporally, this is just like SD has always been of course - and is natively the video look, ideal for sports. Programmes shot at 25p, or films converted to 25p, therefore rely on 2:2 pulldown by the de-interlacer to re-create the original frames. The exception is the Freeview HD platform which allows 1080/25p broadcast and frame-doubling by the receiver to output 50p - the BBC has used this since 2011 - the advantage being perfect 25p frames, and in theory near-instantaneous and perfect switching between mixed material within programmes - avoiding for example the juddery or tearing credits often otherwise seen while the de-interlacer locks on detecting what to do.

That is interesting - certainly iPlayer HD (viewed/downloaded from a browser) is 25p.

I use an Avisynth script using the "InterFrame" plugin for frame doubling 25p to 50p but that interpolates an intermediate frame from two adjacent frames. Also very useful for slo mo when shooting in 50p: the frame rate can be doubled to 100fps then slowed down to 25fps which results in pretty good 1/4 speed effects. Very dependant upon subject matter of course and I usually get better results with a certain degree of motion blur by using a 1/100 sec shutter.

Same thing can be done with 50i but that means half height frames are created when de-interlacing to 50p, e.g. 1080 reduced to 540, and obviously the quality is not as good as 1080 50p but it is almost as good compared to working from 720 50p

Edit: https://vimeo.com/44330932 example of one of my 720 50p clips slowed to 1/4 speed.

Edited by 4M2 (Wed 24-Apr-13 14:17:36)

In reply to a post by 4M2:

That is interesting - certainly iPlayer HD (viewed/downloaded from a browser) is 25p.

Indeed - 720/25p - and original interlaced content suffers as a result, sometimes too distracting to watch.

No such motion issues or significant compression artefacts on the Sky platform - which AFAIK is unique iPlayer content. In isolation, I really cannot tell if its iPlayer or broadcast and have even wondered if it is a direct mirror. We used to use iPlayer on the PS3 which is certainly nice and we are lucky to have it in the UK, but its performance and interface is a toy in comparison.