Sky Fibre

Hi folks.

I'm currently with BT Infinity and am looking to change to Sky Fibre.
I currently get the 80/20 Mbps unlimited and normally get speeds of 75/15 Mbps

When I put my details in the Sky line checker they say I can only get the up to 38 Mbps fibre. How come BT can give me the higher speeds but not Sky? Is the Sky product I want the Unlimited Fibre Pro?

Sorry for the ramble,

Thanks,

Adam

Is the Sky product I want the Unlimited Fibre Pro?

Yep.

Thanks for the quick reply. Any reason why The Sky checker won't offer it to me, as I'm getting the equivalent from BT?

Thanks

Adam

In reply to a post by astanden:

Thanks for the quick reply. Any reason why The Sky checker won't offer it to me, as I'm getting the equivalent from BT?

It can only be ordered via phone, 08442 410 802 .

Thanks

Adam

Just ordered Sky Fibre Pro myself. Sky do themselves no favours hiding it, I know a few people who went with other providers because they thought SKY only offered 40/10.

I don't understand it either. When they first started offering it via phone orders only I thought it was while they were configuring their ordering systems or something, but it has stayed phone only, and on a premium rate phone number no less (probably free for Sky Talk users, but still chargeable for people yet to join).

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 15-Oct-15 11:33:58)

Maybe they don't want to attract the really heavy users that are likely to go for 80/20? It's the only reason I can think of.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I don't understand it either.

At £30/m (without phone) the Sky Fibre Pro service seems a tad more expensive than the competition for the same speeds. The standard service is a lot better priced.

Remember the free static IP address though.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Remember the free static IP address though.

Okay, that helps with some of the big ISPs (not Plusnet though!).

In reply to a post by jchamier:

At £30/m (without phone) the Sky Fibre Pro service seems a tad more expensive than the competition for the same speeds. The standard service is a lot better priced.

Really??

BT is £30!

Maybe they believe in selling it at a suitable price in order to support it properly!

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Really??

BT is £30!

Maybe they believe in selling it at a suitable price in order to support it properly!

Was £26 when I was with them. That's gone up quick.

Well they must have good reasoning to put the prices up.... maybe to fulfil our lust for speed!

In reply to a post by _Resonance_:

Maybe they don't want to attract the really heavy users that are likely to go for 80/20? It's the only reason I can think of.

I'm wondering what would be considered 'heavy' these days given that these products are sold as unlimited plus, with all the on demand and live stream viewing etc....these sort of services must surely gobble up lots of bandwidth?

80/20 speeds I would personally consider the 'starter pack' these days! As we all consume more and more of our media and other stuff on line, the demand for ever faster speeds will only increase.

I know some of my family members are finding that with the average household, including a couple of kids + mum/dad, watching live streaming on their big TV's while little johny hammers his Xbox games and little judy streaming her boy band videos in HD from YouTube, normally brings their 40/10 package to it's knees

Bring on the gigabit pipes A.S.A.P please?

HD on a small screen is of no use as most people will not see any difference from SD therefore not so much bandwidth required.

I can't even order sky fibre at all despite having 80mb fibre a week ago. All other providers can offer me fibre but sky say it's unavailable.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

HD on a small screen is of no use as most people will not see any difference from SD therefore not so much bandwidth required.

I remember the long discussions years ago in the forums about people being considered 'bandwidth hogs' because they were 'heavy' users (having the cheek to actually use the bandwidth they were paying for! ).

I'm not at all sure the same arguments apply these days when lots of us are switching to viewing media streamed from the net and the ever increasing demand for (super)fast broadband and NO download limits or quotas is the norm?

Throw into the mix the likes of Netflix and others offering 4k (8k next?) content and in a few years time we'll all be laughing at the really slow Fibre broadband speeds we had in 2015

I'll reiterate, a teenager on an iPad or similar doesn't require 4K or HD to watch a film.

Nothing to do with hogging bandwidth.

We have unlimited evening and weekend calls but only use it once a week. It's not compulsory to use what you pay for!

In reply to a post by broadband66:

I'll reiterate, a teenager on an iPad or similar doesn't require 4K or HD to watch a film.

Nothing to do with hogging bandwidth.

We have unlimited evening and weekend calls but only use it once a week. It's not compulsory to use what you pay for!

Can't argue with anything you are saying with regards teenagers who may be using an iPad to watch a film.... but then again, I wasn't trying to make a point about that

If you'd have looked at the forum message I originally responded to, it was to do with someone suggesting they thought that someone who might want to subscribe to the 80/20 Fibre Broadband package, that they might be 'heavy' users.

I wondered - "what might be considered a 'heavy' user these days?" given the increasing demand a lot of people are now making of their broadband packages and that lots of us are now choosing to stream and view on demand services, and how that inevitably leads to 'heavy' bandwidth usage.... something that was debated in the forums just a few years ago just about every day.

I personally believe that the 80/20 Fibre Broadband package is the starter pack these days and regardless if you are a teenager using a fondle-slab or an adult viewing on a 50 inch UHD TV, there's going to be an increasing demand for faster and faster broadband and discussions about 'heavy' users in relationship to the way we consume stuff from the net these days seems irrelevant?

Usage levels are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In the early days peoples' usage was progressing faster than the networks could cope, but not so much anymore with the likes of BT, TalkTalk and Sky having plenty of capacity, now being able to offer "truly unlimited" (unthrottled, unshaped) broadband on 80 meg connections, something that would be impossible on the backhaul networks of 10 years ago.

Edited by Oliver341 (Sun 18-Oct-15 14:55:39)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Usage levels are becoming increasingly irrelevant. In the early days peoples' usage was progressing faster than the networks could cope, but not so much anymore with the likes of BT, TalkTalk and Sky having plenty of capacity, now being able to offer "truly unlimited" (unthrottled, unshaped) broadband on 80 meg connections, something that would be impossible on the backhaul networks of 10 years ago.

Yes, cant agree more with what you say and something I personally thought about when I made my original response in this thread when someone wondered about those who may be subscribing to the 80/20 package as 'heavy' users

I always thought that the basic arguments (in the past), about heavy usage and bandwidth hogs was taking away the onus of the ISP's and their networks, and placing it on the customer and 'sort' of blaming them for actually using what they were paying for.... all those sort of discussions in the forums years ago flooded back when I read that 'heavy' users comment

I guess the way we are all gobbling up bandwidth these days, the Linux distro's must be bigger than ever as obviously that is what must be accounting for all the usage?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

I'll reiterate, a teenager on an iPad or similar doesn't require 4K or HD to watch a film.

Nothing to do with hogging bandwidth.

We have unlimited evening and weekend calls but only use it once a week. It's not compulsory to use what you pay for!

By your logic, a teenager doesn't require a colour picture either. Black and white would suffice, right?

720 is the absolute lowest watchable quality these days, even then it's dramatically less detailed than 1080P.

Also, you do realize that for teenagers, people in their 20's or even 30's, the most common way of watching TV is via their computer? Scheduled programming is dead - give it another 30-40 years for the older generations to die off and scheduled programming will be gone too.

Downloading each episode/season of popular TV shows is very common - just go look at netflix figures, or torrent site figures for the popular shows - that's where the bandwidth is going.

1080P WEB-DL perfect quality copies of all new shows, straight to your high definition tv/monitor/phone/tablet.

2 months behind.

A teenager doesn't need to watch anything. They could get out their chalk and slate and draw pictures.

Our viewing is via an HD Ready Plasma that is supplies by Freeview (no HD) and Sky+ (No HD) and is more than acceptable. Most modern TVs are not set correctly for the colour balance, contrast, etc and results in an unnatural picture.

Not a great deal of difference between SD and HD on a small screen.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Not a great deal of difference between SD and HD on a small screen.

On a 1080 pixel set of 32" size, I can see quite a dramatic difference between HD and SD (even high bitrate SD). These have 2,000,000 pixels (1920x1080)

On a HD Ready (720) set, at 32" size, the difference is much harder. These have 920,000 pixels (1280x720).

Agree completely about colour adjustments, many TVs are still set to 'shop demo' mode, yuck.

Small screen eg tablets.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Small screen eg tablets.

On an iPad Mini 2 (high DPI screen) I can see the difference between and SD and HD movie, but probably because the SD movie has been over compressed. Perhaps deliberately to be able to sell the HD version as higher quality.

In reply to a post by dave2150:

Also, you do realize that for teenagers, people in their 20's or even 30's, the most common way of watching TV is via their computer? Scheduled programming is dead - give it another 30-40 years for the older generations to die off and scheduled programming will be gone too.

Downloading each episode/season of popular TV shows is very common - just go look at netflix figures, or torrent site figures for the popular shows - that's where the bandwidth is going.

1080P WEB-DL perfect quality copies of all new shows, straight to your high definition tv/monitor/phone/tablet.

Oddly I had the same chat with my older sister just a few months ago!

I wouldn't even give it 20-30 years.... I'd say 10-15 at most! I don't watch ANY live TV at all, it's ALL on-demand. And I am 35 (36 this year)

Also I can see the end of the TV licence in the near future too!

" little judy streaming her boy band videos in HD from YouTube,"

And my point was Little Judy watching HD on a tablet (probably) was a waste of bandwidth!

Your main point is well founded. I didn't argue with that. 40 down should still be more than enough for most families.