Sky will be looking to run trials of fibre-optic broadband

[Flashman]

Quite funny but I've just tried the line check at the Sky site and it says my line is not currently compatible with Sky broadband and talk, which is strange considering I'm already with them...

[F022Y]

I can only guess the reason for the delay is the move to 17a.

Sky ran their original trial on the old system then BT announced 17a, SKY respond with the increase of backhaul and now sky reps talk about another trial. My guess would be checking the resiliency due to their ‘no limits’ policy.

Just my guess that they would be moving slowly as there was rumour of a sky FTTx product back in September, but with no real announcement from SKY guess work is the best we can do, of course guess work is where nasty rumours grow lol

[Dazza115]

Think sky would be moving a bit faster now that they're the butt of most other isp's advertising. BT used them as their main example of how much faster they are.

Unlimited is great and it's why i've remained with sky, but for the average user fibre just offers so much more and 6months free or whatever isn't going to garner you many new subscriptions.

I mean the main battleground has been speed ever since "broadband" first became a buzzword, unlimited is a secondary buzzword that has been perverted so much over so long that it isn't as catching as "4x faster than sky".

I HAD expected sky to announce something late last year and with the backhaul upgrade had expected them to act sharpish, instead BT and virgin will be boosting their speeds so they are "8x faster than sky and twice as fast as they were before".
Trials mean very little when all your main competition has product to market and massive advertising campaigns sniping your own product that you have no counter to.

[NewsreadeR]

I HAD expected sky to announce something late last year and with the backhaul upgrade had expected them to act sharpish, instead BT and virgin will be boosting their speeds so they are "8x faster than sky and twice as fast as they were before".
Trials mean very little when all your main competition has product to market and massive advertising campaigns sniping your own product that you have no counter to.

I agree to a degree, however, Sky do not traffic shape, nor do they limit downloads etc, and are very reasonably priced, no one else can offer what they are doing so cheaply.

Whilst a lot of people want fibre, and far faster speeds, in reality I would bet the majority don't want, nor do they need, nor do they want to spend more.

That has to be proven by the amount of punters Sky are signing up to their non-fibre offerings in the past 2 years alone.

Yes faster speeds would be great, and if you download illegal warez, music / films etc (and I am not accusing anyone of doing so) then it is even more attractive. But not everyone does.

I would hazard a guess, that hundreds of thousands of people who have broadband, do not care or indeed are they bothered about the technology.

No disrespect, but some people cannot even read simple instructions on how to apply for an SMTP account on here.

So if others are like that, it kind of proves my thinking, as broadband is far more complex than supplying your forum username and a password (that you do not use anywhere else) on a contact page.

[Stumpy]

You're right in a way .. there are a lot of people who want to use the internet solely for checking their email, doing a bit of Facebook, perhaps visiting the odd news website.

However, I'm sure there are increasing numbers of people who want to enjoy more benefits of a higher speed, such as streaming video. I'm sure those on 17Mb current speeds are enjoying that already, but some of us are on those "borderline" speeds where, if someone else in the house is using the internet at the same time, watching streaming video (Anytime+, bbc iplayer, etc) is just not feasible.

For example .. my dad is one of those who refuses to read instructions (on principal I think!), yet he has just invested in a media player/streamer, watches iplayer, etc. Another person I know doesn't HAVE a TV. The only things he watches are either DVD's or iplayer (and those for channel 5, etc).

And as more companies boast about customers being ABLE to watch streaming video, more people are going to wonder what the attraction is, and want it for themselves.

[Scubbie]

Generally speaking, whats the ping advantage of fibre over ADSL?

I mainly game and have a 24ms or 31ms ping to BBC (depending on sky at the time - dont ask me but on some IP's I hit 24ms and on some I hit 31ms).

Judging from the stats that some who do have FTTC have posted from BT Infinity, I would suggest that Pings could well drop by half. I'll have to qualify that though as Sky's servers may increase or decrease that any factor you want.

It may pay you to look around at other forums to see what different ISPs are managing and to wait a little longer if you want to see what people can achieve with Sky's first lot of fibre products.

I would have thought that a few people who have joined the Fibre trial might have jumped in on this forum and let us know what is happening with their connections.

I'm just waiting for sky to pull their finger out....

Me too.

Think sky would be moving a bit faster now that they're the butt of most other isp's advertising. BT used them as their main example of how much faster they are.

Lets face it, advertising is advertising. So long as you know how to read between the lines, it'll be full of holes. The "4 times faster" is "4 times faster the average connection speed". They can only manage to double mine at the moment .

Unlimited is great and it's why i've remained with sky, but for the average user fibre just offers so much more and 6months free or whatever isn't going to garner you many new subscriptions.

For those who live in an area where their exchange has Sky's LLU and doesn't have FTTC or FTTP, the I believe that most on here would agree that Sky BB Unlimited would be a better choice. I appreciate that there will be specific cases where another package would be better in these circumstances, but in most cases Sky does offer good VFM.

Where there is both FTTC & Sky LLU available, the waters look a little murky at the moment. It would really depend on what you are using your connection for as BT throttle torrents, for example, during the day.

I mean the main battleground has been speed ever since "broadband" first became a buzzword, unlimited is a secondary buzzword that has been perverted so much over so long that it isn't as catching as "4x faster than sky".

See above

I HAD expected sky to announce something late last year and with the backhaul upgrade had expected them to act sharpish, instead BT and virgin will be boosting their speeds so they are "8x faster than sky and twice as fast as they were before".
Trials mean very little when all your main competition has product to market and massive advertising campaigns sniping your own product that you have no counter to.

I was hoping that they would have announced something by now as well.

From what I have heard, the trials have opened up a little more recently. This could mean that things are now nearer to launching. Unfortunately I don't have anything more than this at present.

[Dazza115]

I just want a more stable connection with better ping times, being in northern ireland and also wanting the best possible speeds results in me sitting on the border of loosing sync often at the most inopportune time along with not being on an actual gaming profile.

Fibre just lets me have my cake and eat it. I'm content enough for now sitting here believing that an upgrade isn't far off, but the more time passes the more my urge to jump ship becomes more invasive. I have dozens of devices in the house that use the connection and at any one time theres usually 3 or 4 ppl using the connection in some capacity, the extra headroom would always be welcomed.

I agree on the price issue, it is possibly the main way to value a connection but if sky offered the same great connection, the higher speeds of fibre and at most doubled the cost of their dsl unlimited package im sure they would be onto a winner and I would snap it up. The longer they wait the better their competitors packages will improve and the less apetising their own offerings become.

[NewsreadeR]

You're right in a way .. there are a lot of people who want to use the internet solely for checking their email, doing a bit of Facebook, perhaps visiting the odd news website.

I bet there are millions of people in that scenario, hence why the free 2meg broadband is so popular for Sky.

However, I'm sure there are increasing numbers of people who want to enjoy more benefits of a higher speed, such as streaming video. I'm sure those on 17Mb current speeds are enjoying that already, but some of us are on those "borderline" speeds where, if someone else in the house is using the internet at the same time, watching streaming video (Anytime+, bbc iplayer, etc) is just not feasible.

I can do all of that now, with 4 computers, (3 laptops and one PC) 3 mobile phones connected wirelessly, XBox etc etc

Yes serious film addicts, avid games players etc would certainly see a bonus, but that's the other thing, people want it for free. If it means their BB price goes up double, then it is not as attractive.

When BB first came out, we paid through the nose for 56k speeds, then moved onto ISDN (about £80 per month) and still that was very slow.

Compared to today's pricing it was joke, but early adopters paid it.

I still think (and I maybe wrong) a large proportion of people signing up for fibre will be wasting their money, or will not use it for the intended usage. Plenty however will use it for the latest films, games and music downloads.

For example .. my dad is one of those who refuses to read instructions (on principal I think!), yet he has just invested in a media player/streamer, watches iplayer, etc. Another person I know doesn't HAVE a TV. The only things he watches are either DVD's or iplayer (and those for channel 5, etc).

Fair points, but they would be in the minority for sure.

And as more companies boast about customers being ABLE to watch streaming video, more people are going to wonder what the attraction is, and want it for themselves.

Yes I guess, but then again it goes back to the costs, if people have to pay for it, it can offer the world, but they will not part with their money.

We have survived years without the ability to stream, iPlayer has been around for a long time, yet I don't know anyone who says they cannot watch or do what they want to on their current connection.

BT and Virgin, have to advertise and innovate, because for too many years, they have let the competition catch up and take over.

Try and speak to a human at BT though, it is impossible. Gone are the days when you could speak to Busby at 4am in the morning. In other words, no way would I even contemplate swapping to them because they offer fibre. It maybe better than my current connection, but it would be a waste of time and money, in this household, it wouldn't be used for it's intended purpose. It would just be quicker internet access etc - It doesn't make me read or type any quicker.

[NewsreadeR]

I just want a more stable connection with better ping times, being in northern ireland and also wanting the best possible speeds results in me sitting on the border of loosing sync often at the most inopportune time along with not being on an actual gaming profile.

Fair comments.

Fibre just lets me have my cake and eat it. I'm content enough for now sitting here believing that an upgrade isn't far off, but the more time passes the more my urge to jump ship becomes more invasive. I have dozens of devices in the house that use the connection and at any one time theres usually 3 or 4 ppl using the connection in some capacity, the extra headroom would always be welcomed.

If you jump though, then you are locked into a long contract?

I agree on the price issue, it is possibly the main way to value a connection but if sky offered the same great connection, the higher speeds of fibre and at most doubled the cost of their dsl unlimited package im sure they would be onto a winner and I would snap it up. The longer they wait the better their competitors packages will improve and the less apetising their own offerings become.

I am sure Sky are thinking the same. They could have easily offered unlimited when they launched for £30 per month and still got millions of customers. But they didn't they came in at a low price for a great product, and are now reaping the benefits, as people stay with them year after year.

If they offered it me for say £15 per month (as I am paying £12.50 now) then I too would change over, just for a punt. But no way would I change over if it was a lot more than that.

[steelysteph]

As a matter of interest. If a lot of BT customers went over to FTTC, would speeds improve for other users since the lines won't be so busy?