You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Currently we are with BT for our phone line and call package, AOL for internet and SKY (full package i.e. sports, films and ESPN).
BT are offering me a silly price to take broadband and BT vision full package including ESPN as well as unlimitied phone use for landlines. They are saying £51.42 for the lot including line rental.
I am fully understanding of the phone and internet stuff but BT vision is a new one for me. How does the SKY package I have compare with BT vision? Has anyone moved from SKY to BT vision....if so what is good and what is bad?
Thanks
A lot less "free" channels. BT vision is basically a freeview box and DVR. It also gives you access to video on demand for the premium content, ie films etc.
Have you considered freesat or freesat from sky as you alreadyhave a dish?
You also need to consider if your BT service is up to it. We just had an engineer in to look at a broadband problem (turned out to be hardware) and asked him about this and he said unless you had a fairly fast and 'clean' line it wasn't a great idea. (we're out in the sticks and only get just over 1Mb connection)
Sky, hell of a lot cheaper than BT
Lets just say a whole lot of people are jumping ship from BT due to terrible service and because it's costing them a fortune
not BT they such the fetid gibbon
not BT they such the fetid gibbon
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I switched from sky to bt, but I'm switching back again. I've had a lot of problems watching on demand programmes and films with bt (due, I think, to a slow broadband speed). Anyway, I can get a cheaper 'all in' deal with sky, including hd, so it's a no brainer.
we basically had what you have and went to sky+ a year ago, we pay about £32.00 a month, thats free calls weekdays/weekends (certain times) - unlimited broadband (which has never faltered and i play loads of online PS3) we have all the entertainment channels but no sports or film.
a mate had BT Vision and is p*ssed off with it, box keeps going nuts, BT are big on marketing but fall short of service in my book.
sky+ is bloody great, the only crap thing is when you are recording 2 programs you cant watch a 3rd which is the only point virgin beats it on IMO. but lets not get into that one 😉
if you push sky they will give you deals, there one on at the moment with a free HD box.
Do you really want to give Murdoch money?
I'd choose sky everytime, problem with bt vision is that its dependant on your phone line, so if your missus is watching telly and you're downloading movies, and the same is going on in most of the houses in your street then, be prepared to get down to old dial up speeds.
We can get Virgin via cable, is it really more better?
Virgin is now splendid. Good telly, phone and fast broadband.
The customer service line answers quickly and knowledgably too. Trouble is they've got 2 call centres, one in Bangalore, one in South Wales and they've got the same accents so you don't know who you're talking to.
The clue is, the ones with the more Enlish names are the Indians, and they are more helpful.
What do they do with existing phone points when using cable for the lot- reuse em or do you need new cable ones?
(& how long does a Dorcel download take ?)
Do you really want to give Murdoch money?
Alternative? Give it to another multi-million business with worse customer service, less for your money and inferior systems?
Errr....
Last one about 2 hours with BTJunkie and Limewire. (700mb)
Its fibre optic into the TV and Broadband and ornery wire for the phone.
They put 1 box in the room for the telly, 1 box in the study for broadband and the phone point was separate again. If you've got a load of phone points in the house you can have the phone point next to the BT master point and "patch" it across.
Alternative? Give it to another multi-million business with worse customer service, less for your money and inferior systems?
Errr....
If you want to look at it in purely product terms, the other option is neither.
My objection to Murdoch (and refusal to pay for Sky) has nothing to do with quality of service or value for money. It is a political decision not to help fund his political agenda - which has various manifestations from The Sun's style of reporting to Sky's control of English football.