Although retired for 20 years, I'm not claiming poverty but VM's 13.8% price increase sounds greedy. At the same time BT sent me a seemingly competitive offer so I called them to see what I could get.
Our street now has BT fibre so the offer was: free connection, 900Mbit (3 times my current speed from VM) , comparable phone and TV service.
Next I called VM to ask what could be done. Their first offer was a reduction of £6 by removing part of the phone package. So I said, "not competitive" and got transferred to "retention department". They told me I was not comparing like with like and that "VM is 16 times the speed of BT".
Reading about the BT offer I don't understand this bit: "Your Stay Fast Guarantee . Your Stay Fast download speed is: 700Mbps" I thought 900Mbit fibre meant 900Mbit, not "but maybe 700Mbit" - still an improvement on my current 250Mbit at VM so why might I not get 900? There's a pole outside the house with BT fibre, is my speed subject to contention from other users on the street?
Solved! Go to Solution.
yes there may be contention on your connection at busy times but for vast majority if not all you will get the 900mb
If you want guaranteed full speed from any supplier, you need a business grade leased line. All residential broadband is a contended service. With FTTP, 30 customers share 2.5Gbps backhaul. Speed is reliant on the statistics of not all customers using full bandwidth at the same time.
I should have added: BT ~£65pcm, VM would have been ~£100pcm for poorer quoted speed
I currently pay £20pm for a 250mb connection with VM and have negotiated no price rise. If VM would have been £100 then you are paying for more than broadband.
Switched to BT but virgin not decommissioned yet, ran speed test on both (same PC , direct Ethernet cable connection to the router, nothing else connected). Virgin 250Mbit is faster than BT "gigabit".