Advice needed: Sky Q or Virgin

boccy23

Hi All

We have recently gotten Fibre in our area and I am looking at getting a phone/fibre/TV package in total.

The costs are not too different (€107.50 versus €95) so it comes down to the TV side of things.

Which one would people recommend?

WhatYaSay

No experience with Sky Q, but the Sky plus HD box is leagues ahead of virgin horizon, have been putting up with it since I moved house and it's like dealing with something from the stone age! Avoid!

Jofspring

Agree with above, sky by miles. A few friends have left Virgin as soon as they had the chance. The interface is poor enough in comparison to Sky.

MarkAnthony

Don't bundle. Get the best supplier for your broadband and best supplier for your TV. Unless you want TV in loads of rooms or need a really good WiFi signal in loads of rooms, SkyQ isn't the way to go.

I was Sky+HD and VM for years, great service from both. I only moved to Sky broadband becuase of the way SkyQ works. People are completely clueless when it comes to broadband speeds. The average user doesn't need more than about 5Mbits or so.

colm_mcm

I had a go of sky Q last week. Wasn't blown away TBH.

Just with UPC, You may have fibre but not UPC.
If your needs for to are basic then maybe look at Vodafone and Eirs bundles. But TBH the Sky HD box with or without a HD subscription is probably the best blend of usability vs price.

Standalone TV with sky or UPC isn't that cheap, bundling with broadband seems to make more sense.

harr

Have sky+ myself with sky Q ordered , I am very happy with sky and never had any problem ...was staying over with a friend recently who has virgin so had a few days with the Virgin set up.....I found it shocking bad compared to sky very slow and laggy was not impressed at all ...virgin not available in my area but for the sake of the few extra few euro i would go with sky if I was in your shoes....

icdg

The Virgin v Sky debate comes up quite often and there's pros and cons to both. Arguably if you can afford it, the ideal combination is Sky television and Virgin broadband - though its definitely the most expensive way to go, and makes you strictly speaking ineligible in the future for new customer offers from both, though you might still be able to haggle.

Bear in mind what colm_mcm has said - Virgin is its own cable system. Its not effected by what upgrades Eir may have done in your area, it is a completely different network.

Content wise, Sky is leagues ahead, with a way bigger range of channels, a better On Demand service (no movies unless you take Sky Movies though, and there's no RTE or TG4 Player - though we've been told a number of times that the RTE one is on the way). The only major channels available on Virgin but not Sky are ITV2,3,4 (which you can tune in via Sky's manual tuning feature) and MGM Movies (old MGM stuff that no one else has bought, you aren't missing much). Every other channel is on Sky and hundreds more besides.

Advantages of Virgin? A far more logically ordered EPG (Sky in Ireland is part of Sky UK, and as a result must follow its EPG rules, more or less, this means the UK terrestrials are scattered on various slots in the entertainment category, and RTE News Now and Oireachtas TV are hidden away on very low channel numbers). Broadband router is incorporated into the STB (some power users don't like this though). Faster and better broadband (watch out for some problems some users have been having with Netflix, though it hasn't affected me personally). Access to their still running analogue service, where it is available (cheap and cheerful way of feeding TV to portable sets). Setanta Ireland in the basic package, if you like your sports - it provides some extra Champions League and Europa League coverage, Serie A coverage, and some horse racing on a Saturday.

boccy23

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Don't bundle. Get the best supplier for your broadband and best supplier for your TV. Unless you want TV in loads of rooms or need a really good WiFi signal in loads of rooms, SkyQ isn't the way to go.

I was Sky+HD and VM for years, great service from both. I only moved to Sky broadband becuase of the way SkyQ works. People are completely clueless when it comes to broadband speeds. The average user doesn't need more than about 5Mbits or so.

Thanks for that. Out of interest, why would you not recommend to bundle. From what I see, the pricing is far better than a 1 + 1 package.

Slippin Jimmy

boccy23 wrote:

Thanks for that. Out of interest, why would you not recommend to bundle. From what I see, the pricing is far better than a 1 + 1 package.

If possible try and get broadband from Virgin. It is miles better than Sky. Only problem I had with broadband from Virgin was the customer support. Saying that the guy's on boards are very helpful.

Sky are restricted to Eir's technical support rules.

MarkAnthony

boccy23 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Out of interest, why would you not recommend to bundle. From what I see, the pricing is far better than a 1 + 1 package.

Sky don't do bundles - so if they're in the running you're looking at TV on what ever deal plus broadband at a deal which is usually about a tenner off. The current deal with Sky is halfprice HD and a free 32" TV. Not a bad little bundle.

The current broadband deal from VM is €30 for 4 months, €60 there after. You'd save €15 bundling in with Sky and get a far inferior phone package. After 12 months with Sky the difference is only €5.

Sky have 12 month contracts (18 for SkyQ) and dont have downgrade fees or recontacts (generally) for changing packs. You might chage your TV pack frequently, hardly anyone changes their phone pack/broadband pack therefore mitigating my annoyance with VM over downgrade and recontract on they're TV.

Yep you're cheaper bundling TV into either VM, Eir or Voda, it's sh!te though IMHO. Better off just getting broadband and freeview/freesat. If you're going a pay TV route go with Sky.

On broadband VM it total overkill, no one uses 360Mbit. Very few people cable in or buy hundreds of euros worth of thrid party Wifi kit so is limited to 50-60Mbits at best if you get Horizon. Sky's broadband is about that from my experiance, but actually seems faster, I get better connecton to certain services - netflix being the bigone - and lower pings for online gaming. If you throw price out the window SkyQ is awesome for wifi.

If you have a problem - Sky's agents (generally) great but tied to Eir's SLAs (timelines). VM agents (outside of the British Isles) a nightmare. If you get tech in Scotland they're great. VM own the network so are brilliant at fixing faults. That said I maybe had 2 faults in 15 years with NTL/UPC/VM. With Eir and now Sky 1 fault in 7 years. So really depends how often you think you'll get a fault.

You're first year cost is going to be lower on the TV with Sky higher on the broadband with VM. After 18/24 months you get a deal off VM. Sky the deals are after 12 months. If you work it out over the lifetime of a sub there's so little between it it's not worth bothering about. The price of a pack of fags a month at the absolute most.

TL;DR you'll be a lot happier if you just go with the services that are the best for what you want without worrying about a fiver here or there.

bk

boccy23 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Out of interest, why would you not recommend to bundle. From what I see, the pricing is far better than a 1 + 1 package.

Virgin broadband is much better and faster then Sky.

Sky/Eir/Vodafone broadband (they all use the same underlying infrastructure) goes up to a maximum of 100Mb/s only. However that depends on how far you are from the cabinet, the speed can be as low as just 7Mb/s

Virgin on the other hand comes in two speeds, either 240Mb/s or 360Mb/s and in the vast majority of cases you actually get that speed.

So FAR faster then Sky Broadband.

icdg wrote: »

Broadband router is incorporated into the STB (some power users don't like this though).

Small nitpick, the new 360Mb/s service requires a separate broadband router from the Horizon box. This new router is pretty good, with very good wifi performance.

Even with the slower 240Mb/s service, you could always request a separate broadband router, which I always recommend.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The current broadband deal from VM is €30 for 4 months, €60 there after. You'd save €15 bundling in with Sky and get a far inferior phone package. After 12 months with Sky the difference is only €5.

Nitpick, that is for the 360Mb/s service, the 240Mb/s service is €30 for 4 months, followed by €50 after that, thus closing the gap with Sky even more.

Virgin 240Mb/s BB + unlimited phone calls for €50 per month is much better value then Sky "Upto" 100Mb/s + offpeak calls for €55 (after 12 months, €45 for the first).

So in year one Virgin broadband will cost you €520, while Sky costs €540.

So really no reason to go with Sky's inferior broadband.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

On broadband VM it total overkill, no one uses 360Mbit. Very few people cable in or buy hundreds of euros worth of thrid party Wifi kit so is limited to 50-60Mbits at best if you get Horizon.

Not true with the 360Mb/s service. It comes with a separate broadband router, which supports dual radio 802.11ac wifi, so very good wifi performance.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sky's broadband is about that from my experiance, but actually seems faster, I get better connecton to certain services - netflix being the bigone - and lower pings for online gaming. If you throw price out the window SkyQ is awesome for wifi.

That isn't backed up by the speed test's. The numbers I've seen from samknows surveys clearly show that Virgin have by far superior broadband performance.

You can easily copy Sky Q's wifi performance at a fraction of the cost of Sky Q.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

TL;DR you'll be a lot happier if you just go with the services that are the best for what you want without worrying about a fiver here or there.

I agree completely.

Virgin for broadband wherever is available. Sky if you want pay TV. Freesat + Saorview if you want to save money on TV.

Gerry Wicklow

bk wrote: »

....
Sky/Eir/Vodafone broadband (they all use the same underlying infrastructure) goes up to a maximum of 100Mb/s only. However that depends on how far you are from the cabinet, the speed can be as low as just 7Mb/s ......

Just as an aside, I have Sky 'broadband' and get about 1.7Mb/s due to my rural location. Any speed tests etc I done say I'm on BT. Presumably Sky is just a virtual off BT.

The_Valeyard

boccy23 wrote: »

Hi All

We have recently gotten Fibre in our area and I am looking at getting a phone/fibre/TV package in total.

The costs are not too different (€107.50 versus €95) so it comes down to the TV side of things.

Which one would people recommend?

Avoid the horizon box at all costs. I get my TV from sky and broadband from Virgin. Very happy with that arrangement.

Horizon box is slow, forgets recording, awful menu layout, crappy boxsets.

But the broadband is fantastic. Sky broadband for me, was very slow and poor wi-fi range.

MarkAnthony

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

Just as an aside, I have Sky 'broadband' and get about 1.7Mb/s due to my rural location. Any speed tests etc I done say I'm on BT. Presumably Sky is just a virtual off BT.

Sky is BT Ireland. IIRC Vodafone are as well but I'm sure BK will correct me. :pac:

On that note while I see no reason financially to go for Sky over VM I do recommend it if you can get over 50Mbit and want SkyQ*. I think it's also worth pointing out the problems some are having with VM and Netflix.

In the vast majority of cases bundling is a bad idea. You either get inferior broadband or absolutely sh!te TV.

*I take your point on cost BK but one of the best resources I've found is Boards.ie for tech stuff. Even here the number of people that can/are willing to assist with networking issues is tiny compared to say PC Building. There is always a cost v time spent tinkering element. I still have no clue how to get all my stuff on one wifi network without SkyQ. I'm sure it's possible, I'm sure if I had the time I could learn but it's all done for me and Sky have to be given the applesque nod here of it just all working, albeit at a huge mark up.

bk

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

Just as an aside, I have Sky 'broadband' and get about 1.7Mb/s due to my rural location. Any speed tests etc I done say I'm on BT. Presumably Sky is just a virtual off BT.

Yes, Sky use the BT Ireland network, which in turn uses the OpenEir network.

It is actually a rather complicated story depending on if you are using ADSL, ADSL2, LLU ADSL2 or VDSL and what exchange you are connected to.

The copper line between your home and the exchange/VDSL cab is always owned by OpenEir, but from their it maybe partly carried on OpenEirs fibre network before being handed over the BT Irelands network at the soonest opportunity.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

On that note while I see no reason financially to go for Sky over VM I do recommend it if you can get over 50Mbit and want SkyQ*.

*I take your point on cost BK but one of the best resources I've found is Boards.ie for tech stuff. Even here the number of people that can/are willing to assist with networking issues is tiny compared to say PC Building. There is always a cost v time spent tinkering element. I still have no clue how to get all my stuff on one wifi network without SkyQ. I'm sure it's possible, I'm sure if I had the time I could learn but it's all done for me and Sky have to be given the applesque nod here of it just all working, albeit at a huge mark up.

I think that is quite unfair as I and many others give people lots of help with peoples networking issues over on the broadband forum.

I would also once again stress that the Virgin Media 360Mb/s service comes with a very good 802.11ac wifi router, just as good as Sky Q's and likely to easily fix any problems anyone is going to have.

SkyQ also doesn't magically fix all wifi issues. If the PC the person is using has only a crappy 2.4GHz 802.11n or worse a 802.11g wifi adaptor, then Sky Q will do little to improve it. And in fact I find that majority of wifi issues on the broadband forum come down to people using old equipment which isn't capable of higher wifi speeds. SkyQ simply doesn't fix that.

The problem I have with blindly recommending Sky Broadband is that it is only "upto" 100Mb/s. If everyone could get 100Mb/s then I'd be much more comfortable recommending it. But with many people only getting as little as 7Mb/s then I'm much less comfortable with it as a general recommendation.

If Some one signs up with Sky and only gets 7Mb/s, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to help them get faster speed, other then recommend they sign up to Virgin as soon as they can!

If on the other hand, someone signs up to Virgin and finds they are only getting 30Mb/s over wifi, well I can relatively easily guide them on how to fix that and get potentially 200Mb/s + over wifi!

Generally speaking Virgin is the safe and easy recommendation for broadband, much the same way Sky is the safe and easy recommendation for pay TV.

MarkAnthony

bk wrote: »

I think that is quite unfair as I and many others give people lots of help with peoples networking issues over on the broadband forum.

You do and there are some excellent stickies there authored by you. I wasn't suggesting that people don't help it's a case that people can't, in many cases help. Either the person requesting help can't give enough info or the problem is to complicated to sit down and tease out.

bk wrote: »

I would also once again stress that the Virgin Media 360Mb/s service comes with a very good 802.11ac wifi router, just as good as Sky Q's and likely to easily fix any problems anyone is going to have.

The router can be one of the best consumer ones out there, I doubt it will cover an entire house. Certainly it won't cover at more than 50Mbit. What's needed is someone there with boosters and power line kit - that's what SkyQ offers. The Sky Hub is pretty standard if not a bit meh on its own. Frankly though that's my though on most consumer kit. Neither are likely to be as good as an Archer C8 and that's pretty meh when it comes to coverage.

bk wrote: »

SkyQ also doesn't magically fix all wifi issues. If the PC the person is using has only a crappy 2.4GHz 802.11n or worse a 802.11g wifi adaptor, then Sky Q will do little to improve it. And in fact I find that majority of wifi issues on the broadband forum come down to people using old equipment which isn't capable of higher wifi speeds. SkyQ simply doesn't fix that.

The solution they have goes a long way to sorting it as you'll end up with boosters scattered around the place. It's much better that a single hub solution that one gets with VM.

bk wrote: »

The problem I have with blindly recommending Sky Broadband is that it is only "upto" 100Mb/s. If everyone could get 100Mb/s then I'd be much more comfortable recommending it. But with many people only getting as little as 7Mb/s then I'm much less comfortable with it as a general recommendation.

If Some one signs up with Sky and only gets 7Mb/s, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to help them get faster speed, other then recommend they sign up to Virgin as soon as they can!

Sky and others are very upfront with the customer on the speeds they can get. The problem I have is VM making out the average user needs anything like 100Mbits.

bk wrote: »

If on the other hand, someone signs up to Virgin and finds they are only getting 30Mb/s over wifi, well I can relatively easily guide them on how to fix that and get potentially 200Mb/s + over wifi!

Generally speaking Virgin is the safe and easy recommendation for broadband, much the same way Sky is the safe and easy recommendation for pay TV.

I'm not as comfortable with that as VM have had significant problems with certain services. Also almost no one needs more than 30Mbit over wifi and anyone who does is likely to know how to fix it themselves tbh.

If one of the copper networks is only available at 7Mbit it's very unlikely that VM is an option. Fibre is much more likely if not FTTH in some rural locations.

I've said it before and will again, generally VM for broadband - but if fibre is available to you and it's over 50Mbits the choice between them comes largely down to the phone package. If you're the sort of user that needs in excess of 50Mbits you're unlikely to need advise on ISPs.

About the only salespeople that get away with this up to 7, 24 and 100mbits is Eir and people fall for it everyday. Eir are an horrendous company and if one takes nothing else from this thread it's that you're better off with almost anyone else in almost every circumstance.

Chocolate girl

I have sky q about a month now and love it. Always love sky for TV as I think they beat the others by far. Also switched from Eir to sky for broadband was hesitant about switching as I had very good wifi but have had no problems whatsoever. Teens here always downloading stuff no issues with speed.

bk

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The router can be one of the best consumer ones out there, I doubt it will cover an entire house. Certainly it won't cover at more than 50Mbit. What's needed is someone there with boosters and power line kit - that's what SkyQ offers. The Sky Hub is pretty standard if not a bit meh on its own. Frankly though that's my though on most consumer kit. Neither are likely to be as good as an Archer C8 and that's pretty meh when it comes to coverage.

I think you are wrong about that. In my experience almost any 802.11ac router operating at 5GHz (n or ac) will get at least 100Mb/s+ through out any typical Irish 3 or 4 bedroom house and quite frankly I'd be surprised if you didn't get at least 150Mb/s in most rooms.

I've recommended the Archer C8 to hundreds of people and every single one of them has been blown away by the performance of it and gotten at least 100Mb/s and usually way more throughout their entire home.

In my experience a single 802.11ac router is more then good enough for 99% of people. Sure there are the 1% of people who might have a 12 bedroom mansion, for whom a single 802.11ac router isn't good enough.

But then even in that cases I'd argue such a person would be better off buying one or two more C8's and using them in AP mode connected to gigabit ethernet switch. If you have more then a 5 bedroom house then it is a relatively minimal cost.

There is a major potential issue with Sky's solution. They are only using HomePlug Powerline AV1.1 spec, which only supports up to AV500, which in the real world only gives you less then 100Mb/s, often closer to 50 to 60Mb/s!! Where as most powerline devices you see on Amazon are the newer AV2.0 spec which give about 200 to 250Mb/s in the real world.

So SkyQ setup using powerline, will limit most people to less then 100Mb/s in the real world.

A single 802.11ac router will give people most people 200Mb/s throughout most typical Irish homes, wifi repeaters are largely unnecessary IME.

If you really do want to use powerline wifi repeaters, then you can get superior ones (that support AV2.0 AV1200 powerline) for just €80 on Amazon.

MarkAnthony

Not me, it could barely get a signal to the other floor and this was using their own Wifi card in the PC upstairs. The cost and hassle of running Cat5/6 should not be underestimated.

The Hub and miniboxes act as the boosters in many cases (without the need for powerline). It's not going to go much more than 60-70Mbit but then again very few know what speed they're getting in the first place. I'm happy out, I realise your opinion differs and I applaud you for your continued efforts in getting people up and running, I just personally never had much luck with a single box wifi solution.