Shouldn't this be clearer?

[TechmanagerMal]

Sky state on the Broadband Checker - 

• The speed you get to a WiFi-connected device might be lower. It can depend on how far it is from your hub, how it's connected and how many other devices are connected to your hub.

• Really, according to the forum guidance, it will certainly be lower, most likely substantially.

[jamesn123]

@TechmanagerMal 

No company is going to put 'WiFi speeds WILL be lower' or 'WiFi speeds will be substantially lower' because its bad marketing and they can get away with putting 'might'. Additionally in perfect conditions the speed might not actually be lower so the statement is technically true.

At this point you are just nitpicking and if you have a problem with Sky's wording on their speed statements then i suggest you take it up with trading standards.

[TechmanagerMal]

---

@jamesn123 wrote:

@TechmanagerMal 

No company is going to put 'WiFi speeds WILL be lower' or 'WiFi speeds will be substantially lower' because its bad marketing and they can get away with putting 'might'. Additionally in perfect conditions the speed might not actually be lower so the statement is technically true.

At this point you are just nitpicking and if you have a problem with Sky's wording on their speed statements then i suggest you take it up with trading standards.

---

• Not at all, I just happened to notice the comment when checking how a SkyBooster4 was registering on my connected devices and thought it might help make others more aware of the lack of clarity in the advertising and official help.

[TimmyBGood]

@TechmanagerMal 

It's not helped by ISPs continuing to use the same wording for FTTP as they did for FTTC (and even ADSL).  Percentage decrease at any particular distance from the router might in fact be the same, but absolute speed drop from wired is obviously hugely greater as line speed increases tenfold.

However, as I've observed elsewhere in this extended discussion, even a 90% drop from gigabit is still far faster than almost any individual WiFi client device can actually use 

[TimmyBGood]

@TechmanagerMal 

Let's try a worked example, as my old Physics teacher used to say.

Household A has 'perfect' 80Mbs FTTC delivered to their address.  Their WiFi has a 50% speed drop to each of the Glass pucks in the two kids bedrooms, but that's OK because an individual puck can only use 35Mbs at most (streaming UHD/HDR) so easily manages on 40Mbs.  However, if the adults of Household A try to use the Glass television in the living room for UHD as well then it (and probably the pucks too, given the absence of QoS) won't work reliably, even with the TV on ethernet, because at that point total bandwidth demand at the property is over 90Mbs, and even the best FTTC tops out at 80Mbs.

Household B has 'gigabit' FTTP. For some reason their WiFi is even worse (probably the splendid stone chimneys and fireplaces of their multi-room mansion) with a 90% drop to all their pucks but that's OK too, because each could still 'get' around 80Mbs and only 'needs' 35Mbs just like the ones in Household A.  However, Household B can have all six of the pucks in those lovely fire-lit bedrooms running UHD/HDR, plus their Glass television, and still be using under 25% of the bandwidth being delivered to their router, so the 60GB Warzone patch downloading at full speed on Steam to the ethernet gaming PC in the 'home office' (aka Dads Den) doesn't even stutter.

That's the point of 500 and 900 Mbs FTTP.  However, it's somewhat harder to get into a five word advertising slogan.

[jamesn123]

Well said @TimmyBGood 

Just wish people would understand and accept this.

The best way I can word it is...

FTTP is for many at once. NOT all to one

[TechmanagerMal]

@TimmyBGood 

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

[TimmyBGood]

@TechmanagerMal 

If they want those three Glass devices running UHD simultaneously then they need wider bandwidth arriving at the router than perfect FTTC can deliver, and FTTC is rarely perfect...

Neither they or Household B 'needs' gigabit though, but then again who does*?

*looking longingly at the £1 pcm extra to take mine from 500Mbs to 900Mbs ; )

[jamesn123]

---

@TechmanagerMal wrote:

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

---

Yes, if all the kids + adults wanted to use Glass/Pucks/Any other streaming services there is a perfectly legitimate reason to upgrade to ultrfast.

However if only 1-2 people were ever going to stream at once then no there isnt any point. 

[TomThumb5ive]

Household #3  predominantly iOS devices  (so still no compatibility with sky's routers gui) 🤭

with a Sky Q & a couple of mini's 👍 (10/100) Ethernet connections 😩

also suffering with reduced throughport as they have sky broadband 🙈

So as my house has the same layout & construction as household #2 👀

No hope of a fttp connection yet 🤬

Dose that mean I'm fubard ? 

Edit: Household #4 also has sky glass 😩 haven't they suffered enough already 😁 lol

Tom...

[TimmyBGood]

---

@jamesn123 wrote:

---

@TechmanagerMal wrote:

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

---

However if only 1-2 people were ever going to stream at once then no there isnt any point. 

---

Although even two Glass devices running at UHD is more than 'average' FTTC (c59mbs) can cope with, even without the multitude of other internet-capable devices likely to be in such a household.

[jamesn123]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@jamesn123 wrote:

---

@TechmanagerMal wrote:

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

---

However if only 1-2 people were ever going to stream at once then no there isnt any point. 

---

Although even two Glass devices running at UHD is more than 'average' FTTC (c59mbs) can cope with, even without the multitude of other internet-capable devices likely to be in such a household.

---

Yeah but the scenario was a perfect 80mbps FTTC connection with only those two Glass devices in use.

[jamesn123]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@jamesn123 wrote:

---

@TechmanagerMal wrote:

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

---

However if only 1-2 people were ever going to stream at once then no there isnt any point. 

---

Although even two Glass devices running at UHD is more than 'average' FTTC (c59mbs) can cope with, even without the multitude of other internet-capable devices likely to be in such a household.

---

I think this is the main issue. @TechmanagerMal Wants nailed on Yes or No answers with figures when in reality everyones situation can be completely different and its totally dependant on those variables as to whether FTTP is worth it for them. 

[TechmanagerMal]

---

@TechmanagerMal wrote:

@TimmyBGood 

So am I right in saying there is no point in household A upgrading to Ultrafast?

---

• Correction required, I misread the Ultrafast download speed, I thought it was only 100Mbps.
• So of course, an upgrade is advisable.