[TheDon]

I'm just struggling to see how VM isn't "fit for purpose" when they make no guarantees over the service they provide.

Chrysalis' entire argument seems to revolve around that, yet I'm not seeing where VM are falling down on their obligations.
They sell you an internet connection that is capable of up to a certain speed. There is no doubt that they do this. Your connection, barring faults, is capable of reaching the speed you subscribe to.

They at no point say you'll ever actually get that speed though, there is no SLA. If you can connect to the internet and your connection stays up then guess what, they're fulfilling their obligations to you.

It's up to you as a consumer to then decide if the service you get from that is actually worth paying for. Maybe in some areas it isn't, in which case, go elsewhere.

To expect VM to throw money at the network to subsidise high usage areas is frankly crazy. No company in their right mind would throw good money after bad. They are there to make a profit. VM are in enough debt as it is without them having to lose money on areas like that.