[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Said poster is looking at the thread right now actually. Either typing a long winded response or trying his utmost to contain himself from countering this slight.

I read this, saw the next post below yours, and burst out laughing. Loudly. In the office.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Its funny that you and i were thinking of the same person, Thankfully i don't see his replies .

Rest assured, it was of the page-long tl;dr type.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

We know that all of VM's services are only available to 50% of the country. Does anyone know how much of the country BT's Broadband service covers?

(Yes, that was a rhetorical question.)

The services we're talking about (FTTC) - 37%. They are adding 131,000 customers per quarter on Infinity alone, not including the 60 other providers running FTTC services on the same network.

If it's a larger amount (which of course it is) then there's at least one other possible reason for them adding more BB subscribers this quarter.

It isn't larger, it is smaller.

What about last quarter, or the one before that? Is this the first time this has happened? Probably not but, similarly, what about the times (if it has ever happened) that VM have added more BB subscribers than BT? I assume those times would have just been dismissed as "an anomaly" or something?

BT has been consistently adding more on FTTC than VM for the past year,

My point being that, as BT are the largest broadband supplier in the UK (with VM second) it's hardly surprising that the former has added more BB customers than the latter, is it? There might (actually, probably will) be more than the one reason stated for it happening.

BT Infinity is adding 131,000 customers per quarter, and only available to 37% of the country so far. VM's FTTN services are adding just 45,700, but are available to around 50% of the country.

So not only does fact demonstrate the exact opposite of what you state, it is more surprising when VM (wrongly) advertise their service as the fastest in the country (and unsurprisingly many people have been misled by this claim, my flatmates included)

If they're so good and VM so bad, what took then so long? (Four years!)

They've been doing it for a year, and well, with 25% availability they already overtook VM.

Pretty sure I could easily find complaints about the quality and reliability (or lack thereof) of BT's services and Customer Services without much trouble

Sure, my experience with their CS has been pretty meh, but nowhere near the downright despicable I had with VM.

For one, they've so far not once tried to blame my equipment for poor speeds and fixed the problem and called me back when promised, all things VM failed to do during my ~3 years with them.