Skip Navigation

Ofcom finally publishes final broadband report
Tuesday 28 July 2009 00:23:59 by Sebastien Lahtinen

Ofcom has today published its final report on its broadband research encompassing both performance metrics carried out by SamKnows and consumer perception research and statistical analysis by GfK. Many had been expecting Ofcom to shy away from making direct references to named service providers as it had avoided doing so in the past, but it has surprised everyone, to an extent at least, by publishing 'ranges' of speeds, backed by an independent expert who has peer reviewed the research and given it a stamp of approval. They wouldn't expect ISPs who fare badly to try and pull it apart now would they?

The report which runs into over 100 pages (excluding a second 60-page annexe) focuses heavily on download speeds since it argues that there is a close correlation between download speeds and other performance indicators, and that download speed is the most common consideration (along with price) when comparing broadband packages. Disappointingly, it does not address the subjective support element which can often be important in ensuring a good quality broadband experience.

A key headline figure in the report is the average downstream speed of 4.1 Mbps which our own recent broadband speed test statistics support with a figure of 4Mbps average speed across one million tests over a far larger unique tester sample size. Ofcom's test results have been 'normalised' (a statistical process to ensure that samples reflect the 'real world') so a smaller sample is nevertheless statistically meaningful.

DSL vs. Cable

Probably the clear leader out of these results is Virgin Media, the main UK cable operator which offers services up to 50 Mbps. Unfortunately, it wasn't Virgin's flagship 50 meg service that made it to the headlines due to low take-up, but its entry level 10 meg service, which Ofcom reports outperformed DSL operators on 'up to 8 meg' services by double, achieving average speeds of 8 Mbps. The average speeds of DSL operators tend to be significantly slower than the 'headline speed', probably due to the line distance which causes DSL signals to deteriorate. Cable services do not suffer from this same problem (to a significant extent). On Virgin's 20 meg service, the average speed does drop to 13 Mbps, although this still compares well to the headline speed in context.

The only saving grace for DSL operators is the increased jitter (the difference in the latency; the time it takes for a piece of information to flow from the broadband user to a server on the Internet; or vice versa) and most so latency, which some gamers might object to, but as Ofcom suggests, this is going to go unnoticed by most users:

"DSL services offer significantly better performance than cable services on jitter. However, this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the user experience for most internet applications, although for some online games jitter is a very important measure as the stability of connection can be paramount."

Ofcom Report

We were particularly disappointed to see the lack of sample for Be/O2 in the Ofcom research which for April 2009 was only looking at their joint 8 meg service. This group is by far the most significant threat to Virgin Media from the DSL operators and thus some more research would have been appropriate.

Analysing the results for April, there are clear downstream speed reductions in the evenings during the peak times across both DSL and cable services, although the DSL speed decreases appear more significant, suggesting Virgin Media's cable network has much capacity spare.

Broadband Genie have quoted BT as questioning the appropriateness of the results considering they are in the process of switching from ADSL to ADSL2+ technology. Virgin Media of course have been moving customers to faster services for some time.

User awareness

The research outlined a number of areas where users were not as aware as they ought to be about their broadband connections. The report concludes that more than 60% of users were unable to identify their 'headline speed' (the "up to" speed the service is advertised at) correctly with an estimated 15% giving an incorrect figure. Users are generally aware that distance to the telephone exchange is a significant factor in how fast your broadband is (although there is no suggestion if this was DSL users or also included cable users for whom this doesn't apply), but very few are aware that the quality of the extension cabling in your house can have a significant effect on your broadband speed.

We would remind anyone on an ADSL connection - If your broadband is slow and you have telephone extensions in your house (all correctly fitted with filters, including for Sky receivers and alarm systems), talk to your service provider about whether you might benefit from installing an I-Plate - More information can be found on our video show you how to fit an I-Plate.

Some Conclusions

It is rather disappointing that Ofcom have only looked at the largest service providers only passing a brief comment in the body of the report that smaller providers exist. Whilst this does cover 90% of the current UK broadband user base, one of Ofcom's statutory duties under the Communications Act 2003 is "to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition". As such, focussing the attention of the media on the largest providers only seeks to make it more difficult for smaller providers to grow. We accept that it is not necessarily possible to compare providers of all sizes on an equal basis, but dismissing this market is a worrying trend from a regulator. It also allows some smaller operators who are running higher contention levels to escape scrutiny of being under a microscope as with their larger counterparts.

The Digital Britain Report was a sizeable report for journalists to read, but we wonder how clearly the message from this report will be conveyed

Lord Carter has been reported as criticising journalists who have reported on the Digital Britain Report without reading it in full, but considering the length of government reports and those from organisations such as Ofcom, one does wonder why this is surprising. We are pleased to see Ofcom working on consumer guides which are far more likely to be useful to the average user. The research clearly illustrates a lack of understanding by the consumer as to how broadband works, and this needs improving.

So in summary, the DSL operators (BT Wholesale and other LLU operators) have some catching up to do.

The fundamental issue with all things technology is education, and this is the challenge we intend to take up.


Posted by Rroff over 8 years ago
"Have some catching up to do" uh BT wouldn't even compare well with a 3rd world ISP any more let alone a reasonable cable company.
Posted by kamelion over 8 years ago
Most other DSL operators. I am more than happy with the performance I get from my BE connection on an almost 1.5 km line. Far superior to the service I got in the same property from virgin media

Posted by otester over 8 years ago
"suggesting Virgin Media's cable network has much capacity spare"

"Traffic Management"?

Even if I could get 50Mb in my area, I'd still stay with DSL @ 3Mb, VM is such an evil company.


Also regarding education, I have noticed people moan about poor quality DSL but when confronted with the idea that things could be better if took the time to learn/change provider/fix their equipment, they snub it off.
Posted by Pendlemac over 8 years ago
I'm confused here. By 'download speed' do they mean the speed of the connection to your ISP or the speed you can get real data off the web? My max speed on O2 LLU is around 1.2MB/s but when downloading from Microsoft I only get about 300kB/s because their servers throttle it. So which is my 'download speed'?
Posted by daniel_miles over 8 years ago
i have virgin media 20mb and i tested my download speed on this website and most of the time it hits dead on 20 or no lower than 17 mb i am well please, even when i first had 10 md it would hit no lower than 7.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Rroff - True, when you consider the three city blocks of rich people those ISP's serve, not a country.
Posted by therioman over 8 years ago
Brilliant. So even though SamKnows can provide a lot of data, the monkeys at Ofcom ignored most of the useful data (go and read Sam Knows own reports from his own stuff to see a more useful Broadband ISP testing report).

This whole report is a total joke, but of course the Media will pick up on it and continue to spout the usual rubbish.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
The media has around 180 pages to digest, and produce easy to understand short news items by and large. The crucial bit is what reports that can be longer and in more depth say.

While this is the first report from Ofcom in the 10 years of UK broadband, the headline versus real world is of little surprise, given the amount of press coverage on this area in the last few years anyway.
Posted by voicebox over 8 years ago
I too was disappointed not to see a sample of Be/O2 in the Ofcom report.
I pay £7.34 pcm (I am an O2 phone customer) to O2 for their 8meg service and would like to upgrade to their 20meg service for £9.79 or £17.31pcm but here in my part of London the average download speed is only 5.3megs so O2's 20meg service would be a waste of money. If I lived next door to the nearest telephone exchange - Earl's Court or Fulham - then 8 and 20megs would be the norm!
Posted by veryteknical over 8 years ago
Virgin are going to love this...
Just wait for their new marketing campaign on a bill board near you soon:
"Virgin Media- The fastest broadband in the land
its official Ofcom says so!"
Posted by seb (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
@Rroff - I think Virgin Media's 50 meg service struggled to sell at the premium they've had on the price until recently. Most people just don't think they need fast connections, and companies like BT won't build them until the market demands them. That said, chicken & egg applies so hence why VM needs praising for pushing the boundaries. Also VM's job is a bit easier as they only cover around half the country.
Posted by seb (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
@veryteknical only as far as it compares the nine providers. Niche operators technically may be faster, but to be fair to Virgin, they do perform a lot better than the competition and deserve to be able to say so (albeit it's NOT fibre optic broadband, but then neither is BT's FTTC :-p)
Posted by browney over 8 years ago
I have had ADSL from 2000-2006 from then on I have had VM I started with 2Mb and then 10 and now 20. At first I used to see slow downs but this year the service has improved (Due to there increased capacity by 3 fold?) I would never go back to ADSL.
Posted by Jayprime over 8 years ago
I've been with Virgin Media for many years, switching to their "Up to 8Mbps" broadband a couple of years ago.
I have to say that in the main I think I've wasted my money, since their broadband has been nowhere near the offered value, with at least nine out of ten tests showing that I get a supply of less than 500Kbps, irrespective of what time of day I measure it, sometimes dropping below 200Kbps.
Posted by seb (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
@browney - You have seen VM improve from slow downs but you would "never got back to ADSL"? You need to keep an open mind.. VM have increased capacity etc.. now DSL operators are doing it.. just because VM is best at the moment for many doesn't mean it will be forever :)
Posted by seb (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
@JayPrime - It sounds like you might be on a Virgin "off-net" product - Are you connecting to broadband through a phone socket with microfilters between the modem and the socket or does it connect via your virgin cable connection? Consistent 0.5Mbps would be unlikely on a cable connection.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Virgins up to 8Mbps (i.e. offnet) service is very different to its cable (onnet) products, and as far as I am aware was not considered by the report at all, i.e. in terms of customer volume it would have been too small for them to get data.

Generally the Virgin ADSL products have faired poorly in previous speed round-ups.
Posted by sponge34 over 8 years ago
I not BT are claiming that they come off badly because they are switching from ADSL to ADSL2+.... my synch speed dropped by ~1.5Mbps when I changed from ADSL to ADSL2+... I can't believe I am atypical in thus respect for people 2.9km from the exchange and so I think perhaps BT ought to find a better excuse.
Posted by otester over 8 years ago

Apparently BT wanted FTTH a while ago but they were denied.



VM's BT products suck, my mate has them and his dad is very stubborn and won't change, he gets around the same speed albeit on "up to" 8Mbps and is within 1km of the exchange. BT checker says he should get 6.5Mbps+.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
I've often wondered why VM only get 20% of the market despite covering 50% of it. Suggests either a 40% market share in their area, or their areas are the ones with low broadband takeup.
Posted by therioman over 8 years ago

"so O2's 20meg service would be a waste of money."

Maybe not - you're currently on an up to 8 meg running ADSL1 - to get 20meg uses ADSL2+ - and in many cases this actually means you get more - my line can do 4Meg under ADSL1 but does 11meg approx under ADSL2+...

Your mileage may vary...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
@seb - And the quality of VM's product is utterly dependent on the (very) local takeup of the product. Overloading at the exchange level is far rarer for ADSL.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
With ADSL2+ some people are better off forcing the modem to use ADSL2 only, if you control the modem you can usually do this.

The better provider support lines should understand these nuances, and this is the problem getting support trained in the art of broadband, rather than just reading scripts.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
BT only have themselves to blame, their poor performance will be a combination of copper loop technical restrictions and the dominance of traffic shaping on dsl services using BT wholesale. I have not read this ofcom report, but it does seem of higher quality than previous ones. Is a shame it didnt put any focus onto upstream speeds as well tho.
Posted by soloman over 8 years ago
This speed issue is solely reliant on the "last mile" and whatever you can synchronise with the local exchange at. This can vary per individual customer with issues such as distance from the exchange, quality of BT's wiring locally etc.

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't the initial line speed (exchange to the roadside box / home) BT's problem and maintaining that speed / avoiding connection dropouts ect., the responsibility of the ISP?
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Two main issues:

1. Drop off due to ADSL range issues
2. Capacity of networks to cope when lots of people are online

Both things we've covered before
Posted by dicko1975 over 8 years ago
What really made me smile was what I read on the BBC report of this. Apparently BT said that because it provided rural broadband its average speed was bound to be slower than other ISPs. What??!!
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
the OFCOM report accepts the influence of typically longer lines in rural situations and their results are adjusted to compensate for this.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 8 years ago
It is all a smokescreen using distorted data. Ofcom is covering up the fact that the obsolete copper can't deliver, and whipping all the ISPs and media into a frenzy. Ofcom is a useless quango. Nobody in the media actually gets the bigger picture, the only light is shone by this blogger (not me btw).
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
@dicko:Yes, that makes a lot of sense actually. BT is the only ISP in the country that provides a service at almost all exchanges. That includes a lot of exchanges that are difficult to provision where no-one else dares to go. The effect won't exist on wholesale connections but for sure it makes LLU operators seem better.
Posted by AndrueC over 8 years ago
..but as Herdwick wrote the report supposedly compensates for this. I'm not entirely convinced that it can though.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
whats laughable is that lines in rural areas arent actually typically longer. You get long and short lines in both rural and suburban areas.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
andruec what BT provide to people in the middle of nowhere is not relevant to me, it doesnt give them a license to provide substandard services simply because they supposedbly take pity on low populated areas. These low populated areas BT time and time again use as an excuse to charge an arm and a leg for backhaul and for poor quality services.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Those interested should have a listen to the interview with Ed Richards, Ofcom CEO, on Radio 4 this morning. Predictably all is fine, we're doing well. The report was released to help convince operators to invest, meanwhile the many barriers remain intact.
Posted by colrob over 8 years ago
The main thing omitted from this report is the rubbish 'support'.
My own experience is solely of BT, but various forums on TB confirm that BT is not alone.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
There are long lines in both urban and rural locations, however "the average ‘as the crow flies’ distance from premises to exchange for rural consumers was 1.73km, compared to an average distance of 1.36km for urban consumers."

A one eyed blogger with a track record of dishonesty might want to see a disproportionate number of rural lines included in the survey, but what does this tell anybody ? The coverage of test units seems fairly representative of where people live, and its people that use broadband not sheep. If 10% of the population get zero speed it only takes 10% off the average.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
It would not be present in the report colrob because it's irrelevant to the subject matter of the report. I'm not convinced by that blog either doyle, the blogger seems to have a serious bug in his bonnet and shouldn't be taken as gospel, same for every other blogger, including myself.
Posted by c_j_ over 8 years ago
"VM only get 20% of the market despite covering 50% of it. Suggests either a 40% market share in their area, or their areas are the ones with low broadband takeup"

Option 3: VM areas are almost inevitably also the ones where the LLU boys are, and lots of people (me included) might prefer LLU broadband to cable broadband. I've been a TV+phone customer of Telewest and a TV+bb customer of VM and I don't want to do business with them again.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
chrysalis - Well yea, if you take a me me me approach then you're bound to dismiss the importance of broadband coverage.
Posted by samperry209 over 8 years ago
Virgin isnt the best its awful!

Atleast with O2 im getting 20Mb constant never experienced and slowdown and ive only had one outage since Apr 09 which was fixed in 20 mins

O2/Be are the best people... and 2mb isn't fast enough! especally when ps3 updates are huge files!
Posted by samperry209 over 8 years ago
PLUS! Virgin media is too expensive

Just over 9 quid on O2...
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Perhaps the 'experts' here would be interested in this -
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
On the IET, government spending on fibre has been announced as a 50p levy on phone lines already, i.e. small amounts to get to around 90% FTTC/P coverage for 2017
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
It includes:

•The emerging trends from international and national pilot delivery and consumer demand
•The developing business case, investment and financing concerns
•Benchmarking against European delivery
•The key advancements in addressing the technical concerns, speed and standards
•The initial factors for success for the national roll-out project and rural areas
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
"I don't want to do business with them again. " - that's perhaps the real reason for VM's low market share in its own areas. It was poor before any LLU as well.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago - another conference, yawn ! Just publish a business case and be done with it.
Posted by colrob over 8 years ago
I wrote here concerning absence of customer support from the report. Dixinormous replied:

'It would not be present in the report colrob because it's irrelevant to the subject matter of the report...'

But shouldn't the alleged regulator have included this legitimate concern in the TofR?
Posted by Richard_Hancock over 8 years ago
"The fundamental issue [...] is education"

Couldn't agree more. I think the media in general have an essential role to play in educating users about the basics of broadband technology, so they become informed consumers.

I have no problem with Be (my ISP) advertising my broadband service as "up to 24Mbps", even though I synch at "only" 7Mbps. I understand my line has very high attenuation and so am very happy to get 7Mbps (up from 5Mbps on ADSL1) over it. And the fact that the service provided by Be is unlimited and unthrottled, is of particular importance to me.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
herdwick, as crow flies averages are wrong to use, real direct distance is more relevant, in rural areas the crow flies distance can be greater but also more of the distance will be a direct route so the average line length vs crow distance is smaller. In addition rural areas tend to get thicker copper.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
Dawn_Falcon I have not got a me me approach, however I dont like things been held back for the sake of making sure full equality. I still attack the BTw pricing problem eg. although I am now on a LLU isp and that doesnt affect me.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
samperry209 be/o2 the best? are they the best when you have a poor line? average synch speed nationwide been around 4.5mbit. Bit hard to give you 20mbit over a 4.5mbit line.
BE reject hideous lines, that is at least some good morals there.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
andrew dont you think its poor to need 8 years to hit 90% of a tech that would possibly be obselete before its finished? thats an extremely long time.
Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
"as crow flies averages are wrong to use"

it is data that is readily available and correlates well enough with attenuation, as agreed by the independent statistician reviewing the methodology. The factors you mention are acknowledged in the report, but you haven't read it so you wouldn't know.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
chrysalis - Well yes, when you're on an ISP which BT is forced to subsidse...

Be's rejection of longer lines is called "cherry picking", it's so they look better. Expect a *lot* more ISP's to do it in future too, because of the new rules on advertising average line speeds.

Also...again, commercial viability. Get going on the funding bandwagon, because it's the only way to overcome deacent existing infrastructure.
Posted by kamelion over 8 years ago
@Dawn - It has nothing to do with looking better , it is all about practicalities. ADSL2+ uses tones that are more susceptible to interference over longer distances. There would be no benefit to the customer with an attenuation of 60+ to have their connection dropping all the time
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
BT Wholesale has two teir pricing and has had for some time, hence how Plusnet can offer lower priced products in Market 3.

8 years for 90%, depends on viewpoint, how long for other countries to go from 0% to 90%?
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
Given we already have 50% that's silly to say it's 0% to 90% indeed it'll be 6 years to go 60 to 90%.

Regarding the 'tax' Andrew have a read of that web page you mentioned, see how many are doing it the way that idiot Carter wants to. He really needs to stop meddling in telecomms and go back to PR.

We have no realistic plans at all yet, beyond handing money to private companies for probably obsolete infrastructure then likely doing it again a few years later.
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
Simple on the next gen - someone has to pay, question is who.

Remember giving everyone 50 or 100Meg to the home will not magically improve download speeds until the middle mile can be speeded up also.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
kamelion - Except they're also refusing orders lines which are simply "long".

Dixi - And in many countries there are blanket tax advantages for rolling out infrastructure.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
'Middle mile' Andrew? The middle mile is fine. You can push 1.6 Tbit/s down a single fibre pair.

In any event everyone isn't going to get 50-100Mbit and removing the hardest 10% to cover from the equation will drop the average backhaul costs on NGA enormously.

Regarding who has to pay, central government can lower the barriers, local government can provide the spark and co-own muni networks, new entrants will step up when the barriers to building aren't there. No need for direct national government funding at all.

Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
@Dawn - Indeed silly them for offering tax advantages, why not just give money to companies for infrastructure they get to keep 100% and then tax them on the fibre they will be laying partly with public money, there's efficiency.

Nothing wrong with tax breaks, our incumbent has one regarding business rates which is still going through European courts as possible state aid.
Posted by samperry209 over 8 years ago
@chrysalis it doesn't matter the fact is i'd rather constant speed on a poor line then to be slowed down at peak times

And anyway im moving monday and gaining a very good line roughly 500m from exchange
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Dixi - Yep, and it it gets veto'd, you can be sure it'll kill the FTTC rollout dead. Overcoming the barrier of your own infrastructure is hard when it comes to cost purposes.

And it dosn't *matter* how you deliver funding, just that in all cases of rollout against a deacent existing system, and in many cases where there isn't, it's present.
Posted by Dixinormous over 8 years ago
@Dawn - Well they could always stop subsidising Global Services and Retail out of Openreach and Wholesale. A big challenge for BT is keeping Openreach profits at or below the regulated level - creative accounting is then your friend.

The FTTC rollout can die in that case and either business rate changes affecting all operators can be introduced or until a government realises its' stupidity and changes the rates to allow more infrastructure competition.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
It is, as you point out, a legacy of other days and dosn't affect the important areas for infrastructure, and is a tiny percentage of, say, what LLU costs BT.
Posted by CaptainW over 8 years ago
@otester regarding people snubbing doing anything to resolve their bb speeds on adsl - totally with you there - the vast majority of issues on adsl are apparently within the home, incorrect set-up, extension cables, double filters on extensions, sockets without filters, etc etc
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
captianw do you really believe that to be the case tho? for a start how do you even use a socket without a filter, the adsl cable wont fit into a voice socket.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
chrysalis - It matches my experience.

And remember that /all/ sockets need a filter, not just the one which the ADSL modem is attached to.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
dawn what do you mean it matches your experience? are you an engineer who has visited various properties?
Here is what I know (a) a significant amount of openreach visits to properties blame customer equipment/wiring incorrectly, this leads to stats supplied by openreach not been credible, (b) not everyone even has extension sockets, in fact more than half of properties especially flats, bedsit type properties only have a master socker, (c) a filter has to be present at some point for adsl to work.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I've fixed non-electrical wiring in quite a few houses over the years.

(a) Link proof. Solid proof, because you just accused a public company of commiting fraud in their accounting.
Posted by Somerset over 8 years ago
Will ADSL work without a filter? I thought it was to stop the phone hearing the ADSL signal.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Nope, but having only one socket is no assurance..I've dealt with properties where there was a master socket with a splitter directly attached, one of the attached connections had no splitter and a phone and the other a splitter, a fax and the ADSL router.

1.5Mbit improvement by moving the filter to before the splitter.
Posted by SPOTTY over 8 years ago
The issue of end user knowledge of download speed is a good one. I had aproblem which seemed to fix my download speed very low on ADSL. I have a line to a router above the kitchen ceiling. At 6:30 PM daily in the autumn last year ownload speed locked in to a consistent 30% of my usual experience. The culprit? 3 transformers for halogen lights in the kitchen ceiling switched on as the evening darkened! The solution ..reroute the cable well away from them and any mains wiring. I don't know the technical explanation but it was was enlightening as to domestic broadband speed issues!
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
dawn I guess its up to the site owners if they want to censor my comments if they feaful of me badmouthing companies, thankfully this site doesnt seem to censor which I think is a good thing. I am not accusing anyone of fraud just I think the feedback from visits isnt accurate.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Then you're accusing them of fraud. It's that simple. And I don't see the evidence, any evidence to back that up.

(This isn't a "pull things" issue, this is "there is a high barrier to belief" issue)
Posted by racm over 7 years ago

BT would love me to come back and as an incentive they can offer me 200kbps.Wow I am so overwhelmed.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.