BT is a joke for sure ... but this is where ofcom should step in ... the fact that they don't says a lot about their ability as a regulator.
I'm one of the lucky few, I could have faster than I do but chose to only pay for 120Mbps as this seemed to give me more than enough bandwidth for day to life and I have a server that reports 3TB of downloading from the last month, despite this I still game, stream, make calls, use the internet without a hitch.
That said, where I used to live I paid for an "up to" 8Mbps line from BT which never hit even 1Mbps even when I hacked the hell out of my router to optimize it.
I have 2 thoughts here about broadband speeds:
1. Those living in very rural areas should accept this as being part of rural life (sorry guys but thats life, you get other perks).
2. Those living in cities should expect this level of connection as part of the "moving forward" initiative that BT and Gov are working on.
Another thought ...
Why do new estates only go up with basic copper lines laid?
Would it not make more sense to declare (perhaps with law) that all new builds force a fibre enabled exchange to serve that new estate and the exchange be hooked up to the network when building is complete.
I don't think this would cause any issues and it would save digging up roads later (say in 5 years time) to basically do what should have been done already!
Ofcom is my biggest gripe here ... thinkbroadband.com show a map of the speedtest results around the whole of the UK and you can clearly see on that map where the Virgin Media network ends and the BT one is all that is on offer.
Why are other network providers so restricted in the UK compared to BT this is so anticompetitive its not even funny any more?
Let the likes of virgin apply for and gain planning permission to expand their networks wherever they want then have BT actually have to compete to earn their income so they can be shown what real networks do instead of being given free reign to rip off UK consumers!