One of my bugbears is the way that copper-based broadband has been marketed as fibre optic broadband.
There's a massive difference between the two, but when I raised this with the ASA over a decade ago, I was told by them that the amount of copper in the network compared to the amount of fibre is so small it makes no difference.
However - the laws of physics of an alternating current over copper wire (BT and BT's resellers) or over copper coaxial cable (VirginMedia) are quite different from the laws of physics of a laser beam through glass fibre (Gigaclear, Hyperoptic, B4RN).
Which is why fibre optics are used for undersea trans-ocean cables...
The common starting point for broadband offered on "full-fibre" services is 1000Mbps symmetrical i.e. the same speed uploading or downloading, but is future proofed and much faster speeds can be offered by a simple upgrade.
But more importantly, this also means that you get pretty much the same speed irrespective of where you live - on top of a mountain or in the middle of London.
In my view there should be a clear distinction in the marketing of services based on copper and those that are pure or "full" fibre and this review is long overdue.