number 3 a no brainer. As much as I would like to justify it, but there is absolutely no technical reason I need g.fast or something else faster than what I got, it would just be for ego.
VM have high headline speeds, but their actual performance in the real world is dismal in bad areas, the VM forums dont make happy reading either as it seems they have covertly started using some kind of QoS to manage handling their new higher tiered products. What is interesting this time round with VM tho is that even in previous good areas where people have been happy for several years, they suddenly started seeing performance issues when those new vivid products launched.
https://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Speed/Very-poor-HTTP-download-speed/td-p/3026879/page/17To me, the performance should be consistent. A 70mbit speed that I have 24/7 is better than something that runs at 200mbit at 4am, but runs at 2mbit at 9pm.
I can perfectly understand those with syncs under 20mbit and/or unstable lines that need interleaving etc. waiting for g.fast as they will be hoping for a way out of the dodgy service they have, sort of like how people with crappy adsl lines had xmas arrive with fTTC but those with 20mbit syncs on adsl were not so bothered.