Assuming it's the targets rather than the semantics being questioned (in which case the rant forum was probably reasonable), the thing to bear in mind is that a fair few punters will call us and then hang up for one reason or another before we've had half a chance to answer. I know myself that I've called callcentres to ask things and the second I'm waiting the problem has gone away or I've found the answer I was looking for somewhere else. With my bank, if they are busy and don't answer within a few seconds I just call back later. That's why no callcentre can achieve a call answer rate that is 100% (although some probably get close, I doubt it in residential ISP land!).
In any day in the CSC we have many peaks and troughs and the idea is to balance them out efficiently. We could improve our targets certainly, but the reality is that thew extra staff needed to achieve that would require us to increase subscriptions in order to pay for it. We don't hide the fact that we'd prefer people to raise tickets too, and we're proud of the job we do with support generally especially when you compare us against even the most reputable competitors. Also, a firm aim never to make a customer wait more than 10 minutes isn't the same as that being an average or the norm. The idea is that when we get to 10 minutes we know that's a problem and we make sure there is a mechanism in place to re-allocate staff from other work when there is a risk of us exceeding that target.
As I say, running a residential broadband helpdesk for products that don't start with a lot of margin to play with isn't an easy task. We've nothing to hide and if you want to know more then I'm only too happy to tell you about why we work in the way we do.
Regards,
Ian