NEWS ISP Wanadoo has been slapped on the wrist by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for claiming 512Kbps was "full speed broadband".
The complaint was brought by fellow ISPs BT and Telewest, which objected to ads in the regional press for Wanadoo's unlimited 512Kbps service carrying the slogan "full speed broadband".
BT and Telewest objected on the grounds that, given faster broadband services were available, the ad may lead the broadband-buying consumer into thinking 512Kbps is the fastest connection available. With an array of baffling broadband-esque terms and services out there, they maintained, users could be confused.
Wanadoo claimed that its use of the term "full speed" was justified because, although many ISPs offer services at lower speeds, broadband is generally considered to be 512Kbps and faster. silicon.com's readers agree - according to a poll , 90 per cent of readers think anything under the 512 Kbps threshold is just not broadband. Wanadoo said the ad would help clear up confusion over what really is
The ASA, however, thought consumers could be misled by the phrase and asked the ISP to remove it.
Advertising broadband speeds appear to have become a thorn in the side of ISPs in general of late. AOL recently got a similar ticking off because an ad seemed to suggest ait would be able to deliver a 1Mb connection all the time.
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Poor old Wanadoo! Whilst I would have been the last person to come to the defence of the erstwhile Freeserve, my Wanadoo connection currently routinely delivers me a full (metered) 576kbps at only £20 a month. Some friends and colleagues have paid for more than half a megabit, but suffer so much contention that they "look at my pipe with envy".
2. Goten Xiao
I get a full unmetered 576kbps from Eclipse Internet for about 4 pounds more. 50:1 contention maximum.
Now that's something I've noticed on many ISPs' sites: the lack of contention information. It's all well and good getting a huge 10Mbps pipe, but what if it's at a 1000:1 contention ratio?
And another thing; full speed broadband can't be used as a valid term for *any* connection, unless it runs into the Gigabit range. A topic on Silicon a while back listed Japan's *average* broadband connection at 12Mbps... Now why can't we get that at a reasonable price?
3. anonymous
Until 1997 broadband was defined as that necessary to carry broadcast quality video and the UK was on track (albeit behind schedule) towards competition in the local look ("guaranteed" between BT and the Cable companies across most of the country with an expectation of national radio cover) by 2002.
Only in the last three months have I been offered a one meg service and that is from a BT reseller.
My local cable company regularly sends me mailshots but then tells me that broadband is not available in my area.
I live within a mile of the competing Crystal Palace and Beulah Hill radio transmission complexes but no radio service is on offer.
So who failed us all?
Oftel, DTI, Suppliers, Investors?
Meanwhile you report that half of US homes now HAVE broadband - as opposed to "access" - and prices are tumbling around the world - leaving the UK on the periphery.
So how many of your readers have written to their local MP asking what his party will actually do, whether taking a lead or setting the market free, to prevent the UK slipping ever further behind?
4. anonymous
The only way most of these ISPs get so many customers is by blatant misleading, confusing terms and small print. I myself am having to switch ISPs because of BTs new introduction of download limits, NOT something i signed up for, plus.net here i come...