Shrygue
July 2nd, 2008, 21:11
via Gizmodo (http://uk.gizmodo.com/2008/07/02/virgin_guilty_of_misleading_br.html)
Broadband in the UK is a touchy subject: either you're one of the very lucky ones with a great 24/7 connection or one of those with massive contention rates or your ISP is constantly capping your download speeds.
Paying for a broadband package and actually getting what you paid for is not always straightforward and this week Virgin Media got its wrist slapped - again - for ads quoting inaccurate download speeds. Remember, Virgin's already out to get torrent users.
The 'Hate To Wait' ad series in the national press showed a chart of glowing download speeds for different Virgin Media broadband packages but Virgin neglected to mention that its traffic management system could cap those speeds during peak hours.
From 4pm to 9pm, downloaders exceeding a 300MB limit would have their speeds capped, making a joke of the ad that promised that certain 2MB customers could download a 30 minute TV show (c. 341MB) in 26 minutes.
A complaint by rival BT has just been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA said:
"We considered that one of the main objectives of the ad was to highlight the speed with which customers could download a TV show on all three of Virgin Media's packages and, in the absence of any clarifying text, readers were likely to understand that those speeds applied at all times. We considered that the text "Acceptable usage policy applies" did not make the peak time restrictions clear and it would not be unreasonable for readers to expect to be able to download at least one half-hour TV show on the M package, or several half-hour TV shows on the L package, during the five hours of the peak time period without breaching Virgin's traffic management system and having their speed capped. Because that was not the case we concluded that the ad was misleading."
So what does that mean for punters and repeat offender, Virgin?
Fines for Virgin? Free surfing for a week? Apologies? Nothing really. Virgin has been told to make future ads clearer and not to be a naughty ISP in the future. In the meantime, how many hundreds of people signed up to the service on the basis of those ads? Still, it wouldn't be the first time that ISP's fudged or massaged download speed claims and it won't be the last.
Broadband in the UK is a touchy subject: either you're one of the very lucky ones with a great 24/7 connection or one of those with massive contention rates or your ISP is constantly capping your download speeds.
Paying for a broadband package and actually getting what you paid for is not always straightforward and this week Virgin Media got its wrist slapped - again - for ads quoting inaccurate download speeds. Remember, Virgin's already out to get torrent users.
The 'Hate To Wait' ad series in the national press showed a chart of glowing download speeds for different Virgin Media broadband packages but Virgin neglected to mention that its traffic management system could cap those speeds during peak hours.
From 4pm to 9pm, downloaders exceeding a 300MB limit would have their speeds capped, making a joke of the ad that promised that certain 2MB customers could download a 30 minute TV show (c. 341MB) in 26 minutes.
A complaint by rival BT has just been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA said:
"We considered that one of the main objectives of the ad was to highlight the speed with which customers could download a TV show on all three of Virgin Media's packages and, in the absence of any clarifying text, readers were likely to understand that those speeds applied at all times. We considered that the text "Acceptable usage policy applies" did not make the peak time restrictions clear and it would not be unreasonable for readers to expect to be able to download at least one half-hour TV show on the M package, or several half-hour TV shows on the L package, during the five hours of the peak time period without breaching Virgin's traffic management system and having their speed capped. Because that was not the case we concluded that the ad was misleading."
So what does that mean for punters and repeat offender, Virgin?
Fines for Virgin? Free surfing for a week? Apologies? Nothing really. Virgin has been told to make future ads clearer and not to be a naughty ISP in the future. In the meantime, how many hundreds of people signed up to the service on the basis of those ads? Still, it wouldn't be the first time that ISP's fudged or massaged download speed claims and it won't be the last.