Support [BDS]!

Keep the servers up!
Donate with PayPal!
May Goal: $100.00
Due Date: May 31
Total Receipts: $0.00
PayPal Fees: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Below Goal: $100.00
Site Currency: USD
 0%
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2012, 03:29:54 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Vote for us!

Counter-Strike: Source Toplist

call of duty 4 


Articles
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
This topic has not yet been rated!
You have not rated this topic. Select a rating:
Author Topic: Verizon Sues Time Warner Over Misleading Ad...  (Read 339 times)
[BDS] PointTopic starter
Administrator
Rogue Hazelnut
******

Beers: 5006
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Age: 33
United States United States

Posts: 735



View Profile

« on: April 14, 2008, 08:52:10 PM »

Remember earlier this year when Verizon Wireless sued competitor Alltel Wireless for false advertising? That came right after the company had been fined for false advertising itself -- and the suit basically ignored the fact that Alltel's ad was accurate until Verizon Wireless (just a couple months earlier) had changed its policy. Now it looks like Verizon Wireless' parent company is doing something similar. Broadband Reports points us to the news that Verizon is suing Time Warner Cable over an incredibly dopey ad that suggests in a very misleading manner that Verizon's FiOS fiber optic offering was just catching up to Time Warner's use of fiber (confusing fiber in the network with fiber to the home) and also suggesting that FiOS-TV requires a satellite dish (which is simply untrue -- though, the company does offer satellite TV service for areas that can't get FiOS yet). Still, it does seem a bit aggressive to sue over this.

And, this situation is made even more amusing by the fact that Verizon itself just got caught running misleading advertising. In this case, Verizon credits CNET "experts" with claiming that FiOS is "near-flawless," which is taken entirely out of context. CNET's article wasn't a review, but about the service, and the context was: "This fierce competition reinforces how important it is for Verizon to offer a near-flawless TV experience." In other words, CNET was saying that FiOS TV needs to be near-flawless to compete -- not that it is. To its credit, Verizon admits that it was wrong in using the phrase in advertising, and won't be using those ads after its initial run is done next month. It also claims that TWC's ads are much more egregious, though I'm not sure that's true. It's quite easy for anyone investigating their options to understand that TWC's claims are false. But it may be much more difficult to confirm whether or not CNET's review really called FiOS "near flawless." Either way, these are industries that have a long history of stretching the truth as far as it can go in advertising messages. It makes you wonder if anyone takes either of their commercials seriously.
Logged



"POINT"

Your life is what you make it.

PSN ID: Oldschool27
Xfire: addict1

lordjedi
Rogue Hazelnut
****

Beers: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 906


View Profile


Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2008, 09:01:30 PM »

I read about this on Friday.  Verizon's big complaint is that they think they're losing customers because of the ad.  The parts about fiber in the network (which is the phrase used in the ad) and requiring a satellite for TV are at least partially true.  TWC has been using fiber in their network for much longer and there are areas where you can't get TV via FiOS.

This ad runs along the lines of the DirecTV ads from about a year ago that claimed the NFL network wasn't available on Time Warner cable.  The truth was that TWC customers just had to purchase the package that included the NFL network.  It wasn't available in the basic package, but it was available in the basic DirecTV package.

In any case, I can't believe Verizon is suing over this.  Deceptive ads have been around forever and won't be going away anytime soon.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: mss

 
Jump to: