There's been no small discussion recently about the use of "up to" in advertising broadband speeds. When ISP's publish rates "up to" a certain speed, how often does the connection actually get up to that speed, for how long, and for how many subscribers. That's what the FCC wanted to find out recently, and what consumers want to make sure is being advertised honestly.
So, is it?
An independent study says, "yes!" Ookla--the brains behind such testing services as pingtest.net and speedtest.net-- decided to do some comparisons recently. They charted advertised speeds in over 100 countries against the actual broadband speeds the end users experience on average. What they found may shock you... honesty.
That's right. They're report "concludes that Americans get 92.91 percent of their advertised throughput rate" (ARS Technica, 10/2010). In short, we get what we pay for over 90% of the time--a stat that the telecommunications industry is sure glad to tout. The global study puts the U.S. 11th among the 26 countries tested, led primarily by former Soviet nations in Eastern Europe. According to Ookla's standings, the U.S. leads Western European nations such as the UK and France, who bottomed out the list at 25th and 26th respectively--delivering honest speeds less than two-thirds of the time.
So, what does this mean for business? First and foremost, it ought to (but still might not) quiet some of the accusations levied against the telecom industry at large. Why might it not? Because of exactly what the report says: nearly 8% of customers don't get what they think they're buying. In this debate, we have what many would call a "loud minority" petitioning for justice on behalf of what is likely to be a select few perpetrators in advertising. The reality is that most ISP's are honest, most customers get what they pay for, and still a few sour apples are spoiling the bunch.
Ookla's report, while encouraging, should not stop the efforts of the telecom industry to continue pushing for honesty. False advertising, however rare, must be addressed no matter what industry it is in. However, consumers of broadband services can rest assured--at least 90% sure, that is--that the rates they think they're getting are being delivered.
In early November, AT&T took legal action against Verizon for what they call misleading advertising which allegedly made false claims about AT&T coverage. You have probably seen the ads in question (an example shown below). In a recent ad campaign, Verizon has taken their longstanding emphasis on network coverage to a level of direct comparison. The popular "can you hear me now" campaigns implied Verizon's general advantage over their competitors. But, the "there's a map for that" campaign directly references AT&T coverage maps, and the slogan cannot be mistook as anything but a spoof on recent iPhone advertising--a popular product of the AT&T network. But did they go too far?
First, let's understand what is at the heart of this issue. Is Verizon posting inaccurate or false claims about AT&T? Not exactly. And AT&T doesn't claim that they are. The injunctions sought are on the basis, not of technical accuracy, but of a misleading presentation. The maps displayed only depict 3G coverage, not overall coverage. The map of AT&T coverage has notably less color than Verizon's. "Through the use of a coverage map in [Verizon] ads, they suggest through all white or blank space, not only that AT&T doesn't offer 3G coverage but no coverage at all," spokesman Mark Siegel said in an interview. "That's misleading and that's why we filed the lawsuit."
Misleading. That is the root issue. After Wilt Chamberlain's famed 100-point game in 1962, a no-name teammate reportedly said in an interview, "Wilt and I teamed up to score 101 points that game." The teammate had hit a free-throw. Accurate? Yes. Misleading? Indeed. Now, AT&T must now show a federal judge that Verizon misled in much the same manner--by not presenting all the facts. My mother taught me that a partial truth is not necessarily truth.
But, the other questions is the question of intent. Wilt's teammate intended to mislead. But what Verizon will try to demonstrate (or should, in my non-expert legal opinion) is that they did not launch this campaign with the intent to mislead. In Verizon's ads the company does clearly mark the maps as "AT&T 3G Coverage" and "Verizon Wireless 3G Coverage." The courts will have to answer the question: could the viewing audience surmise by these maps that AT&T has no coverage outside the colored regions?
With both companies having invested heavily in their market share, advertising, and in their respective network infrastructures, there is no doubt that much is at stake. Truthfully, I'm pleased to see the improvements that such fierce competition has spurred in our nation's Tcom markets, as well as the due process by which any party can be assured of "fair play" in business competition. I'm anxious to see the decision (and as split as I am on the issue, glad it's not mine to make).
