Memorandum submitted by the Advertising
Standards Authority
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Advertising Standards Authority
(ASA) is grateful for the opportunity to provide evidence to the
Business and Enterprise Select Committee fact-finding review into
broadband. The ASA is happy for this submission to be published.
1.2. The ASA is the UK self-regulatory body
for ensuring that all advertisements, wherever they appear, are
legal, decent, honest and truthful.
1.3. The protection of consumers is at the
heart of the ASA's work. The rules we administer aim to ensure
that advertising does not mislead or offend.
1.4. This response provides:
— A summary of the UK advertising self-regulatory
system. More detailed information can be found on our website
www.asa.org.uk.
— Details on how the ASA regulates advertisements
for broadband speeds and the particular regulatory challenges
it raises.
1.5. All rulings mentioned in this submission
are included in full in the Annex.
2. ADVERTISING
SELF-REGULATION
IN THE
UK
2.1. The system is based on a concordat
between advertisers, agencies and the media that each will act
in support of the highest standards in advertising. Compliance
with the Codes and ASA adjudications is binding on all advertisers.
It is not a voluntary system.
2.2. The system is both self-regulatory
(for non-broadcast advertising eg press, poster, cinema, online)
and co-regulatory (for TV and radio advertising).
2.3. The Codes sit within a legal framework,
which means that, where appropriate, they reflect the standards
required in law, eg the Consumer Protection for Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 (CPRs) for misleading advertising. The Codes
also contain additional protections that are not required under
law eg rules related to taste and decency and social responsibility.
2.4. The ASA is responsible for administering
five Advertising Codes and deals with more than 26,000 complaints
per year. Just one complaint can cause the ASA to launch an investigation
and remove an advertisement, if the ad is found in breach of the
Codes.
2.5. The Committee of Advertising Practice
(CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP)
are the industry committees responsible for writing and maintaining
the Advertising Codes.
2.6. The Committee members represent the
three main parts of the advertising industry, namely the advertising
agencies, media owners (eg poster site owners, newspapers, broadcasters)
and the advertisers themselves.[1]
CAP and BCAP also enforce the adjudications of the ASA.
2.7. CAP writes and updates:
— The British Code of Advertising, Sales
Promotion and Direct Marketing ("the CAP Code"), which
governs non-broadcast advertising (eg print, poster, cinema, online).
2.8. BCAP writes and updates:
— The BCAP TV Advertising Standards Code.
— The BCAP Radio Advertising Standards
Code.
— The BCAP Code on Text Services.
— The Rules on the Scheduling of Television
Advertisements.
2.9. Final adjudications on investigations
are decided by the ASA Council and published on the ASA website.
The Council's membership incorporates two-thirds members of the
public, one-third advertising experts and is independently chaired
by the Rt Hon the Lord (Chris) Smith of Finsbury.
2.10. In the event that the ASA upholds
a complaint against an advertisement, the advertiser or broadcaster
is required to amend, withdraw or schedule the advertisement appropriately.
2.11. Advertisers that breach the Code face
financial loss from having an ad campaign pulled and loss of reputation
through the publication of upheld adjudications.
2.12. The vast majority of advertisers comply
with ASA rulings straightaway. For those advertisers who refuse
to comply, industry and other pressures can be brought to bear.
For example, pre-vetting can be imposed and direct marketing companies
can have benefits such as Royal Mail bulk-mailing discounts removed.
In serious and persistent cases of non-compliance advertisers
can be referred to the OFT (for misleading advertising) and broadcasters
can be referred to Ofcom. Referrals are rarely required.
2.13. The system places a lot of importance
on helping advertisers to get their ads right before they are
published, through education and pre-publication advice.
2.14. For broadcast advertisements, the
broadcasters have set up pre-clearance bodies: Clearcast for TV,
and the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) for radio. These
bodies clear ads before they go on air and are very effective
at maintaining high standards. However, pre-clearance does not
prevent the ASA from investigating or upholding a complaint about
a broadcast advertisement.
2.15. It would be impossible to pre-clear
the many millions of non-broadcast advertisements that appear
every year in the UK. However, CAP offers pre-publication advice
for non-broadcast advertisers through its Copy Advice team and
providing comprehensive online guidance.[2]
2.16. The total number of ads about which
the ASA receives complaints accounts for less than 1% of all advertising
published or broadcast in the UK. The ASA also monitors ads to
check levels of compliance and have non-compliant ads removed.
Compliance surveys regularly show that the vast majority of advertising
is compliant with the Advertising Codes.[3]
2.17. The Advertising Codes can be accessed
at http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes.aspx
3. ADVERTISING
BROADBAND SPEEDS
3.1. The ASA is fully aware of the concerns
that exist around how broadband internet service providers (ISP)
advertise the speed of their services. The basic concern has been
the disparity between the headline speed advertised (eg 2Meg or
8Mb) and the speeds actually achieved by consumers.
3.2. As the advertising regulator, the ASA
has considered this issue extensively. We have a duty under the
Advertising Codes to ensure that consumers are not misled and
that a level playing field is maintained for business.
3.3. ASA policy is set by "case law";
that means every adjudication the ASA makes helps to build up
a picture of what is, and is not, acceptable in advertisements.
This approach means that the ASA position can evolve over time
and in response to changes in technology and consumer understanding.
3.4. As mentioned in 2.3 above, the
rules in Codes for misleading advertising reflect the CPRs. The
CPRs transposed the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which
is the EU framework directive for consumer protection and is maximum
harmonisation in its effect. Members of the Committee will therefore
understand that the Advertising Codes and ASA decisions may not
go beyond or drop below these legal requirements.
3.5. Why does the headline speed differ from
the consumer experience?
3.5.1. There are limitations inherent in
ADSL technology, which mean that the broadband speeds achieved
by individual consumers will vary significantly due to a number
of factors:
— principally, the distance from the exchange
(signal attenuation);
— the number of consumers who have signed
up to the service in the local area (contention ratio);
— the time of day (contention—the
number of people using the service at certain times of the day
can cause speeds to fluctuate at peak times) and;
— the equipment the consumer is using at
home.
3.5.2. This means broadband speeds achieved
by consumers vary significantly around any given telephone exchange.
Distance from the exchange (signal attenuation) is the main factor,
but its effect is by no means uniform. Add to this the fact that
even an individual's connection is not consistent—it can
fluctuate according to the time of day—and the difficulties
of creating a meaningful message for consumers about the speed
of a broadband service quickly become clear.
3.6. What do the Advertising Codes say?
3.6.1. Broadly, the Advertising Codes contain
clear rules that state that advertisers must not mislead consumers,
by act or omission.
3.6.2. The Advertising Codes also require
advertisers (and broadcasters) to hold substantiation for the
claims they make. The substantiation must be robust and capable
of withstanding third party scrutiny.
3.7. What is the ASA's regulatory position?
3.7.1. In response to consumer concerns,
the ASA made a series of rulings in 2006 and 2007 that
required ISPs to make their ads clearer about the limitations
affecting their services in order to set more realistic consumer
expectations of the speeds they were likely to achieve.
3.7.2. During the ASA's investigations it
became apparent that the only consistent speed that is capable
of being objectively substantiated is the speed of the service
as it leaves the exchange. There is no independent third party
that is continuously and comprehensively monitoring broadband
speeds, although we are aware that Ofcom has started to look at
the issue and has done some recent research on user experience.
3.7.3. The ASA recognised the intractable
problem of trying to devise a meaningful way of communicating
the wide variations in speed achieved by each individual user
in the form of a simple "speed claim" [see section 4 below
for more details of the options we considered]. We were particularly
mindful of the need for consumers to be able to compare services
between broadband providers. So in its decision-making the ASA
has worked hard to strike a balance that allowed broadband providers
to advertise their services and consumers to distinguish between
products.
3.7.4. The position the ASA has arrived
at, after careful consideration of all the various factors, is
that the broadband provider may make a headline speed claim based
on the speed of the service as it leaves the exchange, subject
to the following qualifications which must be made clear in the
advertisement:
— The broadband speed must be preceded
by the words "up to", in order to make it clear that
a consumer can receive anything up to the advertised speed.
— The ad must contain a clear notice in
the main body copy (ie not in a footnote) that states that speeds
vary significantly subject to a number of factors, such as distance
from the exchange.
— The ad must also make clear where the
service is available ie geographical limitations that might mean
a headline speed is only available to those in, for instance,
urban areas.
3.7.5. The requirement for body copy information
comes from a 2006 ruling against Bulldog Communications Ltd.
The ASA received a complaint that signal attenuation on ADSL broadband
services of up to 8Mpbs would detrimentally affect the user experience
of such a significant number of 8Mb customers that "Up to…"
on its own was not sufficient to qualify the headline speed claim.
[4]
3.7.6. The ASA has also upheld against Be
Un Limited for their claims "Up to 24 meg broadband …"
again on the basis that signal attenuation due to line length
meant that many users would never get close to the headline speed.[5]
3.7.7. In practice, over half of Be Un Limited
users achieved speeds of over 12 Mbps and, in terms of user
experience, we considered that the difference in speed from what
was claimed and what was achieved was unlikely to have a significant
effect on the user. This was because virtually all (98%) Be Un
Limited users achieved speeds of over 6 Mbps. This was the
speed in the Bulldog investigation that we considered (at that
time) adequate to meet nearly all demands users might place on
the broadband service. However, unlike previous cases, we considered
that the gulf between the typical speeds achieved by users and
the headline speed quoted was so large that it also warranted
prominent qualification in the body copy of the ad.
3.7.8. The Be Un Limited adjudication is
therefore an extension of the Bulldog adjudication applying to
the newer ADSL2+ broadband technology.
3.7.9. It is worth noting that during these
investigations and subsequent instances where we have revisited
the matter to review the policy, the ASA has based its decisions
on significant amounts of line test data provided by ISPs. In
some instances, rather than requesting a sample, we have actually
required an ISP to provide data on the user experience of their
entire customer base on a particular package. In the absence of
broad third party data, we have relied on this information to
give us a picture of user experience and to ensure that our decisions
are rooted firmly in the available evidence.
3.8. Compliance and other regulatory activity
3.8.1. The ASA's adjudications have been
backed-up by subsequent and on-going work by the various arms
of CAP. The CAP Compliance team wrote to broadband ISPs shortly
after the Bulldog adjudication to ensure that the ruling would
be followed across the entire sector.
3.8.2. Furthermore, CAP's monitoring function
has pursued advertisers who have not adhered to the position established
in the ASA adjudications. They have been particularly active in
ensuring that the requirement for a prominent disclaimer is followed
by advertisers.
3.8.3. Clearcast and the RACC ensure that
TV and radio advertisements are in line with relevant ASA adjudications.
3.8.4. It is important to remember that
the ASA is not the only part of the regulatory landscape. Broadband
providers are regulated by Ofcom, with whom we liaised when they
developed their Code of Practice for broadband providers.
3.8.5. The Ofcom Code requires ISPs to give
consumers, prior to signing up to a contract, an indication of
the likely speed that they will personally achieve when using
the service. This is done through a simple test the ISP can carry
out on a consumer's telephone line.
3.8.6. The CPRs recognise that it is not
always possible to provide consumers with full information in
an advertisement. Limitations on space and time and individual
circumstances mean that advertisements can sometimes only give
an indication of the service or product. The CPRs recognise that
businesses communicate at various points with consumers and that,
sometimes, businesses can provide information at different points
in time, so long as consumers receive full and timely information
in order to make an informed purchase.
3.8.7. The ASA believes that the measures
we have taken, in conjunction with the roll out of Ofcom's ISP
Code of Practice have made a significant impact in alerting consumers
at various stages of the marketing and transaction process to
the potential limitations to ADSL broadband services. In simple
terms, we would contend that it is highly unlikely that a consumer
can subscribe to a mainstream broadband provider without having
been alerted beforehand to the speed limitation issue.
3.8.8. We firmly believe that the combined
approach of the Ofcom Code and ASA regulation provides a pragmatic,
proportionate response to a very complex problem affecting consumers'
experience of broadband services. Furthermore, recent data would
appear to support our view that the approach is working. Consumer
concerns about disparities appear to have lessened significantly
in recent years. We have seen a decrease of over 80% in the number
of complaints made about the speed claims in residential broadband
advertising in the past two years.
4. OTHER OPTIONS
4.1. The ASA would like to reassure the
Committee that when arriving at its adjudications and its current
position, the ASA Executive gave significant consideration to
other regulatory options. A couple of examples were:
4.2. Avoiding all numerical headline speeds
4.2.1. This option would clearly resolve
the issue, but ignores the benefit for consumers of having a useful
and relatively straightforward way of differentiating between
different services and at different price points.
4.2.2. We were also concerned that such
a blunt approach to the question would create significant consumer
detriment in the form of confusion created by the vacuum in the
wake of any decision coupled with providers inevitable attempts
to devise new, and potentially more misleading, methods of communicating
the speeds of their services.
4.3. Individual performance based headline
speeds
4.3.1. We examined the idea of restricting
ISPs to advertising only headline speeds based on their individual
and up-to-date user performance, as demonstrated by a representative
and up-to-date sample of their users' performance data.
4.3.2. We envisaged that this could work
by applying a formula to the company's dataset which would determine
an acceptable headline speed based on actual user experience.
One way of framing the approach would be: X% of users should be
shown to have achieved speeds above Y% of any headline. For instance,
whatever speed say 60% of users can be shown to have achieved
is 75% of the permissible headline; if 60% achieve 4.5Mb, the
ISP could claim only a 6Mb headline, even if the service is provided
at 8Mb.
4.3.3. The concept has a clear advantage
in that it creates an incentive for providers to improve their
service and might therefore encourage competition.
4.3.4. However, our primary concern with
this approach was the difficulty in enforcing compliance with
the approach. As already mentioned, there is no independent third
party capable of providing up-to-date line test data, which would
therefore make verification of the claim and evidence difficult.
This would be likely to lead to inter-competitor complaints, which
we would have little choice but to investigate taking up significant
costs in time and resources, but with little overall benefit to
the consumer.
4.3.5. Moreover the appropriate values for
"X" and "Y" are difficult to determine without
a comprehensive dataset for the entire industry. The approach
would require a significant amount of work from the regulators
to determine an "acceptable" level of performance. The
values would have to be developed in consultation with consumers
and the industry. However, given the speed with which the technology
is developing (and the speed with which consumer expectations
would change), it is highly likely that the level of acceptability
would be a quickly moving target. This would be likely to become
very burdensome regulation.
4.3.6. Finally, we also doubted whether
this option would actually help consumers. The scope for confusion
would be significant, in our view, because the option would still
leave many consumers achieving below the new headline speed (and
some exceeding it). So all the qualifications that we require
advertisers to include in their advertisements would still have
to be used.
4.4. Our overriding concern when considering
the alternative approaches was whether the steps were actually
necessary and whether they would markedly improve the position
of consumers looking to purchase broadband services. We concluded
that while such options appeared on paper to be an improvement,
difficulties emerged when we looked at the practicalities of implementation
and the potential benefits to consumers.
4.5. In particular, we noticed that, irrespective
of how representative a revised headline speed could be, by the
very nature of ADSL technology, a significant proportion of consumers
would continue to suffer technical difficulties affecting the
speeds they achieved. Therefore, any headline speed would still
necessitate the type of disclaimer required by the Bulldog adjudication.
5. ONGOING AND
FUTURE REGULATION
5.1. The ASA recognises that broadband technology—and
the consumer experience—is developing extremely rapidly,
as evidenced by Ofcom's recent research. This shows that advertising
regulation needs to be flexible and fleet-footed.
5.2. We envisage that our position on speed
claims will continue to evolve as services develop, new evidence
emerges and data collection methods improve. It is an advantage
of the advertising regulatory system that it is flexible and can
adapt to changing circumstances. Issues can be revisited and,
through a new adjudication, a position can be changed or amended
as appropriate.
5.3. However, in order for the ASA to revisit
an established position through a formal investigation, we would
require reasonable grounds, for example in the form of new evidence,
to lead us to question our current stance. We have noted for instance,
Ofcom's recent research, but do not at this point consider that
it significantly changes the basis of our position, in that it
fits with much of the data we have seen over the past few years.
5.4. It is important to note that advertising
is just one part of the consumer experience. Ensuring that consumers
are adequately protected and receive the information they need
to make informed purchasing decisions requires the use of a number
of interventions. Some of which relate to advertising regulation
and the ASA continues to liaise closely with Ofcom on this matter.
However, other approaches include sectoral regulation (which is
undertaken by Ofcom), consumer education and a responsible business
approach.
5.5. The ASA believes that it has adopted
a pragmatic approach, which takes into consideration both consumers'
expectations and the need for ISPs to market their services. The
number of complaints the ASA receives suggests that the issue
is no longer a significant cause for concern among consumers.
The ASA has published three upheld rulings against ISPs this year
(2009), of which two were misleading about the costs involved,
and the final one referred to a fair use policy for very heavy
users of the available bandwidth.[6]
Annex 1
BULLDOG COMMUNICATIONS
LTD26 Red Lion Square, London
WC1R 4HQ. Date: 20 September 2006
Media: Television, National press
Sector: Computers and Communications
NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS: THREE
Ad
A national press ad, for Bulldog, was headlined
The gate is open and featured a gate opened to a meadow.
The ad claimed "Up to eight meg broadband for only £15.50*
per month".
A TV ad, for Bulldog, had a voice-over that
said "With up to eight meg broadband, more people can play,
e-mail, download and talk, together, all at the same time. With
Bulldog, unlimited phone calls to your network friends are included.
To find out more about Bulldog Broadband packages call now on
0800 or visit bulldogbroadband.com. Bulldog. Broadband and Phone."
Onscreen text said "Broadband speed is up to eight meg downstream.
Subject to local availability and Bulldog phone line".
Issue
1. ntl complained that the press ad was
misleading because, due to the technical limitations of high speed
broadband services, the maximum speed quoted would not be available
to a significant number of people within the geographic areas
in which the service was available. They provided figures that
showed that, as the length of line between a local exchange and
a customer's home increased, the broadband speed that could be
achieved by the customer decreased. They said broadband speeds
of eight megabits per second (Mbps) or close to eight Mbps could
be achieved only by people who lived within three km of an exchange.
Beyond that distance the achievable speed dropped rapidly because
of unavoidable signal attenuation caused by line length and quality.
The 35% of people who lived more than 3.8 km from an exchange,
for example, would get at best a five Mbps connection. They believed
the prefix "up to" was not an adequate indication that
a large proportion of customers could not get a service close
to the headline speed.
2. Two members of the public said the TV
ad was misleading because the broadband speed quoted was not achievable
for all users. One said their connection had never exceeded five
Mbps and the others said they believed technical limitations would
prevent users from achieving the headline speed.
Response
Bulldog Communications (Bulldog) said their
ads were in line with previous ASA adjudications and CAP guidance,
which required claims about broadband speeds to be preceded with
the words "up to" to indicate that the top speed might
not be achieved by users.
They said a substantial proportion of customers
using the "up to eight meg" service achieved speeds
of eight Mbps, or close to eight Mbps, and more than half of customers
using the service achieved speeds of six Mbps or higher. They
sent the results of customer speed tests for July 2005 and December
2005.
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC)
said they agreed with Bulldog's comments.
Assessment
COMPLAINTS UPHELD
The ASA noted Bulldog considered that the inclusion
of the words "up to" was an adequate indication to consumers
that they might not achieve the top speed quoted in the ads and
that their ads were in line with previous ASA adjudications and
CAP guidance. We considered that "up to" was an adequate
qualification in ads for 1 Mbps and two Mbps services, where the
user would not achieve the maximum speed because of factors such
as the number of people on line but where the attainable speeds
were close enough to those advertised so as not to affect the
customers' experience in any meaningful way.
We considered that the higher speed service
was likely to be attractive to consumers because of the advertised
headline speed and the potential capabilities that a connection
of that speed could give users. We understood, however, that the
speeds 8Mbps services could deliver were significantly affected
by signal attenuation, which was caused by distance from the exchange,
and that as a result a significant proportion of consumers could
not achieve speeds close to the headline speed. We understood
that users of an up to eight Mbps service could take advantage
of capabilities such as video streaming, file sharing and online
gaming but that there would be a noticeable degradation of quality
of the service when speeds fell below six Mbps. We therefore considered
that "up to" was not an adequate qualifier in ads for
higher speed services, given the impact that signal attenuation
could have on speed and performance. We concluded that the ads
were misleading and asked Bulldog to amend them.
The press ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation)
and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
The TV ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising
Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence)
and 5.2.3 (Qualifications).
Action
We asked Bulldog to indicate prominently in
future ads (for example in the body copy of non-broadcast ads)
that top speeds varied significantly, in particular because of
a user's distance from their local exchange.
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast).
Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast).
Annex 2
BE UN
LIMITEDDate: 24 January 2007
Media: Regional press
Sector: Computers and telecommunications
Complaint(s) from: Hampshire, London
Complaint type: Industry Be Un Limited
COMPLAINT
A press ad, for Be Un Limited, was headlined
"up to 24 Meg broadband". NTL and a member of the public
objected to the ad because they believed that the headline speed
would be unattainable to most users. They believed that, with
distance from the exchange, the service suffered from severe signal
attenuation, which rendered the claim misleading.
Codes section: 3.1, 6.1, 7.1
ADJUDICATION
Complaints upheld
Be Un Limited (Be Un Ltd) said their service
operated only in major urban areas and, at the time of the ad,
was almost entirely based in London. They said they advertised
only in areas where they had rolled out their network and the
ad in question had appeared only in London newspapers. Be Un Ltd
said their services were provided via ADSL2+ technology, which
operated on a different frequency to that used for eight Megabytes
per second (Mbps) ADSL services allowing a much stronger signal
over a shorter distance. Be Un Ltd said although distance from
the exchange affected the speeds attainable with their service,
the results of their speed tests showed a significant proportion
of users achieved over 16 Mbps, especially within one km of their
local exchange. They also said other factors existed which affected
user speeds, such as the quality of the copper wire, interference
from other lines and internal problems at the user's premises.
Be Un Ltd said they had little control over those factors but
pointed out that the terms and conditions in the ad stated "download
speeds and broadband comparison speeds are for speeds up to the
quoted amount and are dependent on various factors." Be Un
Ltd said the description of their service as "up to 24 meg"
was intended to allow consumers to understand the difference between
their service and the different levels of service offered by other
ISPs. They maintained that the speed descriptions were the standard
way in which broadband services were marketed and pointed out
that they used the qualification "up to" to ensure that
consumers were aware that the headline speed was an upper limit.
Be Un Ltd referred to the recent ASA adjudication
on Bulldog Communications Ltd (Bulldog), which referred to the
meaningful impact of signal attenuation on user experience, and
sent the results of a series of user tests, which compared their
24 Mbps product with other products. They said, in the same location
and at the same time of day, the 24 Mbps connection downloaded
a 99 minute film in 11 mins 14 secs compared with 19 mins 47 secs
and 27 mins 05 secs for two other providers' eight Mbps connections.
They also said they tested the meaningful difference between various
speeds in downloading a normal Mp3 file. The test results showed
a 24 Mbps and a 16 Mbps connection both downloaded the file in
two secs compared with four secs for an eight Mbps connection.
Be Un Ltd maintained that those tests demonstrated that any limitations
to their service did not meaningfully affect user experience.
The ASA accepted Be Un Ltd's assertion that
factors other than distance from the local exchange affected user
speeds. We considered, however, that the data provided by Be Un
Ltd and NTL demonstrated a clear downward trend in user speeds
with distance from the exchange, which increased markedly the
closer it got to three km. We noted the recent Bulldog adjudication
about an eight Mbps broadband service had referred to the negative
impact of signal attenuation on user experience, but noted that
Be Un Ltd's speed test demonstrated that the vast majority of
users experienced speeds in excess of eight Mbps. We understood
that speeds of eight Mbps would allow users to take advantage
of the vast majority of speed intensive services and functions,
such as video streaming and online gaming.
Although we accepted that speeds of less than
24 Mbps were unlikely to meaningfully affect the users' overall
experience of the service so long as they were over eight Mbps,
we considered that some consumers would reasonably expect to achieve
speeds in the range of the headline speed and might feel misled
if they could only achieve speeds of around eight Mbps. We noted
the small print disclaimer in the ad and considered that many
consumers would have some knowledge of the limitations and factors
that affected ADSL broadband service speeds. We considered, however,
that the significant drop off in the speed of Be Un Ltd's service
for some customers was a significant enough condition to warrant
a more detailed disclaimer in the body copy. We concluded that
the ad was likely to mislead.
We noted Be Un Ltd's co-operation throughout
the investigation and their willingness to amend their ads in
line with the Bulldog adjudication. We asked them to state in
the body copy of future ads that top speeds varied significantly,
in particular because of a user's distance from their local exchange.
The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation)
and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
24 September 2009
1 Details of the members of CAP and BCAP can be found
at: http://www.cap.org.uk/About-Us/Who-We-Are.aspx Back
2
The Advice Online section has articles on advertising of Internet
speeds, and the full list of all Advice Online articles can be
found at: http://www.copyadvice.org.uk/ Back
3
The high compliance rate is often demonstrated in the various
sector-specific surveys undertaken by the ASA. These surveys can
be found on the ASA website at http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/research/ Back
4
See attached Annex. Back
5
Ibid. Back
6
All rulings are published on the ASA website here: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/public/ Back
| 
