Telephone and broadband packages

The number, and nature, of telephone and broadband packages available to consumers is constantly changing. This can mean that it is difficult to discern what is the most appropriate, deal for your requirements. Consumer confusion on this topic has lead to the ASA receiving a number of complaints. Also, as it is a fiercely competitive market, companies are keen challenge to competitor claims if they believe them to be incorrect. Whatever the source of the complaint, the outcome has been that some clear rules have been laid down for advertisers operating in this area.

THE RULES

Advertisers can get guidance by reading the Help Notes on "Price Claims in Telecommunications Marketing" and "Free Claims for Internet Packages" that have been produced by the Committee of Advertising Practice.

As well as complying with the general rules contained in the advertising codes, ads for computer or telephone packages should adhere to the following requirements:

* An individual element of a package should not be described as "free" if the cost of that element is included in the package price.

* When offering an Internet package, advertisers should state prominently if it is a condition of the offer that consumers sign up to their service for all telephone calls as well.

* Comparisons should be clear and fair.

* Footnotes need to be legible.

* Price claims should not exaggerate the availability or extent of benefits likely to be obtained by consumers.

* "Up to" or "from" claims are likely to be seen to refer to all consumers or products. They should not exaggerate the availability of benefits. Availability of the maximum benefit to at least 10% of consumers is likely to be considered a reasonable proportion that avoids a claim being deemed to have exaggerated.

* It should be stated in the body copy if consumers still need to pay rental to a third-party line provider to access a call service.

* Something can be described as "unlimited" even if a fair-use policy exists. However, the existence of the fair-use policy should be stated in the ad, and the policy should only be invoked to prevent misuse of the service.

* Other significant conditions associated with unlimited services (such as the need to redial after a specified amount of time) should be stated.

* Comparisons, if made, should be with a competitor's most comparable product or service. However, advertisers can compare their breakthrough technology with the existing technology offered by a competitor, even if that competitor offers similar breakthrough technology, if consumers might be unaware of the benefits of the new technology. However, the products must be intended for the same purpose and the ad should state prominently that the competitor offers similar breakthrough technology
 
*Total bill comparisons should be avoided if the advertiser has at least one tariff more expensive than the most comparable tariff of a competitor.

EXAMPLE RULINGS

Bulldog Communications (Sept 2006)
This national press and TV ad campaign claimed "Up to 8 meg broadband".  Complaints were made by a competitor of the company, ntl, as well as two members of the public, all of whom challenged whether the top speed was achievable by all users. The complainants believed the technical limitations of using high speed broadband services meant it was highly unlikely that subscribers would achieve the advertised top speed. The advertisers had pointed out that in previous rulings, the ASA had said the claim "up to" could be used to indicate that the advertised top speed may not be achievable by all users.

However, the ASA understood that with the higher speeds that were on offer, the speeds attained by a user could be affected by factors such as the distance between the user and the exchange, meaning that a significant proportion of consumers could not achieve the headline speed. This could then lead to a noticeable degradation in the quality of the capabilities that the user may want to make use of such as video streaming and online gaming. In the past, the ASA had considered that the use of the qualification "up to" was adequate in ads where services of up to 1 or 2 Mbps were on offer, because whether the top speed was attained or not was determined by factors such as the number of people on the line. In these instances, a user's online experience would not be affected in a meaningful way by their failure to attain the top speed. However, because failure to achieve the top speed for these higher speed service did significantly affect online experience, we concluded that the "up to" claim was not enough of a qualifier.

Virgin Net Ltd (August 2006)
An Internet banner ad stated "... Get broadband without the commitment. No 12 month contract £14.99 a month ...". We received a complaint from someone who was told that if he wished to cancel the service within the first 12 months, he would have to pay a fee of £50. He therefore challenged the accuracy of the advertisers' claims. The advertisers had argued that they did not require customers to sign a 12-month contract and said they had been limited by the amount of space available in the ad. They said the ad referred to terms and conditions which explained the cancellation costs.  The advertisers explained that the fee was charged to cover the costs paid to BT for initial costs activating the service. We considered that the £50 charge, which was equivalent to over three month's line rental was a significant obligation that should have been stated in the ad as it could affect a consumer's response to the offer. We asked the advertisers to state in future ads that a cancellation fee applied.

Carphone Warehouse (July 2006)
145 complaints, from both competitors and members of the public were received when this advertiser launched a new TalkTalk package "with free broadband forever" via a multimedia campaign. Complaints were received that the claim was misleading. We agreed. We did not consider that the advertisers could describe an element of a newly created package as "free" when that option would always form part of the package and therefore be available. We were also concerned that the ads had not made sufficiently clear that if customers were not connected to a qualifying exchange, they would incur an additional charge for taking up the service.

Carphone Warehouse t/a TalkTalk Telecom (April 2006)
BT complained about this national press ad that claimed "TalkTalk customers talk FREE FOREVER to each other" as they argued that the calls were inclusive rather than free. The advertisers explained that their customers did not have to take line rental from them to benefit from their plans, and it was possible to talk to other TalkTalk subscribers without paying for either line rental or calls. Though we noted that it was possible to sign up for the service without paying line rental, we considered that the claim related to the benefits available to their line rental customers because the ad made much reference to them. We also noted that two of the three call plans offered by the advertisers invoked a monthly charge. We concluded that for customers on these talk plans, the calls could not be described as "free". In addition, for those customers on the talk plan that did not invoke a monthly charge, the calls formed part of a "bundled" package so again it could not be described as free". The advertisers were asked to remove the claim from future ads.

Freetalk Communication (April 2006)
Six complaints, from both members of the public and competitors, were received in response to a national press ad and leaflet promoting a telephone service for broadband users called "Freetalk". The complainants objected to the use of the claims "CALLS ARE FREE" and "unlimited local & national calls using broadband". We considered that the "free" calls formed part of the Freetalk package that was available for a charge of £79.99, which therefore made them inclusive to the package. The complaints against the claim "CALLS ARE FREE" were, therefore, upheld. Noting that the product was called Freetalk, the advertisers were told to qualify in the body copy of their ad that calls were inclusive, rather than free. We also upheld the complaint against the claim "unlimited local & national calls" as the advertisers charged a rate of 2p per minute for any additional call time, if a call ran over 60 minutes. Though the advertisers had argued that this was a fair-usage policy, we considered that this charge was overly restrictive; we consider that fair usage policies should only be invoked to prevent misuse of a service or product. We also considered that the ads implied that a customer could talk for as long as they wanted to at no extra cost. As this was not the case, the advertisers were told to state in future ads that there was a 60 minute limitation on calls. Lastly, we were concerned that calls to 0845 and 0870 numbers were not included in the package. The advertisers had argued that these calls were neither local nor national calls so consumers would know that they were excluded from the offer. However, as calls to these numbers had been traditionally charged at either national or local rate, we considered that readers would infer that they were included in the package. We told the advertisers to make clear in future ads, any exclusions that applied to the "free calls" claim. 

British Telecommunications plc (December 2005)
This radio ad for BT Privacy stated "free sign up service to help you block unwanted sales calls and enjoy your privacy in peace". The accompanying press ad stated in the small print "BT line required. Customers with other call providers eligible if they have made some calls with BT ... Conditions apply". We received two complaints about this ad campaign. The first challenge, a complaint from a member of the public, was upheld on the grounds that the radio ad failed to make clear that the service was only available to those listeners who took both calls and line rental from BT, not, as the ad inferred, to all BT customers. However, we did not uphold the second complaint, which was received from a competitor, that the service should not be described as "free". We understood that the service was optional for customers, and those not taking up the offer still paid the same amount as those that did.  Additionally, for those customers who were not eligible for the service, it was a chargeable additional feature. We concluded that it was acceptable for the advertisers to describe the service as free.