Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

BT 'UK's Most Powerful Wi-Fi'? Not According to Ads Watchdog

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 04 2019, @08:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the telling-porkies-again dept.

janrinok writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

BT has been ticked off for running a campaign claiming to have the UK's "most powerful" broadband, almost two years after it was hauled before the ad industry watchdog over the same issue.

Back in June 2017, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) rapped the former state monopoly on the knuckles for "misleading" and "inaccurate" boasts that its Smart Hub provided a "stronger signal" than all of its competitors. BT was clearly undeterred by the ASA.

Fast-forward to the here and now and the gummy-mouthed watchdog received a complaint from Virgin Media – itself no stranger to criticism about its own campaigns – about two BT promos: one for consumers and one for businesses.

The first, aimed at households, included the claim "UK's most powerful Wi-Fi vs major broadband providers" as part of the Unlimited Infinity bundle. The second made the same claim but was aimed at businesses via the BT Business Smart Hub.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
BT 'UK's Most Powerful Wi-Fi'? Not According to Ads Watchdog | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @03:41PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @03:41PM (#809807)

    BT Hubs give you more cancer than most and that is just from the hub user interface. It will also give you brane damage.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @03:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 04 2019, @03:47PM (#809810)

    Should also mention they run on linux...and are very locked-down..and probably not gpl compliant.