|reply to CEDog |
Re: Where is the ad copy with false claims?
I spoke with Verizon recently, and they alerted me to the fact that the FULL ad (which I hadn't seen run in its entirety) does suggest that you need a satellite dish to get FiOSTV.
The full ad:
So both sides are being dishonest here.
Time Warner Cable's network is not better than FiOS, and they're intentionally being misleading about fiber in terms of core vs. last mile connectivity. They're also bluntly lying to consumers about needing a satellite dish.
They are technically right about Verizon being slow on delivering fiber (particularly if you're familiar with their promises to PA and elsewhere in the 90's and while named NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, etc.).
But on the flip side, CNET never said FiOS service was "near-flawless," they said it needed to be near flawless in order to compete.
So misrepresentation and lies all around! Another day in American marketing.
Yea, TWC u should of know u'd gets ur nuts in a sling saying that "dont i need a satellite dish with you guys" Thats totaly misleading. On one hand your trying to attack Fios, thus the fiber claims, then you drop the ball and get verisons tv offerings via a partnership with DirecTv in the non fios areas. A better move would of been to film this in a rual area, then you'd have a valid argument. But im guessing that faving a pig or a cow in the background just wasent pleasing to ur marketing eyes.
The other stuff about fiber they could probably get away with, because it's vague misrepresentation that would fly over a judge's head (unless he had a clear understanding of the difference between core and last mile infrastructure).
But the satellite dish quip is stupid. Verizon will probably win the case based on that alone. It's probably why the most common version of the ad seen omits that bit.
quote:Then again, I'm not an attorney, and my wrong guess is why they get paid so much more than I.
Verizon will probably win the case based on that alone.
A real attorney e-mails me to note:
Burden is very heavy on false advertising claimants. They need to prove not only that the claim was false but then have to provide survey data [an expensive proposition] showing that consumers were actually confused and that it affected their buying decisions. I would say that it is unlikely that this is a serious lawsuit and more a public relations gambit. Unless the advertising is clearly false and highly damaging to Verizon's business such that it would not be able to obtain satisfactory money damages the prospects of a preliminary injunction or TRO are unlikely.
TechnogeezAgape in amazement.Premium
|reply to Karl Bode |
Well, it's not really a blatant lie -- the TW shill asks "Don't I need a satellite dish?" and the "fiber guy" never answers the question. The correct answer would have been "You go ahead and eat your cereal and leave the technical stuff to me, OK? Of course you don't need a dish -- we bring high definition TV, crystal clear phone, and blazing internet access right to your door on a dedicated fiber."
But I wouldn't expect TW to accurately represent FiOS to their own detriment.
Read your contract and TOS before signing anything.