Regarding Advertising by CenturyLink, Inc. for
High-Speed Internet Service
Background:
Suddenlink, Inc.(“Suddenlink”) challenged print and Internet advertising claims by CenturyLink, Inc.(“CenturyLink”) for its Internet services. The challenged advertising included claims that touted the direct/private connection between consumers and CenturyLink’s network, as shown by the following examples:
between your house and our network.”
In addition, Suddenlink challenged CenturyLink’s claim that it had a “fiber-optic network” and also CenturyLink’s claim that consumers could save up to $350/year on CenturyLink’s Internet services as compared to charges by cable companies.
NAD determined that CenturyLink’s claims relating to the direct/private connection between consumers and its network conveyed a superior performance message that, as a result of the direct and private connection, consumers will get a faster and more consistent Internet experience as compared to cable networks. NAD found this message was not supported by the record and recommended discontinuance of these challenged claims.
NAD also determined that one of the reasonable messages conveyed by CenturyLink’s claim that it has a “fiber” or “fiber-optic” network is that its network consisted entirely of fiber optics. NAD found that this message was not supported by the record and recommended that CenturyLink discontinue claims that it has a “fiber” or “fiber-optic” network.
Finally, NAD determined that CenturyLink had not provided a reasonable basis to support its claim that consumers could save up to $350/year as compared to cable companies and NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
Claims relating to direct/private connection between consumers and CenturyLink’s network:
No consumer perception evidence was introduced in this case, and thus the panel must place itself in the shoes of consumers to determine the messages reasonably conveyed by the challenged advertising. The panel agrees with NAD’s determination that the challenged claims reasonably convey a superior performance message that, as a result of the direct and private connection between consumers and CenturyLink’s network, consumers will get a faster and more consistent Internet experience as compared to cable networks. The challenged claims clearly contrast CenturyLink’s direct/private connection with the shared Internet connection offered by cable providers and convey the message that CenturyLink’s direct/private connection results in a faster and more consistent experience.
As explained below, the panel also agrees with NAD that CenturyLink has not provided a reasonable basis to support this superior performance message. It is clear that the “last mile” architecture used in the CenturyLink network is different from that used by cable companies. CenturyLink customers are connected directly through a single phone line running from the customer’s home to CenturyLink’s Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (“DSLAM”), which is linked to CenturyLink’s communications network, while the “last mile” connection to the homes of cable customers may be shared among several customers.
While different network architectures require the use of different techniques to maximize user experience, the record does not establish that CenturyLink’s direct and private connection to homes results in a faster or more consistent experience as compared to cable customers. The record does not include any head to head comparisons with respect to speed and consistency of CenturyLink customers and cable customers. While the record establishes potential issues that could arise from shared “last mile” architecture, the record does not provide a reasonable basis to establish that these issues are not appropriately managed by cable companies or that there are consumer relevant differences in the Internet experiences of consumers that result from these differences in “last mile” architecture.
The panel’s decision is based on the record in this case, although it is noted that the decision is consistent with prior NAD precedent that found no evidence of consumer relevant performance distinctions between private DSL connections similar to CenturyLink’s and shared cable connections. CenturyLink based its arguments in part on the contracts signed by Suddenlink customers, which permit Suddenlink to limit its customers’ upstream applications and overall bandwidth if necessary. While this raises the theoretical possibility that Suddenlink customers could experience limitations with respect to the speed or consistency of their Internet experience, it
does not provide a reasonable basis for advertising claims that convey the message that meaningful speed/consistency differences exist. In fact, the record is clear that different network architectures require different management techniques to ensure a fast and consistent experience,and the panel is not prepared to speculate whether CenturyLink’s network is providing a faster/more consistent experience without evidence to show that is the case.
The panel recognizes CenturyLink’s right to accurately describe differences between its network architecture and the network architecture used by its competitors, but it should not do so in a manner that implies performance benefits that cannot be substantiated.
Fiber-optic network claims:
CenturyLink advertisements claim that it has a “fiber” or “fiber-optic” network. While most Internet providers use fiber-optic cable for the “backbone” of their networks, there are differences as to what is used in the “last mile” that connects the providers’ offices to individual homes. Some networks use fiber-optic cable that runs all the way to the consumer’s home, while CenturyLink uses fiber-optic cable in most instances only up to a DSLAM connection that is connected to consumer homes by phone lines. NAD determined that at least one reasonable interpretation of CenturyLink’s claims to have a fiber or fiber-optic network is that its services are provided over a network that solely consists of fiber-optic cable all the way to consumer homes. The panel agrees that this is one of the messages reasonably conveyed by the challenged advertisements, and further agrees with NAD that this message is not supported by evidence in the record.
Savings claims:
CenturyLink’s advertising claims that consumers will save up to $350/year by subscribing to its Internet service. This is based on a comparison of (a) the $14.95 monthly cost for Internet service that is part of CenturyLink’s bundled price for Internet, television and telephone services with (b) stand alone prices charged by cable companies for Internet services. The record showed that, in some markets, consumers would have to pay $79.95 or more for CenturyLink’s bundled services. The claimed $350/year savings is not supported by the record. CenturyLink is calculating the savings based on a $14.95 monthly cost for Internet services that cannot be separately purchased for $14.95, and its savings analysis does not take into account the full costs involved in purchasing the required bundled package. The claimed savings is not achieved when consumers purchase the Internet/television/telephone bundle, which is the only way that consumers can receive Internet services at the stated price. While CenturyLink is free to make truthful comparisons of its stand alone Internet costs with the stand alone costs of competitors, it cannot support a savings claim for one part of bundled services by ignoring the total price that must be paid for the other services. The represented price savings is not a meaningful one when it cannot be achieved without additional expenditures, and those additional expenditures need to be factored in before a meaningful savings claim can be made.
Decision:
The panel thanks both parties for participating in this process, which is an important part of the advertising industry’s self-regulatory efforts to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy ofadvertising claims. The panel recommends that CenturyLink discontinue (a) claims stating or reasonably implying that, as a result of the private and direct connection between consumers and CenturyLink’s network, consumers receive a faster and more consistent Internet experience1; (b) claims that it has a fiber or fiber-optic network unless it is referring to a network that uses fiber-optic cable all the way to consumer homes; and (c) the challenged claims of up to a $350 savings for its Internet services based on bundled pricing that includes Internet services.
Advertiser Statement:
CenturyLink appreciates the opportunity to participate in the self-regulatory process and the panel’s review of the earlier NAD decision. CenturyLink respectfully disagrees with the panel’s decision in this matter, and strongly believes it provided sufficient substantiation for comparative claims regarding network design differences and traffic management tactics that meaningfully impact customers’ high-speed Internet experience, accurately used the terms “fiber” and “fiberoptic”to describe its network, and properly supported and disclosed savings claims related to high-speed Internet services within service bundles.
While CenturyLink disagrees with the panel’s ruling and analysis, it will carefully consider the panel’s comments and recommendations in the development of future high-speed Internet advertising and comply with the decision. In addition, CenturyLink will continue to describe how its technology functions in an accurate and non-misleading manner in future advertising.
1 This does not prevent CenturyLink from making claims when it has a reasonable basis for doing so based on actual user experience.
Board Members for Panel #167
Professor
SMU - Temerlin Advertising Institute
Director, IBM Americas Marketing
IBM
Pamela M. Rachal
Senior Manager, Advertising Services
Bayer HealthCare LLC
Howard Courtemanche
Executive Vice President
JWT
Beau Fraser
Managing Director
The Gate Worldwide
Posts
