Brands
 
Share This Web
| More
 
Shopping Cart
0 items
 
Bestsellers
Cisco 10GBase-ER SFP+ SFP-10G-ER
$1,399.00  
Cisco 1000Base-LX/LH SFP GLC-LH-SM
$35.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
Cisco 1000Base-SX SFP GLC-SX-MM
$25.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
Cisco 1000Base-T SFP GLC-T
$45.00  
Cisco 1000Base-SX GBIC WS-G5484
$25.00  
Cisco 10GBase-SR 300M X2 X2-10GB-SR
$299.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
 
Featured
Cisco 10GBase-LR SFP+ SFP-10G-LR
$399.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
Cisco 10GBase-SR SFP+ SFP-10G-SR
$175.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
3Com 10GBase-SR XENPAK 3CXENPAK94
$399.00  
Cisco 10GBase-SR XENPAK XENPAK-10GB-SR
$299.00  
Cisco 10GBase-SR XFP XFP-10G-MM-SR
$299.00  
Cisco SFP+ Copper Twinax Cable 1M SFP-H10GB-CU1M
$49.00  
5 out of 5 Stars!
 

BT broadband ads banned by ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the United Kingdom has ruled that some recent broadband advertising claims by British Telecommunications (BT) were misleading.

The agency acted on complaints by BT's broadband competitor Virgin Media and others that three BT ads unfairly claimed in 2011 that its Infinity broadband service was "unbeatable," among other claims.

BT has been banned from using those ads in their current form.

The judgment comes a few months after the ASA worked with the Committee on Advertising Practices to establish guidelines governing the broadband advertising claims of ISPs in the United Kingdom.

The rules, which define and limit claims of "unlimited" broadband services, came after U.K. regulator Ofcom found that most broadband consumers were not getting the broadband speed that were advertised to them.

Ofcom's finding was similar to an earlier finding in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission. The regulatory body found that broadband speeds advertised by most U.S. ISPs were lower than consumers actually received from their services.

Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) recently was targeted by a lawsuit from a customer who claimed the carrier did not deliver the DSL speed it advertised. Filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County, the complaint alleges breach of contract and violations of California consumer-protection statutes.

April 18, 2012