Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo@uunet.uu.net (Charles Hawkins Mingo)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier?
Message-ID: <12385@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 90 01:03:52 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 27
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 663, Message 1 of 6


The Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Although most successful advertising consists of
>positive statements about one's own products rather than negative
>comments directed to one's competition, there is no law they cannot
>advertise their competitor's shortcomings if they wish to do so,
>naming those shortcomings specifically; libelous and slanderous
>statements excluded, of course. 

Actually, making misleading claims about the competition is considered
"unfair competition" and is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

It's not necessary that your claim be false, and the burden of proving
truth is on the advertiser.  Hence the reluctance to make
generalizations about anything hard to document (such as line quality
or operator service).  Price is about the only thing they can easily
prove.

This sort of negative advertising is very common where generic goods
are being sold (such as Tylenol, Anacin, etc.), and there isn't much
to compare.  The FTC has been chasing those giys for years.


Charlie Mingo			Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us
2209 Washington Circle #2	CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037		AT&T:  202/785-2089