In what is a first in South Africa, Vodacom has successfully argued for and against using the term 4G for technologies which do not meet the technical requirements of 4G.<\/p>\n
In December 2015, the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) ruled that Vodacom must remove its 4G claim<\/strong><\/a> from its marketing material.<\/p>\n The ruling followed a complaint from Cell C, which argued that Vodacom\u2019s use of 4G to describe its LTE network was misleading.<\/p>\n Vodacom successfully appealed the ASA ruling, using expert opinions to argue that \u201c4G is not formally defined\u201d, and that \u201cLTE is a 4G technology and is named by the ITU as an example\u201d.<\/p>\n Vodacom further showed that its LTE network provideed significantly better speeds and latency than its 3G network.<\/p>\n The successful appeal alone would not have been exceptional, but considering the historic battle regarding the term 4G, it is nothing short of astonishing.<\/p>\n In 2010, Vodacom lodged a successful complaint against Cell C for marketing its new HSPA+ network as 4G.<\/p>\n Cell C argued that many operators and other companies described their HSPA+ and LTE networks as 4G, and that its HSPA+ network provided significantly better speeds than its 3G network.<\/p>\n Vodacom fought against these claims, arguing that the ITU definition shows 4G<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0excludes HSPA+ and LTE.<\/p>\n It is not often that a company successfully win cases for and against the same action, using opposite claims and arguments.<\/p>\n Cell C faces off with Vodacom, MTN over 4G network claims<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nMore on\u00a04G<\/h3>\n