A Financial Times blog post has started a buying frenzy for Vodafone Group Plc on news AT&T and Verizon Communications are about to bid for the British mobile phone giant, despite denials from Verizon it is involved in any deal to acquire the British mobile phone company.

The Times Alphaville blog quotes unnamed sources deemed “usually reliable people” who claim Verizon and AT&T are working together on a blockbuster $245 billion takeover deal for one of the world’s largest wireless carriers. After the story appeared, Vodafone shares were up 6.1 percent.

Verizon is interested in buying out Vodafone’s part ownership in its Verizon Wireless venture and AT&T is looking to overseas markets for future wireless revenue opportunities that are harder to find in the United States.

The sources told the Times they expect the deal will initially merge Vodafone and Verizon into a single entity, but only briefly. Verizon would promptly sell Vodafone’s extensive international assets to AT&T at a premium. Verizon would end up the sole owner of Verizon Wireless, and AT&T would acquire Vodafone’s enormous wireless operations in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Barclays Plc is working on putting together the potential transaction, Alphaville said today.

Informal talks have reportedly been underway between AT&T, Verizon and Vodafone since December according to Bloomberg News. The biggest impediments seem to be among the company’s top executives arguing over who ends up in the leadership and where the combined companies will be located — in the UK or the USA.

Vodafone has been a tolerated partner in Verizon Wireless since 1999 when Bell Atlantic and Vodafone merged their respective mobile ventures into Verizon Wireless. Vodafone has held tightly to their part-ownership of Verizon’s wireless network, which has proven an enormous earner in an American wireless marketplace considered less competitive than in Europe. The talks indicate Verizon is willing to pay a premium price to disconnect the British wireless company from its American operations. Allowing AT&T to help finance the largest wireless takeover in years makes it more likely a deal can be done, assuming regulators on both sides of the Atlantic agree.

Virgin Media is in hot water with a UK advertising regulator after the company’s marketing department borrowed one of the tricks successfully employed in the United States: selling “unlimited broadband” service that actually is not unlimited at all.

Competitors BSkyB and BT jointly complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading ad claims from Virgin Media that promise unlimited broadband, without bothering to clearly mention Virgin uses a “traffic management policy” that slashes speeds in half when a customer downloads more than 11GB during peak usage times.

Virgin defended its advertising, claiming its speed throttle is so infrequently activated that 97.7% of its customers would never encounter it.

But the ASA would have none of that, noting Virgin’s advertising campaign specifically targets customers who lust for faster speed and are engaged in bandwidth intensive activities.

The ad claim: “The faster your broadband speed, the more you’ll be able to do online. So, if there are a few of you at home gaming, downloading, streaming movies and shopping, then mega speeds of up to 100Mbps will let you all do your thing without slowing each other down.”

The tiny fine print.

“In that context we considered that the restriction of reducing users’ download speeds by 50% was not moderate and that any reference to it was likely to contradict, rather than clarify, the claims that the service was ‘unlimited’,” the ASA said. “We therefore concluded that the claim ‘unlimited’ was misleading.”

A Virgin spokesperson explained the “unlimited” in the advertising actually referred to one’s ability to use their account as often as they like without worrying about overlimit fees.

“Unlike BT or Sky, all Virgin Media customers can download as much as they like, safe in the knowledge we’ll never charge them more.”

The ASA itself is not militant adhering to the dictionary definition of “unlimited” either.

The ASA, which previously banned more than two dozen Virgin ads for stretching the truth, ruled this one misleading as well because Virgin Media crossed the line imposing restrictions “that were more than moderate:”

While the claim “no hidden charges” made clear that users would not be charged for downloading or browsing, we considered that the inclusion of the claims “unlimited” and “no caps” implied that there were no other restrictions to the service, regardless of how much data users downloaded and browsed. Virgin Media’s traffic management policy reduced users’ download speeds by 50% if they exceeded certain data thresholds and we considered that this was an immoderate restriction to the advertised “unlimited” service. We therefore concluded that the claim “Unlimited downloads Download and browse as much as you like with no caps and no hidden charges” misleadingly implied that there were no provider-imposed restrictions on a customer’s ability to download data.

“The problem is that the service claims to be unlimited but is too limited,” comments Stop the Cap! reader James, who almost thought this was an April Fools’ prank. “A little limited would be just fine. So if you claim your service is unlimited, consumers should expect it be subject to moderate limitations?”

Virgin has since slightly relaxed its speed throttle; violators now face a 40% speed cut when they are found to be downloading “too much” during peak usage periods.

For UK broadband users, the larger question is why the ASA simply didn’t reach for the dictionary when attempting to define “unlimited.”

“If a broadband provider wants to advertise unlimited service, they should simply offer it,” says Stop the Cap! reader Geoff Peale. “Calling it unlimited while interfering with your speed is nothing short of trickery, and the ASA should know better.”

[flv width=”384″ height=”236″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC News Twenty five Virgin Media ads found to be misleading 10-11-12.flv[/flv]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned 25 Virgin Media adverts for being either misleading or factually incorrect in the past 18 months. The BBC’s Watchdog took a humorous look at them to find out why so many are falling afoul of the regulator. (6 minutes)

Thanks to readers James and Geoff for sharing the story.

Scored first place again this year.

Consumer Reports has released its 2013 ratings for broadband service providers, showing independently owned cable companies and fiber optic broadband services from companies large and small deliver the best bang for the buck.

WOW, a small cable operator serving limited areas of the country yet again achieved first place in the ratings, appearing in the May issue. Verizon and Frontier’s FiOS fiber networks rated #2 and #5 respectively. (Frontier acquired its fiber to the home network from Verizon in 2009.)

In general, cable broadband service scored considerably better than telephone company DSL. Wireless broadband did more poorly, with Verizon’s 4G LTE network in 23rd place. Satellite scored worst, with both ViaSat and Hughes among the bottom three.

Verizon’s ongoing speed boosts assure the company of high ratings for its FiOS fiber network.

Mediacom once again took honors as America’s worst cable company. This year, it managed to score even worse than ViaSat, formerly WildBlue. Other bottom dwellers: FairPoint DSL, AT&T DSL, Frontier DSL, Charter Cable and Comcast Cable.

Compared with last year, few companies saw dramatic improvements or declines, despite glowing press releases touting improvements and investment.

Time Warner Cable, which scored 19th last year dropped to 20th place this year.

TDS, an independent phone company, managed a surprising 5th place score last year, despite only giving most of its customers DSL service. This year it is in eighth place.

Cablevision, which faced criticism for an overburdened broadband network last year managed almost no change in ratings this year, despite a measurable improvement in service.

Consumer Reports’ ratings are largely based on customer perceptions shared with the magazine in its annual questionnaire. CenturyLink may have delivered an improved experience for its customers between 2012 and 2013. Last year the phone company was in 18th place. This year it improved to 11th place.

Just how bad is your cable company?

Apparently pretty bad, considering the number of viral videos and guerrilla campaigns being launched against the industry these days, and Time Warner Cable in particular.

“Time Warner Cable Customer Service” is a group that has already heard from Time Warner Cable’s legal team about the cable operator’s trademarks and the potential for apparent “customer confusion.” The parodists might be at risk of losing their domain name, have already had their YouTube and Twitter accounts suspended, and have been told they are not allowed to record any phone calls with Time Warner Cable employees (although the company is allowed to record them… and you.)

What has the cable operator so upset? This:

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Cable What Can We Do Worse 4-13.flv[/flv]

Members of “Time Warner Cable Customer Service” take to the streets of Manhattan asking passersby what can the cable company do worse. Then they invade a Time Warner Cable store…. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Honest Cable Company 4-13.flv[/flv]

Another group decided a more general parody was in order. The “First Honest Cable Company” provides full disclosure about your cable service and what they really think of you. (Warning: Adult Language – NSFW) (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”376″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Verizon Wireless Mas Ad.flv[/flv]

Ever wonder what happened to comedian Paul Rodriguez? Me neither, but here he is anyway, shilling for Verizon Wireless’ overpriced, out-of-touch-with-middle-class-bank-accounts ‘Share Everything’ Wireless Data Overcharging plan. Who will Verizon choose next:

Judy Tenuta?

Wilford Brimley?

Ruth Buzzi?

TV’s Frank? (I sure hope not.)