Filed under: Odds and ends
AT&T not happy with Verizon ads: 'There's a lawsuit for that'
Stung by some pretty aggressive advertising by Verizon, AT&T has had enough and is suing the communications giant for false and misleading claims.AT&T says the ads, which show that AT&T has poor 3G coverage compared to Verizon are causing it to lose "incalculable market share."
According to the lawsuit which AT&T filed in Atlanta federal court, a recently broadcast ad campaign shows maps with white spaces that mislead consumers into thinking AT&T has no network coverage outside of areas where it offers high-speed mobile services, known as 3G.
But AT&T argued that its customers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements."
Verizon says the lawsuit has no merit, and Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Nancy Stark said the ads "clearly state" that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas. She said the ads were intended to tell consumers about coverage for smartphones, which are used for data services.
If you want to see the ad that sparked the lawsuit, click here.
[via Engadget]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
(01) said 6:41PM on 11-03-2009
(shrugs) ok.
Reply
pee tee said 5:45PM on 11-04-2009
Here we go again, one company against another company. I think Verizon may have push really far this time - Hilarity and Exaggeration may not come in one piece. I hope after this bout, Verizon can still find their sense of humor.
more source: http://bit.ly/ATandT-vs-Verizon-Theres-a-map-for-that-hoax
its good to see kids fighting over a cookie jar sometimes :D
Fred said 6:51PM on 11-03-2009
AT&T Shoulda just kept themselves above it. I think it's very petty of Verizon to crap on the customers it's supposedly trying to court. AT&T is simply adding weight the Verizon's claims when they should back off and call it what it is. Sour Grapes.
Reply
quattro909 said 8:07PM on 11-03-2009
x
Marcos said 7:01PM on 11-03-2009
The ad clearly says "3G Coverage", not "Coverage"... Instead of suing, they should improve their 3G coverage which is quite spotty in my experience.
Reply
mark said 7:10PM on 11-03-2009
Agreed, no misunderstanding here.
Instead of wasting money on lawyers and filing frivolous lawsuits, AT&T should be spending money INVESTING ON INFRASTRUCTURE!
Dave said 7:26PM on 11-03-2009
I'd agree except that the white areas in the Verizon map show areas where there is no coverage at all (I guess their whole network is 3G), you could make the connection that the white areas on the AT&T map also have no coverage at all, which is not the case. Plus, the rest of AT&T's network has 2.5G, which still has data coverage, just not as fast as 3G. So it is very misleading. Granted AT&T needs to get their 3G network up to par, but Verizon is hitting below the belt on this one.
Logan said 9:17PM on 11-03-2009
@ Dave
By "2.5G" you mean the slow-as-dial-up 2G EDGE?
And which part of the label, "3G Coverage," is misleading?
Logan said 9:24PM on 11-03-2009
@ Dave
Sorry if that came out a bit dickish. Consider me just another angry and disappointed AT&T customer.
Juaquin said 2:10AM on 11-04-2009
Just more money wasted on the lawsuit that could be spent toward upgrading the network.
9600baud said 8:40AM on 11-04-2009
you cant sue someone for telling the truth
Gillan said 7:03PM on 11-03-2009
You know what would be nice?
If AT&T would fix their crap network, instead of sue Verizon.
When even if you call AT&T customer service they agree that the "mobility service is not up to expectations"
It's crap, How much are (iPhone users) paying a month? to have crappy service, and rather than AT&T spending that money to "build" their network, they sue..
rage.
Reply
Martin said 9:32PM on 11-03-2009
This is pretty much in line with all the other knee-jerk reactions around here. Do you honestly think that the entirety of AT&T has to stop just for this lawsuit? No, they'll continue to make efforts to improve their network and *simultaneously* sue Verizon. Engineers and lawyers can do their own thing. :)
(this isn't directed at you only, Gillan, just that your comment was the one I happened to reply to)
Ryan Morano said 7:24PM on 11-03-2009
Yea, AT&T needs to spend more money enhancing their infrastructure rather than spending ridiculous amounts of funds on suing the competition for a pretty accurate commercial.
Wasn't there an article recently that divulged the 30% average on calls dropped on AT&T? That's unacceptable, especially for a company that touts having the largest and best selection of smart phones. And all these devices run better on 3G, which from Verizon's commercial, they lack.
Reply
Mike Kizerian said 7:23PM on 11-03-2009
I agree with the other comments here - 3G coverage for AT&T is really pitiful. Yet, the are constantly advertising the best coverage in the nation. I'm glad Verizon is taking them to task with this...
My allegiance is to Apple and the iPhone, not AT&T and their poor service.
Reply
TJ Luoma said 7:41PM on 11-03-2009
What AT&T routinely advertises is "the *fastest* 3G network" not "best coverage".
What Verizon routinely advertises is "the *most reliable* 3G network."
IIRC, there was a story not too long ago about how AT&T's 3G network IS faster IF you can get on it and STAY on it. Verizon's may be slower, but your ability to use it is greater than AT&Ts.
These Verizon ads have been in heavy rotation during college football, and it seems pretty clear to me that they are talking about things being faster on their phones than AT&Ts because they have more 3G coverage, but there is nothing that struck me as suggesting that AT&T doesn't have coverage in those areas.
Ben of BenandJacq said 7:36PM on 11-03-2009
Thanks AT$T for really sticking up for us, your customers.... Oh wait. No, you are sticking up for the right to rip off more customers by luring them in based solely on the iPhone (the only reason I am on your network), and then go and sue some other company in a nit-picky lawsuit where you decided whether or not they are telling 90% of the truth or the whole truth.
Because the truth is that I drop 5 calls a week on your sub-par network, and don't have 3G coverage (even though I pay for it) within 2 hours of driving.
My, how it would be nice to actually get treated as though we've given you THOUSANDS of dollars THIS YEAR, as we all have, individually.
Reply
Logan said 9:20PM on 11-03-2009
I hear you. I get one to two bars of EDGE coverage at my house and in my town. To get 3G, I would need to drive eight hours south to Chicago. Yet I still have to pay $30/month for data. Dumb.
Konrad said 9:29PM on 11-03-2009
5 calls a week? Really? I wish I was that lucky. I drop 5 calls a day. In a row. No bullshit.
Curly Eric said 7:56PM on 11-03-2009
AT&T is correct, Verizon is misrepresenting it's "3g" coverage.
"Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) (also known as Enhanced GPRS (EGPRS), or IMT Single Carrier (IMT-SC)) is a backward-compatible digital mobile phone technology that allows improved data transmission rates, as an extension on top of standard GSM. EDGE is considered a 3G radio technology and is part of ITU's 3G definition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Data_Rates_for_GSM_Evolution
Verizon could have said High-Speed, but then it might have to only count those towers that actually have the backhaul capacity for better than 1x speeds. Verizon chose to use the term 3g which happens to cover EDGE as well.
Reply