AT&T Sues Verizon Over "Map For That" Ads 249
MahlonS writes "AP is reporting on a suit filed in Northern Georgia in which AT&T claims that Verizon's 'There's a Map for That' ads are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices. Verizon had already agreed to modify their original ad to include a tag line that voice and data services are available outside 3G coverage areas." What's interesting is that on some level, this is actually a lawsuit over data visualization.
I'm not seeing it. (Score:5, Informative)
It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage. As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about. Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.
A case of sour grapes by AT&T.
Maybe if they'd use some of that iPhone money to expand their infrastructure instead of hiring lawyers and racking up executive bonuses...but nah, that's crazy talk.
Re:I'm not seeing it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with AT&T. I want maps, precise maps for 3G. I mean, I have EDGE on my Blackberry and it's very bad. So if I get a 3G service, I really want to be able to make sure that I won't have to fall back to EDGE...
I saw the ad and it really made me think it was cool and informative and I wanted to go online and check this out next time I shop for service. Unfortunately I expect the maps to be deceptive. T-Mobile's maps show reception in areas where I have been and where I would get cut all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Number portability is a good idea but produces an interesting problem. Looking at my cellphone number many people assume I live in Maryland. That was true at one time, but is no longer true today. Area codes are losing their connection to geography.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the 'Out of Touch' phrasing is accurate in this context
I disagree - they are trying to give people the distinct impression that you won't be able to communicate. The commercial even shows some sad AT&T network girl alone on a bench somewhere while her Verizon network friends are together having fun. Yes there is a speed difference between 3G and Edge, but give me a break... you can still send/receive calls, texts, and still get online.
I've gone hiking where my 3G coverage has fallen back to Edge. I was still able to access Google maps and look at where we w
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The maps are accurate but Verizon originally referred to the areas without 3G coverage as 'Out of Touch'
Yeah Verizon should not have said "You are out of touch in the dark zones" when it was still possible to fall-back to 2G or 1G coverage. I agree with AT&T that the original voiceover was misleading to customers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real problem is that it rarely 'falls back to 2G EDGE and continues to work' .
The map shown for AT&Ts coverage area is about the only areas you can get data in, and sometimes thats not even true.
I love my iPhone, but AT&Ts network is worthless. The whole 'Fastest 3G network' is false as well, unless I'm supposed to believe that everyone else gets speeds slower than a modem on most days, and that good speeds once a week are acceptable for being defined as 'fastest'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It didn't use to be this way... maybe the numbers of iPhone 3G/3GS users may be oversaturating the network. But I'm getting very spotty coverage (dropped calls, incoming calls go straight to voicemail often, EDGE data only, etc) in the middle of
Re: (Score:2)
...but nah, that's crazy talk.
What does a Native American who sells firecrackers [lardlad.com] have to do with this? :-)
Re:I'm not seeing it. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately 3G was only mentioned after AT&T complained. Previously it just said "Out of touch" and implied that you would get absolutely no voice or data throughout vast amounts of America.
I think the editors really need to update the post - otherwise the comments are going to be filled with people making comments about the recently modified advert and not realising what was originally displayed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well AT&T would probably be right to argue that their average customers don't really understand what "3G" means and might be confused by the maps. Of course, such an argument would be undercut by the fact that AT&T refers to "3G" in their own ads without explaining it.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T just built another in my town, and put one some miles away to cover some smaller towns (less than a few thousand people, total). Last night, I watched a friend lose a call he was in the middle of, on a brand new phone (not an iPhone). My house is only, at most, 2 or 3 miles away from the "new" tower (as the crow flies). That is not a very ringing endorsement of their service. Meanwhile, my friends and I on US Cellular and Sprint (I have Sprint) have never had any such issues...
What's worse is A
Are the maps accurate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"even though the ad makes that comparison clear" to customers who know what 3G is. Of course, to most people it's just a buzzword thrown around that describes how cool this phone is. Where misleading advertising is concerned, "misleading" means to the common consumer, not the /. crowd.
I had figured there would be a lawsuit about these ads, though I admit I'd guessed wrong about what specifically they'd sue over. Without watching the original ads again and paying more attention to the wording, I can't rea
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know for a fact they're not 100% accurate - Verizon's map shows 100% 3G coverage for all land within a 20 mile radius of my in-laws house. However, Verizon customers (them) get zero signal there (even when standing outdoors away from any obstructions) - not even enough to send a text message.
Conversely, AT&T shows zero 3G coverage there, and "spotty" EDGE coverage within a 20 mile radius. However, I (AT&T) get nearly full 3G signal there, with great speeds.
However, one case point like this only
Re: (Score:2)
Google, are you listening? Where's the gmaps overlay for *that*?
I'll concur, the VZW map shows Michigan blanketed with coverage, but I know for a fact that there is a great big hole North of I94, West of I69, and East of M66, pretty up until I96. There's spotty coverage in places, but for the most part there's nothing there for big chunks. Still, Verizon offers in general much better coverage in my areas that anyone else, and pretty much anywhere I *do* get Verizon coverage, it's 3G.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Verizon's depiction of AT&T's 3G coverage is accurate, if you go by the information available on AT&T's website.
(I posted this here [slashdot.org] a few minutes ago.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is just as bad. In my area I should have "best" coverage. Only problem is T-Mobile has few if any towers in the Omaha area and one bar or less. When I moved here I had T-Mobile, I could not make a call anywhere in my house, nor many places outside.
Best part is when I went to switch service, they charged me the ETF because their map said I have great coverage.
3g doesn't mean fast internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then there is the ATT 3G Coverage that is misleading. I live in a fairly rural area, and near one remote ATT tower I can get full 3G speed, only the tower itself doesn't have much in the way of data off of it, so all that 3G speed is bottlenecked by ISDN speeds, or impacted T1 or some crappy microwave link or ...
So, while they "offer" 3G, it isn't what it seems, and is all but useless for any data. All that data communication is useless, and ATT customeres have to revert back to SMS text messaging.
I now hav
If anything, it's AT&T's ads that are misleadi (Score:2)
Brilliant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"wonton" participation? Some kind of Chinese fast-food deal with the Bush administration?
Re: (Score:2)
Because HAM radio is so much more private than AT&T cellular service.
Re: (Score:2)
If AT&T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.
Good luck talking to the electric company (or nearly anybody else on a POTS or cell who doesn't have ham) with that ham radio.
I hope they don't sue ME, too. (Score:5, Funny)
There's an APE for that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?
There's an APE for that.
AT&T: There's a lawsuit for that.
Don't worry about AT&T (Score:2)
I think the trunk monkey [youtube.com] will get you first!
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. I'm really looking forward to the Pandora Ape and the GPS Ape, but you'll have to excuse my cynicism regarding the effectiveness of the Baby Monitor Ape.
F
They're comparing apples to crabapples (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked....
Re: (Score:2)
--What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100% of AT&T's licensed coverage area--
I believe you are wrong. Those Alltel towers that AT & T ended up with don't have EDGE at least here in the rural areas. I don't like either one of these companies. But you are right Verizon is slow, but they do have voice at least in areas that AT & T doesn't. Bummer :(
Re: (Score:2)
No. All of AT&T is EDGE. From Wikipedia:
The AT&T Mobility wireless data network began in 2002 as a Cingular initiative called "Project Genesis" that involved a GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) overlay of the entire wireless network. Project Genesis was completed by the end of 2004. Later, this network was upgraded to EDGE (Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution) across the GSM footprint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#Network_coverage [wikipedia.org]
Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, the fact that WCDMA is very inflexible and depends on 5 MHz channels means that in the few places that there actually is service, you are less likely to be able to use it because there are fewer channels serving fewer clients. Go ask any iPhone user about the fantastic reliability of AT&T's 3G network. WCDMA just doesn't fare well in markets where the use of wireless spectrum isn't dictated by government mandate as it is in the EU. Also AT&T has yet to even deploy HSPA+ on a large scale to the best of my knowledge, so to say that they're service is that much faster (although it is slightly faster) is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
>> What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&T's EDGE network (2.5G)
let me tell you about the last time I used 14.4mb/s service on my phone...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... for that is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
it's clearly a take off of iPhones "there's an app for that" ad (and probably service mark). It has nothing to do with coverage, or how reliable anything is...
Re: (Score:2)
About that "article"... (Score:2)
Valid complaint (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen a couple of people who say they don't get it and use the recently modified advert as proof. The first version of the map used the words "Out of touch", had no small print and wrongly implied that outside of the coloured area you weren't going to get any coverage at all.
AT&T's data coverage may be poor (I don't know, I don't live in the USA) but there aren't massive blackspots all over America as this map implied.
See Engadget [engadget.com] for more information.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't really all that valid at all, and it does nothing to refute the salient point of the advertisement. From your link:
All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon.
From a certain point of view, an iPhone with a crappy data connection isn't really an iPhone at all. It is an iPod Touch that makes phone calls and sends text messages. It will remain so until you get back under a 3G coverage area.
AT&T would like to point out that those devices do technically work. They would also like to refute that the coverage is better on Verizon than i
looks like AT&T's strategy turned against them (Score:5, Insightful)
You live by your customers being idiots, you die by your customers being idiots.
I'd bet that if AT&T has decent voice coverage and spotty 3G, it has benefited from a lot of customers not realizing that those coverage areas can be different. Verizon's ad turns the same ignorance against them, and now they're upset about it.
The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.
Grow Up, AT&T... (Score:3, Insightful)
AT&T should post a global map... (Score:2)
Illustrating how Verizon's proprietary CDMA garbage is only available in the USA and very few limited countries, while the GSM that AT&T uses is available around the entire world. That would put Verizon in their place.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Verizons CDMA network covers an area much larger than all of Europe, and that most people in America stay in America, and that when traveling to Europe, most Americans get a throwaway for cell service so they don't pay $2/min ...
I guess my point is, no one would care because its irrelevant to almost everyone that Verizon uses CDMA.
There's a (misleading) map for that.... (Score:2)
When those television ads for Verizon first appeared I noticed that the AT&T map that appeared in the commercial was significantly different than the AT&T coverage map depicted on the "coverage" page of the AT&T website. It should come as no surprise that the Verizon's version of the map showed markedly less 3G coverage than the map AT&T presented.
So the only question was: "Which map is right?" If the map in Verizon's commercials map was correct we'd hear nothing more about it but if Verizon
What a Country! (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Disagree completely. I think the ads are quite obvious in that
A) It clearly states it is a 3G coverage map
and
B) There is a sentence on the bottom of the screen that says that voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area.
IIRC, the ad says "3G" about 1 brazillion times as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They were originally much more misleading, they did not include the voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area and also stated that an AT&T user without 3G coverage was "out of touch"
I don't use (or like) either but I think that AT&T is marginally more in the right here, for all that the VZW ads are pretty clever they are definitely misleading, even in their current form.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and we all know how well people stop and read the small print, right?
I agree with AT&T on this one. It's deceptive. Verizon has a long history about lying on their coverage maps. Remember their older maps? They used to show *the entire country* as being served by them, which is complete bullshit.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is not true. That red map is the VZW 3G (EVDO and not just 1xRTT) network just as they claim. They have basically upgraded their entire network to EVDO.
I can attest to this... why else would I have had EVDO signal in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere, SD when I was there on a trip a few weeks ago?
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
While I understand AT&T's complaint, it is still more of the same from them- just like when they claim to offer the same internet (768kbps) as RoadRunner (now up to 7mbps).
The market is smartphones right now, with the iPhone currently being #1. VZW is about to launch a number of very high-end phones (esp. the DROID) which will chew through data, and 3G coverage is a necessity. The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.
If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the decrease of $10/month, that's still $110 to cancel your contract in the 23rd month of a two-year contract.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the iPhone is only 13.7% of smart phone sales as of Q2 2009 [wikipedia.org].
iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up), and it lags far behind Symbian which single handedly enjoys > 50% share.
Re: (Score:2)
RIM sells several models, the iPhone is basically one model with diffrent size storage.
Symbian accounts for not only different models, but different manufactures as well. Living in America, I'd say 50% is a BS figure however, I've seen only one Symbian phone, it came from a friend visiting from Europe.
I realize America does not account for the entire world, but its really hard for me to buy those numbers when I've only ever seen one if the 'most popular selling phones' and I've seen far more of the less po
Re: (Score:2)
We sure here a lot about her/it, but it's for a specific niche crowd (tweens/"cool" people). The rest of the world continues as usual...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, blackberry is probably #1... iPhone just has more visibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.
This is very true. My workplace has two different corporate cellular plans, one through AT&T and one through VZW. I had a smartphone on the AT&T network and data coverage truly was very spotty and slow. Since I swapped for a phone on Verizon the data coverage has been far more consistent and much faster. For the record, I live and work in a metropolitan area where most carriers would be expected to have thorough coverage, yet only Verizon gets consistent coverage in and around the city.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.
Yes, but that doesn't require 3G access to work. They're effectively making the claim that your phone is useless without 3G coverage, which is not at all the case. Not only is there no 3G coverage where I live (I only started getting reliable signal *at any speed* a couple of months ago), but I've been using the original iPhone since it came out. 2.5G isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, but more often than not I'm slowed down far more by the performance of the device itself (JS-heavy pages are
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree with you on this. The ads do clearly state that it's 3G coverage. And the difference between 2G and 3G for heavy data use Smartphone owners is a very significant one. This ad is less deceptive than the AT&T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.
If you want to argue that it gives people the impression that the phones don't have any coverage even though they state it's 3G coverage areas the maps are talking about then you should also talk to Apple about the "If I'm going to move things, why not move to a Mac?" ads which neglect to mention that the difference between moving Xp to Win 7 as opposed to XP to Mac is the fact that you also have to buy a completely new computer on top of a new OS (making it just a tad more expensive...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a system that could effectively run XP that couldn't also run Windows 7. This includes :
My old rig which is old and actually got a substantial performance bump going to Windows 7 (4g ram and a E6300 processor, older nvidia card)
A Thinkpad X32 laptop which is also old by laptop standards (only drawback is no Aero glass interface due to older pixel shader)
In the vast majority of cases, if you can run XP, you can run Windows 7. Specifically the operating thresholds for it are lower than Vis
Re: (Score:2)
This ad is less deceptive than the AT&T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.
So one has focused on speed, the other on wide coverage. Sounds like a win-win for consumers... and now that we have all the facts, can we move on?
Re: (Score:2)
The AT&T uses the *world* as its domain-- where UMTS, EDGE, and GPRS are available to portend that it has the most coverage.
Limit the scope to the 50 US States, and Verizon is right.
But they had to save face..... and perhaps customers that are giving Verizon and (damnation by faint praise) Sprint share-- despite the iPhone phenomenon. AT&T is crippling Apple's growth, and Apple and AT&T know it.
CDMA may or may not suck (this is the transport with 1xRTT and ED.VO and ED.VOa) but capacity is king
Re: (Score:2)
Odd...
My HP ze2113 (circa 2005) runs Windows 7 (with Aero), MSE, and Office just fine. All I did was throw another 512MB RAM chip in it.
Where are you getting your data?
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the maps have a giant "3G" label, and they're both quite accurate and easy to compare...
http://gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g [gizmodo.com]
You'll have to pull up a 3G map for a city then zoom out to the national level on their own site.. (http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&3g=t).
AT&T really doesn't have anything on Verizon's 3g network.
Oh hey, (Score:2)
I learned to use the interweb...
AT&T's 3G network in Blue.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&3g=t&lat=38.165700875&lon=-99.05553125&sci=1 [att.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, and that isn't AT&T's issue either.
The issue at had is purely the positioning of the two coverage maps together makes AT&T look like chumps. Which they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone that watched the commercial and thought they were talking about normal coverage. This is crap, maybe Microsoft should sue Mac for saying their computers are better.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that the only grounds AT&T seem to have for a lawsuit is that the ad doesn't sufficiently explain that just because their 3G network sucks doesn't mean you can't call people while outside it actually makes me take the claims made by the ad more seriously. I always assume that TV ads are misrepresenting something, but in this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"
Well, I don't think it is. When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage". That's not misleading.
Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength. If there is something false, then AT&T is a big boy. They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?".
Frankly,
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint roams on Verizon...
So, you've still got the network.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why he said he could care less.
If Sprint screws him, then he won't be able to care less.
Re: (Score:2)
After all these years following them you should at least know the company is called Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is still a business. And I think they don't want to make the same mistake Coke did decades ago, with their "Coke vs Pepsi" marketing. A lot of people didn't even know about Pepsi, so Coke in effect paid for Pepsi ads and let the world know that Pepsi was a possible alternative to Coke.
Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, is already known. And Apple surely won't talk about other alternatives such as Linux, FreeBSD, OpenSolaris or whatever in their ads, that would be counter-intuitive for them. Especia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits are a business tactic, they're not a end in-and-of themselves, they're simply a way to get to your goal.
If people sue each other, it's because it's gotten personal, they want to feel vindicated. Companies sue because it will increase profits or maintain control of a market. They're not looking to right a wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are suggesting that Apple sue for copyright infringement, the Verizon Wireless ads are clearly a parody of the Apple ads and thus fall under fair use.
If you are suggesting something along the lines of a trademark suit, the phrases are different.
What else is left for grounds for a lawsuit?