7118258
story
Comments: 214 +- Your Rights Online: AT&T Loses First Legal Battle Against Verizon on Thursday November 19, @08:39AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccommunications.gif); width:96px; height:62px;
communications
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
FutureDomain writes "A federal judge in Atlanta has declined a restraining order from AT&T that would have prevented Verizon from running ads that compared their 3G coverage to AT&T's. AT&T felt that Verizon's ads 'mislead consumers into thinking that AT&T doesn't offer wireless service in large portions of the country, which is clearly not the case.' Verizon argued that the ads clearly indicated that the maps were only of 3G coverage, and that AT&T is only suing because it doesn't want to face the truth about its network."
Related Stories
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Can you hear us now? (Score:3, Funny)
Can you hear us now?
Can you hear us now?
Re: (Score:2)
No my cellphone's turned off so I don't get annoying phone calls that waste my money.
"Verizon argued that the ads clearly indicated that the maps were only of 3G coverage, and that AT&T is only suing because it doesn't want to face the truth about its network."
How sad for the late, great monopoly AT&T. They once controlled virtually the entire U.S. phone network, and now they are falling to a distant last place. I almost feel sorry for them.
Ok that's enough.
Let's break-up the Comcast monopoly next.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, when Bell was split up it became Verizon, so I guess you have two monopolies beating their heads against each other there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can you hear us now? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh it's a lot more convoluted than that.
For all intents and purposes when you think of the AT&T monopoly of yore, actually Verizon is more of that than the current incarnation of AT&T that is entertaining us today with this legal battle.
First, AT&T was divested. The monopoly part became mini-monopolies - the Baby Bells. They were still almost exclusively the only show in town for what they did (local telephony). AT&T actually had to compete at that point, on several fronts. Long Distance became a highly competitive arena over time. And the part that made telephony infrastructure equipment could no longer simply dictate to the local phone companies what they were gonna buy.
The first wave of Wireless in the US was a mandated duopoly. Each area got two licenses for wireless service providers. The "B" band went to the established phone company while the "A" band was up for grabs. The "B" side was often termed the "wireline" side because they were established companies already. Gradually, a large chunk of the upstart "A" side companies coalesced into McCaw. Before the "B" side companies started merging, McCaw was actually bigger than most.
Eventually AT&T bought McCaw and became or created AT&T Wireless.
The game changed with lots more licenses and more players.
SBC bought up Ameritech, then AT&T and then changed it's name to AT&T.
In all of that, if you restrict your view to the Wireless stuff Verizon is much more directly a descendant of the Baby Bells.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Southwestern Bell + PacBell + SNET + Ameritech = SBC
SBC bought AT&T (LD) and changed its name to AT&T.
AT&T bought BellSouth and at that point owned 100% of Cingular, which was renamed to AT&T.
Therefore,
Southwestern Bell + PacBell + SNET + Ameritech + BellSouth + AT&T (LD) + Cingular = AT&T.
Of course they did... (Score:4, Insightful)
because it's not LIBEL if it's TRUE.
Re:Of course they did... (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, the adverts are certainly bending the truth, even if they're not breaking it. The maps of Verizon's network cover *all* their network, because there's no difference between 2.5G/3G on their technology. By contrast, there's a technical difference between EDGE and 3G on AT&T's network.
The result – the maps show verizon to have coverage and AT&T not, even in areas where (for example) verizon's network runs like crap, and AT&T has excellent 2.5G coverage.
Parent
Re:Of course they did... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't agree. After this whole thing blew up I watched the Verizon ads. They make clear they are discussing 3G coverage, not generalized coverage (which would be available almost everywhere).
Aside -
Have you ever been to a place without cellphone coverage (and I don't mean because the building's walls are blocking). My digital phone doesn't work in mountainous areas, but my old analog phone seemed to work everywhere. It makes me wish analog was still alive, if only for backup.
Parent
AT&T is the laughing stock of the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
They were insane to bring this to court. Verizon could not have paid for better advertising. This is going to go down in the book as one of the stupidest moves in business history.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is going to go down in the book as one of the stupidest moves in business history.
I am sure there's also a map for that!
Re:AT&T is the laughing stock of the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
With a DVR, I hadn't actually seen the ad in question until I read about the lawsuit. The next time I was flipping through commercials, I made it a point to stop at the Island of Misfit Toys ad to see what the hubbub was about. Good ad.* :)
The Streisand Effect is alive and well here. You're doing a heckuva job there, AT&T.
*I am currently a Verizon customer, but am equally biased against all telcos. They can all DIAF.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Verizon's EVDO CDMA '3G' network is much slower than the HSDPA GSM '3G' that ATT has.
Becides Edge is in the '3G' spec, so it should be '3G' too.
The real problem is that '3G' is 100% meaningless. We should get maximum working bandwidths, then compare them.
And I really hate Verizon, and dislike ATT. I use T-Mobile. They have worse coverage, but so much better customer service!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Mobile_telephone_interfaces [wikipedia.org]
EVDO revA is what Verizon is advertizing. HSDPA is what ATT has. Edge is also technically in the '3G' spec, and well should be shown in the Verizon ads. But honestly 3G doesn't mean shit.
Parent
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>Verizon's EVDO CDMA '3G' network is much slower than the HSDPA GSM '3G' that ATT has
Upon what data do you draw this conclusion? (just curious)
Parent
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if it is they aren't advertising that their 3G is faster, just that their 3G is larger than AT&T which is completely true. Verizon upgraded all of their towers to support 3G, AT&T has only upgraded some towers in more concentrated metro areas.
Verizon is beginning to upgrade towers to 4G next year. And supposedly according to rumors there is another Android phone either on black Friday or mid December along with a bunch of other new smart phones launching throughout December. They are going after AT&T very aggressively.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
Can anyone explain this alphabet soup?
I'll take a shot.
1. Information wants to be free,
2. Ads cost money, therefore
3. Ads contain no information.
I think that's the gist, anyway.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that ATT themselves consider Edge to be 2.5G, that is what they advertise it as. I would personally say that the speed is more then enough on Verizon, but I'm not goofy about my phone usage and trying to turn it into a TV, so I could be unusual.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll second that; I'm also a T-Mobile customer (for 7 years now) and their customer service is excellent. I sometimes get slightly irritated on the phone with them because they are SO overly nice and friendly. It's almost sickeningly sweet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EVDO revA is what Verizon is advertizing. HSDPA is what ATT has. Edge is also technically in the '3G' spec, and well should be shown in the Verizon ads. But honestly 3G doesn't mean shit.
If it were possible, I'd love to see the map showing real-world AT&T coverage.
Seems the usual state of affairs for iPhone users is that they have no signal at all, let alone 3G. And we're talking in major metro areas, here.
As far as I can tell, in the real world, AT&T has the worst network.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Becides [sic]Edge is in the '3G' spec, so it should be '3G' too.
I used to work for AT&T Wireless. AT&T has never referred to their EDGE network as 3G; they have always called it 2.5G. I can't link to the document on it as it is on the company intranet and not accessible for public viewing. But, here's a quote from the AT&T website that clearly states that AT&T does not consider EDGE 3G: In areas where the 3G network is not available, customers will continue to receive service on the AT&T EDGE network, when coverage is available. [att.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a little shocked to find out that slashdot's main page, a "mostly text" page, is anywhere between 500k-950k on my blackberry.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real issue of the lawsuit as it parodies the iPhones "There is an App for that" commercials. But they can't do anything legally about parodies, but the fact that Verizon directly attacked AT&T and used still misleading truth, as it only showed 3G coverage which Verizon does have better service area. But it is different then from voice service or even other formats for digital transmission such as EDGE. Does mislead the customer to think if they go with AT&T that they will have a lot m
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
AT&T can't win on the deception since the ads do say the maps are of 3G coverage.
If that confuses potential customers, it's as much AT&T's fault as Verizon's. They both like tossing acronyms around and both enjoy confusing customers with dizzying itemized bills and plans until people just quit listening at the first term they don't understand.
I still don't understand why data isn't data. If I pay for data transfer on their net why does it matter if that comes from a laptop connected to the phone (an extra charge) or from an app running on the phone itself? Are the bits fatter?
Parent
Now to get rid of noncompetes (Score:4, Insightful)
The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that, companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete. Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete. They confine themselves to areas they can patent, they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures, obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete. IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies, then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that letters patent effectively granted by the government. Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government. Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too.
Re:Now to get rid of noncompetes (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete. Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation
I agree, but you forget that you don't "have" to sign contracts. I didn't have a contract with my old Cingular/AT&T service, nor do I have one with my new VirginMobile service. I also don't have a contract with Netscape ISP, or Dish Network. I *chose* not to take their offered contracts, and you could do the same, if you don't like being locked-in for 1-2 years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, you chose to pay a LOT more over time for something you have not abandoned either, in leiu of risking a much smaller cancelation fee...
You have a 30 day window in your contract to cancel anyway. If it works for you for 30 days, you;re likely to keep it a year. If in year 2 you want to leave, it's a $150 fee (prorated even lower depending on the contract). I just paid $74 to end my wife's Verizon contract.
I be you;re paying at leats a $10 per month premium for your "choice." I'ts not like you CAN'T
Outcome Didn't Matter Either Way... (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO both companies's customer service are horrible, so it's irrelevant to me how good or bad their respective networks are.
They may "hear me now"... but neither has been willing to LISTEN.
Effective ads (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think they're misleading - they say "if you want to know why your friend's 3G coverage is so spotty" (or something along those lines, with 3G mentioned every time) and the examples given are all 3G-specific (high-bandwidth applications). Besides, who advertises about the breadth of their 2G service these days? It's very clear that it's talking about 3G.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"3G" is a weak term that means different things in these two technology stacks. AT&T's 3G is a much better 3G than Verizon's 3G, and thus also much more expensive to roll out.
Very true, but prospective customers don't want to hear the details. AT&T can come back with a line of commercials advertising how their 3G is faster than Verizon's 3G and bam - competition. The point is that the Verizon ads aren't unfairly damaging or misleading and there's plenty of room for rebuttal by AT&T.
Truth In Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have seen AT&T claims they have the "fastest", while Verizon claims it has the "largest". From my own experience, this seems true.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're anything like the energy sector, all ads have to have the Legal Department's stamp of authority, so in this case, it passes muster.
It's like I used to say when I was a kid, "If your soap is so great, why is the other one the 'leading brand,' shouldn't yours be best?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think Sprint advertises the "most reliable", Verizon "the widest coverage", and ATT "the fastest" or something like that. Seems they are all touting something similar, just slightly different.
My wish... (Score:4, Funny)
Not having read anything about the case, and I know it can't happen, but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&T and Verizon appear to be...
Ahem.
I hope they both lose.
AT&T vs Verizon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:AT&T vs Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
All of us "consumers". Notice how we aren't represented in the courtroom.
Parent
Nope (Score:2)
Actually, I feel for them. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've personally fallen for a similar scam (or so I felt) when I bought a digital camera. The camera included a "lithium digital camera battery" but failed to mention that it was a throw-away, non-rechargeable battery. When I got it home and opened it, I was exasperated to read the documentation and find that the rechargeable batteries are "lithium-ion" and I'm expected to buy them separately – and to add insult to injury, at inflated prices. Yeah, I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera, but I felt that Kodak (yes, I'll name names) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.
Truth in advertising, IMHO, would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that "Note: Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area". A lot of normal users don't know the difference between "3G" and regular talk coverage any more than I knew the difference between "lithium" and "lithium-ion" batteries.
Damn them all (Score:3, Insightful)
Maps (Score:5, Informative)
You can't really compare the maps anyway.
Verizon's map is a coverage area map. They paint broad swaths of area where they have towers, but don't show any gaps in signal. Even up here in Verizon country (New England), I found that Verizon has plenty of dead zones where I don't get signal yet I'm in an area of the map that says I should. Verizon just takes each tower (I guess) and paints a circle around it with the theoretical diameter that the tower could reach.
AT&T's map, as far as I can see, is an actual signal map If I zoom in on it, I see predicted levels of signal and gaps in coverage that correspond roughly with the gaps I actually experience when I'm going places. It's not perfectly accurate, of course, but at least it makes the apparent attempt to be honest about actual signal. I don't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that "shadows" a tower. But whatever - I find it's very rare for me to lose signal in areas where the AT&T map shows coverage.
So, while Verizon may technically be accurate in stating that they have better "3G coverage" nationwide, I bet if you actually compared signal (that is, areas where you can actually get a 3G signal, and not areas within x miles of a tower regardless of terrain), Verizon's map would look a whole lot less thorough.
Verizon has the better 3G coverage. Fine, I get that. Of course, I don't have a 3G capable phone so I really don't care. But I get that it is important to some people. Verizon even has (marginally) better Voice/non-3G Data coverage here in New England.
But I had no way of honestly comparing them based on the coverage maps. AT&T showed me incomplete coverage that matched my real-world experience with my prepaid Go! phone. Verizon showed absolute 100% coverage everywhere which certainly did NOT match our experience with my wife's Verizon phone.
Example: My mother lives in a small town on the coast. When I go to her house, coverage is VERY spotty - you basically have to be near a window to get a bar or two. Verizon and AT&T have the exact same actual signal - very low (1-2 bars) and you have to pretty much be at a window standing still to make a call and have any hope of completing a conversation. My wife's Verizon phone and my AT&T phone were pretty much identical in performance.
The maps tell a very different story. AT&T shows my mother's house as "no coverage" along with a good chunk of the peninsula she lives on. Verizon shows the entire peninsula she lives on with full-on 3G coverage, no gaps whatsoever. Most of the peninsula has *no coverage of any kind* with AT&T or Verizon.
I finally concluded that I'd rather be told the truth, and when my company offered the choice of carriers for my Crackberry I went with AT&T. It didn't hurt, of course, that Verizon also locks out the GPS on the models we had, and AT&T allows me to use it (Verizon CLAIMED you could, but then they told you afterward that you had to buy the $10/month TeleNav service and even then you STILL wouldn't be allowed to use the GPS with anything other than TeleNav, Blackberry Maps, and Google Maps).
I have no particular love for AT&T, but at least they appear to be making an effort at honesty about their signal coverage, and when they sell me a phone with a feature installed they let me use the feature.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Might not be AT&T's fault... my office used to have solid Verizon coverage but no AT&T reception. If I stepped outside I had full 3G on my iPhone. Anywhere indoors, I had no service.
It turned out they were using Verizon repeaters in the building. They removed them one day and ever since, AT&T users have had full coverage inside.
Who needs that much 3G coverage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just curious if people really care that much about nationwide 3G coverage. Unless you travel constantly to many different states, what matters most is local coverage.
I visited northern NH for a week this summer and didn't have 3G (on AT&T). I barely noticed.
Recall Pizza Hut vs. Papa John's (Score:3, Interesting)
Pizza Hut sued Papa John's because Papa John's was claiming "better ingredients, better pizza." Pizza Hut lost. These lawsuits are a stupid waste of courts' time--and of taxpayer money.
Maybe I'll boycott AT&T for awhile . . ..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sue Me AT&T!! (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't scale either.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've got a friend who's still driving trucks over the road (long-haul) and he went with Verizon due to coverage. Although their customer service and contracts stink, they do have the widest coverage of all the wireless carriers and if you need service throughout the country, then they're pretty much the only choice.
Re:Misleading Ads Against the Rules? (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise they would sell fully unlimited packages, . . . . when what they really meant was 400minutes
They already do that with data. Virtually every cell carrier has unlimited* data.
* Not to exceed 5GB per month.
It'd be like advertising health salt-free* potato chips and everyone just accepting it without griping. Cell phone advertisers and companies these days are border line con-men.
* Excepting salt added for flavor.
Parent