AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

[hme83]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

[

hme83 & dmapr, just for you the conclusion from MSN Money, Top Stocks

"Overall, this appears to be a very needless lawsuit. Verizon covers all the legal bases in the ad and is well within its rights. AT&T's knee-jerk reaction to factual evidence just makes the company look like whiny and overly litigious spoilsports"

As I mentioned before I agree that all the legal bases were covered, but I still maintain that to someone not knowledgeable about 3G or not paying much attention to the writing at the bottom, what comes across is the Verizon has a lot more coverage than AT&T. I have a hard time believing that this was not intentional on Verizon's part.

Hey!! I never accused Verizon of not being intentionally crafty!

[dmapr]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

As I mentioned before I agree that all the legal bases were covered, but I still maintain that to someone not knowledgeable about 3G or not paying much attention to the writing at the bottom, what comes across is the Verizon has a lot more coverage than AT&T. I have a hard time believing that this was not intentional on Verizon's part.

Perhaps it was just a logical conclusion to AT&T's own ad campaign. As we know, AT&T now "works in more places" — but I can't find any of them on the map. BTW, did I ever mention that one of those billboards was proudly installed in an area with very poor AT&T coverage? Makes perfect sense to me

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

AT&T's lawsuit over Verizon ads could backfire, some argue
But others see lawsuit as necessary, partly to satisfy regulators
By Matt Hamblen
November 4, 2009 04:28 PM ET


Computerworld - AT&T Inc.'s lawsuit against Verizon Wireless over its TV ads could be a public relations mistake, some analysts said today, but at least one said that the company had to bring the lawsuit to protect itself against potential regulatory or legal actions.

Some experts said the lawsuit brings into focus a perception among some consumers -- iPhone users in particular -- that AT&T's network is inferior to Verizon's. An opposing view is that AT&T had to file a lawsuit, partly to satisfy regulators and also to head off a potential class-action lawsuit by unhappy customers. Yet another expert said AT&T would only face backlash if it loses the suit.

AT&T filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, claiming that Verizon's "There's a Map for That" TV ads are misleading. AT&T claims the ads lead viewers to believe that areas shown in white on a map of the U.S. have no AT&T wireless coverage at all, but in fact the white regions are just those that are outside of AT&T's fast 3G service area. Verizon said through a spokeswoman Tuesday that the ads are accurate and clearly state in text that the white areas on the map just have no 3G service and are not entirely without coverage.

AT&T is seeking an emergency injunction to stop the ads, arguing that they are causing AT&T to lose "incalculable market share" and customer goodwill. It is also seeking unspecified monetary damages.

However, three experts said that the Verizon ads alone would not have focused as much public attention on AT&T's perceived network weaknesses as the AT&T lawsuit has..

"I think AT&T has a good point about the Verizon ads, but unfortunately by filing the lawsuit, they are showing their shortcomings," said Gene Grabowski, a crisis communications consultant at Levick Strategic Communications in Washington. "The lawsuit brings [AT&T's network coverage] to a higher level of scrutiny."

On a personal level, Grabowski said he recently bought a BlackBerry device that uses AT&T's network and found that the device works well. When the ads started airing in October, Grabowski said he perceived them as "just ads." He focused more intently on the claims when the lawsuit was described in the media and was left concerned about AT&T's network as a result.

Similarly, Rob Enderle, an analyst at Enderle Group, added, "If I were AT&T, I would have let this go. If you have a superior network offering, then a lawsuit makes sense, but AT&T is already inferior and may give Verizon's campaign more power as opposed to detracting from it."

AT&T's lawsuit over Verizon ads could backfire, some argue
================================================== ===============================

hme83 & dmapr, just for you the conclusion from MSN Money, Top Stocks

"Overall, this appears to be a very needless lawsuit. Verizon covers all the legal bases in the ad and is well within its rights. AT&T's knee-jerk reaction to factual evidence just makes the company look like whiny and overly litigious spoilsports"

As I mentioned before I agree that all the legal bases were covered, but I still maintain that to someone not knowledgeable about 3G or not paying much attention to the writing at the bottom, what comes across is the Verizon has a lot more coverage than AT&T. I have a hard time believing that this was not intentional on Verizon's part.

What's interesting about the points made on both sides is Verizon clearly stated "3G" coverage in the ads. I've seen the commercials many times, and to me it was clear...

That being said, I follow the mobility world, and I know there are a lot of people who don't even think of these things like I do. They just want a cell phone for its intended purpose of being what it is - a mobile phone. Some people could misinterpret Verizon's ads as saying AT&T has no coverage whatsoever in the white areas of the AT&T map shown in the ads.

At the same time, people need to get a clue. Do people need to be care-taken so much we need to spell EVERYTHING out? Does society need that much hand-holding? If so, IMO, we've gotten really dumb and incapable of thinking for ourselves.

The fact is AT&T service works well in most areas of this country. There are coverage holes in their service, but this is the case with EVERY carrier, Verizon included. For people to be so misled about coverage as to not get the distinction of 3G service versus regular 2G is stretching it a little. It's a more fear-based, not fact-based ideology.

If there is any good to come out of the ad controversy and this suit by AT&T, it hopefully will be AT&T expanding and improving their marginal 3G coverage, which is the REAL issue here.

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

At the same time, people need to get a clue. Do people need to be care-taken so much we need to spell EVERYTHING out? Does society need that much hand-holding? If so, IMO, we've gotten really dumb and incapable of thinking for ourselves.

Lol Mike, I told my husband what you said. He is definitely one of the ones that is clueless about 3G vs 2G, not because he is dumb but because he has absolutely no interest in it, and uses my hand-me-down phones. Considering he is an extremely intelligent person & very knowledgeable in many things that go over my head, I have to assume that there more people like him than us geeks can fathom.

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

If there is any good to come out of the ad controversy and this suit by AT&T, it hopefully will be AT&T expanding and improving their marginal 3G coverage, which is the REAL issue here.

I will drink to that

Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

[hme83]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Lol Mike, I told my husband what you said. He is definitely one of the ones that is clueless about 3G vs 2G, not because he is dumb but because he has absolutely no interest in it, and uses my hand-me-down phones. Considering he is an extremely intelligent person & very knowledgeable in many things that go over my head, I have to assume that there more people like him than us geeks can fathom. I will drink to that

Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

Maybe it's due to operating in a profession where you don't take things at face value *until you've read the footnotes*......in fact - read the footnotes first, *then* look at the financial statements. ............

But to me the question is - should advertising contain useful content and be directed at those who will find the information beneficial? Or should it all just be diluted to a point where it's meaningless to anyone for the sake of those who don't educate themselves if they aren't familiar with the terminology or don't understand the message that is being presented.

Perfectly intelligent people don't have to have knowledge in all areas - noone does. But as a consumer, if you are interested in a product or service and you don't have much knowledge re: it - make a basic effort to gain some insight - pay attention to the "details" of the presentation - and then ask your wife.

I'm with both of you re: a drink to the hope that this at least forces at&t to expand their very limited (from a geographic standpoint) 3G network!!

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by hme83

Maybe it's due to operating in a profession where you don't take things at face value *until you've read the footnotes*......in fact - read the footnotes first, *then* look at the financial statements. ............

But to me the question is - should advertising contain useful content and be directed at those who will find the information beneficial? Or should it all just be diluted to a point where it's meaningless to anyone for the sake of those who don't educate themselves if they aren't familiar with the terminology or don't understand the message that is being presented.

Perfectly intelligent people don't have to have knowledge in all areas - noone does. But as a consumer, if you are interested in a product or service and you don't have much knowledge re: it - make a basic effort to gain some insight - pay attention to the "details" of the presentation - and then ask your wife.
I'm with both of you re: a drink to the hope that this at least forces at&t to expand their very limited (from a geographic standpoint) 3G network!!

LOL, in his case it is more like only ask your wife. . I believe one of his questions was "There is a lawsuit about two providers suing one another for something, is that something we should worry about?". . I may have asked the same questiont of him about something I vaguely knew about, but somewhere in there, I would have said atleast said "what is it all about?"

Back to the topic of are the maps misleading. My fellow engineer just asked me "hey, why do we all have AT&T, when Verizon has so much better coverage nationwide".

I give up.

PS: Think about how many more people Verizon could confuse by using *Never* & "Not* in the same sentence.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

LOL, in his case it is more like only ask your wife. . I believe one of his questions was "There is a lawsuit about two providers suing one another for something, is that something we should worry about?". . I may have asked the same questiont of him about something I vaguely knew about, but somewhere in there, I would have said atleast said "what is it all about?"

Back to the topic of are the maps misleading. My fellow enineer just asked me "hey, why do we all have AT&T, when Verizon has so much better coverage nationwide".

I give up.

PS: Think about how many more people Verizon could confuse by using *Never* & "Not* in the same sentence.

If your fellow engineer was talking "3G data", I'd have to say "good question"!!

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by hme83

If your fellow engineer was talking "3G data", I'd have to say "good question"!!

So would I, but he does not have a 3G phone and only uses his phone for phone calls, no data or texting.

On the flip side, the first time the commercial was mentioned was during a Packer vs Viking game and shortly after the Packer's miserable loss, my Verizon toting Viking fan forumite friend sent me a text saying something like "what was more irritating to you, the Viking's win or the comparisoin maps?."

As far as I am concerned all coverage maps stretch the truth, having had Verizon for 3+ miserable years, all I have to say is the "Verizon Sux" As I have mentioned many times before the only good the *Evil Red* did for me is lead me to WA.

[Kalimotxo]

"Damn right they're lying! AT&T is capable of dropping calls anywhere in the continental U.S."

"Let the exhilarating truth ring out: Where AT&T lacks 3G coverage, it will likely support a lesser, but mostly functional network standard."

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

my Verizon toting Viking fan forumite friend sent me a text saying something like "what was more irritating to you, the Viking's win or the comparisoin maps?."

...to which the proper reply is "Which would you rather have me jam into your ear, a football or your cell-phone?"

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

...to which the proper reply is "Which would you rather have me jam into your ear, a football or your cell-phone?"

Lol, I missed an opportunity. I was tempted to reply with "neither was as irritating as you are being now".

Btw, in response to my post in another forum, about how much better AT&T is in my area over Verizon, a forumite friend, we both know well, replied with this profound statement.

Well, then you can view the ad over AT&T 3G on your phone and laugh at how ironic it is that VZW subscribers in your area can't see it at all

[viewfly]

Maybe ATT should run a counter ad, aimed at the young professional that travels across the world for his business/company/vacation and voice calls/data calls. The ad would show the average Verizon user, with the average phone/data device (which are mostly CDMA without any GSM capability), and then display the global comparison maps of Verizon vs ATT.

Verizon would have quite a large blank spot(s). on that map.

That may raise a few eyebrows!

preemptive counterstrike: yes there are a few Verizon phones that are world capable, but as was posted on another thread...very few...the most are CDMA only). And also...no comments that ATT is roaming in Europe/Asia...we all know that obvious fact. But the point is that one can roam.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

If there is any good to come out of the ad controversy and this suit by AT&T, it hopefully will be AT&T expanding and improving their marginal 3G coverage, which is the REAL issue here.

I doubt that ATT needs any forcing on this issue. They are well aware of it and are continually spending billions to increase 3G coverage. The suit, if anything, is a distraction.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by Mobile Mike

What's interesting about the points made on both sides is Verizon clearly stated "3G" coverage in the ads. I've seen the commercials many times, and to me it was clear...

That being said, I follow the mobility world, and I know there are a lot of people who don't even think of these things like I do. They just want a cell phone for its intended purpose of being what it is - a mobile phone. Some people could misinterpret Verizon's ads as saying AT&T has no coverage whatsoever in the white areas of the AT&T map shown in the ads.

At the same time, people need to get a clue. Do people need to be care-taken so much we need to spell EVERYTHING out? Does society need that much hand-holding? If so, IMO, we've gotten really dumb and incapable of thinking for ourselves.

The fact is AT&T service works well in most areas of this country. There are coverage holes in their service, but this is the case with EVERY carrier, Verizon included. For people to be so misled about coverage as to not get the distinction of 3G service versus regular 2G is stretching it a little. It's a more fear-based, not fact-based ideology.

If there is any good to come out of the ad controversy and this suit by AT&T, it hopefully will be AT&T expanding and improving their marginal 3G coverage, which is the REAL issue here.

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Lol Mike, I told my husband what you said. He is definitely one of the ones that is clueless about 3G vs 2G, not because he is dumb but because he has absolutely no interest in it, and uses my hand-me-down phones. Considering he is an extremely intelligent person & very knowledgeable in many things that go over my head, I have to assume that there more people like him than us geeks can fathom. I will drink to that

Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

I do agree that AT&T needs to get off their butts and upgrade the network asap or just go to full out LTE as for people not understanding & needing hand holding, I think because of all the different technology out there people don't care or get too confused and just see these maps as "Coverage for everything" only and don't understand the 3G concept then add the new Sprint adds with "4 G Coverage Now" and people are even more confused.

There is so much technology thrown at people & they mix them up, I know quite a few people that I ask about this & they are "what's the difference?" so the maps make it seem to the average person as no coverage in the white spaces, maybe they need to use 2 color maps? na that would really mess with their heads LOL

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by viewfly

Maybe ATT should run a counter ad, aimed at the young professional that travels across the world for his business/company/vacation and voice calls/data calls. The ad would show the average Verizon user, with the average phone/data device (which are mostly CDMA without any GSM capability), and then display the global comparison maps of Verizon vs ATT.

Verizon would have quite a large blank spot(s). on that map.

That may raise a few eyebrows!

preemptive counterstrike: yes there are a few Verizon phones that are world capable, but as was posted on another thread...very few...the most are CDMA only). And also...no comments that ATT is roaming in Europe/Asia...we all know that obvious fact. But the point is that one can roam.

Didn't they already have an ad similar to this (although without the carrier comparison) in the "More Bars in More Places" campaign? I thought I remember seeing one of their later ads where at the bottom of the ad in the fine print it stated something about working in more places around the world?

The only problem with the proposed counter ad would be that Verizon is starting to have more phones (especially the higher end smart phones) that have "world" bands put into them. Even if there are "very few" of them at this point they are still there.

Well I "can roam" with my Verizon TP2 if I need to, which I don't since I do not intend to use it internationally in the near future.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by Gamer03

Didn't they already have an ad similar to this (although without the carrier comparison) in the "More Bars in More Places" campaign? I thought I remember seeing one of their later ads where at the bottom of the ad in the fine print it stated something about working in more places around the world?

The only problem with the proposed counter ad would be that Verizon is starting to have more phones (especially the higher end smart phones) that have "world" bands put into them. Even if there are "very few" of them at this point they are still there.

Well I "can roam" with my Verizon TP2 if I need to, which I don't since I do not intend to use it internationally in the near future.

Yes, they did, very late into the game. But as you said it was 'in the fine print'. ATT (and Cingular) should have done that kind of ad a long time ago.

Verizon is increasing the number of smartphones for world use, that is true., but still very few. By analogy, ATT is still there with '3G' and probably covers a majority of US smartphone users that live in the metro areas they cover. So both any Verizon or ATT ads have problems, when you look at the details, but that is the nature of advertising...

Unfortunately, 'perception is reality' in that kind of game, and this is what ATT fears.

[hme83]

This is interesting.......

My new laptop came with a built-in Verizon broadband card and I've toyed with the idea of reallocating my monthly expenditure on wireless service so that it is better used for the functionality I actually use (i.e. data - not voice).

Anyway - I was looking at the information re: the Verizon 3G Mobile Broadband - as of October 2009, it says it is available in 259 major metropolitan areas and 250 primary airports in the United States. At&t's October 23, 2009 press release says it has 3G service available in over 350 major metropolitan areas in the US (plus 3G data roaming in more than 100 countries). Of course I guess it depends on the definition of "major metropolitan area", and I'm sure Verizon's coverage map included the airports (in the commercial - lol) - but there's not a difference between 3G coverage for network cards versus mobile phones, correct?

IOW - am I making an apples to apples comparison? Does a difference in how they've defined major metropolitan areas really account for what seemed to be such a vast difference in the coverage maps in the commercial, but yet the "numbers" would at least appear to say otherwise?

It was seeing the commercial that made me think "if I'm serious about coverage for the netbook, I'd be crazy to go with at&t's service based on their comparative lack of 3G coverage - esp. in light of the fact that Verizon's plan gives a 25% larger data allotment for the same price", but now I'm confused.

[strunke]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/4.2.14912/812; U; en) Presto/2.2.0)

Originally Posted by hme83

This is interesting.......

My new laptop came with a built-in Verizon broadband card and I've toyed with the idea of reallocating my monthly expenditure on wireless service so that it is better used for the functionality I actually use (i.e. data - not voice).

Anyway - I was looking at the information re: the Verizon 3G Mobile Broadband - as of October 2009, it says it is available in 259 major metropolitan areas and 250 primary airports in the United States. At&t's October 23, 2009 press release says it has 3G service available in over 350 major metropolitan areas in the US (plus 3G data roaming in more than 100 countries). Of course I guess it depends on the definition of "major metropolitan area", and I'm sure Verizon's coverage map included the airports (in the commercial - lol) - but there's not a difference between 3G coverage for network cards versus mobile phones, correct?

IOW - am I making an apples to apples comparison? Does a difference in how they've defined major metropolitan areas really account for what seemed to be such a vast difference in the coverage maps in the commercial, but yet the "numbers" would at least appear to say otherwise?

It was seeing the commercial that made me think "if I'm serious about coverage for the netbook, I'd be crazy to go with at&t's service based on their comparative lack of 3G coverage - esp. in light of the fact that Verizon's plan gives a 25% larger data allotment for the same price", but now I'm confused.

All the major areas are covered. I don't think there is a one that will have 3g over the other when it comes to the major airport and travel lanes. But it's the smaller ones where, as of now, verizon is beating out AT&T quite a bit. Considering verizon has overlayed nearly 100 percent of their native network in 3g before the alltel purchase and Alltel was working on and by now have probably almost completed doing the same thing. It's not surprising...



I think the average consumer knows what verizon is talking about and has a general knowledge of data vs voice. Sprint could have run the same advertisement. I agree with the comment above the law suit is a distraction.

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by hme83

This is interesting.......

I was looking at the information re: the Verizon 3G Mobile Broadband - as of October 2009, it says it is available in 259 major metropolitan areas and 250 primary airports in the United States. At&t's October 23, 2009 press release says it has 3G service available in over 350 major metropolitan areas in the US (plus 3G data roaming in more than 100 countries). Of course I guess it depends on the definition of "major metropolitan area", and I'm sure Verizon's coverage map included the airports (in the commercial - lol) - but there's not a difference between 3G coverage for network cards versus mobile phones, correct?

IOW - am I making an apples to apples comparison?........ I'm confused.

You have succeeded to confuse me as well! . Yes, you are correct there is no difference between network card 3G & cellphone 3G.

I don't know how the numbers are calculated but there is no doubt in my mind that the 3G comparison map in the commercial is accurate. It is very obvious outside the big cities in the upper midwest & also in my recent trip to the southeast. So, if you need 3G while white water rafting in the Grand Canyon, Verizon would be the one to go with.

Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by viewfly

Yes, they did, very late into the game. But as you said it was 'in the fine print'. ATT (and Cingular) should have done that kind of ad a long time ago.

Verizon is increasing the number of smartphones for world use, that is true., but still very few. By analogy, ATT is still there with '3G' and probably covers a majority of US smartphone users that live in the metro areas they cover. So both any Verizon or ATT ads have problems, when you look at the details, but that is the nature of advertising...

Unfortunately, 'perception is reality' in that kind of game, and this is what ATT fears.

I agree with you there. AT&T should have promoted more early on to gain more of an edge. This is especially important to business travelers (like you mentioned) and people in general that like to travel. I hope Verizon continues to increase their world phone supply. It is always handy to have just in case (especially if you travel to areas where GSM is the only available service). We switched to AT&T from Verizon last July. At the time, I am glad that we did because we went down to the US Virgin Islands (St. John to be exact) and the only US carrier on the island (St. John only has one tower) is AT&T. If we still had Verizon (since we switched to AT&T in early July 2008) at that point we would have not been able to use our phones for the 12 days we were down there.

AT&T turned on 3G in my area (my county has a population of 300,000+) last May. Up until late October their 3G network was outstanding. I ran speed tests on my Tilt and it showed a 1.5 Mbps download speed (at least 1 Mbps + during peak times). Towards the end of last year, the data speeds went south and we started experiencing dropped calls and extremely slow speeds on a weekly basis. We switched back to Verizon this past March. I now have "3G" 45 miles from the city, whereas AT&T's 3G would end 5 miles outside of the city. I am happy that we switched since I now have "3G" even in rural areas and out on the water (where the closest tower is 12 miles away).

In fact Verizon is the only carrier in my area that has "3G" in rural parts of my county (especially after gaining Alltel's rural "3G" coverage).

[hme83]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

You have succeeded to confuse me as well! . Yes, you are correct there is no difference between network card 3G & cellphone 3G.

I don't know how the numbers are calculated but there is no doubt in my mind that the 3G comparison map in the commercial is accurate. It is very obvious outside the big cities in the upper midwest & also in my recent trip to the southeast. So, if you need 3G while white water rafting in the Grand Canyon, Verizon would be the one to go with.

Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

That's where I was headed. At least "basically", anyway.

Thank you strunke and Charlyee for the confirmation.

I didn't think there was a difference between network card 3G and cell phone 3G. At&t's definition of "major metropolitan area" must just be much smaller than the definition Verizon uses - since presuming the "airports" are generally within or near "major metropolitan areas", the numbers would seem to indicate the opposite of reality.

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by hme83

That's where I was headed. At least "basically", anyway.

I hope your 3G device is waterproof.

I am not sure if I am just noticing it more, but Verizon seems to have geared up the anti iPhone/AT&T ads. The stepping up of the anti iPhone ads surprise me in view of the rumors of "World Mode" iPhone in the works for Verizon.
Palm850/v0100 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11)

[Buickman]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

On the flip side, the first time the commercial was mentioned was during a Packer vs Viking game and shortly after the Packer's miserable loss, my Verizon toting Viking fan forumite friend sent me a text saying something like "what was more irritating to you, the Viking's win or the comparisoin maps?."

I believe what I said was, which one got under you skin more, my boys beating up on your boys, or VZW finally pointing out to the world that they have way more 3G coverage?

[RadioRaiders]

Looks like Verizon is still on the attack with the 3G map comparison...

YouTube - Verizon Misfit Toys

[KyleAndMelissa22]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

Looks like Verizon is still on the attack with the 3G map comparison...

YouTube - Verizon Misfit Toys

That's just the beginning...
I found two more ads that Verizon will be airing this holiday season.

I thought the one with the elves is just way too funny.....for the record books
On the Blue Christmas ad, I notice the AT&T users shaking their phones, thinking it'll fix their poor signal.

YouTube - Verizon Elves

YouTube - Verizon Blue Christmas

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

YouTube - Verizon Misfit Toys

Too funny!

Clever ad.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

That's just the beginning...
I found two more ads that Verizon will be airing this holiday season.

I thought the one with the elves is just way too funny.....for the record books
On the Blue Christmas ad, I notice the AT&T users shaking their phones, thinking it'll fix their poor signal.

YouTube - Verizon Elves

YouTube - Verizon Blue Christmas

The "Blue Christmas" was my favorite - apparently if you are in a marginal 3G area small movements can do the trick. (No personal experience. )

[Charlyee]

I loved all of them. .

I do see that they are all basically anti AT&T and no longer anti IPhone, like the "iDon't" ads were. What I got from the "Misfit Toys" was. "Wow you download apps?! AMAZING! You're perfect....oh wait...you've got crappy AT&T 3g", now that makes sense with the rumor of Verizon getting the World Mode iPhone.

[RadioRaiders]

Yea, the ads are clever and well done. Even if they never make it to TV (or get legally blocked by ATT) the idea of releasing them on YouTube is smart. Free advertising, and less restriction than network TV..

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by KyleAndMelissa22

That's just the beginning...
I found two more ads that Verizon will be airing this holiday season.

I thought the one with the elves is just way too funny.....for the record books
On the Blue Christmas ad, I notice the AT&T users shaking their phones, thinking it'll fix their poor signal.

YouTube - Verizon Elves

YouTube - Verizon Blue Christmas

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

Yea, the ads are clever and well done. Even if they never make it to TV (or get legally blocked by ATT) the idea of releasing them on YouTube is smart. Free advertising, and less restriction than network TV..

I actually saw the Verizon Elves ad for the first time on TV this past weekend.