AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

[Charlyee]

AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads
November 03, 2009: 03:24 PM ET


* Wants stop to use of "misleading" maps in Verizon ads

* Says ads are causing "incalculable" market share loss

* Asks for temporary restraining order


NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Inc is suing Verizon Wireless in an effort to stop its bigger mobile rival from using "misleading" coverage maps in ads that AT&T says are causing it to lose "incalculable market share."

According to the lawsuit, which AT&T said it filed in Atlanta federal court, a recently launched 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 third-generation or 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."

It asked the court for a temporary restraining order against Verizon Wireless, a venture of Verizon Communications Inc and Vodafone Group Plc , so that its rival cannot benefit from the ads while the court sets a date for a preliminary and permanent injunction hearing.

"Verizon has stepped over the line of legitimate comparative advertising," AT&T said in an emailed copy of the the lawsuit, which was not immediately available online. (Reporting by Sinead Carew, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)


Source:

[dmapr]

I just watched the ad and I have to say it's not misleading at all — it clearly shows 3G.

[hme83]

I saw that ad on TV for the first time last night and I thought it was a creative depiction of at&t's 3G reality.

It also made me realize (again!!) how mad I'd be if I were a user of a smartphone subject to at&t's new mandatory data plan policy - $30/month FORCED for Edge data service????? Small consolation, but at least with Verizon's identical policy it looked like you'd at least have a much better shot at getting 3G data speeds.

[strunke]

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

Truth hurts I guess. Don't know why using maps issued by the carrier itself against that carrier could be a bad thing? Maybe they need to concentrate on investing in the 3g instead of lawyers.

Verizon just invested in a huge acquistion of 3g evdo that Alltel built covering a lot of land. They can show it off if they choose. Along with their own it is much more expansive.

[Mobile Mike]

Uh yeah, like their more bars in more places ad was the model of truth? They don't like the fact Verizon called their bluff on this one.

What a waste of money on legal expenses for what amounts to a sour grapes lawsuit.

And if it was Verizon moaning and suing about an ad campaign like this, I'd say the same thing.

[RadioRaiders]

As usual, it's petty tit-for-tat lawyer stuff I think AT&T does have somewhat of a point, as someone who doesn't understand 2G/3G stuff may just see the maps and think AT&T has no coverage at all in the non-3G areas. ...also EVDO isn't truely "3G" since it's an add-on to an existing 2G network, so AT&T may want to sue them for that as well (EVDO and EDGE both meet minimum criteria to be named "3G" by ITU ...wrongly, IMHO)

[Der84]

Does anyone have a link to this ad or map? I'd just be curious to see it.

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by Der84

Does anyone have a link to this ad or map? I'd just be curious to see it.

Here you go. It is called "There is a map for that". .

Even though as dmapr stated it clearly says 3G, when I walked past the TV the first time I saw it, I didn't notice the writing, just the map. In a way it does mislead a casual cellphone user that Verizon has 5x more coverage and not just 3G vs EVDO.

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

As usual, it's petty tit-for-tat lawyer stuff I think AT&T does have somewhat of a point, as someone who doesn't understand 2G/3G stuff may just see the maps and think AT&T has no coverage at all in the non-3G areas. ...also EVDO isn't truely "3G" since it's an add-on to an existing 2G network, so AT&T may want to sue them for that as well (EVDO and EDGE both meet minimum criteria to be named "3G" by ITU ...wrongly, IMHO)

Verizon's EVDO devices, specially thr Smartphones are showing 3G instead of EVDO. I agree that this is another pointless lawsuit.

[crood]

I know they have to run this by lawyers, but it seems AT&T was a little slow in filing this. The ad's been out for a few weeks already. I'm guessing Verizon is using the ad partially as a pre-sale tactic for the Droid release next week.

[Der84]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Here you go. It is called "There is a map for that". .

Even though as dmapr stated it clearly says 3G, when I walked past the TV the first time I saw it, I didn't notice the writing, just the map. In a way it does mislead a casual cellphone user that Verizon has 5x more coverage and not just 3G vs EVDO.Verizon's EVDO devices, specially thr Smartphones are showing 3G instead of EVDO. I agree that this is another pointless lawsuit.

Thanks for the link Charlyee!

I second that.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

As usual, it's petty tit-for-tat lawyer stuff I think AT&T does have somewhat of a point, as someone who doesn't understand 2G/3G stuff may just see the maps and think AT&T has no coverage at all in the non-3G areas. ...also EVDO isn't truely "3G" since it's an add-on to an existing 2G network, so AT&T may want to sue them for that as well (EVDO and EDGE both meet minimum criteria to be named "3G" by ITU ...wrongly, IMHO)

I *thought* I understood the 3G/2G stuff, but maybe I'm confused - - is Verizon's EVDO comparable to at&t's 3G service (from a user's standpoint - data speeds, etc.)? Or does at&t's 3G service far surpass the ability of EVDO? (I realize you can't access voice and data at the same time on EVDO, as you can with at&t's 3G service - but beyond that difference.)

I guess I saw it more as a way for Verizon to try to differentiate themselves to a potential smartphone/PDA user (possibly driven by their upcoming Droid release) in light of the fact that both companies will now add a mandatory $30 data plan to designated devices.

And granted - I guess I would qualify as a "technical" user, but I didn't pay much attention to the ad really - didn't even realize there was a video in it - but was enthralled with all the white space on at&t's coverage map in the comparison. No wonder I don't really *need* a 3G phone yet - once I leave my city limits and go in the direction that I tend to gravitate, there won't be any 3G service; whereas Verizon appears to provide pretty decent EVDO coverage in a lot of those areas.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by hme83

is Verizon's EVDO comparable to at&t's 3G service (from a user's standpoint - data speeds, etc.)? Or does at&t's 3G service far surpass the ability of EVDO?

Yes, currently AT&T's data speeds are similar to Verizons, so from a user point of view, not much difference. However EVDO is an add-on to a 2G network and capped at 3Mbps. AT&T's "3G" net is built for speed from the start, and today HSPA is on average of 7Mbps and will evolve to 14Mbps and 21Mbps in the very near future, and eventually +100Mbps.

...so yes, it can be seen as semantics, but if a network was built as 2G and then re-worked to add data, I don't consider that "true 3G"...

[KyleAndMelissa22]

I'm so close, yet so far from AT&T 3G. I have a 300 foot AT&T tower right behind my house.
However AT&T's 3G network extends up toward but not including the town of Cowpens, SC, 6 miles to my west.

Friends with Verizon 3G phones will get 4/4 bars on voice, and 2/4 bars on EVDO at my house.

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by hme83

I saw that ad on TV for the first time last night and I thought it was a creative depiction of at&t's 3G reality.

It also made me realize (again!!) how mad I'd be if I were a user of a smartphone subject to at&t's new mandatory data plan policy - $30/month FORCED for Edge data service????? Small consolation, but at least with Verizon's identical policy it looked like you'd at least have a much better shot at getting 3G data speeds.

Why? The forced monthly fee has been true of all Blackberry units for what 5, 8, 10 years with EDGE only? It is only fairly recently that you will find BB with 3G in them, with the same price point it has always been for EDGE.

You're really paying for the unlimited data usage, etc, etc. And not the 3G.

But otherwise I agree, ATT has an image problem with the TV ad, although I agree with RadioRaiders that Verizon is not really '3G'. In fact, they (Verizon) only started calling EVDO 3G, when ATT started to tout the service in the last 2 years. It's more like 2.5G. They did a semantics upgrade - much cheaper.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by viewfly

Why? The forced monthly fee has been true of all Blackberry units for what 5, 8, 10 years with EDGE only? It is only fairly recently that you will find BB with 3G in them, with the same price point it has always been for EDGE.

You're really paying for the unlimited data usage, etc, etc. And not the 3G.

But otherwise I agree, ATT has an image problem with the TV ad, although I agree with RadioRaiders that Verizon is not really '3G'. In fact, they (Verizon) only started calling EVDO 3G, when ATT started to tout the service in the last 2 years. It's more like 2.5G. They did a semantics upgrade - much cheaper.

I realize you aren't paying for the 3G per se. My point was really just that if I am a potential smartphone/PDA user choosing between at&t and Verizon (with no CDMA vs. GSM bias/preference) and so I am looking at coverage for "advanced" data services vs. price - now that at&t is also requiring the $30 unlimited data plan for designated smartphone/PDA's, I'd be inclined to choose Verizon's service over at&t's. And that's who I figured at least part of the target market for the advertisment was, especially with at&t's policy change (to require the $30 data plan on designated smartphone/PDA's) being fairly recent combined with the upcoming release of Verizon's "iPhone killer".

So long as at&t wasn't mandating the $30 data plan for all designated smartphone/PDA purchases, there was still an incentive to choose at&t's service (if you wanted to block data and only use WiFi, for example). Now you may as well choose the best coverage for the more advanced level of data service - as you are going to be paying for it - whether you use it or not - so you may as well use it.

Plus - was the $30 data plan really mandated just for using a BB on at&t's network? Granted, you had no access to the specialized Blackberry services without it, but to my understanding you could block data, or have MediaNet/MMS access on a PPU basis with a Blackberry as well. (You could only use MMS/MediaNet if the proper service books were installed on the device - which you did have to download under a Blackberry plan. But then you were free to remove the Blackberry plan - until Sept. 6th, 2009. Correct?)

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by viewfly

Why? The forced monthly fee has been true of all Blackberry units for what 5, 8, 10 years with EDGE only? It is only fairly recently that you will find BB with 3G in them, with the same price point it has always been for EDGE.

You're really paying for the unlimited data usage, etc, etc. And not the 3G.

I agree with you on the BB plans, however technically the higher data charges were for the use of the BIS service, irrespective of the provider (I believe the BES was higher yet). In that time only BBs were capable of Push E-Mail & that's what one paid for.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

Yes, currently AT&T's data speeds are similar to Verizons, so from a user point of view, not much difference. However EVDO is an add-on to a 2G network and capped at 3Mbps. AT&T's "3G" net is built for speed from the start, and today HSPA is on average of 7Mbps and will evolve to 14Mbps and 21Mbps in the very near future, and eventually +100Mbps.

...so yes, it can be seen as semantics, but if a network was built as 2G and then re-worked to add data, I don't consider that "true 3G"...

Thank you for the explanation, and I understand where you are coming from.

I can't blame Verizon for wanting to highlight and exploit their current "a bird in the hand......" position though.

[viewfly]

When my daughter wanted a BB about 3 years ago, there was no 3G Blackberry Curves available, and the $30 a month fee was mandatory for BB service. No exceptions. Plus one had to add on to that a SMS service, unless you wanted to only use BB messenger (but limited to BB users).

Yes you pay for the push mail, but that is pretty expensive monthly fees just for push. The rationale is that you can be pushed not just text, but attachments, etc that carry lots of data, and of course, you can browse the web with a nice browser, unlimited.

And the catch for ATT with a BB is that you easily get international service, via GSM. So that is the attraction for big international corporations to go with ATT. But there are exceptions.

So I disagree. The hefty monthly fees now being charged for smartphones are just an extension to what has always been for BB service, esp. now that MS exchange is becoming the new standard. I see it as more of a normalization of services, as opposed to a fee increase. All the new smartphones are placing pressure on BB and it's services.

Case in point: I know of a big corporation (100k employees, XX billions in revenue) that just dropped all BB service. One can only use Exchange now. And that means a windows based smartphone or iPhone. Imagine all those employees need to drop their BB for something else! Actually some of my friends are happy to throw the BB away for an iPhone...previously they were banned...but now it is possible to get one from the company!

[hme83]

Originally Posted by viewfly

When my daughter wanted a BB about 3 years ago, there was no 3G Blackberry Curves available, and the $30 a month fee was mandatory for BB service. No exceptions. Plus one had to add on to that a SMS service, unless you wanted to only use BB messenger (but limited to BB users).

Yes you pay for the push mail, but that is pretty expensive monthly fees just for push. The rationale is that you can be pushed not just text, but attachments, etc that carry lots of data, and of course, you can browse the web with a nice browser, unlimited.

And the catch for ATT with a BB is that you easily get international service, via GSM. So that is the attraction for big international corporations to go with ATT. But there are exceptions.

So I disagree. The hefty monthly fees now being charged for smartphones are just an extension to what has always been for BB service, esp. now that MS exchange is becoming the new standard. I see it as more of a normalization of services, as opposed to a fee increase. All the new smartphones are placing pressure on BB and it's services.

Case in point: I know of a big corporation (100k employees, XX billions in revenue) that just dropped all BB service. One can only use Exchange now. And that means a windows based smartphone or iPhone. Imagine all those employees need to drop their BB for something else!

Sorry if I didn't state my thoughts very clearly - I don't see it as a fee increase. The smartphone/PDA data plans have always been $30 for unlimited data for anyone who wanted to *use* data. It's only a "fee increase" if you have no need for cellular data at all - and in that instance it's effectively charging the smartphone/PDA user an additional $30/month for his voice plan.

And I can't really speak to what at&t's official policy was re: the Blackberry data plans - but I know Blackberries were freely used without the Blackberry data plan. You had to have the Blackberry plan in order to use Blackberry services and for a long time - data at all, but if you had no need for the specialized service (or data) to my knowlege at&t wasn't mandating the Blackberry data plan. Over the course of time, the service books for MediaNet and MMS became readily available, and then users were able to use that functionality without a Blackberry data plan (on a PPU basis and/or under the messaging package). In fact today you can officially use a Blackberry on at&t's PayGo prepaid service with the $19.99 100 MB data plan (without "push" Blackberry e-mail service, of course).

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by hme83

I don't see it as a fee increase. The smartphone/PDA data plans have always been $30 for unlimited data for anyone who wanted to *use* data. It's only a "fee increase" if you have no need for cellular data at all - and in that instance it's effectively charging the smartphone/PDA user an additional $30/month for his voice plan. .

Or in other words the $30 unlimited data was always there but was not MANADATORY for all getting a Smartphone on AT&T whether they ever use data or not, right?

I had the Nokia 6682, the QTEK 9100, and the Blackjack (initially) for their PDA capabilities and had a 5Mb data plane for downloading E-Mail. I see this as quite unfair for someone who wants/needs a Smartphone for it's PDA capabilities and also for those who may have WiFi readily accessible for E-Mail etc.

[dmapr]

Originally Posted by hme83

Sorry if I didn't state my thoughts very clearly - I don't see it as a fee increase. The smartphone/PDA data plans have always been $30 for unlimited data for anyone who wanted to *use* data. It's only a "fee increase" if you have no need for cellular data at all - and in that instance it's effectively charging the smartphone/PDA user an additional $30/month for his voice plan.

And I can't really speak to what at&t's official policy was re: the Blackberry data plans - but I know Blackberries were freely used without the Blackberry data plan. You had to have the Blackberry plan in order to use Blackberry services and for a long time - data at all, but if you had no need for the specialized service (or data) to my knowlege at&t wasn't mandating the Blackberry data plan. Over the course of time, the service books for MediaNet and MMS became readily available, and then users were able to use that functionality without a Blackberry data plan (on a PPU basis and/or under the messaging package). In fact today you can officially use a Blackberry on at&t's PayGo prepaid service with the $19.99 100 MB data plan (without "push" Blackberry e-mail service, of course).

True — at least in the past AT&T wouldn't proactively add a data plan to someone's account just because they were using a Blackberry. I have a friend who replaced her phone with a Blackberry a few years ago and she has no data plan at all. AT&T has never even attempted to sell her one throughout the years that she was using it.

[viewfly]

Yes, I think you could or can get a BB without a data plan - not sure why would do that with such a feature rich phone - it would easily be used all the time.

Anyway, the original point of my first post was not that, but it was that I don' t see the difference between being charged $30 (assuming you want the unlimited data plan), whether you get only EDGE or whether you have 3G. Someone who has had a BB with all the bells and whistle has been paying that amount for years with only EDGE available.

When I bought my iPhone 2 years ago, I didn't expect to be getting 3G except in the 'big city'. I was quite fine with that, as the iphone is now very BB-like. Actually, I was hoping that 3G would improve my voice quality in the city, due to its large bandwidth,and it indeed did that. Nor did I think that I could survive with the 3G battery life, compared to GSM.

I don't disagree that one should have the same option to do a pay as you go or some other data plan, or none at all. At some point, the two pricing plans will be the same, when you get over some usage limit, whatever that is.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Or in other words the $30 unlimited data was always there but was not MANADATORY for all getting a Smartphone on AT&T whether they ever use data or not, right?

I had the Nokia 6682, the QTEK 9100, and the Blackjack (initially) for their PDA capabilities and had a 5Mb data plane for downloading E-Mail. I see this as quite unfair for someone who wants/needs a Smartphone for it's PDA capabilities and also for those who may have WiFi readily accessible for E-Mail etc.

Yes - my real point within the context of this thread was just that seeing the comparison between the 3G/EVDO coverage maps reinforced/added a larger dimension (?) to my sympathy for those who don't need the cellular data plan, yet are now being forced to get one if they want to use a device that's been designated by at&t or Verizon as requiring the plan.

There's a pretty vocal contingent that doesn't need to use cellular data - whether because they have WiFi freely available "everywhere", or whether it's because 3G service isn't available in their area, and so rather than using Edge they just choose to not use cellular data at all - (i.e. "wait" until they have access to WiFi), or even those who just want the functionality/form/ergonomics of a smartphone/PDA but don't use data on it in any form.

So seeing the at&t map (and the disparity between the coverages) highlighted for me what a legitimate complaint the lack of 3G coverage is from at&t customers in a huge geographic area. And it led to my comment that if I were a prospective customer in that situation, my feeling would probably be "if I'm going to be forced to take a $30/month mandatory data plan that I don't need/want - I'm going to at least go with the provider that has the better coverage for their advanced data service and then I'm going to use the heck out of it!!" (in lieu of using wifi, etc.)

[viewfly]

It is still interesting today that of the 20 smartphones/pda's that ATT offers on its web page, 6 are Blackberries. And of those 6 BB's only one (the Bold) is 3G capable.

[hme83]

Originally Posted by viewfly

It is still interesting today that of the 20 smartphones/pda's that ATT offers on its web page, 6 are Blackberries. And of those 6 BB's only one (the Bold) is 3G capable.

That is interesting - elsewhere I had made a tongue in cheek comment that at&t could have just as easily mandated the $19.99 AT&T WiFi Premium (WiFi with roaming) for their smartphone/PDA's (instead of the $30 unlimited cellular data plan) - they'd still get $20/month from customers who don't want to use at&t WiFi hotspots and they'd ease the 3G network congestion - since 75% of their designated smartphone/PDA's include a WiFi radio.

At the time, I hadn't realized there are more WiFi capable smartphone/PDA's than 3G capable ones [12 out of the 16 have WiFi radios (I'm not including refurbs of the same model which may be the discrepancy between your 20 models and my 16 ]. There are 5 models that are not 3G capable - as you state - all Blackberries.

At&t really should talk to me before they do these things. (Yes, I know - non 3G phones are still capable of cellular data service )

[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.

[viewfly]

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




"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.

I think this 'consultant' just demonstrated one thing that ATT fears. He just made the allusion that AT&T network coverage is in question, without separating 3G vs voice coverage.

And then he writes that his own BB works just fine. Assuming that he does not have a 3G Bold, he may not realize that he is not using 3G. In general, BBs are considered the cream of the smartphone/pda (for business, at least). And that is a big market for ATT to be damaged by Verizon's ad. In general, one does not hear complaints from BB users on ATT, compared to iPhone 3G users. Interesting. Clearly they are worried about that confusion, no matter how well crafted the ad is.

Personally, I think we will see more 3G BBs on ATT coming soon. I'm surprised that they are not already there. In that sense, Verizon has some BB's (Tour) that have EVDO, GSM and 3G GSM for non-US usage) and could be said they are ahead of the game.

But real 3G has voice + data simultaneously, and that is a real plus for a business user. And the potential (at least for now in bigger corporate bound cities) of much faster data speeds. But I do agree, the map show how poor the 3G coverage is outside of the metro areas and their suburbs.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

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 disagree with that. I don't think as many people will see the lawsuit as much as they would have the ad. Besides, be wary of any "experts" opinions. They may be pushing their own agenda, or just be flat wrong. I could find (or pay ) 3 experts to disagree with everything those 3 experts say....

As for BlackBerrys, yea interesting that most BB's around are still only 2G. I guess it can show that GPRS/EDGE networks are fine for e-mail and light data usage (also keep in mind BB compresses the hell out of everything to minimize data use further). Of course 3G is nicer if you're a heavy data user ie: teathering, streaming apps, downloading large attachments, etc...

[viewfly]

Originally Posted by RadioRaiders

I disagree with that. I don't think as many people will see the lawsuit as much as they would have the ad. Besides, be wary of any "experts" opinions. They may be pushing their own agenda, or just be flat wrong. I could find (or pay ) 3 experts to disagree with everything those 3 experts say....

As for BlackBerrys, yea interesting that most BB's around are still only 2G. I guess it can show that GPRS/EDGE networks are fine for e-mail and light data usage (also keep in mind BB compresses the hell out of everything to minimize data use further). Of course 3G is nicer if you're a heavy data user ie: teathering, streaming apps, downloading large attachments, etc...

And the better battery life (talk time) when running 2G GSM vs 3G WCDMA or CDMA.

[RadioRaiders]

Originally Posted by viewfly

And the better battery life (talk time) when running 2G GSM vs 3G WCDMA or CDMA.

Yea, that's one thing I really don't like about CDMA/WCDMA, is the Soft Handover's waste of resources ....not just the phones battery, but using 2 or 3 radio connections at the same time wastes network resources as well (air interface, backhaul, etc...). HSPA doesn't use Soft Handovers, nor does LTE, so it's nice to be getting away from that ...