AT&T Sets the Record Straight on Verizon Ads

See notes above. I know the Tmob is getting really picky, but hey, AT&T is complaining about false advertising, so I'm just stating a fact.

 

I like talking & surfing. I've done it many times. My favorite way is to talk on the phone while the laptop is teathered over Bluetooth for internet access. Not to mention the roadtrips where I had the phone in the cradle on the dash running TomTom Navigator, and someone in the back seat with the laptop teathered via BT for internet access while going 80 MPH down the highway.

-Jay

 

This is getting dumb.

EDGE is not 3G. Verizon says they have a bigger 3G network. They do! What is false about the commercials?

 

AT&T is falsely advising customers about it's own network,
and misleading them to believe Verizon's Network isn't as good as they say it is.

So AT&T is lying to their own customers, and the jig is up.

Why not tell them the truth and say it like this:

"Yes (geographically), Verizon is correct, they cover most areas of the country with 3G,
and most of these areas we only offer GPRS & EDGE.
We only offer 3G in urban areas because it's more cost-effective than covering rural areas.
At least give us credit, 233 million people is still a lot of the population,
and we don't have to spend as much money to cover these urban areas.
Maybe within the next few years we'll cover these rural areas with 3G,
but by that time Verizon will serve them with 4G. We love our urban customers."

 

I don't think any one is saying that there is anything false about the commercial per say, most of us are saying that it is misleading for a variety of reasons, some of which are:

The white areas in AT&T's map does have voice & 2G data, most casual cell phone users do not realize that they will have perfectly functional phones in these areas. Some of them realize it is the absence of 3G, but may not realize that 3G only impacts data speed and not the rest of the functions of a phone.

In one of the commercials, the iPhone screen blacks out in non 3G areas, this is also misleading as is the father coming home to his son and trying to use his iPhone. In both cases it implies that the iPhone can not be used in non-3G areas at all.

The commercial are very cleverly done and enjoyable but the fact remains that are misleading.

 

Well, these commercials have the biggest "Small Print" I have ever seen in any commerical. You can read the disclaimer without a DVR. On the three commercials I have seen it clearly says,

Are they overly dramatic and biased? Of course! Misleading? No.

 

Actually, no they're not. Not when it has large print on the bottom telling customers that there is voice/data services available outside the 3G coverage area. If customers are illiterate or choose to ignore it and go off the pictures alone, that is their fault....not Verizon. AT&T needs to cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. Verizon is kicking them where it hurts....and AT&T deserves it.

 

Actually, I like AT&T. I just recently switched from Virgin to GoPhone. I don't have any problem with them. I just think their lawsuit is frivolous, but they don't, and it doesn't matter what I think about the lawsuit. I guess we will see what the Judge thinks!

 

I will definitely agree that the lawsuit is frivolous as all lawsuits like this usually are.

The point I am making, or trying to is that even if Verizon has the proper CYA statements, to most people the maps have a bigger impact & they may or maynot go beyond assuming that there is much more red than blue on the map & thus Verizon provides much better coverage.

I could give quite a few examples from my real life but I don't want you guys to think I work & play with "illiterates.

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

 

I find this thing incredibly humerous. The voice-over in the VZW ads plainly states that the comparison is 3G coverage vs. 3G coverage. AT&T likes to brag about having the fastest 3G network. If VZW is misleading the public with their map ads, than so is AT&T by failing to disclose just how limited their 3G coverage is.

Oh, but that AT&T 3G coverage is not very limited? Well then AT&T better never make light of the size TM's or Sprint's native network.

I see nothing at all wrong with the VZW ads. And my disdain for VZW is quite well documented, so if I am defending them, that's saying something.

And if AT&T thinks that the VZW ads are misleading, they obviously didn't have their lawyers proof their "setting the record striaght" release.

 

Doesn't everyone do that? Of course they (VZW) will, and it very well was their intention.

I have nothing against VZW in specific, or their ad's. I have nothing against ATT in specific either. I don't see anything wrong with their ads or ATT's more bars ads they used to have. I personally don't like the industry as a whole. That is why I won't sign a contract. The entire thing is humorous and disgusting at the same time.

 

Its comical to me that the coverage map that is posted with ATT's rebuttal page is just one big blob of blue with no discerning between types at all... if you click on it and look up an address, it functions in full detail...

I can only assume that this is upsetting for ATT as Verizon is picking at wounds that barely have any scabs yet? People have been complaining about voice and data coverage on ATT and in the last few months the media has picked up on that.

But lets play devils advocate... why shouldn't Verizon pick on them? If you are a big boy, you play in the same pen with the other big boy. Acknowledgement is validation in my book. The maps don't lie... I never once thought those commercials were saying that ATT phones that don't have 3G coverage can't make calls? Who did? I mean, its obvious the general public is not going to be as knowledgable as the geeks like us, but if you're going to spend several hundred dollars on a phone and more than $100 a month on entry level service, YOU DAMN WELL NEED TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT and I personally don't know anyone that owns and iphone or a smartphone that doesn't know the difference between what is going on when they have a fast internet connection and a slow one. Sure, smartphones work with no 3G coverage, but I personally wouldn't want one without it. And who would? The maps argument is a valid one.. Verizon has 3G coverage just about anywhere that you can access the net. ATT doesn't.

Verizon just needs to take the advertisements a step farther and say "frustrated that the only thing your $300 smartphone does quickly is make calls?... come to verizon wireless so you can experience everything else smartphone users enjoy on the nation's largest 3G network"

 

To me, those ads aren't misleading. I know the red map is Verizon's 3G coverage. The blue map is AT&T's. I know in the white areas for AT&T there is data service, but it is slower EDGE data.

However the commercials clearly compare 3G area to 3G area. Will that cause people that don't come to these forums to think they don't get service is AT&T's white area? Sure will.

But they have nothing in the lawsuit. It doesn't matter what at&t says the commercials make people think. It doesn't matter what Verizon says the commercials make people think. It is an honest comparison of two different 3G areas. Whether you get data outside of that doesn't matter. Its 3G area comparison.

Now showing the iphone dying, etc...that is another story.

 

Of course, whether it is fair or not, does depends on the definition of '3G'. Is it defined wholly by current speed, potential future platform speed, or the ability to handle voice and data simultaneously. The narrowest of definition has changed over time, and of course I don't think that Verizon ever called their EVDO 3G until the arrival of the second iPhone (3G iPhone, July 2008). They did so because 3G sounded newer than EVDO, and well, it is, isn't it?

Without that, one is comparing apples to oranges via a map.

 

As much as you may like or dislike wikipedia:

"International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000), better known as 3G or 3rd Generation, is a family of standards for mobile telecommunications defined by the International Telecommunication Union,[1] which includes GSM EDGE, UMTS, and CDMA2000 as well as DECT and WiMAX. Services include wide-area wireless voice telephone, video calls, and wireless data, all in a mobile environment. Compared to 2G and 2.5G services, 3G allows simultaneous use of speech and data services and higher data rates (up to 14.0 Mbit/s on the downlink and 5.8 Mbit/s on the uplink with HSPA+). Thus, 3G networks enable network operators to offer users a wider range of more advanced services while achieving greater network capacity through improved spectral efficiency."

"While EDGE is part of the 3G standard, most GSM/UMTS phones report EDGE (“2.75G”) and UMTS (“3G”) network availability as separate functionality."

"The first pre-commercial 3G network was launched by NTT DoCoMo in Japan branded FOMA, in May 2001 on a pre-release of W-CDMA technology."

"The second 3G network operator in the USA was Verizon Wireless in October 2003 also on CDMA2000 1x EV-DO. AT&T Mobility is also a true 3G network, having completed its upgrade of the 3G network to HSUPA."

"Evolution from 2G

2G networks were built mainly for voice services and slow data transmission.

From 2G to 2.5G

The first major step in the evolution to 3G occurred with the introduction of General Packet Radio Service (GPRS). So the cellular services combined with GPRS became '2.5G.'

GPRS could provide data rates from 56 kbit/s up to 114 kbit/s. It can be used for services such as Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) access, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), and for Internet communication services such as email and World Wide Web access. GPRS data transfer is typically charged per megabyte of traffic transferred, while data communication via traditional circuit switching is billed per minute of connection time, independent of whether the user actually is utilizing the capacity or is in an idle state.

From 2.5G to 2.75G (EDGE)

GPRS networks evolved to EDGE networks with the introduction of 8PSK encoding. Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE), Enhanced GPRS (EGPRS), or IMT Single Carrier (IMT-SC) is a backward-compatible digital mobile phone technology that allows improved data transmission rates, as an extension on top of standard GSM. EDGE can be considered a 3G radio technology and is part of ITU's 3G definition, but is most frequently referred to as 2.75G. EDGE was deployed on GSM networks beginning in 2003—initially by Cingular (now AT&T) in the United States.

EDGE is standardized by 3GPP as part of the GSM family, and it is an upgrade that provides a potential three-fold increase in capacity of GSM/GPRS networks. The specification achieves higher data-rates by switching to more sophisticated methods of coding (8PSK), within existing GSM timeslots."

Verizon's EVDO is not mentioned too much...

And now for a little YouTube humor.... except the last part is no longer true...there is free Wifi on ATT now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFfGaEJrErc&feature=related

 

IMT-2000 is the organization that declares if something is "3G" or not, and according to them, both EVDO and EDGE are both by definition "3G"


http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/

..altho since EVDO and EDGE are additions to 2G networks, they are considered "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary"... anyway, it's all semantics and marketing, really...

 

Thanks RR for the useful information.

Yes, some of it is semantics....and Verizon is certainly capable of changing the bar for what it calls 3G.

From a press release by Verizon in July 2000: Press Release: Verizon Wireless Completes First Live 3G Wireless Data Call on its Lucent Technologies-Supplied Network. - PR Newswire | HighBeam Research: Online Press Releases

Verizon Wireless Completes First Live 3G Wireless Data Call on its Lucent Technologies-Supplied Network.

Demonstration of ITU-approved cdma2000-1x technology demonstrated at 153 kb/s
over existing network

BEDMINSTER, N.J., July 13 /PRNewswire/ --

Verizon Wireless and Lucent Technologies today announced the first high-speed third-generation (3G) wireless data call on a commercial Lucent-supplied network, demonstrating a wireless web page download at a transmission rate ten times faster than what's now available on code division multiple access (CDMA) networks.

The peak transmission rate of 153 kilobits per second (kb/s) is more than twice that available on typical 56 kb/s dial-up modems. The transmission was made possible by a newly ...:rotfl::rotfl:

Pretty fast stuff. So I guess 3G data speeds can be defined to be very slow...

 

If you can read legal documents, here is the lawsuit, ATT vs CellCo Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/20091103_complaint1.pdf

Interestingly, ATT does not dispute anything, nor is it requesting that Verizon pull the advertisement. Rather it wants the 'white' spaces turned into a color, as some here have suggested.

In that regard, ATT is not being unreasonable.

I loosely quote from page 3 of the text. I couldn't copy it.

'ATT does not request a change in the words, nor that the ad stop being used. Rather it desires that the non 3G spaces are not depicted by a blank or white space. As these white or blank spaces is how Verizon displays it's lack of coverage on its own maps. This causes confusion in the viewer's perception'

As background ATT gives a print Verizon advert where the words 'out of touch' were associated with ATT's non 3G areas. They complained and Verizon removed that phrase, replacing it with Voice and Data. ATT claims that the earlier deception is grounds of proof for the intent of the current TV advertisements.

ATT also talks about it's EDGE 2.5 G network and 3G, along the lines mentioned above. They also include the fact that the 2.5 EDGE network supported the first iPhone for one year in both data and voice, and therefore Verizon's visual commercials are misleading.

It is only 25 pages, and a simple read. Plus some examples of other court cases.

They could actually win!


P.S. The suit also points out that Tmobile, Sprint, and Verizon, etc use white spaces to depict lack of any coverage. I guess ATT too.

 

Wow, someone is pissed! :lmao:

 

A very light orange (almost beige) is used by at&t. Probably to try to make users think they have coverage "everywhere" since everyone else uses white to indicate no coverage. (They mention in the filing that "white" or a "lighter shading" is typically used to indicate no coverage.)

 

Are you insinuating that ATT's maps might be misleading? Sprint should sue!

 

:biggrin:

I'll never forgive 'em for making me think I had to access the coverage viewer 20+ times and construct my own national 3G coverage map.

 

Thanks Radio Raiders and Viewfly. That cleared up a lot of confusion. I can see and understand both sides now. But I still think they both are being dumb.

 

It's looks like Verizon may have a good defense for the case against them:

http://images.appleinsider.com/verizonresponse.pdf

 

The way I see it, the IMT-2000 organization calls EDGE, CDMA, WCDMA (ATT's 3G) and EVDO(Verizon) systems all 3G.

However, ATT never called it's EDGE system 3G, while Verizon calls EVDO 3G publicly and extensively only for the last 2 years, although it has been around since 2003 or even earlier. It appears that Verizon did call CDMA-2000 '3G' for a press release in 2000, only to brag that it was running at peak speeds of 153kbs (about EDGE speeds).

So, by Verizon's standard, i.e. following the IMT-2000 language, EDGE should be considered 3G and the maps are comparable. They are taking advantage of ATT's honesty (technical terms) ,in that WCDMA is really a true 3G service, not EDGE nor EVDO (IMO).

Somewhat comical, Verizon's counter argument follows the experience of hme83; they don't realize that ATT's website indeed allows a nearly full view of the US ATT 3G map.

See below from the post about (Verizon's counter claim):

"On its website, AT&T makes available to consumers maps of its total
nationwide “voice” and “data” coverage. See id. ¶ 18; see also “AT&T Coverage
13
Viewer,” available at AT&T Coverage Viewer. When it suits
AT&T’s purpose, these website coverage maps use “blank” space to denote where a
particular service is not available. See AT&T Coverage Map for “Go Phone” or
“Mobile TV.” But if consumers want to learn about 3G coverage specifically,
AT&T directs them not to a nationwide 3G map, but to a list of metropolitan areas.
See Saracino Decl. ¶ 18; see also CNNMoney.com “The iPhone Wars: AT&T v.
Verizon,” Nov. 13, 2009 (“AT&T’s 3G service, when it works, is zippy enough.
But EDGE (a 2.5G service) is considerably slower, and GPRS (2G) is slower still.
A more accurate AT&T map would distinguish among the three services. You can get that from AT&T here, but it takes some effort (and a Photoshop session:rotfl to get
one map that shows the entire lower 48 states.”)"

 

LOL. The art of deception wasn't being practiced by at&t to the degree I originally thought - however, I still contend at&t has intentionally made it difficult to get the information from their own website. Why not just make the first "zoom" to the level of the national view that delineates between 3G coverage and other types? (albeit it's still lopped off on the east/west coasts - but I doubt that is "intentional" since east/west coasts are *where* at&t actually has 3G coverage )

And thankfully you pointed out using the coverage viewer for "voice service" - at least with that view the 3G areas are blue (contrasted with at&t's non-3G coverage in orange); with the view for data - every type of coverage is a varying shade of blue. Couple that with the lack of a readily found national map - in the area of the coverage viewer that at least imho people who are specifically aware of/interested in 3G coverage are more likely to look - it's aimed to hide the facts.

But yes - had Verizon called me, I could have helped them beef up their arguments a bit.

 

I found this ATT coverage map from July 2008. The mouse is also a magnifier, click it and it will zoom in. Green and Blue are 3G, updated from July 2008 to Sept 2009

http://www.xti9.com/att/att3gfull.gif Use mouse to zoom in

Or full image displayed here:

 

I can't see it - it's just a red x.