AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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!!

 

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

 

"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."

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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? :browani:

 

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 :lmao:
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

 

:O Too funny! :lmao::rotfl:

Clever ad.

 

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

 

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.