AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

Nice, I just saw the "Misfit Toys" & "Blue Christmas ads on truTV.

If AT&T was mad at Verizon before, now they're homicidal
I wonder what AT&T has to retaliate....

Maybe this, since the iPhone came first, lol:
YouTube - iDon't Care

 

Yes, the "Blue Christmas" one was on here over the weekend as well.

I actually stopped what I was doing and paid attention to the commercial for a change.

 

ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

In regard to the Xmas ads from Verizon, ATT amended it suit to Verizon:

Frosty’s Winter Litigation Wonderland: AT&T Demands Verizon Pull Holiday iPhone Ads [With Full Complaint] | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD

As clever as it is, Verizon’s reimagining of a Rankin/Bass animated Christmas television special as a criticism of AT&T’s wireless network coverage did not go over well with Ma Bell. On Wednesday, the carrier amended its complaint against Verizon (VZ), asking a federal court in Atlanta to force it to pull the ad and the two other holiday-themed spots that debuted along with it, immediately. Once again, AT&T (T) argues that coverage maps featured in Verizon’s ad are misleading and falsely suggest that AT&T offers no coverage in areas that it actually does service. “Contrary to the image presented in the Verizon ads, our wireless network is pervasive,” said an AT&T spokesman. “It covers over 300 million people, or 97 percent of the U.S. population. Our fastest, or 3G, network covers approximately 233 million people, or 75 percent of the U.S. population. … [Verizon's] use of white space is misleading.”

So that brings something up interesting. Verizon claims to have 5X more 3G coverage in these ads. Clearly they mean geographical coverage, not by population. Is that the point of contention with ATT?

If ATT cover 75% of the US population on 3G, 5X more coverage by Verizon is more that the US population! So perhaps ATT claims that the ads are misleading have more to do with people coverage and not geographical covers and the fact that the iPhone does work in areas shown in white (but with voice and data EDGE).

They may have a good legal case with that explanation.

 

I did a little looking around yesterday - and what I found seemed to be that at&t's "stated" bone of contention is actually that because areas of white on Verizon's own map do represent areas where absolutely no Verizon coverage is available (which also happens to be where there is no Verizon 3G coverage because they overlayed their native network with 3G), using the same color (white) in the map Verizon did for at&t's 3G coverage is likely to mislead consumers into thinking that at&t also has no network coverage at all in those areas.

While it hasn't changed my opinion [they aren't misleading since the subject of 3G coverage is clearly indicated - and they even indicate it's based on geographic area (directly beneath the map title, IIRC)], it did at least put a little different spin on it for me.

So at&t seems to simply be saying they should have used a different color than white for at&t's map - maybe pink would be good?

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

But the maps are prepared on a comparable basis - the white area in Verizon's maps does *also* reflect their areas of no 3G coverage - which is what is actually being compared to their map of at&t's 3G coverage.

Pink (Verizon wanna be ) and blue for at&t's would have at least toned down the political look to the maps as well.

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

Incorrect. As hme83 pointed out, the white area on the VZW map is 2G and no service areas, just like the AT&T map. Though almost all of VZW's native coverage is EVDO, there are still some 1X extended network areas out there.

 

I was referring to the post just above mine where he stated this:

"But the maps are prepared on a comparable basis - the white area in Verizon's maps does *also* reflect their areas of no 3G coverage - which is what is actually being compared to their map of at&t's 3G coverage."

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

Right - you can see it better by looking at Verizon's coverage viewer for broadband service. Take a look at Oklahoma for example - dark blue (+ yellow) are the broadband areas, while green is 1x.

Verizon Coverage Viewer

Versus the map in question - clearly in Oklahoma the 1x areas are white (southeastern part of the state). But in other areas of the country "no 3G coverage" is virtually the same as "no coverage" on Verizon - so at&t fears users in those areas just identify them as being "no coverage" on Verizon (rather than "no 3G coverage") and will associate the use of the same color (white) on at&t's map to have the same meaning.

Verizon 3G Map

As said earlier, it hasn't changed my opinion/belief that consumers are responsible for educating themselves re: the information that is being presented, but I do better understand where at&t is coming from.

That said, even with Verizon's own coverage viewer, I have a pretty hard time "visually" pulling out the non-3G areas myself (which their map in the commercial visually does) and they've at least differentiated between types of coverage by color within their coverage viewer (at&t does not, it's only shading differences). For me that was the important benefit of the maps in the Verizon commercial - if a customer is only interested in 3G coverage areas, it very clearly depicts just that for both carriers.

The largest issue - what Verizon was able to exploit in the commercial - is that a customer looking at at&t's coverage viewer cannot even view a map comparable to that of Verizon's coverage view on a macro basis. So they virtually *had* to get this information from Verizon.

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

It would be good for AT&T to point out that 78% of their AT&T customers have 3G coverage (redoing the math a bit). That number coupled with the fact that they cover 97% of the US population is more attractive than an empty map of geographical 3G coverage.

I guess it really means more bars in more places where most people live. It it amazing, if Verizon's map is correct, that in those little blue areas 233 million people live?

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

I agree, there's alot more than 70 million people in those "white spaces" on AT&T's map .
That said, there are still millions and millions of people that AT&T is neglecting 3G coverage, no excuses.

Verizon's stance is that 3G shouldn't be restricted to the lucky ones in urban areas,
but rather, everyone should have access to 3G coverage.

 

Re: ATT amends suite to Verizon Wireless over 3G ads

There's alot of open spaces. Especially in the mid-west...check the US Census population maps:

Population Distribution in the United States: Census 2000



compare to...

 

It's pretty funny if you think about it, AT&T's 3G coverage map looks a lot like that population distribution map. I can believe it though, when I started working for General Motors in the mid 90's I trained in the Minneapolis MN area, which was the training for the entire upper midwest. The reason it was there they said was because the Minneapolis area and its suburbs had far more population that the entire states of North and South Dakota and Montana combined.

 

I won't have all the technicalities right here, I'm sure - but obviously at&t and Verizon just took different approaches in their 3G implementation. At&t chose to focus only on the most highly populated areas and build their network so that it can be readily upgraded for even faster speeds before moving to LTE. (I presume this is what you meant in your earlier post re: the comparative speed between the two networks, RadioRaiders?)

While Verizon overlaid almost their entire geographic network area, but it's not upgradeable until they move to LTE?

I have no problem with at&t's choice to concentrate only in certain areas - they had a business choice to make and made it in a manner they felt would best serve their profit motive and shareholders' interests. What I take issue with is giving customers no way to readily see how very limited their 3G coverage really is (on a geographic basis).

At&t made some good points in their legal argument I thought (re: "impressions" from the use of white space and the iPhone screen being dark, etc.) - but in the end it doesn't override what I see as a duty to more fully inform their customers re: their own 3G coverage - and if they aren't going to do it, I guess Verizon will and should be allowed to creatively do so. :biggrin:

Ultimately, after reading the legal argument I'd think that Verizon may be forced to modify the maps - to make it a three tier comparison, as Charlyee suggested earlier (which of course in terms of Verizon's map the 2G only areas will be very small, and on at&t's they will be most of the map). But I'd also think (hope!!) the commercials are allowed to continue - as they do serve the public interest.

If I lived/worked/played in areas predominately covered by at&t's 3G - of course I'd prefer at&t with it's capacity for even higher speeds and voice and data at the same time; but I don't frequent areas well covered by at&t's 3G - so currently Verizon's version with it's broad footprint would make much more sense if it's 3G data service that I'm primarily interested in.

 

It was quicker/easier for Verizon to add on EVDO because it was an upgrade to their existing CDMA network (similar to how EDGE is to GSM). No too much of a hassle, so that's why their "3G" coverage map looks so nice (because it's really 2.75G dressed up and sold as 3G).

AT&T's 3G network (UMTS) is an all new system built for speed from the ground up, completely independant of GSM, and requires all new transmission (ATM) and core network infrastructure. So alot more time consuming and expensive to build. And in the end is "real" 3G as it will be capable of +100Mbps speeds soon, where EVDO is capped forever at 3Mbps.

LTE (4G) is again a new independant network with all new infrastructure. In this case AT&T has a slight advantage in upgrading, because LTE was made by the same group (3GPP) that made UMTS, so they can share some synergies and work together better in some ways. CDMA is a completely foreign technology to LTE and needs more workarounds and more effort for them to work nicely together.

 

AT&T has always been upfront with it 3G coverage maps vs EDGE or Voice. The coverage maps on their web page clearly show the difference by color overlay. Where to you think Verizon got the map from?

I don't believe there has been any plan by AT&T to ignore for all time rural areas with lack of 3G coverage. They had to make the big transition from TDMA/Analog to GSM first, and now to 3G. They eventually will have it all covered. But just like any carrier you start where your majority customers are, not where bears live. I don't think they have stopped rolling out 3G.

Verizon, on the other hand has not yet made a radical change in the CDMA service and the upgrade to EVDO is a natural one and done some time ago (compared to AT&T). Its usefulness is limited in data speeds, and separate voice/data channels and global standards. As they roll out LTE, it will be first in the metro areas for the same reasons. And Verizon never even called their system 3G until AT&T used the industry language. IMO, EVDO is not 3G in regard to ultimate data speeds or data/voice overlays.

So I take issue that ATT has hid anything at all. The ATT store maps and the web maps have always been clear and straightforward. Maybe not in the tiny details, but I doubt any carrier's maps are.

RadioRaiders, thanks for the census map to support my post on the population coverage.

 

I disagree - when I access at&t's coverage viewer for data this is what I see - 'National Data Coverage" (including GPRS/Edge) vs. "no data coverage" areas only.

at&t Coverage - Data

I have to "zoom" in to get a distinction between 3G data coverage vs. all the various types of GPRS/Edge service. Once I "zoom" on the broadest view, I can see all of Oklahoma and all of Kansas (plus portions of other surrounding states) - so I would have to access the coverage viewer (or pan) potentially somewhere around 20+ times and then construct my own map in order to see at&t's 3G on a national scale. That *is* deceptive, imo. What does a potential 3G user do when looking at at&t's coverage viewer? They "zoom" into a few places they are familiar with to check out the 3G coverage and because it looks "good" there, they are likely to presume it's about the same everywhere.

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy for the 233 million people that live in one of at&t's 3G coverage areas. I'm one of them!!! But having 3G coverage only within my city and not being able to readily get a large scale viewpoint of at&t's geographical 3G coverage is a problem - I purchased a netbook for the purposes of *leaving* OKC and it would make no sense whatsoever to add an at&t data plan for the netbook to my existing service with at&t. I don't want to browse with Edge on my PHONE, much less on a netbook. Other than going to a pretty nice swath of blue in central Texas, I practically have to hit the east or west coasts to get large areas of 3G coverage with at&t. This is in stark contrast to Verizon's coverage - may not be as fast as "real" 3G, but if it's subtantially faster than Edge (which to my understanding from the information provided by RadioRaiders earlier in this thread, from a user's standpoint EVDO is probably comparable to at&t's current 3G data speeds) it will better suit my needs. Doesn't provide the opportunity for simultaneous voice and data, but I have absolutely no need for simultaneous use of voice and data (although I realize this is probably beneficial to most people).

And Verizon coverage aside - the at&t map on the commercial was a jaw dropper for me (fully understanding it was addressing "only" 3G coverage) - at&t set themselves up for the shock value of Verizon's map by *not* giving customers easy access to this same large scale vantage point on their own (where the information is important to the customer).

Add to that the fact that at&t has recently implemented their own requirement for the $30 data plan if a customer chooses an at&t designated smartphone/PDA; so a customer has the right to be able to readily see what a limited geographic area at&t 3G service actually covers (whether they care about Verizon's coverage or not). You cannot do "everything" (compared to 3G) with only GPRS/Edge data service - at least not to a usable degree (TV/video streaming, for example), which was actually the primary thing that I felt at&t significantly overstated in their legal argument.

 

I disagree.

On that same map, chose 'Voice' instead of 'Data'. Then check the 3G box. You'll need to pick a region first, but then you can zoom out and see the whole USA. Blue areas of 3G overlaid with orange non-3G. Since 3G voice means 3G data...always,,, it is quite clear. The map is there and that is where Verizon got it...They took the map and removed the orange. You can be certain they didn't make the map up by driving around and checking ATT! (well i suppose it is possible but that would doubtful and give even more room for legal action)

It was a bit plainer and a different format a few years back and a bit easier, but it is basically the same.. But the brochures in the store are quite clear where 3G is.

 

Thank you for the additional information - obviously if I'm serious about broadband service for a netbook I already have, it's the "here and now" in terms of coverage that is the most important factor; but I had wanted to gain a better understanding of what network changes will be necessary/things may look like a short time in the future before making any decision.

 

Thank you for showing me how to use the viewer!! Since I rarely use wireless voice service it had never occurred to me to try looking under the "voice" tab. For some reason I still can't get the coverage viewer to zoom back out far enough to show the entire nation before it pops back to not differentiating the 3G coverage areas - but much better - only the west and east coasts are lopped off from here.

No - I knew Verizon didn't drive around and create their own map of at&t's 3G coverage. I realized it came from at&t's own coverage viewer - I just thought they'd taken the time to do what noone should have to do - look at it in about 20 different areas and construct their own national map of at&t's 3G coverage.

 

Yeah, seems that zoom out happens. But you see most of it, and then you can pan around with the mouse to see the east/west coasts, but at the same zoom out. So it is much easier.

You're welcome.

 

Wow, the areas with the orange stripes are areas covered by roaming agreements. So you mean AT&T has no native coverage in most of the mid-west?? And zero native coverage in Montana, Wyoming, N.Dakota, etc...? ...who is their roaming partner there??

 

Wow, I thought AT&T had a more unified network. Does Verizon have as many roaming partners as well? or is their coverage all native? I really had no idea there were still so many little operators left alive. I thought they would have all got eaten by the bigger ones by now...

 

Well - correct me if I'm wrong - but I've thought this was also "why" at&t has been so slow to expand their 3G coverage (in addition to a conscious decision to focus on the more populated areas).

And while I appreciate the insight re: at&t's relative leg up in implementing their 4G network (and the "real" 3G network enhancements for even greater speeds as well) compared with Verizon, if I'm focused mostly on coverage in areas where it is currently a good deal of partner coverage on at&t's network, then I may not see those improvements for years to come. Certainly being in an area with strong native network coverage doesn't guarantee them, but it has to mean you've got a better shot at it when the network provider you are using for service actually owns the network, right? The way I see it - unless at&t acquires some of these partners they may have a difficult time expanding even their 3G service into these areas. (?)

I can't really speak to Verizon's coverage for certain - but I had made the assumption that it's the yellow areas in their own coverage viewer that is "partner coverage", and it's a fairly small portion of Verizon's total 3G coverage.

 

Yea, absolutely. In the areas AT&T has roaming, they are 100% dependant on the little net they are roaming on. And I guess these little nets don't have the $$ to invest in all the hardware and resources needed to build 3G/4G stuff, as they are probably just scrapping by.

So unless AT&T buys them out, or has plans to build their own net there (and if they own 700Mhz license there), then they will have a hard time expanding there. And in that case, if Verizon has native coverage in all their areas, then Verizon will have the leg up in any new 4G roll-out...

 

If Verizon wanted to be fair, they would just show their native 3G coverage, not all that roaming 3G coverage in the ad comparing with AT&T.