AT&T Sues Verizon Over "Map For That" Ads

MahlonS writes "AP is reporting on a suit filed in Northern Georgia in which AT&T claims that Verizon's 'There's a Map for That' ads are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices. Verizon had already agreed to modify their original ad to include a tag line that voice and data services are available outside 3G coverage areas." What's interesting is that on some level, this is actually a lawsuit over data visualization.

Comments

Good

[whisper_jeff]

I know we love to hate AT&T but, good. Those ads are about as obvious a case of copying one's competition and a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength. We can hate AT&T all we want for their crappy service but Verizon is clearly in the wrong here. IMHO.

Re:Good

[JiveDonut]

Disagree completely. I think the ads are quite obvious in that

A) It clearly states it is a 3G coverage map

and

B) There is a sentence on the bottom of the screen that says that voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area.

IIRC, the ad says "3G" about 1 brazillion times as well.

Re:Good

[EvilJoker]

While I understand AT&T's complaint, it is still more of the same from them- just like when they claim to offer the same internet (768kbps) as RoadRunner (now up to 7mbps).

The market is smartphones right now, with the iPhone currently being #1. VZW is about to launch a number of very high-end phones (esp. the DROID) which will chew through data, and 3G coverage is a necessity. The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.

If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.

Re:Good

[Churla]

I have to disagree with you on this. The ads do clearly state that it's 3G coverage. And the difference between 2G and 3G for heavy data use Smartphone owners is a very significant one. This ad is less deceptive than the AT&T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.

If you want to argue that it gives people the impression that the phones don't have any coverage even though they state it's 3G coverage areas the maps are talking about then you should also talk to Apple about the "If I'm going to move things, why not move to a Mac?" ads which neglect to mention that the difference between moving Xp to Win 7 as opposed to XP to Mac is the fact that you also have to buy a completely new computer on top of a new OS (making it just a tad more expensive...)

Re:Good

[kellyb9]

This is obviously a parody of those advertisements. Isn't that covered?

Re:Good

[Paul Pierce]

Verizon is in the wrong by showing the competitors poor 3G coverage? It's called competition.

I don't know anyone that watched the commercial and thought they were talking about normal coverage. This is crap, maybe Microsoft should sue Mac for saying their computers are better.

Re:Good

[Culture20]

Every time I hear those commercials, it always sounds like "There's an app for that" They run "a map" together too quickly, obviously trying to make "a m" sound like "an". Can you trademark the homophone of a catchphrase? IE, can Marvel sue if I have a rock-covered guy in a movie yell "It's clobberin' thyme!", even if it's appropriately used (the villain is punching a spice factory).

Re:Good

[fooslacker]

I have AT&T and an iPhone and I wasn't confused they're saying their service is more important than the fact that AT&T carries the iPhone. The fact that they're suing makes me want to drop my iPhone and get a Droid though. It's irritating when companies think litigation is just a business strategy.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, the AT&T 3G coverage from the Verizon ad is taken directly form AT&T's own site:

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&3g=t&lat=37.265625&lon=-96.416015625&sci=1

If AT&T doesn't like it, tough shit.

Re:Good

[syrinx]

That would be inappropriate, as thyme is an herb, not a spice. :P

Re:Good

[Sharaz]

parody? There's a slap for that!

Re:Good

[earnest murderer]

No, and that isn't AT&T's issue either.

The issue at had is purely the positioning of the two coverage maps together makes AT&T look like chumps. Which they are.

Re:Good

[PalmKiller]

In at least 60% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.

Re:Good

[iamhigh]

This ad is less deceptive than the AT&T one claiming the "fastest 3G network" when it is only faster because it's smaller and doesn't have to deal with coverage in spottier areas.

So one has focused on speed, the other on wide coverage. Sounds like a win-win for consumers... and now that we have all the facts, can we move on?

Re:Good

[KylePflug]

Litigation is a business strategy.

Re:Good

[postbigbang]

The AT&T uses the *world* as its domain-- where UMTS, EDGE, and GPRS are available to portend that it has the most coverage.

Limit the scope to the 50 US States, and Verizon is right.

But they had to save face..... and perhaps customers that are giving Verizon and (damnation by faint praise) Sprint share-- despite the iPhone phenomenon. AT&T is crippling Apple's growth, and Apple and AT&T know it.

CDMA may or may not suck (this is the transport with 1xRTT and ED.VO and ED.VOa) but capacity is king in saturated airspace and CDMA can do it; GSM is having more problems- and AT&T's GSM deployment is clearly #4 out of five in the US cell service list.

Would I get an iPhone if it could use EV? Maybe. I don't like buying into Apple's Jailed Ecosystems.

Re:Good

[thisnamestoolong]

This is a clear cut case of fair use. They are parodizing the competition's catch phrase to sell their own service. This is 100% fair use. As far as this being misleading -- the ads clearly contain all of the pertinent information, and are entirely factually accurate. This is not even a case, it is a complete farce.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

if those map are accurate, there is positively absolutely nothing bad in showing them off. or are we all forgetting what a free market is?

Re:Good

[Blitz22]

http://xkcd.com/282/

Re:Good

[tkrotchko]

"a misleading way with the intent of creating confusing in the marketplace and thereby diluting the competition's brand strength"

Well, I don't think it is. When I first saw the ad, they said pretty clearly "3G coverage". That's not misleading.

Also, when I target a competitor, I am aiming to dilute the competitions brand strength. If there is something false, then AT&T is a big boy. They can come up with a snappy ad that says something like "Why does Verizon not want to tell you the truth?".

Frankly, it hard to think either AT&T or Verizon is a "good guy" in any sense of the word.

Re:Good

[Wireless Joe]

Verizon seems very confident int their network, however they are apparently already preparing for a backlash from any network degradation by smartphone users by doubling their cancellation fees on smart devices.

Even with the decrease of $10/month, that's still $110 to cancel your contract in the 23rd month of a two-year contract.

Re:Good

[nahdude812]

Actually the iPhone is only 13.7% of smart phone sales as of Q2 2009.

iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up), and it lags far behind Symbian which single handedly enjoys > 50% share.

Re:Good

[fooslacker]

Which is what is horribly horribly wrong. Unless of course you're a lawyer in which case litigation is and should be a business strategy. =)

Re:Good

[Verdatum]

Yes, marvel could sue and win if they can show the party is attempting to deceptively infringe on the trademark. If something is so alike that it can be reasonably confused for a trademark, then it is infringement.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's not actually showing the 3G coverage of each then, huh?

Re:Good

[Cyner]

The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.
The Blue Map is AT&T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.

Re:Good

[aztracker1]

Actually, blackberry is probably #1... iPhone just has more visibility.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that the higher ETF only applies to a few select 'advanced devices' that come with a greater subsidy. When the Droid costs almost $600 out of contract and Verizon subsidizes it to only $199, an ETF of only $175 is foolish. It's in the best interest of both Verizon and their customers to prevent abuse of their subsidy program.

Re:Good

[Churla]

I have yet to see a system that could effectively run XP that couldn't also run Windows 7. This includes :

My old rig which is old and actually got a substantial performance bump going to Windows 7 (4g ram and a E6300 processor, older nvidia card)
A Thinkpad X32 laptop which is also old by laptop standards (only drawback is no Aero glass interface due to older pixel shader)

In the vast majority of cases, if you can run XP, you can run Windows 7. Specifically the operating thresholds for it are lower than Vista because they streamlined some of the extraneous stuff Vista was hogging resources for.

And even in the case that someone needs to upgrade the amount of RAM, or video card in the system that's still a huge shade cheaper than "buy a Mac which is specifically only manufactured by one company and you will pay a pricing premium for"

Re:Good

[freemywrld]

The difference VZW is highlighting is exactly what AT&T wants to keep quiet- smartphones will work a lot better in many areas on VZW.

This is very true. My workplace has two different corporate cellular plans, one through AT&T and one through VZW. I had a smartphone on the AT&T network and data coverage truly was very spotty and slow. Since I swapped for a phone on Verizon the data coverage has been far more consistent and much faster. For the record, I live and work in a metropolitan area where most carriers would be expected to have thorough coverage, yet only Verizon gets consistent coverage in and around the city.

Re:Good

[Coren22]

Since Verizon focused on speed and wide coverage, and AT&T has neither from what I have seen with my friends, how does that statement work?

Re:Good

[ran-o-matic]

This is not true. That red map is the VZW 3G (EVDO and not just 1xRTT) network just as they claim. They have basically upgraded their entire network to EVDO.

Re:Good

[Firehed]

If you can't check e-mail, facebook, IM, etc, then I think it's fair to claim you're out of touch.

Yes, but that doesn't require 3G access to work. They're effectively making the claim that your phone is useless without 3G coverage, which is not at all the case. Not only is there no 3G coverage where I live (I only started getting reliable signal *at any speed* a couple of months ago), but I've been using the original iPhone since it came out. 2.5G isn't fast by any stretch of the imagination, but more often than not I'm slowed down far more by the performance of the device itself (JS-heavy pages are awful, whether on EDGE or 10+Mbit WiFi) than the actual bandwidth. Hell, I'm only able to get 1/4 of the download and ping performance of my home connection over WiFi on the iPhone (3Mbit, 109ms vs 12Mbit, 24ms).

IM certainly isn't a data-intense application, nor is most of Facebook or email. Mapping is probably the worst, though I almost never use YouTube which would probably win. Honestly, bandwidth only seems noticeably poor when using the app store, since it's a straight-up download of a large file, rather than procedurally rendering HTML as it comes in or waiting for a few KB of JSON.

Latency is far and away the worst offender in terms of making things feel slow, but 3G does very little to address that.

Don't get me wrong - I want faster and more reliable coverage, and more bandwidth is almost always better. But in my experience, most of the bandwidth-heavy applications of smartphones seem to get bogged down by the hardware before the bandwidth.

Re:Good

[BitZtream]

RIM sells several models, the iPhone is basically one model with diffrent size storage.

Symbian accounts for not only different models, but different manufactures as well. Living in America, I'd say 50% is a BS figure however, I've seen only one Symbian phone, it came from a friend visiting from Europe.

I realize America does not account for the entire world, but its really hard for me to buy those numbers when I've only ever seen one if the 'most popular selling phones' and I've seen far more of the less popular ones.

Re:Good

[Daetrin]

That would be because they're doing it intentionally as a parody of the "there's an app for that" ads, which would make it tricky for AT&T to sue on those grounds.

And the fact that the only grounds AT&T seem to have for a lawsuit is that the ad doesn't sufficiently explain that just because their 3G network sucks doesn't mean you can't call people while outside it actually makes me take the claims made by the ad more seriously. I always assume that TV ads are misrepresenting something, but in this case apparently what they're misrepresenting is pretty damn trivial.

Re:Good

[recharged95]

Correct, Apple is the Miley Cyrus of phones...

We sure here a lot about her/it, but it's for a specific niche crowd (tweens/"cool" people). The rest of the world continues as usual...

Re:Good

[RoFLKOPTr]

This is not true. That red map is the VZW 3G (EVDO and not just 1xRTT) network just as they claim. They have basically upgraded their entire network to EVDO.

I can attest to this... why else would I have had EVDO signal in the middle of Bumfuck Nowhere, SD when I was there on a trip a few weeks ago?

Re:Good

[ZaphDingbat]

That's what I also thought when I heard them on the radio-- Verizon was just asking for a lawsuit with that phrase. I was confused at first and thought it was an iPhone ad until I recognized the Verizon music.

Re:Good

[nedlohs]

Except they aren't suing them for copying anything. And it has nothing to do with trademarks or branding.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a Bakery where he yells 'It's cobblering time!"

mmm... Cobbler.

Re:Good

[raitchison]

They were originally much more misleading, they did not include the voice and data service are available outside the 3G coverage area and also stated that an AT&T user without 3G coverage was "out of touch"

I don't use (or like) either but I think that AT&T is marginally more in the right here, for all that the VZW ads are pretty clever they are definitely misleading, even in their current form.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you ruin his world view with facts? Clearly Apple has the most marketshare with the iPhone based on the amount of advertising done for the product and news reports on it. Also, Mac vs Window is split 50/50 based on advertising and news reports.

Re:Good

[bhtooefr]

Of course, quite a few CDMA smartphones are now dual-radio, meaning they'll work out of the 50 states just fine. (Generally a good idea to get a SIM card where you're travelling, not use the Sprint or Verizon-provided one, because international roaming is rape without lube, but...)

Re:Good

[peachboy]

I have yet to see a system that could effectively run XP that couldn't also run Windows 7.

Really? Because I'm fairly certain the P4 w/ 512MB of RAM and an integrated Intel video card that I have at home won't run Windows 7 anywhere near "effective". XP Pro runs without any noticeable slowdowns, even when watching Flash video (YouTube, Hulu, etc.).

More topically, I would wager that the average person has no idea the difference between 2.5G, 3G, EDGE, or regular voice access. Non-technical people are just going to see two maps and notice that the red one has a lot more red than the blue one has blue. I'm not sure the fine print at the bottom of those ads stating that voice coverage is different is even large enough to be readable unless you have an HDTV.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If I need to buy new hardware, then in that case it doesn't matter. If I bought a new computer to run XP back when it was released because my old system was too old, then I could have easily bought a mac instead. That's true of every OS upgrade and not just this one. The Apple ad is going after people needing to offload their data to upgrade to Win7 on the same system, which as the previous poster pointed out is a lot different than needing to buy new hardware. Plus there are a multitude of ways that make saving and restoring data a whole lot easier than switching from Win to Mac not including issues like needing to buy some software packages again for the Mac when you switch.

Re:Good

[adamchou]

that wood be we todd did to perm it sewing four homo fones

Re:Good

[SensitiveMale]

"iPhone gets all the hype, and indeed it's doing quite well for itself, but it's only selling 2/3 as many units as RIM (though catching up)"

How is it selling "2/3 as many units" yet "catching up?"

Re:Good

[That's Unpossible!]

It gets all the hype because the other phones you mention don't have the capabilities of the iPhone, the nice design hardware and software wise, and for investors -- the huge margins.

Re:Good

[Dahan]

I'm not sure which part of that you're having difficulty with. The two statements are independent--"2/3 as many units" refers to the current sales figures. "Catching up" refers to the direction of change of those figures: they're increasing.

For example: if I sold an average of 6 apples a day and 9 oranges a day last week, and I sold an average of 8 apples a day and 9 oranges a day this week, I could say that I sold 2/3 as many apples as oranges last week, but that apple sales were catching up to the orange sales.

Re:Good

[sakshale]

I have no idea why your post was flagged as flame bait. I have an iPhone. The performance speed wise is very spotty and the coverage is unbelievably bad. Especially given that I live and work in that technology deprived area of California known as Silicon Valley.

In the business complex in Palo Alto, where I work, normal coverage for all four buildings is about one-bar of Edge. On weekends, the charge in my iPhone's battery is normally over 80% at the end of the day. When I go home after a day at work, the battery is half dead from hunting for networks, unless I remember to place it in flight mode while at the office.

Don't get me wrong. I love my iPhone and have no desire to replace it with anything else. I just wish the people at ATT would get off their assets and fix their network. Hopefully, the Verizon ads will finally force them to wake up and do something constructive.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Running Windows 7 Ultimate perfectly fine on a Compaq SR1610NX from 2005. Stuck a Hauppage card in it to get HD OTA TV, run Media Center on it, record and play TV shows, watch them from my Xbox. Has some more memory, since I also played games on it, like World of Warcraft.
SR1610NX

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If I gave away eight brazillion phones in a desperate attempt to maintain marketshare, I'd be #1, too.

Re:Good

[relguj9]

In at least 60% of the cases (and I am being very generous to windows in my percentage), you will either A. Have to upgrade the computer to use windows 7 to its potential, or B. buy a new computer to run it efficiently.

50% of statistics worldwide are made up entirely, /. accounts for 10% of statistics worldwide and 9.99999% of those that are made up.

Re:Good

[rwv]

I'm honestly surprised that Apple isn't suing for stealing their "There's an App for that" slogan. I mean... "There's a Map for that" isn't very original.

Re:Good

[EvilStein]

Yes, and we all know how well people stop and read the small print, right?

I agree with AT&T on this one. It's deceptive. Verizon has a long history about lying on their coverage maps. Remember their older maps? They used to show *the entire country* as being served by them, which is complete bullshit.

Re:Good

[Ambiguous Coward]

He's actually a dermatologist, and the correct phrase is, "Zits clobberin' time!"

Re:Good

[4phun]

What is a real scream is that once Verizon suckers in all the gullible with their ads and a fancy looking Droid Smart Phone customers are going to find that Verizon has just increased their early contract termination agreement to $350 effective Nov 16, 2009. A least Verizon will cut down on customer churn with that penalty!

Then when people realize they have a sluggish touch screen phone that does not have an iPhone like GUI with "Pinch and Spread" for zoom in any of the core apps there is going to be hell to pay.

They could have had a much better experience with the iPhone on that other network. As a matter of fact for all practical purposed where people use a iPhone when out there is often a Wi-Fi hot spot that the iPhone is programmed to seamlessly jump on for a faster data experience. 3G is a non issue when Edge does the job in the few places there is no Wi-Fi.

Re:Good

[Tsujiku]

I have an AMD processor that is roughly equivalent to a P4 that can run Windows 7 easily on a gig of RAM.

Re:Good

[peachboy]

I have an AMD processor that is roughly equivalent to a P4 that can run Windows 7 easily on a gig of RAM.

I think the key there is "a gig of RAM". I might be wrong (I've never actually installed anything above XP on any of my machines), but as I understand it insufficient RAM is the biggest culprit for performance problems in Vista and above. Mine has 512 MB, which XP is perfectly content with.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

RIM sells several models, the iPhone is basically one model with diffrent size storage.

Bullshit. "The" iPhone is also several models -- original, 3G, and 3GS, 2 of which are sold concurrently.

Re:Good

[Targon]

But, AT&T could sue over copyright violations since Verizon is using the AT&T map in their advertising. Fair use is one thing, but re-distributing via commercial can't be considered fair use. Then again, once AT&T starts to deploy 4/5G, 3G will be pushed out into areas that currently do not have it, and all this concern over 3G will go away.

The real down-side to the position AT&T is in with the iPhone is that the iPhone is more about web browsing and connected services than it is about being a good phone, so being able to talk takes a back seat to data. On the flip side, a true GPS with included maps on the device, rather than using a Google Maps application would push back against that very well, since "you don't need to pay for a data service to use the GPS" would be a way to go. Since you can't swap the batteries out yourself on the iPhone, you are also in the position where you can't even use the iPhone as a stand-alone GPS when you don't have access to some sort of charger, while with other devices, you can have multiple charged batteries and swap them out as needed.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean SLAPP

Re:Good

[JourneymanMereel]

The problem is that Verizon's Red Map is thier 2.5G (CDMA) network, not their 3G (EVDO) network.
The Blue Map is AT&T's actual 3G (W-CDMA) map.

Um.... how not try can a single post be?

1. You call their older data CDMA... It's actually 1xRTT. Sure, it's transmitted over CDMA, but then again, so is their voice
2. And the EVDO data which is their 3G network (hey, you got that part right!!) is also over CDMA
3. The red map is Verizon's 3G coverage. It just happens that most of Verizon's network is 3G... which is kinda the WHOLE POINT OF THE ADS.
4. The blue map is, in fact, AT&T's 3G coverage. I initially thought the term used here, W-CDMA, was incorrect and the correct term was UTMS. Turns out their the same thing, so I'll take my lump on this part.

Re:Good

[Mike Buddha]

I concur. Any company that would prefer to give it's money to lawyers instead of putting up more towers is not one I wish to continue supporting.

Re:Good

[Mike Buddha]

3G is a non issue when Edge does the job in the few places there is no Wi-Fi.

Yeah, sure. That would have been handy to know last January when I was driving through eastern Oregon in a snowstorm trying to navigate with my iPhone 3G and being unable to see any maps because the EDGE network wasn't getting the job done in the few spots it was available. There were quite a few stretches of road that didn't have Wi-Fi there, oddly enough. The entire length of my trip is covered by Verizon's EVDO network (yeah, there's a map to confirm that). That weekend, coverage sure as hell would have trumped pinchy zoomy.

Re:Good

[4phun]

You do realize that snow and sap in trees affect all cellular coverage in spite of what the map says?

It is physics.

I can see the difference when traveling these type of routes as the weather and the seasons change. I do not notice it as much in a metro area.

ki4je

Re:Good

[n0tquitesane]

More like a SLAPP

I'm not seeing it.

[Paranatural]

It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage. As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about. Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.

A case of sour grapes by AT&T.

Maybe if they'd use some of that iPhone money to expand their infrastructure instead of hiring lawyers and racking up executive bonuses...but nah, that's crazy talk.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[pcaylor]

The maps are accurate but Verizon originally referred to the areas without 3G coverage as 'Out of Touch' That sounds a lot worse than 'falling back to 2G EDGE' Verizon has agreed to remove the 'Out of Touch' phrasing though. AT&T wants Verizon to show their full data coverage map without distinction between EDGE and 3G. And on such trivialities, lawyers get rich.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[purpledinoz]

I just watched the ad on youtube, and I don't find it misleading at all. Verizon has better 3G coverage than AT&T. But I do see the point that non-techies might interpret no 3G coverage as no service at all. But since the ad isn't saying anything false, then I don't see how this lawsuit would succeed.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[ari_j]

Fortunately for Verizon, AT&T's full coverage map sucks, too. If AT&T really believed in honest advertising, they would add a few words to their slogan: America's largest 3G network ... because you can roam, at great expense, in Europe and we counted that.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Cornelius the Great]

As an AT&T customer I hope Verizon wins this one. In fact, I believe that AT&T's map is OVERSTATING their 3G coverage. I live in the middle of a supposedly heavy 3G area, yet I often see my data drop down to EDGE, even if I have 5 bars of HDSPA on my phone.

It didn't use to be this way... maybe the numbers of iPhone 3G/3GS users may be oversaturating the network. But I'm getting very spotty coverage (dropped calls, incoming calls go straight to voicemail often, EDGE data only, etc) in the middle of metropolitan centers with solid 3G in every direction for 50+ miles (according to their map), while my friends on Verizon have more reliable service, even out in the middle of nowhere.

The service is getting to be so bad that it's affecting non-3G service. Voice calls on non-3G phones are getting dropped like crazy. Couple weeks ago, I got a text message stating that AT&T just added another cell tower in my vicinity, but I see no difference.

I've been a customer for 10+ years, but when my contract expires in March, I'm out.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[glop]

I disagree with AT&T. I want maps, precise maps for 3G. I mean, I have EDGE on my Blackberry and it's very bad. So if I get a 3G service, I really want to be able to make sure that I won't have to fall back to EDGE...

I saw the ad and it really made me think it was cool and informative and I wanted to go online and check this out next time I shop for service. Unfortunately I expect the maps to be deceptive. T-Mobile's maps show reception in areas where I have been and where I would get cut all the time. So the maps are not really very good and can be tweaked.

I guess we need to do our own coverage maps with some Android application that checks coverage, records GPS information and aggregates that on a website. Independent maps are the only way to get anything remotely accurate.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T built two towers near me in the past year.. Just sayin.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we need to do our own coverage maps with some Android application that checks coverage, records GPS information and aggregates that on a website. Independent maps are the only way to get anything remotely accurate.

That would be interesting, if only to see how long it takes to get sued by the big telco corps.

I'm sure they'd come up with something: copyright, DMCA, trade secrets, etc. Some bogus nonsense to threaten a lawsuit no site operator would survive.

Ah the merits of corporatism.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[EvilJoker]

You're overlooking the marketing potential of this- back when number portability was proposed, all of the carriers opposed it due to cost and concerns over churn. After a while, however, VZW embraced it, because they realized that there would be A LOT of people coming to them because of the new freedom.

Similarly, if VZW could market this ("Most accurate coverage map anywhere"), they could potentially embrace it. The weaker carriers probably would oppose it.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[thisnamestoolong]

I think that the 'Out of Touch' phrasing is accurate in this context -- if I am paying for 3G service and am getting EDGE because I am in a 3G-less area, then I am certainly 'Out of Touch'. This is just like if I realized my 22 Mbps Internet at home was running at 768 kbps all of a sudden -- I still technically have Internet but the difference would be great enough that I would certainly classify my Internet connection as broken, or 'Out of Touch'.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[just_another_sean]

...but nah, that's crazy talk.

What does a Native American who sells firecrackers have to do with this? :-)

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that I can have five phones from a given carrier in the same location and all of them will show different connection levels and have different connection speeds.

I've seen this first hand where different phones on the same network will behave differently. Even to the point of one phone will be showing no signal and another will show about 50%. There's more at play here than simply measuring the tower signal strength.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[michrech]

AT&T just built another in my town, and put one some miles away to cover some smaller towns (less than a few thousand people, total). Last night, I watched a friend lose a call he was in the middle of, on a brand new phone (not an iPhone). My house is only, at most, 2 or 3 miles away from the "new" tower (as the crow flies). That is not a very ringing endorsement of their service. Meanwhile, my friends and I on US Cellular and Sprint (I have Sprint) have never had any such issues...

What's worse is AT&T decided to have the local paper report on how "much cash AT&T is infusing into our market to improve service" (such as our market is -- we're a town of roughly 17k people, though we do have a medical (osteopathic) and liberal arts college in town). Nice going, AT&T...

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The maps aren't comparing equivalent networks. They are comparing their 2G coverage to AT&T's 3G coverage.

It'd be like saying that my 16 fl oz orange juice has twice the vitamin C of your 8 fl oz orange juice.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Mr_Silver]

It even said in the FA that they were maps of the 3G coverage. As long as the maps are accurate, I can't see what they are complaining about. Nowhere is it implied that the normal service is limited to those same maps.

Unfortunately 3G was only mentioned after AT&T complained. Previously it just said "Out of touch" and implied that you would get absolutely no voice or data throughout vast amounts of America.

I think the editors really need to update the post - otherwise the comments are going to be filled with people making comments about the recently modified advert and not realising what was originally displayed.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Verdatum]

the telecom companies have sued each other over those slogans as well. If you follow the trade magazines, you see news of new suit over an advertised claim every couple months. When they don't settle out of court, it's usually found in favor of the plaintiff too.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Captain Splendid]

And you'd still be an idiot, because you're twisting the english language to suit your theory. Even at lower than 768 you're still pingable, or "touchable".

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[nine-times]

Well AT&T would probably be right to argue that their average customers don't really understand what "3G" means and might be confused by the maps. Of course, such an argument would be undercut by the fact that AT&T refers to "3G" in their own ads without explaining it.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[mcsqueak]

I think that the 'Out of Touch' phrasing is accurate in this context

I disagree - they are trying to give people the distinct impression that you won't be able to communicate. The commercial even shows some sad AT&T network girl alone on a bench somewhere while her Verizon network friends are together having fun. Yes there is a speed difference between 3G and Edge, but give me a break... you can still send/receive calls, texts, and still get online.

I've gone hiking where my 3G coverage has fallen back to Edge. I was still able to access Google maps and look at where we were, etc. I was hardly "out of touch", that is a loaded phrase and Verizon knows it.

That being said, I personally found the ad to be a very clever play on Apple's "there's an app for that".

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[bhv]

As a current Verizon customer, I say the same thing. According to their map I am in a 3G full coverage area yet I have spotty or no services at all for miles around. When my contract expires in December, I'm out.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[commodore64_love]

>>>The maps are accurate but Verizon originally referred to the areas without 3G coverage as 'Out of Touch'

Yeah Verizon should not have said "You are out of touch in the dark zones" when it was still possible to fall-back to 2G or 1G coverage. I agree with AT&T that the original voiceover was misleading to customers.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[commodore64_love]

Number portability is a good idea but produces an interesting problem. Looking at my cellphone number many people assume I live in Maryland. That was true at one time, but is no longer true today. Area codes are losing their connection to geography.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[ari_j]

I definitely avoid the trade magazines. Thanks for the pro tip - not surprising in the last.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[BitZtream]

The real problem is that it rarely 'falls back to 2G EDGE and continues to work' .

The map shown for AT&Ts coverage area is about the only areas you can get data in, and sometimes thats not even true.

I love my iPhone, but AT&Ts network is worthless. The whole 'Fastest 3G network' is false as well, unless I'm supposed to believe that everyone else gets speeds slower than a modem on most days, and that good speeds once a week are acceptable for being defined as 'fastest'.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[h4rr4r]

That is not an interesting problem it is just more proof that POTS should have been abandoned long ago.

With ipv6 we can finally have everyones phone with a real ip address and use dns to call as we use it for urls today.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[raitchison]

I don't see how, you can still do everything you can do with a 3G connection if you have an EDGE connection, you just do it slower, I've watched YouTube Videos over EDGE, never tried to do anything more bandwidth intensive than that but I know it all works.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[csnydermvpsoft]

With ipv6 we can finally have everyones phone with a real ip address and use dns to call as we use it for urls today.

IPv6 doesn't really help here - phones would still need static IP's (or dynamic-DNS clients) and not be behind any firewalls for direct address calling to work. The current SIP scheme works quite well - just as well with IPv4, in fact (except for problems getting around NAT): the phone registers with a SIP server, which routes calls. Since the phone originates the connection to the server, only very restrictive firewalls would give trouble. DNS SRV records identify SIP servers for a particular domain, so user@sipdomain.com is automatically routed to sipdomain.com's SIP server, which knows how to route the call to the user's phone.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[HeronBlademaster]

Indeed. People sometimes get confused when I give them my cell phone number; it's a Utah area code, but I live in Washington. Sure, it's long distance for local land-lines to call me (but not long-distance for land lines two states away to call me), but nobody with a cell phone really cares either way.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[HeronBlademaster]

This happens to my wife and me all the time. We have the same model phone, and sometimes in our apartment we'll have them right next to each other on a table; one will show full signal strength, one will show one bar (or none).

Lots of fun.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[HeronBlademaster]

False advertising isn't just about what is said, it's about what is implied.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[HeronBlademaster]

I dunno... according to this map, they really are comparing 3G to 3G.

My exploration of AT&T's site seems to corroborate Verizon's map.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[caution live frogs]

We were getting dropped about once per phone call. After a quick visit to the nearest AT&T store (with a printout listing recent dropped calls in hand) we fixed the problem - by replacing our phones with iPhone 3GS models. AT&T seems to be selectively dropping non-iPhone users to keep bandwidth available. We had just resigned earlier this year so were stuck with them no matter what.

I figure if I can't solve the issue I might as well be a part of the problem.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Thing 1]

Hmm, or how about the new Mattress Discounter's slogan, "there's a nap for that"?

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Excelsior]

I honestly wonder about this though. I surf with my IPhone over Wifi exclusively, since I cancelled my AT&T service. The same pages on the same wifi router render considerably slower on the IPhone than on a laptop/desktop sitting right next to it. I really wonder how much of the slowness is AT&T, and how much is just that the IPhone doesn't render pages at the speed we are used to.

FWIW, I'm not an AT&T apologist. Friday I'm signing up with Verizon and getting a Droid, because I'm fed up with AT&T and (especially) Apple.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Skuld-Chan]

Whats awful is if you have an AT&T phone and its in edge mode all the time (even though their map covers where I live) - no the smart phones don't work so well on edge. Dropped packets, slow performance - makes for a crappy experience.

If Verizon supported GSM phones I would have switched ages ago - and I might do so if their Droid isn't a complete pile.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Skuld-Chan]

I'm that sad girl. The building I work in (while covered by AT&T's map in solid dark blue) I get zero bars, but Verizon customers all around me are using their apps just fine - WTF.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[tubapro12]

I can attest with that speed difference. The other day in the middle of nowhere, OK a friend and I were both loading the same videos from Youtube. I (VZW) used the specially designed Youtube app for my phone and he (ATT) was using the RTSP links from their website (I don't know how the Youtube app works so I don't know if it would affect speed). Anyhow, by the time my phone had finished downloading the video he has still only halfway done downloading the same.

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[4phun]

<quote><p>I think that the 'Out of Touch' phrasing is accurate in this context</p></quote>

<p>I disagree - they are trying to give people the distinct impression that you won't be able to communicate. The commercial even shows some sad AT&amp;T network girl alone on a bench somewhere while her Verizon network friends are together having fun. Yes there is a speed difference between 3G and Edge, but give me a break... you can still send/receive calls, texts, and still get online.</p></quote>

What is worse, in real life there is Wi-Fi everywhere on a modern campus, so the girl with the iPhone could be surfing YouTube at a faster rate then her buds using Verizon cellular network.

And when it comes to 3G she can surf the web with an iPhone or use Google's own map app while talking on the telephone. That can never happen on any Verizon phone which is a one shot pony, it is either or with Verizon.

Advertising is so misleading!

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this whole mess is not helped by the fact that EDGE technically is 3G, as defined by the relevant ITU standard. (Plain GPRS is 2G, of course...) That's the one detail that makes me think ATT may have a shot at this...

Re:I'm not seeing it.

[Hemispheres]

AT&T complained, Verizon changed the ad to note that they were referring to 3G only. That wasn't good enough for AT&T, though, hence the lawsuit. I can understand the original complaint, but not the continuing action.

sprint

[Kleppy]

I have sprint so I could care less. My blackberry works fine and I have no intent of using either company (Verizon or AT&T) personally. AT&T is too cocky with the iphone ONLY on their network (a la M$ - XBOX ONLY games) and Verizon just seems like cocks in thick black glasses.

Re:sprint

[maxume]

You just haven't been screwed by Sprint yet. It might not happen, but I wouldn't bet very much against it.

Re:sprint

[Yvan256]

That's why he said he could care less.

If Sprint screws him, then he won't be able to care less.

Re:sprint

[Stupendoussteve]

Sprint roams on Verizon...

So, you've still got the network.

Re:sprint

[Coren22]

The reason your blackberry works so well is that it automatically roams to Verizon towers when Sprint isn't reachable.

Re:sprint

[ran-o-matic]

I wish Sprint phones would roam at EVDO speeds on the VZW network like it did on the (former) Alltel network. Not gonna happen, but it would be nice.

Re:sprint

[Kleppy]

I live in Michigan by major freeways. The entire metro area has sprint coverage. Unless they are including Verizon or sprint in their own coverage maps, I always have Sprint coverage. If my phone will roam to another providers towers, what's the point of a coverage map anyways?

Are the maps accurate?

[gblackwo]

Is verizons depiction of at&ts 3G coverage accurate? If so, then it couldn't be false advertising and at&t is just upset that their 3G coverage looks so poor compared to verizons. Otherwise, maybe this could fall under false advertising.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been said before that some providers maps don't actually show you where they have a signal, but where the FCC has licensed them to have a signal.

Companies like t-mobile show actual expected signal levels on their coverage maps.

I am highly suspect of Verizon's maps being FCC licensed coverage areas, not where there is an actual RF signal. As I live in central Florida and their maps show as having 3g signal out in the middle of BFE, Really?

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Fred IV]

AT&T has voiced no issue with the accuracy of the maps. Their claim is that consumers are too dumb to know that the map is comparing 3G data coverage and not voice coverage, even though the ad makes that comparison clear.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Scootin159]

I know for a fact they're not 100% accurate - Verizon's map shows 100% 3G coverage for all land within a 20 mile radius of my in-laws house. However, Verizon customers (them) get zero signal there (even when standing outdoors away from any obstructions) - not even enough to send a text message.

Conversely, AT&T shows zero 3G coverage there, and "spotty" EDGE coverage within a 20 mile radius. However, I (AT&T) get nearly full 3G signal there, with great speeds.

However, one case point like this only shows they're not 100% accurate, it makes no indication of a general trend between the two.

What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution. What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.).

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[ari_j]

I live in BFE, North Dakota, and my parents live even more remotely. You can usually get Verizon or Alltel 3G service on their farm. I personally dislike Verizon, but their map is accurate. By contrast, you can't even get an SMS out through AT&T in many of the populated (that's a relative term) areas up here.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[DaMattster]

False advertising pretty much happens ALL of the time. No advertisement is 100% truthful. I guess you have to cross some invisible, arbitrary line before it becomes a civil tort issue. I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen. This sounds like AT&T is just upset because Verizon is pissing in its Cheerios.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[edmicman]

Google, are you listening? Where's the gmaps overlay for *that*?

I'll concur, the VZW map shows Michigan blanketed with coverage, but I know for a fact that there is a great big hole North of I94, West of I69, and East of M66, pretty up until I96. There's spotty coverage in places, but for the most part there's nothing there for big chunks. Still, Verizon offers in general much better coverage in my areas that anyone else, and pretty much anywhere I *do* get Verizon coverage, it's 3G.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[danlip]

False advertising pretty much happens ALL of the time. No advertisement is 100% truthful. I guess you have to cross some invisible, arbitrary line before it becomes a civil tort issue.

Truthfulness has absolutely nothing to do with that arbitrary line. That line is crossed when you start insulting your competition (even if it is the truth), and they have lots of money and lawyers. Whether they win the case might have something to do with the truth, but I wouldn't count on it.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[mea37]

"even though the ad makes that comparison clear" to customers who know what 3G is. Of course, to most people it's just a buzzword thrown around that describes how cool this phone is. Where misleading advertising is concerned, "misleading" means to the common consumer, not the /. crowd.

I had figured there would be a lawsuit about these ads, though I admit I'd guessed wrong about what specifically they'd sue over. Without watching the original ads again and paying more attention to the wording, I can't really say if I think they crossed a line. Win or lose, I hope they think the legal hassle was worth it for what IMO isn't that clever an ad to begin with...

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Stupendoussteve]

T-Mobile is just as bad. In my area I should have "best" coverage. Only problem is T-Mobile has few if any towers in the Omaha area and one bar or less. When I moved here I had T-Mobile, I could not make a call anywhere in my house, nor many places outside.

Best part is when I went to switch service, they charged me the ETF because their map said I have great coverage.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[HeronBlademaster]

Verizon's depiction of AT&T's 3G coverage is accurate, if you go by the information available on AT&T's website.

(I posted this here a few minutes ago.)

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[HeronBlademaster]

I mean, come on, if the lose weight fast commercials are any indication, false advertising does happen.

I hate to defend those commercials, but... they all say "with diet and exercise" as an addendum to all of their weight loss claims, and most of them say "not FDA approved" in the fine print.

Sure, what they're selling is little more than a vitamin pill, but it's not technically false advertising if you remember "with diet and exercise".

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Anonymous Coward]

These maps are the result of a third party study. Verizon obtained these maps from a third party, unbiased company that went around the country testing out 3G coverage for different networks.

Re:Are the maps accurate?

[Thing 1]

What would be very interesting to see is an exhaustive third-party study with a decent resolution. What would be involved in calculating this for all major nationwide carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc.).

That should be fairly simple: write an app that polls both the GPS position, and the signal strength, at regular intervals (every 5 minutes, perhaps?). Then have it feed back to a central server, and aggregate the data. (And, of course, queue the feedback, for times when signal == 0.)

Fairly quickly, we'd have very good maps.

Then as new towers were constructed and brought on-line, the viewer portion could use diffs and show new areas in a different color (etc).

This would work well on Droid et al, but on the iPhone which can't run apps simultaneously, it would have to come from Apple to be able to run in the background (like the Clock app can, and the one I initially downloaded (not knowing a timer was built-in) could not -- and helped me burn my dinner).

File a lawsuit, or...

[Anonymous Coward]

Expand your effing infrastructure! Why do data providers insist on throwing money at advertising and corporate lawyers rather than just making their product better and have it (i.e. their network) speak for itself?

Re:File a lawsuit, or...

[tkrotchko]

Lawsuits are a business tactic, they're not a end in-and-of themselves, they're simply a way to get to your goal.

If people sue each other, it's because it's gotten personal, they want to feel vindicated. Companies sue because it will increase profits or maintain control of a market. They're not looking to right a wrong.

can u spot the hidden message?

[Anonymous Coward]

y0u fai1 i+!

eh, Iphone is lame anyways

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the 'theres an app for that' commercials to be annoying...not one of the apps is even slightly useful (unless you're so dumb you can't figure out where you are or where to go for dinner)

I've followed Mac for years now and IMO they have become nothing more than an advertising jueggernaut reliant on how people 'feel' about their products.

If the map is accurate for what there 3G coverage is, then I see no problem. And fact is, they cover all the major city centers and that's where all the hipster Iphone tottin kids are anyhow..

Re:eh, Iphone is lame anyways

[Yvan256]

After all these years following them you should at least know the company is called Apple.

Re:eh, Iphone is lame anyways

[Hyppy]

Apple = Mac, at least a hell of a lot more than "Non-Mac = Windows," which they shove down the collective consumer throat.

Re:eh, Iphone is lame anyways

[Yvan256]

Apple is still a business. And I think they don't want to make the same mistake Coke did decades ago, with their "Coke vs Pepsi" marketing. A lot of people didn't even know about Pepsi, so Coke in effect paid for Pepsi ads and let the world know that Pepsi was a possible alternative to Coke.

Microsoft Windows, on the other hand, is already known. And Apple surely won't talk about other alternatives such as Linux, FreeBSD, OpenSolaris or whatever in their ads, that would be counter-intuitive for them. Especially since people can simply download those for free and install them on their current PC.

OT: The Caring Continuum

[Known Nutter]

When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less". [e.g. "I could care less about linguistics."]

In order for one to "care less" about a subject, they must first care about it somewhat. Saying "I could care less about ... " does indeed imply, nay dictate, that there is some degree of care.

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html

Sorry, and thank you.

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you really need to get a life and get out more often!

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Kleppy]

But I could care less... I just would have forwent the posting of not caring thus not caring more than I cared to post about caring that I cared.

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you really need to get a life and get out more often!

So he can meet more mouth-breathers who don't understand the language they are speaking? That doesn't sound like fun.

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he hasalive but it it filled with people
who do asloppy job of everything It start with not paying a tension to grammar and then poeple dont care somewhat much after that either in other things. It not a slipper y slopw but more like a spectrum disorder. The have a saying "What me I could care less?

(Whoosh In Advance)

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

When one usually states "I could care less", they usually mean "I could not care less" and is illiterate.

Fixed it for you.

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Coren22]

Very nicely done, congrats.

Re:OT: The Caring Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

But for all intensive purposes, you know what they meant!

Really?

[earnest murderer]

Because the maps have a giant "3G" label, and they're both quite accurate and easy to compare...

http://gizmodo.com/5024163/att-3g-coverage-maps-updated-now-with-more-3g

You'll have to pull up a 3G map for a city then zoom out to the national level on their own site.. (http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&3g=t).

AT&T really doesn't have anything on Verizon's 3g network.

Re:Really?

[n0tquitesane]

agreed. I live in an area that doesn't have 3G, and while i dislike both carriers, at least verizon has a presence here. AT&T requires I move 70 miles west just to use their phone

3g doesn't mean fast internet

[vxvxvxvx]

While the technology itself is capable of decent bandwidth, the implementations are pretty terrible. Run low bandwidth wires to the cell towers and you just move the bottleneck somewhere else. 3g is more of a buzzword than anything at this point, until we actually start taking advantage of all that the technology has to offer.

Re:3g doesn't mean fast internet

[Archangel Michael]

Then there is the ATT 3G Coverage that is misleading. I live in a fairly rural area, and near one remote ATT tower I can get full 3G speed, only the tower itself doesn't have much in the way of data off of it, so all that 3G speed is bottlenecked by ISDN speeds, or impacted T1 or some crappy microwave link or ...

So, while they "offer" 3G, it isn't what it seems, and is all but useless for any data. All that data communication is useless, and ATT customeres have to revert back to SMS text messaging.

I now have Vz on a BB, and while I do have issues, they aren't with 3G speeds. If the phone says I have 3G, I have 3G. It at least isn't lying to me.

Re:3g doesn't mean fast internet

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing that makes 3G a buzzword is the narrow focus on bandwidth. It's understandable since consumers are conditioned to think that way by their experience with residential internet connections, but it's much less important for mobile data access on cell phones. Unless you're streaming audio or video, it's unlikely that a high bandwidth, high latency connection will be faster than a lower bandwidth, lower latency connection. For web browsing, email, IM, maps and a lot of typical smart phone activities, latency is a bigger factor in the perceived speed.

This is especially true when you consider that many phones are underpowered...it doesn't do you any good to receive an entire web page in under a second if it then takes you 2 seconds to render the page. At least some of that render time could be used for data transfer.

Verizon/Palm Pre

[ground.zero.612]

I can't help but think this is just a ploy by AT&T to attempt to avoid customer loss after the new year. I think the anticipation of the Verizon Palm Pre, as well as the recent Android phone arrivals has AT&T and Apple shaking in their boots.

Some may argue the iPhone is superior to the Pre, and that may be so. I personally think they are both great phones that offer similar features. However, combining the Pre with Verizon's coverage is going to make AT&T hurt in a bad way, and these commercials highlighting the significant difference in 3G coverage has already hurt them.

Re:Verizon/Palm Pre

[KylePflug]

I think the Pre has been dead in the water for quite some time now. The buzz pretty much collapsed on review day. My hopes are higher for the Droid based on software and build quality, though...

white areas

[w1]

I can see AT&T's point of view, because the white areas in the maps mean different things. In Verizon's map it mean's "definitely no service" because they have no coverage other than their 3G coverage, but in AT&T's map it means "probable (slower) service" because of their large 2G network. However in relation to the map's purpose they mean the same thing: "No 3G coverage" I can see how someone might be confused by that, but as others have stated the map is accurate and I don't see how Verizon has an obligation to paint a prettier picture for AT&T.

Oh hey,

[earnest murderer]

I learned to use the interweb...

AT&T's 3G network in Blue.

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice&3g=t&lat=38.165700875&lon=-99.05553125&sci=1

Re:Oh hey,

[tubapro12]

Either they have no 3G coverage or one of us is color blind (well by that link alone).

Re:Oh hey,

[JourneymanMereel]

Yep, it is. And it's pathetic. Both Verizon and Sprint have more 3G coverage than AT&T does. The only national network AT&T can beat in that arena is T-Mobile.

Instead of spending money to fix their network AT&T decided to spend money suing Verizon for pointing out the truth. How typical.

If anything, it's AT&T's ads that are misleadi

[dustwun]

Honestly, all the "Nation's Fastest 3G Network" might be true in theory, but in practice it only holds true in limited areas around the country, and even then it's a crap shoot.

at&t sore losers

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts AT&T when a superior competitor points out the fact that they suck. This is what happens when you stop keeping score in little league and teachers grade papers in purple ink. Eventually even big corps like AT&T cry like little babies when they get their feelings hurt. Boo Hoo, I don't see them manning-up when it comes to their iPhone monopoly or limiting "unlimited" data access. Pot texting the Kettle black.

Brilliant

[DaMattster]

AT&T should get its due reprisal for selling out the constitutional rights of its customers through wonton participation in the BushCo's illegal, warrantless wire tapping program. If AT&T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.

Re:Brilliant

[blueZ3]

"wonton" participation? Some kind of Chinese fast-food deal with the Bush administration?

Re:Brilliant

[Stupendoussteve]

Because HAM radio is so much more private than AT&T cellular service.

Re:Brilliant

[mcgrew]

If AT&T were the last cell phone company, I'd get a ham radio license before using them.

Good luck talking to the electric company (or nearly anybody else on a POTS or cell who doesn't have ham) with that ham radio.

Re:Brilliant

[bflong]

hmmm.... need a HAM to Asterisk bridge...
I'm going to look into that.

Re:Brilliant

[Stupendoussteve]

HAM to phone has been available for a long time. There are many systems where dialing the correct digits will get you a dial tone to then dial a number. Theoretically this same system could be hooked up to an Asterisk server.

Of course there is also no privacy whatsoever (nor anything to prevent somebody else from intruding into your call). It is a great way of asking your wife what's for dinner, I would not consider using it to call the electric company and tell anyone with a scanner my account number, credit card number, social security number etc.

Re:Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want to talk to the electric company? In general, you only want to have electricity from them, for speaking lessons you'd be better off looking elsewhere.

Marketing/advertising of a shady nature

[Drasham]

While the ads with the change may be considered factually accurate, that doesn't change the fact that there are a great number of people who don't read the fine print on TV ads, much less anything else and will form opinions based on the convient "quick glance" interretation of the maps. This is an interesting example of marketing/advertising of a shady nature.

VT Doesn't have that kind of 3G Coverage

[sam.haskins]

On the Verizon map, it looks like they have 3G coverage over nearly the entire state of Vermont. That'll be the day. They don't even have coverage over main streets in major towns. (though, oftentimes AT&T does). I call BS on that map.

I hope they don't sue ME, too.

[starglider29a]

i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?

There's an APE for that.

Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?

There's an APE for that.

AT&T: There's a lawsuit for that.

Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.

[roaddemon]

Awesome. I'm really looking forward to the Pandora Ape and the GPS Ape, but you'll have to excuse my cynicism regarding the effectiveness of the Baby Monitor Ape.

F

Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.

[HeronBlademaster]

Already been done.

Re:I hope they don't sue ME, too.

[Ambiguous Coward]

Ugh, I'm getting so tired of these silly discussions.

Fortunately, there's a nap for that.

They're comparing apples to crabapples

[Wireless Joe]

What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&T's EDGE network (2.5G). For the AT&T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage. So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed. W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100% of AT&T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE. What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100% of AT&T's licensed coverage area. Also, the slowest of AT&T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[tonyreadsnews]

ads and marketing not comparing apples to apples in order to make their own product/service look better

I'm shocked....

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[EvilBudMan]

--What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100% of AT&T's licensed coverage area--

I believe you are wrong. Those Alltel towers that AT & T ended up with don't have EDGE at least here in the rural areas. I don't like either one of these companies. But you are right Verizon is slow, but they do have voice at least in areas that AT & T doesn't. Bummer :(

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[Anonymous Coward]

What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&T's EDGE network (2.5G). For the AT&T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s) coverage. So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed. W-CDMA won't ever be deployed to 100% of AT&T's network, certainly not before they roll out LTE. What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&T's EDGE coverage map, which I believe is 100% of AT&T's licensed coverage area. Also, the slowest of AT&T's 3G service is faster than Verizon's EVDO service.

WRONG. 100% of Verizon's towers are 3g/EVDO eanbled, therefore the entire voice coverage map is the same as the entire data coverage map. AT&T does not have 100% 3G coverage on every tower, so they have separate maps for voice/edge and 3g. So comparing Verizon's map to AT&T's edge is wrong since Verizon has 100% EVDO/3G coverage.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon's EVDO service comes in 2 speeds. Rev A is 3 times faster than ATT 3G

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[Wireless Joe]

Are you sure?

1xEV-DO: Also known as Evolution, Data-Only, this subset of CDMA2000 runs on CDMA networks and reaches peak speeds of 2.4Mbps and averages 300Kbps to 600Kbps. As its name implies, EV-DO networks handle only high-speed data; handsets supporting EV-DO would use the underlying CDMA network for voice calls. Both Verizon and Sprint are launching 1xEV-DO service.

UMTS: Universal Mobile Telephone Service, the 3G service that GSM carriers AT&T and T-Mobile plan to roll out for its subscribers. UMTS boasts speeds of up to 2Mbps, although users will typically see speeds in the 300Kbps-to-400Kbps range.

SO EVDO is comparable to UMTS, with HSDPA and HSUPA (3.5G services) being much faster than both. EVDO is 3x faster than EDGE (average 90Kbps), but that's a 2.5G service. AT&T has more UMTS than HSPA coverage, but they don't show that in their "3G coverage" map, so they're still comparing different generations (3G to 3.5G services).
On a final note, they also neglect to mention that they do not support simultaneous voice and data on their 3G nework.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[limaxray]

That's non-sense. 1xEVDO Rev. A is capable of 3 Mbps and all of Verizon's network uses this technology - I'm pretty sure that falls in the the understanding of what is 3G. In actual practice though, Verizon's network supplies a pretty consistent 1 Mbps connection all across the country, which is about 4x faster than the maximum theoretical throughput of an EDGE network.

Furthermore, the fact that WCDMA is very inflexible and depends on 5 MHz channels means that in the few places that there actually is service, you are less likely to be able to use it because there are fewer channels serving fewer clients. Go ask any iPhone user about the fantastic reliability of AT&T's 3G network. WCDMA just doesn't fare well in markets where the use of wireless spectrum isn't dictated by government mandate as it is in the EU. Also AT&T has yet to even deploy HSPA+ on a large scale to the best of my knowledge, so to say that they're service is that much faster (although it is slightly faster) is just wrong.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[slimjim8094]

No. All of AT&T is EDGE. From Wikipedia:

The AT&T Mobility wireless data network began in 2002 as a Cingular initiative called "Project Genesis" that involved a GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) overlay of the entire wireless network. Project Genesis was completed by the end of 2004. Later, this network was upgraded to EDGE (Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution) across the GSM footprint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility#Network_coverage

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[limaxray]

That info is outdated as it is referring to EVDO Rev. 0. Both Verizon and Sprint are now 100% Rev. A, which peaks out around 3Mbps with a typical speed of about 1Mbps. This puts it on par with the average HSDPA roll out in the US. You should also note that EVDO Rev. A uplink maxes out around 1.8 Mbps whereas HSDPA is limited to only 384kbps.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[fulldecent]

>> What Verizon appears to be describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer in speed to AT&T's EDGE network (2.5G)

let me tell you about the last time I used 14.4mb/s service on my phone...

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[EvilBudMan]

They haven't upgraded or offered a plan on the towers that they have from Alltel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alltel

**On May 8, 2009, AT&T announced it will acquire 79 of the divested wireless properties, including licenses, network assets, and 1.5 million current subscribers, primarily in rural areas across 18 states. Verizon Wireless is required to divest these properties as part of the regulatory approvals granted for its purchase of Alltel.[5]**

They haven't done crap to these towers yet, if ever. Now I have to worry about not getting service period with many dead spots. Of course they got handed this stuff in a last minute deal. Verizon was supposed to have gotten these towers.

They are still CDMA and not even GSM, so it is you that doesn't know what your talking about. In 6 months they have done nothing. Verizon will at least come out to the country where AT & T could care less what your service is once you get out of a major metro area.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[HeronBlademaster]

Well... Verizon's own maps don't agree with you. (Check out the wireless coverage maps, 2G vs 3G, on verizonwireless.com if you don't believe me.) What I mean is, Verizon does cover some areas with 2G that they do not cover with 3G.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the same thing, but according to this link:
http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf

The maps are comparing EV-DO on Verizon to HSPA coverage on AT&T. I wouldn't have believed it without this map stating it, but I guess you learn something every day.

Anyways, there are plenty of other reasons why coverage doesn't always equate to faster speeds, but at surface value, the updated ad is not too far off the truth.

Re:They're comparing apples to crabapples

[brassmaster]

EVDO != 1xRTT && EVDO != 2.5G !!!!!! Mod parent DOWN!

AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

Realizes it's losing the @ home and wireless battle. Verizon is cruising along and is really moving past AT&T on many fronts now. It's a no brainer - ask any business IT which is better and most that I know in the Midwest pick Verizon hands-down for coverage and loss of signal. AT&T on the other hand is in too much stuff again (remember they were a monopoly not so long ago) with their FiBo and UVerse packages, they've now stretched themselves thin. I still get about 3 pieces of AT&T mail a week at home asking me to switch from Comcast and Verizon. Now they're complaining about this??? what a joke.

... for that is the problem

[night_flyer]

it's clearly a take off of iPhones "there's an app for that" ad (and probably service mark). It has nothing to do with coverage, or how reliable anything is...

Re:... for that is the problem

[Kyont]

Right, this is not "a lawsuit over data visualization" (assuming the maps are even somewhat accurate). It's a lawsuit over very intentional near-infringement (via rhyming) on a well-known slogan.

Not sure what the police code for that one is. But in any case, I believe all wireless companies are criminally deceptive in nearly everything they do, so I hope there's a way for both of them to lose. :-)

Re:... for that is the problem

[mattgoldey]

Yeah, as soon as I heard one of these ads for the first time, I had a feeling that there would be a lawsuit forthcoming.

Re:... for that is the problem

[Ma8thew]

Except that that is Apple's trademark. Nothing to do with ATT.

Re:... for that is the problem

[irieken]

Moreover, it's a parody of said trademarked phrase, which I doubt is likely to make the average consumer confuse Apple iPhone App Store with Verizon cell phone service.

About that "article"...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Is there a link to an article on this that isn't a video?

Re:If anything, it's AT&T's ads that are misle

[Anonymous Coward]

They didnt say it was available everywhere. They said in the past that they have the largest network (based on worldwide stats) though. Like getting a super fast sports car. Sure it can go fast, but maybe not that far cause you burned up all your fuel. Marketing ploys are just that, a ploy to attract people and hopefully make them NOT think about it logically/rationally.

Valid complaint

[Mr_Silver]

I've seen a couple of people who say they don't get it and use the recently modified advert as proof. The first version of the map used the words "Out of touch", had no small print and wrongly implied that outside of the coloured area you weren't going to get any coverage at all.

AT&T's data coverage may be poor (I don't know, I don't live in the USA) but there aren't massive blackspots all over America as this map implied.

See Engadget for more information.

Re:Valid complaint

[BobMcD]

No, it isn't really all that valid at all, and it does nothing to refute the salient point of the advertisement. From your link:

All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon.

From a certain point of view, an iPhone with a crappy data connection isn't really an iPhone at all. It is an iPod Touch that makes phone calls and sends text messages. It will remain so until you get back under a 3G coverage area.

AT&T would like to point out that those devices do technically work. They would also like to refute that the coverage is better on Verizon than it is on AT&T.

The question from an ethical point of view is, which is actually honest?

Re:Valid complaint

[TheSync]

From a certain point of view, an iPhone with a crappy data connection isn't really an iPhone at all. It is an iPod Touch that makes phone calls and sends text messages. It will remain so until you get back under a 3G coverage area.

From my point of view, my 2G iPhone was awesome - it was a serious game-changer because it was the first mobile device I have ever owned to be truly able to surf the web. My 3G iPhone is super-awesome.

Re:Valid complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

How long did that run for? Because I've seen this ad a lot but never that version. So AT&T's claim should only apply to that period and not to the whole campaign.

Re:Valid complaint

[Hemispheres]

Yes, the original complaint was valid. Verizon changed the ad, though, to specify that they're referring to 3G coverage, and AT&T is still complaining.

Re:Bad analogy?

[Real1tyCzech]

Odd...

My HP ze2113 (circa 2005) runs Windows 7 (with Aero), MSE, and Office just fine. All I did was throw another 512MB RAM chip in it.

Where are you getting your data?

AT&T's Own Maps

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look at AT&T's own map of data coverage. http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=data&lat=37.3007807135582&lon=-96.3720703125&sci=1

When you look at 3G it looks worse than Verizon's AT&T map on the commercial. Verizon was actually giving them more credit. And if you want it even easier to read click on the voice tab and then check the 3G box at the bottom, the map removed the other data types and shows you the real 3G coverage.

AT&T is sending misleading emails

[jaredforshey]

What annoys me about this is that just a few days ago I got an email from AT&T saying that they've installed new towers in my area and expanded 3G coverage. They had a link to their coverage maps that said "Click here for 3G coverage maps" with a thumbnail of the orange voice coverage map, which is of course much much more dense than their spotty blue 3G map. I found it extremely misleading and would have just assumed that was really their 3G coverage except that I had seen the Verizon commercial recently.

your crabapples are ap

[bryz]

i'm sorry you're wrong. If you compare verizon's maps here: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController?requesttype=NEWREQUEST&lid=//global//plans//coverage+maps you'll see the difference between normal digital service (1X) and their "broadband" 3g service (EVDO REVA / B / etc) It's just that the two maps are so similar that you may be getting confused. You can also get it explained/compared with AT&T, sprint, T-mo here: http://vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotcom/coveragelocator/images/maps/3Gcomparison.pdf

looks like AT&T's strategy turned against them

[booyabazooka]

You live by your customers being idiots, you die by your customers being idiots.

I'd bet that if AT&T has decent voice coverage and spotty 3G, it has benefited from a lot of customers not realizing that those coverage areas can be different. Verizon's ad turns the same ignorance against them, and now they're upset about it.

The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.

Re:Bad analogy?

[profplump]

Which is great for you -- you know what Windows 7 needs, what your computer has, and how to change it. Even for relatively savvy users it's likely that one or more of those is not true, making such upgrades implausible at best.

Grow Up, AT&T...

[DomNF15]

So, instead of improving their 3G service areas, they spent time and money on suing Verizon for pointing out their obviously inferior high speed network. "Wah mommy, Verizon is making fun of me." Half the time my coworkers with iPhones can't even make a voice call in my building, let alone get high speed data. Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my lousy Verizon phone, at least I can make calls pretty much anywhere.

Re:Grow Up, AT&T...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, if they get some money from Verizon, sounds like a win to me.

I think Apple may have a point

[webdog314]

If you think of the phrase, "There's an app for that," phonetically, and you have a trademark on that phrase within the telecommunications industry, specifically cell phones, and someone else (Verizon) uses the phrase, "There's a map for that," phonetically, you could pretty much claim that Verizon is infringing because they ARE using that phrase with a mere "m" sound added on one word. The entire phonetic content of the phrase in question can be easily found (and heard) in the commercial. It's pretty obvious (to me) that they were making a play on words. They just happen to be making a play on words that may or may not be trademarked (IANAL).

Re:I think Apple may have a point

[cdpage]

i was thinking the same thing.

Re:I think Apple may have a point

[amliebsch]

Apple are not suing, AT&T is, and furthermore, obvious parody is a well-entrenched example of fair use.

AT&T shot themself in the foot

[Filgy]

AT&T's "branded" 3G is HSDPA. However, EDGE is also actually considered a 3G technology, but AT&T labels it as 2.75G or 2.5G or something so as to not confuse customers by having 2 different 3G techs. The actual specs for 3G include EDGE as a 3G protocol.

Basically, verizons 3G service cdma2000, was a bolt on replacement upgrade to go from their 2G tech (cdmaOne). EDGE for AT&T was also a bolt on upgrade from their 2G tech (GPRS - a TDMA signal, not CDMA). Verizon just stopped after doing this bolt on upgrade so their entire network is considered 3G pretty much.

AT&T then decided to go with an entirely different 3G technology because it was way faster than EDGE (even though EDGE is considered a 3G tech). This new tech was HSDPA which is based on a CDMA network, not TDMA. Therefore, AT&T has to deploy entirely new towers to roll out this new 3G service so their 3G map is much smaller than Verizons. Technically EDGE is still a 3G tech though.

If AT&T still marketed EDGE as 3G and then maybe HSDPA as 3.25G or something, Verizon could not be making this claim. And technically speaking, AT&T would be on solid ground for doing so.

See the "Overview of 3G/IMT-2000 standards" chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3G to clarify.

more maps too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crappy, spotty or intermittent coverage? Yeah, we got a map for that.

Crappy or indifferent customer service? Yeah, we got a map for that.

Gross overcharging, lobotomized equipment, hidden fees and charges? Yeah, we got a map for that"

AT&T should post a global map...

[hackel]

Illustrating how Verizon's proprietary CDMA garbage is only available in the USA and very few limited countries, while the GSM that AT&T uses is available around the entire world. That would put Verizon in their place.

Re:AT&T should post a global map...

[BitZtream]

Considering that Verizons CDMA network covers an area much larger than all of Europe, and that most people in America stay in America, and that when traveling to Europe, most Americans get a throwaway for cell service so they don't pay $2/min ...

I guess my point is, no one would care because its irrelevant to almost everyone that Verizon uses CDMA.

Re:AT&T should post a global map...

[hackel]

Do you have some source to show that Verizon's CDMA network covers an area "much larger than all of Europe"? It's true that Europe might only be 85% the size of the U.S., but it is much more densely populated, and mobile coverage is much better overall. There are huge unpopulated areas of the U.S. with little or no mobile coverage at all, and these need to be taken into account. I question very much whether Verizon covers a greater area than the GSM networks in Europe. If I had to guess, they are probably about the same. And this does not account for the entire rest of the world that is also using GSM!

Also, it is extremely wasteful to buy a second "throwaway" phone, when you simply need a new sim card. You are right that most Americans never leave this country, which is extremely pathetic but that is a separate issue.

Open standards and interoperability are important when it comes to everything else here on Slashdot, there's no reason mobile phones should be an exception. A while ago, "no one" would care that some websites didn't render correctly in Mozilla because it's irrelevant to "almost everyone" who used IE, with all of its standards-breaking bugs... Those of us who actually *know* need to lead the ignorant masses who don't, and who will never care.

Re:AT&T should post a global map...

[SeaFox]

The GSM AT&T uses is not available "around the world". Most of AT&T's network is on 850 mhz band, which is only used in the United States -- on AT&T's network. This is why people traveling overseas are always looking for quad-band phones, because the inclusion of AT&T's 850 mhz band means the exclusion of the 900mhz band used in Europe on dual or tri-band phones most often.

T-Mobile uses only the 1900mhz GSM band. Which is why many unlocked European versions of handsets can be used on T-Mobile's network fine (leading to importing of handsets not available in Amercia sometimes). This is also why you can take an Unlocked AT&T handset and use it on T-Mobile quite often (I am). But not the reverse, because sometimes the handsets T-Mobile sells are models originally developed for European markets and therefore don't include the 850mhz band needed by AT&T, but the AT&T handsets always include 1900mhz as one of the "other" frequencies they support.

Re:AT&T should post a global map...

[hackel]

That's a good point, I thought pretty much all phones released these days were quad-band. This is yet another area where the lack of standardization (of frequencies) is extremely frustrating. I also got my phone in the UK which I use on T-Mobile here since what they offer is such junk...

Re:AT&T should post a global map...

[Stupendoussteve]

Verizon sells dual GSM/CDMA "world" phones.

Don't worry about AT&T

[Dareth]

I think the trunk monkey will get you first!

There's a (misleading) map for that....

[SwedishChef]

When those television ads for Verizon first appeared I noticed that the AT&T map that appeared in the commercial was significantly different than the AT&T coverage map depicted on the "coverage" page of the AT&T website. It should come as no surprise that the Verizon's version of the map showed markedly less 3G coverage than the map AT&T presented.

So the only question was: "Which map is right?" If the map in Verizon's commercials map was correct we'd hear nothing more about it but if Verizon had either deliberately tampered with the AT&T coverage map depicted in their commercials or used a very old version to gain a competitive advantage then there would likely be litigation. This answers that question.

So it's not that AT&T is just suing Verizon instead of updating their 3G network. It's looks like it's a case of a major ad campaign targeting potential and/or existing AT&T customers using deliberately falsified material.

And that is against U.S. Federal law so AT&T is apparently taking this to court.

There's an app for that.

Re:There's a (misleading) map for that....

[BitZtream]

From personal experience I can tell you that AT&T's map is misleading, it shows 3G coverage where there is none, or at least none that works.

If you want to start claiming 'misleading' you need to define what each thing is, in which case AT&T will just look worse.

What a Country!

[shambalagoon]

What a country where advertisements are being taken to task for being misleading while the news has got the legal power to report outright lies.

All about play on words

[ChemGeek4501]

I don't see it as all as a lawsuit over the data visualization - but as a play on the iPhone's "There's an Ap for that" phrase. The first time I HEARD the commerical, I was sure they were saying "Ap" as opposed to "Map" - but it became clear once I SAW the commerical.

Re:All about play on words

[Stupendoussteve]

AT&T would not sue over an Apple trademark.

Of course, if you read the summary it also states the reason as "ads are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices" - I don't know how you relate that to the Apple phrase.

Re:Bad analogy?

[nhytefall]

Microsoft.

Oh...

And the teenage guy selling computers in the Walmart electronics department.

why isn't apple sueing?

[cdpage]

i mean if anyone here can get away with it it'll be apple.

There's an app for that

There's a map for that.

hmm...

Re:why isn't apple sueing?

[DaveV1.0]

If you are suggesting that Apple sue for copyright infringement, the Verizon Wireless ads are clearly a parody of the Apple ads and thus fall under fair use.

If you are suggesting something along the lines of a trademark suit, the phrases are different.

What else is left for grounds for a lawsuit?

Taking a "Core" Dump, Brown Apple

[jameskojiro]

Hey Apple, "I have a CRAP for that", right on the doorstep of 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California

Go screw yourselves for thinking you can copyright every damn thing.

Oh and Steve, your hooker called and she caught something from you and her Pimp "had a bitch SLAP for that".

Re:Taking a "Core" Dump, Brown Apple

[stewbacca]

RTFA. It's about misrepresenting data through a visual map, and has nothing to do with Apple's iPhone, "there's an App for that". Otherwise, the headline would read "Apple Suing Verizon" instead of "AT&T Suing Verizon".

Hello, I'm an AT&T ... and I'm a Verizon

[Zarf]

Verizon: Hey, what you got there AT&T?
AT&T: oh, this? It's my new iPhone.
Verizon: wow, very spiffy. So what apps do you have?
AT&T: well, I have this cool mapping feature... see...
Verizon: I don't see anything...
AT&T: it takes a while to load...
Verizon: Does it look like this when it's loaded?
AT&T (looks at Droid phone ... then sullen): go away.

Can

[Blue6]

you hear me now?

Admit it AT&T, it was a great ad.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Verizon customer and current AT&T customer, I found the "There's a Map for that" commercial absolutely hilarious. Whoever in marketing thought of that deserves a gold medal and a huge bonus.

AT&T needs to grow up and learn to take a joke. Props to Verizon for an epic pun.

Re:looks like AT&T's strategy turned against t

[goofyspouse]

The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.

This is perhaps the most accurate and insightful sentence in this whole thread.

Boo hoo

[Dewser]

I say take all that iPhone money and invest it back into the network!! As a former Verizon customer now turned AT&T slave because I wanted an iPhone, I am a little sad that I was swayed over such a phone as nice as it is. Granted at my last two homes I had barely 2 bars for Verizon and now have full bars for AT&T. Then again the calls still drop. Go figure. So even if they used accurate facts, I would still say "sure they have coverage but it ain't that reliable!" I have a feeling that after the 2 years I may be swinging back to Verizon.

Re:looks like AT&T's strategy turned against t

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion of a mobile phone service provider suing anyone over being misleading is astoundingly ironic.

Hypocritical.

Not ironic.

Re:Bad analogy?

[Real1tyCzech]

The above commenter stated a new PC purchase was required. I provided a counter to that proving such was not the case.

Did I say everyone could do it? Nope.

Did I say it would not require any effort? Nope.

Did I imply anyone but myself would be able to accomplish such an amazing feat of technical know-how? Nope.

Thanks anyway.

Re:Bad analogy?

[Real1tyCzech]

Really....

Microsoft told you everyone upgrading from an older system would need to buy a new one?

Really? I call Bullshit. ...and the teenage guy at Wally World...now there's a veritable wealth of trustworthy and reliable information. I bet he gave you some good tips for getting rid of acne too...

Re:Bad analogy?

[BattleApple]

So when you decide to get a better car stereo and you don't know how to install it yourself, do you just buy a new car that already has a better stereo installed?

Re:Bad analogy?

[RobertM1968]

Yup! :-) Though I think the person you were asking probably simply has mommie and daddie buy them a new one. ;-)

Dumb ad

[stewbacca]

I don't get the allure of "there's a map for that". Most of us live where we live and very few of us use "cell phone coverage area" as a criteria for moving. So if where I live now has good AT&T coverage, I don't see how the Verizon ads are remotely effective.

Re:Bad analogy?

[Starayo]

If they can't fit a stick into a slot they're not "relatively savvy".

Re:Bad analogy?

[tepples]

The above commenter stated a new PC purchase was required.

"You have to buy a new computer anyway" != "You may have to buy a new computer anyway".

Across the board

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't duped by either ad of Verizon, but one that irritates me is Apple's ad about the appstore. "Only on iPhone". What? I have apps on both Android, and iPhone OS devices and that ad kind of implies that you can't get those apps on anything but the iPhone. They don't even make the distinction about iPhone OS devices, because you can get them on the iPod Touch as well. You might be limited to hardware restrictions, but you have that in the iPhone models as well. I should say that Apple isn't exactly misleading they are just straight-up lying, but you get the point.
A lot of companies make ads that make false conclusions and mislead so if you are going to allow this lawsuit to go forward then a certain governmment body should get off of their arse and start reviewing all the others.

Re:Bad analogy?

[nhytefall]

It appears I forgot to include the /sarcasm tag.

Seems to me, that on a tech-focused site such as /., including a /sarcasm tag with the above comment was unnecessary. Thank you for proving the opposite. (for the record, the last sentence of that statement is to be read sarcastically.)

Re:Bad analogy?

[Real1tyCzech]

*laughing*

Sadly, there are way too many people who would make that post *without* sarcasm.

As you can see, my estimation of people tends toward the cynical. As I recently watched an entire 30+ page thread on the horrifying racism in L4D2 where there are (*gasp*) Black (as well as White) zombies, well...I feel my estimation is, for the most part, justified.

Unfortunately, that leaves me open to mistaking humor for idiocy.

And no, in case you were wondering, sarcasm does not translate well when written. ..though had I bothered to translate your sig, I *might* have caught on.

1001011100100010000101110

Re:Bad analogy?

[nhytefall]

Hehe... as they used to say on the playground when I was growing up: no blood, no foul :)

I do agree with you that such cynicism is justified. Though I am currently a PM, in my former life I was tech support. 'Nuff said on that one, there are, after all, still gag orders in place...

Damn judges.

the news...

[stoned_hamster]

"New app announced that lets anyone immediatly sue another, called 'Appsue'. apparently it was created because the big companies needed an easier method of suing each other, and a third party invented this app. More details at eleven!"

Yet Another Lawsuit

[Austin Milbarge]

I got a great idea! Instead of pulling out the lawyers with yet another hi-tech pussy lawsuit, how about pulling out the engineers instead and solving the REAL problem. That is, fixing AT&T's shitty cell service! Wadaya think AT&T?

I'm going to be a smartass and quote George Carlin

[Anonymous Coward]

Well first, I completely agree. If Verizons 3G capability is superior to ATTs they should spend the crazy amounts of money they are making on catching up, not on lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit!

  Isn't that the same kind of advertising done in laundry detergent commercials? This product does this better than that one.

I just finished George Carlins book brain droppings, and posting this is nothing personal to you, I wasnt aware of it till I read this, and I got a laugh outta it so...

"The phrase sour grapes does not refer to jealousy or envy. Nor is it related to being a sore loser. It deals with the rationalization of failure to attain a desired end. In the original fable by Aesop, "The Fox and the Grapes," when the fox realizes he cannot leap high enough to reach the grapes, he rationalizes that even if he had gotten them, they would probably have been sour anyway. Rationalization. That's all sour grapes means. It doesn't deal with jealousy or sore losing. Yeah, I know you say, "Well, many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing." And I say, "Well, many people are really f$&*ing stupid, too, shall we just adopt their standards?" -George Carlin

"You Never Know: Not true. Sometimes you know."
"One Thing Leads To Another: Not always. Sometimes one thing leads to the same thing. Ask an addict."
"You Cant Have It Both Ways: That depends on how intimately you know the other person. Maybe you can't have it both ways at once, but if you've got a little time, you can probably have it six or seven ways."
-George Carlin