Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the sue-sue-sudio dept.

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.

14 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not seeing it. by Paranatural · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:I'm not seeing it. by pcaylor · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I'm not seeing it. by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    3. Re:I'm not seeing it. by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  2. Re:Good by JiveDonut · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Really? by earnest+murderer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
  4. Re:Are the maps accurate? by Fred+IV · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Are the maps accurate? by Scootin159 · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.).

  6. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  7. They're comparing apples to crabapples by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Good by nahdude812 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Slay a dragon... over lunch!
  9. Re:Good by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  10. Re:Good by ran-o-matic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Are the maps accurate? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)