Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
You just haven't been screwed by Sprint yet. It might not happen, but I wouldn't bet very much against it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
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.
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.
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
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
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.
That's why he said he could care less.
If Sprint screws him, then he won't be able to care less.
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.
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.
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.
After all these years following them you should at least know the company is called Apple.
i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?
There's an APE for that.
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.
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...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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...
Is there a link to an article on this that isn't a video?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
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?
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.
Sprint roams on Verizon...
So, you've still got the network.
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
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.
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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
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).
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.
-- filgy
Apple = Mac, at least a hell of a lot more than "Non-Mac = Windows," which they shove down the collective consumer throat.
"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"
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.
I think the trunk monkey will get you first!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
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.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
The reason your blackberry works so well is that it automatically roams to Verizon towers when Sprint isn't reachable.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Very nicely done, congrats.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Microsoft.
Oh...
And the teenage guy selling computers in the Walmart electronics department.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
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...
Verizon: Hey, what you got there AT&T? ... then sullen): go away.
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
[signature]
you hear me now?
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
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.
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.
Dewser - all around techy "In the immortal words of Socrates - 'I drank what?'"
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.
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...
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?
Yup! :-)
Though I think the person you were asking probably simply has mommie and daddie buy them a new one. ;-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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.
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".
If they can't fit a stick into a slot they're not "relatively savvy".
Ezekiel 23:20
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".
It appears I forgot to include the /sarcasm tag.
/., 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.)
Seems to me, that on a tech-focused site such as
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
*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
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.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
"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!"
Smoking cures cancer. Smoking also cures stupidity. check darwinawards . com for some stupid stuff
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?