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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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...)

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.

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: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: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

[syrinx]

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

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:Good

[Sharaz]

parody? There's a slap 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

[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.

... 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...

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: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?

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: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. =)

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:Good

[aztracker1]

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

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

[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

[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: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: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.