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.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
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.
That would be inappropriate, as thyme is an herb, not a spice. :P
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
i was going to start a "temporary service utilizing various primates for various tasks." My motto?
There's an APE for that.
parody? There's a slap for that!
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.
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.
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!
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.