Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Says It Won't Launch Fake 5G Icons Like AT&T Did (theverge.com)

Verizon and T-Mobile are calling out AT&T for starting a shady marketing tactic that labeled its 4G network as a 5G network. "In an open letter, in which AT&T is not named directly, Verizon says in part 'the potential to over-hype and under-deliver on the 5G promise is a temptation that the wireless industry must resist,'" reports TechCrunch. Meanwhile, T-Mobile directly called out AT&T, tweeting a short video of someone putting a sticky note reading "9G" on top of their iPhone's LTE icon. The Verge reports: The promise comes right as AT&T has started to roll out updates doing exactly that: changing the "LTE" icon in the corner of select phones into an icon reading "5G E." One might assume that a "5G E" connection is the same thing as a "5G" connection, but it's not. AT&T is just pretending that the faster portions of its LTE network are 5G and is trying to get a head start on the 5G marketing race by branding it "5G Evolution." T-Mobile isn't happy about the marketing nonsense either. Its CTO, Neville Ray, wrote that AT&T was "duping customers."

Verizon says it's "calling on the broad wireless industry to commit to labeling something 5G only if new device hardware is connecting to the network using new radio technology to deliver new capabilities" (emphasis Verizon's). Kyle Malady, Verizon's chief technical officer, says Verizon will lead by example and that "a clear, consistent, and simple understanding of 5G" is needed so consumers don't have to "maneuver through marketing double-speak or technical specifications." Malady says Verizon will "not call our 4G network a 5G network if customers don't experience a performance or capability upgrade that only 5G can deliver." But that isn't the same thing as saying "we won't label our network 5G unless it's 5G." In fact, if you turn that sentence into a positive statement, it says "we will only call our 4G network a 5G network if it delivers a 5G-like experience."
The Verge notes that Verizon "has also been misleading about its jump into 5G." Last year, Big Red bragged about launching the "world's first commercial 5G service," even though "it wasn't mobile; it was home internet service that just happened to be delivered wirelessly during the final stretch to a subscriber's home; and it didn't use the global 5G standard -- it used a rival 5G standard created by Verizon."

54 comments

  1. Of Course Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Verizon won't do it like AT&T, they'll wait and do it like T-Mobile.

    1. Re: Of Course Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of stuff like this. I had a an app in the iphone 4 with some odd graphics that you could only see if you if you held it at a certain angle. This was the phone with the dead zones (remember that?) so it was actually difficult to hold and get that screen to stay up without losing cell network. You can imagine how comical it must have been with your fingers on just the right spots, holding the phone up at a funny angle trying to show people

    2. Re:Of Course Not by magarity · · Score: 1

      Of course Verizon won't do it like AT&T, they'll wait and do it like T-Mobile.

      T-Mo goes to 11

  2. Translation: Fsck you another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These companies are the same.

  3. "5G" means nothing by fred6666 · · Score: 2

    the problem would be solved if we switched to a more meaningful terminology such as:

    -LTE network
    -2 Gbps cellular network

    1. Re:"5G" means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem would be solved if we switched to a more meaningful terminology such as:

      -LTE network
      -2 Gbps cellular network

      You know what else I've noticed?

      If someone's last name is "Black" they are almost always White. If their last name is "White" they are almost always Black. Isn't that ironic? Sort of like the way you park on driveways and drive on parkways! Meanwhile, an item sent via boat is cargo while an item sent by car/truck is a shipment! It's a crazy world, man.

    2. Re:"5G" means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem would be solved if we switched to a more meaningful terminology such as:

      -LTE network
      -2 Gbps cellular network

      You know what else I've noticed?

      If someone's last name is "Black" they are almost always White. If their last name is "White" they are almost always Black. Isn't that ironic? Sort of like the way you park on driveways and drive on parkways! Meanwhile, an item sent via boat is cargo while an item sent by car/truck is a shipment! It's a crazy world, man.

      When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. -- Humpty Dumpty

    3. Re:"5G" means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly he was the best President America ever had.
      Without him, we would never had gained the eyes we use to see the world today.

    4. Re: "5G" means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why not just have it show actual data throughput speed

      1.8Md/.8Mu, for example.

    5. Re: "5G" means nothing by s4080326 · · Score: 2

      why not just have it show actual data throughput speed

      1.8Md/.8Mu, for example.

      Because that would show that you aren't reaching the peak advertised rates.

    6. Re:"5G" means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. -- Humpty Dumpty

      How generous of you to give me all of your stuff.

  4. My work just switched over to ATT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been on Verizon for the past 8 years and my work recently cut over all work phones to ATT. The mobile speed from ATT is nothing compared to Verizon and I am pretty sure ATT is lying about their 4G network and fake icons as well. My phone will read 4G with full signal bar strength and I will have troubles sending out a picture via text message. Sometimes the speed is fine but what I don't like is being lied too about being 4G with full bars when clearly it isnt.

  5. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Clearwater FL I see 5G poles popping up everywhere.

    I don't know whose they are. I'd like to find out which carrier is planting them.

  6. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    T-mobile did this first with faux 4g.

    pot..kettle.

  7. just waiting... by zlives · · Score: 1

    Vz will put the 5G Lite logo and call it good.

  8. clearly false advertising by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having phone saying its "5g" when phones hardware can't do that is false advertising as phone has hardware it doesn't have.

    1. Re:clearly false advertising by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 2

      Like that is going to stop them

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    2. Re:clearly false advertising by fbobraga · · Score: 2

      "advertising" is based on lies...

    3. Re: clearly false advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, deep breaths. It is just a fucking E.

    4. Re:clearly false advertising by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Dynamic routing protocols "advertise" routes. Does that make routers liars?

    5. Re:clearly false advertising by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      if the router is in the marketing business, YEAP :P

    6. Re: clearly false advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My can of Coke falsely advertises it contains 12 fluid ounces. Itâ(TM)s actually pretty close to -urrrrp- empty.

      I do not think you can characterize something as advertising though, if you have already bought the product in question.

      Does the manufacturer of a car commit false advertising if the speedometer shows a number of miles per hour on the gauge the car is not capable of reaching under its own power, on flat, level, dry pavement with no wind? (Actually, I would love to see a rule banning that form of nonsense since automobiles and their manufacturers are subject to regulatory oversight...) but that is not really advertising, and the manufacturer COULD say,

      but what if you were drivng our car down a really steep hill? You want us NOT to make sure the driver knows how fast the car is going?

    7. Re:clearly false advertising by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      If we just had laws banning a thing named "fraud"... But then, a campaign donation makes you immune to such details.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:clearly false advertising by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Having phone saying its "5g" when phones hardware can't do that is false advertising as phone has hardware it doesn't have."

      That would be like selling "unlimited" service to someone, and then limiting it when they exceed a threshold. Or selling a "$40/mo" service, then adding fees which make it $60.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:clearly false advertising by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I don't want to hear another PEAP out of you.

  9. Short memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon claimed they had the first forth generation network around 2010/2011 when they decided to just say their original Long Term Evo was suddenly 4G, when it wasn't all that different from HSPA+, but no one seemed to care.

    Now that LTE Advanced is actually wide spread and meets the forth gen specs described back in 2008, the marketing machine decided it's high time to just call it "5G" instead.

    Grass is still green, cold water isn't hot, etc.

    1. Re:Short memories by sexconker · · Score: 1

      They just said it enough that people either believed it or tuned it out. They were running non stop ads for their service, and glomming on to other ads for devices, with an obnoxious narration of "VERIZON 4G LTE". A single 30 second ad spot would have that phrase in it 4 or 5 times.

    2. Re: Short memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MIKE JONES!

  10. we need more non carrier roms by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    we need more non carrier roms

  11. "We won't lie to you in this particular way" by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    I miss the days of "don't be evil."

    1. Re:"We won't lie to you in this particular way" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss the days of "don't be evil."

      You do know that too as a lie. Google sold us all out from the very beginning.

  12. Marketing... by fbobraga · · Score: 2

    ... as usual

  13. Pot meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's reality:
    5G E is really 4G, LTE Advanced
    4G is really 3.5G, Vanilla LTE

    Verizon was the first carrier to call 3.5G by the 4G name, so I don't see where they get off accusing AT&T when they're just as guilty

  14. Clarification issued by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Verizon later clarified that it meant it will use a different fake icon for its phones. "When it comes to misleading the customers, we are second to none. The AT&T is a mere baby compared to veterans like us".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Liars by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Corporations are liars. They will lie without any kind of conscience whatsoever to get a perceived advantage. Don't worry, Verizon has lied in the past about its behavior and it will do it again. Verizon calling out AT&T is the pot calling the kettle black.

  16. Yet T-Mobile Kinda Did The Same Thing by DewDude · · Score: 1

    I kinda remember T-Mobile marketing their HSDPA+ network as "4G" despite the fact it's not a 4G technology. I mean, sure; I saw it pump out 45mbps downstream on a tower at 2am...so I mean it did deliver on the marketing hype; and if you dug deep enough they did specify the "4G" was just a marketing thing...and they did adopt the LTE thing when they finally got an LTE network.

    Of course Verizon said they'd do the same thing if their 4G network performs like a 5G; and I guess you could call HSDPA a major improvement from whatever the last revision of EVDO was.

    This is sounding a lot like the 8/16/32/64-bit console wars.

  17. Re:we need more non carrier roms by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    The larger issue is that we have carrier-specific hardware in the USA, not just software. Many manufacturers offer generic models for sale in Canada and the Caribbean that cover most, if not all, of the bands allocated in North America. As example, both the Samsung GS9 G960U and G960W support every LTE band used by major carriers, including the new bands 66 and 71 and the rarely used hi bands 30, 41, and 46. There are even a few that support both GSM and CDMA. So it isn't as if the technology isn't available.

    Biggest downside I've seen to using those universal unlocked phones is that carriers refuse to support VoWifi on them.

  18. Not AT&T's first rodeo by broohaha · · Score: 1

    They did this with 4G. Here's a quote from an article from 2012:

    The emptiness of 4G was highlighted last week, when people who installed the latest iPhone 4S operating system upgrade noticed something that seemed too good to be true: The network indicator on their phones began displaying “4G” rather than “3G.” This change occurred only for people who use AT&T’s cellular service; Verizon iPhone users who installed the upgrade still saw the 3G indicator. Some people took the change to mean that their phones had gotten faster wireless Internet access, but that wasn’t true—the OS upgrade did nothing to change how your phone communicates with cell towers. All that changed was AT&T’s marketing. Early last year, essentially overnight, AT&T began rebranding its 3G network as a 4G network. So now that tired old 3G phone is fresh again—lucky you, you’ve got 4G!

  19. Re:we need more non carrier roms by starblazer · · Score: 1

    the only carrier i've seen to universally blacklist VoWifi is AT&T and company. (Cricket, etc). I've used unlocked phones on T-mo VoWifi/VoLTE and I've heard it works on VZW too

  20. Verizon won't use 5G logo... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    they will be leap-frogging to a 7G logo instead

  21. lurking evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beware the 5g coming to interfer on our free-2-broadcast 2.4 and 5 Ghz wifi spectrum.

  22. Re:we need more non carrier roms by toejam13 · · Score: 1

    Removing the carrier SIM lock [usually] doesn't revoke the ability to make Wifi calls. The encryption keys are still in the carrier-specific firmware and they still work. It is when you have a firmware that lacks those keys that you run into problems, which is usually the case with those carrier agnostic/universal handset models. You'd encounter the same issue if you replaced the stock firmware with a Lineage image or replaced it with a compatible firmware for another carrier.

  23. A suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon should change their network so that phones connected to their 4G or LTE network in the top line read âoe4G, JUST LIKE AT&Tâ(TM)s, DESPITE THEIR ASSERTIONS OF 5G CONNECTIVITY.â

    It might take up a lot more space, though.

  24. Sure it does by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    5G has a minimum speed specification which this doesn't meet.

    1. Re:Sure it does by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      4G also had a minimum speed and even when I am stuck downloading at 10 Mbps they still call that network 4G

    2. Re:Sure it does by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Also 5G doesn't have a specification from what I understand. ITU IMT-2020 does. People confuse 5G, 5G NR and IMT-2020. They are three different things, with 5G being vague.
      My prediction is that any 5G NR network will be called 5G even though it doesn't meet the IMT-2020 20 Gbps minimum speed criteria.
      More specifically, any sub 6 GHz 5G NR network is going to have speeds very similar to LTE-A and will still be called 5G.

    3. Re:Sure it does by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Your download speed and the actual capabilities of your modem and tower under ideal conditions are not the same thing.

      Also isn't 5G effectively IMT-2020 by definition and the whole idea of achieving the same speeds outside of the frequency range defined in IMT-2020 is the reason why 5G-NR has it's own name?

      5G-NR may not have the same speed but it does share common capabilities with 5G (IMT-2020) as far as I understand it anyway. The same cannot be said for LTE-A Pro

    4. Re:Sure it does by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Your download speed and the actual capabilities of your modem and tower under ideal conditions are not the same thing.

      LTE doesn't meet the original 4G criteria, LTE-A does. LTE is still universally considered 4G. This has nothing to do with less than optimal conditions.

      Also isn't 5G effectively IMT-2020 by definition and the whole idea of achieving the same speeds outside of the frequency range defined in IMT-2020 is the reason why 5G-NR has it's own name?

      Nope. 5G-NR is the technology/implementation. It's the successor to LTE.
      There could have been various 5G competing technologies but it turns out only one will succeed. Unlike 4G which had Wimax and LTE and 3G which had CDMA2000 and UMTS. 4G was also vague and in the end even included

      5G-NR may not have the same speed but it does share common capabilities with 5G (IMT-2020) as far as I understand it anyway. The same cannot be said for LTE-A Pro

      Yes the same can be said for LTE-A. 5G-NR under 6 GHz will have no major benefit over LTE-A. Despite being different technologies, the actual speed will be similar. Therefore, 5G-NR should be classifed as a 4G technology in this case, to be consistent.

  25. Unlimited! 5G Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After the first megabyte traffic will be delivered at 600Kbps and charged at $20/MB.

    Yay?

  26. Obligatory Dilbert by poobah75 · · Score: 1

    Story reminded me of this one. https://dilbert.com/strip/2004...

  27. Not the same thing by devnullkac · · Score: 1

    Not that actual logic is likely to make a difference, but... From the summary:

    Malady says Verizon will "not call our 4G network a 5G network if customers don't experience a performance or capability upgrade that only 5G can deliver." But that isn't the same thing as saying "we won't label our network 5G unless it's 5G." In fact, if you turn that sentence into a positive statement, it says "we will only call our 4G network a 5G network if it delivers a 5G-like experience."

    No, that positive statement is not the same thing. If you say you won't use the 5G label unless you're providing a capability that only 5G can deliver, then an upgraded 4G network (that's still 4G) can't qualify by providing a 5G-like experience: if 4G can provide it, then it's not something that only 5G can deliver.

    --
    What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
    1. Re:Not the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people getting hung up on the label of 3g-4g-5g. A very small fraction of people have any idea what the difference is in the actual network. It doesn't really matter. If you call it 7g and it gets 15mbps speeds then what should it be called? Seems like a bandwidth/latency ratings would be more effective and actually useful. Like you are currently connected to a 15mbps tower or a 200mbps tower. I would love if my phone showed MaxBandwidth/Latency instead of a pointless 4g with a few bars. A 17mbps/30ms would mean a lot more and is easier to understand. Arbitrary labeling of technology used for marketing ploys should be ignored.

  28. They are going to launch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6G instead.