AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads - Apparently Verizon hit a sore spot....
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads
Apparently Verizon hit a sore spot....
06:16PM Tuesday Nov 03 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · competition · business · wireless
Tipped by Mattie_B
A few weeks ago Verizon started throwing punches at AT&T in the form of a series of new ads that took direct aim at AT&T's recent network issues and poor 3G coverage (see this ad, for example). AT&T apparently isn't amused, and dropped us a line to note that they're suing Verizon for the ads. According to the suit, Verizon's using "misleading" coverage maps which could result in AT&T suffering an "incalculable" loss in market share. "The Verizon ads mislead customers into believing that AT&T does not offer any wireless service in the vast majority of the country, which is of course not true," spokesman Seth Bloom tells us. "In our view, Verizon launched the campaign as a response to AT&T’s leadership in smartphones," he says, adding that AT&T has twice the number of smartphone customers as Verizon. AT&T's argument seems a little tenuous, given the maps Verizon's using are clearly labeled "3G coverage," and do generally reflect AT&T's deployment of HSDPA service. On the other hand, users who don't do their research or understand what 3G even is -- might not know that AT&T offers clunkier EDGE service outside of the highlighted areas, or that their broadband-enabled devices will work there. AT&T has provided us with a copy of their complaint (pdf), their motion for a temporary restraining order (pdf), and TRO supporting documents (pdf) for those who are interested. "The full measure of damages that AT&T will continue to suffer from the publication of Verizon's misleading claims is difficult if not impossible to calculate," laments the filing. "No amount of corrective advertising would undo the damage." We sent a follow up inquiry to AT&T asking if they'd be ok with Verizon running the same ads, but differentiating between HSDPA and EDGE connectivity (say, in a lovely shade of teal) -- but have yet to hear back. It seems likely that AT&T's simply interested in stopping the ads so they don't dent the billions in AT&T's fourth quarter earnings too badly. Verizon of course is gearing up to launch the Android-based Motorola Droid on Friday.
Related:- Pennsylvania Plays Stimulus Keep Away
- Gimped Skype release, AT&T TOS Changes Annoy Advocates
- Clearwire Sued Over ETFs, Poor Service
- Sprint To Sell Portions Of iDen Network
- FCC Votes To Investigate Wireless Industry
- Wireless Carriers Oppose Neutrality Rules
- Telus Sues Rogers Over Ad Claims
- Sprint's Wireless Network Apparently Not 'Most Dependable'
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2 · 3
hayabusa3303 @ 3rd Nov 05:01PM:
Truth hurts?
:D
reply
Vertickle @ 3rd Nov 05:02PM:
Agreed...
The map clearly states 3G coverage... :huh:
reply
Rob @ 3rd Nov 05:03PM:
I think..
Verizon has a larger 3G network covering a larger amount of the United States.
reply
fancydancer @ 3rd Nov 05:06PM:
Save your time and resources
by not suing Verizon and build out your 3G network! Sheesh!
reply
Vertickle @ 3rd Nov 05:06PM:
Re: I think..
said by Rob :
Verizon has a larger 3G network covering a larger amount of the United States.
Yeah, I think that's been covered already. ;)
reply
Vertickle @ 3rd Nov 05:08PM:
Re: Save your time and resources
said by fancydancer :
by not suing Verizon and build out your 3G network! Sheesh!
There you go bringing logic into the discussion... :p
reply
gdm @ 3rd Nov 05:10PM:
Not truly 3g
I thought the map Verizon is showing shows there voice network not the 3G network. I know areas they show on that map as 3G aren't. Honestly VZ's site is a bit confusing with all the variations of data services. It should just show 3G period not so many variations.
reply
Jim Gurd @ 3rd Nov 05:10PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
I don't think AT&T has a leg to stand on, especially if Verizon got that map from AT&T's website.
reply
JSRoman @ 3rd Nov 05:11PM:
Too bad this will get settled
I would love to see ATT argue this in a trial but chances are it doesn't get that far.
Big Red must have hit an artery or something.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil
reply
MTU @ 3rd Nov 05:14PM:
Too Much Cash
Obviously AT&T has way too much extra cash laying around to waste same in this idiotic lawsuit.
reply
sapo @ 3rd Nov 05:16PM:
Re: NOt truly 3g
Your red map and the 3G red map in the ad are not the same. Your map has more coverage.
--
DO DO
reply
TKJunkMail @ 3rd Nov 05:17PM:
Re: I think..
Here is a Verizon map that compares against Sprint & T-Mobile as well as AT&T:
»vzwmap.verizonwireless.com/dotco···ison.pdf
reply
swintec @ 3rd Nov 05:18PM:
Seems pretty clear cut to me...
The maps and ads clearly say 3G coverage. Is AT&T trying to say there map is not showing all of there 3G coverage or what? In fact, when i saw this commercial, I was quite surprised how LITTLE 3G coverage AT&T actually has....Everyone likes to down Sprints coverage, but by the looks of that, Sprint even has them beat..heck, there 4G is on there way to having them beat! :D
--
Block Accounts | UseNet Now
reply
Rob @ 3rd Nov 05:20PM:
Re: I think..
That's accurate. Clearly VZW beats AT&T, which would explain AT&T's lawsuit. If it wasn't true, AT&T would fire back with research, data, commercials, etc.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
reply
Belinrahs @ 3rd Nov 05:22PM:
Truth hurts, doesn't it AT&T
I looked at AT&T's 3G coverage map and compared it with Verizon's representation of AT&T, and looked at Verizon's 3G coverage map (on their website) compared to the one in the ad. Both cases, they look pretty accurate. If the court looks at it the same way I did, Verizon has nothing to worry about with this case. Verizon has SOME SORT of coverage in all 50 states (regardless of how small) and AT&T hasn't got any of their own 3G coverage in both of the Dakota's, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska.
Perhaps this will be a wakeup call for AT&T to get moving on the 3G buildout? And it just shows how incredibly bad of a decision Apple made in choosing AT&T to offer their iPhone with.
--
Sprint MBB thru Millenicom Unlimited service - Franklin CDU-680 (with 32" omni) connected to a CTR-350; Linksys WRT160N running DD-WRT in repeater mode one room away from the Cradlepoint, to cover the house with 4 bars of N WiFi.
reply
funchords @ 3rd Nov 05:26PM:
Go, Verizon, Go!
What are they suing for, "definition of character?"
It's about time that Verizon grew a pair and rightfully started challenging its brethren.
Great job, VZ(W)!
reply
Steve B @ 3rd Nov 05:27PM:
To AT&T.....
Cry me a f'in river, build a bridge and get the f over it.
reply
Camelot One @ 3rd Nov 05:31PM:
Re: Seems pretty clear cut to me...
said by swintec :
The maps and ads clearly say 3G coverage. Is AT&T trying to say there map is not showing all of there 3G coverage or what?
According to the filing, AT&T is saying that their customers and potential customers are too stupid to read the "3G Coverage" on each map, and would instead think the maps compare wireless coverage.
If I was Verizon, I would run an ad clarifying that.
"AT&T has recently filed a lawsuit against us claiming you are too stupid to read these giant '3G Coverage' lines on the map in our commercial. We assumed you weren't so stupid, but to appease AT&T, here are those maps again." - with "3G Coverage Map" flashing in neon colors.
reply
NGOwner @ 3rd Nov 05:35PM:
Re: Seems pretty clear cut to me...
said by Camelot One :
If I was Verizon, I would run an ad clarifying that.
"AT&T has recently filed a lawsuit against us claiming you are too stupid to read these giant '3G Coverage' lines on the map in our commercial. We assumed you weren't so stupid, but to appease AT&T, here are those maps again." - with "3G Coverage Map" flashing in neon colors.
Brilliant!
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots.
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 05:38PM:
coverage
who cares about coverage if its in your area it doesn't matter then
reply
Rob @ 3rd Nov 05:38PM:
Re: To AT&T.....
said by Steve B :
Cry me a f'in river, build a bridge and get the f over it.
I'd rather they build more 3G markets than a bridge :D
reply
gworkman7 @ 3rd Nov 05:39PM:
AZ Maps...sad but true
Funny that when I travel to the southern end of my state and visit in Nogales, AZ, I get a strong 3G signal...from Mexico.
It amazes me that AT&T has lacked any aggressive plans to build out their 3G network.
I, too, hope that Verizon creates an ad slamming AT&T for this frivolous lawsuit.
reply
geo37027 @ 3rd Nov 05:44PM:
twice as many smartphones :/
"spokesman Seth Bloom tells us. "In our view, Verizon launched the campaign as a response to AT&T’s leadership in smartphones," he says, adding that AT&T has twice the number of smartphone customers as Verizon."
what has that got to do with anything? gimme a break...
at&t really does think we are stupid. they are probably right, but that's not Verizon's fault.
of course, what really matters is, how stupid will the judge be?
reply
Murdoc @ 3rd Nov 05:45PM:
Just sue each other out of existence
Just no honor among crooks!
reply
en102 @ 3rd Nov 05:48PM:
Re: Too bad this will get settled
I'm sure they did... AT&T doesn't like the truth (or a resemblance of it).
The '5x' may be '5x by coverage area and not population', or 'it may be 4.9x and not 5x'. Something for lawyers to haggle over.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
jester121 @ 3rd Nov 05:49PM:
Re: Seems pretty clear cut to me...
I'd throw in a cheap shot directed at the iPhone users too, just because. :)
reply
ib50MbSoon @ 3rd Nov 05:52PM:
Redline Telephone & Telegraph strikes again
I think they dug their own grave.
According to Verizon's map, it appears like T cherry-picked the areas where they wanted to deploy 3G. As a result of their own frugal actions, they now have a smaller coverage area than Verizon.
They only have themselves to blame.
reply
partysource @ 3rd Nov 05:55PM:
We can thank the Alltel Puchase!
With the Alltel purchase this really boosted Verizons coverage in rural areas. Sorry AT&T you lost this one!
reply
joako @ 3rd Nov 06:09PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
I believe your "enhanced" Map is 1xRTT what you should be looking at is "Broadband and VCast" VCast is Verizon's video service and can only be used in native EVDO service areas.
The reason they don't just show "3G period" is because it would make sense and be truthful -- their 3G network is smaller than what they want you to think.
--
PRescott7-2097
reply
Matt @ 3rd Nov 06:14PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by joako :
I believe your "enhanced" Map is 1xRTT what you should be looking at is "Broadband and VCast" VCast is Verizon's video service and can only be used in native EVDO service areas.
The reason they don't just show "3G period" is because it would make sense and be truthful -- their 3G network is smaller than what they want you to think.
It still destroys AT&T's.
reply
tuminatr @ 3rd Nov 06:17PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
umm thanks for not reading the web site just click broadband on the web site
reply
KrK @ 3rd Nov 06:22PM:
Re: To AT&T.....
said by Steve B :
Cry me a f'in river, build a bridge and get the f over it.
LOL @ that one.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
joako @ 3rd Nov 06:30PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by Matt :said by joako :
I believe your "enhanced" Map is 1xRTT what you should be looking at is "Broadband and VCast" VCast is Verizon's video service and can only be used in native EVDO service areas.
The reason they don't just show "3G period" is because it would make sense and be truthful -- their 3G network is smaller than what they want you to think.
It still destroys AT&T's.
I agree.
UMTS still destroys (is superior to) EVDO.
--
PRescott7-2097
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 06:33PM:
eh
I think it's suing for deformation of character
At&t coverage is larger then that but their faster HSPA coverage is exactly that small. But What one doesn't realize is that At&t has more 3g users in those area's and their network is a ways faster then Verizon. It's a bit misleading on Verizon part as people think all 3G is equal when they are not.
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 06:34PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
EGG-ZACKLY!
I hope Verizon wis big on this one.
Buncha whiners.
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 06:36PM:
Re: I think..
Verizon should do outdoor ads with that poster or something. It's all the modern-day customer needs to know: "Here's why our plans are the most expensive."
Plus, Sprint doesn't look half bad in that map, what with Simply Everything weighing in at MUCH less than Verizon charges for a similar smartphone plan.
reply
KrK @ 3rd Nov 06:39PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
"AT&T's 3G Coverage is just a big fat Global scam."
Oh! We're gonna SUE you!
"What?"
Yeah you think you can say our 3G coverage is a lie! We'll sue you buddy!
"You told me it was a lie!"
Oh now you're putting words in my mouth! You are SO sued!
You can't make fun of AT&T 3G Coverage kid, we're gonna sue your ass and your balls!
YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT!
How dare you mock our 3G Coverage you little punk! You'll be hearing from our lawyers TOMMORROW!
:D
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 06:42PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
Explain how 3.6 Mbps in 5MHz is better than 3.1 Mbps in 1.25 MHz, when the other 3.75 MHz can be used for voice on ANY phone, not just newer 3G-capable phones.
HSPA+ 21 Mbps, sure. 3.6 Mbps HSPA, which AT&T is STILL launching in new markets (not 7.2 Mbps)? Nope.
Don't go whining about AT&T's being hobbled by choosing GSM and having to fit in two incompatible network technologies using existing 850/1900 spectrum either. WCDMA was on the horizon when then-Cingular switched to GSM from TDMA.Plus, again, AT&T could upgrade its towers to HSPA+ 21 and start competing on 4G coverage instead of 3G*.
*Yes, I know HSPA+ isn't 4G technically. However amrketing-wise it is at this point, since its speeds are similar enough to WiMAX's.
reply
Matt @ 3rd Nov 06:44PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by joako :
I agree.
UMTS still destroys (is superior to) EVDO.
Not in the US.
reply
en102 @ 3rd Nov 06:46PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
Very true.
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 06:51PM:
Re: Too bad this will get settled
Of course it's 5x by area, just like Alltel's old wireless commercials trumpeting their wireless superiority. Which is perfectly fine; I don't know of a single area that Verizon doesn't have covered that AT&T does for 3G, aside from maybe a pocket or two in former Dobson CellOne territory where the former operator actually cared about covering semi-rural areas.
Of course, it would REALLY be sucky if Verizon covered 5x as many PEOPLE with 3G as AT&T. That would mean that AT&T covered les than 60 million folks.
Of course, lawyers might bring the above up but Verizon was comparing maps, not population density graphs. I have an AT&T data card right now because I got it when the $20-for-unlimited GoPhone loophole was still open, and because AT&T's network in my hometown isn't yet saturated because they just launched it at the beginning of October. However the minute I see my speeds drop much below 2 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up the AT&T service will be cancelled. Nice thing about my relationship with AT&T is it's month-to-month, thanks to my buying my own aircard a year and a half ago.
At that point, Ill be back to using mobile broadband that only has a T1 to the nearest tower, but by then hopefully Clear will expand up from San Antonio or Verizon will bring DSL out to me.
reply
pnh102 @ 3rd Nov 06:52PM:
Fix It
I hope Verizon countersues and wins big. The maps are accurate and so are the ads.
If AT&T doesn't like the fact that Verizon has more 3G coverage than AT&T, then AT&T should get off its rear end and expand 3G coverage.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
reply
QLR @ 3rd Nov 06:54PM:
slow mo AT&T
I find it quite funny that AT&T is launching 3G coverage in areas where Verizon, Alltel, & Sprint had 3G for years. For instance, T did a press release regarding their expanded 3G foot print in central/south Georgia. Verizon has had 3G in central GA for almost 2 years (at least)... before they bought Alltel, Verizon built out PCS service in GA and launched 3G on it last year!!!! The way T is moving, Sprint's 4G coverage will be equal to T's 3G.... sheesh!!!!
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 06:54PM:
Re: Seems pretty clear cut to me...
+5 Awesome. If Verizon ran that ad and put it on Twitter I'd definitely retweet, Facebook post, etc. Fortunately there aren't any blatant AT&Tools in my life, but still...
reply
en102 @ 3rd Nov 06:54PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
This comes down to a Beta vs VHS.
Marketing (globally) GSM/UMTS/HSPA... has CDMA1x/EVDO outnumbered 10:1 and growing.
I suspect that AT&T doesn't want to invest any more into HSPA beyond 7.2 Mbps... because they don't have that many laptop users. I don't see many (any?) 21Mbps cellphones/PDAs.
I don't believe that 3.6Mbps in 5MHz is better than 3.1Mbps in 1.25MHz. UMTS/HSPA is good... just not a good fit for any spectrum limited countries/companies (AT&T) that attempt to recycle spectrum... that's AT&T's choice, and they have to live with it. At some point, VZW will migrate to LTE, and so will Sprint (most likely).
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 07:00PM:
Re: coverage
That's the concept behind many local carriers, plus MetroPCS and CricKet. However my Florida relatives on MetroPCS have to roam in my area of Texas (albeit cheaply/for free) and CricKet coverage sucks back home and their network is overloaded here (Denver).
If I wasn't hopping between central TX and Denver (and stuck around Central TX) I'd probably have a Millenicom-powered Sprint aircard and would convince the family to sign up for a local carrier that has $10-per-month unlimited add-a-line service on free BlackBerry Curves (the new ones that look like the Bold) and awesome coverage. Of course, I'd use my original iPhone on that network and use WiFi whenever possible because that local carrier's data network was atrocious last I checked, but you get the idea.
If you're in an area with four or five 3G providers (AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, CricKet or US Cellular) then good for you. However God help you if you want to use your phone at high speed elsewhere and have TMo, CricKet or AT&T.
reply
en102 @ 3rd Nov 07:03PM:
Re: Too bad this will get settled
Clear might be out in this area in a few years... I don't expect any miracles though.
I'll stick to having my corp paid Sprint Treo 800w and tether, when Sprint is down, I use my AT&T HTC tilt.
Rev A Treo vs Tilt 3.6Mbps, essentially no difference here.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
Mike_ @ 3rd Nov 07:03PM:
Verizon - Nervous & Arrogant
The fact that Verizon has to make fun of another carrier (albeit at&t - 24/7) just shows how adolescent and arrogant Verizon is. No other company goes around talking shit about other companies as much as Verizon. They've got to be nervous about their current smartphone subscriber base and/or phone lineup along with their losses to at&t to the iPhone. Their new commercials are proving it.
Yeah - at&t's 3g is lacking, but its along almost every major highway and covers every major city that I know of, and that's really where it counts. FWIW, I have Sprint and at&t. The 5mhz per channel HSPA utilizies is for Data AND Voice - hence its simultaneous ability and is much more efficient as it does not have to switch between old voice/text channels like cdma does. Ev-DO is DATA Only (Hence DO in Ev-DO) which is why its ~1mhz per channel
Nuff said.
--
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you know what you're doing.
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 07:03PM:
Re: We can thank the Alltel Puchase!
Yep. AT&T even got some of Alltel's rural bits, but Alltel was a CDMA-primary company and thus didn't deploy HSPA on any of their network. So while Verizon got a VERY solid (albeit Rev. 0 in many areas, though that's easily fixed) network with tons of 3G, AT&T got a smidgen of GSM here and there.
Timeto start doing a 3G buildout, boys. Here's hoping the judge saves VZW some money and throws out the case. That was Verizon can add some backhauls to their towers around here, many of which seem to only be connected via a T1. Better than EDGE though...
reply
Matt @ 3rd Nov 07:06PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by en102 :
At some point, VZW will migrate to LTE, and so will Sprint (most likely).
I can't wait for Verizon and AT&T to both migrate to LTE. As long as we're able to take handsets to either carrier the US market will be much more robust.
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 07:08PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
I agree on the global perspective. However CDMA was "good at the time" and thus has most of the US covered. The other nice thing about CDMA/EvDO is you can deploy a nice network spectrum-wise in 10MHz. AT&T can't do that because it's WCDMA (wideband CDMA).
Not to say that wideband is bad, even in the US. I hear T-Mobile has plenty of spectrum in the 1700MHz band, and Clear has TONS in 2500MHz. They're both going to use wider-band techs for those frequencies.
Of course the problem comes when Verizon and AT&T try to deploy LTE into 700MHz. Yes it's new spectrum, and yes the performance will be great. However VZ and AT&T had better market LTE to mobile use only because if I remember correctly they get 22MHz of 700MHz spectrum, so after one wideband LTE carrier they're done. Granted, so is anyone who deploys anything in 700MHz, so the band will be used for rural operations like wireless DSL-equivalent services, but you get my drift :/
reply
iansltx @ 3rd Nov 07:09PM:
Re: Too bad this will get settled
Cool. AT&T's network seems to be MUCH more variable by area; folks in FL seem to be fine, and elsewhere the network is an epic fail. Like in Denver up until a few days ago for example.
reply
kustomjs @ 3rd Nov 07:18PM:
Verizon still Su**s Anyways with coverage.
I am going have to agree with Mike_ here on his first part of his message but clearly verizon still got crappy coverage but yet they still continue to slam other cell phone company's about there coverage. News to you verizon your going to lose this lawsuit and I hope you get fined big for doing this.
reply
r81984 @ 3rd Nov 07:22PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
GSM sill has more coverage than CDMA.
ATT with GSM roaming wins for voice all over the US.
I think ATT is going to lose this lawsuit. American's are stupid and ignore the facts, so most Americans do not know what 3g is and that ATT has more coverage than the 3g map shows. ATT would have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against the stupid people in America for misintepreting a coverage map then suing Verizon for taking advantage of their stupidity.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 07:23PM:
My experience mirrors the add
I am a customer of both. The add is largely accurate. AT&T's 3 G is non-existent in most of my state (I have a BB Bold). Verizon's EVDO on the other hand is pretty much ubiquitous. Often AT&T shows 3G (where it exists) until you try to use it, then it falls back to edge. I can live with that on my BB, but not my laptop, hence VZ EVDO via built in GOBI modem on the laptop which just simply works.
reply
Niarlan @ 3rd Nov 07:30PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
VZ should come out fine on this...they hired an independent contractor to map both companies coverage. Since T didn't have a good public map...lol...guess they do now and don't like it
oh my
Nia
reply
cameronsfx @ 3rd Nov 07:35PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
Court Hearing
Judge Judy Presiding
"I've read your complaint, AT&T and don't understand it. You....I'M SPEAKING! WHEN I TALK, ZIP IT! GOT IT? You say their ads are false, right?"
"Yes." (T)
"How are they false since the map they are using came from your website?"
"Well, in the other areas we have the EDGE network."
"Is that 3G?"
"No, it is called EDGE but most call it 3G."
"I assume the call quality and Internet speads are the same then, right?"
"That is a technical question. 3G is the main network..."
"So, the EDGE network is the old network, right?"
"Yes, so to speak."
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'SO TO SPEAK'?"
"The speeds are not always the same."
"I read they are quite different. Burt tells me the iPhone doesn't work as well in EDGE areas as they do in 3G."
"That's Burt's opinion."
"HE VIDEOD IT. FAST IN 3G AND SLOW IN EDGE. YOU THINK BURT IS LYING?"
"No, Ma'am."
"So, then, you must agree the ads are correct..."
"NO!"
"I'M SPEAKING!"
"Sorry, Your Honor."
"The ads are correct then. I've seen ads for stuff on informercials that are a load of crap so how is Verizon's ads incorrect? THEY HAVE YOUR MAP!"
"You Honor, we'd like to move to another venue."
"Sorry, YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT TO SETTLE THIS DISPUTE AND THE RULING HERE IS FINAL. GOT IT? DENIED!"
"Verizon, did you have any intent on lying in these ads?"
"No, we used AT&T's own maps."
"Got it. Seems responsible to me..."
"It doesn't to us."
"I DON'T CARE. I DECIDE THE ISSUES. DID YOUR MOMMA EVER TELL YOU TO BE QUIET WHEN ANOTHER PERSON IS SPEAKING? DID LAW SCHOOL TELL YOU TO SHUT UP WHEN THE JUDGE IS TALKING? I BET!"
"Yes, sorry."
"Well, since I think this lawsuit is POPPYCOCK AND UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, I'M DISMISSING YOUR COMPLAINT. Dismiss the complaint and no injunction. Follow me here, counselor?"
"Yes, Your Honor."
"Now, if you have total 3G coverage, WHICH YOU DON'T, you can then sue them. On their counterclaim, I am going to award them the $58,000 in legal fees..."
"You Honor?"
'YES, I DID. $58,000 FOR THE DEFENDANT AND YOUR COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. GET A BETTER NETWORK! Step out."
On the next Judge Judy, President Obama is being sued over his citizenship. Don't miss it!
reply
Sahrin @ 3rd Nov 07:41PM:
Technical Questions...
IANA Network Engineer...
According to the Wikipedia Article (*gasp*) EDGE is 3G (though some parts identify it as 2.75G). The source cited is the ITU. It *sounds like* putting something in a "G" is simply a marketing standard (marchitecture, to quote the old Inq term) created by the ITU for a generational technology.
So there are a couple of legitimate questions for Verizon's ad department:
1) My understanding is Verizon's EVDO deployment is mixed (some areas use Rev0...some use RevB). Rev0 starts out at 147kbps - which is *far* slower than the peak data rate for EDGE (despite the fact that EDGE is sometimes quoted as 2.75G). Is this true? (Is Verizon's deployment mixed levels of EVDO, or does the network have a capability for mixed modes based on other factors (load, QoS...etc).
2) Based on Wikipedia's information, HSDPA is technically superior to EV-DO (even RevB, the highest standard for EV-DO). This is based on comparing peak data rates for each technology (4Mbps for EV-DO, 21Mbps for HSDPA). Is HSDPA superior to EVDO?
2a) If HSDPA is superior/more recent that EVDO, why is the community pissing all over AT&T for rolling it out? FiOS is regional and yet there is no rancor for Verizon's selective deployment.
3) Assuming EVDO is characterized as 3G by ITU, and ITU is the arbiter of such things, isn't Verizon's map clearly intended to deceive consumers? Even with the disclaimer of HSDPA, it sounds like Verizon is simply trying to confuse people with the technical aspects. If Verizon were truly trying to represent their network, wouldn't they compare their fastest tech (EVDO revB) to AT&T's?
As I said up top, I am not a network/radio engineer, but my very limited understanding of the technologies involved left me with those questions.
reply
Matt @ 3rd Nov 07:48PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by r81984 :
GSM sill has more coverage than CDMA.
ATT with GSM roaming wins for voice all over the US.
That is just silly. At best they are tied and at worst Verizon (alone) has much better coverage.
reply
Rob @ 3rd Nov 07:53PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
Don't waste your time Matt. He believes that GSM has more coverage in the U.S. than CDMA.
reply
Harddrive @ 3rd Nov 07:53PM:
Hey AT&T
there's an app for that...
»www.thelawpod.com/
reply
r81984 @ 3rd Nov 08:00PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
Because I have been all over the US and I know it does. My girlfriend had Verizon. It was easy to compare.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.
reply
Unreasonable @ 3rd Nov 08:03PM:
Re: Technical Questions...
The problem is that both companies, and their respective fanbois, are fulla crap.
Yes, the ad is somewhat misleading, as most advertising is intended to be.
Whether it rises to being actionable is for the lawyers to work out.
IANAL, but I'd say there is at least enough merit to avoid the suit being deemed frivolous.
Verizon has a history of having their advertising claims smacked down.
The Nation's Largest, Most Advanced....
They aren't allowed to claim either anymore.
It really doesn't make a fig of difference which backbone is superior, or which cpe technology is more uber.
What matters is what happens when Joe Subscriber clicks a link.
In my location, using VZW, I generally get slower, more reliable connections.
With ATT, I get a faster connection, but sometimes nothing actually gets past the tower due to congestion.
Coverage maps mean exactly dick when your phone is "well covered" but there is No Room At The Inn for your call/connection.
reply
geonap @ 3rd Nov 08:09PM:
DIE ATT
i swear, ATT needs to collapse, every single branch of it, earlier i tried finding the sales phone number to u-verse because there's been a box outside the building for 6 months and the techs were done over 3 months ago, still can't get service (need back up to cable, even though cable blows, anyway)
i'm tired of hearing people call in and say 'representative'.. im TIRED
i'm tired of other people dropping calls when they're talking to me and they're on ATT, im tired of their bullshit LIES.
companies like ATT should not have the ability to do anything in court or in D.C. as far as lobbying until they've stepped up their game on trying to better their INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS AMERICA.
VERIZON has lame, pathetic choices of phones but at least their service works 3 feet from a door where as ATT and TMOBILE dont in some places that my verizon works. i dont care if it's perfect for anyone else, the point is if you truly believe att is better than verizon or even sprint, you've got serious issues, your phone probably sucked.
att needs to stop wasting everyone's times, i dont understand why people dont speak with their pocket books and leave, is the society that content with dropped calls and pos networks that they'll keep it just for an iphone?
i will be the first person to leave verizon (just kidding) if ATT's network could do what it's supposed to do
reply
amungus @ 3rd Nov 08:15PM:
Re: We can thank the Alltel Puchase!
Indeed. Amazed that they offer 3G where I am (used to be Alltel...). Suddenly the turf has been "assimilated." Sprint offers decent data service here too, though I've seen (3G/)4G cards in the store for months now... would be cool to see that here!
...EDGE is the best AT&T and T-Mobile have here...
......My carrier, U.S. Cellular... no 3G here :(
At least it looks like they're trying to cover the same area as analog used to. I recall an old AT&T car-phone (analog) that worked in all sorts of places. Either way, CDMA is just more prevalent here it seems... As some have pointed out, even Sprint has some mojo these days when it comes to areas actually covered, and covered well.
...Just a bit of history here...
From:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_M···e_System
Alltel — In 2005 disclosed that only 15% of their total customer base are still using the existing analog network. The company has posted a three phase turn down schedule, which was completed in September 2008. With the recent acquisition of Western Wireless, Alltel now takes the claim of the "largest network in America." The claim was true, oddly enough because of wide analog coverage in rural areas. All Alltel AMPS and D-AMPS service was discontinued in September 2008
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 08:29PM:
Why not Arbitrate?
Since AT & T Likes to settle their customer disputes by using arbitration - why don't they skip the courtroom altogether and go directly to arbitration? They seem to think that it's the best way to settle disputes and tried to cram it down their customers throats...
reply
nnaarrnn @ 3rd Nov 08:29PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by r81984 :
GSM sill has more coverage than CDMA.
ATT with GSM roaming wins for voice all over the US.
I think ATT is going to lose this lawsuit. American's are stupid and ignore the facts, so most Americans do not know what 3g is and that ATT has more coverage than the 3g map shows. ATT would have a better chance of winning a lawsuit against the stupid people in America for misintepreting a coverage map then suing Verizon for taking advantage of their stupidity.
You're out of your mind if you think there's more GSM coverage nationwide than CDMA.
reply
en102 @ 3rd Nov 08:32PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
I agree on the spectrum... LTE is 'currently' slated for 700MHz spectrum, but as typical nature has it, I'm sure that carriers will 'reband', especially AT&T (once again), as they technology hop. AT&T has some .. 700, 850, 1700, 1900 spectrum in most markets vs. Clear's ~100MHz of spectrum in the 2500MHz band. GSM will be (most likely) whittled down to a single 10MHz carrier channel on 1900MHz to have everyone get off of it (analog style).
The question remains... can Clear 'sell' enough services to get some real use out of its spectrum vs. Does AT&T/VZW/T-Mobile have enough spectrum to deploy anything useful.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
bigfitch @ 3rd Nov 08:39PM:
Easy Responce
PWNED!!!!!!
reply
r81984 @ 3rd Nov 08:45PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
»www.coveragemaps.com/gsmposter_americas.htm
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 08:59PM:
AT&T has more 3G than Verizon
deleted
reply
MRCUR @ 3rd Nov 09:03PM:
Re: I think..
WOW. That right there is an ad in and of itself. VZ should really just show that (as the comment above says). Sprint doesn't look half bad. Poor T-Mo looks horrible there.
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 09:04PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
AT&T has lighting fast broadband covering 100% of the United States. Beat that Verizon!!
»www.attwb.net/
reply
MRCUR @ 3rd Nov 09:10PM:
Re: Seems pretty clear cut to me...
You have an great point. AT&T is clearly grasping at straws to get a lawsuit out of this. VZW has *already* edited the ads at AT&T's request. They removed a line from the ad ("out of touch", trying to clarify that voice calls aren't affected by this) and added a disclaimer saying that voice & data service is still available outside of 3G areas.
reply
slckusr @ 3rd Nov 09:11PM:
come on now ATT
Did the facts hurt so bad ?!?!
this lawsuit is LOL
reply
nnaarrnn @ 3rd Nov 09:17PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
sending me to a GSM web page to see GSM maps is like sending me to St. Louis to see Budweiser ads. Of course the GSM web page is going to show major coverage.
reply
Eat Me @ 3rd Nov 09:18PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by joako :said by Matt :said by joako :
I believe your "enhanced" Map is 1xRTT what you should be looking at is "Broadband and VCast" VCast is Verizon's video service and can only be used in native EVDO service areas.
The reason they don't just show "3G period" is because it would make sense and be truthful -- their 3G network is smaller than what they want you to think.
It still destroys AT&T's.
I agree.
UMTS still destroys (is superior to) EVDO.
UMTS is useless if it's only available in a few areas.
By your logic my home wifi router is better than AT&T.
reply
Eat Me @ 3rd Nov 09:20PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by r81984 :
Because I have been all over the US and I know it does. My girlfriend had Verizon. It was easy to compare.
I carry a phone from AT&T and one from Verizon, as well as an EVDO card from Verizon.
Verizon's coverage has been consistently better everywhere I go, from Vegas to Florida to NYC.
reply
Eat Me @ 3rd Nov 09:20PM:
Re: Too Much Cash
said by MTU :
Obviously AT&T has way too much extra cash laying around to waste same in this idiotic lawsuit.
Exactly... instead of wasting money on lawyers why not just fix the network?
reply
RolteC @ 3rd Nov 09:21PM:
AT&T = LOL , Verizon FTW!
In court:
AT&T: Verizon is talking trash about us. We want them to stop, because Im about to CRY!!!
Judge: STFU AT&T and deal with the truth, can't sue for that!
Verizon: And yet I win again because you cant do better then stating real FACTS!
reply
DarnellP @ 3rd Nov 09:21PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by nnaarrnn :
You're out of your mind if you think there's more GSM coverage nationwide than CDMA.
Yes, he is unfortunately. That's the good thing about the good ols US of A though; we're all pretty much free to be delusional, at least to a point anyway.
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 09:27PM:
Re: Technical Questions...
Comparing Edge to EVDO is like dial up to DSL. I use both every day. Call it what you want (2 G, 3G, 10K), Edge is slow, while EVDO is functionally indistinguishable from DSL 95% of the time IN MY experience.
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 09:28PM:
This is Funny Ha Ha
I use and have been using Verizon since the GTE days. Their coverage is superior to any other cell phone carrier. I know because I loan my phone out to fellow workers and others I work with using Sprint and at&t. One fellow in Kentucky gave up and got a personal Verizon phone because the company at&t phone did not work in his assigned areas.
I consider the policies and sales programs of Verizon to be poor and ethnically questionable but their network works.
at&t got caught lying.
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 09:59PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by en102 :
I agree on the spectrum... LTE is 'currently' slated for 700MHz spectrum, but as typical nature has it, I'm sure that carriers will 'reband', especially AT&T (once again), as they technology hop. AT&T has some .. 700, 850, 1700, 1900 spectrum in most markets vs. Clear's ~100MHz of spectrum in the 2500MHz band. GSM will be (most likely) whittled down to a single 10MHz carrier channel on 1900MHz to have everyone get off of it (analog style).
LTE will never goto 800/1900. AFAIK LTE phones will not have LTE in 800, only CDMA/HSPA/GSM in 800. Once LTE phones without LTE 800 roll off the assembly line and go onto carrier contracts, the opportunity is lost forever. By the time 800/1900 devices are drowned out by LTE enough so that you can shut down 2G/3G, there will be a new standard on the horizon that will make LTE obsolete. So putting LTE on 850 will be ridiculous by that time. It would be as ridiculous as Telus/Bell Canada putting up GSM on their 850/1900 spectrum instead of HSPA (there is nothing newer they can put out other than HSPA lol, still waiting for LTE to debut, hopefully Telus/Bell Canada bought software radio base stations that can be flashed to LTE).
reply
rjbied @ 3rd Nov 10:02PM:
Re: Verizon - Nervous & Arrogant
said by Mike_ :
Yeah - at&t's 3g is lacking, but its along almost every major highway and covers every major city that I know of, and that's really where it counts.
Please come to Chicago and you will see how poor AT&T's 3G network is. There are patches of the city with zero signal. I am a longtime AT&T user (since it was Cingular) and loved the GSM mobility when I traveled to Europe, but the network has degraded so bad that it was affecting my ability to do business. I now have an HTC Verizon smartphone. I still have an AT&T phone and it is amazing to me where the Verizon works and the AT&T doesn't.
reply
compuguybna @ 3rd Nov 10:19PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
Yeah, using WILDBLUE, which isn't an AT&T service.
said by patcat88 :AT&T has lighting fast broadband covering 100% of the United States. Beat that Verizon!!
»
www.attwb.net/
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 10:30PM:
Re: Not truly 3g
South east Oregon is a huge CDMA only zone. What about extreme west Virginia? What about Cookeville, Tennessee? What about the western half of Kansas (PCS GSM ONLY)? What about southeast Montana and Northwest South Dakota?
Its too easy to find GSM PCS only places in the USA. Find me one real CDMA PCS only area in the USA (the only one I know of is the eastern half of Florida, ATT owns both 800s, Verizon built out an extensive PCS network).
reply
Desdinova @ 3rd Nov 10:44PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
Okay, that Judge Judy transcript rules! Great work!! :)
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 10:44PM:
Re: Technical Questions...
said by Sahrin :
So there are a couple of legitimate questions for Verizon's ad department:
1) My understanding is Verizon's EVDO deployment is mixed (some areas use Rev0...some use RevB). Rev0 starts out at 147kbps - which is *far* slower than the peak data rate for EDGE (despite the fact that EDGE is sometimes quoted as 2.75G). Is this true? (Is Verizon's deployment mixed levels of EVDO, or does the network have a capability for mixed modes based on other factors (load, QoS...etc).
Your reading standards that never had commercial adoption. The upload channel of EVDO Rev 0 is the same upload channel as with 1x, 153kbitps. I'm not sure if this is per user, or per carrier/sorta per tower.
2) Based on Wikipedia's information, HSDPA is technically superior to EV-DO (even RevB, the highest standard for EV-DO). This is based on comparing peak data rates for each technology (4Mbps for EV-DO, 21Mbps for HSDPA). Is HSDPA superior to EVDO?
Hard to compare. The equipment is one part, the other is the carrier. The best standard can become the worst service if you have the worst carrier. It depends on how much backhaul, how many towers, how many carriers deployed, and how much cell splitting and how much cell congestion is considered OK by the carrier. Different cities on the same carrier can be very different in backhaul/number of towers/carriers. The cities might have been owned by different companies at some point, and local management of the past and current plays a big part. Most tower locations were chosen decades ago, by people who are now retired, they could have picked all the sites the engineers asked for , regardless of rent/cost, or they only picked the cheapest 25 percentile on the list. Those decisions decades ago, can still affect the quality today. Also because of office politics, some cities get much more capital investment than others. For a quick answer, in the middle of nowhere at 2 AM, HSDPA will always beat EVDO.
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 10:50PM:
Re: Technical Questions...
said by Unreasonable :
Verizon has a history of having their advertising claims smacked down.
The Nation's Largest, Most Advanced....
They aren't allowed to claim either anymore.
Verizon Wireless was the largest cell carrier by customer count prior to 2004, when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless. Verizon Wireless became the largest cell carrier by customer count in 2009 after the Alltel purchase. Until the Alltel purchase, Alltel was the largest cell carrier by square miles of coverage, because Alltel gave cellphone service to all the sheep, goats, cows, and corn of the USA.
reply
Boricua65 @ 3rd Nov 10:52PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
That is what she would say too. In fact, I can see Judge Judy talking in my mind as I'm reading this :D.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben
reply
compuguybna @ 3rd Nov 10:56PM:
Verizon showing VOICE MAP not DATA map
ACTUALLY, Verizon's map they show in the commercial for for VOICE.......Their 3G/data map looks a bit different..........
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 10:58PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
said by compuguybna :Yeah, using WILDBLUE, which isn't an AT&T service.
said by patcat88 :AT&T has lighting fast broadband covering 100% of the United States. Beat that Verizon!!
»
www.attwb.net/ But its called "AT&T High Speed Internet via Satellite" not Wildblue. And AT&T already says its offered by them, not Wildblue »AT&T Wants 100% Broadband Coverage By 2014 .
reply
compuguybna @ 3rd Nov 10:58PM:
AT&T data coverage better than advertised.
Interesting.....AT&T's data coverage is alot better than the map Verizon is displaying in their commercial.
I could not find the spotty map anywhere Verizon is putting on the commercial.
HOWEVER, I hate at&t! Verizon does have more data coverage (definately in my town).
But it Verizon is gonna compare maps, they could at least use the right one.
the AT&T data map is displayed here.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 3rd Nov 11:27PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
it says Provided By WildBlue. So yes, the service IS NOT provided by ATT in fact just most likely resold services
reply
hottboiinnc @ 3rd Nov 11:28PM:
Re: I think..
Sprint should do an ad on 4g coverage and see who shuts up then.
reply
dualsub2006 @ 3rd Nov 11:36PM:
Re: eh
The ad isn't about the |speed|of the network, it is about the |size| of the network. Big difference.
As an example, I am sure that the people in Georgia SOUTH of Atlanta could care less how fast the AT&T 3G network is IN Atlanta because they can't get it.
reply
patcat88 @ 3rd Nov 11:42PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
said by hottboiinnc :
it says Provided By WildBlue. So yes, the service IS NOT provided by ATT in fact just most likely resold services
Who provides it isn't the question. Its sold by AT&T.
reply
fjr3020 @ 3rd Nov 11:55PM:
Re: I think..
I think Sprint has tons of 3g compare to ATT and t-mobile. There plan prices are cheap compare to verizon and there costumer Service has improve since 2006( I think costumer service is now better than ATT and verizon). I just don't see how people not notice this. Sprint has a great 3g coverage best plan prices and a great selection of phone. Were did i go wrong.
reply
OSUGoose @ 4th Nov 12:16AM:
Re: Verizon - Nervous & Arrogant
well maybe some of the Alltel ads wore off on them, I mean they did purchase a company know for knociking the big 4 around in almost all their ads.
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 12:47AM:
Problem.....
That is VZW's projected rollout map, using their current service area sans roaming & partners.
What they don't want you to see, is their high speed wireless network coverage:
Clearly VZW is smoking some kinda crack to think they can get away with this BS.
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
Noah Vail @ 4th Nov 12:47AM:
Re: AT&T data coverage better than advertised.
But then again, Verizon's map may not be fully accurate.
In my area there are sizeable (15+sq mi) holes of coverage-less-ness, that Verizon has painted in unbroken red. If my area is representative, then every metro area has several dozen, signal-free areas that aren't listed as such.
NV
reply
djrobx @ 4th Nov 01:47AM:
Re: Not truly 3g
Explain how 3.6 Mbps in 5MHz is better than 3.1 Mbps in 1.25 MHz, when the other 3.75 MHz can be used for voice on ANY phone, not just newer 3G-capable phones.
I can take a call while I'm transferring data.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
reply
jarthur31 @ 4th Nov 01:57AM:
Re: Truth hurts?
That is shitastically riotous!!! :D
I almost sharted meself.
Almost.
reply
ZachAttack @ 4th Nov 02:01AM:
Re: Problem.....
Dude no what are you smoking? It took me 10 seconds to see that that map is the Coverage map for Mobile TV service only. Which is the V-Cast Mobile TV Live Television to your handset service. That's not broadband, or every other facet of the V-Cast network, that's only the map of the areas serviced by the Mobile TV product as of today. If you want to try to make a quote unquote incriminating map, try a little harder next time.
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 02:31AM:
Re: Problem.....
Yea, its not a map of specifically current 3G coverage that leaves out 2G service so you can visually identify the national footprint... The REAL problem is, that they don't group services together like att does in their mapping, which was my point. I've tested my 3G connection with various meters comparing it to my friend who has vzw and it tells me that i could watch streaming video with ease, so could she, because the services with that speed capability, not feature, but speed capability are only in that sparse map i put in above. If you look at the vzw high speed data fixed footprint & its related real world wireless coverage footprint, you'd see they are all most identical to the one they show as att's 3G coverage.
Thank you for missing my point though. :p :) ;)
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 02:34AM:
Re: Problem.....
And a further point, if you live outside those blotches, it could be years before any provider starts significantly filling in the gaps, which sucks for everyone.
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
Tychicus @ 4th Nov 03:22AM:
Re: Problem.....
Personally I hope ATT wins a HUGE settlement as I was ripped off by verizon a few years ago and they had the worst customer service even worse than comcast or att at least for me.
Other than that if att would put forth some effort and go the extra mile I am sure they could get it together.
--
Team Discovery
reply
thender @ 4th Nov 06:17AM:
New York City
I'd love to see Verizon do this for NYC. Then no one would have AT&T.
reply
morbo @ 4th Nov 07:22AM:
Re: Too Much Cash
said by Eat Me :said by MTU :
Obviously AT&T has way too much extra cash laying around to waste same in this idiotic lawsuit.
Exactly... instead of wasting money on lawyers why not just fix the network?
this is why AT&T as a company is kind of a douche.
reply
r81984 @ 4th Nov 07:37AM:
Re: Not truly 3g
said by nnaarrnn :
sending me to a GSM web page to see GSM maps is like sending me to St. Louis to see Budweiser ads. Of course the GSM web page is going to show major coverage.
So you say companies lie on the their coverage map?
Anyways there are more GSM providers than just ATT: »www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo···us.shtml
Also, many ATT towers can be found here: »atttowers.com
The GSM maps show areas with no coverage where Verizon has coverage, but those are very remote areas out west. Look throughout the rest of the populated areas of America and all the major highways. GSM has more coverage than CDMA.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are.
reply
NeoandGeo @ 4th Nov 08:14AM:
.
I have to agree with AT&T. The Verizon map is very misleading. I get little to no signal in a lot of areas that map has covered in red that I frequent. Not even 1x half the time. I have to be within a couple miles of a city in order to get "great" coverage.
reply
Rob @ 4th Nov 08:33AM:
Re: AT&T data coverage better than advertised.
The blue you see is Edge service. If you look at the map that I posted (a few posts from the top), you can see the darker blue is 3G, and all the other blue is Edge.
So VZW's map is correct in the sense that AT&T's 3G coverage isn't as large as AT&T wants people to believe.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us
reply
morbo @ 4th Nov 10:12AM:
Re: Verizon - Nervous & Arrogant
said by Mike_ :
Yeah - at&t's 3g is lacking, but its along almost every major highway and covers every major city that I know of, and that's really where it counts.
how many of us live right off a highway? most people live away from major highways.
another thing i find very telling is that there is zero AT&T 3g service at CNET's building in San Francisco. CNET reviews smart phones all the time and everytime they have to say that their building seems to be a black hole. how dumb is AT&T to not spend a few bucks to at least upgrade near a tech news headquarters? seriously. that is the mindset coming from AT&T.
reply
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 10:16AM:
Re: Truth hurts?
said by patcat88 :said by hottboiinnc :
it says Provided By WildBlue. So yes, the service IS NOT provided by ATT in fact just most likely resold services
Who provides it isn't the question. Its sold by AT&T.
no, the question is whether that service is for mobile devices. It is not. It's for homes.
Your troll attempt was weak. Try harder next time.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 10:18AM:
Re: I think..
No it's not. It's horribly outdated. It may say "as of August", but I can see clearly that both the ATT and the T-Mobile coverage maps are at least 6 months outdated.
reply
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 10:28AM:
Re: AT&T data coverage better than advertised.
said by compuguybna :
Interesting.....AT&T's data coverage is alot better than the map Verizon is displaying in their commercial.
I could not find the spotty map anywhere Verizon is putting on the commercial.
HOWEVER, I hate at&t! Verizon does have more data coverage (definately in my town).
But it Verizon is gonna compare maps, they could at least use the right one.
the AT&T data map is displayed here.
That's their 2g AND 3g coverage map. Zoom in a single level and you'll see that their 3g coverage leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, that map even includes their 2g ROAMING.
Attached is their real network. Light blue is 2g (EDGE or GPRS) data. The vast striped areas are 2g ROAMING. The small dark blue areas are 3g.
Verizon isn't comparing total data network size (which they still win on), but they're comparing 3g networks. They're quite accurate.
ATT's NATIVE network really isn't much larger than T-Mobile's.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
ATT's data deceptions |
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 10:43AM:
Re: slow mo AT&T
said by QLR :
I find it quite funny that AT&T is launching 3G coverage in areas where Verizon, Alltel, & Sprint had 3G for years. For instance, T did a press release regarding their expanded 3G foot print in central/south Georgia. Verizon has had 3G in central GA for almost 2 years (at least)... before they bought Alltel, Verizon built out PCS service in GA and launched 3G on it last year!!!! The way T is moving, Sprint's 4G coverage will be equal to T's 3G.... sheesh!!!!
It's basic economics. Verizon, Alltel, and Sprint are effectively running the same networks they've had for almost 15 years. Simply upgrading from CDMAOne (Is95) to CDMA2000, to 1xRTT to EVDO Rev 0 to EVDO Rev A.
It's much cheaper to expand and upgrade existing infrastructure.
ATT, on the other hand, has had 3 distinct networks. AMPS, GSM, and UMTS are all 3 different technologies. GSM's only viable upgrade was EDGE. UMTS has the benefits of HSPA (in the form of HSDPA and HSUPA), and HSPA+ (21mbps and 42mbps).
The costs of deploying 3 networks, vs upgrading the same one mean that coverage will definitely take a hit.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
Selenia @ 4th Nov 12:19PM:
AT&T may win on a big technicality
AT&T deploys true 3G using UMTS technology. Opinions about performance aside, VZW simply deploys a software update for old technology. So, technicall Verizon has *no* 3G coverage. That's as in zilch, zero, zip. Verizon's update may make this old technology faster, but try tethering your phone to listen to internet radio on your laptop then making a phone call. AT&T and T-mobile will do it just fine as they use actual. VZW will=fail.
reply
huntml @ 4th Nov 02:46PM:
Re: AT&T may win on a big technicality
said by Selenia :
AT&T deploys true 3G using UMTS technology. Opinions about performance aside, VZW simply deploys a software update for old technology. So, technicall Verizon has *no* 3G coverage.
You don't know what you are talking about. No one disputes that EVDO is considered 3G.
reply
Selenia @ 4th Nov 02:50PM:
Re: AT&T may win on a big technicality
You don't know jack. EV-DO is the same generation as EDGE, which is 2.5G.
One part of 3G standard is SIMULTANEOUS voice and data. EV-DO cannot accomplish this.
reply
huntml @ 4th Nov 03:02PM:
Re: AT&T may win on a big technicality
You again show your ignorance. The ITU -2000 family of standards explicitly included CDMA 2000, which was even a low-speed precursor to EVDO. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
And I defy you to find me any specification in which the ability to simultaneously carry voice and data is a defining characteristic of a 3g network.
But this is all nonsense, intended to obfuscate what we all know.
ATTM's highest speed network deployment is somewhat faster than VZW's, and capable of simultaneous data and voice transmission where VZW is not.
But in terms of footprint its extent is miniscule compared to VZW's, even compared to Sprint's.
ATTM's lesser-speed network (NOT voice+data capable) is comparable in size to or perhaps even slightly bigger than VZW's fastest network, but it is a lot slower.
'3g' is in popular terms applied to networks of approximately equal speed. EDGE is popularly labeled 2.75g. UMTS and EVDO 3g. HS(x)PA, HSPA+, etc., 3.5g (that's what my Nokia says when its operating on HS(x)PA, even though *technically* HSxPA is *still* within the family of 3g standards, just at the very high end).
The point of the VZW commercial, as I understand it, is to say "ATTM's deployment of its fastest, broadband-equivalent network is really small compared to ours."
No one, not any of the ATTM apologists posting here, not even ATTM itself, is disputing this fact. Because it is...a fact.
ATTM got away with claiming 'fastest 3g network' because the nominal peak throughput of their deployment -- 3.6 HSPA -- is faster than EVDO Rev. A.
They got away with this because it is technically true, even though several national comparison tests have showed that both Sprint and VZW beat ATTM for average throughput (downlink) and beat the crap out of ATTM for reliability and stability, without which peak speeds are useless.
If you are so concerned about truth in advertising, how do you feel about ATTM's claim to be 'America's Fastest 3g Network' when, in many places, their network is completely fux0red?
Just to be clear, I am not a big fan of VZW. I have never been a sub of theirs, and don't plan to.
They are too expensive and I have never liked their policies regarding a user's access to and control of the workings of his devices, though I will concede they are getting better in this regard.
I carry a Sprint phone and an ATTM phone. I've had Sprint for over a decade and ATTM for a bit over a year now.
I carry the ATTM phone for no other reason than because I *like* GSM technology. I bought an unlocked N95 for a trip to Europe and liked it so much I decided to keep it active once I got back home, just as a hobby phone.
But ATTM as a carrier just kinda blows. It's not personal on my part, it's just the truth as I experience it.
reply
Agent Smith @ 4th Nov 03:09PM:
Come on
MY children its at&t their internet sucks so is the coverage maybe at&t customers just like the iphone thats all.
Verizon has better internet lets see Fios HD phone and cell.
reply
toadlife @ 4th Nov 03:47PM:
Re: I think..
I'm a t-mo customer and noticed that they just added 3G coverage in the Fresno area a few weeks ago. When I bought my touch pro 2 in August, there was no 3G in Fresno. They have a long way to go to catch up with the other carriers though!
reply
toadlife @ 4th Nov 03:50PM:
Re: Too Much Cash
said by Eat Me :said by MTU :
Obviously AT&T has way too much extra cash laying around to waste same in this idiotic lawsuit.
Exactly... instead of wasting money on lawyers why not just fix the network?
Lawyers are cheaper.
And stackable.
reply
iLive4Apple @ 4th Nov 05:50PM:
Re: Truth hurts?
Actually I can't get AT&T Wild Blue at my lake house :). I can though get Verizon 3G!! Tree's cover too much for it to work. And AT&T Wireless has CRAPPY EDGE only which is flaky at best.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid!
reply
iLive4Apple @ 4th Nov 06:02PM:
Re: AT&T may win on a big technicality
said by Selenia :
You don't know jack. EV-DO is the same generation as EDGE, which is 2.5G.
One part of 3G standard is SIMULTANEOUS voice and data. EV-DO cannot accomplish this.
Umm you are thinking of 1X which is the core CDMA2000 network, If you knew anything about cell phone's then you would know EVDO is not just a software update. They have to replace and upgrade card's at the BTS on each tower. And to be even more technical, CDMA1X is considered a 3G Voice and Data tech. And CDMA EVDO is 3G and is more compatible with the CDMA technology in general tis why it is easier to deploy but it's delivering more consistent and reliable data where AT&T doesn't even have 3G. Just because it can't do SVD doesn't mean it's not 3G. AND SVD can be accomplished with a a software update and possibly different phone hardware.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid!
reply
tvtek @ 4th Nov 06:07PM:
There's a map for that!
I was wondering when this was going to happen. It was just a matter of time. Don't you just love competition. ;)
--
Alumni "Mental State"
reply
B52GUNR @ 4th Nov 06:25PM:
The map is accurate...
My fiance was driving across country. On AT&T's maps, the states she'd be driving through were "partner carriers".
She didn't have coverage on her AT&T phone through western Nebraska, all of Wyoming and only barely got it back in Idaho.
She had to buy a Verizon prepaid phone just so we could stay in touch as she drove.
You can't sue if it's true!
--
Some assembly required, your mileage may vary, no pixels were harmed in the writing of this post. Brain cells, though, are a different matter. You want fries with that?
reply
PGHammer @ 4th Nov 07:13PM:
Re: coverage
The DC/Baltimore area is in exactly that sitch (all except US Cellular provide 3G in DC; Sprint ups the ante with 4G/Clear in B-more). The reason I recommend VZW is not everybody is a homebody (heck, if you merely want to go to WV or DE and have anyone but VZW for 3G, you're in a world of pain).
reply
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 07:29PM:
Re: Problem.....
said by FastiBook :
Yea, its not a map of specifically current 3G coverage that leaves out 2G service so you can visually identify the national footprint... The REAL problem is, that they don't group services together like att does in their mapping, which was my point. I've tested my 3G connection with various meters comparing it to my friend who has vzw and it tells me that i could watch streaming video with ease, so could she, because the services with that speed capability, not feature, but speed capability are only in that sparse map i put in above. If you look at the vzw high speed data fixed footprint & its related real world wireless coverage footprint, you'd see they are all most identical to the one they show as att's 3G coverage.
Thank you for missing my point though. :p :) ;)
- A
you have no "point".
There's so much wrong with your hypothesis/assumption, that I don't even know where to begin.
If you seriously think that those tiny brown splotches are their 3g network, you're not only a fanboi of an even greater magnitude than I thought before - you're downright delusional.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
en102 @ 4th Nov 07:38PM:
Re: Too bad this will get settled
Florida (east) has BOTH Cell A and B licenses + some PCS (insane!)
SoCal has roughly the same spectrum as Denver (been there), AT&T took their sweet time deploying a 2nd carrier channel in Denver, and everyone there suffered.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 07:46PM:
Re: Problem.....
No, but it's the only 3G part competing with att's 3G service, and by service i mean the speed at which data is coming & going.
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
marinemaster @ 4th Nov 08:52PM:
att has been resting on the iphone laurels
att has been resting on the iphone laurels that is what happening, they need to thank steve jobs that they are still in business on the wireless side...the voip game is not completely decided yet...i hope at some point other companies come along and blow att out of existence....i had horrible coverage and cust service over the years, i used to deal with them directly; crooks!!!
reply
compuguybna @ 4th Nov 10:04PM:
Re: att has been resting on the iphone laurels
Computerworld - AT&T Inc.'s lawsuit against Verizon Wireless over its TV ads could be a public relations mistake, some analysts said today, but at least one said that the company had to bring the lawsuit to protect itself against potential regulatory or legal actions.
Some experts said the lawsuit brings into focus a perception among some consumers -- iPhone users in particular -- that AT&T's network is inferior to Verizon's. An opposing view is that AT&T had to file a lawsuit, partly to satisfy regulators and also to head off a potential class-action lawsuit by unhappy customers. Yet another expert said AT&T would only face backlash if it loses the suit.
AT&T filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, claiming that Verizon's "There's a Map for That" TV ads are misleading. AT&T claims the ads lead viewers to believe that areas shown in white on a map of the U.S. have no AT&T wireless coverage at all, but in fact the white regions are just those that are outside of AT&T's fast 3G service area. Verizon said through a spokeswoman Tuesday that the ads are accurate and clearly state in text that the white areas on the map just have no 3G service and are not entirely without coverage.
AT&T is seeking an emergency injunction to stop the ads, arguing that they are causing AT&T to lose "incalculable market share" and customer goodwill. It is also seeking unspecified monetary damages.
However, three experts said that the Verizon ads alone would not have focused as much public attention on AT&T's perceived network weaknesses as the AT&T lawsuit has.
"I think AT&T has a good point about the Verizon ads, but unfortunately by filing the lawsuit, they are showing their shortcomings," said Gene Grabowski, a crisis communications consultant at Levick Strategic Communications in Washington. "The lawsuit brings [AT&T's network coverage] to a higher level of scrutiny."
On a personal level, Grabowski said he recently bought a BlackBerry device that uses AT&T's network and found that the device works well. When the ads started airing in October, Grabowski said he perceived them as "just ads." He focused more intently on the claims when the lawsuit was described in the media and was left concerned about AT&T's network as a result.
Similarly, Rob Enderle, an analyst at Enderle Group, added, "If I were AT&T, I would have let this go. If you have a superior network offering, then a lawsuit makes sense, but AT&T is already inferior and may give Verizon's campaign more power as opposed to detracting from it."
Jack Gold, an analyst at J.Gold Associates LLC, added that the lawsuit is a "no-win for AT&T" and will be costly. "AT&T already has had a bad rap with 3G, and this will make things worse," he said.
However, IDC analyst Scott Ellison said AT&T had to file a lawsuit over the ads, in part, to satisfy government regulators that monitor AT&T's network performance to make sure it lives up to the company's claims.
"The AT&T lawsuit is not going to matter for consumers, but AT&T is doing this for people at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, because AT&T needs to counter a perception that AT&T is selling something it can't deliver," Ellison said.
Ellison also said AT&T is apparently "trying to head off a class-action lawsuit from iPhone users and others who may say, 'You sold us this phone and we can't make calls with it.'"
Ellison has been one of the strongest critics of AT&T's network performance, especially with the iPhone, which incorporates many multimedia-focused applications that require reliable, fat bandwidth.
In October, he said AT&T "has immolated itself with network capacity issues" that are worse in crowded urban areas.
But Ellison defended the lawsuit, noting that AT&T's network problems "apparently don't matter much," since the carrier just reported an "incredible" third quarter, with 3.2 million iPhone activations. "That's a great number by any measure, even more so given the media coverage of AT&T's network capacity issues in key areas like New York and San Francisco."
All four experts agreed, however, that the competition is fierce between No. 1 wireless carrier Verizon, with 89 million subscribers, and No. 2 AT&T, with nearly 82 million. Such a competitive atmosphere can lead a corporation's lawyers to push legal matters forward, they said.
But "litigation is a blunt instrument and should be the last tool used" by a company, Grabowski argued. "In a case like this, a company would be better served with a communications campaign or an information campaign pointing out that Verizon is splitting hairs or being misleading."
Grabowski said in highly competitive markets, company executives and their attorneys might feel a lawsuit is imperative. "They are almost like a nation that feels it has to go nuclear rather than try diplomacy and subtle means because that takes time and work," he said. However, he admitted that in some instances, a lawsuit "signifies how serious you are."
Even if AT&T is right about the facts and wins the injunction, it will still face some backlash from bringing the lawsuit, Grabowski said. "With the Verizon ads alone, AT&T might lose 10% of their customers, but they may lose more with the lawsuit," he said.
Gartner Inc. analyst Ken Dulaney, however, said the Verizon ad won't persuade iPhone users to switch to Verizon, simply because Verizon doesn't have the iPhone, which is currently exclusive to AT&T. "Most customers will ignore the ad and stay with AT&T," he predicted.
Ellison, while contending that AT&T had no choice other than to file a lawsuit, said he finds the Verizon ad to be "funny and brilliant," since it encapsulates the key difference between Verizon and AT&T. "Saying 'there's a map for that' as a play on iPhone's 'there's an app for that' is brilliant," he said.
reply
tiger72 @ 4th Nov 10:38PM:
Re: Problem.....
said by FastiBook :
No, but it's the only 3G part competing with att's 3G service, and by service i mean the speed at which data is coming & going.
- A
And how do you come to this conclusion?
More succinctly: What the hell are you talking about?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara
reply
MrHappy316 @ 4th Nov 11:51PM:
3G doesnt matter if the backbone wont support it
Didn't read any of the comments (might be a mistake) but really both companies can claim all the 3G coverage they want but until the bandwidth support (ie backbone tower coverage) is there for those techs we'll still be in the stone age of wireless.
reply
anon @ 5th Nov 03:46PM:
I switched from AT&T to Verizon for that very reason
I couldn't get an AT&T signal at my house, nor anywhere near my house, despite the fact that I live about two miles from the RTP in North Carolina (not exactly in the boonies). When I called AT&T to complain, they basically told me "Tough cookies!" They admitted they were aware of the problem and also told me they had no plans to fix it.
I switched to Verizon and it's wall to wall coverage all over the RTP area.
reply
anon @ 12th Nov 01:24PM:
Re: I think..
said by tiger72 :
No it's not. It's horribly outdated. It may say "as of August", but I can see clearly that both the ATT and the T-Mobile coverage maps are at least 6 months outdated.
I guess in this case, court cases and legal representation are cheaper than keeping maps current.
reply
PittsPgh @ 27th Nov 05:31PM:
Seems users have talked about this comparison before
I stumbled on this today.
Seems users at this site where doing 3G comparisons back in May 2008 . Nice animated gif map showing the comparisons betwwen the two.
»forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=482409
Now keep in mind his coverage map is from that time period.
Paul
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
