AT&T false advertising...

[Small White Car]

Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. The map is APPROXIMATE; get that?

A website that says "3G active in November" is "approximate."

A map that shows 3G where there is none is "innacurate."

Why is it so hard to put a date on a website? Everyone here is acting like putting "November" on the map would be the BIGGEST inconvenience in the world to AT&T.

My...how can they possibly put some text on a web page? That's unreasonable!

 

[ViViDboarder]

So I should know someone at AT&T before buying a phone? Come on dude, stop drinking the kol-aid.

I checked my service map before buying and it said I was at the "Top" of the list. when I get home and walk around my block I loose my phone calls without fail. And att just doesn't care.

Hey! Good news, the internet is my friend! 1-800-331-0500 That's how I talk to AT&T. Any idiot who can type Google can find out how to talk to someone at AT&T or walk into their store. Stop blaming other people for mistakes you make. It sucks, yea. But you either say "Damn, I should have checked first, Oh well. I like it enough so I'll stick with it" or "Damn, I should have checked first, I can't use this. I'm taking it back" That's your job as a consumer. You can put down your "Destroy Corperate America" signs and start doing something useful now.

 

[jaydub]

A website that says "3G active in November" is "approximate."

A map that shows 3G where there is none is "innacurate."

Why is it so hard to put a date on a website? Everyone here is acting like putting "November" on the map would be the BIGGEST inconvenience in the world to AT&T.

My...how can they possibly put some text on a web page? That's unreasonable!

Because given the sheer magnitude of the area AT&T services, that is probably a far greater undertaking than we could conceive sitting here as keyboard commandos.

 

[Small White Car]

Except that he did get 3G service momentarily, and then it reverts to Edge. I'd say the service is there, but perhaps not strong enough.

Did he change his post?

I just looked at it and it says he's been getting "zero 3G coverage."

Did it used to say something else?

 

[jaydub]

Did he change his post?

I just looked at it and it says he's been getting "zero 3G coverage."

Did it used to say something else?

I asked him and he clarified, rather than just assuming AT&T is the culprit here.

 

[jaydub]

For Small White Car:

This question is directed toward me right?

I acquire a 3G signal for a few seconds before it drops to EDGE, and it never goes back to 3G. only if I go into preferences and turn 3G off and on again, then it reacquires the signal. But the switching to EDGE happens all over again.

 

[Small White Car]

Because given the sheer magnitude of the area AT&T services, that is probably a far greater undertaking than we could conceive sitting here as keyboard commandos.

Ok, so if it's impossible for them to maintain the map (to the point that it shows totally inacurate information) they really should take it down.

 

[Hooka]

He looked at the map and it said "3G" not "3G in November" that is annoying and false advertisement, sorry. AT&T is a horrible operation, the worst of the big 4.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Because given the sheer magnitude of the area AT&T services, that is probably a far greater undertaking than we could conceive sitting here as keyboard commandos.

Agreed. There is always a lag between hardware and software updates. Sometimes things are late, sometimes it may be early. It's nearly impossible to co-ordinate such a large network of people and one website. So yes. It's that hard.

 

[jaydub]

Ok, so if it's impossible for them to maintain the map (to the point that it shows totally inacurate information) they really should take it down.

So if the map has an inaccuracy of .5%, they should ditch the whole thing. That's a great theory.

 

[Small White Car]

I asked him and he clarified, rather than just assuming AT&T is the culprit here.

So what about the part where they told him the towers aren't going to be active until November?

Are we just assuming he made that up? Or do we not consider that important?

 

[jaydub]

He looked at the map and it said "3G" not "3G in November" that is annoying and false advertisement, sorry. AT&T is a horrible operation, the worst of the big 4.

just fyi, opinion != fact

 

[jaydub]

So what about the part where they told him the towers aren't going to be active until November?

Are we just assuming he made that up? Or do we not consider that important?

I consider it important because they are working to improve the service in that area. Yeah, what a bunch of jerks.

 

[vega07]

They have towers... they are set up to be activated soon. We have a huge problem here with people expecting too much from companies. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. The map is APPROXIMATE; get that?

If somebody had taken a 3G phone there and checked, or he had asked a local rep, I'm sure it would have been easy to find out. Maybe even pick up a demo phone in an AT&T store. It'd be VERY easy to see.

So it's not just an "Oops Sorry" situation. It's a "Why did you trust something meant as an estimate without testing it?" situation. I would actually find it VERY useful to know if my area might be getting coverage soon.

it's not that EASY. I called AT&T three times and only during the third call was I notified that 3G service would be activated three months later in my area. The first two times, the reps just told me there were "outages" due to the fires in Santa Barbara and to expect better service in 2 days. HAHA..."outages due to recent fires in SANTA BARBARA." SANTA BARBARA??? REALLY... I live hours away from SANTA BARBARA!

 

[ViViDboarder]

I don't see where the whole idea of using ONE SOURCE to base a couple thousand dollar investment on is thought of as acceptable.

I'm sure you're old enough to have written research papers or some report of some kind. How many times is it accetable to base everything off one source? Hell, the newspapers advertised falsely years ago when they announced the presidential election winner. So I thought I'd ask for my money back. No, I did not look at the internet or watch the news or do any kind of work on my own.

Lazy.

 

[DreamPod]

They have towers... they are set up to be activated soon. We have a huge problem here with people expecting too much from companies. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything. The map is APPROXIMATE; get that?

If somebody had taken a 3G phone there and checked, or he had asked a local rep, I'm sure it would have been easy to find out. Maybe even pick up a demo phone in an AT&T store. It'd be VERY easy to see.

So it's not just an "Oops Sorry" situation. It's a "Why did you trust something meant as an estimate without testing it?" situation. I would actually find it VERY useful to know if my area might be getting coverage soon.

OK, where on the map does it say it is "APPROXIMATE" or "an estimate"? Nowhere at all. That's the point. That disclaimer is a standard one just meaning that they can't control it if your block is encased in lead and thus you get no signal; it isn't saying to totally ignore the map, it means nothing. It is definitely false advertising to advertise 3G in an area that has no 3G.

The OP did his research, saw that his area had 3G, and thus bought a phone specifically designed to take advantage of that. He was deceived. And the fact that AT&T knows exactly the state of those towers means they have the ability to display correct information on their map, and just chose to deceive people to get more sales of pricier phones and so they could advertise that their 3G covers more than other providers. You say to check more than one source, but really, what source should be more reliable than AT&T themselves??? If AT&T says something about their service that is a fact, not an opinion, you should need no other sources.

 

[vega07]

So what about the part where they told him the towers aren't going to be active until November?

Are we just assuming he made that up? Or do we not consider that important?

In my original post, I always had in parenthesis "(it would drop to EDGE after a few seconds)."

 

[jaydub]

OK, where on the map does it say it is "APPROXIMATE" or "an estimate"? Nowhere at all. That's the point. That disclaimer is a standard one just meaning that they can't control it if your block is encased in lead and thus you get no signal; it isn't saying to totally ignore the map, it means nothing. It is definitely false advertising to advertise 3G in an area that has no 3G.

The OP did his research, saw that his area had 3G, and thus bought a phone specifically designed to take advantage of that. He was deceived. And the fact that AT&T knows exactly the state of those towers means they have the ability to display correct information on their map, and just chose to deceive people to get more sales of pricier phones.

YES, it does say approximate.

Map depicts an approximation of coverage.

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/

 

[Small White Car]

I don't see where the whole idea of using ONE SOURCE to base a couple thousand dollar investment on is thought of as acceptable.

Let's say Apple advertises a new 32 GB iPhone on Apple.com, you buy it, and they send you a 16 GB instead.

I'm glad to see you would be fine with that. After all, you shouldn't trust just one website (Apple.com).

Me? I'd be kind of upset.

 

[Small White Car]

I consider it important because they are working to improve the service in that area. Yeah, what a bunch of jerks.

So why can't they tell him that? Why did he have to badger them again and again?

NO ONE is saying they have to have coverage everywhere. I just think they need to be more honest about where it is and where it isn't.

 

[jaydub]

Let's say Apple advertises a new 32 GB iPhone on Apple.com, you buy it, and they send you a 16 GB instead.

I'm glad to see you would be fine with that. After all, you shouldn't trust just one website (Apple.com).

Me? I'd be kind of upset.

Then prepare to be upset, because Apple says the 3G iPhone is 16GB, and it's actually got a 14.6GB capacity.

OH THE HUGE MANATEEEEEEE

 

[ViViDboarder]

OK, where on the map does it say it is "APPROXIMATE" or "an estimate"? Nowhere at all. That's the point. That disclaimer is a standard one just meaning that they can't control it if your block is encased in lead and thus you get no signal; it isn't saying to totally ignore the map, it means nothing. It is definitely false advertising to advertise 3G in an area that has no 3G.

The OP did his research, saw that his area had 3G, and thus bought a phone specifically designed to take advantage of that. He was deceived. And the fact that AT&T knows exactly the state of those towers means they have the ability to display correct information on their map, and just chose to deceive people to get more sales of pricier phones.

Actually next to 3G coverage you can click a link where it says exactly APPROXIMATE

And by the sound of it, there ARE towers and the converage is suffering by a significant ammount. Otherwise there would be no switching back and forth from Edge. So I don't even see where there is a problem here. It does state that other factors can effect the coverage.

I'm not sure how big the range of a 3G tower is, but if you're only just over a mile out of San Diego, that could definitely be in range of their towers. AT&T may have thought it would have been up faster and ran into issues.

Do they now need to add "Trees, mountains, terrain, natural disasters, terrorists, extreme weather, climbers, airplanes, falling leaves and insects may effect coverage in areas?" Just to make sure everything is included?

 

[jaydub]

So why can't they tell him that? Why did he have to badger them again and again?

NO ONE is saying they have to have coverage everywhere. I just think they need to be more honest about where it is and where it isn't.

I will readily admit that they should've told him that in the first place, but given the time that he called and the prevalence of wildfires, perhaps they just got lazy and wrote all coverage problems off that way. That really isn't right.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Let's say Apple advertises a new 32 GB iPhone on Apple.com, you buy it, and they send you a 16 GB instead.

I'm glad to see you would be fine with that. After all, you shouldn't trust just one website (Apple.com).

Me? I'd be kind of upset.

Now that's not a very good comparison. It's more like, if their 32GB plant was hit by a tornado and they had to give you a 16 and said in 3 months you can switch it out for free. Now... That'd be fine by me. I'd like to have something while I wait.

 

[Small White Car]

Then prepare to be upset, because Apple says the 3G iPhone is 16GB, and it's actually got a 14.6GB capacity.

OH THE HUGE MANATEEEEEEE

The willfully obtuse annoy me worst of all. If you don't WANT to respond to my point, that's fine, but responding to what I didn't say is just a waste of time.