AT&T false advertising...

[JML42691]

Far from that --- I am not the kind of person that would tell people to get out of contract "on a techicality" --- i.e. the carrier start charging more on SMS and websites after websites were talking about the ETF loophole.

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/...-sms-rates-customers-now-free-of-their-contr/

But for a new customer who just sign a 2 year contract --- getting out within the first 3 days, the first 14 days and the first 30 days is the best advice anyone can give.

And if you read the OP's view on my comment --- he agree with me on my response to your comment.

Fine, but you are still telling somebody that they should get out of a contract if they could, disregarding whether the main point of the service (the cell coverage) was a major issue or not. That is by far the worst advice you can give, unless if the person was intoxicated when they signed the contract. So say I signed a contract with AT&T, and then a week later they tell me that if I leave now I won't be charged with the ETF. Under your logic I should leave the contract just because the option is there, disregarding whether I am happy with the service or not, what a load of BS! And this user's case does not seem to be that it was a small area, but an entire city, so he is not the only one in this situation.

And plus, are three-months of somewhat slower data speeds enough of an issue to grant the need that he leave his contract? I would think not. He would have a valid point if he were without any cell coverage, but he is simply without 3G coverage, while there is still EDGE coverage where he is. So what if his web-pages take an extra 30 seconds to load for another 3 months, that is nothing to warrant leaving a contract over, he still has EDGE coverage. And plus, he will have 3G coverage for 7/8 of his contract. And it is not like he had any options for an EDGE contract, as the only option for the iPhone 3G was the 3G data plan, so he has no room for complaining there.

And once again I reiterate the point that I do not think that AT&T would allow him to leave the contract without paying the ETF.

Regardless of whether you meant it or not (according to you, you did not), there was an underlying piece of advice beneath your comment. I got the impression from your response that your possible solution for me was to "deal with it" (like you said you would have done if you were in my shoes).

While I fully respect your comment, please don't be too quick to "flame" jamab (the best word I could think of at the moment but probably too strong to describe your response to jamab).

May I ask, how do you get "deal with it" from "It is for 3 months out of a 24 month service commitment, so I do think that it is acceptable."? All I was saying was that AT&T has the right to show what their 3G coverage 3 months from now, as that would mean that they would have 3G coverage for 7/8 of their contract, it would not be acceptable however if they listed an area as having plain cell coverage in an area that was currently a dead-zone.

And I was not starting a flame on jamab, I was responding to his flame. Figuring he just came to the thread calling me irresponsible and just simply calling me out as "you" to start his post, while he clearly did not understand what I was saying at all, when I was stating a plain fact, and he took it as horrible advice.

 

[samab]

Fine, but you are still telling somebody that they should get out of a contract if they could, disregarding whether the main point of the service (the cell coverage) was a major issue or not. That is by far the worst advice you can give, unless if the person was intoxicated when they signed the contract. So say I signed a contract with AT&T, and then a week later they tell me that if I leave now I won't be charged with the ETF. Under your logic I should leave the contract just because the option is there, disregarding whether I am happy with the service or not, what a load of BS! And this user's case does not seem to be that it was a small area, but an entire city, so he is not the only one in this situation.

And plus, are three-months of somewhat slower data speeds enough of an issue to grant the need that he leave his contract? I would think not. He would have a valid point if he were without any cell coverage, but he is simply without 3G coverage, while there is still EDGE coverage where he is. So what if his web-pages take an extra 30 seconds to load for another 3 months, that is nothing to warrant leaving a contract over, he still has EDGE coverage. And plus, he will have 3G coverage for 7/8 of his contract. And it is not like he had any options for an EDGE contract, as the only option for the iPhone 3G was the 3G data plan, so he has no room for complaining there.

And once again I reiterate the point that I do not think that AT&T would allow him to leave the contract without paying the ETF.


May I ask, how do you get "deal with it" from "It is for 3 months out of a 24 month service commitment, so I do think that it is acceptable."? All I was saying was that AT&T has the right to show what their 3G coverage 3 months from now, as that would mean that they would have 3G coverage for 7/8 of their contract, it would not be acceptable however if they listed an area as having plain cell coverage in an area that was currently a dead-zone.

And I was not starting a flame on jamab, I was responding to his flame. Figuring he just came to the thread calling me irresponsible and just simply calling me out as "you" to start his post, while he clearly did not understand what I was saying at all, when I was stating a plain fact, and he took it as horrible advice.

Your whole argument relies on lowly AT&T telephone support staff (or AT&T store agents) telling customers that their local network would "improve" in 3 months. These people will say anything.

 

[psywzrd]

I think it's reasonable for us to expect AT&T (and all of the other carriers) to be a little more honest and accurate with their maps. I do realize that they give you 30 days to try out the service but that's not enough time to try out every possible area that we might need service - that's why we have to rely on coverage maps. If I have a vacation home in Colorado that I only use in the winter, trying out AT&T's service for 30 days in August is not really going to help me that much. I might just look at a coverage map before I sign up just to make sure that I'm going to get coverage in Colorado when I vacation there in the winter. If the coverage map looks pretty good, I'm happy and I sign up. If the coverage is good in the areas I use the service for the first 30 days, I stick with the service and I'm locked in for 2 years. Then I travel to Colorado in the winter and sure enough, no service. I'm sure you can see why someone might get upset in that scenario. Many of us travel frequently for business and/or pleasure and coverage maps are really all we have to go by when determining if we're going to get service wherever we need it.

I consider myself a pretty well-informed consumer and I always try to do research before I make a major purchase and/or decision. When it comes to cellular service, I check coverage maps to see what kind of service I can expect in the areas that I may need to travel to. I don't have the time to visit multiple message boards to ask people how so-and-so's coverage is in a certain area. If I can't rely on the service providers to provide accurate information, that's a problem.

 

[bluenoise]

Even if the maps were really accurate, there would still be room to complain. For example, Verizon and AT&T both have strong coverage in my area and I know many people who are happy with both. Yet, in some very specific areas around here, one works when the other doesn't. Move a block or two or into another building and it all changes. Also, I have friends with Verizon that brag 'superior coverage,' yet they don't get a signal at my house where AT&T is strong. It's all very much a case-by-case situation that no map is going to ever truly reflect.

Should a carrier advertise service where they have absolutely none, even if it's "coming soon?" No, that is misleading.

Should a carrier advertise service where they mostly have coverage, though it may be weak in some specific spots within the covered area? Yes, because the map is probably accurate to the level of its resolution.

The OP's situation seems more like the latter than the former case.

 

[Megalobyte]

RAPP=Reasonable and prudent person.

This is one of the most common legal tests in cases of deception, false advertising and/or fraud, often the question is, and I'll use this case as the example, would a reasonable and prudent person have believed they would have 3G coverage based on ATT's coverage Map, and the totality of both Apple's and ATT's marketing of the 3G Iphone, notice, it's called a 3G Iphone, interesting...

Of course the question is, what is reasonable and prudent, would a prudent person believe, or doubt the accuracy of the coverage Map, does a prudent person always read fine print, etc., maybe, maybe not, fine print disclaimers don't always automatically negate a false advertising claim, Personally, I think that a RAPP could very well have believed, given how the phone has been marketed, and seeing their area having full coverage on the map, that they would indeed have at least decent 3G coverage immediately, I can tell you this, I know I'd be majorly pissed to have upgraded mostly for 3G and not to have gotten at least mediocre 3G reception.

But, on the other hand, I'm not a reasonable and prudent person, so much as an obsessive and paranoid one who generally fears and expects the worst, so, before I bought mine, I tested several demo units at the Apple and ATT stores in my area to make sure they got good 3G reception and speeds. Yes, I made sure, but, I'm not sure the law would neccessarily require that much vigilance.

I think that on its face, the marketing of the phone, coupled with the apparently inaccurate coverage map that it's not unreaonable to rely on, is at least deceptive, if not legally so.