AT&T Files Complaint Against Verizon Over 3G Coverage Map Commercials

[archipellago]

Verizon is walking a very fine line and I believe they may have crossed that line with their coverage map / ad campaign.

Verizon can easily say it has the best 3g coverage and even that it's xx% better than the closest competition but this can and really should be done without blatantly criticizing your competition.

Ensuring that we have some civility in advertising ensures that we don't get into dog and cat fights that ultimately detract from the message we really want to convey.

Do you want consumers to buy your product because it is superior or because it's not as bad as your competition? Both ultimately mean the same thing, but one has a negative connotation that will leave a potentially "bad-tase" in the mouth of your existing and potential customers.

Bottom line, I don't see Mercedes making TV ads saying how inferior Toyota or KIA are to their cars...

You better believe if they did there would be lawsuits flying from all angles.

AF

MAC vs PC ads say hello...

 

[GNice]

The ads are absolutely fine IMHO. AT&T's response should be to improve their very spotty 3G coverage.

 

[frjonah]

Trout...

Verizion Shouldnt be trouting there 3G service I lived in NJ and TN both places I was lucky to get 2-3 bars on a good day my dad has had a iPhone 3G and a 3GS and has had good realiablity with ATT. Verizon may trout they have the most coverage but clearly not the best.

Yeah, I know what you mean... I really miss TN trout after moving to NJ myself

 

[fa8362]

I just don't understand how people think this commercial is misleading. They clearly state that they are comparing 3G networks, and above and beyond that anyone that ownes a freaking smart phone should know that AT&T would have more service than just 3G. Some people are just stupid. Just looking to get this ad off the air because AT&T sucks so bad. I guarantee if Apple drops them you will see their 3G service increase then because they do not have the iPhone to live on. REDONKULOUS!!!!

The court cares about the message consumers take away from the ads, not necessarily what's in them. As an advertising professional for many, many years, I can tell you that if AT&T can show via copy research that the message that consumers take away from the ads is false (regardless of what is actually in them), Verizon is in trouble.

 

[sterlingindigo]

Seriously, AT&T's 3G coverage and bars in general seems to have drastically deteriorated over the last 2 or 3 months for the same location. I wonder if it has anything to do with MMS. Answers range from "they are working on your tower" to "is your iPhone bad?". Not satisfied lately.

 

[intheBAG]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

...hahahahahahahahahah...

That is the funniest thing I've ever seen. I'm from Michigan and the only place that has 3G is Detroit for Verizon...

hahahah...

(notice the entire state showing 3G)

 

[kdarling]

The court cares about the message consumers take away from the ads, not necessarily what's in them. As an advertising professional for many, many years, I can tell you that if AT&T can show via copy research that the message that consumers take away from the ads is false (regardless of what is actually in them), Verizon is in trouble.

Interesting. IANAL, but a little Googling found:

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things:

(1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity;
(2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience;
(3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience;
(4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and
(5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.

Looks like condition (1) would not be satisfied in a lawsuit... especially since the 3G map is ATT's own. Can you give us an example, in your experience, where the court ignored that the statement was true? Thanks!

 

[Rogzilla]

AT&T should run an ad campaign showing just how much it would cost to use Verizon's 3g network, given lack of unlimited data plans or the lack of WiFi/GPS support in the provided phones. compared to iPhone's free access to starbucks hotspots. It's easy to maintain a network when you don't let people use it.

Lack of unlimited data plan? Um...I HAVE an unlimited data plan on my Verizon BB. Guess what? It's $30! 3G all the time. Also, my wife and I share 700 minutes, both have unlimited data and messaging. That costs us just under $160.

And OK, it doesn't have a wifi chip. There are phones coming out now that DO! And I don't care about hotspots if I have a phone that is already connected to a strong data network!

 

[kdarling]

And OK, it doesn't have a wifi chip. There are phones coming out now that DO! And I don't care about hotspots if I have a phone that is already connected to a strong data network!

Verizon's had WiFi equipped smartphones since 2005... the same year that ATT, Sprint and T-Mobile first got some.

As you say, the difference is, you don't need WiFi on Verizon very often... whereas ATT totally depends on it to supplement their broadband coverage. Plus the first EDGE-only iPhone really needed it.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Lack of unlimited data plan? Um...I HAVE an unlimited data plan on my Verizon BB. Guess what? It's $30! 3G all the time. Also, my wife and I share 700 minutes, both have unlimited data and messaging. That costs us just under $160.

And OK, it doesn't have a wifi chip. There are phones coming out now that DO! And I don't care about hotspots if I have a phone that is already connected to a strong data network!

You mean the unlimited thats not really unlimited? Just like Telecom's vision of unlimited is when after a while they throttle you back to near Modem speeds!

 

[fa8362]

Interesting. IANAL, but a little Googling found:



Looks like condition (1) would not be satisfied in a lawsuit... especially since the 3G map is ATT's own. Can you give us an example, in your experience, where the court ignored that the statement was true? Thanks!

I don't agree with your assessment. For #1, the law (Lanham Act) states "the defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising." If the copy research suggests that the ads are misleading (i.e, I show them A and consumers take away B, and B is false), and absent any significant evidence to the contrary, then from the court's point of view, they are misleading.

 

[xIGmanIx]

AT&T still drops calls like no ones business. Twice on one day, my BB just shut off/restarted. Would be nice to know if there were network/software/firmware updates they would be done, you know...off peak hours?!

 

[cumanzor]

MAC vs PC ads say hello...

how come everyone seems to be ignoring this?

 

[kdarling]

I don't agree with your assessment. For #1, the law (Lanham Act) states "the defendant must have made a false or misleading statement of fact in advertising."

Thanks! I just figured that out myself a few minutes ago. The Googled quote that I found in this free legal dictionary, was apparently missing that crucial phrase.

Here's a link with the ATT legal filings on Engadget, btw. They of course address that very point.

Thanks again.

 

[Krizoitz]

Are you kidding me?! That statement demonstrates how lacking you are in your understanding of this entire situation. I can't blame you entirely though, for all I know, MSNBC might be the only channel you get.

Forcing financial institutions to provide mortgages to those who shouldn't have had them in an attempt to regulate equality is the root cause. No bank in their right mind would give these people (population of people, don't race bait) loans because they were simply high risk / bad loads. Mommy-government stepped in, forced them to provide these loans and woolah, welcome in the train wreck.

The only additional regulation I support is taking away the right of stupid people to vote... My goodness.

Oh, and just so this stays on the topic of Mac's... I wrote this on an 24" iMac that was bought and paid for via capitalism and I didn't harm any children, animals or the environment in the process.

First, I don't watch MSNBC.
Second, banks which were regulated by the Community Reinvestment act actually did better during the last financial crisis than those that weren't regulated, but facts don't matter to people with an agenda.
Third, you wrote this on the internet, a system born out of government funded research. Capitalism isn't a cure all for the worlds ills.

 

[chigh]

It's...

crypto-fascist bourgeois crap.


Wading through it to find any truth is nigh impossible.

 

[Krizoitz]

I think you are projecting there a little with the part I bolded, seeing how every single item in your post slants one way. Of course, you probably didn't notice when you wrote it. Classic.

Um, no, just no. I provided examples where regulation has been beneficial because the original poster complained that all regulation is evil and bad, etc. Its called a counter argument. You will note that I did not say ALL regulation is OMG THE BEST! I merely gave examples of it doing good. There is nothing incongrous with pointing that out and also highlighting that neither pure capitalism or pure socialism are not the only options. In fact by highlighting that regulation CAN work it proves that pure-capitalism isn't the answer. One only need to point out examples where regulation hasn't worked to show that pure socialism isnt' the answer either. What does that leave us with? The answer is probably somewhere in between.

 

[xIGmanIx]

This hasn't been Macrumors for a while i am afraid, its Iphone Rumors, with page 2 dedicated to the Mac, an iPhone company.

How the hell is this a 'MacRumor'?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Um, no, just no. I provided examples where regulation has been beneficial because the original poster complained that all regulation is evil and bad, etc. Its called a counter argument. You will note that I did not say ALL regulation is OMG THE BEST! I merely gave examples of it doing good. There is nothing incongrous with pointing that out and also highlighting that neither pure capitalism or pure socialism are not the only options. In fact by highlighting that regulation CAN work it proves that pure-capitalism isn't the answer. One only need to point out examples where regulation hasn't worked to show that pure socialism isnt' the answer either. What does that leave us with? The answer is probably somewhere in between.

People ask what would happen if a country was purely Capitalist. Look up England during the Industrial Period, or just read "An Inspector Calls".

 

[jbernie]

What a pointless argument. I can get at least 50% in sprawling volcanic ranges of Auckland. By your answer I still get the feeling that GSM in America is Sub Par.

Congratulations but the cost to deliver 3G speed to many areas of the US is prohibitive when you look at the number of subscribers who live in the area if there are any.

Coverage in around Auckland (pop density 3,179.8 per sq mile) is not representative of coverage in say the states of Montana (pop density 6.5 per sq mile) or Wyoming (pop density 5.4 per sq mile).

Then assume that of that population, only a fraction of them use your service. So lets say AT&T and Verizon manage 70% of subscribers between them, so they could be providing 3G to areas where they may have 1 or 2 subcribers per sq mile.

Also, lets not forget that Verizon claims they have 3G coverage, they don't say how good their coverage actually is, maybe if you have 5 bus loads of Verizon customers driving through an area they will overload the towers?

 

[LagunaSol]

Also, lets not forget that Verizon claims they have 3G coverage, they don't say how good their coverage actually is, maybe if you have 5 bus loads of Verizon customers driving through an area they will overload the towers?

It would be interesting to see how Verizon's network held up under an iPhone-like crush of data use. We'll have to wait for an answer to that question, as Verizon has yet to field a device with iPhone-type success/demand that truly taxed their system (and no, DROID won't be it).

 

[twoodcc]

i don't blame them for doing this. i'm glad they're standing up

 

[Maserati7200]

About the commercial, there is nothing wrong with it. The fact is, At&T does not have 3G coverage in those white areas. Simple. It isn't misleading, because they never said you will not have data in those areas. And even if you did, 2.5G is terrible with data.


About the whole capitalism vs. socialism argument, here is my $0.02. A little background, I consider myself a libertarian. I believe people should have as much personal and economic freedom as possible without things getting corrupt. Basically I'm a liberal on social issues and a conservative on everything else. I believe gays have the right to marriage, I believe in a flat tax, and that a federal government should be very limited. In the society we have now, completely unregulated capitalism cannot work.While I don't like a lot of regulation, you do need some.

 

[jbernie]

It would be interesting to see how Verizon's network held up under an iPhone-like crush of data use. We'll have to wait for an answer to that question, as Verizon has yet to field a device with iPhone-type success/demand that truly taxed their system (and no, DROID won't be it).

I have been with AT&T/Cingular/AT&T for a while now (8 years or so), I now have an iPhone 3G S with them, I am reluctanct to complain as strongly as some do on here about issues. Maybe Denver metro doesn't have the same saturation levels of 3G capable iPhones as say NYC or San Francisco, but overall the product works very well and versus other smart phones the interface is miles ahead of most. I'm pretty sure that if Apple had sign the exclusive agreement with <insert carrier name> instead of AT&T there is a good chance they would be having the same issues.

About the commercial, there is nothing wrong with it. The fact is, At&T does not have 3G coverage in those white areas. Simple. It isn't misleading, because they never said you will not have data in those areas. And even if you did, 2.5G is terrible with data.

The map represents AT&T 3g coverage in the USA. That is fair. The issue is more around the suggestion through the interactions of the people in at least one of the ads that no 3G coverage means no coverage at all and the phone doesnt work.

I dont know if the ad has a specific name, but it is the phone where the 3 ladies meet up at the cafe(?) and what would appear to be the 4th friend is sitting in a park bench because she didn't get the message as there was no 3G coverage for her AT&T phone.

If they had shown some guy accessing a webpage on his AT&T phone slower than the guy using the Verizon phone then that is more representative of what you could expext. Not getting the message because of no 3G service is pretty a lie and good grounds for a law suit.

 

[kdarling]

It would be interesting to see how Verizon's network held up under an iPhone-like crush of data use. We'll have to wait for an answer to that question, as Verizon has yet to field a device with iPhone-type success/demand that truly taxed their system (and no, DROID won't be it).

We don't necessarily need a single device to find out. Verizon has millions of smartphone users.

Web browsing, being not timing dependent, shouldn't tax the network very much. VoIP and TV Slinging, which is allowed on Verizon, could. Pandora could also.

But I'd suspect the main culprit on ATT to be lots of YouTube viewers. That might not happen on Verizon simply because the demographic for Android buyers could be quite different.

I'd love to see a breakdown of the net traffic that's supposedly clogging up ATT.