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

[tigres]

My 3GS started doing it's own thing this week. Rings... sometimes, VM indicator... occasionally, and 3G service 65% of the time.

I'm calling for a credit this time; I am getting tired of this shotty service; they don't ask me for half the money monthly.

 

[Bafflefish]

So how is all of that regulation working out for you? Apparently not so well considering all of you liberals whine about wanting more and more of it...

How about people standing up for what they believe in instead of running to mommy-government when they don't get their iPhone on Verizon or lead paint on their Chinese imported toys?

Your whole argument is flawed. More regulation doesn't make things safer, bad people will ALWAYS do bad things like using rat meat or dumping chemicals in water supplies... Why not create a new law against breaking laws, that surely will solve the problem.

When ABC, Inc is discovered dumping crap in your local creek / stream, stop buying their products to show your discontent... instead, you still give them your money because your selfish wants outweigh your ethics and you think mommy-government should stop it so you can still have all you want.

Pathetic.

I laugh my hind-end off at the hypocrisy here... Everyone whines about about how Apple can't stop you from installing OS X on your hackintosh and you don't care if it's legal or not... yet, you want more regulations and expect other people (those big, bad, evil capitalist corporations that built this country) to obey them, when you clearly don't yourselves...

Even more pathetic.

I love the "Bad people will always do bad, so regulation is stupid" argument. It's so amusing.

Regulation will never be able to completely catch everyone who breaks the law, but at the same time, it has helped to prevent quite a bit of problems, and has also led to generally better improvements in regards to just about everything.

Do you really want a food industry where no regulation occurs? Do you really want a drug industry where no one is watching to make sure that drugs are generally safe or properly tested? I don't know about you, but I like the idea that when I go to a riverfront or lake front, that the water and air is relatively clean, and that I can enjoy nature in a healthy fashion. Apparently you would prefer the days of when companies were allowed to dump chemicals into rivers and lakes at will. I bet you'd have loved to get together with family and have a nice BBQ while watching the Cuyahoga River burn.

 

[AppleMojo]

His argument is pretty dead on, excepting that mail delivery isn't free last I paid my bills.

Regulation is a nessesity. Period. Too much will great huge problems, as will too little. The telcom industry has gone through a period of deregulation which is generally good, but now we are having issues with companies caring more about profit, less about service, and using underhanded practices to lure and keep customers.

The last of those three is the one that needs regulation. Consumers shouldn't have to pay termination fees to switch carriers. They must have an option to start service without a contract. And they should be able to use there fully paid for and 100% owned phone on whatever carrier they choose(if technically feasable). Only then will the consumers power of choice allow the (almost)free market to work.

I can actually agree with quite a bit of your comments.

However, people are signing these contracts, which means that they agree to these terms. The signature means you agree. If you disagree you can't claim you were coerced, it just indicates that your wants outweighed your ethics / standards.

They know what the cancelation fees are before they signed the contract.
They know the iPhone is only on AT&T when they wanted and bought it.

We live in a world now where everyone thinks only the other guy has to abide by the contract. Making up lame excuses about being forced to swipe their credit card for a luxury device... gee, so hard it must be.

People need to stand up for what they believe in, if they are that upset about the iPhone being only on AT&T, then don't get one.

This whole concept of signing a contract and then shouting "it's not fair", "they can't do that" and "mine, mine, mine" is getting really old.

There isn't much integrity left in the world. I've recently had conversations as recently as this last weekend about people pirating movies and software and justifying it by saying they weren't going to pay for it anyway, so big deal if they have a pirated copy... uh, yeah... that makes a lot of sense.

The comments about "caring more about profit" I think are silly. Do people really think there is giant, hidden profit boxes. These profits are creating jobs, supporting economies, putting food on peoples tables, sending children to college, etc. Sure, some executives are getting nice big fat bank accounts, but that is the way it works. Regardless if you feel they deserve it or not, it doesn't matter... they'd easily say you don't deserve what you have.

 

[grabbyg]

Oh, and AT&T doesn't lie????

You want to know what lying and misleading is??? AT&T saying more bars in more places as 2 friends and I try to get a signal in NYC, outside on the street, with everyone having full bars and not being able to place a call. Now that is misleading: implying that having many bars = better coverage/service. NOT!
I moved over from Verizon to AT&T simply for the iphone and will gladly move back if they ever have an iphone. No more tin can calls.

 

[cdd543]

ATT...Expand your 3g network and make it more robust in the cities you already serve. Verizon crushes you in 3g coverage.

 

[dusty59]

WAH! WAH! WAH!

How about....... improving your service instead?

Exactly: spend less time/money fighting marketing, and spend it fixing your d@~d network!

 

[AppleMojo]

I love the "Bad people will always do bad, so regulation is stupid" argument. It's so amusing.

Regulation will never be able to completely catch everyone who breaks the law, but at the same time, it has helped to prevent quite a bit of problems, and has also led to generally better improvements in regards to just about everything.

Do you really want a food industry where no regulation occurs? Do you really want a drug industry where no one is watching to make sure that drugs are generally safe or properly tested? I don't know about you, but I like the idea that when I go to a riverfront or lake front, that the water and air is relatively clean, and that I can enjoy nature in a healthy fashion. Apparently you would prefer the days of when companies were allowed to dump chemicals into rivers and lakes at will. I bet you'd have loved to get together with family and have a nice BBQ while watching the Cuyahoga River burn.

I am not 100% against regulation. It's the abuse and the idea that we should just keep adding more layers of regulation to stop or prevent bad things from happening.

An example... driving down HWY 2 the other day, there is a state traffic sign that says "Stay in your lane". This is my point, do we really need to be told to stay in our lane? Are there an over abundance of people not staying in their lane? Seriously. If safety is the purpose, then a simple sign that warns people to be more vigilant would suffice, rather than an obviously stupid sign for morons on HWY 2.

That sign is only an example of the kind of morons who are drafting this regulation... I'd love to meet the idiot who came up with that sign, I'd bet he's just absolutely brilliant. ;-)

 

[Sun Baked]

WAH! WAH! WAH!

How about....... improving your service instead?

Don't you watch the commercial talking about ours vs. theirs tv service, lie lie lie, with your commercials instead.

 

[Bafflefish]

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.

Uh, what? The government did not "force" banks and mortgage firms to provide high-risk individuals with loans. The banks and mortgage firms did it all on their own - the risk was deemed worth it, as they would simply increase the interest rates over time (or start them high from the beginning), and thus make a lot of money as long as the owners were able to pay. They didn't require down payments, they decreased (or often waived) the general requirement that your monthly loan payment be no more than 30-40% of your monthly income. They would then turn around and bundle the mortgages up into securities (the "high-risk securities" that people talked so much about in 2008), and sell those off as a way to attempt to rid themselves of the potentially bad debt.

Of course, other large financial institutions were the ones purchasing those securities, and so it was basically a giant game of Russian Roulette, in terms of hoping the bullet never came up.

Ultimately, once those adjustable rate mortgages (which the banks themselves were more than happy to provide - the federal government didn't "force" anything upon them) started increasing, people found they couldn't pay the greatly increased monthly payments (usually for a home). However, as more and more homes were being built, the boom in housing prices collapsed, so that homes could be purchased far more cheaply. This resulted in those with adjustable rate mortgages being unable to re-finance their loans, and thus faced with the inability to make their increasingly-larger monthly payments, many defaulted. With those defaults, anyone holding those mortgages and loans suddenly saw the influx of payments dry up, and thus the market collapsed.

One thing drove the boom (and then bust): greed. It was a carefree time, beginning around 1999/2000, and every bank and firm were trying to bring in as much money as possible. That is capitalism's way, after all. Unfortunately, their figurative moneytree had its root on loose alluvium, and once the earthquake of defaults began, that tree quickly toppled over. Don't try to place the entire blame (or even the majority blame) on the government and regulation. If anything, it was deregulation.

 

[Bafflefish]

I am not 100% against regulation. It's the abuse and the idea that we should just keep adding more layers of regulation to stop or prevent bad things from happening.

An example... driving down HWY 2 the other day, there is a state traffic sign that says "Stay in your lane". This is my point, do we really need to be told to stay in our lane? Are there an over abundance of people not staying in their lane? Seriously. If safety is the purpose, then a simple sign that warns people to be more vigilant would suffice, rather than an obviously stupid sign for morons on HWY 2.

That sign is only an example of the kind of morons who are drafting this regulation... I'd love to meet the idiot who came up with that sign, I'd bet he's just absolutely brilliant. ;-)

I don't know where "HWY 2" is, but I can honestly tell you that here in Phoenix, people are *constantly* drifting into other lanes, along with other wonderful driving scenarios: not using turn signals (in Arizona, it's required by law that you either use your car's turn signals whenever making most standard types of lane changes or turns, or otherwise you must use arm signals), driving through gore points, improperly using round-a-bouts, driving the opposite way down one-lane roads. It's terrible here.

 

[AppleMojo]

Uh, what? The government did not "force" banks and mortgage firms to provide high-risk individuals with loans. The banks and mortgage firms did it all on their own - the risk was deemed worth it, as they would simply increase the interest rates over time (or start them high from the beginning), and thus make a lot of money as long as the owners were able to pay. They didn't require down payments, they decreased (or often waived) the general requirement that your monthly loan payment be no more than 30-40% of your monthly income. They would then turn around and bundle the mortgages up into securities (the "high-risk securities" that people talked so much about in 2008), and sell those off as a way to attempt to rid themselves of the potentially bad debt.

Of course, other large financial institutions were the ones purchasing those securities, and so it was basically a giant game of Russian Roulette, in terms of hoping the bullet never came up.

Ultimately, once those adjustable rate mortgages (which the banks themselves were more than happy to provide - the federal government didn't "force" anything upon them) started increasing, people found they couldn't pay the greatly increased monthly payments (usually for a home). However, as more and more homes were being built, the boom in housing prices collapsed, so that homes could be purchased far more cheaply. This resulted in those with adjustable rate mortgages being unable to re-finance their loans, and thus faced with the inability to make their increasingly-larger monthly payments, many defaulted. With those defaults, anyone holding those mortgages and loans suddenly saw the influx of payments dry up, and thus the market collapsed.

One thing drove the boom (and then bust): greed. It was a carefree time, beginning around 1999/2000, and every bank and firm were trying to bring in as much money as possible. That is capitalism's way, after all. Unfortunately, their figurative moneytree had its root on loose alluvium, and once the earthquake of defaults began, that tree quickly toppled over. Don't try to place the entire blame (or even the majority blame) on the government and regulation. If anything, it was deregulation.

Not even going to waste my time reading past your first sentence...

Banks did not do this on their own, try doing a little reading on the Fair Housing Bill and then let us know what you think.

-- Oh, and I'll add that I get the bundling of loans and selling off risk packages... I've spent the last 10+ years auditing FI's. ;-)

 

[Xenu007]

AT&T Lies!!

I am a former Verizon customer who switched to AT&T to get an iPhone, so I know the Verizon coverage pattern and quality where I live very well. AT&T's "3G" coverage in the SAME area is pathetic, weak, or just non-existent. AT&T's 3G coverage maps are a complete lie. Their "Enterprise" coverage is sketchy and weak, basically what dial-up Internet used to be like-- even for cell calls. If you want dropped calls and lousy performance on your iPhone, then AT&T is the carrier for you. If and when Verizon carries the iPhone, I will switch back instantly and I don't care what penalty I have to pay.

 

[lostngone]

The map IS Wrong!

I know for a fact that a few areas in Alaska have 3G coverage. Verizon's coverage map is incorrect at least for Alaska.

 

[MorphingDragon]

You are comparing Hong Kong to the entire U.S.? Hong Kong is the size of New York City, so that is a better comparison, and I would think the 3G coverage in the City is similar to that of Hong Kong.

That is no excuse for not having coverage across the entire country, but having coverage in remote mountain areas can't be compared to a large metropolitan area.

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.

 

[Frisco]

Verizon is superior. This is just another black mark on Steve Jobs's resume.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Well it doesn't much matter; AT&T will buy Verizon within the next few years and the reunification of the stifling telco monopoly will be complete.

I don't think this would ever get government approval. We only have 2 main carriers in South Dakota, Verizon and Alltel. When Verizon purchased Alltel they were forced to divest the SD market to another company. Anyhow AT&T is in the process of buying it. When my Alltel contract is up I will be switching to Verizon.

 

[Bafflefish]

Not even going to waste my time reading past your first sentence...

Banks did not do this on their own, try doing a little reading on the Fair Housing Bill and then let us know what you think.

-- Oh, and I'll add that I get the bundling of loans and selling off risk packages... I've spent the last 10+ years auditing FI's. ;-)

Are you talking about the Fair Housing Act of the late 1960s? Because if you are, yes, I know all about it. And let me ask you this: if the Fair Housing Act was to blame, why did it take 40 years for the system to collapse upon itself?

Because it wasn't to blame, that's why.

I dated a girl for a few years who worked at the time for Countrywide, and when the financial crisis was first beginning and building up steam, she was telling all about the issues that were occurring, just in regards to Countrywide. They would gladly offer loans to people with very low disposable income. They would "stretch" the financing rules to get high-risk individuals loans. People were worried left and right. We worked in the same building when we met (the company I worked for was on a higher floor), but when the bottom fell out, you could see more and more people let go (including my gf) as they prepared for bankruptcy (although they ended up being purchased).

It came down to greed. The whole point of capitalism is to make as much money as possible. It's a system that has good points (such as product innovation, competitive pricing, etc.) and its faults (such as what led to the financial crisis).

The government definitely had a share of the blame, but you can't try and claim that the banks were some innocent victim of all of this. That's ignorant at best. They set themselves up for it. And they reaped what they sowed.

 

[jdanilson]

they both suck

take the money spent on the ads and lawyers and improve both networks.

I hate AT&T.

I hate Verizon even more.

I have no choice if I want an iPhone.

 

[mac*jedi*g]

All in all, AT&T has to stop rolling out products before their ready for primetime:

• Their High Speed DSL (6mps)sometime is being sold in areas where the infrastructure is not ready for that type of traffic (my case). Though, their CS keeps selling the service, the service technician constantly have to reverse the orders and return them back to the lower levels.
  
• Uverse is no where to be found in most markets, but you see far too much advertisement on it in your local. Ask for it online, and they are oblivious as to when its coming to your area.
  
• Wireless "dead zones" are too rampant in this network. And when they are reported to AT&T Customer Service you get the sense that they are not being acted upon. Case in point, I have a major dead zone at my house. All AT&T phones are dead here. Walk out about 1 block, and your coverage returns. I first brought this to their attention --- 2 years ago. They said the reason may lie in the fact that they did not renew a lease on a T-mobile cell tower that serviced my block. They had felt that one 2 miles away and out of position -- should be suffice. Right, 1 bar or none for my iPhone. No plans to improve the coverage either.

Now, AT&T has one of the best selections of wireless phones in the market. No one can beat them here. This is area they can boast all they want, but they have to get moving on their claims of 3G service and service nonetheless.

 

[hatunike]

haven't read all the comments, but possibly one way it's misleading is that it says "5x more coverage" and the map shows more than 5x coverage. What gives? There is way more than 5 times the area covered in red than blue.

 

[ericinboston]

Makes sense. When I see that ad, it does actually make me think that AT&T has no cell coverage outside of those blue areas, not just 3G. And I know better. Yet, every time I see that ad, I still inherently think that there is no AT&T voice coverage, either, in all those white areas of the map. This is definitely misleading. AT&T is in the right, here.

I agree...even after seeing the ad a few times I still first think ATT has no coverage where it is blank. I think Verizon is right on this.

HOWEVER, how do you think us consumers feel about ALL Carriers?! We can't/dare not b*tch to a phone provider about bad connections, dropped calls, poor service etc. because all they will do is tell us to read the super fine print and oh yea, tell us to go to hell unless we want to cancel and pay the cancellation fee.

Double standard if you ask me.


-Eric

 

[NoExpectations]

Verizon blew it....twice now.

Verizon is superior. This is just another black mark on Steve Jobs's resume.

First, by not grabbing the iPhone when they had the chance. Second, by pissing off Jobs with the latest round of ads.

Most analysts agree....Apple will not make a CDMA compatible iPhone and it will be around the years 2013-2014 before Verizon's 4G network has a big enough footprint to support the next Gen iPhone.

But hey, they made a great ad.

AT&T should make an ad showing a blank map. "This is Verizon's network that supports the iPhone today".

 

[Papajohn56]

Hell, AT&T's voice/2G/2.5G coverage is spotty at best too.

 

[Ericatomars]

Verizon is just stating the fact here... Alot of times the commercials are lies but everyone knows these facts are golden. If the AT&T didn't get first dibs on the iphone then there would be no more AT&T because Cingular stunk and just because you change the name doesn't mean much! How can they have time to improve their service when they are to busy crying against Verizon ads.

 

[sysiphus]

You've got to have an IQ in the double digits to think that the ad is talking about anything other than ATT's 3G service. This is called "if you can't compete, litigate!"