AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over TV Ad Burn

[JMcEntegart]

You may have found Verizon's "There's a map for that" commercial mildly amusing. Indeed, the jibe at Apple and AT&T's "There's an app for that" TV spot didn't go unnoticed by most consumers. However, it appears AT&T is annoyed enough to take legal action.

AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over TV Ad Burn : Read more

 

[gbismack]

It is not misleading. It clearly is comparing their 3G coverage to AT&T's complete LACK of 3G coverage. It is AT&T who tried to mislead their customers about their coverage.

 

[theuerkorn]

Verizon has a point with 3G coverage, though it's of course misleading (which isn't unusual for advertisement). Edge (2G) is the only option in my area with AT&T -- even if they promised availability for Q1 2008 -- and Verizon indeed offers 3G. Not essential, but Vz certainly expanded their network quicker than AT&T. Annoying, but no deal breaker. Everywhere else i go seems to be 3G for AT&T as well.

 

[thearm]

Since they are comparing 3G coverage to 3G coverage, I don't see a problem. AT&T should be confident with it's product but it sounds like they are not.

 

[superblahman123]

I would agree that it is misleading, but the ad isn't lying when comparing *3G* coverage. But the general public won't think *3G* coverage, instead they'll just think *coverage*. If Verizon were to alter the ad to include all forms of coverage, then it would be doing justice.
So I would say that AT&T has a case on this one.

 

[thearm]

[citation][nom]superblahman123[/nom]I would agree that it is misleading, but the ad isn't lying when comparing *3G* coverage. But the general public won't think *3G* coverage, instead they'll just think *coverage*. If Verizon were to alter the ad to include all forms of coverage, then it would be doing justice.So I would say that AT&T has a case on this one.[/citation]

So because advertisers have taught people to not think over the years, Verizon has a case? I don't think so. I mean, they may have a case in today's society but it's not a just case.

 

[Honis]

I think Verizon needs to rerun its numbers, the picture looks like a lot more than 5 times...

 

[AndrewMD]

I love the commercial... It shows that AT&T needs to stop paying big bucks to its executive staff and reinvest into infrastructure..

Hey AT&T what's next, you going to sue T-Mobile for having a $50.00 unlimited voice plan?

 

[jcknouse]

I've learned one valuable thing from this, being an AT&T wireless customer:

Don't go to Alaska, North Dakota, Montana or Wyoming lol

Actually, my phone is quad-band GSM and I have a package where I pay no long distance, no roaming fees, and no administration fees as long as it's usage on a US cell service tower.

 

[duckmanx88]

ATT has no case. Verizon is not comparing total ATT coverage just their 3G which ATT admitted in a statement. ATT is just butt hurt that Verizon called them out on it. It specifically states "3G Coverage". How is this any more misleading than when ATT claims to have the largest 3G coverage when it obviously doesn't.

 

[superblahman123]

[citation][nom]thearm[/nom]So because advertisers have taught people to not think over the years, Verizon has a case? I don't think so. I mean, they may have a case in today's society but it's not a just case.[/citation]

I think *AT&T* has a case btw. Counting on whether or not people think has nothing to do with it. Advertising only counts on perception, and it is obvious that the perception they are counting on is that people will think AT&T has extremely low or no coverage in portions of the US. Which they obviously succeeded in doing, but they made no connection to the technicality that AT&T has coverage in most places, just not 3G.

 

[tester24]

If it is true then they don't have a case. From what I gather I wouldn't doubt this information was true, however the Verizon map looks a little bit more than 5x the coverage.

 

[ubergeek]

They should have known they would get "Crap for that"

 

[ThisIsMe]

Verizon doesn't just offer 3G. They just decided to start calling there network 3G one day because it was a good marketing move. Where I live AT&T's 2G Edge network is twice as fast as Verizons anything network. When you're using AT&T 3G, it's at least 4 times faster. With a good signal you get there 3G+ service adn you can add another 50% speed boost.

Most of Verizon's marketed speed is only the burst rate anyways. Constant speed is nowhere near AT&T's. That's why AT&T threatened to sue them over the best coverage thing because AT&T said that speed should be considered when you start statng things like that. Then Verizon switched over to these commercials instead. They'll just keep marketing this bull until AT&T actually takes it to the courts. Verizon needs to learn that you can't just rely on software updates running on old tech from almost a decade ago and then attack a company that is actually upgrading it's hardware as well as software as it goes for having less 3G coverage when it doesn't really have any to begin with. Silly Verizon! Telling lies is naughty! Now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]superblahman123[/nom]I think *AT&T* has a case btw. Counting on whether or not people think has nothing to do with it. Advertising only counts on perception, and it is obvious that the perception they are counting on is that people will think AT&T has extremely low or no coverage in portions of the US. Which they obviously succeeded in doing, but they made no connection to the technicality that AT&T has coverage in most places, just not 3G.[/citation]

It's not Verizon's responsibility to advertise what AT&T has and doesn't have. Verizon is simply pointing out that their 3G coverage is far broader than AT&Ts. They make it very clear they are comparing 3G coverage. They never say AT&T doesn't have service in those areas, they simply say AT&T doesn't offer 3G in those areas, which is 100% accurate.

If you don't know what 3G is, that's your fault. In fact, it's more dishonest for AT&T to claim it has the largest data network, ignoring the fact that most of that network isn't 3G. Look at this page: http/www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/solutions/network/index.jsp, AT&T claims it has the largest high-speed data network, with EDGE!!!

No, AT&T has no leg to stand on. They made claims their network couldn't back up, and Verizon simply called them out. The judge should laugh this case out of the court room.

 

[antilycus]

ATT is WAYYY more misleading then Verizon. ATT makes it sound like you'll get awesome service anywhere, but anyone that has a GSM phone knows, thats total BS regardless of who the provider is. You want service, stick with CDMA

 

[Montezuma]

Oh, I'm sorry AT&T. You are mad because Verizon would not help further your bullshit by showing your "2G" coverage map and label it 3G coverage? That is actually "truth in advertising". If you cannot deal with that, then you need to improve your 3G coverage.

Of course, none of this is going to happen until you quit investing in dead, useless fuck technologies.

 

[steveoh]

Seems to me like AT&T was just owned and is sore...

 

[Montezuma]

[citation][nom]superblahman123[/nom]I would agree that it is misleading, but the ad isn't lying when comparing *3G* coverage. But the general public won't think *3G* coverage, instead they'll just think *coverage*. If Verizon were to alter the ad to include all forms of coverage, then it would be doing justice.So I would say that AT&T has a case on this one.[/citation]

It is only misleading to extreme idiots that have no place owning a cellular phone. Verizon plainly states that they are discussing 3G coverage. AT&T has overstepped their bounds and I hope that Verizon counter-sues for AT&T costing them(Verizon) money.

 

[buwish]

It's funny how verifiable facts can even get you taken to court these days. What a joke.