AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over TV Ad Burn

[megamanx00]

AT&T wants to take Verizon to court because they pointed out their Follies. Heaven forbid that anyone mention the emperor has no cloths.

 

[mustwarnothers]

[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]

Huh?

The ad specifies 3G Coverage, the map shows 3G coverage.

Regardless of what advertising relies upon, AT&T cannot possibly have a case based on the assumption that the average TV viewer doesn't read what's on the screen.

 

[socrates047]

that was jokes grow a pair AT&T. you have already robbed people through the iphone let someone else have the limelight.
P.S: i'm not a verizon fanboy, or even a cell phone fanboy, because my life style just doesn't really need a high tech device to make calls. I own a Motorola i335 which i received for free.

 

[socrates047]

Grow a pair AT&T, you have already robbed people thorugh the iphone, why cant u let anyone else have the limelight?

P.S: I am not a Verizon Fanboy, or a cellphone fanboy for that matter. I own a Motorola i335

 

[pooflinger1]

Yeah,

I don't see how AT&T can claim that to be misleading. It is plainly labeled "3G Coverage". Plain as day. What AT&T is saying is that they prey on the stupidity of the customer and that if customers become educated, that they will fail.

 

[Major7up]

I agree that AT&T has it's panties in a big fat bunch

 

[Guest]

I don't get it. Why would it be misleading? They are clearly comparing 3G coverage which AT&T is clearly lacking. These are facts. They are not responsible for educating consumers on AT&T's other offerings.

 

[techguy378]

[citation][nom]Antilycus[/nom]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[/citation]
Most of the USA is covered by either GSM or HSPA, not 2G CDMA. 2G CDMA is just an obsolete technology like TDMA is.

 

[the_brute]

Ah another STUPID court case to waist time money and valuable resources. We wonder why our courts are behind. AT&T Verizon is NOT doing a commercial for you it is for them (V). All this political crap is going to waist time and how many millions for court/lawyer fees. Heck have our technology have as many law suits as health care we might have to get a federal phone plan insurance.

Im from the midwest and AT&T has NO service under their name here, there is service under Iwireless and Long Lines (both co-own towers with little help from AT&T) and trust me there is not even a hint of even 2G. Verizon speeds are slow as mentioned earlier but its a sales pitch (label) but I have gone from the east coast to Glacier Nat Park Montana and never lost signal. They got the fancy "software" to claim 3G nationwide (more or less) AT&T decided to get "hardware" for limited locations (but with bigger population centers). So your choice and life style.
And this comes from a US cell fan because of 1000 min 500 txt plan for $20. arent discounts are wonderful?

 

[IXfearlessXI]

AT&T is just mad and jealous that they lie about their claims of having the largest 3G network, and that they suck at providing 3G coverage. Verizon compares its own 3G network with AT&T's. Because Verizon is more up to date with its software and technical cell phone coverage and only serves 3G service, it is making AT&T jealous. Iphone is over-rated and all hype.

 

[ravewulf]

Verizon does specify VERY CLEARLY that they are comparing 3G coverage. They didn't say "overall coverage"

 

[badger_83]

IMO since the ad Clearly states that it's comparing 3G coverage, AT&T should lose this one. Anyone who has used both Verizon and AT&T already knows how much better the coverage is on Verizon. It's probably the only reason the iPhone hasn't completely taken over the market.

 

[cptnjarhead]

AT&T needs to stop whining.. they should have invested more capital in their 3G network. As for the consumer.."Caveat emptor"
If you don't know the difference between 3G and 2G coverage.. you should go out and buy a jitterbug!
I am a AT&T customer.

 

[jojesa]

I think Verizon was generous. I live in New York in one of those blue areas on the map and most of the time I don't get 3G coverage.
Instead of wasting money in court AT&T should use that money to improve the coverage.

 

[cookoy]

Clearly 3G vs 3G. If i want 3G and you only have 2G, shouldn't i look elsewhere?

 

[surfer1337dude]

No case at all. Come on the ad even has it written that this is comparing 3G coverage. AT&T are the ones who have more misleading commercials too be honest....not too mention every other commercial out their. They are just upset that Verizon's ads are doing better then their own.

 

[Brainbent]

The ITU IMT-2000 standard (circa 1999), AKA 3G, includes GSM EDGE, UMTS, and CDMA2000 and WiMAX (added 2007).

Edge does not report as 3G although it clearly meets, and is included in, the 3G standard. So, is it 3G? It really depends on semantics. Edge (ATT) evolved from older 2G technologies, and is in good position to evolve into 4G networks. CDMA (Verizon) was a new technology and started out as a 3G standard.

Here in Northern California, I have good coverage on ATT in one spot and no Verizon coverage. and I can move to another spot a few minutes away and the reverse will be true. Speeds are comparable.

 

[TheOnlyPenguin]

lmao, this is fantastic, it says 3G but the average consumer is pretty dumb. i see at&t's point, but its not false advertising in the least.

 

[AtuBrian]

how would they take them to court i mean look at mac and pc?

 

[millerm84]

Looks like I need to sue Verizon too, as that map clearly shows 3G coverage in my area, but no Verizon phone will work within 30 miles of here (NW NC).

And then if the courts award AT&T a win because their case of "the consumer is too dumb to know how to read", I can form a class action law suite against AT&T and sue the pants off of them for insinuating that I and the rest of America can't read!

See the consumer really does win when there is market competition!


Seriously, if the best thing AT&T can come up with to improve the competitiveness of their product is sue the competition for pointing out their flaws, do any of their executives really deserve to share our oxygen?