backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by chose.. on Dec 12 at 3:30 PM


AT&T uses Luke Wilson in a counterattack on Verizon's "Anti-AT&T" commercials

A federal judge handed AT&T a lump of Christmas coal, denying the company's pleas for an injunction to take Verizon's commercials mocking AT&T's network off the air.
There will be no injunction in AT&T's stocking this Christmas

Negative advertising can be a tremendously effective tool, just ask Microsoft.  While people may by now be getting tired of Apple's attack commercials against PCs, for several years they served as an effective tool in building Apple's market share back to relevance and raising the company's brand image. 

However, what's especially lethal is when you can create a negative advertising campaign that's actually true.  That's what Verizon did when it pounced on Apple's partner AT&T over the company's poor 3G coverage.  With AT&T's partner Apple recently admitting that the carrier dropped as many as 30 percent of its calls in some regions, on average, Verizon, the nation's largest carrier, pounced on its second place competitor airing a series of commercials mocking it.

AT&T took a gamble and took Verizon to court over its new "There's a map for that" commercials.  It argued that TV viewers by and large weren't smart enough to distinguish from 3G coverage maps and total coverage maps, despite the Verizon commercial providing textual and verbal indications that the maps were representative of 3G coverage.  Thus AT&T argued the commercials would mislead customers into thinking AT&T had no coverage in much of the country when it really only had no 3G coverage.

The company upped the ante when it asked for an injunction on Verizon's latest "Island of Misfit Toys" commercials, expanding the case in federal court.  However, Verizon refused to back down from its attacks, commenting in court filings "the truth hurts."

Now AT&T's Christmas wish to take its competitor's ads off the air has been met with disappointment.  U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr. handed the telecom a lump of coal, denying their request for an injunction, commenting that while Verizon's commercials were "sneaky" they weren't misleading. 

Judge Batten Sr. commented that people might "misunderstand" the commercials, "but that doesn’t mean they’re misleading."  He even had both sides laughing when he elaborated, "Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic.  They’re not fully alive."

The loss is no laughing matter for AT&T, though, as it faces a worse hit to its already marred brand image, thanks to the heightened publicity the suit has given the commercials.  Recent brand studies showed that the commercials seemed to be working with Verizon's brand perception rising over the past several weeks, and AT&T's brand image plummeting.

AT&T will have one final chance to try to silence Verizon, at a second hearing on December 16.  However, with Verizon crying that AT&T is trying to silence its right to free speech and AT&T unable to directly challenge the commercials' accuracy, AT&T's hopes of a last-minute Christmas surprise seem to be growing increasingly dim.

In other news, AT&T has finally decided to combat Verizon's commercials directly with a commercial of their own. The company has employed Luke Wilson to jab Verizon on such issues as simultaneous talking/web surfing and the company's lack of “popular smartphones”. You can view the commercial here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That commercial was...
By Ramos22 on 11/18/2009 9:15:29 PM , Rating: 5
terrible.




RE: That commercial was...
By BruceLeet on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That commercial was...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/18/2009 9:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
You shut your mouth when you're talking to me!


RE: That commercial was...
By tastyratz on 11/18/2009 10:40:24 PM , Rating: 1
I just had to comment, that clip art baby for this article has been my forum signature for well over a year now
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/tastyratz/si...


RE: That commercial was...
By Ristogod on 11/19/2009 9:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
That baby is ugly.


RE: That commercial was...
By spread on 11/19/2009 6:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. It's from Wedding Crashers guys. Relax.

Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n46CtDmKOg


RE: That commercial was...
By Samus on 11/19/2009 4:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
caaaaaaaaaaarl!!


RE: That commercial was...
By Omega215D on 11/18/2009 10:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love some of the retards that post under the Youtube video. like one saying how ATT is not bad because not many people leave their home area that often so the coverage is not that important.

The douche doesn't even know what CDMA is capable of and that GSM can get "crowded" at times.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/18/2009 10:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
CDMA however loses signal strength the more people are on it too.

CDMA is still superior, but I'm not buying any stupid phone locked to a carrier, and certainly not some stupid CDMA only phone with no SIM card slot. That $559 Nokia N900 looks just about right.


RE: That commercial was...
By rvassar on 11/18/2009 10:54:05 PM , Rating: 1
CDMA is on it's way out. The max data rate on CDMA EVDO is much slower than GSM 3G. Verizon is switching it's network over to LTE over the next few years.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/18/2009 11:21:02 PM , Rating: 3
LTE is the new CDMA in a way. There is no TDMA done in LTE as there is currently in GSM/GPRS, or Att's HSPDA.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 2:07:03 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, just to clarify,

TDMA - really old phones on Att/Cingular - Went dead around 2005 or 2006
GSM - Still uses Time Division Multiplexing
CDMAone/CDMA2000 - Most laughed at Qualcomm when they made it, saying it would never work, and even if it could, it would be too expensive and battery draining. Obviously uses code division multiplexing

The newer UMTS/HSDPA stuff and LTE no longer use TDM but CDM.

LTE looks also like UMTS/HSDPA upgraded, though I have not been able to confirm.

In any case, Cingular deployed UMTS first on 1900mhz, and that may explain why their coverage sucks, at least, indoors. They are now doing 850mhz as well since that works better indoors.

Get a Nokia N900, and it can work on T-Mobile's 1700mhz, Atts 1900 and in Europe at 2100mhz, though all of those suck for indoor use :(


RE: That commercial was...
By Fireshade on 11/20/2009 10:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in Europe at 2100mhz, though all of those suck for indoor use :(

That's probably your carrier's fault.
I've never had any indoor connection problem in Europe. Always excellent connections.


RE: That commercial was...
By bhieb on 11/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: That commercial was...
By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well if they are going to make a comment on it and passing it off as a fact then yes they should research it before commenting (the post didn't sound like an opinion). We have the capability to learn and understand why not use it?


RE: That commercial was...
By nerdboy on 11/19/2009 6:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
I don’t understand how AT&T can say they have the best 3G experience when they don’t offer the same 3G coverage everywhere. I have AT&T blackberry and a Verizon blackberry and the Verizon works everywhere and the Tethering service is much faster with my Verizon Blackberry. So I can’t get calls on my Verizon phone when I suffering the web, who cares as long as it doesn’t take 10 minutes to check your email.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 8:43:36 AM , Rating: 5
See I don't know what you're talking about. On my Droid I can be using the GPS navigation, which uses both the 3G (to pull the maps) and the GPS at the same time, while also making a phone call.

People who can't be on the internet and the phone at the same time I think have a phone not capable of both at the same time. I don't think its a network limitation because I've done it.


RE: That commercial was...
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct. The CDMA voice network and EVDO rev A data network (found on Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, and US Cellular) are completely different. Some devices don't have a chip that can handle both connections at the same time. Others do.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Did you make the phone call while using the GPS or did you use the GPS while on a call?

It's not a phone limitation, it's a network limitation of CDMA/EVDO. Besides, what good is a GPS when you have no signal in the middle of nowhere, because even Verizon doesn't have 100% coverage? You don't think that those base maps are all dependent on the network 100% do you? It would awfully suck to have your phone say "Oh sorry, can't navigate without Verizon, sorry!" That would be stupid.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I was using the GPS navigation w/ turn by turn directions feature of the phone. And while doing that I can make and receive calls. I know the phone is using the 3G while using the GPS maps cause it shows you. So its handling 3G connectivity to get maps, using the GPS chip to get location, and handling the phone call.


RE: That commercial was...
By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 2:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying you are wrong, but while no other Verizon phone has issues with making and receiving calls either while on EVDO it just puts the connection on hold, then resumes the data connection when the call is done.

Saying there are chips to use both CDMA and EVDO means it has to have a dual radio. Verizon wasn't going to solve this until SVDO, but instead will just go to LTE, since that actually will inherit the UMTS way of doing things, being able to send both voice and data over the same connection.

I think you would have to wait a while to see the new Google Map app stop displaying actual pics of the road vs. just the street lines. If you really want to test it out, try loading a fresh web page while on a call and see if it works.

I know all of this from doing smartphone support for Verizon. I seriously doubt that if they overcame this limitation they would be silent about it.


RE: That commercial was...
By FITCamaro on 11/19/2009 3:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you're right. Oh well. It doesn't affect me using GPS so that's what I care about.


RE: That commercial was...
By heulenwolf on 11/19/2009 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I hear an enormous amount of iPhone user frustration, both online and from people I know, that says the AT&T 3G experience isn't so great.

From my own personal experience, when I needed a 3G broadband card to VPN into work from an area that had enormous population density, VZW got it done without a hitch. AT&T's legacy GPRS network dropped out several times in the same area. But hey, they do have a name that includes an ampersand!


RE: That commercial was...
By kd9280 on 11/19/2009 9:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
So basically, AT&T's checklist can be summed up with four words, "We have the iPhone."


RE: That commercial was...
By Motoman on 11/19/2009 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
...which is plenty enough negative press for them right there, as far as I'm concerned.


RE: That commercial was...
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, AT&T have built their business model around a bunch of zealots. So far that has worked out for them.


RE: That commercial was...
By dtm4trix on 11/19/2009 2:45:53 PM , Rating: 3
While I have a 1G iPhone, ATT sucks balls and I wish that apple would pull its head out and make phones for other carriers. It would be a much better phone if it wasn't tied to ATT.


RE: That commercial was...
By Alexstarfire on 11/19/2009 5:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you have the 1G iPhone then I don't see how AT&T could be bad. AT&T has excellent 2G coverage, as I can attest to with the 3-4 different phones I've used on their network over the past 5 years.

I've always heard the iPhone gets crappy reception, but I've never cared to take my dad's iPhone to test it. I wouldn't want to use a hunk of crap like the iPhone, especially the 1G iPhone. My personal opinion so please don't blast me on that.


RE: That commercial was...
By Jalek on 11/20/2009 12:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T has the iPod with a crappy phone built in.
Also, rollover minutes, but when you lose signal so often, you usually have extra minutes.

I've had Cingular for years though, and the iPhone's worse than any phone I've used for losing signal. You can be on a call, looking at the full bar strength indication, and watch it lose signal completely and drop the call, then in 20 seconds or so, full signal again, all without moving.

Never had that happen with various Motorola phones on that service.


Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By Fox5 on 11/18/2009 10:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why?
I don't think I could really browse the web while on a phone anyway. Perhaps on speaker phone, but it doesn't seem like a big use case, I wonder if anyone does. Perhaps downloading a file in the background while talking?

And it'd be nice if ATT provided average speeds of the 3g networks to back up the 'fastest' claim. I'm guessing, on average, it's not by much if they don't put numbers. I thought 3g was a spec anyhow, why would one company be faster? I didn't even know 3g applied to CDMA.




RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By Omega215D on 11/18/2009 10:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get how people can say CDMA can't be used to talk and surf at the same time. Last time I checked a lot of the new 3G GSM phones use WCDMA... Also if people are talking and surfing at the same time well then they better not b!tch when their battery dies in a short matter of time.

Also GSM and CDMA are just different in how they break up spectrum which shouldn't cause too much of a difference in phone usage (though GSM tends to get "crowded")


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By sprockkets on 11/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By 67STANG on 11/19/2009 2:17:29 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason you can do both on AT&T's network is because when it drops your calls every 3 minutes... you can hop right on the net. My friend's Droid loads pages much faster over CDMA than my iPhone with GSM. It's probably a pipe-utilization issue.


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
CDMA and EVDO are much more efficient per mhz of spectrum. That means that Verizon can send more data and handle more voice calls than AT&T can for the same frequency band. CDMA also has a range advantage and a cleaner hand-off, which is why GSM will sometimes drop a call when signal isn't an issue. I had plenty of dropped calls when signal was not an issue when I used GSM, but I have never had a dropped connection that wasn't signal related when on Verizon. It is still just radio waves, so the bottoms of steep hills and basements hurt all carriers equally.


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By Alexstarfire on 11/19/2009 6:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've never had a call drop when I had good signal. I've had calls drop when the other person had really bad signal though. AT&T can't be blamed for that though.


By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
Dropped call when you have signal = carrier's tower/switch screwed up.

Dropped call when you lost signal = no coverage in that spot.

You can blame the carrier for both since the first involves equipment issues which are controllable and the second involves the network not being deployed where you are. The key question is, when do you have a legitimate expectation of signal. Walking down the streets of New York - damn well better have a signal. Inside an elevator in the basement of a large steel building, probably not going to be possible under any conditions.


By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 1:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
Bud, that isn't my opinion, that's Verizon's; I worked for Verizon's smart phone division, and that's how I know of the limitation. We have people complain that they get voicemail notifications while using EVDO, and that's because you can't receive a call while receiving data.

You can if you are on EVDO but the connection is idle, aka not downloading data the moment a call comes in. They did that so as not to interrupt your data connection.


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By rvassar on 11/18/09, Rating: -1
By thekdub on 11/18/2009 11:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they can not do multitasking at the most important time - when on the phone and needing to check an email.

I think I can fix that problem in 5 words or less:

"Can I call you back?"


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By zackhund on 11/19/2009 12:55:03 AM , Rating: 3
Wow....thats amazing to hear. Since I was on my Droid....dialed into a conference call via Bluetooth and browsing the web at the same time!


By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 12:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
FIT also confirmed this as well... though with using GPS. Does that count as web browsing? I never did it on my LG enV Touch because if I'm talking to someone they deserve my full attention and I'm not a fan of wearing BlueTooth Headsets.

*thanks to you guys I have buyers remorse... if only my phone didn't die in June I wouldn't have used my upgrade to get the Touch...


By sprockkets on 11/19/2009 7:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
I talked with FIT above. He couldn't load a fresh page while on a call (obviously tested w/o wifi). I bet you can't either.

Doesn't mean the Droid phone sucks though.


By zerocool84 on 11/19/2009 2:51:40 AM , Rating: 4
Multitasking on a iPhone??? That's rich.


RE: Talk and browse the web at the same time?
By Griswold on 11/19/2009 6:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
If you cant talk while surfing the web, you also cant receive a call. Around here, this limitation applies to EDGE. That means, when I'm browsing the web with my iphone, anyone calling me will only get my mailbox. And then I'll have to call them back and pay for it...


By Targon on 11/19/2009 7:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that there is a big difference between what a provider provides, and what a device can handle. The problems you may encounter with the iPhone MAY very well be because Apple isn't as great as many Apple zelots try to convince people it is. Yes, they have come out with some great products, but that does not mean that every device or product that Apple has come out with have been all that good.

Case in point, the iPhone isn't a great phone. Think about it, you can get the iPod touch, which is basically the iPhone but without the phone part. Then, look at how good your call quality is, and what your battery life is. Can you get multiple batteries so you can just swap them when away from a charger(out in the woods where you can't just plug in a charger)? How good is the call quality of the iPhone compared to other devices on the same network? As a PHONE, the iPhone isn't great, so it is all the extra stuff people like.


By Bateluer on 11/19/2009 8:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
I thought we settled this in the previous article about AT&T's lawsuit with Droid owners making DailyTech comments while on a phone call, myself included.

If AT&T attacks with lies, they are just going to give Verizon more ammunition. And they've already got plenty.


Verizon lawsuit commercial
By vfighter on 11/18/2009 10:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
I would love to see a commercial from Verizon with a price estimate on the lawyer/court costs of the lawsuit. Then the cost of putting up a tower/repeater. Then say something along the lines of if AT&T only cared about your right to speak as much as they cared about our right not to, you would have better coverage right now. I see en masse defections once Verizon gets the iPhone, in what less than 6 months or so right?




RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By cmdrdredd on 11/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By vfighter on 11/18/2009 11:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
I am in South Korea, the iPhone is still not available here. But even I can read a map.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By eddieroolz on 11/19/2009 12:31:46 AM , Rating: 5
Not everyone wants the iPhone, my friend.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By Bateluer on 11/19/2009 8:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
Err, Verizon has the Moto Droid, a superior phone in all aspects except app count. Also, the Eris/Hero isn't a bad phone either, and Big Red is supposed to be getting several other Android phones in the next few weeks/months. By the time they get the nuetered iPhone, it won't matter.

I will agree, that up until 6 November, Verizon's smartphone choices pretty much sucked though.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By Jalek on 11/20/2009 1:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
I still don't like Verizon after dealing with their locked phones and VCast garbage for years, but their coverage has always been good.

Maybe a full purchase android type and T-Mobile.. I don't know.. but every month I think about dumping AT&T right about the time I pay the bill.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By hashish2020 on 11/19/2009 12:41:25 AM , Rating: 2
Considering they are on retainer, I'm gonna go with $0 marginal cost


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By vfighter on 11/19/2009 1:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
Bah...good point...


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By vfighter on 11/19/2009 1:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
How about time and effort spent that could have gone towards improving their network?


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By jabber on 11/19/2009 6:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah if I was AT&T I'd have had trucks going all over the country installing and upgrading masts like crazy.

If that wasnt enough of a push to invest and improve your network then I dont know what is.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 11:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't just about adding new antennas to existing towers.

First off, AT&T may not own the towers.
Second, 3G data connection require a far beefier network connection.
Third, and new switches (which cost a god-awful amount of money).
Fourth, and require a different distribution pattern based upon capacity and range (which is caused by the change in frequency for broadband).
Fifth, and require money that AT&T would just rather not spend.

Verizon carefully grew and maintained a large, widespread, and advanced network. And they did it without sacrificing reliability and quality. That cost a lot of money. AT&T spent that money paying huge fees to Apple to acquire and keep an exclusive. Before that it was a huge AT&T wireless merger. And before that was the TDMA screw-up. Verizon has been more conservative and focused on the basics. The Alltel acquisition made sense, but was a huge investment. It could only be done because Alltel was a high quality provider (unlike AT&T wireless for Cingular and Nextel for Sprint).


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By jRaskell on 11/19/2009 11:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Retainer really only means you get priority access and small stuff is handled without any additional cost. A big lawsuit like this you better believe is costing AT&T far more than their monthly retainer fee.


RE: Verizon lawsuit commercial
By heulenwolf on 11/19/2009 12:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
Neat idea but its not a good move. What about the cost of all the commercials?


Hey AT&T...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/18/2009 9:18:31 PM , Rating: 4
I know a way for you to make those adverts false and misleading AT&T... and that's to fix your network and provide more coverage, stop trying to take the cheap and easy way out!

***

On another note, I'm disappointed in America's 3G coverage, I actually went on a Holiday over to Los Angeles last month (I'm a country bumpkin here, was excellent though!) - And the AT&T network coverage and speed, was absolute crap. - Here in Australia with Telstra, although they are expensive we DO have the largest 3G network coverage by land mass, and one of the best in terms of speeds.
And customer support? Are the phone lines at AT&T run by ferrets on a spinning wheel pressing scripts on the computer? Because that was the impression I got.

Anyway, I felt that AT&T was like our Optus, full of words, but under-deliver on everything.




RE: Hey AT&T...
By Omega215D on 11/18/2009 10:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is the Verizon Wireless commercials I've seen have the maps with 3G Coverage underneath them in big bold letters. How is that misleading or sneaky? If people can't read that then the US is really in trouble.

Instead of spending money on lawyers how about building some more towers and repeaters?


RE: Hey AT&T...
By AyashiKaibutsu on 11/19/2009 12:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
I used to work for the company that handled the support for phone activations, and yea you pretty much nailed it on the head... Remember when the iPhone came out and how horrible support was for it? It was largely because half the people at the center hired to handle the big influx didn't get their logins for the programs needed.


Verizon should sue AT&T
By phatboye on 11/18/2009 9:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
In that commercial they claim to have a better smart phone but the new Moto Droid phone kills any phone that AT&T currently sells. Now that's what I call false advertising.




RE: Verizon should sue AT&T
By cmdrdredd on 11/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Verizon should sue AT&T
By NesuD on 11/19/2009 6:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you used one? Thought not. Compare it to an iPhone and you'll see how clumsy the Driod really is. At least you can fucking figure out the iPhone


I have and I had no trouble figuring it out. In fact I thought it to be a bit more intuitive than the iPhone. Only part that felt clumsy to me was the slide out keyboard. I don't really care for the buttons on it. They are to flat and more dificult to distinguish by touch but other than that I thing it is an outstanding device. Apple should be worried.


RE: Verizon should sue AT&T
By Bateluer on 11/19/2009 8:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The Moto Droid is an outstanding phone, easily the best on the market right now.

The keyboard slide, while well constructed and very sturdy, is still flat and difficult to type on. Motorola should address this is future versions of the Droid, taking a queue from LG's Env line of phones.

Also, they need to drop the Droid branding so they don't have to piss money away to LucasFilms in royalty payments.


RE: Verizon should sue AT&T
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
The Droid branding is likely very inexpensive since they aren't using the Star Wars brands. But they still have to acknowledge the owner of the brand on adds. That is why R2D2 didn't appear in the ads and they used an obviously non-Star Wars robotics when marketing.


Verizon Fanboys just shut up already
By BuffDaddySmurf on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
By wolfwood on 11/19/2009 6:45:16 AM , Rating: 3
What slap? That ATT response ad was more like a love tap.


By NesuD on 11/19/2009 6:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Listen to these Verizon faboys here. Grow up already.


LOL!!you can't be serious. AT&T is looking like a kid crying over spilt milk. They clearly are the loser in 3G coverage cited in the commercials. Their response is to cry about it and get an injuction to force Verizon to stop airing ads that are factually 100% truthful? Then they get laughed out of court literally and somehow you see that as AT&T bitchslapping Verizon? LOL!! who bitchslapped you this morning?


By LRonaldHubbs on 11/19/2009 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 1
Bitch slap? Did you even watch the commercials? Verizon's were some of the best in a long time, especially the misfit toys commercial which was just priceless, and AT&T's response is one of the worst commercials in a long time. It was anything but a bitch slap...it was basically an acknowledgement that they don't really have any comeback to Verizon's jabs.


Cheaper
By btc909 on 11/19/2009 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
It's cheaper to sue Verizon than it is to upgrade the cell towers. I read an article that AT&T has the fastest 3G speeds, ok fine but the coverage area is a joke. If Verizon wants to stick it to AT&T even more show two coverage maps, one with the slower Edge & the other with the limited 3G. I'm sure a misfit toy can represent each coverage map. I dumped AT&T when it was still Cingular years ago. I knew exactally the two spots on the 241 toll road where the call would drop.

I agree once Verizon gets rolling with Android OS based phones it won't matter if Verizon finally gets the iPhone. Verizon needs to work on the battery & the app count.




RE: Cheaper
By mcnabney on 11/19/2009 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
You missed on a good opportunity. When Verizon started pushing EVDO they started switching all of their 1XRTT out and replacing it with EVDO. When rev A came out, all of the EVDO was upgraded within 9 months. AT&T has spent money deploying 3G in select market, but has left their EDGE network in the vast majority of the areas they cover. AT&T's strategy is to market to urban hipsters who can spend their daddy's money freely. That has made them a lot of money. Verizon would rather market their product to everyone. Maybe that is why they don't always have the coolest phones. I also wish they would get their FiOS to my city soon. Time Warner sucks donkey balls.


RE: Cheaper
By Omega215D on 11/19/2009 1:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, VZW is known to be all business which explained their bland phones early in this century (well except for StarTac). Since VZW caters to mostly businesses it would be suicide to not implement their latest tech in as many places as possible.

Besides I guess I can wait for a Android phone that utilizes both CDMA and GSM for a truly global mobile phone.


AT&T brought this on themselves
By bubba551 on 11/19/2009 10:19:43 AM , Rating: 3
AT&T advertises "the nation's fastest 3g network" while failing to acknowledge that it is unavailable for most of the nation.

Talk about misleading.




Gotta love Jason Mick...
By Alexstarfire on 11/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love Jason Mick...
By redbone75 on 11/19/2009 12:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With AT&T recently admitting to dropping as much as 30 percent of its calls in some regions on average

Do you see that word "some" in there (I even put it in bold for you)? How about you brush up on your reading comprehension and stop waiting for every single opportunity to bash someone.


Clearly the best ruling ever
By piroroadkill on 11/19/2009 3:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
"Most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic. They’re not fully alive."




By Bateluer on 11/19/2009 11:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
There was a rumor that they were going to phase out the 3G in favor of an 8GB 3GS. Haven't heard anything official. The only response to Verizon is AT&T's half assed commercial and petty lawsuit.




Attack?
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2009 2:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't see the Verizon ads as attack ads "like Apples". Apple attacks the PC without actually making a direct comparison with their product -- more like the PC is bad, and we're an alternative.

The Verizon ads show both maps side by side together showing a direct comparison. I really don't take that as an attack ad -- it's only the results of the comparison that make it seem that way.

When magazines (or online versions) do comparisons between different vendor product, showing charts comparing features and whatever, those aren't "attacks" at those that do less well. But an article that says something is crummy, but without any comparison referenced would be an attack.




Sorry...
By smegz on 11/19/2009 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
I would make a valid, possibly clever comment, but I'm currently semi-catatonic because the TV is on. I really, don't even feel alive at this point.

Plus, everyone know Luke Wilson is the smartest man on the planet...I saw it on TV once...




iPhone is the Best
By hiscross on 11/19/2009 8:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Especially in the US because of AT&T




The point
By chose on 12/12/2009 3:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Is it me or dailytech takes forever to get to the point.

8 paragraph just to say that there is a new ad....




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki