Print 96 comment(s) - last by PrezWeezy.. on Nov 20 at 7:42 PM

Verizon this week defended its commercials in court, calling AT&T's lawsuit against them ridiculous. It says that for AT&T "the truth hurts."  (Source:

The commercials seem to be working -- in recent months Verizon's image has soared, while AT&T's has sank, according to YouGov, which tracks brand reputation.  (Source: Apple Insider)
The nation's largest wireless provider fires back in court

AT&T and Verizon, the nation's second largest and largest telecoms, respectively, are at open war.  With Verizon's new Droid phone looking to challenge the iPhone as the reigning media smartphone, the pair wage battle in the court room over Verizon's commercials which depict AT&T's poor 3G coverage.

It has been reported that in some areas, such as New York City, that AT&T's call drop rates are as high as 30 percent -- or that it merely has no 3G service at all.  However, AT&T does have broad coverage under its older EDGE network, and it claims that Verizon's ads are deceptive.  AT&T's argument basically boils down to a claim that the average viewer is fooled to believe that the Verizon commercial's maps represent total coverage and not 3G coverage -- despite several textual and audio clues.  Thus it claims the commercials are misleading and damaging.

Initially AT&T only sued over Verizon's "There's a map for that" series, which introduced Verizon's rich red map and AT&T's lacking blue map to viewers, all while poking fun at Apple's iPhone slogan ("There's an app for that").  AT&T recently expanded the suit to include Verizon's new Christmas themed ads "The Island of Misfit Toys".

Verizon has flatly refused to stop airing the commercials, and to AT&T's dismay, the dispute seems unlikely to be resolved until well into the holiday season.  AT&T had hoped to quickly get Verizon's ads pulled from TV.

In court this week Verizon filed new documents, according to Engadget, which blast its competitor, saying that the lawsuit is a weak attempt from a player that just can't compete.  States Verizon's filing, "AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon's "There's A Map For That" advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts."

Continues the filing, "In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon's side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T's confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger."

As it sees its hopes of a favorable court ruling in jeopardy, AT&T has tried to set the record straight among its own customers, writing them a letter asking them to ignore what it perceives as lies in Verizon's ads.  It writes that the Verizon commercials are "so blatantly false and misleading, that we want to set the record straight about AT&T's wireless data coverage".  In the letter, the company highlights what it sees as abundant mixed coverage on its older EDGE and new 3G networks.

Regardless of whether AT&T's dreams of silencing Verizon's commercials come true, evidence indicates that the damage has already been done.  In recent weeks Verizon's brand image has soared while AT&T's has sank, according to recent surveys market researchers at BrandIndex.  The surveys looked at whether customers would recommend the respective telecoms to their friends.  AT&T scored less than a -2 in the most recent study -- indicating not many customers would recommend getting an AT&T phone.

Comments     Threshold

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

By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 6:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
I just picked up a Droid for my dad. Wow, that phone is amazing. I would MUCH rather own a Google phone than an Apple phone! Google believes in free!

RE: Droid
By Brandon Hill on 11/17/2009 6:58:58 AM , Rating: 5
I would MUCH rather own a Google phone than an Apple phone! Google believes in free!

And how much did you pay for that Droid? ;)

RE: Droid
By dajeepster on 11/17/2009 7:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
well... I paid $200 for mine AR. I don't now how AT&T's service is, but switching from Sprint to Verizon was a definated improvement. Better signal quality and less dropped calls/conversations so far. I was with Sprint/Nextel for 6 years.

RE: Droid
By Brandon Hill on 11/17/2009 7:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
It was a rhetorical question :)

RE: Droid
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 7:55:15 AM , Rating: 3
You pay for the phone, not the OS ;)

RE: Droid
By MrPoletski on 11/17/2009 11:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Therefore you don't have to use Safarti!

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 1:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Therefore you don't have to use Safarti!

Oh wait, Google's browser is based on WebKit, that evil browser from Apple! Oh crap, can't use it now!

RE: Droid
By foolsgambit11 on 11/17/2009 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, I didn't realize WebKit was an Apple product. I could have sworn it was an open source project originally started by *nix developers. Apple has their own implementation of it that they use in Safari, but webkit itself is not a "browser from Apple".

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 5:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Apple took KHTML, created by KDE as a foundation. Believe me, I tried again Konqueror with KHTML even in KDE 4.3, and it still can't render web pages correctly.

There was a bit of a spat btw them and KDE and it basically needed to be forked since Apple wanted to take it in another direction, but now WebKit is the new KHTML and KDE is using it from now on.

Without Apple pouring into the project, it really wasn't useful. Now Epiphany, a GNOME browser (previously based on Gecko, and now on WebKit is lightning fast), , Konqueror, and of course Google Chrome and Google's Mobile browser, a few BB phones (Storm and Storm 2 I believe), Palm Pre are all webkit based.

RE: Droid
By jhb116 on 11/17/2009 6:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like you just proved his point. Based on you're own post Webkit is not an Apple product which refutes your first post. It seems that your first post should have been more along the lines that Safari and Google are based on the same lineage.

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 10:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it is splitting hairs, but again, without Apple, there would be no WebKit, and no other browser would want such a dated KHTML either.

If you could try KHTML, you would see many typical websites just not even render entire parts of the page, or do JS right. It just wasn't ready for prime time, and this is a browser that's been out for around 7 years.

RE: Droid
By gigahertz20 on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Droid
By theunit on 11/17/2009 8:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
You could always pay for the first month, then cancel the data plan. Or you can buy the phone of your choice off ebay or amazon. But I feel you, I didnt get a curve, because of that reason.

RE: Droid
By heulenwolf on 11/17/2009 12:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you pre-buy the phone on a CDMA network, how do you get it activated? Just walk in to Sprint or Verizon store and pick which plan you want? I ask because I've never tried nor heard an account of how it works. I know with GSM networks they send you a SIM card and you're set. How does it work on Verizon or Sprint? If they're the big evil we all make them out to be, wouldn't they apply the same plan restrictions for activating a phone you already own that they do for a phone you buy through them? Could you walk in with a Droid and just a "Nationwide Voice Plan" with no additional data plan, for example? Has anyone out there tried this?

RE: Droid
By wookiness on 11/17/2009 1:03:34 PM , Rating: 3
For Sprint and VZW you just take it into a local store and they can hook it up for you.

Verizon Wireless will require a data plan for any smartphone whether you bought it there or not, you cannot remove the data plan while a smartphone is active.

RE: Droid
By heulenwolf on 11/17/2009 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's too bad - I guess they really are the big evil. Not only can you only use their approved and modified devices on their network, but you can only pay to use them the way they want you to.

I use and iPod Touch + a separate phone with a voice plan right now and live pretty happily without a cellular data connection and the associated fees. I'm near WiFi alot and would rather save the $360/year in data plan fees, use cellular data sparingly on an as-needed basis, and stick to WiFi for data needs most of the time. It sounds like that's simply not possible with VZW. With Sprint's lower fees maybe I'd consider the full data plan when my VZW contract is up next year. In the mean time, I'm not enough of a mobile data fanatic to justify the plan costs.

RE: Droid
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 9:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
We used a family plan, which helped with the cost some.

RE: Droid
By Jedi2155 on 11/17/2009 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's how I'm paying for my T-Mobile G1. My family has 1000 minutes with 5 lines + G1 Data Plan ($25) for only $115/month.

RE: Droid
By ExarKun333 on 11/17/2009 11:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
Thats why you buy a smartphone, silly. The data plan!

RE: Droid
By threepac3 on 11/17/2009 12:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Exactly.

RE: Droid
By Soldier1969 on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Droid
By PrezWeezy on 11/17/2009 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's to get the "discount" instead of paying full price. You can buy the phone for its full retail price and not get the service plan. At least that's how it works with all other phones. Unless Google built in that stupid "must be online" piece like they want in their OS.

RE: Droid
By kkreiger on 11/17/2009 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
There are Plenty of such phones.Buy any unlocked nokia phone based on S60 with GPS capability.

You can preload nokia maps and use it as a GPS without any data plan.

some examples.


RE: Droid
By The0ne on 11/17/2009 4:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
My 8525 was free and without a data plan when I signed up with AT&T at the time the phone came out. Paying $39/month total. But yea, it's very far a few that offers like this come along.

Have never once paid for a phone yet and don't plan on it :D Free is always nice hehehe

RE: Droid
By lecanard on 11/17/2009 5:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware that using GPS with the map application requires a data connection to google maps, right? No data = gimped phone.

RE: Droid
By scotth501 on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Droid
By dsx724 on 11/17/2009 9:32:02 AM , Rating: 3
Radiowaves don't really do much other than increase the temperature of things around it. 2.4GHz is below infrared which is below visible light, and way below UV light. The only down side to a high SAR is possibly low battery life I would imagine. and Yes aGPS sucks.

RE: Droid
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
Your information is inaccurate. The Droid is rated at 1.1 W/KG by the FCC.

For comparison, the iPhone 3GS is rated at 1.19 W/KG.

RE: Droid
By Motoman on 11/17/2009 10:37:39 AM , Rating: 3
I was *this* close to just ordering a Droid online, but decided to be prudent and check out a couple things...

1. Despite articles on the intarweb, including here on DT, Verizon does not support tethering on the Droid.

2. The keyboard is bad. The entire keyboard is flat, with the buttons perfectly square and butted right up against each other with no space in-between. While that's "better" than an on-screen keyboard, it's vastly inferior to other phones that have been around forever that have raised buttons with space between them. The keyboard on my ancient LG Envy is wonderful to use...the Droid one killed the deal for me.

Hopefully the Droid 2 has a better keyboard. Or maybe somebody else will create something very much like the Droid with a better keyboard. For now I guess I'm staying with my Blackberry and it's cramped keyboard, smaller screen, and tethering capability.

RE: Droid
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 2:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
I was a long time Env user and I now have the Touch. I wasn't sure about the keypad either at first, but I liked it.

Tethering is coming on Verizon...

RE: Droid
By Motoman on 11/17/2009 2:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
My wife now has an Env Touch...I like it. The whole Env line should be the model for others to follow from the keyboard standpoint.

RE: Droid
By kmmatney on 11/17/2009 6:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree on the keyboard. I played with a droid for about an hour yesterday (my father-in-law bought one). One thing I didn't like it that you forced to use the pull put keyboard in landscape mode (at least by default). The screen is also not as responsive as the iPhone, and overall the phone is a little harder to figure out. The screen resolution is amazing, though. As an iPhone user, I really missed using multitouch to zoom in and out and web pages, but you can probably get used to the zoom buttons, and many websites zoom in correctly with a double-tap (although sometimes this didn't work correctly).

The screen is already awesome, I can can see this phone being really nice after a few updates (e.g. making the screen more resposive) and once a few more apps are out there.

One thing we could not figure how to do is to save location on the google map application.

RE: Droid
By kmmatney on 11/17/2009 6:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also, one big problem we had with the Droid is that is would not connect to the wireless LAN at my father-in-law's house. My iPhone doesn't have any trouble, but the Droid couldn't hook up (using WPA encryption). It works fine using 3G, though (and the Verizon network does seem faster than AT&T). We are still working on the Wifi problem...

RE: Droid
By highlandsun on 11/17/2009 11:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
On the initial release of the G1, this was a limitation of both the wifi device driver and the Android UI. On a subsequent release the wifi driver was fixed but the Android UI still has no support for WPA-EAP. However, if you root your phone you can edit the wpa_supplicant.conf file and manually add the config for any type of network and use it without the Android UI. That's what I've been doing on my phone... Also the Android UI actually edits the wpa_supplicant.conf file in-place, and disables networks it doesn't know how to handle when you attempt to connect. So the trick is to turn off wifi, then edit the .conf file, then enable wifi, and then use the wpa_cli enable_network command to enable your WPA network, and then the wpa_supplicant will authenticate and everything else will work from there.

Also, the adb command in the Android SDK can be used to establish a session with the phone. It also has a ppp command but as-written it is mostly useless. I've posted a patch for it that allows you to establish a ppp session between a PC and the phone over USB cable. That way you can tether and then either use the phone's network from the PC, or use the PC's network from the phone, as needed. I posted the details here:

RE: Droid
By djcameron on 11/17/2009 11:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing is free.

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the OS is also free. Nobody pays Google for it, just like Symbian. The only paid OS left is WinMob.

I don't find it a big deal, but just keep in mind, that Google is giving the OS away for free in exchange for data harvesting of your email, browsing and other stuff on your phone.

Never forget the 1st law of Thermodynamics in lamen's terms, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

RE: Droid
By PrezWeezy on 11/17/2009 2:26:45 PM , Rating: 1
Really? OS X is free now?

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Does Apple sell OSX, mobile or otherwise to any OEMs? No.

It kinda goes without saying, buddy.

RE: Droid
By Sazar on 11/17/2009 5:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Apple Operating systems could only be installed on THEIR systems and therefore they would not be selling them to OEM's or otherwise.

On the flip-side, you CAN buy the OS off the shelf, therefore Apple DOES sell OSX, just not to OEM's.

So basically, what are you saying?

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
If HTC, Motorola, or anyone else wants to build a phone, they can either

1. Get Android for free
2. Use Symbian from the Symbian Foundation (now free)
3. Pay a license for each phone sold for WinMob

No OEM can build a phone or a computer with OSX since the person, Apple, who makes it, will not license it to no one.

So, if you had a choice of building a phone on an horribly outdated OS like WinMob or on Android or Symbian for free, which would you chose?

Motorola dumped WinMob for Android
Sony Erickson dumped WinMob and went back to Symbian
Nokia is using Maemo
HTC appears to be replacing WinMob with Android, but will most likely still keep WinMob around.
LG is embracing WinMob and not Android
Samsung I believe is making their own Linux OS called "Bada"

RE: Droid
By PrezWeezy on 11/20/2009 7:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, almost all HTC phones are WinMo, Samsung uses WinMo for several phones, as well as a few others.

The fact is the makers will make whatever people want. Which is why EVERY time there is a new phone OS released they start jumping on it to see if it sticks. If it does they continue, if not, they go back to what was selling well.

RE: Droid
By skyward on 11/17/2009 5:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
Verizon did pay Google for the OS. Why do you think we only see Android 2.0 on Verizon. To say that Google have a free OS is not true. If it free then why Google will tell other wireless companies able Android 2.0 and not have to lie about it.

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 5:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because Android 2.0 just came out and no other phones yet support it?

The original G1 most likely cannot upgrade to it, but the newer mytouch perhaps can, and so can the HTC Hero. No official word yet about who can upgrade.

Verizon didn't get Android 2.0; Motorola did.

Think about it for a moment from this angle: How can Google charge for Android when they allow you to download it for free, seeing as how everything on it save the proprietary Google apps is GPL licensed? You can even make your own custom ROMs, so long as you do not integrate those Google custom apps.

Remember, Google is not in it for selling hardware; they want as many as possible to run this OS because that means more ad revenue and more data harvesting from the Google Gmail account and such that you use on the phone. That's how Google works.

Why else would Google still pay Mozilla 50 million dollars a year to be the default search engine and home page while they have their own browser? More ad revenue!

RE: Droid
By skyward on 11/17/2009 8:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
You don’t understand how it works. HTC and Samsung don’t know Android 2.0 was available. Both HTC and Samsung think that the only cdma Android was Android 1.6 and that was too late to the game. That why they had to custom Android 1.5 to work with cdma. They have no idea Android 2.0 ready to go. They only talk about Android 2.0 after the Droid. From the people I know in the wireless business, Google told them that Android 2.0 is not ready and that it was still being built. That was only one month before we know Motorola Droid have Android 2.0. Mostly Motorola pay Google for being first and Motorola show it to Verizon. And you know what happen. And the fact is Google knows Verizon will get the Android 2.0 because they will have to work with Verizon to make it network ready. Verizon will pay for Android 2.0 because they don’t want it to happen again like the IPhone or Pre. Like you said Google is in it for the money. If they can sale the rights to be first, they can and will.

RE: Droid
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 10:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
That makes sense, but is this then just the exception to the rule?

RE: Droid
By skyward on 11/17/2009 5:23:23 PM , Rating: 1
Verizon did pay Google for the OS. Why do you think we only see Android 2.0 on Verizon. To say that Google have a free OS is not true. If it free then why Google will not tell other wireless companies able Android 2.0 and not have to lie about it.

Payback is funny!
By Luticus on 11/17/2009 8:27:58 AM , Rating: 5
I'm laughing pretty hard right now because this reminds me so much of apples anti-windows "get a Mac" commercials! Didn’t expect payback to come from Verizon though... karma is fun!

In reality though it's not "really" apple that's taking the hit from this though I guess it is hurting them indirectly.

Oh well it's all in good fun, I think the commercials are funny, and at least there is some mild truth to them, even though I feel they are a bit of an exaggeration. No one can deny Verizon’s massive coverage compared to everyone else though.

As for the iPhone, better phones have been available for a while now. ones that aren't tied to a stupid restrictive "app" store!

RE: Payback is funny!
By AyashiKaibutsu on 11/17/2009 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 5
Only thing is Verizons adds are actually grounded in fact while apples adds were at best based on opinions and at worst complete lies/distortions.

RE: Payback is funny!
By Tamale on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Payback is funny!
By Yeah on 11/17/2009 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 5
I do not think it is misleading at all. Throughout the commercial Verizon speaks of the 3G Network. And at the end saying they are the Largest 3G Network. How can it be misleading when they are simply stating the truth?

I think Verizon has no reason to pull any ad at all.

RE: Payback is funny!
By DFranch on 11/17/2009 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
The reason Macs don't get viruses is because it is a waste of time to create a virus for a mac. It will not spread well and can only effect a max of 8-10% of the computers in the world. But Apple makes it sound like it is because their OS is better.

RE: Payback is funny!
By weskurtz0081 on 11/17/2009 1:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how they are misleading at all. 3G is a big part of what will go into choosing my next phone and provider.

RE: Payback is funny!
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
In case you missed it, Verizon clearly states that the maps are for 3G coverage only. There's nothing misleading about them. If the consumers don't bother to read, listen, or research properly, that is neither the fault of AT&T or Verizon. This isn't a nanny state where hand is held from cradle to crave, no matter how much some political leaders want it to be.

RE: Payback is funny!
By ThePooBurner on 11/17/2009 3:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I believe those are what apple followers call "reality".

RE: Payback is funny!
By FingerMeElmo87 on 11/17/2009 2:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Oh well it's all in good fun, I think the commercials are funny, and at least there is some mild truth to them, even though I feel they are a bit of an exaggeration.

Although hilarious, they're exaggerating quite a bit. What Verizon is actually doing is classifying there 3G coverage as anything from .4 - 1.4Mbits. if they were to include AT&T's 2.5G EDGE service, since its high end is around .4Mbits, the coverage on the map would look completely different. since they are strictly stating 3G they aren't technically lying but they aren't exactly painting the full picture as well. Sure coverage is nice and all but does the average person travels every square foot of the US on a daily basis?

They also don't state speed, although thats another topic, which would show something completely different as well. AT&T's slowest UMTS/HSDPA 3G data speed is 1.8Mbits, which is already faster than Verizon's fastest, an in most areas 3.6Mbits with a few cities reaching 7.2Mbits. Since most devices that AT&T sells has HSDPA, your 3G speed range is from 1.8 - 7.2Mbits. Much faster that Verizon's.

Heres a pretty good article. Give it a read.

RE: Payback is funny!
By SanLC504 on 11/17/2009 2:56:45 PM , Rating: 2
The way it is described is not Verizon's fault. AT&T themselves call EDGE 2.5G and UMTS 3G. The IMT-2000 standard technically does include EDGE, EV-DO (Rev 0 and Rev A) and UMTS, but you can thank AT&T's marketing team for associating the term "3G" to their UMTS/HSPA system. (Plus, the original iPhone had EDGE, yet Apple called the iPhone with HSPA "iPhone 3G".)

It mirrors the discussion of "Broadband Internet," which can range from 256 Kbps to over 150 Gbps. It's not necessarily the speed at which the data is transmitted, it is more the technology used to transmit that data. It's all relative.

RE: Payback is funny!
By SuperFly03 on 11/17/2009 5:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh sure... completely disregard actual throughput and talk about theoretical maximum throughput. Way to go ATT fanboi.

Actual testing:
ATT's network speed: 1Mbps
Verizon's network speed: 3Mbps

RE: Payback is funny!
By Alexstarfire on 11/18/2009 1:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
You kinda don't have a choice but to look at theoretical limits since actual speeds are going to vary. Just because YOU are getting 1 Mbps in that place at that moment doesn't mean the vast majority of people are. I really have no idea what the average user speeds are on each network, but please don't use your own experience as the de facto standard that everyone is going to get.

RE: Payback is funny!
By SuperFly03 on 11/18/2009 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
I never said they were the speeds everyone got. However, they are consistent speeds across the various locations I went to on both networks. Houston, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, etc. are all cities I've been to and noticed that significant a difference. So here it the short version: Actual speeds are substantially different and Verizon's network is faster.

Theoretical talk is absolutely useless because it doesn't tell me what I will get when I need to download a presentation on the go from my boss. It tells me what some engineer behind a desk says the technology is capable of under ideal testing conditions which never pan out in reality.

Fight back
By piroroadkill on 11/17/2009 6:11:00 AM , Rating: 1
With an ad of some guy on Verizon missing a call because he was online?

RE: Fight back
By JimboK29 on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Fight back
By spwrozek on 11/17/2009 8:27:38 AM , Rating: 3
My Verizon phone receives calls just fine when I am online. So I don't get the statement with a question mark you made.

RE: Fight back
By Chudilo on 11/17/2009 9:43:59 AM , Rating: 5
I had the browser running in the background while listening to Pandora on my Droid today , and received a phone-call just fine today. Can't do that on your iPhone , can you? Ough wait you can't even run those things at the same time :) so the point is moot.

RE: Fight back
By Alphafox78 on 11/17/2009 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
I can after I jail broke.

RE: Fight back
By monomer on 11/17/2009 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the situation on the iPhone is a bit weird.

I can usually use my browser on my iPhone while on a call, but every once in a while, I will get a message pop up saying that I can't use my data and phone plans at the same time. I'm not sure if this is due to my carrier (Rogers in Canada) or some weird limitation of the phone.

RE: Fight back
By sprockkets on 11/17/2009 1:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
It can be hit or miss. If you are actually receiving data on the network while the call comes in, you won't get it. If you are on an active data connection but happen to be receiving no data at the moment, the call will come through.

Regardless, you can't use any data while on a call. And you can't say otherwise because I did support for Verizon smart phones, and that is the explanation I give customers who just happen to get voicemail notifications while browsing.

RE: Fight back
By piroroadkill on 11/18/2009 4:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is kind of what I was getting at

Error (I think)
By flyboy84 on 11/17/2009 7:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T's argument basically boils down to a claim that the average viewer is fooled to believe that Verizon commercial's maps represent 3G coverage and not total coverage -- despite several textual and audio clues.

Don't you mean that "AT&T's argument basically boils down to a claim that the average viewer is fooled to believe that the Verizon commercial's maps represent total coverage and not 3G coverage -- despite several textual and audio clues.

RE: Error (I think)
By wickedworld on 11/17/2009 8:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the exact same thing.

!Grammar alert!
By Spivonious on 11/17/2009 9:38:57 AM , Rating: 4
Second caption: "has sank" should be "has sunk" or simply "sank".

Today I sink.
Yesterday I sank.
Often I have sunk.

Nope, Not Gonna Happen
By Ard on 11/17/2009 10:32:16 AM , Rating: 4
"As it sees its hopes of a favorable court ruling in jeopardy, AT&T has tried to set the record straight among its own customers, writing them a letter asking them to ignore what it perceives as lies in Verizon's ads."

Sorry, AT&T, as a current customer I will not ignore Verizon's truthful ads. The bottom-line is your service blows. I've lost track of how many dropped calls I've had with this service, especially since picking up an iPhone. And, no, I'm not going to switch to EDGE when I paid for a 3G capable phone. Verizon is spot on and I really think they're going to prevail in this litigation.

Aww...too bad!
By XBMCFan on 11/17/2009 2:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have AT&T and a Blackberry Curve (8310) in San Diego. This means that I'm using the Edge network that they claim fills in where they don't have 3G. So how then do I start a phone call with two bars of reception and then have it completely drop 10 minutes into the call...all without going anywhere? If I want to use my phone reliably at home, I have to go upstairs. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to put my phone through a wall from dropped calls. More bars in more places MY ASS...

Let's stop rewarding those who whine about the competition and start rewarding those who make improvements to remain competitive. Suck it up and fix your service, AT&T!

RE: Aww...too bad!
By eskimospy on 11/18/2009 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
I was at Qualcomm Stadium on Sunday to watch the Chargers/Eagles game and the parking lot/stadium/whatever is sponsored by AT&T. Two of my friends have iphones and while standing DIRECTLY next to a huge AT&T advertising banner in the middle of a wide open area... zero coverage.

LOL AT&T and Apple
By muhahaaha on 11/17/2009 6:58:52 AM , Rating: 3
It's about time you got a taste of real reality AT&T + Apple (lol is that a double negative?) and not the "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field".

AT&T + IPhone was a masterful idea on the behalf of Saint Jobs, but progress will reign supreme.

Truth hurts ad
By Coldsmoke on 11/17/2009 11:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
This ad campaign is a lot like a chess game and AT&T just got checked.
I have AT&T and use an Iphone. Fortunately most areas I travel to have excellent 3G coverage but I can see how some users could be frustrated.
The interesting thing is the coverage map at AT&T's site makes their 3G coverage look worse than Verizon's.

Despite the 3G coverage, I personally don't like Verizon's tactics, but then again, I don't like Verizon. I had them as my provider for about 6 months and felt like I was getting nickeled and dime'ed to death. Their plans (at least 3 years ago) were like an expensive restaurant where everything is ala carte.

Hopefully AT&T will make the next move and expand their 3G coverage. Better yet, they could put Verizon in "check" by jumping to 4G. (doubt that will happen though).

ATT is fine...
By roostitup on 11/17/2009 12:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I don't have any problems with ATT and have had their service for almost 10 years after switching FROM Verizon. I have many friends that use Verizon and many that use ATT and personally the services are on par with each other in my rural area. They both have their small areas with bad reception and good reception, ATT works better in some places while Verizon works better in others. In my region it is really just personal preference. I have trouble telling the difference from Edge and 3G service, I bounce between them all the time when going from developed areas to rural areas.

With that said, I think I am going to have to side with ATT on this one. The map is very misleading to the average consumer who does not understand the difference between the networks. Most people would assume that the 3G network is the whole network which would make consumers believe that ATT has HORRIBLE nationwide cell service, which is absolutely not true. Although in the commercials Verizon is very clear that they are displaying only 3G service, they know as well as I and many others do that the average consumer does not understand the details behind 3G, Edge and so forth. Verizon knows what they are doing and it's a good, but very low advertising tactic.

In terms of the 30% call drop rate in New York and other cities, I would like to know what % of these people have IPhones. I bet you it's the IPhone causing the dropped calls, not ATT's service.

Sent a letter?
By adrift02 on 11/17/2009 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, AT&T's marketing team should have taken a little history lesson. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence which has shown that disputing a "rumor" actually reinforces it and companies would do better to deflect the topic by reinforcing the positive points of their image. The old McDonalds "worms in the food" rumor is proof of how badly this can go if handled incorrectly. There is nothing worse AT&T could have done and likely reinforced the perception more than Verizon did.

Why innovate when you can litigate?
By XBMCFan on 11/17/2009 2:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yay, another company with that business model...

By Norseman4 on 11/17/2009 5:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
Of a 30 second spot where VZW does the map thing with all the standard disclaimers, specifically that the map is 3G coverage, same as today, the the last 10 seconds or so (while displaying the URL to the lawsuit.)

AT&T thinks the average viewer is too ignorant [maybe use a more PC, but by no means fluffy, adjective] to understand that this means 3G coverage only and not coverage by slower services. Don't believe us, there's a suit for that.

It would cover as a secondary disclaimer, add the fact that it's also true and AT&T would be adding more to the suit all the while squirming away.

(Then again, there's probably a law about being able to do this, like there was about 'truth-in-advertising')

By Bhopx on 11/18/2009 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hilarious that AT&T runs commercials touting their network as the "nation's fastest 3G network," and then sue Verizon for correctly pointing out that AT&T's 3G coverage is very sparse (although they do cover much of the country in their old EDGE network).

I hope this lawsuit gets laughed out of court.

No Multi-tasking with Verizon's Network
By rvassar on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Multi-tasking with Verizon's Network
By kalkap on 11/17/2009 11:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
Actually you are getting some bad info, because I can do all that you mentioned as well on the Droid. I'm not that big on the engines behind these 2 phones, but I know what does and doesn't work on the Droid based on experience with it.

RE: No Multi-tasking with Verizon's Network
By rvassar on 11/17/2009 2:03:50 PM , Rating: 1
You can only multi-task voice and data on the Droid when you are connected to a WiFi network.

You can not have simultaneous voice and data when only on the Verizon CDMA network.

Thus, in your car or when out and about, forget simultaneous voice and data with Verizon.

RE: No Multi-tasking with Verizon's Network
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 4:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Your information is inaccurate. I am on a call right now while posting this from my Droid. Not connected to Wifi either. Seems to work just fine and dandy.

By highlandsun on 11/17/2009 11:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, there is no inherent limitation in CDMA. Even back in the days of my trusty Motorola StarTac 7760 I could talk on the phone while ssh'ing at 14.4kbps on Verizon.

Question for Verizon
By AlexWade on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Question for Verizon
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 8:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing wrong a company running ads that attack a competitor's weak points while highlighting there strengths. AT&T's response was that of a spoiled child running to its parents. It would have been far better for AT&T to run counter ads highlighting their strengths or highlighting their choices in phones, etc. Filing lawsuits just makes them look foolish.

RE: Question for Verizon
By frobizzle on 11/17/2009 8:46:59 AM , Rating: 5
It would have been far better for AT&T to run counter ads highlighting their strengths

Just too bad AT&T has no strengths to highlight.

RE: Question for Verizon
By syphon on 11/17/2009 9:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Actually what they are doing is smart. Right now Sprint and the other smaller companies are not really taking the market share. The big question I hear from friends looking for a new phone is "Do I want an iPhone or something else". The iPhone has set a very high bar and has a huge following. I see it with my HTC Hero. I have a bunch of friends telling me I got it because I am jealous of the iPhone. Everything today is compared to the iPhone so making "attack" ads against the only one that carries that phone is a good way to get business. The iPhone itself is a pretty decent piece of equipment on a crappy network. This is why these commercials really aim at the network more than the phone.

RE: Question for Verizon
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
Which is ironic, because the iPhone really isn't that good of a device. I have to give Apple credit, they've built up the hype around it to almost mythical levels. Everybody wants one, but everyone who has one hates it. They love the apps they have access too, but most of those exist for Android as well.

RE: Question for Verizon
By Ard on 11/17/2009 11:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
See, I don't think that's completely accurate. I think the iPhone (I have a 3G) is a fantastic multimedia device/PDA, but it absolutely blows as a phone. Now, whether it sucks as a phone because of something integral to the hardware or because of AT&T's pathetic network is anybody's guess. In general, I really like the iPhone. I just hate talking on it and I hate AT&T.

RE: Question for Verizon
By SanLC504 on 11/17/2009 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
Which is the same thing as saying, "the iPod Touch is a fantastic multimedia device/PDA." Plus you get double the internal memory for the price.

RE: Question for Verizon
By Bateluer on 11/17/2009 4:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I said. People love the apps available to them and the functionality they provide, but absolutely hate it as a phone. If they wanted a PDA device, there are a number of other devices that blow the iPhone, Droid, etc, away. I wanted a device to make calls first, send SMS/MMS/email/web browse, etc, second. Which is why I bought the Droid.

RE: Question for Verizon
By piroroadkill on 11/18/2009 4:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just at&t, it sucks in the UK as well, even though other devices on the same network still have a strong signal

RE: Question for Verizon
By rikulus on 11/17/2009 10:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
"At least AT&T doesn't respond in kind."

I'd say that AT&T actually started things with all their "fastest 3G network" commercials. If they are going to call their network the fastest, then Verizon can point out that theirs is more widespread. AT&T can show a fact based graph showing how much faster theirs is if they want (I assume from the fact they haven't that it's not that impressive a difference), and Verizon can show a fact based map.

AT&T were the ones to push 3G as the big buzzword.

RE: Question for Verizon
By heulenwolf on 11/17/2009 2:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly, Verizon reports typical download/upload speeds on their site:

AT&T only reports their 3.6 Mbps UMTS signaling rate which is meaningless in determining typical download/upload speeds. So, Verizon would have a hard time coming up with comparable data speed numbers to advertise since AT&T doesn't publish any.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki