backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by TO.. on Nov 6 at 10:48 AM

AT&T has had enough of Verizon's commercials.

Early last month, Verizon began assaulting AT&T with new commercials which were an interesting twist on the AT&T-backed iPhone "There's a app for that" commercials. Verizon turned the ads around to point out all of the holes in AT&T's 3G coverage and numerous dropped calls that have been reported with the service.

The Verizon commercials came right on the heels of reports that a 30 percent dropped call rate in New York City for the iPhone was considered "normal".

It was only a matter of time, but it appears that AT&T has had enough of Verizon's commercials which mock its 3G coverage in the United States. According to the Wall Street Journal, AT&T is going after Verizon with a lawsuit.

AT&T noted the following according to Engadget:

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

According to the WSJ, AT&T had complained to Verizon about the appearance of a lack of coverage in large parts of the U.S. in the ads, but the changes Verizon made to its spots weren't enough for AT&T, hence the lawsuit.

For its part in the matter, Verizon spokesman Jim Gerace responded, “Our ads clearly explain that non-3G coverage is available elsewhere. I think it's interesting that AT&T's chose to focus on the white areas and not the blues area of their map. We think it calls into question their own fastest 3G claim as the map clearly shows where 3G doesn't exist."



Comments     Threshold


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

Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Sahrin on 11/3/2009 6:05:16 PM , Rating: -1
I know it's not the 'cool' thing to do to defend AT&T, but I think they actually have a leg to stand on here.

Verizon's entire network uses EVDO - using variations thereof ranging from 147kbps Rev0 all the way up to 4Mbps RevA.

AT&T deployed EDGE (identified by the ITU as 3G), which tops out at 1Mbps; they have since deployed HSDPA at 21Mbps.

Verizon is comparing it's "3G" implementation (which is technically inferior to AT&T's) to only HSDPA - NOT EDGE, which is 3G (according to the ITU) AND beats the 'entry level' parts of EV-DO in terms of peak data rates.

The marketing *is* deceptive, because it implies that AT&T has a smaller 3G network (according to the ITU, the arbiter of such things) than it actually does. If you were to include EDGE, AT&T's coverage area would be much larger.

It's actually frustrating for someone who wants the fastest technology deployed, because Verizon has chosen to sit on EV-DO until they are ready to go with LTE (which will be the end of 2010 at the earliest - more likely 2011 with cuts in CapEx), whereas AT&T are going with the best technology available (HSDPA) and then moving to LTE in 2011/2012.

It also sucks that the community is jumping all over AT&T as well - why put down the guy who's trying to roll out the best service?




RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2009 6:13:29 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't matter how fast, advanced or technological something is if it doesn't work when you need it to. The end user doesn't care, they just want their phones to work.

Verizon > AT&T


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By The0ne on 11/4/2009 6:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
Personally my AT&T signal sucks horribly in San Diego, yes here. I can drive from downtown to north county and still have 2 bars only and often connections are noisy or I lose calls. My co-workers are the same, with their iphones although not as severe as mine. But the one co-worker with his old pone on Verizon gets good signals and clean calls.

As you said, you can have the best phone but if it doesn't work as a phone most of the time what's the point in having one.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By IcePickFreak on 11/3/2009 6:21:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It also sucks that the community is jumping all over AT&T as well - why put down the guy who's trying to roll out the best service?


Really? I have never personally met anyone that used AT&T wireless and was happy with it. We use to go through them at work and, go figure, the service was horrible while at work. You'd think they could handle locking down the 90 mile corridor between Milwaukee & Chicago.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Alexstarfire on 11/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By bissimo on 11/3/2009 6:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
I can attest that AT&T sucks in DFW. TONS of dropped calls, spotty coverage, etc. I switched to Verizon over a year ago and have had ZERO issues with coverage.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Alexstarfire on 11/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By rs2 on 11/4/2009 2:51:47 AM , Rating: 3
I love how "the [3G] coverage for my phone is just fine in DFW" is followed almost immediately by "I don't use 3G on my phone at all [because] my phone messed it up somehow". Yeah, I guess that would make you the authority on AT&T's 3G coverage in DFW, seeing as how it doesn't work at all for you for some reason that you've decided to blame upon the phone instead of the network.

Contradict yourself much?


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Alexstarfire on 11/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By neogrin on 11/4/2009 11:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
You are responding to a dicussion about 3G and dropped calls and you state you don't get dropped calls in a specific area. It is Obvious (to anyone but you) that you meant that you don't get dropped called using 3G.

It's not our fault you can't make an coherent statement.

If you are trying state something, the ownes is on you to be understandable, within the context of the overall discussion. Otherwise you might as well just roll you face on the keyboard as the results would be the same.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By akse on 11/4/2009 6:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
Haha.. laughed!
"I suggest looking at your phone then because the coverage for my phone is just fine in DFW"

"Which is cause my phone messed it up somehow."

Mm.. maybe look at your phone!


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By teldar on 11/3/2009 7:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
My brother lives in Monroe, Mi and cannot get service in his house. He works for Magna in a Detroit office, mostly at Ford, and can't get decent service frequently at work or in plants.
My cousin lives in Columbus. He can't get service in his house. In Columbus, OH. He frequently had complained that he couldn't get service anywhere he went.

I (mostly)live in Columbus (some in Cinci for a few more weeks) and hear from classmates who have bad service with AT&T. I (obviously) talk to my brother quite a bit.
The number of dropped calls when talking to my brother and to my cousin when he had AT&T was awful.
I've never had AT&T. Sprint, SBC before they bought AT&T, Nextel (before they were bought by sprint), yes. AT&T, no.
I have Verizon now. I don't see any way I would ever switch. Verizon's coverage is better than everything else out there.

And if the Droid is everything it looks like it should be....


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By mcnabney on 11/3/2009 9:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
The Droid is amazing. I have used it and I have never wanted a device so much. And apparently there is no Verizon degradations - navigation, video, mail... and cinemascreen 480p screen and the ability to shoot video at the same resolution. The only possible thing missing is quadband for global roaming, but I imagine that a version with that will follow.

Also, AT&T doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The Ad is very clear in stating 3G coverage. AT&T is just pissy because they can feel the inertia swinging. I really feel sorry for Sprint, with their Pre exclusive coming to an end and continuing to bleed customers and post the tenth quarterly loss.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2009 8:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'm planning to get one hopefully this weekend.


By IcePickFreak on 11/3/2009 8:38:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, maybe it just sucks in your area then.


That was kind of my point. We're within a few miles of the interstate. It's less than 100 miles by car from downtown to downtown of two major cities. That's not promising for the 80+% of the country that isn't a major city.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By agentcooper on 11/3/2009 10:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the Bay Area, Oakland exactly. I work in Berkeley. AT&T absolutely blows here. When I type in my address on the AT&T coverage locator it says I'm in the 3G and strong reception area. Ha! I'm lucky if I can get a signal at home. Work is spotty - one room great, the next room no service.

I'll be switching back to Verizon as soon as I'm able to.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By mikeyD95125 on 11/4/2009 12:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I live in San Jose. Somehow AT&T manages to mess this part of the Bay Area up to. My friends get dropped calls frequently. I live half a mile from a tower in a completely suburban area and my whole block is somehow a dead zone. I'm not sure how they cannot provide coverage to a fairly dense, flat, suburban city. It seems like the ideal place to setup a network. At least Verizon has figured it out.


By Alexstarfire on 11/4/2009 3:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
I can't say much about San Jose today, but I didn't have a problem with AT&T/Cingular when I was there in '04.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By UNCjigga on 11/4/2009 9:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I'm pretty sure the ITU set a 2mbps peak minimum in their definition of 3G, so EDGE does not qualify. Also, I'm pretty confident (98%?) that in all areas where Verizon has EVDO coverage, they've upgraded to Rev A by now (not sure about recently acquired Alltel markets?) The trick is that not all Verizon's phones are Rev A capable (so those are stuck at Rev 0.)


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By Sahrin on 11/3/2009 7:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I have never personally met anyone that used AT&T wireless and was happy with it. We use to go through them at work and, go figure, the service was horrible while at work. You'd think they could handle locking down the 90 mile corridor between Milwaukee & Chicago.

I suppose I meant technologically superior by 'best' and not 'quality.' You can put me down on the list of people who have tried AT&T service, Verizon service, Sprint service and T-mobile service (in 2 differen 2 million+ metro areas) and found the AT&T to be the best in terms of throughput and reliability. If I had to rank them it would be AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon. Verizon didn't have any problems per se, but every other service had something outstanding about (AT&T is data speed, coverage and reliability; T-mobile was price) where Verizon was completely underwhelming. Their data service in particular sucked (even though my area was supposed to have RevB); again, not in terms of coverage (it was fine there) but in terms of throughput. It was just clearly technologically inferior to everyone elses.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By hyvonen on 11/3/2009 9:02:30 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what's happening to me. Even worse, my Samsung Eternity cannot be forced to stay with Edge. The 3G signal is AWFUL so I get no signal, except for those super lucky moments when it switches to Edge.

I constantly lose phone calls because of this. 3G with zero bars is no 3G.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By roostitup on 11/4/2009 6:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
Been using ATT for 10 years now in both rural and developed areas with no problems. I keep going back to them and am never disappointed. People who already have a negative opinion of ATT tend to subconsciously only pay attention to other negative opinions that people have, which therefore replaces the actual facts with their own opinion.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By The0ne on 11/4/2009 6:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think many of us are "subconsciously only pay(ing) attention to other negative opinions..." We are currently on the network, for 2 years or more and the signal just sucks...period. Read the thread, you have issues in major cities like San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose.

Do I feel bad when my co-worker, on his Verizon phone, can make calls and I can't? Sure, cause I'm paying to have the phone work! I have the 8525 phone and it's a good phone but almost useless simply because of weak AT&T signals.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By wempa on 11/4/2009 12:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
I never had a "negative" opinion of AT&T. In fact, I had them for cell phone service years back and they weren't bad. However, when just about EVERY person I know who has an iPhone complains about the coverage and the network congestion, that doesn't exactly make me feel like switching to AT&T.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By walk2k on 11/3/2009 7:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed AT&T sucks so bad all my friends with I-phones are always complaining but my Sprint phone which can roam on Verizon just works.


RE: Not PC to defend AT&T But...
By NesuD on 11/3/2009 11:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm well I'm sitting here looking at a 3G coverage map on AT&Ts website and it looks identical to what Verizon shows in their commercials. Guess that blows a few holes in your reasoning. AT&T hasn't a leg to stand on. it is just a PR lawsuit. They can't win and likely don't expect to.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













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