backtop


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: csmonitor.com)

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

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.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














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