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

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.

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

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