AT">

Nov-05-2009

AT&T vs. Verizon: There's a lawyer for that

(topic overview)
CONTENTS:

According to the lawsuit which AT&T filed in Atlanta federal court, a recently launched ad campaign shows maps with white spaces that mislead consumers into thinking AT&T has no network coverage outside of areas where it offers high-speed mobile services, known as third-generation or 3G. AT&T argued that its customers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements." (More...)
Just switched to Verizon after being with AT&T for three years because the service is cheaper. (More...)
AT&T claims the spot is causing the No. 2 wireless carrier to lose "incalculable market share" and "invaluable goodwill." (More...)
The gaps on AT&T's map might actually be covered by AT&T's large 2G network. (More...)
I don'''t want to sound highly critical since I make quite a few mistakes myself, but someone has not been paying attention to the reports about the Pixi." (More...)
In an industry that is already moving on to 4G networks, not having 3G coverage is the same as no coverage for all intents and purposes. (More...)
Verizon To Double Wireless Early Termination Fee New charge, $350, applies to "advanced devices," a term that sounds awful Droid-y. (More...)
Hollywood Asks FCC To Back Three-Strikes Piracy Plan Entertainment companies have been saying for a while that they'd like to see Internet service providers deal with piracy by. (More...)

SOURCES

FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT

According to the lawsuit which AT&T filed in Atlanta federal court, a recently launched ad campaign shows maps with white spaces that mislead consumers into thinking AT&T has no network coverage outside of areas where it offers high-speed mobile services, known as third-generation or 3G. AT&T argued that its customers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements." It asked the court for a temporary restraining order against Verizon Wireless so its rival cannot benefit from the ads while the court sets a date for a preliminary and permanent injunction hearing. [1] Verizon's ad has gotten its enviable share of buzz, with many viewers appreciating the ad's humor, which parodies Apple's "There's an app for that" campaign. Apple's exclusive partner for its iPhone is AT&T. The ads show two maps side by side, with Verizon's coverage shown in red dots that blanket the country, while AT&T's service is shown as a cluster of blue dots and mostly white space. AT&T is not disputing Verizon's claim about its 3G coverage, said AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel. It is claiming that Verizon, the No. 1 wireless company, is painting a misleading picture that suggests AT&T offers no wireless coverage in the white areas on the map, which indicate where it doesn't offer 3G service. "We have taken this action because we believe Verizon Wireless' ad is misleading," Mr. Siegel said, adding that, in surveys the company conducted, "consumers took the white spots to mean we have no coverage at all, when our GSM network virtually blankets the country." The network Mr. Siegel refers to is its 2.5G network, which offers slower speed for data coverage than 3G.[2] Mark Siegel, AT&T spokesman in Atlanta, said consumers don't understand the blank space in the ads. "They don't see it as no 3G coverage, they see it as no coverage at all," he said in a phone interview. "That's misleading and that's why we've take the action we have." Consumers are used to being told that blank areas on wireless maps mean no coverage, he said. Verizon spokesman Jim Gerace countered Siegel's remarks telling DailyFinance, "This suit that AT&T filed is goofy. We clearly state in the ad that voice and data service is available outside of the 3G coverage area, which is their concern." By tackling Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon and Britain's Vodafone, AT&T is sacking its rival when it should be beefing up its 3G network. If AT&T could fill those blank-map-gaps with wider 3G coverage, then Verizon would have little argument. AT&T is drawing more attention to its smaller-than-Verizon's 3G network and more people are hearing that it's slower too, from folks who use iPhones.[3] AT&T described how the Verizon ads use maps comparing 3G coverage in the Verizon Wireless and AT&T network, using color to depict areas where each carrier has 3G and blank spaces to in areas where 3G is not available. Because Verizon uses white spaces in its own maps for areas where it has no coverage, consumers are incorrectly interpreting the blank spaces on the AT&T maps to mean it has no wireless coverage in those areas, AT&T said.[1] The maps use of colors to depict the ares of the country in which each carrier has 3G coverage and blank or white space in the areas of the country where 3G coverage is not available. Customers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that AT&T customers who are not in an AT&T 3G coverage area have no wireless coverage whatsoever, and therefore have no ability to use their wireless devices for any purpose in vast areas of the country. You can read AT&T's complaint in its entirety here (PDF). AT&T wrote in the complaint that its users can fully use their phones outside of a 3G coverage, adding that they "undisputedly" have coverage in the white and blank spots on the maps shown in the Verizon ad.[4]

The real issue is how Verizon have chosen to detail coverage in their mapping, focusing only on 3G areas and making no indication of non-3G areas. ''That, the carrier insists, is the point of the advert which you can see below in that it focusses on why their network is good for high-speed data services such as streaming video. AT&T, though, reckon that the ads have "stepped over the line of legitimate comparative advertising" by not making clear that just because their customers may not have 3G access in the white areas on the map, it doesn't mean they have no service at all. ''In fact, they suggest, subscribers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements."[5] AT&T says that Verizon is misleading customers to believe that no voice or data services are available outside of AT&T's 3G network. In the advertisement, Verizon shows its entire network as compared to AT&T's 3G coverage. While it's true that Verizon's entire network is 3G-enabled, areas not covered by AT&T's 3G service are left blank on the map, even though 2G coverage is available much more widely. According to the suit, Verizon has already adjusted its ads on behalf of AT&T, clarifying in small print some details of the maps, but AT&T still believes that it is owed damages from what it calls "misleading comparative advertising."[6] The point of contention is an ad campaign launched by Verizon Wireless, pointing out differences in 3G coverage. The maps that Verizon used in its campaign are reportedly misleading people, according to AT&T, to think that the carrier has no network coverage in certain areas where coverage is available. It can be recalled that since AT&T became the carrier of choice for the Apple iPhone, the company has been able to gain a market share from Verizon Wireless during the July to September quarter of this year.[7] AT&T's occasionally janky 3G coverage has become a generally acknowledged thorn-in-the-side for iPhone users, but the carrier still isn't pleased that arch-rival Verizon Wireless have called them on it. ''Verizon's "There's a map for that" adverts compare AT&T's 3G network with their own, an act which the latter claims is “misleading” and as you'd imagine was Verizon's intention, really has caused them to lose "incalculable market share". ''While subscribers would be happy with AT&T deciding to fill in those gaps, the carrier has taken the easier option and filed a lawsuit against Verizon.[5] "Competitive volleys based on real service information, like 'Where do you have 3G coverage' and 'Where don't you?' can really force the facts in front of consumers in a way that doesn't happen in a more benign competitive environment." Both brands need to be wary of a prolonged battle, said Woods. He added: "From an execution standpoint, brands shouldn't get into an ad war unless they are prepared to fight hard and win." AT&T filed a lawsuit this week against Verizon Wireless over its series of allegedly misleading ads carrying the tagline "There's a map for that." In those ads, two different maps of the United States are presented side by side: One illustrating Verizon's vast 3G wireless network, the other supposedly depicting AT&T's weaker 3G coverage.[8] AT&T has focused on the white areas for the lawsuit. "Through the use of a coverage map in ads, they suggest through all white or blank space, not only that AT&T doesn't offer 3G coverage but no coverage at all," spokesman Mark Siegel said in an interview. "That's misleading and that's why we filed the lawsuit." Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Brenda Raney said: "We feel the maps are accurate. we make sure they are accurate." She said the TV ads clearly indicate in text that appears on the screen that the white areas are places where there is no 3G coverage, and not that there is no coverage at all. "AT&T is focusing on the white area in the complaint, not the blue, but blue is what they advertise as their 3G coverage," she said.[9] For the uninitiated, Verizon'''s campaign revolves around 3G coverage as the now infamous map highlights where Verizon offers 3G.According to AT&T, Verizon'''s map gives the impression that other cellular networks don'''t have any coverage in the white or blank space. "By continuing to include a '3G' coverage map in its advertisement, Verizon is still conveying the message that AT&T has no coverage in the white or blank space included in the maps, and thus AT&T customers cannot use their wireless devices in large portions of the United States. The fact that customers are being misled by the blank and white space on the maps is not surprising as Verizon, in its own coverage maps, uses white space to inform consumers that no coverage of any kind exists."[10] By communicating that ATT customers have no coverage in large parts of the country, Verizon is misleading the public about an essential component of the services ATT offers. As a result of the misleading claim, ATT is losing incalculable market share, invaluable goodwill that it has spent billions of dollars to develop among consumers, and the significant investment it has made in its wireless network. This harm is substantial and irreparable. The Court cannot, at the end of the case, return to ATT its market share and the customer goodwill it is currently losing indeed, those losses cannot even be quantified with precision. ATT does not seek to stop Verizon from running its advertisements, nor does it seek to change the words Verizon uses in the advertisements. At this time, ATT seeks only an order prohibiting Verizon from displaying, in the "Bench" advertisement, or in any other advertisement, a map of ATT's "3G" coverage in which ATT's non-"3G" coverage areas are depicted by white or blank space. This limited relief is necessary to prevent consumers from being misled by the maps into believing that ATT offers no wireless service in large parts of the United States.[11]

The suit, filed in Atlanta Federal Court, claims that the Verizon ads use comparison maps with white spaces that wrongly suggest that AT&T offers no coverage in areas where it does not provide high-speed 3G mobile service, Reuters reported.[12] An opposing view is that AT&T had to file a lawsuit, partly to satisfy regulators and also to head off a potential class-action lawsuit by unhappy customers. Another expert said AT&T would only face backlash if it loses the suit. AT&T filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia, claiming that Verizon's "There's a Map for That" TV ads are misleading. AT&T claims the ads lead viewers to believe that areas shown in white on a map of the U.S. have no AT&T wireless coverage at all, but in fact the white regions are just those that are outside of AT&T's fast 3G service area.[13] The slapfest between AT&T Inc. and Verizon Wireless over which company has the better wireless coverage is spilling into court. Dallas-based AT&T on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in Atlanta federal court claiming that Verizon's recent barrage of "There's a Map for That" ads misleadingly imply that AT&T's network has major gaps with no coverage at all.[14] AT&T filed a lawsuit this week against Verizon Wireless over its series of allegedly misleading ads carrying the tagline "There's a map for that." In those ads, two different maps of the United States are presented side by side: One illustrating Verizon's vast 3G wireless network, the other supposedly depicting AT&T's weaker 3G coverage.[8]

AT&T (probably) has the most extended 2G network in the U.S., while Verizon has five times more 3G coverage than the blue guys. Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads only talk about 3G coverage, however, AT&T says that this is false advertising because it leads people into thinking that AT&T doesn't offer wireless service in the remainder of the country. AT&T says that it has 296 million customers and that it offers 3G service in more than 9,600 cities, so it thinks Verizon released these ads because it's jealous on its success. If people know what 2G and 3G means, then they'll understand the ads.[15] According to AT&T, when consumers view it s competitor's maps, many leap to the conclusion that AT&T leaves vast expanses of the U.S. untouched by any wireless coverage, even 2G. Do most consumers really care about 2G, 3G and 4G anyway, and do they know the difference? I don't know of any research results that answer these questions, which are more widely significant. Verizon's Droid ads are so unusual that it's quite likely they'll stick in a lot of people's minds for some time. Will the ads really spur many current iPhone users to dump their devices, pay hefty contract cancellation fees to AT&T, invest in Droids, and ink new two-year 3G service contracts with Verizon? I think not, particularly with 4G service coming down the pike.[16]

According to the lawsuit the ad campaign shows maps with white spaces that could make users think that AT&T has no coverage outside of areas where it offers 3G. Does AT&T really think people are that dumb? The maps are clearly labeled as "3G Coverage" and the ad stated that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas.[17] AT&T said that a recently launched ad campaign by Verizon shows maps with blank spaces that mislead consumers into thinking AT&T has no network coverage outside of areas where it offers high-speed mobile services, known as third-generation or 3G.[18] According to AT&T's complaint, "Consumers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that AT&T customers who are not in an AT&T ‘3G' coverage area ave no wireless coverage whatsoever. At this time, AT&T seeks only an order prohibiting Verizon from displaying, in the "Bench" advertisement, or in any other advertisement, a map of AT&T's ‘ 3G ' coverage in which AT&T's non-‘3G' coverage areas are depicted by white or blank space." In essence, AT&T wants Verizon to show its EDGE network, which is available in more than 13,000 cities and towns and has average data speeds between 75-135 Kbps.[19] The problem, says ATT, is that a lot of people looking at the blue map think it represents the entirety of the carrier's calling coverage. "In these advertisements," says the suit, "Verizon uses AT&T's 3G coverage map, which contains a footprint that is smaller than AT&T's non-3G networks, to mislead consumers into believing that when they are in the areas depicted by large swaths of white or blank space in AtT's 3G coverage maps, they have no coverage whatsoever."[20] One showed the coverage area provided by Verizon and the other showed the coverage are of ATT. ATT claims that customers might confuse these graphics for the general mobile coverage provided by the two telecom companies. ATT said: '''In these advertisements, Verizon uses ATT'''s 3G coverage map, which contains a footprint that is smaller than ATT'''s non-3G networks, to mislead consumers into believing that when they are in the areas depicted by large swaths of white or blank space in AtT'''s 3G coverage maps, they have no coverage whatsoever.'''[21]

The maps use color to depict the areas of the country in which each carrier has "3G" coverage and blank or white space in the areas of the country where "3G" coverage is not available. Consumers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that ATT customers who are not in an ATT "3G" coverage area have no wireless coverage whatsoever, and therefore have no ability to use their wireless devices for any purposes in vast areas of the country. This interpretation is not surprising as Verizon, in its own coverage maps, uses white space to inform customers that no coverage of any kind exists. Contrary to the misleading message conveyed by Verizon's advertisements, ATT customers can fully use their wireless devices outside of a "3G" coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by the white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements.[11] The company alleges that the advertisements showing that Verizon has larger 3G coverage than AT&T is leading people to believe that it does not cover blank spaces on a displayed coverage map, causing it to lose "incalculable market share." AT&T says that customers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements."[22]

Verizon spokeswoman Nancy Stark called the suit "without merit." "Our. maps are clearly labeled '3G coverage' and clearly state 'voice and data service available outside 3G coverage area.' serve to inform customers where their 3G smartphone apps will work -- and where they won't," Ms. Stark said. If AT&T claims that it's losing market share as a result of Verizon's ad, then the latter's single-minded pitch about its network quality (from "Can you hear me now" to "dead zones") over the years is bearing fruit, with the latest ad packing the most punch. By contrast, AT&T ads cover everything from "rollover minutes" to "more bars in more places" to its global coverage.[2] AT&T claims that the ads, which starkly contrast Verizon's huge coverage against AT&T's puny coverage, are misleading AT&T customers and potential customers. While Verizon clearly states that its the "3G" footprint it is referencing, AT&T is claiming in the lawsuit that there is a loss of " incalculable market share " based on the misleading ads. If it's "incalculable," how is there any damage at all being done? Apparently, nothing can be calculated. The ads are 100% correct, but AT&T seems to think that customers are too ignorant to know the difference between its 3G coverage and its older and slower 2G coverage, where the iPhone and all AT&T phones will still work (at very slow data speeds, no less). As usual, AT&T's entire premise here is that its customers are complete idiots when it comes to understanding the differences in coverage between its older network and the newer 3G network it operates alongside the older network.[23]

In July, I asked Stephenson about the anger from iPhone users about AT&T's poor network quality. He said he puts the network to the most drastic tests possible when he travels to large cities like New York and Los Angeles. He "abuses" his phone as much as he can, with Web surfing, app using, and e-mailing -- "I beat those phones up," he said. When there's a problem, he calls his service-support team and gets them to fix it. "I'm on it like a hawk," he told DailyFinance. If he's on it like a hawk, then AT&T should be telling us three-plus months later about solutions and improvements it has made to its network, not trotting out some half-baked lawsuit that ironically draws attention to the company's still-sparse 3G coverage. How about an announcement telling customers how AT&T has been working with Apple to help boost the quality of iPhone service? Heck, if Stephenson would say, "We're still working on it, sorry we have nothing new to report," that would be welcome news to many iPhone users, who are loyal to their phones in spite of being tethered to AT&T's slow service. Simply telling folks they haven't lost their focus on the problem, would be enough for many. AT&T insults its customers with this third-grade-level lawsuit of "Verizon hit me first."[3]

The jibe at Apple and AT&T's "There's an app for that" TV spot didn't go unnoticed by most consumers. It appears AT&T is annoyed enough to take legal action. AT&T this week filed a complaint claiming that Verizon is misleading customers to believe that AT&T doesn't offer any wireless service in the vast majority of the country. The complaint highlights the fact that Verizon only shows AT&T's 3G network in the commercial, omitting the company's 2G coverage completely, while comparing the 3G coverage to its own 3G coverage (which happens to be the only kind of coverage Verizon offers).[24] AT&T claims the ad is misleading because it shows areas of the country where it does not offer 3G coverage in white. AT&T claims this implies that it has no data coverage in those areas, when it actually does offer slower speed data coverage in much of Verizon's "white area." AT&T does not want people to notice the limitations on its 3G coverage, suggesting somehow, that any wireless data coverage it offers is good enough.[25] Telecom giant AT&T alleges that Verizon willfully misrepresented its data coverage in an advertising campaign that displays a map comparing the two networks' coverage areas. Verizon's map shows what it says is a side-by-side comparison of its 3G network coverage and AT&T's, with Verizon's red covering most of the country and AT&Ts' blue missing large chunks of the west and southwest. AT&T says that it does provide data coverage in those areas, just not high-speed 3G coverage, and that Verizon's ad implies that AT&T provides no coverage at all in the white areas.[26] AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Tuesday accusing Verizon of false advertising and deceptive trade practices. The Verizon commercials are in response to AT&T's "There's an App for That" ads touting the thousands of applications that can be used on its smart phones. Verizon's ads show United States maps with areas highlighted to depict its available "3G" coverage — which allows users to access data faster.[27] Now AT&T is bashing back -- in court. As Engadget is reporting, the company is saying that "There's a map for that" misleads consumers with coverage maps that show what seems to be great swaths of the U.S. with no AT&T coverage, when in fact most of those areas have 2G coverage, but no 3G. It's not an irrational point, although I'm not sure if Verizon's spot is any more deceptive than all those AT&T ads that say the company has the nation's fastest 3G network. As Engadget notes, there's an easy fix here: If Verizon tweaks its maps to show AT&T's zones of 2G-only coverage, its ad will be just as compelling as the current version-and it'll be tough for AT&T to claim that there's anything inaccurate or confusing about the claim.[28] In using the white spaces, Mr. Siegel said Verizon is using an industry convention that conveys "no coverage." Last month, AT&T called on Verizon to change its portrayal of AT&T's network coverage; Verizon responded by removing the phrase "you're out of touch" in reference to zones where AT&T lacks 3G coverage, Mr. Siegel said. AT&T's complaint says Verizon's tweak was inadequate, as the carrier "continued its plans to deceive consumers into believing that AT&T customers cannot communicate in areas where they have no 3G coverage," and it is seeking to keep Verizon from using the map in its advertisements until a court date is set.[2]

AT&T described the color scheme depicting areas with no 3G coverage as "misleading." The coverage maps used in the Verizon ad suggest that blank areas on the AT&T coverage map mean a complete lack of coverage, AT&T argued, whereas AT&T's cell towers cover those areas with either EDGE or GPRS signals that lack 3G data speed but is otherwise fine for voice calls and casual web activity. AT&T wrote in the complaint that it had requested that Verizon stop running these "false advertisements." In the new advertisements comparing its 3G coverage to AT&T's 3G coverage, Verizon is displaying maps of the United States that purports to show each carrier's 3G coverage.[4] Verizon's ads show a map with AT&T's "3G" coverage with blank spaces to show where the service is not available. AT&T says those maps are misleading because there is still coverage in areas where "3G" service is not offered. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission.[29] Verizon counters, though, that the ads clearly state that even if there is no 3G coverage, voice and data services will still be available. We will have to agree in a way with AT&T in that the visual effect of seeing blank spaces in a map can psychologically indicate absence of services ''' regardless of what those services may be. We will just wait and see where this latest legal battle may lead.[7] Most of the blank areas are covered, but with somewhat slower wireless speeds, AT&T said. As a response to the lawsuit, Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Nancy Stark said that the law suit was without merit and described AT&T as being hurt at the implication that its 3G coverage isn't much good. She said the ads were intended to tell consumers about coverage for smartphones, which are used for data services.[18] Verizon Wireless' cheeky ads, which tweak the iPhone's "there's an app for that" by changing the word "app" to "map," have resulted in a lawsuit from the iPhone's carrier, AT&T. According to Reuters, the suit isn't over the phrase, but rather the maps in the ads, which AT&T says imply that AT&T's coverage area leaves large areas of the country without wireless access in areas where 3G is not available.[30]

The dispute seems straightforward enough on the surface. Essentially AT&T claims that the Verizon Wireless ads for Motorola's Droid are misleading, and that the blue-and-white maps used in the ads falsely indicate that AT&T has gaps in its wireless coverage. More specifically, AT&T charges that Verizon's ads wrongly suggest that the white-colored coverage areas outside of AT&T fast 3G service get no coverage whatsoever from AT&T -- when, in fact, most of these are covered with slower 2G service.[16] Whether that is strictly true or not I don'''t know, but AT&T is not suing over the veracity of that statement. They also aren'''t suing over the implication of poor service or anything to do strictly with their network or Verizon'''s, to be honest. AT&T are suing over the fact that they claim people don'''t know what a 3G network is. I mean it, you just couldn'''t make this stuff up. It goes like this'''.AT&T is apparently taking damage from the Verizon ads so they want them off the air as soon as possible. The best way to do this is to get an immediate restraining order from a judge, saying they cant be aired while the case is being heard. To do that they must convince a judge that the ads are ''''''disserving the public'''. Towards that end, AT&T says they took a poll in an unnamed mall (seriously) and according to them nearly one out of four people they asked thought the ads were saying that AT&T provided NO wireless coverage of any kind in most of the U.S., rather than that just their 3G coverage is poor.[31] The wireless phone service war is headed to court. AT&T announced last night it is suing Verizon Wireless over its 'There's a Map for That' ads regarding 3G network coverage.[32] You know the funny ads that Verizon Wireless has been running at AT&T's expense? The ads show AT&T's 3G coverage and compare it to Verizon Wireless's 3G coverage. The punchline of the commercial is "There's a Map for That", which riffs on Apple's "There's An App for That" ad campaign.[33] Verizon Wireless has been bashing AT&T and its products lately, in both its "There's a map for that" ads snarking about AT&T's 3G coverage and the " Droid does " campaign that says the iPhone is a bag of limitations.[28] Remember the ads Verizon was running a few weeks ago, which made fun of both the iPhone and AT&T's coverage? It looks like AT&T is now suing Verizon Wireless because of the misleading coverage maps that Verizon posted, which according AT&T, is making them lose "incalculable market share".[17] ATLANTA ( TheStreet ) -- AT&T ( T Quote ) filed a lawsuit against Verizon Wireless alleging the use of "misleading" coverage maps in advertisements that are costing AT&T market share, according to a Reuters report.[12] The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court of Atlanta, uses some dire language, claiming that Verizon's ads pose a serious threat to AT&T's business. It reads: "As a result of the misleading claim, AT&T is losing incalculable market share, invaluable goodwill that it has spent billions of dollars to develop among consumers, and the significant investment it has made in its wireless network."[8] The lawsuit which was recently filed in Atlanta federal court by AT&T pointed that during a recent ad campaign, Verizon wireless showed white patches on a map that misleads the customers.[34] Ed Yourdon/Flickr Complaining about mobile phone service providers has nearly become a national pastime. Even the providers themselves now gripe about one other, with AT&T filing a lawsuit against Verizon claiming that its ad campaign misleads customers into believing there are enormous gaps in AT&T's wireless coverage.[35] 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. Given how many people have complained (see Economic Snapshot: AT&T Still iPhone's Biggest Flaw, and also here, here, and here ) about AT&T's spotty coverage, it probably has more to do with Apple's exclusivity contract with its iPhone. Even before the lawsuit, Verizon had altered its ads to appease a cranky AT&T. The ads omitted the phrase "out of touch" and added "voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" as a small disclaimer on the bottom of the screen. Even that didn't keep AT&T from talking with its lawyers. Overall, this appears to be a very needless lawsuit. Verizon covers all the legal bases in the ad and is well within its rights.[36] Verizon removed the words "out of touch" from the ads and superimposed the phrase "Voice & data service available outside 3G coverage areas" at the end of the advertisements. AT&T argues these changes did "nothing to change the misleading message in these advertisements."[19]

"Wouldn't it be more constructive for AT&T to come back point-by-point?" Mr. Jezierski said. He suggests that AT&T run a commercial showing their own 3G map, with pictures of engineers expanding 3G coverage every day, while making clear that, while the fastest speeds and highest network quality are in certain colored parts of the revised map, other areas also have good service where consumers can still make calls and use data. Mr. Jezierski also noted that it was a stretch to think that enough consumers would believe AT&T only works in the few areas called out by Verizon on its map.[2] Even though Verizon also shows a map with white gaps where it doesn't have 3G service, AT&T thinks that the maps falsely leads consumers to believe that AT&T provides no coverage in the areas that are blank. AT&T's EDGE network serves most of those regions quite well.[33] Although it doesn't deny its 3G coverage is severely lacking -- Engadget cites its complaint which says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" -- AT&T claims the map comparison implies its service provides no coverage whatsoever in the blank, uncolored areas. The company asserts that its capable -- though inferior -- EDGE network will allow calls to be made in the majority of those areas.[36] AT&T is just mad and jealous that they lie about their claims of having the largest 3G network, and that they suck at providing 3G coverage. Verizon compares its own 3G network with AT&T's. Because Verizon is more up to date with its software and technical cell phone coverage and only serves 3G service, it is making AT&T jealous.[24]

Much, in fact, that its national wireless network is most likely strained -- causing many an iPhone customer to constantly have problems with their service. With Verizon Wireless attempting the boldest move yet to quench AT&T's iPhone power with the impending release of the "Droid" phone, it's also advertising that its coverage is miles ahead of A&T's. This is true -- Verizon's 3G wireless footprint is leagues beyond comparable AT&T coverage for 3G services. AT&T is not taking this sitting down.[23] Coverage has, in fact, been a sore spot for AT&T: Customers have reported sluggish connections, possibly due to the rapid uptake in bandwidth-hogging iPhones. As several tech bloggers have pointed out, all four of America's major wireless providers have had their share of problems lately, especially when it comes to keeping customers happy. Poor Coverage Dave Jeyes at Tech Blorge says that AT&T isn't doing itself any favors by calling attention to the disparity between its wireless coverage and Verizon's, which is clearly superior: "Instead of suing Verizon for pointing out its anemic 3G network, maybe AT&T should funnel money into expanding coverage into new cities.[35]

Computerworld - The nation's two largest wireless carriers already battle fiercely over smartphone devices and customers, but today AT&T took matters to federal court claiming Verizon Wireless' latest TV ads are misleading, and falsely indicate that AT&T has gaps in wireless coverage.[9] "White space always represents no coverage," said AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel. "It's a convention used by certain wireless companies, and I think that's exactly what they're doing in these ads. It's fundamentally misleading, in our view." The campaign, which mocks Apple Inc.' s "There's an App for That" ads for the iPhone, is a major marketing initiative for Verizon.[14] Verizon began an aggressive series of marketing campaigns targeting the iPhone dynamic duo of AT&T and Apple. It began with the 'There's a Map for That' ads, playing off of the iPhone 'There's an App for That' marketing slogan and illustrating how Verizon has 5 times more 3G network coverage than AT&T. It followed that up with the iDon't campaign, highlighting weaknesses of the iPhone and stating that the upcoming Android-based Droid can do all of those things and more.[37] The other day we noted how AT&T was suing Verizon over their "There's A Map For That" ad campaign, claiming the ads misrepresented AT&T's wireless network coverage. A leaked memo from AT&T management to employees has surfaced, telling them what to tell consumers should they ask about the lawsuit.[38] The lawsuit says Verizon's ads suggest that coverage areas outside of fast AT&T 3G service, shown in maps in the ads in white, provide no service at all.[9] Verizon said through a spokeswoman Tuesday that the ads are accurate and clearly state in text that the white areas on the map just have no 3G service and are not entirely without coverage. AT&T is seeking an emergency injunction to stop the ads, arguing that they are causing AT&T to lose "incalculable market share" and customer goodwill. It is also seeking unspecified monetary damages.[13]

AT&T is suing Verizon for their recent "There's a map for that" ad campaign.'' They complain that the maps that Verizon publishes could confuse people (even though they are clearly stating "3G Access") into thinking the white spaces on the map represent areas where AT&T doesn't have coverage.[39] "We believe that Verizon's ads are misleading," said AT&T rep Mark Siegel. "The use of white space gives the impression that there is no coverage provided in those areas. That's simply not true. That's the problem we have."[8] What AT&T is upset about is that Verizon only colors in the 3G coverage regions on AT&T's map, leaving the rest of the country white. It may seem like nitpicking, but AT&T argues in the filing that white spaces on a wireless coverage map are traditionally used to indicate no coverage at all.[14] Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, it clearly says below the AT&T map "AT&T 3G Coverage." At no point when they show a map is 3G left out of the picture. AT&T says in its complaint: "In October, 2009, Verizon embarked on an advertising campaign designed to mislead consumers about the scope of AT&T's wireless coverage."[40] The Ad shows that Verizon has five times more 3G coverage than AT&T, and while AT&T doesn'''t claim that 3G info is wrong, but it doesn'''t take into account AT&T'''s 2G network and thus misleads. Not too sure how this one will pan out, AT&T has asked for an injunction to prevent Verizon from continuing with the campaign, but the fact that AT&T is suing Verizon has brought quite a bit of attention to the campaign, which is probably something AT&T didn'''t want in the first place.[41] The intent, according to Verizon, is to show where AT&T lacks 3G coverage. AT&T claims the ads imply that AT&T provides no coverage at all in those areas.[3]

Some AT&T users point out that the ad fails to mention the fact that Verizon's CDMA network can't handle voice and data simultaneously. Others credit AT&T's rival for having a larger total 3G coverage, but stress that AT&T has better 3G coverage in metropolitan areas with the highest concentration of subscribers.[4] AT&T seeks to stop the ads, which show maps of the U.S. with areas highlighted to depict third-generation -- or 3G -- network coverage that allows users to access data faster. The ads also lampoon iPhone's "There's an App for That" ads, which highlight the device's capabilities.[42]

SAN FRANCISCO (AdAge.com) -- The war between wireless carriers just got a little uglier. AT&T Wireless is suing Verizon Wireless over its "There's a map for that" campaign, which illustrates the density of Verizon's 3G network on a U.S. map compared with that of its competitor's much sparser coverage.[2] It seems Verizon's "there's a map for that" AT&T bashing campaign has not gone down well with the latter's legal department. AT&T is suing Verizon and has filed a motion to get the adverts pulled as it considers them "misleading". As those who've seen the spots will know, the adverts compare Verizon's 3G coverage with AT&T's using red and blue splotches across a map of the States. Verizon is a 3G network, so its coverage looks rather more impressive than AT&Ts, which covers a lot more of the States than is shown, but just not 3G.[43]

I think what is misleading is that when I as an at&t customer see that map, I think there is no coverage at all. Verizon's Map shows coverage everywhere claiming that it is all 3G. Their map shows complete coverage, i think what at&t wants is some semblance of a map that shows even though they don't have 3g coverage, there is still EDGE coverage.[19] The commercials show two maps clearly labeled as the 3G coverage areas of the respective carriers, with Verizon red almost filling in the nation's outline and AT&T blue in scattered patches across a landscape of white.[20] I live in the smack middle of one of the white areas shown on the "AT&T 3G Coverage" maps shown in the Verizon ad.[39]

AT&T has coverage of some sort in the vast majority of the blank white space depicted on the map in the Verizon ad, but that coverage is not sufficient to meet the needs of devices that rely on broadband connectivity.[37] AT&T said in the filing that it wants the court to force Verizon Wireless to stop using white space to indicate AT&T's non-3G coverage areas.[14] The white space made the customers to think that there is no network coverage beyond a certain area, where the former provides high -speed mobile connectively, which is known as third- generation or 3G. AT&T claims that the customers can enjoy their wireless devices outside of a '3G' coverage area and also can avail uninterrupted coverage.[34]

Some analysts, like David Coursey at PC World, say that the lawsuit is a bad idea from a public relations standpoint. Coursey says that the suit makes AT&T look like the villain, trying to stop its mobile management competitor from revealing the real shortcomings of its network coverage, and that the lawsuit will draw more attention to the controversial ads. AT&T has spent a considerable amount of time in either real courtrooms or the court of public opinion recently, picking public fights with Skype and Google over data use on its wireless network.[26] We also talked a bit about the battle of the printer manufacturers, with HP always figuring in a few HP sued generic printer ink cartridge manufacturers for patent infringement, and again Kodak for advertising issues. One would think these bigwigs have nothing better to do; we are guessing they have to find a way to make use of those fat retainers they have to pay their equally bigwig lawyers each month. This time around, it is the battle of mobile phone carriers. AT&T is suing Verizon wireless for allegedly stepping over that imaginary line that has been drawn for legitimate comparative advertising, as indicated in their lawsuit, which was filed at the Atlanta federal court.[7] We just shared with you the new courtroom battle that may ensue, this time triggered by a lawsuit filed by AT&T against Verizon Wireless. This comparative ad may have just come and passed ''' and eventually forgotten ''' had this lawsuit not brought it out in the open for everyone to peruse even more closely.[44]

Looks like AT&T isn'''t too impressed by the new Verizon 'There's a Map for That' ad campaign and showing their disdain by taking legal action. AT&T has filed a lawsuit ]] lawsuit against Verizon because they feel that the new ads are '''misleading''' and have resulted in the loss of market share.[10] AT&T has taken offense at the recent Verizon 'There's a Map for That' ad campaign and has filed a lawsuit against Verizon.[37]

Even if AT&T is right about the facts and wins the injunction, it will still face some backlash from bringing the lawsuit, Grabowski said. "With the Verizon ads alone, AT&T might lose 10% of their customers, but they may lose more with the lawsuit," he said. Gartner Inc. analyst Ken Dulaney, however, said the Verizon ad won't persuade iPhone users to switch to Verizon, simply because Verizon doesn't have the iPhone, which is currently exclusive to AT&T. "Most customers will ignore the ad and stay with AT&T," he predicted. Ellison, while contending that AT&T had no choice other than to file a lawsuit, said he finds the Verizon ad to be "funny and brilliant," since it encapsulates the key difference between Verizon and AT&T. "Saying 'there's a map for that' as a play on iPhone's 'there's an app for that' is brilliant," he said.[13] The entire lawsuit disserves AT&T since all it does is focus a great deal of new attention on the ads, giving Verizon massive amounts more publicity'''.absolutely free. It also makes AT&T seem vaguely pitiful and desperate. They have to sue Verizon to get them to airing the spots? To most people, that means that they must be accurate, or that AT&T has something to hide. If they were false ads, AT&T could just air counter claims and fight it out with them on the merits. Instead they are saying that it isn'''t what it looks like, the ads are unfair and shouldn'''t be allowed'''sounds like whining to me. AT&T should take a lesson from their partner in crime, Apple. They have taken no notice of Verizon'''s Droid ads targeting the iPhone. Steve Jobs just continues smiling serenely, above such sordid squabbling and unwilling to descend to the level of his inferiors, while he lets his fanboi legion of doom attack the ads. Once again Apple is the cool, confidant Sheriff Andy while AT&T is poor Barney Fife, spluttering and squawking and calling his lawyers'''making a fool of himself yet again.[31] IDC analyst Scott Ellison said AT&T had to file a lawsuit over the ads, in part, to satisfy government regulators that monitor AT&T's network performance to make sure it lives up to the company's claims. "The AT&T lawsuit is not going to matter for consumers, but AT&T is doing this for people at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, because AT&T needs to counter a perception that AT&T is selling something it can't deliver," Ellison said. Ellison also said AT&T is apparently "trying to head off a class-action lawsuit from iPhone users and others who may say, 'You sold us this phone and we can't make calls with it.'"[13]

Poor AT&T. It's been a punching bag lately, no doubt. The "There's a Map for That" ad campaign has attacked AT&T's 3G coverage furiously. It shows two different consumers using phones and suggests that perhaps the best way to choose a phone is to make sure it has a good network behind it.[33] During the course of the ad, Verizon shows a map of AT&T's 3G coverage and compares it directly to a map of Verizon's 3G coverage.[33] AT&T sued over Verizon's "There's a map for that" TV ad that compares Verizon's 3G coverage (lots) to AT&T's (small by comparison).[25]

I spoke with a Verizon store manager, who wished to remain anonymous. He said the in-store map illustrating Verizon's larger coverage is quite effective when selling phones, but no customers had mentioned the Verizon's TV ads. At AT&T, the store owner, who also didn't want to be identified, said he was aware of the TV ads, but said "it's just a commercial."[3] AT&T is now suing Verizon over the commercial saying that the latest advertising campaign falsely suggests AT&T customers have coverage gaps. It thinks that Verizon is implying that users cannot use their Jesus phones outside those 3G areas at all.[45]

While AT&T ( T ) and Apple ( AAPL ) may compose some attractive ads showcasing the iPhone's slickest features, Verizon ( VZ ) can make the two companies stand and take notice by touting one superior aspect: coverage. AT&T is suing Verizon over its recent campaign titled "There's a Map for That" -- a tongue-in-cheek take on the oft-repeated line "There's an app for that" in iPhone commercials.[36] Wireless carrier AT&T has sued Verizon Wireless over the "Theres a Map for That" commercials Big Red has been airing for quite some time now, and which are aimed at the "Theres an App for That" ads Apple delivers for its iPhone.[46] Those snarky new "There's a map for that" commercials from Verizon Wireless that take a jab at AT&T (and Apple) over network coverage (see " So I’m guessing those Verizon-Apple talks weren’t going too well ") seem to have burrowed under the skin of the target, causing enough irritation to warrant professional attention.[20] NEW YORK, Nov 3 (Reuters) - AT&T Inc ( T.N ) is suing Verizon Wireless in an effort to stop its bigger mobile rival from using "misleading" coverage maps in advertisements that AT&T says are causing it to lose "incalculable market share."[1]

Verizon's maps also quite conveniently leave out 4G, a higher speed level that neither AT&T nor Verizon is expected to reach until 2010. Sprint this week added ten more cities to its finally emerging 4G WiMax coverage. If there's going to be a multicolored map out there, it really needs more colors, doesn't it? Maybe red could be used to represent 4G? Or what about purple? But even if Verizon -- or anyone else -- ever put together a more multihued map, it'd need to be redrawn each time one of the networks steps to a higher speed in a new metro area.[16] Verizon has a point with 3G coverage, though it's of course misleading (which isn't unusual for advertisement). Edge (2G) is the only option in my area with AT&T -- even if they promised availability for Q1 2008 -- and Verizon indeed offers 3G. Not essential, but Vz certainly expanded their network quicker than AT&T. Annoying, but no deal breaker.[24] It's not Verizon's responsibility to advertise what AT&T has and doesn't have. Verizon is simply pointing out that their 3G coverage is far broader than AT&Ts. They make it very clear they are comparing 3G coverage. They never say AT&T doesn't have service in those areas, they simply say AT&T doesn't offer 3G in those areas, which is 100% accurate.[24]

Verizon did add a clarification at the end of the commercial, after initial complaints from AT&T, that voice and data service is available outside 3G coverage areas, but that apparently was not enough for AT&T.[32] Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Nancy Stark said the ads in question "clearly state" that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas. She said the ads were intended to tell consumers about coverage for smartphones, which are used for data services.[1] Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Nancy Stark told Reuters that the ad "clearly state that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas." It's the second time that AT&T objected to Verizon's marketing communication.[4]

BEIJING, Nov. 4 (Xinhuanet) -- AT&T Inc. is suing Verizon Wireless over an ads dispute, alleging that the latter has misled the customers in coverage.[18] News by Brian James Kirk on Wednesday November 04, 2009. AT&T has filed a complaint against Verizon Wireless asking for a permanent injunction of the latter's "There's a map for that" promotional ads.[6]

AT&T thinks that the map Verizon is using in that commercial might make customers think that there is no service at all in the white parts of the AT&T map while there truly is EDGE service. AT&T wants Verizon to take the ad off the air and pay for losses AT&T might have experienced''' If you can'''t beat them sue them! You can catch some more of the gory details at Engadget.[47] AT&T also said Verizon's ads are causing AT&T to lose "incalculable market share" and goodwill with customers. The maps in the ads show 3G service in blue colors for both carriers, with Verizon covering more of the U.S. map.[9] If the iPhone was Verizon's exclusive, perhaps the nation's #1 wireless provider would have suffered the same problems. AT&T says it's investing a lot in network upgrades. The carrier has expanded its global WiFi footprint by 30 percent and plans to deploy 7.2Mbps HSPA to 25 of the nation's 30 largest markets by 2010, spending $18 billion in network upgrades this year alone. What do you think? Was Verizon out of line with its "There's a Map For That" advert? Is this a classic case of marketing gone too far or is AT&T suing because maps in Verizon's advert do mislead folks into believing that AT&T's signal doesn't cover big chunks of the U.S. land mass? Do chime in with your comments below.[4] I think that Verizon should change the white areas with a light blue to highlight AT&T's 2G network. If the carrier will not be satisfied with this then it definitely envies Verizon as well as the new Motorola Droid which made the iPhone look like crap. It's a war, and always will be a war between the carriers, but all AT&T is doing is to draw more negative attention from consumers and the media by whining so much.[15] I think it demonstrates AT&T's desperation. I recently noted its disappointing third-quarter results. The company is trying very hard to change its image as an inferior wireless carrier with legitimate competitors to the iPhone like Verizon's new Droid coming onto the scene. Commercials like this hamper that effort. If they succeed, and its iPhone-driven account growth takes a significant hit, then that would be very, very bad for AT&T. After all, its wireless segment is one of the few bright spots in its business these days.[40]

Constant speed is nowhere near AT&T's. That's why AT&T threatened to sue them over the best coverage thing because AT&T said that speed should be considered when you start statng things like that. Then Verizon switched over to these commercials instead. They'll just keep marketing this bull until AT&T actually takes it to the courts. Verizon needs to learn that you can't just rely on software updates running on old tech from almost a decade ago and then attack a company that is actually upgrading it's hardware as well as software as it goes for having less 3G coverage when it doesn't really have any to begin with.[24]

Commercial dispute? There's a lawsuit for that! You've probably seen Verizon's "There's a map for that" commercials -- mocking AT&T's network coverage comparing network maps of both carriers.[48] For AT&T, the bottom line was that over more than 5,000 tests in nearly 300 locations, it did not do as well as Verizon or Sprint. This lawsuit is not the first time AT&T has looked bad. It's slow adoption of MMS, lack of tethering support, and the Skype, Google Voice, Google Maps Navigation, and Google Latitude controversies have all hurt the company's image with customers. Bottom line: AT&T needs to build out its 3G network or be willing to take the abuse that comes from not doing so.[25] Mobile Operators, Vendors Join Forces on LTE Voice Mobile operators and vendors are joining forces on LTE voice. Verizon Lawsuit Makes AT&T The Villain, Again AT&T needs to build out its 3G network or take the abuse that comes from not doing so. Once again, AT&T looks like a villain to its customers.[25]

The AT&T lawsuit against Verizon is like Chevy suing Ford and claiming that the ad misleads customers into believing that the Camaro is only available in the color white and its hurting the sales of the other colors the Camaro is available in.[37]

While it might sound like a tussle over the blue and the white, Siegel said AT&T has conducted research with customers and discovered that "a significant number of people have seen the ads and said AT&T has no coverage" in the white areas.[9] Again, the legal test is whether a reasonable person seeing the ad would think AT&T has no coverage in the white areas of the map.[11]

The narrator later says, "If you want to know why some people have spotty 3G coverage, there's a map for that too," and a map with some blue areas and a lot of blank space ostensibly shows AT&T's 3G coverage. AT&T says those maps are misleading because there is still regular coverage in areas where 3G service is not offered.[42] Maybe the iPhone sucks in terms of service, but the first option is more likely. Apparently, AT&T thinks that Verizon is misleading people with the "There's a map for that" ads so they sued them.[15] AT&T does not seek to stop the ads or change the words but wants an order prohibiting Verizon from displaying maps that show what it considers "misleading" coverage.[19] The ad is not confusing at all. (I have linked to two different versions of the ad). What I would have found confusing is just what AT&T wants, some additional color on its map. That would have ruined my ability to just glance at the map and understand its meaning: AT&T has less 3G coverage than Verizon.[25] The video became viral online in just a few days, and now, AT&T has decided to sue Verizon over the ad. According to engadget, AT&T believes Verizon is falsely representing the 3G map as if it's a general data coverage map.[48] AT&T isn't really disputing that fact. It's complaining that Verizon is falsely representing the sparse AT&T 3G map as it's more general data coverage map, which would include its slower, non-3G, data speeds. As far as I can see, that's not at all what Verizon is doing. This was one of the commercials I wrote about a few weeks back.[40] I really hope Verizon wins. AT&T really is, arguably, a poorly rated company and if AT&T won I would despise them even more. It clearly shows that it is the 3G map not just plain coverage.[47] In the commercial, Verizon's red map clearly shows a lot more coverage compared to the blue AT&T map.[48]

AT&T's 3G coverage map is clearly smaller than Verizon Wireless', with huge gaps all over the place indicating where AT&T doesn't provide 3G service yet. That's the crux of the matter.[33] A side-by-side comparison of Verizon's 3G coverage shown on a map of the U.S. and a map of AT&T's 3G coverage indicates that Verizon's 3G coverage is much broader than AT&T's, a fact that AT&T does not contest.[14] Oh, I'm sorry AT&T. You are mad because Verizon would not help further your bullshit by showing your "2G" coverage map and label it 3G coverage? That is actually "truth in advertising".[24]

IMO since the ad Clearly states that it's comparing 3G coverage, AT&T should lose this one. Anyone who has used both Verizon and AT&T already knows how much better the coverage is on Verizon. It's probably the only reason the iPhone hasn't completely taken over the market.[24] The ads, parodies of the '''There'''s an App for that''' ads for the iPhone,'' state that AT&T'''s 3G network has far less coverage than Verizon'''s.[31] I was watching TV last week and I saw the Verizon commercial and realized it sounded eerily familiar to the very popular Apple/AT&T commercial. What's funny about these two commercials is that Verizon makes jabs at AT&T's spotty coverage, and then Apple comes out with how great the iphone is on the AT&T network! Regardless I have heard terrible reviews about the AT&T network, so they should probably go ahead and fix their coverage issues.[2]

In short: "tell customers we're awesome" is the meat of the memo, which not surprisingly omits AT&T's recent struggles with iPhone data capacity and the fact that yeah, Verizon does have better 3G coverage.[38] The only reason Verizon doesn't squash AT&T is the lack of good phones. When the Droid comes out, users will start to discover they can get the same capabilities (or better) from Verizon with MUCH better coverage than the iPhone and customers will start jumping ship.[20] AT&T is also adding customers at a quicker clip: Last quarter it signed up close to 1.4 million contract subscribers, compared to just above 1 million at Verizon. AT&T's network has had its share of bad publicity this year, as heavy usage by iPhone and other smartphone users has overwhelmed its infrastructure, causing spotty service. "This is damage control on something that's been rolling with people -- especially iPhone users -- knocking AT&T's network," said Bill Ho, an analyst at Current Analysis. "They need to stop the negativity." Others aren't so sure, saying it draws attention to AT&T's network shortfalls -- and negates its image. "This compounds the reactive, defensive image that surrounds the problem AT&T has had," said Andrei Jezierski, principal at i2 Partners.[2] Point out a weakness that potential customers care about and exploit it.'' AT&T should focus on fixing their own network, not suing people for pointing out how bad it is. In other Verizon advertising news, they've got a new Droid ad out that is pretty cool.'' There's not much else to it than that, but I have a feeling that the same people who enjoy this ad will also enjoy this very techie-focused phone.[39] We certainly can't blame AT&T for getting mad at Verizon's " There's a Map for That ", regardless of whether the video is accurate or not. It's no surprise that AT&T has filed a false advertising suit against Verizon in retaliation, but they've also issued an internal memo to tell employees how to respond to this (basically tell the customers that AT&T is good). Judging from the number of AT&T customers who are cheering this ad on, might there be a sliver of truth in this ad? Check it out for yourself.[49] Needless to say, ATT's none too happy about Verizon's " Theres a Map for That " campaign. ATT first complained about the ads back in October, saying they were misleading. Verizon responded by adding a few extra words and an itsy bitsy disclaimer but that wasn't enough for ATT. Early this morning, ATT filed a false advertising suit against Big Red, presumably in an effort to get the ads off the air as soon as possible. This afternoon, ATT sent out an internal memo regarding the lawsuit, and we've obtained a copy. ATT keeps the memo about as simple as they possibly can: Yes, they're filing a lawsuit. They feel Verizon is misleading potential ATT customers. If anybody asks? Use it as an opportunity to tell them how totally awesome ATT is.[50]

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--AT&T Inc. (T) took offense to Verizon Wireless's recent "There's A Map For That" campaign, claiming in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the commercials falsely suggest the wireless carrier has coverage gaps.[51] U.S. based telecom giant ATT has filed a lawsuit against rival company Verizon. This lawsuit is related to a television commercial named 'There'''s a map for that' which made fun of the bad 3G coverage provided by ATT in the U.S. market.[21]

The company claims that the advertisement is confusing as the customer might not understand the graphics showcased in the ad. This is where the fun part begins. Verizon ads showcased two maps both labeled 3G coverage.[21] In one Verizon ad, the narrator says, "If you want to know why your 3G coverage works so well on Verizon Wireless, there's a map for that," and a map of the nation nearly covered with red dots is shown.[42]

America is thanking AT&T this morning for drawing attention to how limited its 3G coverage is. This is something I never paid much attention to until yesterday, when AT&T sued Verizon over a TV ad comparing the carriers' 3G coverage.[25] AT&T says Verizon's advert misleads viewers into thinking that people outside AT&T's 3G coverage have no wireless coverage whatsoever.[4] Verizon Wireless, which is jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc (VOD), has jumped on the mounting criticism of AT&T's coverage and its ability to handle the Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhone with.[51] Computerworld - AT&T Inc.' s lawsuit against Verizon Wireless over its TV ads could be a public relations mistake, some analysts said today, but at least one said that the company had to bring the lawsuit to protect itself against potential regulatory or legal actions.[13] Three experts said that the Verizon ads alone would not have focused as much public attention on AT&T's perceived network weaknesses as the AT&T lawsuit has. "I think AT&T has a good point about the Verizon ads, but unfortunately by filing the lawsuit, they are showing their shortcomings," said Gene Grabowski, a crisis communications consultant at Levick Strategic Communications in Washington.[13] AT&T claims that the ads are "misleading" customers and resulting in the loss of "incalculable market share." The lawsuit may backfire though as AT&T draws more attention to the ad campaign and the shortcomings of its own 3G network.[37] AT&T has asked for an injunction to prevent Verizon from continuing the ad campaign so that customers won't continue to see the stark contrast of the 3G networks from each provider.[37]

Land Line Erosion The Atlantic's own Daniel Indiviglio doesn't think AT&T a great case considering that the ads in question clearly state that the comparison is between the companies' 3G networks. He thinks that AT&T's sharp decline in landline customers and related profit loss might have something to do with the way the company is approaching the situation: "I think it demonstrates AT&T's desperation'''If they succeed, and its iPhone-driven account growth takes a significant hit, then that would be very, very bad for AT&T. After all, its wireless segment is one of the few bright spots in its business these days."[35]

Currently, AT&T is seeking an emergency injunction to stop the ads. It also seeks unspecified damages, accusing Verizon of false advertising, and claims the ads harm AT&T's ability to compete. AT&T and Verizon are the two largest wireless carriers in U.S. They have battled fiercely over smartphone devices before.[18] AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia accusing Verizon of false advertising and deceptive trade practices. The Verizon commercials are in response to AT&T ads touting the thousands of applications for its smart phones.[29] AT&T's suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges the exclusive carrier for iPhone wireless service has suffered 'irreparable harm' as a result of the TV ads, and seeks a permanent injunction.[32] According to AT&T, that filed the lawsuit on Tuesday, the ads are misleading. AT&T, which filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, states that the ads have caused and continue to cause irreparable harm to the company.[46] Multiple media outlets have reported that AT&T filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking a temporary restraining order, arguing that Verizon's advert is causing "incalculable" market share loss.[4]

Looks like at legal battle is ensuing between the Big Blue and the Big Red, as iPhone carrier AT&T has kind of taken offence to Verizon'''s '''There'''s a Map for That,''' campaign reports an article over on pcworld. AT&T is suing Verizon claiming their advert is misleading, and apparently resulting in loss of '''incalculable market share.'''[41] With innovation pushing even further on, keeping up should be one of the responsibilities that carriers will need to take seriously. If people were to ask me, I would say that AT&T may have been resting on its laurels, that the fact that only they can sell the iPhone anyway will be enough to keep the customers coming. With the Droid coming, and being carried by Verizon, it looks like both Apple and AT&T have the jitters. If I were in AT&T'''s shoes, this should serve as a clue that there should be more color on that map.[44]

Ellison defended the lawsuit, noting that AT&T's network problems "apparently don't matter much," since the carrier just reported an "incredible" third quarter, with 3.2 million iPhone activations. "That's a great number by any measure, even more so given the media coverage of AT&T's network capacity issues in key areas like New York and San Francisco."[13] When we come to think of it, calling out '''Foul!''' does seem to be an indication that there is definitely a cause for concern. If you are the carrier offering one of the hottest ''' if not the hottest ''' mobile devices around, and exclusively at that, then one ought to be able to allow its users to enjoy the full range of possibilities that such a phone may offer. Instead of a lawsuit that may drag on for who knows how long, it may be more prudent on AT&T'''s part to simply focus on expanding their coverage and closing the gap between theirs and other carrier'''s 3G coverage.[44] I would further argue that by suing Verizon, the damage to AT&T is greater than the effects of any negative Verizon advertisement. Not only does the lawsuit draw attention to AT&T's lack of 3G coverage, but its lack of a backbone too. Instead of trying to do damage control and prevent others from pointing out its flaws, AT&T should just solve the problem.[3]

It is only misleading to extreme idiots that have no place owning a cellular phone. Verizon plainly states that they are discussing 3G coverage. AT&T has overstepped their bounds and I hope that Verizon counter-sues for AT&T costing them(Verizon) money.[24] AT&T has only 20 percent of the 3G coverage Verizon has and it is more or less married to the iPhone for the foreseeable future.[37] AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, in an interview with DailyFinance on July 23, told me that AT&T's "data network behaves differently with the load of demand that's being put on the network." IPhone users have complained about the lack of 3G coverage and the slow speed while surfing the Web on their phones, not to mention dropped calls.[3] "AT&T customers can fully use their wireless devices outside of a '''3G''' coverage area" WHAT? How can you fully use a 3G device outside of a 3G area? You bought the device for it's high-speed data capability, did you not? Getting low speed data on a 3G phone is not full usage.[11] AT&T says "almost one in four" thought the ads meant that AT&T provided no wireless coverage in many areas of the country.[40]

AT&T has requested the court to temporarily discontinue the said advertisements so that Verizon Wireless cannot avail the benefit from the ads till the case is pending for hearing before the court.[34] The current court battle between the nation's two largest wireless carriers, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, involves issues that are more than just a matter of black and white (or maybe that should be blue and white?).[16]

ATLANTA -- AT&T is suing Verizon Wireless over its competitor's "There's a Map for That" commercials, saying they are misleading and amount to deceptive trade practices.[42] With the Verizon Wireless map campaign, however, AT&T is losing '''incalculable market share'''.[7] AT&T's exclusive U.S. right to sell Apple Inc's ( AAPL.O ) iPhone helped the No. 2 U.S. operator to gain market share from Verizon Wireless during the quarter ended in September.[1]

Verizon Wireless was recently sued by the AT&T Inc. for misleading customers.[34] According to AT&T, Verizon Wireless is said to be allegedly misleading people with false advertisements.[34]

Whatever Verizon Wireless changed, it wasn't enough to appease AT&T, which filed a lawsuit over the whole thing.[33] Verizon Wireless called the lawsuit without merit, telling The Journal that the ads "clearly explain that non-3G coverage is available elsewhere."[11]

Now, if Verizon prevails in the lawsuit, AT&T can expect to see the ad, or something including the same maps, forever.[25] Walking home last night in New York City, I stopped at AT&T and Verizon stores to ask if the "There's a map for that," ads were having much impact.[3]

AT&T is mad at Verizon'''s recent commercials that pit AT&T 3G against Verizon 3G on a coverage map.[47] In what may be an ill-advised move, AT&T has decided to sue Verizon over its television commercial that shows AT&T's 3G data coverage as paltry and Verizon's as robust.[40] As for not pointing out that AT&T has slower speed data coverage where it lacks 3G coverage, I do not see how Verizon is under any obligation to do so.[25] Verizon has been taking the Michael in a series of adverts about its rival AT&T's legendary spotty 3G coverage.[45]

AT&T is accusing the company of false advertising based on the ad's comparison of 3G coverage in either service.[36] AT&T doesn't claim that the information related to 3G coverage is wrong, but rather that customers that view the ads are too dumb to understand that it is only referring to 3G coverage, and not coverage in general.[37]

From a former Verizon customer who switched to At&t just for the iPhone, I can tell you that in Tucson at least, At&t's 2G signal coverage sucks hardcore.[50] Some experts said the lawsuit brings into focus a perception among some consumers -- iPhone users in particular -- that AT&T's network is inferior to Verizon's.[13] If you have a superior network offering, then a lawsuit makes sense, but AT&T is already inferior and may give Verizon's campaign more power as opposed to detracting from it."[13]

AT&T is taking Verizon to court alleging the phone giant is misrepresenting how large its phone network is in its ads.[28] Technically, EDGE is considered 3G. The International Telecommunications Union, the international standards body that defined the 3G standards (IMT-2000), considered EDGE to be a 3G standard along with CDMA2000, UMTS/W-CDMA, WiMAX, and maybe one or 2 others. The ITU did not specify minimum or average data rates to qualify as 3G. So, while EDGE is commonly referred to as 2.5G (or 2.75G) here in the U.S., if the courts rely strictly on the ITU standards, at a minimum AT&T might be successful in getting Verizon to modify their ads.[19]

Endgadget reports that Verizon has already changed the ads once for AT&T -- changing small print to say "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" and removing the phrase "out of touch."[24] Responding to the claim, Verizon stated that the ads make clear that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas, but are intended to compare high-speed coverage for smartphones, according to Reuters.[12] "As to the merits of the suit, there arent any," Nancy Stark explained. "The ads are clearly labeled 3G coverage and they also clearly state that voice and data service is available outside the 3G coverage area."[46]

True 2G coverage turns the iPhone into something so slow that it could be beaten in a race by an asthmatic snail with a heavy load of shopping, but that is not the point the phone will still connect to something. Verizon has already modified their commercial, removing the phrase "out of touch" and adding in "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas."[45]

In our area, there are more jailbreaked iPhones on Verizon's network than on ATT's. because honestly the ATT network here just doesn't work. Worth noting is that interest in the Google Android phone in this area is tremendous, basically people want anything other than ATT. Apple has not us no service locking people to ATT to use their products. The short term strategy may have worked, but long term people just want a working smartphone, don't think that having a cool looking brick is fun to have when it's unusable. Hopefully ATT will lose this one.[52] I think AT&T is just jealous on Verizon's 3G network which is a lot better than AT&T's, meaning that you actually have 3G service on your phone and you can actually have a phone conversation without yelling, getting out on the window or whatever you do to make sure that your interlocutor hears what you're saying.[15]

I wonder if Verizon will expose AT&T's hypocrisy. AT&T in their ads says "America's fastest 3G network".[31] For customers who live within the city limits of major urban centers that may be great, but for the people living in the white part of the map in the Verizon ad having the biggest 3G network is a more relevant claim.[37]

Making a big deal about Verizon's ad does AT&T more harm than good. Once again, AT&T looks like a villain to its customers. David Coursey tweets as @techinciter and can be contacted via his Web site.[25] If Verizon were to alter the ad to include all forms of coverage, then it would be doing justice. I would say that AT&T has a case on this one.[24] Whereas Verizon's coverage map is a sea of red, AT&T's barely freckles the country.[36] Sometimes he just gets himself so riled up over folks teasin''' him and laughing behind his back that he just goes off half-cocked, and more often then not does just the wrong blessed thing. Once again, AT&T is sticking with their Deputy Barney role in response to the recent '''There'''s a Map for That'''''' ads from Verizon.[31] Frankly, I've been wondering why AT&T hasn't publicly commented on Verizon's mocking. It's nearly a month since Verizon rolled the problematic ad. It's true that carriers often fight tooth and nails for subscribers which is too often evident in aggressive advertising but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.[4] AT&T is seeking an emergency injunction to stop the ads. It also seeks unspecified damages, accusing Verizon of false advertising, and claims the ads harm AT&T's ability to compete.[9] AT&T sued Verizon for false advertising, not because there was anything actually false in the ads, but because viewers might not understand the graphics.[20]

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."[33] The iPhone operator goes on to speculate: "Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones".[43]

I don't really understand why this took so long. Why did AT&T sue Verizon now? I mean, they have given Verizon the possibility to let the whole world know the truth which is: AT&T's service sucks, at least on the iPhone.[15] Meanwhile Verizon is starting to roll out 4G connectivity and is stirring excitement with the Motorola Droid. AT&T does need a new strategy, but I don't think its going to capture any market share by burying its head in the sand and trying to pretend its network is more capable than it really is.[37] I don't think Verizon crossed the line. Thanks to AT&T, my next cell fon service contract will probably increase the fees to help defray the costs of this lawsuit.[4] According to the lawsuit, AT&T contacted Verizon in early October over the matter, requesting that the ads be withdrawn or modified.[19] "The lawsuit brings to a higher level of scrutiny." On a personal level, Grabowski said he recently bought a BlackBerry device that uses AT&T's network and found that the device works well. When the ads started airing in October, Grabowski said he perceived them as "just ads." He focused more intently on the claims when the lawsuit was described in the media and was left concerned about AT&T's network as a result. Rob Enderle, an analyst at Enderle Group, added, "If I were AT&T, I would have let this go.[13] The lawsuit does not state how many people were interviewed, nor does it explain how the questions were posed. Let me get this straight: if less than 25% of consumers don't pay close enough attention to an ad, then whoever made the ad is guilty of false advertising due to what those consumers failed to notice? Really AT&T? I'm neither a judge nor lawyer, but I can't see how this case could have any legs.[40]

AT&T claims, "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.[33] Specifically, the AT&T map contains a large amount of white space--implying that there are large areas of the country where the company offers no 3G service. That white space is the point of contention in AT&T's suit.[8] Siegel said using white space in coverage maps from all the carriers, including T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel, always means "no coverage. that's the heart of the issue and why the ads are misleading and why we're taking action."[9]

Verizon is also publicizing maps that wholehearte dly diss T-Mobile, the first U.S. carrier to adopt an Android phone, along with Sprint, the only U.S. carrier to step beyond 3G to even faster 4G coverage already.[16] Scammers On Wednesday, bloggers circulated a memo indicating Verizon will be doubling the early cancellation fee for customers whose contracts include "advanced devices." Verizon, like the other major wireless carriers, sacrifices a large part of the initial cost of its smart phones to entice customers. The Droid, for instance, actually costs much more than its $199 list price but Verizon is able to recoup the loss over time. The only problem? People have been exploiting the system, as information Week's Eric Zeman points out: "Some suspect that the policy change is in the works to prevent scammers who take advantage of buy-one-get-one-free offers, cancel the contracts, and make a profit selling the devices that they got for free (even after paying the Early Termination Fee)."[35] When it comes to mobile service, there is similar anecdotal evidence to be found on the company's own website talkback. As one customer up it: "They continually say they will resolve your issue - but when they do not, they try to make it seem like it is the fault of the customer. I as a consumer thought the buyout of a cell phone provider by another would require the service to be at least as good as the previous provider's service - Verizon Wireless has failed to do this."[35]

The nation's #2 wireless provider (AT&T) is suing the nation's #1 wireless company (Verizon) over the mocking advert aired that preceeded the anti-Apple commercial which, in turn, kick-started the Droid campaign.[4] We wonder why our courts are behind. AT&T Verizon is NOT doing a commercial for you it is for them (V). All this political crap is going to waist time and how many millions for court/lawyer fees.[24] No, AT&T has no leg to stand on. They made claims their network couldn't back up, and Verizon simply called them out. The judge should laugh this case out of the court room.[24] We filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court in Atlanta and asked that Verizon be prohibited from misleading consumers regarding the scope of our wireless network.[50] "Litigation is a blunt instrument and should be the last tool used" by a company, Grabowski argued. "In a case like this, a company would be better served with a communications campaign or an information campaign pointing out that Verizon is splitting hairs or being misleading." Grabowski said in highly competitive markets, company executives and their attorneys might feel a lawsuit is imperative. "They are almost like a nation that feels it has to go nuclear rather than try diplomacy and subtle means because that takes time and work," he said. He admitted that in some instances, a lawsuit "signifies how serious you are."[13] I'm all about great marketing and I really enjoyed Verizon's "There's a Map for That" advert. That said, I immediately thought that the Verizon commercial was lawsuit material, especially in a sue-happy nation like ours.[4]

The suit still seems like it could backfire, given it simply brings greater attention to the fact that Verizon does have better 3G coverage -- no matter what maps you're looking at.[38] ATT has crappy 3G coverage. They can talk all they want about how great they are but Verizon covers Montana, ATT doesn't. Thats like the middle of nowhere.[50] ATT has no case. Verizon is not comparing total ATT coverage just their 3G which ATT admitted in a statement. ATT is just butt hurt that Verizon called them out on it. It specifically states "3G Coverage". How is this any more misleading than when ATT claims to have the largest 3G coverage when it obviously doesn't.[24]

It is not misleading. It clearly is comparing their 3G coverage to AT&T's complete LACK of 3G coverage. It is AT&T who tried to mislead their customers about their coverage.[24] I don't get it. Why would it be misleading? They are clearly comparing 3G coverage which AT&T is clearly lacking. These are facts. They are not responsible for educating consumers on AT&T's other offerings.[24]

Submitted by Morely the IT Guy on November 4, 2009 - 12:41 P.M. I would never have realized that AT&T's 3G coverage holes were so vast (having not paid attention to TV advertising for a couple of decades) if AT&T had never filed this suit.[39] Counting on whether or not people think has nothing to do with it. Advertising only counts on perception, and it is obvious that the perception they are counting on is that people will think AT&T has extremely low or no coverage in portions of the U.S. Which they obviously succeeded in doing, but they made no connection to the technicality that AT&T has coverage in most places, just not 3G.[24] Watching football in sportsbars the last few weeks. most guys I talked to think that AT&T has no coverage in the white areas.[19]

The Verizon advert described AT&T's coverage as "spotty," using a rehash of Apple's catchy "There's an App for that" punchline.[4] Heck have our technology have as many law suits as health care we might have to get a federal phone plan insurance. Im from the midwest and AT&T has NO service under their name here, there is service under Iwireless and Long Lines (both co-own towers with little help from AT&T) and trust me there is not even a hint of even 2G. Verizon speeds are slow as mentioned earlier but its a sales pitch (label) but I have gone from the east coast to Glacier Nat Park Montana and never lost signal. They got the fancy "software" to claim 3G nationwide (more or less) AT&T decided to get "hardware" for limited locations (but with bigger population centers).[24] Where AT&T claims Verizon has hit some sort of "new low" in comparative advertising, I see no foul as having been committed.[25] "Verizon has stepped over the line of legitimate comparative advertising," AT&T said in the lawsuit.[1]

I'm sure Verizon did a study and knows most people will interpret it that way. It's blatantly misleading. I'm surprised Verizon can get away with calling their data 3G anyway. It's slower than AT&T's. They should call it 2.5G.[19] I wouldn't be surprised if at&t's survey was accurate. It is amazing to find out what people don't know. That said it would be better to run ads that inform the public rather than sue verizon.[31] "An ad war between AT&T and Verizon could really benefit customers," said Harry Woods, co-creative director and partner, Woods Witt Dealy & Sons.[8] Since then, AT&T said the ads launched by Verizon in October have caused it to lose market share.[1] Engadget notes that the suit is narrow in scope and it appears that AT&T only wants a judge to force Verizon to remove the ads from the air.[6] AT&T also asked for a temporary restraining order that would prevent Verizon from benefiting from the ads.[30]

Wow. That could call for a lot of map-making. (Where are Google Maps in all of this? Just kidding here.) AT&T also says its research shows that a lot of folks misunderstand Verizon's maps.[16] Lundy declined to say whether Verizon would actually be willing to redo the map if AT&T presents an alternative version with different background colors.[14]

Basically AT&T are saying that it doesn'''t matter that the maps have 3G clearly written on them, most people don'''t get what 3G is so the ads are misleading. In the suit, AT&T gives no information about what questions they actually asked, how the survey was constructed, how many people were surveyed or where'''.you know, any of those little facts that could make such a poll relevant to the question.[31] AT&T is just having a case of sour grapes since they're too cheap to work on their network. Those ads aren't misleading at all.[20]

Where I live AT&T's 2G Edge network is twice as fast as Verizons anything network. When you're using AT&T 3G, it's at least 4 times faster.[24] AT&T calls drop all the time, and when not in the city 3G was not available anywhere and when connected on "E" it was unusable, way way way tooooo slow. after switching to verizon i was on 3G almost the entire time, fast fast fast.[11]

All four experts agreed, however, that the competition is fierce between No. 1 wireless carrier Verizon, with 89 million subscribers, and No. 2 AT&T, with nearly 82 million. Such a competitive atmosphere can lead a corporation's lawyers to push legal matters forward, they said.[13] First of all, Verizon and AT&T aren't the only wireless carriers involved here.[16]

Verizon Wireless, a venture of Verizon Communications Inc ( VZ.N ) and Vodafone Group Plc ( VOD.L ), said the AT&T suit was without merit.[1] Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Audrey Lundy said that the company has no plans to change the map. "We stand by the map," she said. "If they have a better map, we'd like to see it."[14]

Verizon is displaying maps of the United States that purport to show each carrier's "3G" coverage.[11] If it is true then they don't have a case. From what I gather I wouldn't doubt this information was true, however the Verizon map looks a little bit more than 5x the coverage.[24]

I've been in many areas without any coverage since I got the phone last summer where Verizon users had signal.[20] I live in DC and I never have problems with my phone. I really can't understand all the nonsense about the iPhone and AT&T. It doesn't make sense to keep your iPhone if you live in an area where service is not to your standards.[50] Meh, I live in the DC/Baltimore area, I get perfect, crystal clear service from AT&T everywhere I go. I was reluctant to switch to them when considering buying an iphone but I don't regret the decision whatsoever. Maybe they suck if you live in the boonies, but I'm more than satisfied with at&t.[50]

The company reported 3.2 million iPhone activations, nearly half of the 7.4 million iPhone units that Apple sold globally in the last quarter. The iPhone is a money-making machine for both Apple and AT&T. It's estimated that AT&T subsidizes the iPhone with $400, recovering upfront payments later by collecting service fees from iPhone subscribers over the lifespan of their two-year service contracts. iPhone subscribers generated a whopping one-third of AT&T's total revenue from all devices in the quarter.[4]

The specifics of the case, much of which sounds like whining on AT&T's part, are discussed here. As an aside, Mark Siegel, a career AT&T PR person, really deserves better than the company he ended up having to try to defend so very often. AT&T is now asking a court on an emergency basis, essentially, to help it cover-up its network's shortcomings.[25] The maps are very clear and we're very clear. It's really interesting that AT&T is focused on the big white area rather than the blue," Nelson said.[19] Most of the white areas are covered, but with somewhat slower wireless speeds, AT&T said.[9]

AT&T's wireless network blankets the U.S., reaching approximately 296M people.[33] Back in July, I told Stephenson that I owned an iPhone and that I don't recommend it to friends because the network quality can to often be poor. Add this silly lawsuit to the list of reasons I'd tell people to stay away from the iPhone until it works on a network besides AT&T's.[3] A recent survey revealed that up to 30 percent of iPhone calls in the New York City are dropped. AT&T blames issues on the data-centric nature of iPhone users who place a huge burden on its cellular network.[4] Ellison has been one of the strongest critics of AT&T's network performance, especially with the iPhone, which incorporates many multimedia-focused applications that require reliable, fat bandwidth. In October, he said AT&T "has immolated itself with network capacity issues" that are worse in crowded urban areas.[13]

I will kick At&t to the curb like an ugly ex-girlfriend the day Verizon starts selling the iPhone.[50] Hold on for as long as you can AT&T because as soon as your iPhone exclusivity is over''' I am taking that beyotch straight to Verizon.[50]

Verizon's churn, or the rate at which subscribers leave the carrier, has steadily climbed, reaching 1.13% last quarter, compared to 1.08% a year ago, among customers with a contract. AT&T has seen its churn rate drop, to 1.17% from 1.22% from the year-ago period.[2] Pitiful Partners GigaOm's Stacey Higginbotham says that Sprint made a mistake when it partnered with the past-its-prime Palm company to offer a new line of smart phones. She points to Sprint's dismal 3rd quarter report, which indicated that some 801,000 customers had deserted the carrier despite the exclusive launch of the Palm Pre. She said there isn't much the company can do to soften that blow : "Sprint is enlarging its prepaid business with an acquisition and competitive rate plans as a way to ensure that contract customers who leave for pre-paid plans still have a place in the Sprint family, but so far its bet on the Pre and pre-paid hasn'''t pushed it back into the black." Erroneous Ads Erictric notices that Sprint hasn't been on the ball with its most recent advertising campaign: "Sprint has rolled out a new ad for the holidays promoting the Palm Pixi with Wi-Fi capabilities.[35] The result is that the marketing campaign is getting tons of attention and free advertising, and customers are led to question what AT&T is trying to hide. What AT&T needs to realize is that it's a smart phone world. Mobile phones are not just phones any more--they're being replaced by mobile computing devices.[37]

Just switched to Verizon after being with AT&T for three years because the service is cheaper. [50] ATT's 2.5G EDGE network covers 1.75 million square miles of the United States, reaching some 296 million people, roughly the same number reached by Verizon's network. This network supports popular services like e-mail, surfing the Web, texting, and voice calling, including the activities shown in the Verizon TV advertisements.[50] "Competitive volleys based on real service information, like 'Where do you have 3G coverage' and 'Where don't you?' can really force the facts in front of consumers in a way that doesn't happen in a more benign competitive environment." Both brands need to be wary of a prolonged battle, said Woods. He added: "From an execution standpoint, brands shouldn't get into an ad war unless they are prepared to fight hard and win."[8] Since they are comparing 3G coverage to 3G coverage, I don't see a problem. AT&T should be confident with it's product but it sounds like they are not.[24]

I don't see how AT&T can claim that to be misleading. It is plainly labeled "3G Coverage".[24] The advert should also show AT&T's 2G coverage which is extensive, AT&T claims.[45]

I saw the commercials and never once thought" gee does that mean at&t does not have nationwide coverage?".[21] In other words, there's a lot more wireless coverage than the map shows. '' a big disclaimer appearing throughout the commercial does say these are 3G maps.[48] Independent research shows that the maps in the advertisements mislead consumers into believing that we do not offer any wireless service in the vast majority of the country.[50] Little Blue here says that Big Red makes people think that it doesn't offer any wireless service in almost all country.[15]

AT&T claims the spot is causing the No. 2 wireless carrier to lose "incalculable market share" and "invaluable goodwill." [2] The suit claims that the ads are causing AT&T "incalculable" damage in terms of market share loss.[30]

Ah but ATT will say we have 3G in Milwaukee or Madison, however you will lose coverage somewhere in between if you chose to drive the 75 miles to either city. It seems to me that ATT just want the big markets and don't want to invest in it's own infrastructure. ATT's own ads are very misleading, when they claim best coverage, they are using data for the world.[39] As an iPhone user I laughed at the ad. Ok, it's kind of misleading, but really the EDGE and even voice-only coverage is pretty lousy too.[20]

New Droid Ad Targets Audience, Not iPhone Catch Verizon's new commercial for the Droid that began airing in primetime this week? You couldn't be blamed for at.[53] Verizon Wireless's "There's a Map For That" ads are already a fading memory for those eyeing the newer Droid campaign, but ATT hasn't forgotten them.[11]

ATT's 3G coverage is really sucky, I live in Green Bay, WI and no coverage. 2G is not that great if you move away from the main highways. Not sure why ATT even sells phones in this area.[39] In general, the ads "serve to inform customers where coverage is available that's critical to smartphones," Raney said. "That's important. Their 3G coverage is limited."[9] @Chad B. The ad is all about 3G coverage. Why should they add EDGE? EDGE is not 3G. 3G and beyond is actually what matters now days.[19]

Using the iPhone's motto "there is an app for that" and replacing it with the phrase "there is a map for that" the adverts have been showing a map of where you can't get 3G coverage.[45] @Chad B. Actually both maps represent each carrier's 3G coverage. They are both an accurate representation of the carrier's 3G footprint.[19] The say (several times) verbally and in writing that the maps show 3G coverage.[39]

The gaps on AT&T's map might actually be covered by AT&T's large 2G network. [48] AT&T's slower 2G network is available in most areas where it does not have 3G.[14] I have occasionally I am surprised to find the 3G symbol I expect to see replaced by the E symbol, indicating my iPhone 3GS is connected to AT&T's the slower network. If you are interested in how 3G works in various cities, we went to 13 cities around the U.S. and measured 3G performance for this story that ran in June.[25] Since only AT&T carries the iPhone in the U.S., no other carrier could have experienced the insane amount of traffic due to iPhone use.[4]

AT&T is a joke. I have to have their stupid service because of the iPhone. They need to stop playing the victim because they are not.[50] The real victims are the consumers that are paying AT&T money for crappy service.[50]

The company requests an immediate hearing and said AT&T has "suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm" as a result of the ads.[17] To support that conclusion, AT&T commissioned a study of people in a shopping mall who had seen the ad.[40] People aren't really that dumb. The lawsuit was a bad strategic move for AT&T because it has the exact opposite effect of its goal.[37]

Calling the filing a "junk lawsuit," Verizon Wireless spokesman Jeffery Nelson defended the advertisements[19] The telecommunications provider sued Verizon Wireless Tuesday, calling the advertisements "misleading."[11]

HmmmAT&T claims the best coverage world-wide, which is absolutely misleading because Verizon is not a world-wide provider.[20]

ATT advertises it has the most coverage, which it doesn't. When you read the fine print you see they count international GSM roaming when adding up "their" coverage. They claim "fastest 3G" when practically all independent testing shows Sprint to have the overall fastest 3G user experience.[47]

I predict that Verizon's pitch will be most successful with two groups: brand-new 3G users, who've never bought an iPhone anyway; and a relatively subset of current iPhone users that are particularly mobile. These heavily mobile folks are also especially likely to be lured by the Droid's built-in, ready-to-use, and Google Maps-integrated turn-by-turn GPS voice navigation -- which to me seems like one of its biggest selling points.[16] Verizon has felt pressure from the success of the iPhone, as over the past few quarters the carrier has lost customers presumably lured by iPhone's siren song.[2] Bad Customer Service The Wire already highlighted an impassioned screed against Verizon's home broadband package from a political writer.[35] Since Verizon only carries 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps.[48] You may have found Verizon's "There's a map for that" commercial mildly amusing.[24] Looking at the map (there's that TV commercial again), it is clear AT&T's 3G covers the big cities.[25] I love the commercial. It shows that AT&T needs to stop paying big bucks to its executive staff and reinvest into infrastructure.[24]

The building across the street has an At&t antenna on it (source:At&t) and I completely lose signal in my office all the time with my iPhone.[50] Here we go again, one company against another company. I think Verizon may have push really far this time - Hilarity and Exaggeration may not come in one piece. I hope after this bout, Verizon can still find their sense of humor.[11] I think Verizon needs to rerun its numbers, the picture looks like a lot more than 5 times.[24]

Is it just me? Or does it seem like AT&T thinks their subscribers are dumb.[4] AT&T's knee-jerk reaction to factual evidence just makes the company look like whiny and overly litigious spoilsports.[36]

I don'''t want to sound highly critical since I make quite a few mistakes myself, but someone has not been paying attention to the reports about the Pixi." Disruptive Service Outages On Tuesday night, social media sites were swarmed by frustrated T-Mobile customers venting their outrage at the company. Turns out that 5% of the wireless network's users lost their network service entirely for several hours, leaving them unable to even make calls, let alone send texts or connect to the internet. [35] Since most of the U.S. population already use cellphones for phone calls, operators are depending on high-speed data service offerings to attract new customers or convince existing customers to spend more money on cell services.[1] Use Your Own Number With Some Google Voice Features Google Voice users can now use their existing phone numbers with the service, which will come as good news to people who don't want to give out a new number to.[25]

You do realize that that's a problem with your phone and not their service? Verizon also doesn't make the phones, they just sell them.[50]

Verizon's ad blitz is only going to last if the courts let that happen, anyway.[16] The only people who pay any attention are the lawyers that are HIRED to handle it. They get paid, And Verizon pays the fine. Their ad has already been seen/effective.[39] Say's many people all the more incentive to get the iPhone on Verizon? Maybe.[50] Because advertisers have taught people to not think over the years, Verizon has a case? I don't think so. I mean, they may have a case in today's society but it's not a just case.[24]

Verizon doesn't just offer 3G. They just decided to start calling there network 3G one day because it was a good marketing move.[24] The ads focus on the two companies' 3G networks, which provide speedy Internet connections to phones and other mobile devices.[14] The Ad Net Wars Move to the Mobile Front Get ready for a bloody fight over the mobile Web: The Internet is going mobile, and so are some of the Web's enduring controversies about a digital ad economy. Will mobile ad networks live to see the next stage of the platform they helped create?[53]

In an industry that is already moving on to 4G networks, not having 3G coverage is the same as no coverage for all intents and purposes. [37] There weren't that many places where there was no coverage at all on the trip, but it did happen a few times.[50]

Verizon To Double Wireless Early Termination Fee New charge, $350, applies to "advanced devices," a term that sounds awful Droid-y. [37] Verizon was unavailable for comment. As the two wireless giants volley back and forth, marketers say the conflict will force both brands to come clean about some of their claims.[8]

In semi-related news, here's the new commercial, called "Stealth," that you'll be seeing for Motorola's Droid, launching Friday on Verizon.[20] Principally due to lower search and advertising revenue, News Corp.' s Digital Media Group saw its earnings decrease by $22 million year-over-year, the company said during its fiscal first quarter earnings call Wednesday. NAI Beefs Up Consumers' BT Opt-Out Option The Network Advertising Initiative will unveil a new tool on Thursday that allows people who want to avoid behavioral targeting to permanently preserve their opt-out cookies.[53] Q+A Douglas Ferguson How will we consume media in five and 10 years' time? Ferguson: When everything is digitized and libraries offer materials, we will have access to anything and everything whenever we choose, at a trivial long-tail price. Q+A Lance Broumand How will get your news in a few years? Broumand: I think it's one page that looks a lot like what the Drudge Report looks like right now.[53] A popular, exclusive T-mobile phone, the Sidekick runs Microsoft's Danger OS, which was the chief culprit behind the data loss. Nusca thinks that T-Mobile will bear the brunt of customers' ire: "In this case, the problem isn'''t really T-Mobile'''s at all, but this B2B problem is entirely the carrier'''s to manage, since it'''s been let down by a partner and simultaneously become the face of the problem.[35] P.S: i'm not a verizon fanboy, or even a cell phone fanboy, because my life style just doesn't really need a high tech device to make calls.[24] I hope to post all the latest deals on Verizon's Android phones as the come available.[39]

Our coverage focuses on Windows Mobile Phones and PDAs, but extends on past that as well.[31]

Hollywood Asks FCC To Back Three-Strikes Piracy Plan Entertainment companies have been saying for a while that they'd like to see Internet service providers deal with piracy by. Why Is Adoption Rate Low For Google's BT Service? It's been nearly eight months since Google announced a behavioral targeting service, which it calls "interest-based" ad targeting. It gathers. INSIDE SEPTEMBER Fast Forward: The Future Of Media (Redux) It always feels a bit silly to me to write columns addressing the future of anything, but I can tell you that as I write this one - about the future of media, from a vantage point deep in a global economic recession - the feeling that comes. [53] We live in a saturated wireless market with companies starting to get evil about -stealing- away customers from its competitors. My message to the public is this: Spend your money elsewhere. Invest your money in a company that would rather spend it's money on it's customers, rather than lawsuits. These two companies sport a 1.5-1.6% churn of customers per year! Now I can see why.[19]

SOURCES

1. UPDATE 2-AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads | Reuters
2. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Network Comparison in TV Ad - Advertising Age - News
3. Massucci's Take: AT&T's lawsuit against Verizon draws attention to its own flaws -- DailyFinance
4. AT&T strikes back, sues Verizon over the mocking 3G coverage advert ''' Cell Phones & Mobile Device Technology News & Updates | Geek.com
5. Verizon sued by AT&T over "misleading" 3G adverts - SlashGear
6. AT&T files complaint against Verizon Wireless for 3G map advertisements
7. If It Prints, I'll Let You Know Printer & Ink Cartridges Blog - AT&T vs Verizon Over Comparative Advertising
8. Updated: AT&T Sues Verizon Wireless
9. AT&T sues Verizon over TV ads
10. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's a Map for That' 3G Ad - iSmashPhone iPhone Blog
11. AT&T to Verizon: There's a Lawsuit For That - Digits - WSJ
12. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads: Report | Telecom | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com
13. AT&T's lawsuit over Verizon ads could backfire, some argue
14. AT&T sues Verizon over 3G coverage map commercials | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas Business News
15. There's A Map For That Ads Makes AT&T To File Suit Against Verizon SoftSailor
16. AT&T vs Verizons Ads: Not Just a Tale of Two-Toned Maps - PC World
17. AT&T sues Verizon Over 3G Map Ads
18. Verizon sued by AT&T over ads dispute_English_Xinhua
19. AT&T Files Suit Over "Map" Ads | Wireless Week
20. AT&T sues Verizon, calls map ad a bum steer | Good Morning Silicon Valley
21. AT&T sues Verizon over their 3G map commercial
22. AT&T Sues Verizon for Misleading Advertisements (T,VZ) - Comtex SmarTrend Alert
23. Let the war begin: AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over advertising claims - BloggingStocks
24. AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over TV Ad Burn - Tom's Guide
25. Verizon Lawsuit Makes AT&T The Villain, Again - Business Center - PC World
26. Verizon sued over ad comparing coverage areas | Managing Mobile Devices News | Mobility Management News and Blogs
27. The Associated Press: AT&T sues Verizon over 'map for that' ads
28. AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over Theres a Map for That Ads - PC World
29. Business briefs | HeraldTribune.com | Sarasota Florida | Southwest Florida's Information Leader
30. Verizon Wireless cheeky ads, which tweak the iPhones theres an app for that by changing the word app to map, have resulted in a lawsuit from the iPhones carrier, AT&T. : Dealerscope
31. "There's a Lawsuit for That…" | Mobility Site
32. AT&T Sues Verizon Wireless | Market News Video
33. AT&T To Verizon: 'There's A Lawsuit For That' - Mobile Blog - InformationWeek
34. AT&T Takes Verizon Wireless to Court | TopNews New Zealand
35. Whats Wrong With Your Phones Wireless Network? | The Atlantic Wire
36. AT&Ts Lawsuit Only Magnifies Spotty Service-Minyanville
37. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's a Map for That' Ads - Business Center - PC World
38. AT&T's Memo To Employees About Verizon Suit - 'If anybody asks, just tell them we're incredibly awesome. ' - dslreports.com
39. AT&T sues Verizon, Verizon releases new Droid ad - Computerworld Blogs
40. AT&T Sues Verizon Over Map Ad - The Atlantic Business Channel
41. Big Blue AT&T Sues Big Red Verizon over ad campaign » Phone Reviews
42. AT&T suing Verizon over map ads - The Denver Post
43. AT&T sues Verizon over "there's a map for that" ads
44. If It Prints, I'll Let You Know Printer & Ink Cartridges Blog - Lawsuit Highlights AT&T's Inferior 3G Coverage
45. Fudzilla - AT&T sues Verizon over false advertisement
46. Verizon Gets Sued by AT&T - Over the "There's a Map for That" ads - Softpedia
47. AT&T Sues Verizon ''' Not Happy With Commercials | BerryReview.com »
48. AT&T Sues Verizon over "There's a Map for That" Ads - KDAF
49. AT&T Prepares Lawsuit Against Verizon
50. Leaked AT&T Memo: If Anyone Asks About The Verizon Lawsuit, Just Tell Them We're Awesome
51. UPDATE: AT&T Sues Verizon Over `There's A Map For That' Ads - WSJ.com
52. AT&T sues Verizon over "There's a map for that" ad
53. MediaPost Publications - Home of MediaDailyNews, MEDIA and OMMA Magazines

GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on AT&T vs. Verizon: There's a lawyer for that by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.

Above is the automatically generated multi-source news digest.
Its main content has been compiled basing on the fair use of snippets from original news stories (initially clustered by the Google News) by applying our multi-document summarization technology. The title has been excerpted from this article, and the top image was found

PC World

AT" target="_blank">here.
Give Us Your Feedback!
How did you like this article?
  Fantastic - I will recommend it to others
  Very good - I learned a lot
  OK
  Not so hot - I didn't get much out of it
  Bad - this did nothing for me
Comments?

AT">

AT&T vs. Verizon: There's a lawyer for that

AT" target="_blank">here. Give Us Your Feedback! How did you like this article? Fantastic - I will recommend it to others Very good - I learned a lot OK Not so hot - I didn't get much out of it Bad - this did nothing for meComments?

Give Us Your Feedback!

AT" target="_blank">here.
Give Us Your Feedback!
How did you like this article?
Fantastic - I will recommend it to others
Very good - I learned a lot
OK
Not so hot - I didn't get much out of it
Bad - this did nothing for me
Comments?