Verizon Ups Early Termination Fee to $350

PC Magazine -

Nov-06-2009

Verizon Ups Early Termination Fee to $350

(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...)
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. (More...)
Technically the court did not make all ETFs illegal, just the ones that Sprint Nextel was levying. (More...)
Most of the white areas are covered, but with somewhat slower wireless speeds, AT&T said. (More...)
The first Google Android 2.0-powered phone is the most exciting thing to appear on Verizon's network in quite a while. (More...)
Hopefully, Verizon will collect the new fee on a selective basis to handle abuse situations. (More...)
The ETF will be applied to consumer and business customers who purchase a one- or two-year contract. (More...)
Closed for 15 months ''' opening 10 days only! Get notified ahead of time as our expert portfolio manager invests $1 MILLION in the best opportunities from across The Motley Fool'''s premium investment services. (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] 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.[2] 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] 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.[3]

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.[4] 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.[5] 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.[5]

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. [6] "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.[7]

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."[2]

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.[8] 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.[6] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[8] 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.[12]

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.[4] 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.[3]

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.[13] 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."[7] 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.[10]

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.[14] 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.[12] 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.[11] 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.[15] If you take the salacious maps out of that commercial, as AT&T asks, the whole point of the "our 3G coverage is better" message is lost. Which would still be fine -- Verizon has the Droid campaign ready to replace the ad spots slotted for this controversial commercial (say that three times fast!). If this ad really stole "incalculable market share" from AT&T by highlighting the contrast between the two leading networks, I say it did what it was supposed to do.[16]

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.[17] AT&T argues that the white space implies the company has no cellphone coverage in large swaths of the country. Such claims are bogus, per Verizon, since the map in the offending ad is specifically about 3G service, and does not clarify that AT&T offers other levels of cell service in non-3G zones. "It's surprising that rather than defend the 'blue' hot spots on their 3G map, our competitor instead focuses on their white spaces," said Nelson.[18] Just days after it was hit with a lawsuit over competitive claims in a series of ads, Verizon Wireless is mincing no words in response. "This is a junk lawsuit. It has no merit," said Verizon rep Jeffrey Nelson, referring to a lawsuit filed by AT&T on Nov. 3 in which the company claims that Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads are misleading.[18] 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.[3]

The move doesn't even seem coincidental, with new users flocking to the wireless carrier thanks to Motorola's swanky new DROID smartphone. Starting November 15, customers who cancel their contracts early will be faced with an early termination fee of up to $350 USD per line. This only applies to devices the company deems as "Advanced Devices;" Verizon did not define the terminology although its assumed that it applies to smartphones and netbooks. According to an obtained document announcing this new ETF change, the policy applies to both one and two year contracts; the fee kicks in if the service is disconnected prior to completing the minimum term.[19] If you thought about canceling a Verizon contract after the first month in order to resell the Droid on eBay, think again. The nation's #1 wireless carrier has sent out a notice to its sales channels announcing a doubling of the early termination fee (ETF) to a whopping $350. Beginning 11/15/09, customers purchasing an Advanced Device with a 1 or 2 year service agreement will be subjected to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect the service prior to completing the minimum term.[20] Up until now Verizon's cancellation fee was only $175 meaning that you could've signed a new contract for an expensive smartphone, break your contract and put it up for sale on eBay (for example) getting you a little profit along the way. Big Red has gotten smarter and doubled their early termination fee, charging $350 to those who break their contracts signed after November 15th or at least that's what'' leaked document says. Our good folks from BoyGeniusReport have managed to get their hands on an internal Verizon memo where they say that "Beginning 11/15/09, customers purchasing an Advanced Device with a 1 or 2 year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to completing the minimum term.[21] Under the new agreement, which will be used for new contracts beginning Nov. 15, someone terminating in month 23 of a 24-month agreement would still owe a $110 termination fee, according to a short item today in Boy Genius Report. "Beginning 11/15/09, customers purchasing an Advanced Device with a 1 or 2 year service agreement will be subject to an ETF of up to $350 if they disconnect service prior to completing the minimum term.[22]

The $350 ETF will be decreased by $10 for each month of service completed. While it's unclear which phones fall in the "Advanced Device" category, we're pretty certain that the Droid is one of them how could it not be considered "advanced"? Current Verizon service terms are still in effect: The ETF is $175 and it decreases by $5 for each month of service completed. Of course, the new policy isn't a deal-breaker for folks eager to get their hands on the hottest smartphone this Autumn. Other would-be Droid buyers should think in advance about the cost of breaking their Verizon contract. As the publication noted, the new rate means that canceling a two-year Verizon contract a month before it's set to expire incurs a $120 ETF.[20] If you remain a customer for six months, your ETF drops by $30 and you'll only pay $145 if you break the contract with said carrier. Verizon apparently believes $175 isn't enough to recoup expenses on advanced devices such as smartphones, which have a much higher retail cost. According to internal documents spied by The Boy Genius, Verizon Wireless is prepared to double ETFs to $350 starting November 15 -- just in time to cover all those holiday-driven smartphone sales.[23] The company added that the fee will be reduced by $10 for each month of service completed -- meaning the penalty for a customer with five months of service would be reduced $50 to $300. Carriers have long subsidized devices to keep retail costs low, earning profits on the wireless service -- but Verizon said its highest-end smartphones -- like its new Motorola Droid -- are getting more expensive. "This has to do with the cost we pay for the device," said Jim Gerace, a Verizon spokesman. He added that fees on Verizon's standard handsets will stay at $175 -- and decrease by $5 a month for each month completed.[24]

The $350 ETF will decrease by $10 for each month of service completed." It is not immediately clear what "advanced devices" Verizon is referring to, though the term sounds suspiciously Droid-y. In Verizon's defense, the new fee seems aimed at people who purchase a new phone, cancel their service, pay the current $175 ETF, and resell the phone at a profit on eBay. While I can't blame them for attacking that abuse, actually charging someone $110 to leave a contract with just a month remaining is clearly over the top.[22] In (presumably) an effort to discourage potential Droid-flippers from just purchasing the phone on contract only to cancel that contract and sell the phone online, Verizon has been planning to double the cancellation fee on "advanced devices". That's right for advanced phones such as the Droid and similar smartphones, the Early Termination Fee will begin at $350 and decrease by $10 per month per line, starting November 15. We can't help but assume that the only reason this ETF is warranted is to prevent anyone from flipping their fancy new Droids on eBay for profit, but it still seems the penalty is a bit harsh. Just when we thought contracts were becoming more fair by way of prorated ETFs, this comes out of nowhere and blindsides everyone.[25] In what appears to be a change, the fee will now drop by $10 for each month of the contract that has gone by. That could be good news for some customers as it now means it will be cheaper to end a contract after the 18-month mark. It appears the most likely reason for the change is to make it less worthwhile for customers to get a new handset solely for the purposes of immediately canceling the contract and selling the phone on at a profit (but for less than its unlocked price). That had become a particular concern thanks to a recent offer allowing Verizon customers to buy two BlackBerry Storm 2 handsets (each with a service deal) for the price of one. It'''s somewhat surprising it taken so long for the early termination fee to get to this point.[26]

The new increase in the cost to cancel is ridiculous to say the very least. Starting November 15th, anyone who cancels their contract early from Verizon will have to pay an early termination fee that can go all the way up to $350 per line.[27] If you thought $175 was a steep early termination fee to pay, get ready for some unwelcome news. In order to ward off scammers, Verizon Wireless is giving serious consideration to doubling its ETF to $350 for "advanced" -- read: expensive -- devices.[23] Verizon Wireless said it plans to double its early termination fee for "advanced phones" -- from $175 to $350 -- starting November 15.[24]

Verizon To Double Wireless Early Termination Fee New charge, $350, applies to "advanced devices," a term that sounds awful Droid-y.[22]

Verizon Wireless has just gone evil. The company has announced that they are going to charge as much as USD 350 as early termination fee from their customers. These high fees would be application on advanced devices which means the recent generation of smartphones.[28] Washington (dbTechno) - If you want to cancel your contract that you currently have with Verizon Wireless, you may soon have to pay with an arm and a leg. Verizon is starting to actually increase their early termination fee, something that is not going to please customers to say the very least.[27]

Verizon Wireless has allowed pro-rated ETFs since 2006, Sprint and T-Mobile followed suit in late 2007, and AT&T implemented the same policy in May 2008. The debate over ETFs made headlines last year after the Federal Communications Commission held a lengthy hearing on whether ETFs are justified and if jurisdiction over those fees should switch from the states to the federal government. A month later, Verizon reached a $21 million settlement with a group of former customers who sued the wireless provider over its ETFs.[29] For the first time Verizon Wireless has the intestinal fortitude to actually show the factual difference in the 3G networks. AT&T should stop whining and improve their data network and stop using misleading advertising to gain customer base.[5] 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.[9] 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.[9]

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.[4] 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."[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.[17] 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.[30] 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.[31]

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] 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."[31] 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.[12]

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.[12] 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.[17] "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."[7] 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.[2]

The ad puts Verizon's and AT&T's 3G coverage maps side by side, and Verizon's high-speed service clearly covers a lot more ground than the competition.[16] 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).[9] 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.[9]

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.[15] AT&T specifically points to the large amount of white space featured in U.S. maps depicted in the Verizon ads.[18]

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.[3] 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.[32] 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.[33] We recently informed you of the lawsuit that ATT has begun with Verizon over its TV ad campaign regarding its network coverage. Verizon done this in direct response to not being able to get hold of the Apple iPhone, so thought that they would attack them, well that is what ATT assume. According to Computer World, analysts said that they had to bring a lawsuit up to help protect itself in case any regulatory or legal actions came up.[34] The TV ads were trying to convince ATT iPhone users that the network had an inferior network compared to Verizon. The analysts said that the lawsuit came about in case of any potential class-action lawsuit by unhappy customers, but another expert has said that ATT could face a backlash if they ended up losing the lawsuit, something that they do not want to talk about. ATT is now seeking an injunction so that the ads can be stopped; they argue that they are losing a market share and customer goodwill all the time the ads run. ATT has also said that they will seek damages, they have not specified how much.[34]

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.[30] 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.[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.[8] 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] The move, which involves AT&T acquiring local assets formerly held by Alltel Corp., is awaiting regulatory approval. We are currently working to obtain those approvals and expect to close the transaction in the fourth quarter of 2009. "We are currently working to obtain those approvals and expect to close the transaction in the fourth quarter of 2009," said Brooke Burgess, an AT&T spokeswoman. Alltel was purchased by Verizon Wireless earlier this year, but to satisfy regulatory conditions of the deal, Verizon was forced to sell off various service areas, including Southwest Colorado.[35]

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.[6] 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.[36] 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."[4] 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.'"[4] 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.[15] 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.[15]

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.[15]

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.[15] AT&T has taken offense at the recent Verizon 'There's a Map for That' ad campaign and has filed a lawsuit against Verizon.[15] Now, if Verizon prevails in the lawsuit, AT&T can expect to see the ad, or something including the same maps, forever.[9]

Specifically, AT&T has filed a federal lawsuit against Verizon Wireless over the maps used in Verizon's " There's a map for that " commercial.[16] Whatever Verizon Wireless changed, it wasn't enough to appease AT&T, which filed a lawsuit over the whole thing.[12]

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.[37] All AT&T wants to show us now is the much more impressive 2G coverage map, with no mention of 3G at all. From where I sit, it looks like Verizon simply won this round of the wireless marketing wars.[16] AT&T doesn't have any problem with the claims Verizon makes, but can't stand the map choices. Where AT&T doesn't have high-speed 3G coverage, its nearly ubiquitous 2G/EDGE network picks up the slack.[16] 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.[12]

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.[36] 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.[31]

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.[13] 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.[33]

The fact that Verizon doubled the ETF might indicate higher-than-expected upfront subsidies paid to Motorola. Such advanced hardware (5MP camera, twice the resolution of the iPhone, etc) probably costs more than an iPhone so Verizon could be paying higher than the estimated $400 in subsidies that AT&T pays to Apple.[20] One would sign up for the iPhone service and cancel the two-year AT&T contract after the first month to get the 16GB/32GB iPhone 3GS for $480/$580, respectively: $199/$299 for 16GB/32GB iPhone 3GS + $36 activation fee + $175 ETF + $70 one month AT&T service. If you are willing to pay this sum, you can walk away with a phone that has no contractual tie-up so you can sell it on eBay, unlock it for use on any 3G GSM network, and what not.[20] "We then expect a transition period of about 12 months after the transaction closes as we complete the integration work necessary to move the subscribers from the CDMA network to GSM," said Burgess, referring to two different mobile-phone technologies. Most of AT&T's new service areas will be able to use devices such as the iPhone or Blackberry Bold and access the providers' Wi-Fi network by select smart phones and LaptopConnect cards at no extra cost.[35] "We don't think customers who buy smart phones should be penalized," said John Taylor, a spokesman for Sprint. Verizon said its new early termination penalties will take effect November 15 for smart phones and net books, which are getting more expensive. The company said it bears the cost of offering lower upfront prices on those devices and needs the assurance that customers will stick with their service plans so it can recover that subsidy.[38] The program is available to Verizon Partner Solutions customers that sell Verizon's Mobility Solutions. These carriers can choose whether to return the value to their customers as cash that they can use to buy new wireless devices, as discounts on new wireless service plans, or as gifts to the charity of the customer's choice. Verizon warns that wireless devices that are about to be discarded should not be viewed as scrap; they may contain data and applications that should remain confidential.[39] Profitability and OSS Support: A Return on Investment Analysis of IBM Tivoli Netcool Learn more, download free white paper. Under the program, carriers that resell Verizon services can offer recycling of wireless phones and other mobile devices and peripherals to their retail customers who also purchase wireless services from them.[39]

Not so says Verizon. '''This has to do with the cost we pay for the device,''' says spokesman Jim Gerace. Verizon customers, he notes, can buy a subsidized Blackberry for as little as $99. What Verizon pays to Blackberry-maker Research In Motion, however, '''is far north of that,''' he says. The wireless industry has long subsidized devices to hold down retail costs, then charged customers a penalty if they exited their contracts early.[40] You could go and buy a BlackBerry Tour for $150 with a 2 year contract and cancel the day after and pay a total of $325 for the device. Or you could purchase the device at a no-contract price of $449.99''' The math just doesn't add up even with the $35 activation fee. It looks like Verizon is smarting up to the fact that people are just flipping phones they purchase. I really hope they would come up with a different solution for the whole ordeal.[41]

Even with the $175 fee plus the first month'''s service charge, Verizon could still be out of pocket in some situations given the subsidy it pays manufacturers. At $350 it'''s much less likely people will find a way to make a quick buck and, even if they do, Verizon usually wouldn'''t be out of pocket. The big downside for customers is that if you find a handset isn'''t to your liking, or are disappointed with the service provided by a network, it'''s now much less likely you'''ll be able to afford to get out of the deal before its scheduled conclusion.[26]

Last year Verizon reached a $21 million settlement with a group of customers who sued the company over the outlandish fees ( source ). In California, a superior Court judge ruled that the practice of charging consumers a fee for ending their contracts early is illegal and violates California law ( source ).[19] The leaked memo also stated that the "advanced devices'" contract-termination fee will be reduced $10 for each of the months that a subscriber completes under contract. Even as Verizon did not specify "advanced devices," Andrew Munchbach of Boy Genius Report has conjectured that these would essentially comprise netbooks and high-end smartphones that run on the carrier, including the forthcoming Android-based Motorola Droid. Describing Verizon's move to hike of the termination fee as "outrageous," Josh Levy, of Free Press, said: "Early termination fees are universal across the industry, and they're universally detested by consumers.[42] A memo leaked from Verizon Wireless confirms that the company is increasing its early contract cancellation fees to as high as $350 for what it calls its "advanced devices."[43] In response to Verizon Wireless' unpopular announcement that it will double its cancellation fees for smart phone subscribers, Sprint Nextel took the opportunity to say it would not be following suit. Sprint subscribers with two-year contracts will still be charged $200 when they end their agreements early. That fee -- for all phones -- will be prorated after five months into the contract by $10 each month.[38]

The standard ETF is currently around $175 to $200. It was established years ago, when expensive smart phones, netbooks and other advanced devices didn'''t exist, Gerace says. Gerace says ETFs on other Verizon wireless devices, such as standard cellphones, won'''t change.[40] The ETF will apply to advanced devices, which generally includes "a combination of advanced capabilities that combined increase the cost of the device," a Verizon spokesman said in an e-mail. "These capabilities can include a premium HTML browser; high-resolution MP camera with optical zoom; dual processor chipsets; WiFi; very high display resolution, and operating systems such as BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm, or Android," he said. It would also cover netbooks that have mobile broadband service, though modems will retain the existing $175 ETF, Verizon said.[29] Here's a solution, Verizon: if you're so worried about losing money and customers but yet want to be fair about the ETF, demand a $350 ETF for only the first 4-6 months to ward off the potential flippers, and then drop the ETF down to the same cost as every other device. Enjoyed the story? Get the news and updates as we publish them.[25]

The reason behind this is that customers who were purchasing the "buy one blackberry, get one free" promotion would cancel their 2nd blackberry and pay the cheap ETF and then sell that BlackBerry on eBay or Craigslist to actually cover the cost of their other BlackBerry and even profit in some cases. I can't blame Verizon for this, blame the people trying to take advantage of the system.[19] Customers can buy a new phone on the cheap because the carriers subsidize some of the cost. If a customer breaks their contract, the carrier collects the ETF to help repay the cost of the handset, which the customer didn't pay full price for.[23] The change may be designed to deter buyers from getting a subsidized phone upon release and then selling it at a profit. At the moment, a customer who wants to cancel their contract before its scheduled completion date (usually two years) must pay a $175 early termination fee.[26] Free Press' Josh Levy said the move was "outrageous." "In fact, the average subsidy of a wireless handset in 2008 was $14.33," he said, "so a $175 fee is already more than 10 times the average subsidy. Under threat of increased regulation from Congress, all four of the major wireless carriers in America voluntarily began prorating their termination fees over the life of an average two-year contract.[43]

In a move that could spark industry-wide change, Verizon is doubling its early termination fee--to $350--making it more expensive for customers to bailout on their two-year contracts with the carrier.[22] I am a att solution provider, not i dont tell everyone att is great, its not, but for anyone who thinks their carrier gives a damn about them is wrong, verizon is not with out its problems, i still have my wife and mother on verizon, their contracts have been up, i am selling att products and the only reason i moved 5 lines is over 157.00 they said i owed them over a laptop card which i returned in 3 days, keep in mind i had been a customer since 1998, so no they could care less just as att could care less. To say the iphone is going to be better on verizon is just plain stupid as it gets, because who knows the iphone will drag down their network also as it has done with att.[33] To be quiet honest i dont think any network is ready for the iphone and in that respect att has done a good job. i would love for verizon to get the iphone and the customers with it att network would not be overloaded then.[33]

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.[4] 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.[4] "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.[4]

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.[8] 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.[9] Droid does," the ad ends. Verizon has also taken aim at AT&T with ads that bash its rival's 3G coverage.[35]

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.[2] 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.[30]

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.[37] Numerous state courts have also ruled that the fees are "unconscionable" under state law, and carriers have settled many other lawsuits to avoid a ruling against them, preferring to lobby Washington for weaker federal laws that would usurp the state consumer protections. Verizon Wireless recently announced that it would end its exclusivity agreement on its handsets, enabling smaller carriers to sell them six months after release.[43] 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?).[6] The move was largely considered symbolic, as it only applied to carriers with 500,000 customers or less -- and 90 percent of the market is controlled by the same four carriers, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless itself.[43]

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, a venture of Verizon Communications Inc ( VZ.N ) and Vodafone Group Plc ( VOD.L ), said the AT&T suit was without merit.[1]

David Gardner called it. Verizon (NYSE: VZ ) Wireless is running a series of clever ads these days, with the common thread of the campaign being pointed jabs at AT&T (NYSE: T ) and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL ).[16] AT&T is taking Verizon to court alleging the phone giant is misrepresenting how large its phone network is in its ads.[11] You're pretty much guaranteed to get an AT&T dial tone anywhere in America. The 3G map paints AT&T's coverage in stark black-and-white colors, which AT&T says might make customers think that their AT&T phones won't work at all in Savannah or Santa Fe. This map choice, says AT&T in its court filing, is causing "substantial and irreparable harm" to AT&T's goodwill and marketing efforts.[16]

A Chicago man wants to be reimbursed of more than a year's worth of "hidden charges" of $5 per month. He filed a class-action lawsuit to get his money back, and more. Jeffrey Hickel, who is a Chicago-area accountant, says he didn't notice the extra charge for a 411-type service until he'd been with AT&T for more than a year. Although he was able to get it removed from future bills, he decided to take the phone giant to court after trying and failing to get reimbursed through phone calls to the company.[44] 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.[33] Verizon Wireless called the lawsuit without merit, telling The Journal that the ads "clearly explain that non-3G coverage is available elsewhere."[5]

Verizon Wireless, the nation's leading wireless company with the largest and most reliable 3G network, offers its customers a wide variety of sports apps, including MLB Mobile for baseball fans, NHL Clubhouse for hockey fans, NFL Pix & Tones for pro football devotees and ESPN MVP for the all-around sports fan.[45] Verizon Wireless operates the nation's most reliable and largest wireless voice and 3G data network, serving 89 million customers.[45]

If you're in the market for a new smartphone on Verizon Wireless' network, I'd make sure to buy before November 15.[23]

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.[15] 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.[2] 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.[9] 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.[3] 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.[5]

In comparison, it displays 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.[14] 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.[7]

Responding to the suit today, Verizon (VZ) rep Jeffrey Nelson used it to stoke public perception that ATT's (T) network is inferior to Verizon's. "This is a junk lawsuit. It has no merit," Nelson told Adweek. "It's surprising that rather than defend the 'blue' hot spots on their 3G map, our competitor instead focuses on their white spaces.[46] If ATT'''s lawsuit over Verizon'''s allegedly misleading "there'''s a map for that" wasn'''t a public relations mistake to begin with, it will be by the time Verizon gets through with it.[46] "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."[4]

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."[4]

AT&T can be faster, however with 3G network 5X smaller and with a customer base almost as big as Verizon.[5] When the deal is complete, Alltel customers in La Plata and surrounding counties will move to AT&T, while Verizon customers will stay on Verizon. In announcing the deal earlier this year, AT&T touted the network upgrades it is planning, including a 3G broadband network.[35]

"We are committed to communicating with subscribers on a timely basis during the network conversion process," Burgess said. Rumors have circulated that Apple might end its exclusive arrangement with AT&T, possibly striking a deal that would make the device available to subscribers of Verizon, which claims a major share of the local cellular market.[35]

Then you echo again and again, stories about how awful the AT&T network is. I am not sure how you are connected, but I am pretty sure that a HUGE driver of these stories are Wall Street insiders who stand to make BUCKETS of money from iPhone going on the Verizon network. Like I said, I have seen this movie before.[46] 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.[15] 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.[9] 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.[31] In the commercial, Verizon's red map clearly shows a lot more coverage compared to the blue AT&T map.[36] AT&T doesn't want any changes to Verizon's message, which includes the words "3G Coverage" under every map shown, but just wants that awful map taken out.[16]

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."[12] NEW YORK, Nov 05, 2009 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Verizon is presenting an attractive wireless device recycling program to its wholesale customers so their end-users can trade old wireless devices and peripherals for cash, credit on new equipment or services, or a donation to the charity of their choice.[39] Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ), headquartered in New York, is a global leader in delivering broadband and other wireless and wireline communications services to mass market, business, government and wholesale customers.[39]

Verizon is to double the fee it charges customers to cancel their service contract.[26] The current fee for terminating service is $175, though that is pro-rated and decreases as a customer moves through their contract.[29]

Verizon is selling it for $200. If they allowed subscribers to break their contract after a month and pay the old $175 ETF, they'''d lose money.[46] Example: The Blackberry Storm 2. Verizon sells it for $179 with a two year contract and, soon, a $350 ETF. Or you can pay full retail -- $539 -- with no contract or ETF.[40] Verizon is kind enough to lower the $350 ETF by $10 every month which still leaves you with $110 ETF if you cancel the day before your contract ends. I was talking to a friend about this exact loophole a last week and it truly does not make any sense.[41]

You read that right, up to $350 per line to cancel your contract with Verizon. This applies to "Advanced Devices" only, meaning probably smart phones and such. This is a major policy change.[27]

According to a recent Verizon Wireless memo, obtained by The Boy Genius Report blog, the early contract-termination charges of the company, for "advanced devices," are being hiked to $350.[42]

Ouch, that's gonna hurt. 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 ETF). I reached out to Verizon Wireless to confirm this policy change, but spokesperson Brenda Raney only said, "No comment."[23] Subscribers who did so could sell the device online and potentially make a profit. Carriers have to protect the subsidies they'''re doling out for these phones. Like most ETFs, this one drops by $10 each month a subscriber remains under contract.[46]

Even though the Droid is hot, it'll hardly rock a year from now. If you jump ship to another carrier in 12 months in order to get whatever phone will be making headlines in Fall 2010, you'll still have to pay a $230 ETF. It's called a lock-in and every carrier has it Verizon has only doubled it.[20]

There is a legitimate fear in other carriers following suit. The iPhone is being subsidized by $400, so it wouldn't be too ridiculous to imagine AT&T copycatting Verizon on this one.[25] 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.[4] First of all, Verizon and AT&T aren't the only wireless carriers involved here.[6]

AT&T says "almost one in four" thought the ads meant that AT&T provided no wireless coverage in many areas of the country.[31] 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.[15] 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.[2] The map itself was lifted from AT&T's publicly available coverage information, but the '''coverage''' section of AT&T'''s website doesn'''t break out a 3G map. It looks like AT&T is doing its best to hide spotty 3G coverage.[16] 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.[13] 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.[33]

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.[33] Verizon also provides converged communications, information and entertainment services over America's most advanced fiber-optic network, and delivers innovative, seamless business solutions to customers around the world.[39] Reader Jeremy (and several others), in response to yesterday's post about Verizon doubling Early Termination Fees on certain devices, asked the following: After reading today about ETFs now even higher with Verizon, I can't help but be confused.[47]

Sure I could swallow the early termination fee and leave but why should I? Just give the service that matches the prices. What's worse is when you complain to them, their employees seem to be "drinking the Kool-Aid". They do not recognize any problems whatsoever. They have blind loyalty. I can't tell if it's a matter of they are just so happy to have a job of any kind in this economy (most seem like they're right out of college) or they are as morally bankrupt as the company they work for. PS if you are not an AT&T employee I apologize but it's a well known fact that some companies have employees that troll internet sites and add bogus comments praising their company and deriding anyone who dares to complain.[33] Are you an AT&T employee? Sure seems like it. Your whole "don't like it go somewhere else" attitude is typical of AT&T. Rather than own up to their shortcomings, they attack anyone complaining and pass them off as cry-babies. I've had AT&T for several years (before the whole Cingular-AT&T switch) and they used to be great. Once CIngular took over their customer service was horrible.[33]

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.[12] 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.[3] "An ad war between AT&T and Verizon could really benefit customers," said Harry Woods, co-creative director and partner, Woods Witt Dealy & Sons.[7] Since then, AT&T said the ads launched by Verizon in October have caused it to lose market share.[1]

Last week, Verizon Chief Executive Officer Ivan Seidenberg told analysts the decision was "exclusively in Apple's court." "We obviously would be interested at any point in the future they thought it would make sense for them to have us as a partner. So we will leave it with them on that score," he was quoted saying on The Wall Street Journal's Digits blog. Apple watchers have been pessimistic that a deal is close because Verizon began running ads ahead of the launch of its new Droid phone that lampoons Apple.[35] 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.[5]

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.[6] Verizon is displaying maps of the United States that purport to show each carrier's "3G" coverage.[5]

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.[6]

Just switched to Verizon after being with AT&T for three years because the service is cheaper.[33] "Verizon has stepped over the line of legitimate comparative advertising," AT&T said in the lawsuit.[1] 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.[31] 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.[2] 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.[15]

Technically the court did not make all ETFs illegal, just the ones that Sprint Nextel was levying. That brings us to the third point: In order to smooth things over, Sprint settled the lawsuit with its customers this January (I totally missed this news when it happened -- customers got up to $90 each ), and agreed to change the way it levies ETFs. [47] The documents note that the ETF will drop by $10 per month rather than $5. The same customer who sticks with Verizon for six months will have a $290 ETF to pay, rather than $145.[23] Verizon is probably free to charge you a whopping $350 ETF if it wants to, as long as it keeps offering that $10/month discount as time wears on.[47] A quick calculation reveals you'll have to fork at least $655 in cash for the privilege to do so: $199 for the Droid + $36 activation fee + $350 ETF + $70 one month service ($40 Nationwide voice plan + $30 Email and Web for Smartphone data plan).[20] According to the AT&T service terms, AT&T is still applying a $175 ETF if you cancel the service prematurely, reduced by $5 for each full month of service completed.[20] All four major U.S. carriers charge an ETF of $175 with two-year contracts. Most also pro-rate the ETF and drop it by $5 for every month that a customer sticks to their contract.[23] The current ETF is $175, and it decreases by $5 a month for each month of the contract'''s term that is completed.[40]

Look at what many cell phones cost without a contract, especially the newer nice stuff. Some of these phones are $500, but you can get them for like $49 when agreeing to the contract.[19] The telecom industry claims the fees are necessary to recoup the costs of producing, selling, and marketing the handsets. Critics say the fees are designed to keep customers from shopping around for the best provider, by locking them into a contract with steep charges.[43] The fee, arriving just in time for the holidays, applies to customers who have a smart phone or other advanced device on a one or two year contract.[40]

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.[15] Do you remember '''Fewest Dropped Calls''' campaign. Once again AT&T failed to tell its customers that they were taking data from only a few of their best markets however promoting it nationally as if the whole network was that way.[5]

How hypocritical AT&T is. They have been using competitive questionable advertising for years. (least dropped calls, more bars in more places) and Verizon has just advertised the value of their own network.[5] Where AT&T claims Verizon has hit some sort of "new low" in comparative advertising, I see no foul as having been committed.[9] I will kick At&t to the curb like an ugly ex-girlfriend the day Verizon starts selling the iPhone.[33] 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.[33]

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.[33] The wait for the iPhone goes on. AT&T, which has an exclusive agreement with Apple to provide service for its phone, announced in May it would begin offering service in the Durango area.[35]

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.[33]

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.[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.[9] Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment. AT&T doesn't want anyone to know it's small 3G coverage. AT&T is really the corporate pirate ship SBC (Southern Bell Corp.) after it attacked and ate former brothers like Pacific Bell and then ate their mother AT&T and now painted "AT&T" on the side of their ship.[16] "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."[7]

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."[3] 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.[17] Way to draw attention away from Verizon's claim of a superior network coverage, ATT.[46]

The company was being run by criminals and the "unbiased" analysts that your fellow reporters relied upon were "on the take". John, again, I am not accusing you of being on the Verizon take here, but I am saying that SOMEONE is driving this story and it those who would benefit monetarily in a BIG way from the iPhone being on the Verizon network.[46] I don't understand the financial media's bias toward Verizon when AT&T is a solidly run company that ALWAYS pays a great dividend and is the leader in inovative products.[16] I have to agree with RocketVTX on this one. I've had both Verizon and AT&T phones and dealing with both was occasionally excellent, occasionally frustrating, but typically professional and efficient.[16]

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.[5] Verizon is spiking its early termination fee just in time for DROID's invasion.[19] Like the whole Macpadd.com ordeal, we like to keep our readers informed when something smells foul. Verizon is beginning to cross into that foul territory by spiking its early termination fee.[19]

There is one small good thing however, the charges would become USD 10 less with each month of usage. This new policy would be applicable from November 15 which is after the launch date of Motorola Droid. This policy is obviously aimed at customers who buy the new popular smartphones and sell them on eBay or other stores after paying the termination fee. Most of these devices are unlocked before sale.[28] There's nothing official regarding the doubled early termination fee or what exactly an "advanced device" is, although we may have a clue that everything more expensive than $300 will fall into that category.[21]

The termination fee, applicable to one-year as well as two-year contracts, kicks in upon the discontinuation of the carrier's service before the completion the stipulated period.[42] If there's one thing we can all agree we hate about cell phone contracts, it would have the be the Early Termination Fee.[48]

Update: Gerace contacted us to point out that all Verizon phones, including smart devices, are available without a contract at a full, unsubsidized, price.[40] Verizon is basically financing your phone for you, over the life of your contract. Of course they don't want you to kill the contract halfway though.[19]

Verizon sure intends to cut a loophole for people looking to cancel their two-year Droid contract after the first month.[20]

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.[6] A statement like that implies that Verizon is taking unfair and/or unethical advantage of their customers. The fact that they are customers and not indentured servants pretty much precludes that. A customer enters into a voluntary relationship with a business because, first and foremost, they want what that company is offering.[19] The program, offered by e-Cycle, an award-winning recycling firm, in cooperation with Verizon Partner Solutions, the wholesale arm of Verizon that services carrier customers, is simple and free of charge.[39] I started out with Sprint, which had great customer service and HORRIBLE cellular service. I kept getting dropped calls, which they gladly credited me for. Obviously this gets annoying. Verizon, on the other hand, you can't get a right answer out of any of their customer service reps. This idiot at the Verizon store signed up my FiOS service in my father's name, who I specifically told him, he was deceased and it should've been put in my mother's name. That was the beginning of my problems w/ Verizon.[19] Almost all of my experiences with Verizon tech support and customer service have been very satisfactory and in some cases overwhelmingly satisfactory.[16]

"Old handsets and smart phones are not always worthless," said Quintin Lew, senior vice president of marketing for Verizon Partner Solutions. "Under this program, clients of our wholesale customers can get cash or credit back which can be used to subsidize discounts on new gear. "This helps keep hardware out of the landfill and turns it into a customer benefit," he said.[39] 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.[9]

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.[33] Since Verizon only carries 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps.[36] Because if IPhone will go verizon that means it will have more crappy services with verizon.[33] 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.[33] The no-commit iPhone option for existing AT&T customers is priced at $599/$699 for the 16GB/32GB iPhone 3GS, respectively.[20] 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.[9] AT&T's wireless network blankets the U.S., reaching approximately 296M people.[12] The gaps on AT&T's map might actually be covered by AT&T's large 2G network.[36] Depending on your reception and network capacity at the time it doesn'''t mean AT&T is faster.[5] AND THE PRESS WENT RIGHT ALONG WITH THEM. Read your own Wall Street Journal stories from that time. They were riddled with story after story about how fabulous MCI/Worldcom was. How innovative they were. How PSInet, their wholly owned ISP, was doubling in traffic every 30 minutes, or some such nonsense. How they had financial geniuses at MCI/Worldcom who were ushering in a new and innovative world of telecommunications and how stodgy, old fashioned AT&T was out of touch and couldn't make a decent product if God gave it to them.[46] 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.[33]

The barbs aimed at AT&T make fun of Ma Bell's tiny 3G coverage areas and questionable connection quality.[16] 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.[17]

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.[17] 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.[15]

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."[3] Recently I've had great service and surprisingly ubiquitous 3G coverage with my iPhone, even in the central coast of CA where there aren't many large communities.[16] I have the iPhone and get coverage in remote areas all throughout the south and midwest. I also have Uverse and DSL and find they are superior to all the other services we have tried.[16]

Most of the white areas are covered, but with somewhat slower wireless speeds, AT&T said. [3] The telecommunications provider sued Verizon Wireless Tuesday, calling the advertisements "misleading."[5] To preview and request broadcast-quality video footage and high-resolution stills of Verizon Wireless operations, log on to the Verizon Wireless Multimedia Library at www.verizonwireless.com/multimedia.[45]

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.[7]

Verizon's ad blitz is only going to last if the courts let that happen, anyway.[6] 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.[17] To support that conclusion, AT&T commissioned a study of people in a shopping mall who had seen the ad.[31]

The real victims are the consumers that are paying AT&T money for crappy service.[33] 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.[33] 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.[36] The say (several times) verbally and in writing that the maps show 3G coverage.[17]

The first Google Android 2.0-powered phone is the most exciting thing to appear on Verizon's network in quite a while. [29] A Dow 30 company, Verizon employs a diverse workforce of more than 230,000 and last year generated consolidated revenues of more than $97 billion.[39] The company stated the $350 will decrease by $10 after each month fo completed service. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.[27] You are obligated to pay, but only the amount in the contract. If the company's costs were to sudden skyrocket, they can't make you pay more even if your contract with them is less than what it costs them to provide the service.[19] If you terminate your service one year into the contract, you'll be charged $140.[38] A $200 or $350 fee to break the contract is actually pretty cheap considering that you are legally obligated for paying the entire two years whether you use it or not. Contracts work both ways.[19]

The average subsidy of a wireless handset in 2008 was $14.33, so a $175 fee is already more than 10 times the average subsidy.[42] I see no reason why someone couldn'''t bring a suit against Verizon for not following the standard fee, just like Sprint didn'''t follow the standard time frame discount.[47] 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.[5]

Hopefully, Verizon will collect the new fee on a selective basis to handle abuse situations. David Coursey tweets as @techinciter and can be contacted via his Web site. [22] Say's many people all the more incentive to get the iPhone on Verizon? Maybe.[33] Though the company did not specify what it meant by "advanced devices," Boy Genius Report's Andrew Munchbach speculated it was targeted at high-end smartphones like the recently announced DROID, which runs the open-source Android platform and was built by Motorola, and is scheduled to debut November 15. "Anyone considering abandoning plans to buy the DROID after hearing this news, or are you just going to get yours before November 15th?" Munchbach asked.[43]

Big network + big product + big demand for big product on big network = $$$? When you look at it like that, the extra cost to make it CDMA doesn't sound half bad.[33] Early Termination Fees are an insurance policy that wireless network operators have installed to make sure they don't lose their shirts on handset subsidies.[23] Wireless termination fees are not only a bane for customers, but a frequent target of criticism from Congress and policy advocates.[43]

I'd almost forgotten about the landmark lawsuit from last year in which Sprint Nextel was ordered to pay millions in restitution to consumers who had been charged an Early Termination Fee.[47]

The ETF will be applied to consumer and business customers who purchase a one- or two-year contract. [29] Now, Sprint Nextel follows the practice of most of the rest of the industry by slowly reducing the amount of the ETF over the lifetime of the customer's contract. The FCC seems fine with this, so it's doubtful the courts will continue to make a fuss over it. Yeah -- ETFs, as Sprint had been using them, are vaguely "illegal" -- but since no one's doing them that way any more, the court case is largely irrelevant.[47] For starters, remember that the Sprint Nextel ruling is a California case only, with relatively limited reach. Even if that court had struck down ETFs altogether, it would only apply in the court's jurisdiction unless the feds got involved (which they didn't). It's important to note that the court didn't make all ETFs illegal, it simply said that what Sprint Nextel was doing was against the law and ordered the company to reimburse its customers.[47]

In case you've also forgotten: Last July, Sprint was ordered to repay some $18.2 million to customers who'd been assessed an ETF and were ordered to stop trying to collect ETFs from thousands of additional customers.[47] If a customer completes five months of service, the penalty would be reduced to $300, for example.[40] Services for checking usage, paying bills, and adding features. The most convenient and cost-effective way for customers to manage their accounts with Combined Billing for wireless and wireline products.[33] The leading provider of local and long distance voice services. Greatest Value The fairest value with Rollover'' allowing customers to keep their unused minutes month to month. Best Products - The most innovative exclusive devices such as the iPhoneTM 3GS.[33]

The Basking Ridge, N.J. -based carrier said the penalty applies to customers in one- and two-year contracts with high-end devices such as smartphones.[24]

Closed for 15 months ''' opening 10 days only! Get notified ahead of time as our expert portfolio manager invests $1 MILLION in the best opportunities from across The Motley Fool'''s premium investment services. This is the first open since August 2008, by invitation only. [16] "The maps clearly note that the comparisons are of 3G service, and further note that voice and data services are available in other places."[18]

SOURCES

1. UPDATE 2-AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads | Reuters
2. Massucci's Take: AT&T's lawsuit against Verizon draws attention to its own flaws -- DailyFinance
3. AT&T sues Verizon over TV ads
4. AT&T's lawsuit over Verizon ads could backfire, some argue
5. AT&T to Verizon: There's a Lawsuit For That - Digits - WSJ
6. AT&T vs Verizons Ads: Not Just a Tale of Two-Toned Maps - PC World
7. Updated: AT&T Sues Verizon Wireless
8. Verizon sued by AT&T over ads dispute_English_Xinhua
9. Verizon Lawsuit Makes AT&T The Villain, Again - Business Center - PC World
10. Verizon sued over ad comparing coverage areas | Managing Mobile Devices News | Mobility Management News and Blogs
11. AT&T Takes Verizon to Court Over Theres a Map for That Ads - PC World
12. AT&T To Verizon: 'There's A Lawsuit For That' - Mobile Blog - InformationWeek
13. AT&T's Memo To Employees About Verizon Suit - 'If anybody asks, just tell them we're incredibly awesome. ' - dslreports.com
14. The Associated Press: AT&T sues Verizon over 'map for that' ads
15. AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's a Map for That' Ads - Business Center - PC World
16. What Does AT&T Want From Verizon?
17. AT&T sues Verizon, Verizon releases new Droid ad - Computerworld Blogs
18. Verizon Hits Back in Map Ad Flap
19. Warning: Verizon Spiking Early Termination Fee - Tom's Guide
20. The Droid tax: Verizon doubles early termination fee to $350 ''' Cell Phones & Mobile Device Technology News & Updates | Geek.com
21. Verizon Early Termination Fee Doubles on "Advanced Devices" [Verizon ETF to Charge $350 for Those Who Break Their Contracts] » TFTS Technology, Gadgets & Curiosities
22. Verizon To Double Wireless Early Termination Fee - Business Center - PC World
23. Verizon Wireless To Double ETFs To $350? - Mobile Blog - InformationWeek
24. Verizon to Double Early Termination Fee - Mobiledia
25. Want a Droid on Verizon? There's an ETF Hike For That » Unwired View
26. Verizon doubles early cancellation fees - MOBILE.BLORGE
27. Want To Cancel Your Verizon Contract? Expect To Pay Big! : dBTechno
28. Verizon Wireless to charge USD 350 as early termination fee on some devices!
29. Verizon Ups Early Termination Fee to $350 - Reviews by PC Magazine
30. If It Prints, I'll Let You Know Printer & Ink Cartridges Blog - Lawsuit Highlights AT&T's Inferior 3G Coverage
31. AT&T Sues Verizon Over Map Ad - The Atlantic Business Channel
32. AT&T Prepares Lawsuit Against Verizon
33. Leaked AT&T Memo: If Anyone Asks About The Verizon Lawsuit, Just Tell Them We're Awesome
34. iPhone, Verizon and AT&T's lawsuit : Product Reviews Net
35. Durango Herald News, iPhone arrival hinges on regulatory OK
36. AT&T Sues Verizon over "There's a Map for That" Ads - KDAF
37. UPDATE: AT&T Sues Verizon Over `There's A Map For That' Ads - WSJ.com
38. Post Tech - Sprint won't change early termination fees
39. Verizon: Verizon Encourages Recycling and Offers Partner Businesses a Way to Help Their Customers Do It
40. Verizon Wireless doubles early termination fee - Technology Live - USATODAY.com
41. Verizon Raising ETF for "Advanced Devices" up to $350? | BerryReview.com »
42. Verizon to hike contract-termination fees for advanced devices | TopNews United States
43. Verizon Wireless To Increase Termination Fees to $350
44. AT&T Sued for 'Hidden Charges'
45. Enjoy a Front-Row Seat During Basketball Season with NBA 2 Go from Verizon Wireless
46. Verizon Responds to AT&T Lawsuit Over Map Ad | John Paczkowski | Digital Daily | AllThingsD
47. Wait, aren't Early Termination Fees illegal in California? : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech
48. Untitled

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 Verizon Ups Early Termination Fee to $350 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

Product Reviews (blog)

Verizon Ups Early Termination Fee to $350

PC Magazine - here.

Give Us Your Feedback!

How did you like this article?