AT&T sues Verizon over 'there's a map for that' ads
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 3rd 2009 4:00PM
posted Nov 3rd 2009 4:00PM
AT&T also says its network reaches about the same number of people as Verizon's, so we're thinking it's a little miffed that it's being portrayed as an also-ran here. We'll update as we learn more, keep it locked!In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.
Update: So this seems like a very narrow lawsuit, actually. As we've been told, AT&T thinks Verizon is trying to fool viewers into thinking that they can't use any AT&T phone services outside of 3G coverage areas by showing two essentially different maps. Since Verizon's entire network is 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps -- but Verizon doesn't show that the gaps on the AT&T map might be covered by AT&T's huge 2G network. We can see how that could be misleading, but at some point you've got to compare apples to apples, and AT&T even says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" in its complaint, so we'll see how the court reacts.
Update 2: Interestingly, Verizon's already changed the ads once at AT&T's behest, editing them to remove the phrase "out of touch" and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" small print disclaimer at the end. Apparently that wasn't enough for AT&T, which says the ads still confuse non-technical viewers into thinking AT&T provides no service at all outside of its 3G coverage.
Update 3: Okay, we've read everything -- there's really not much more to this suit than the arguments over the maps. We're thinking Verizon could have easily dealt with this by just using dark blue and light blue on the AT&T map to differentiate between 3G and 2G coverage, but at this point we don't think Ma Bell is all that interested in anything except getting these ads off the air. All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon. Let's just hope AT&T is working as hard to fight these ads with its actual service as it is with its lawyers.
See more video at our hub!
In update three you write... "it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon."
How does the ad "make that point"? In fact there looks like ATT has the best coverage in NY & SF. How does the map show that they don't have enough cells for all the users (which I think is the point you were trying to make)? Unless I am misunderstanding something, please clarify. thx
"The point" is that AT&T's network frankly sucks. Anyone who's used it or knows someone who has either in remotely regional areas, close to a building downtown, or even inside their house knows it, including AT&T. So a lawsuit trying to argue that they are misleading customers by implying that they will have problems with speed or connection is more than a little off base.
Verapezon is probably the worst cell carrier in the world. They cripple phones, lock out features, censor text messages that they don't agree with, lower cellular coverage for people out of 2-year contracts, and to top it off they charge an arm and a leg. Why do people even do business with these plankton?
Quite frankly, I'd rather use a pair of cans and a string to communicate than give a penny to those assholes.
"Censor text messages they don't agree with." Really? That sounds ridiculous.
@ uwaga
"Verapezon" - who?!
"censor text messages that they don't agree with" - absolute rubbish.
"lower cellular coverage for people out of 2-year contracts" - the coverage is the same regardless of contract. I don't know about possibilities, but I'd have to say that the end would outweigh the means in doing that- there would be no point, since people out of contract could just leave if their service was degraded.
"they charge an arm and a leg" - the major carriers are all nearly identical in pricing. The difference is what you get for the cost, such as add-on services like friends&family.
"Why do people even do business with these plankton?
Quite frankly, I'd rather use a pair of cans and a string to communicate than give a penny to those assholes." - and yet, you're reading the Verizon updates section. hm...
Absolute rubbish? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html
I know first hand, and from reports on the internet, that Verizon does indeed lower the coverage of phones after the 2-year contracts are over. When the customer calls customer service, they suggest getting a new phone, and signing ANOTHER 2 year contract.
It is expensive as hell. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051017/234213_F.shtml, and they charge extra for navigation (by locking GPS from phones)
For the record, I'm not reading the Verizon updates section. I saw breaking news, and saw "sues Verizon" and thought "about time someone gives these scum a butt-kicking". While the top 3 carriers in US are all horrible companies, VZW is the worst by far. BY FAR.
@uwaga dude
Did you read the article you posted? Do you have a clue? Can't afford one? I will give you one for free. VZW refused to allow a premium SMS campaign to operate on its network. There was no censoring of text messages, they chose not to work with this Premium SMS provider. You know like the softcore porn pics available for your phone text xxxx to 55555. That is what they blocked. You have no clue how cell phones work right? VZW, ATT, Sprint and TMo can not turn up the signal or down the signal of an individuals cell phone. That is absolutely the funniest thing I have ever heard out of the conspiracy camp. They can cut the juice at a tower or turn sectors off, move antennas, etc. That affects everyone not one specific subscriber.
Why don't you and all the other's tell the truth. Most people here.
A. You work for a competitor.
B. You skipped your bill and went to a competitor.
C. You are a troll.
D. You are with a competitor and just like cheering for your team and jeering against the other.
E. Work for the company listed in the article and have their own corporate intentions for their posts.
Don't forget, AT&T also pulls a lot of crap with their supposed "unlimited" data which also isn't "unlimited". They also force data plans on people who don't want them, add stuff without people's knowlwdge, etc. etc.
They both have their huge faults.
@uwaga dude
That New York Times Story is about giving a group one of the special 5 digit numbers for a texting campaign. That is not the same thing as "censoring messages it doesn't like."
The lower service after 2 years? And your proof is... "people say it all over the place"? Oh, yeah, that proves it. I have an old XV6600 (well over 4 years old) that I use as my "backup" and it still gets a solid signal. (And... I am even out of contract on my current phone... and looky... signal is fine). Maybe these people have been so rough on their phones that they aren't functioning properly after 2 years, but as for the rest of it... as somebody else said... rubbish.
And once again, you declare Verizon "the worst" without giving any real reason.
I will agree with you on one point, Verizon's plans are minute per minute a bit more than the competition. It is true. But their network is second to no one right now. Period. I have been on business trips where people on other carriers had to borrow my phone because they had no signal. THAT is why I am willing to pay them a bit more for their service.
Oh, I will even agree with you on another... sort of. It is true that Verizon has had a (well earned) reputation of locking down their phones to sell services. They made a commitment to change that (almost) 2 years ago, and you have begun to see that on the phones released this year, and ultimately coming up with a full fledged "open" phone in the Droid... so this argument, while it WAS true, no longer is the case.
You can keep crying, but the fact is, nothing you are saying is holding any water. Does each company have their good and bad points? Of course. Sprint has one of the fastest data networks... why? They have no customers. at&t has the Jesus phone... and a network that is crushed under the weight of data from that phone. T-Mobile has lousy coverage... but good customer service. Verizon has the best network... but you pay for it. In the end, everybody is willing to sacrifice something in order to get what they think is the best compromise for them. (Paying more for the best network, accepting spotty coverage in order to save a few $$$, deal with no MMS for a long time in order to get the "cool" phone or... well... I don't know why anybody is still with Sprint... so I will leave that one alone... OK, OK.. maybe to get the Pre). Get over it. We can all pick on each others carriers for one reason or another, since NONE are perfect.
@uwaga dude
Locking out features is what they used to do. They changed their ways. I have Google Maps GPS access, I'm using Visual Voicemail and not paying Verizon. Friday they get Android phones, which they don't control. Verizon is changing, we can't hold them to the past.
@JayMonster
Well, you don't know why anyone is with sprint.. As a sprint customer, let me explain why I'm with Sprint. You state yourself that their 3G network is great.. even if it means they have No Customers.. it also means the customers they DO have benefit. Secondly, Money. I pay $70 a month (with a 20% discount) for 500 mins, unlimited Data (under 5GB), unlimited Texts, Unlimited Nights and weekends starting while people are still awake at 7pm instead of 9pm... and now, unlimited mins to ANY cell phone in the country. And all on a nice and well covered 3G network. Second I have the option of the Palm Pre, or HTC Hero.
So, also, let's see my alternitives. AT&T, Jesus phone, with crappy coverage, spending another $30 a month just to keep my similar plan... T-Mob. Closest to price comparison. myTouch and such.. but.. as i watch my Roommate holding his phone up in the air for a 3G signal, while i look at my 4 bars of EVDO... you see why I don't consider them much an option. And Finally VZW, which again, we've already deciphered is stupid expensive in comparison. Add in the Phone lock down, like my friend's VX6800, identical to Sprint's Mogul... minus the Rev A data, and GPS... despite being THE SAME HARDWARE!!!.. also the stories that VZW wants to limit the App stores of phone makers to control it themselves... I just can't see myself paying that much for those limitations.
I think the giant "3G Coverage Map" label at the bottom should suffice. If AT&T hasn't done enough to trump up the fact that they have broad coverage of a barely functional, low-speed network, that's their problem, not Verizon's.
The ads are factual. 'Nuff said.
Wow, AT&T would rather sue than get into an Ad war eh?
Verizon quietly sucked it up as people picked on them when they had no response better than "Can you hear me now?"
Now, unfortunately for at&t, they have nothing to respond with. They are beat and they know it. That is why they are trying to pull the whole injunction based on nothing more than, "it will confuse people." They know factually they have just been served.
If I remember the adds correctly they're talking about 3g coverage or watching videos over your phone. How the hell does someone confuse that with normal talking especially with the map saying 3g coverage? Seems ATT is just being pissy that the ads show a flaw.
Finally, an add that shows how inept AT&T's service truly is...of course they want it off the air. I remember when AT&T had to add at the end of their misleading commercial the mouse type "based on global coverage" or something like that to the "More Bars In More Places" campaign.
Take it on the chin AT&T and fix your sub-par network! You think this is bad, wait till Verizon finally gets the 4G compatible iPhone...then you'll see "loses"!!!
AT&T is a puss, so here's a slap for that...
AT&T is a snitch, here's a clap for that...
porting my number to Verizon, I believe there is an app for that
AT&T you call that coverage? u should be ashamed of that!
yeah, I dunno how many times you're required to say "3G" in a single ad to make clear that that's in fact what you're talking about, but I'd have to feel like Verizon hit that mark.
If someone doesn't know what "3G" is, hopefully they just don't listen - or better yet, educate themselves! - rather than spontaneously opt out of their AT&T contract.
Plus there's something a little twisted logically by basing the whole claim on the idea that these smartphone folks will be confused by the ad. It's kind of a slight to them, don't you think?
Overall, AT&T is sounding like a little b**ch.
So ATT is saying that people are stupid and cant see that huge 3G there??? ROFL...
Good to see AT&T pouring money into legal matters versus actually doing anything with the offending item of attention (their network).
I'd call them to say how I feel regarding this, but alas, I don't get coverage at home. As I type this, my iPhone proudly displays a combination of Searching, and No Service.
We want to testify against both of them for being guilty of promoting bogus maps.
There are a lot of ingorant and naive people in this country who would believe Verizon is talking about voice service. So I do see where AT&T is coming from. Still, this is funny. Their 3G coverage does need a lot of work.
I left At&t recently because they only offer edge services in my area. At&t says it will be 2013 before we get 3G here. I do really like the iPhone but as an edge device it sucks frankly.
I went to Verizon and activated a Blackberry Storm I had laying around the office and I have been very pleased with their 3G data network and voice network. I have not dropped a call yet with Verizon.
I have at&t and where I live in upstate New York I have BETTER reception than Verizon. You have to blame people,the environmentalists,that don't want to "disturb"their view. You people would rather put up with crappy service than have these towers fill in the holes,holes that might save lives when in trouble in rural areas,areas where I live. And at&t have been very good to me,giving me credits and resolving service issues when they arrise. Then again,I spend big money on my service every month ,so I deserve good service. And I have 3G here in upstate New York;I don't know about Verizon but I know T-Mobile certainly has no 3G coverage outside New York. You could have them!!!
"We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive."
No ... no it does not.
OK, I know it's fashionable these days to rip on ATT, but do you think Verizon would have done any better with the explosion of iPhones on their network? ATT 3G was quite fast, right up until the iPhone came out. Yes, there are serious capacity problems with their cells in major metro areas. Yes, sometimes data services do slow down quite a bit. But I'm sorry, my email still comes through perfectly fine on my phone, even if it's EDGE, and I never see any problems with my DataConnect service on my laptop.
I've been using ATT (once Cingular) for going on 6 years now, and despite occasional random blackouts , I've had no super serious problems. And at least ATT doesn't remove existing features from phones, or replace native manufacturer interfaces with that horrific BREW crap. Or rush phones out the door just to make a big PR splash. *cough* Storm *cough*
And as far as reception goes, I've never lost reception on my phone outside of a building. Plus, do you really think all cellphones are created equal? They vary WILDLY between manufacturer and even specific models. Just because you went out and bought a crap phone without doing your research doesn't mean your first response should be "blame att's network".
Ok, they do need to up their network capacity. They need to up their back haul capacity (most sites still only have a single T1 servicing an entire tower). And Skipping HSPA+ and going straight to LTE would have been nice. But really, think before you speak. The end user experience with wireless devices is dependent on many many different factors and conditions. Don't just blame it on the network.
Said it's a-bout ta be a WHAT?? CELLCARRIERFIGHT!!!!!
I can see why AT&T is upset with the ad. Because its just basically true. As a former Verizon customer now with AT&T and an iPhone, its really disappointing to know that the 3G coverage is so lame on AT&T. I really didn't check into that when I switched (and for an early termination fee on Verizon). I love the iPhone but would love it a lot more with better 3G coverage. Jeez, there's entire states with no 3G coverage (and some states with very little like mine, Colorado). And let's face it, a lot of users (me included) use more data than actually talk on the phone. And data over 2G crawls.
can someone make a app for the AT&T iPhone for Verizon that shows 3g coverage compairson using GPS. Maybe have it say if you had Verizon you would have 3g here. I thant would be funny.
Some of this problem is AT&T's own doing. I have heard from multiple customers that AT&T reps have told them they have to have 3G for good voice service. Perhaps if they worked to properly educate their customers this would not be such a major problem.
So...if you can litigate against all your competitors whenever they make correct observations about your flaws, then you don't have to spend any time or money improving your awful, awful infrastructure.
Shame on ATT. With all their new subscriber additions, including myself, and the high rates for their plans, why not compete with Verizon on 3G coverage. In my state (Hawaii), ATT's 3G coverage is excellent if not better than Verizon. For me, I never looked at the national map since at most I am on the US mainland once per year, if that. Nevertheless, I am shocked to see just how little 3g coverage is available from ATT, especially with the iPhone hit on their hands. I switched to ATT solely for iPhone and love it. So what is ATT's problem. Even Sprint has better 3G coverage and T Mobile is now rapidly rolling out 3g.
AT&T losers, try places like Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota, much less 99% of the rest of the state and many others NO 3G and even in SD NO DATA PERIOD!!! less of course u manage to find a wifi hotspot... good luck!!!
Pretty much makes any iPhone a brick there...
Well all I gotta say is that they misleading people by not put in the right info in the ads since at&t works using many different technologies gsm 2G and 3G and VERIZON only has one 3G if you wanna compare anything they should compare 2G from ATT to the 3G from VERIZON since our 2G is the same speed as there 3G but since they using the word 3G for both why don't they say how fast each one is since as we all know ATT is the fastes. Go to any ATt store and check out the real coverage maps they should of put 5 times 3G slow Internet coverage in those arias also I huge thing ATT has that VERIZON doesn't is that ATT technology of 3G let's you talk and use the Internet at the same time let me know if VERIZON let's you send a email and surf the Internet white you on a Bluetooth talking to some. There technology sucks that's why the voice works in more places but all because they always had the same technoly and they don't let you do as much as ATT like travel internation with any phone that's why they gonna be force to get 4G to catch up to ATT fast 3G speeds of 7.2 ask VERIZON what speed of Internet they running I think is 1.6 or a little higher lolz funny
I can't believe I just attempted to read what you wrote. Not only is it a complete fallacy, you used just two periods in that entire paragraph. If you actually want people to read what you write, grammar helps a lot.
Wha?!? Well you're an idiot... ill try and respond to what little sense I could make of that mess of a post.
ATT 2G and Verizon 2G are roughly the same speeds. Same with 3G for both carriers... simply as that. ATT is not even suing Verizon about what you are saying. They are just saying the ads are confusing... so ATT doesnt even agree with you.
Also where does ATT have HSUPA 7.2mps? Almost no where thats right.... and thats the theoretically speed, not the actual speed. No one is getting 7.2mps anywhere on ATTs network... no one.
I know you just got hired by ATT last week and they pumped your head full of bullshit to trick your customers, but dont regurgitate it here because it just makes you look like a damn fool.
ATT licks Donkey Testicles and are Crying iBabies just like their Subscribers.
iDont have a REAL network
iDont have 3G that doesn’t crash after 2 minutes
iDont have a Conscience
iDont know what a Soul is
iDont have plans people actually LIKE
iDont have Coverage that Verizon has
iDont have a REAL Wireless Network
Waaaahhhh Waaahhhhh
These ads and moreso this string has an effect on consumer buying. Here I am sitting with my VZ6800 (HTC) about to go off contract debating to go with a new VZ HTC Touch pro 2 (BTW its back in stock) or go to an iphone S in NY. It's a great revolutionary device, limitations but wonderful. But this string seals the deal... what good is a great heavy app phone with lousy connectivity? I went through this with AT&T 8 years ago when they bought Cellular One's TDMA network, and that was dropped call hell.
The moral in all this is, competition drives the market, will improve connectivity and lower prices. Bottom line is they both sorta suck, but who sucks less? VZ.
The At&t VS. Verizon case is now online at the AllRise court. Join the debate and cast your vote – http://bit.ly/AllRise269
I live in NY and unfortunately in an area with no 3G coverage from AT&T. It makes having a iPhone 3GS a painful experience especially since even the Edge speeds up here are really slow. Verizon definitely has a better network but I do love my iPhone...
ATT 3G coverage isn't as good as Verizon, and the ads were CLEAR that it was a 3G map. Now, if ATT is telling people they need 3G for voice service, then of course people are going to think they won't have general coverage (and I have heard a rep tell me that). So, it's a bit of 3G marketing gone bad.
But ATT has the answer to all their problems in their hands! FemtoCells! All they have to do is make them super cheap, without service cost and open. Say, $50 with a 2 year contract extension. I would buy one in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd probably by 3 and put them at my relatives' houses where coverage sucks. If that helps everyone else who visits them or lives nearby, then even better! All that many more happier ATT customers.
I think most people leave a service provider if the coverage is poor in the areas they frequent. If you have the option of improving your coverage, I think most people would take that instead of breaking contract and moving carriers.
A law suite! OH my, I needed a good laugh today.
I am a Verizon customer, but don't really use the 3G network myself. In my travels, I have noticed that Verizon has a 3G signal in places where the 1x signal barely exists. I would agree that it does have a great 3G network.
I am also an AT&T customer. I only use my AT&T line for voice. Rollover minutes are great, but based on my experience over the last 43 months I don't think I'll be renewing my contract.
I read on a blog somewhere (Opera,if I'm not correct) that there is a major flaw in the iphone;even if you are not online (ie using data) that the phone is STILL ONLINE using data. That is why the iphone is data intensive;it is a data hog. I'm sure apple knows all about this and is doing NOTHING to resolve this problem. That is why sometimes I cannot go online in NYC because of the iphone (ie "crackphone").