AT&T brings lawsuit against Verizon over "Map" ad campaign

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I would suggest that the intellectual heritage is gone, and so is Bell Labs, they've been spun off about a decade ago, and squandered too.

See post #28, above.

[justflybob]

Originally Posted by djames42

Your Andriod phone runs on UMTS which supports simultaneous voice and data. Verizon's Android phones will not support this (nor will any of AT&T or T-Mobile's phones when used outside of a 3G coverage area; EDGE/GPRS [2.5/2g] do not support simultaneous use of voice and data either).

And yet people STILL don't get why Apple chose AT&T over Verizon.

Verizon has a very long history of crippling the best features of the phones they brand and sell. Sometimes it is via software, other times its pure system limitations.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, but not a part that had anything to do with Bell Labs. SBC, today's AT&T, had essentially nothing to do with any of the things Bell Labs accomplished.

I am not sure about that. They were one whole organic unit, until the local service providers were split up into Baby Bells and ATT remained as a long-distance player. A part of Bell Labs (I think it was called BellCore) was also split up and handed over to the Baby Bells. ATT stuck with Bell Labs thru the mid 1990s (although they kept starving it of resources), then they handed it off to Lucent (now semi-dead Alcatel-Lucent) which basically stuck a knife through its heart.

Btw, I think Bell Labs under ATT was not only responsible for inventing lasers, but also created radio astronomy!

[pawolverine]

Having no 3G service in my town, I too wish AT&T would spend there money on extending their service then to sue the other guy. If you don’t like the maps then do something to increase your service AT&T.

[pats]

Originally Posted by itistoday

+1!

I think AT&T's argument is a stretch, the graphs are clearly labeled and the entire ad is about 3G.

Perhaps instead of suing people they could put more effort into improving their network. What are they doing with all that money they've gotten from the iPhone?? Their network sucks, and their support sucks. And their plans suck. I'm sure I'm forgetting something too. :-p

Not a fan of the ATT network although it works great in my area but I believe 2.5G Edge was part of the IMT 2000 standard better know as 3G so depending on what Verizon is meaning ATT could argue that Edge be included in the map.

[ghostface147]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Where's AT&T's tethering? Is there a lawsuit for that?

Why would there be a lawsuit about that? They never gave a specific timeframe on when we would get it and are under no legal obligation to offer it anytime soon.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by pats

Not a fan of the ATT network although it works great in my area but I believe 2.5G Edge was part of the IMT 2000 standard better know as 3G so depending on what Verizon is meaning ATT could argue that Edge be included in the map.

This is an interesting observation. Edge where I live (there's no 3G) feels as fast as the 3G networks in most places I travel to. I wonder if ATT can fairly claim that 2.5G should be included in the map.

Perhaps ATT should update its map to include that.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by pats

Not a fan of the ATT network although it works great in my area but I believe 2.5G Edge was part of the IMT 2000 standard better know as 3G so depending on what Verizon is meaning ATT could argue that Edge be included in the map.

Nice observation. I’m so use to hearing EDGE is 2.5G, even though I know it’s a 3G tech, that I often escapes me.

• http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Do...0/IMT-2000.pdf

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This is an interesting observation. Edge where I live (there's no 3G) feels as fast as the 3G networks in most places I travel to. I wonder if ATT can fairly claim that 2.5G should be included in the map.

Perhaps ATT should update its map to include that.

Now does AT&T list EDGE and UMTS on their site (can’t look right now) as 3G? If they specifically list ‘3G’ as including EDGE then I think AT&T has a leg up. If AT&T doesn’t mention EDGE as 3G in any way then I think Verizon would have a leg up.

This has just got interesting.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by pats

Not a fan of the ATT network although it works great in my area but I believe 2.5G Edge was part of the IMT 2000 standard better know as 3G so depending on what Verizon is meaning ATT could argue that Edge be included in the map.

Maybe, but I don't think that works, at least it doesn't on me, I hope they don't try that. They shouldn't market 3G as different from EDGE and then also say that EDGE is 3G. That would be trying to have things both ways.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by solipsism

ow does AT&T list EDGE and UMTS on their site (can’t look right now)? If they specifically list ‘3G’ as now including EDGE then I think Verizon has the leg up. If it doesn’t mention 3G, only has a voice and data map, or if AT&T lists EDGE as ‘3G’ (though I don’t recall that), ten AT&T would likely have the leg up.

They do not list EDGE as 3G.

AT&T's map is not easy to get to. Google ATT coverage viewer, the first hit should be it. Click "Show 3G coverage", click any city and zoom out to nationwide. Anything in blue is what they call 3G.

I'll try to look up comparable maps for VZW tomorrow.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

They do not list EDGE as 3G.

AT&T's map is not easy to get to. Google ATT coverage viewer, the first hit should be it. Click "Show 3G coverage", click any city and zoom out to nationwide. Anything in blue is what they call 3G.

I'll try to look up comparable maps for VZW tomorrow.

Not good for AT&T’s case…

Data Coverage Legend
. . . • 3G/Mobile Broadband (in select areas)
. . . • Partner EDGE
. . . • Partner GPRS
. . . • No Service Available

3G/Mobile Broadband: 3G coverage is available in select metropolitan areas. 3G capable device and eligible rate plan required. However like all coverage it can and will be adversely affected by distance from cell site, weather, foliage, tower congestion and other factors. You'll know you're in our 3G coverage area when the 3G network indicator appears beside the signal bars on your phone. If you are outside our 3G coverage area, you can still access services using our EDGE network

And the iPhone has an (E) for EDGE and 3G for UMTS. I don’t see a courting accepting their position since they clearly haven’t been representing EDGE as 3G, even they technically could have.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by solipsism

AT&T is in the wrong here. Verizon’s ad clearly states that ‘3G' has more coverage and shows (what I assume) is the same 3G coverage area that you find in AT&T stores. If the customer is unaware that ‘2G’ coverage is different and more spread out then AT&T needs to educate.




True, but this is a a feature that I can’t live without. I didn’t know that when I first got the iPhone but it seems every time I’m on a call I’m using the internet at some point, even if it’s just entertaining myself while on hold. I would never even consider Verizon or Sprint unless they get EVDO Rev. B or LTE going.

Also the reason I think AT&T's service sucks. Until I realized that it was going from 3G to 2G that was dropping my calls, I thought it was a defective iPhone. My iPhone still does that, and I still think it (the network) sucks. Verizon's network doesn't drop you going from 1xRTT to EVDO on voice. 3G to Edge does drop the call.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by technohermit

Also the reason I think AT&T's service sucks. Until I realized that it was going from 3G to 2G that was dropping my calls, I thought it was a defective iPhone. My iPhone still does that, and I still think it (the network) sucks. Verizon's network doesn't drop you going from 1xRTT to EVDO on voice. 3G to Edge does drop the call.

There are technological reasons why that happens. It’s not an AT&T is worse than Verizon as a company things. Each network type has pros and cons, and GSM’s inability for a soft handshake is one of them.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by solipsism

It’s not an AT&T is worse than Verizon as a company things.

It is, if you are constantly in EVDO territory and spotty-ass 3G. It means you have to turn 3G off in order to use your phone, or you drop calls constantly.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by technohermit

It is, if you are constantly in EVDO territory and spotty-ass 3G. It means you have to turn 3G off in order to use your phone, or you drop calls constantly.

So you are saying that problem is unique to AT&T and that other CDMA-based network could have call drops from network switching? Of course not, the problem is inherent with the network design, the same way EVDO Rev. A can’t do simultaneous voice and data but EVDO Rev. B can.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by johnwhite1000

An outrageous act by ATT. Verizon clearly and honestly states that it is "3G" capability the map refers to. So what if ATTs crappy network provides antiquated 2 g coverage. ATT needs to spend money upgrading its technically inadequate 1900 Mhz crap network rather than filing lawsuits that attempt to muddy the truth. I will never forgive Apple letting the nations best smartphone operate only on its most inadequate 3g network.

I was in advertising for years. The suit is not a stretch by any means.

Verizon, and their agency, is taking advantage of the fact that most people won't listen to what is being said, and will just concentrate on the pictures. The pictures clearly show a better coverage for Verizon, and that's all people will think about.

Since we're more involved, we notice the details, but the average consumer, the ones Verizon is targeting, won't.

[mike12309]

Originally Posted by noexpectations

Yeah, I know it’s easy to bash AT&T for a number of recent issues. However, remember that AT&T supports far more smart phones than any other US based carrier. Network upgrades take time, money, equipment, and advanced engineering. I’m not an apologist; I realize, too, that AT&T should have planned better.

As for all the recent comments about how AT&T could not survive without Apple, I recently ran across this website that show cased all of the accomplishments and inventions by AT&T over the last 130 years. (I was researching the origins of the cell phone for a project that I am working on.) It’s quite impressive.

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/

Some highlights:

1876: The first telephone.
1924: The first Electrical Sound Recordings.
1926: The first Sound in Motion Pictures.
1939: The first Digital Computer.
1946: The first Mobile Call.
1947: The first Transistor. This was one of the biggest inventions of the 20th century. This is the foundation of every single electronics device.
1954: The first (usable) modern Solar Cell.
1960: The first Communications Satellites.
1969: UNIX and the foundation of the Internet.
1969 The CCD (Charge-Coupled Device that transfers light into electric signals) Every one of the digital images you — and millions of others — take every day is made possible thanks to work done by two Bell Labs researchers in the late 1960s. Their ground-breaking work was recently recognized with the Nobel Prize in Physics.
1983: Cell Phones and the Cell Phone Network.
1983: C (1972) and C++. You may not know this, but just about every digital device runs some form of C++ generated code.
1989: HDTV Technology…..and first demonstration to the FCC.
1997: a2b secure digital transmission of Music (compression, authorization). This cleared the way for online music resellers to distribute digital music over the Internet.

There are plenty more out there…..these are just a few as they relate to Apple.

So, yes AT&T is benefitting from Apple’s iPhone……but I would argue that Apple has also benefitted from AT&T’s accomplishments as well. AT&T has invented many of the critical components that are at the core of the most popular products that Apple sells today.

Apple’s strength is the ability to integrate and enhance previously developed technologies into desirable consumer products. Here are some examples:

Mac OS X: The foundation of this OS is UNIX……UNIX was created by AT&T.

iPod/iTunes: AT&T developed stereo recordings, compression, secure digital transfers, C++, and of course the transistor. The latest iPods now have CCDs (picture/video)…all developed by AT&T.

iPhone: AT&T invented the Cell Phone Network. Apple’s recent growth (iPhone) is reliant upon this technology that AT&T invented.

So, yes, AT&T is benefiting from the iPhone….but Apple has also benefitted from AT&T’s inventions as well.

I am offering this to inspire intelligent discussion, debate, and comments.

Doesnt matter. AT&T has become dependant on Apple for the mobile side of their business. Theyve gone all or nothing for the Iphone. I worked for AT&T mobility, and internally they quote that the Iphone is more than 40% of the phones currently on the AT&T network... and the sales for the Iphone ranged between 50-90% (depending on store), out of about 25 lines i would set up a week, 20 would be iphones... also keep in mind these are by far the most profitable phone plans they sell. I ask, could any company afford to lose exclusivity on a product which makes up over 40% of their business and is their most profitable item? The number of people dying to switch to verizon, but keep their iphones is not small either.

Do i think AT&T would go under? No. But mobility would be BADLY crippled if something happened with the Iphone against AT&T's favor.

[mike12309]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This is an interesting observation. Edge where I live (there's no 3G) feels as fast as the 3G networks in most places I travel to. I wonder if ATT can fairly claim that 2.5G should be included in the map.

Perhaps ATT should update its map to include that.

Ballparking the numbers, Edge is something like 50-100 Kbps, and 3G networks are 350-700 Kbps

How do you figure its 2.5G... and how do you figure its nearly as fast?

Am i missing something?

[mike12309]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Nice observation. I’m so use to hearing EDGE is 2.5G, even though I know it’s a 3G tech, that I often escapes me.

• http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/imt-2000/Do...0/IMT-2000.pdf

Now does AT&T list EDGE and UMTS on their site (can’t look right now) as 3G? If they specifically list ‘3G’ as including EDGE then I think AT&T has a leg up. If AT&T doesn’t mention EDGE as 3G in any way then I think Verizon would have a leg up.

This has just got interesting.

Edge isnt 3G... and if they called it 3G, it would be like calling dialup the same as DSL/Cable/T1. Edge is slow (again ballparking, 50-100kbps, while the current 3G including AT&Ts are like 300-750).


Calling Edge 3G would be pretty laughable, though I suppose it would give AT&T an edge with their maps though.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by mike12309

Edge isnt 3G... and if they called it 3G, it would be like calling dialup the same as DSL/Cable/T1. Edge is slow (again ballparking, 50-100kbps, while the current 3G including AT&Ts are like 300-750).

Calling Edge 3G would be pretty laughable, though I suppose it would give AT&T an edge with their maps though.

The PDF I linked to explains very clearly that EDGE can technically be defined as 3G. I think AT&T is SOL as they don’t list it as such, but that is not your argument. This Wikipage may be easier to absorb…

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhance..._GSM_Evolution

What you get out of a service doesn’t define the generation it’s classified as. The classification come from a standards body. Ultimately they are arbitrary but they are defined.

EDGE has a maximum theoretical throughput of 473.6Kbps. That is well past the minimum given for AT&T’s 3G. Note that AT&T’s 3G has the future potential to have 84.4Mbps with Evolved HSPA. That isn’t even into the 3GPP LTE 4G yet.

There is this site I came across. AT&T will likely use this as a proof that they thing EDGE is 3G, if that is the path they wish to take with this. If so, I don’t think they should have used 3G to refer to their UMTS network. Again, I think that is why they are screwed. Note: this page’s text looks to have been carried over verbatim from the Cingular days.

EDGE is a third-generation, high-speed, mobile data and Internet access technology. It's fast enough to support a wide range of advanced data services including video and music clips, full picture & video messaging, high-speed color Internet access, and email on the move.

Prevalence
In areas where the 3G network is not available, customers will continue to receive service on the AT&T EDGE network, when coverage is available.

The AT&T EDGE network is available in more than 13,000 cities and towns and in areas along 40,000 miles of highways. It provides average data speeds between 75-135Kbps.

• http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/wh...ology/edge.jsp

PS: It’s not the same as calling dial-up the same as DSL/Cable/T1. Those are distinct technologies with distinct names. the "xG” nomanclature refers to Generation and it’s not static. 3GPP defined EDGE as 3G. That is a fact.

PPS: Expect for this type discussion, you’ll never see me express EDGE as 3G.

[hiimamac]

Originally Posted by hill60

I wonder if anyone will take the Droid multitasking statement to task.

No simultaneous voice and data = no multitasking like the iPhone is capable of.

You do know that when the iPhone is running on edge you can't talk and browse right?


Peace

[ranson]

So ATT is suing Verizon because their study proved what most of us have suspected for a long time -- that most people are not very bright. That's bloody brilliant. Despite my Apple Fanboydom, I have to admit the Verizon ads are clever, in good taste, and straightforward. Nothing misleading about them at all. It is clear and unambiguous that the depicted maps represent 3G coverage only.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I am not sure about that. They were one whole organic unit, until the local service providers were split up into Baby Bells and ATT remained as a long-distance player. A part of Bell Labs (I think it was called BellCore) was also split up and handed over to the Baby Bells.

According to Wikipedia, BellCore was created by the Baby Bells and hired people from Bell Labs. But that doesn't make them Bell Labs, just as Palm may have hired people from Apple but that doesn't make them Apple.

Bell Labs did some great things. SBC, renamed AT&T, is mostly known for their history of sticking it to their customers any way they can, any time they can. The current AT&T deserves no part of Bell Labs' glory.

[nondual]

Originally Posted by justflybob

And yet people STILL don't get why Apple chose AT&T over Verizon.

Verizon has a very long history of crippling the best features of the phones they brand and sell. Sometimes it is via software, other times its pure system limitations.

Exactly! V-Cast? Really? Grrrr! I had a phone from Samsung that could have been brilliant for what I wanted, but the Verizon interface and features totally crippled it, IMHO. Not only that, but in LA - it dropped more calls than my iPhone has thus far.

[brucep]

Originally Posted by melgross

I was in advertising for years. The suit is not a stretch by any means.

Verizon, and their agency, is taking advantage of the fact that most people won't listen to what is being said, and will just concentrate on the pictures. The pictures clearly show a better coverage for Verizon, and that's all people will think about.

Since we're more involved, we notice the details, but the average consumer, the ones Verizon is targeting, won't.

Verizon overall has way less dropped calls /so word of mouth round the water cooler will tend agree with the MAP .Except of course most american don'y know what a map is anyway .

i just received 6 rare mineral including a herkimer diamond

[brucep]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

I stand corrected. They're boring, but . . . accomplished.

no your first thought was correct.
read post number #28

[nondual]

Originally Posted by technohermit

It is, if you are constantly in EVDO territory and spotty-ass 3G. It means you have to turn 3G off in order to use your phone, or you drop calls constantly.

This was my experience in San Antonio. If I was going to be on a long call and would be moving, I would switch my iPhone to Edge to avoid the inevitable dropped call.

[ivan.rnn01]

"Voice & data services available outside 3G coverage areas"

Oh my. They just can't stop lying. It's not Voice & data, it's Voice | data.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

Oh my. They just can't stop lying. It's not Voice & data, it's Voice | data.

Is that a serious post?

[Celemourn]

I think I'm inclined to side with AT&T on this one. Most people tend to zone out and only pay partial attention when viewing advertisements, so having technically correct labels on the graphs really doesn't can't offset the overall tone of the ad. So, in the interests of fairness and not deceiving the public (which, of course, is what marketing and advertising is all about), I'd be inclined to ban those ads. However, whether or not there is a legal basis for doing that, that's another matter. And unfortunately, I think that rightfully trumps the question of morality.

C

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Celemourn

I think I'm inclined to side with AT&T on this one. Most people tend to zone out and only pay partial attention when viewing advertisements, so having technically correct labels on the graphs really doesn't can't offset the overall tone of the ad. So, in the interests of fairness and not deceiving the public (which, of course, is what marketing and advertising is all about), I'd be inclined to ban those ads. However, whether or not there is a legal basis for doing that, that's another matter. And unfortunately, I think that rightfully trumps the question of morality.

C

They are honest about what is being stated. If the public at large doesn’t comprehend the very common buzzword ‘3G’ that is their fault. Verizon’s ad is using the uninformative nomenclature to their advantage. I think AT&T’s best move would be to have a commercial that states AT&T’s network can do voice and data simultaneously while Verizon and Sprint cannot. T-Mobile could be left out of it completely since it’s a newish carrier and well outside the top 3.

[anonymouse]

Originally Posted by Celemourn

However, whether or not there is a legal basis for doing that, that's another matter. And unfortunately, I think that rightfully trumps the question of morality.

Apart from whether the ads in question violate the law or are "immoral", nothing rightfully trumps the the question of morality.

[solipsism]

Abuse the system and the system fights back! Verizon will be increasing heir contract cancelation fee up to $350…Ouch! Even though it’s for good reason….

• http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...anced-devices/

[Mac Voyer]

Originally Posted by Celemourn

I think I'm inclined to side with AT&T on this one. Most people tend to zone out and only pay partial attention when viewing advertisements, so having technically correct labels on the graphs really doesn't can't offset the overall tone of the ad. So, in the interests of fairness and not deceiving the public (which, of course, is what marketing and advertising is all about), I'd be inclined to ban those ads. However, whether or not there is a legal basis for doing that, that's another matter. And unfortunately, I think that rightfully trumps the question of morality.

C

Originally Posted by melgross

I was in advertising for years. The suit is not a stretch by any means.

Verizon, and their agency, is taking advantage of the fact that most people won't listen to what is being said, and will just concentrate on the pictures. The pictures clearly show a better coverage for Verizon, and that's all people will think about.

Since we're more involved, we notice the details, but the average consumer, the ones Verizon is targeting, won't.

Agreed!

I sold Yellow Pages advertising for Verizon. We had to adhere to strict rules about integrity in the ads we developed. That ad, though technically true, would never have been allowed in my department. There are many ways to lie while using the truth. You can make a perfectly true statement and place the emphasis on a particular word, thus changing the meaning of the statement. Today, we tend to associate 3G coverage with general coverage. While technically not the same, it is absolutely the same thing in the minds of smartphone consumers. Also, Verizon knew exactly what they were doing when they used the visuals they did. Those are the same visuals you would see for general coverage maps. They deceived with the truth. It is not illegal, but sleazy.

Finally, the whole ad campaign has the stink of fear and desperation. It is not clever. It is just a play on Apple's cleverness. The same is true with the MS "I'm a PC" ads. In the end, Apple is the engine that drives the train. Verizon is not afraid of AT&T; they are afraid of Apple. They have been soiling their pants for the last two years. BB is losing its lead to the iPhone and Verizon sees the handwriting on the wall. They will say and do anything to stop the Apple machine from running them down. Verizon has soiled their reputation with this latest ad campaign. They are no longer a confident leader. They are scared and running for their lives. They have now entered into Sprint territory as another carrier who has gone to war agains a single device. This type of advertising indicates that Verizon has already lost the war.

[BenRoethig]

Here's an idea. Instead of a lawsuit why doesn't AT&T actually puts some money into upgrading its network. If it wasn't crap, this ad wouldn't exist and your customers wouldn't be unhappy.

[Mac Voyer]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Here's an idea. Instead of a lawsuit why doesn't AT&T actually puts some money into upgrading its network. If it wasn't crap, this ad wouldn't exist and your customers wouldn't be unhappy.

There is some truth here but it somewhat misses the point. Verizon has been making this point about their network superiority for years. That is the whole point of their "It's the Network" ads. This new campaign is not about touting their superior network; it is directed at their own customers who are thinking about jumping ship to own the most paradigm busting device to come along in ages: the iPhone. To aid them in this effort, they are raising the rate of the early termination fee to further lock people in and keep them from escaping. Do not mistake these ads as the typical boast of superior features. This is a shot across the bow of their own customers. Verizon is saying that if you leave us for the iPhone, you'll be sorry!

[ivan.rnn01]

Yeah. If I implored a blogger to learn something useful about the cost of infrastructure instead of posting bullshit on AI, he would bark STFU in response rather than follow my advice, wouldn't he?

[Magic_Al]

AT&T doesn't deserve to sue anyone for anything. Anyone who tried to sue AT&T about their involvement in Bush's illegal surveillance programs was blocked by "state secrets privilege". It's impossible to exhibit a higher level of corporate arrogance and entitlement than AT&T.

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by solipsism

So you are saying that problem is unique to AT&T and that other CDMA-based network could have call drops from network switching? Of course not, the problem is inherent with the network design, the same way EVDO Rev. A can’t do simultaneous voice and data but EVDO Rev. B can.

What I was saying is AT&T's network design, based on GSM, cannot keep you connected switching from 3G to Edge. And where I live, 3G coverage remains spotty. Verizon's EVDO is not spotty, it is ubiquitous. Therefore, you don't need to mess with your phone to keep a call connected.
AT&T's maps still lie, they show all-out 3G coverage where I am. Not the case, and never has been.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by brucep

Verizon overall has way less dropped calls /so word of mouth round the water cooler will tend agree with the MAP .Except of course most american don'y know what a map is anyway .

i just received 6 rare mineral including a herkimer diamond

I have some Herkimer diamonds from the mine when I went there about 15 years ago. There are incredible deals on gems on ebay these days. I've bought some, mostly direct from Thailand.

I bought a 50 caret very good quality blue topaz for $23 including shipping. I've verified that it's actually a topaz by measuring the refractive index and weight.