AT&T asks court to pull Verizon's 'misleading' iPhone ads

[AppleInsider]

AT&T has stepped up its federal case against Verizon Wireless, amending its complaint to seek a restraining order against holiday season ads attacking its data network and describing the iPhone as 'misfit' because of poor 3G coverage.

Verizon began advertising spots mocking AT&T for providing less comprehensive 3G coverage in a new campaign last month.

The ads referenced Apple's iPhone "there's an app for that" campaign with lines like, "if you want to know why some people have spotty 3G coverage, there's a map for that too," depicting Verizon's 3G network in red and AT&T's 3G network in blue. The maps clearly portray Verizon's coverage as being ubiquitous and AT&T's service as only existing in a few areas nationwide.

Earlier this month, AT&T filed its original complaint against Verizon's ads, which claimed users were being mislead after a survey found that 53% of those who saw the ads assumed that the areas not covered in blue in Verizon's maps of AT&T's service were total gaps in coverage.

"The map attributed to AT&T shows large swaths of white or blank space, as if these are areas in which AT&T has no coverage whatsoever," the suit stated. "By depicting AT&T's non-3G coverage as white or blank space in the map used in Verizon's print advertisement, consumers are being misled into believing that AT&T's customers have no coverage whatsoever and thus cannot use their wireless devices when they are outside of AT&T's depicted coverage area."

AT&T expressed urgency over the campaign, noting that the ads are airing during the "most vigorous and important marketing season for the wireless industry." Verizon responded by dropping some phrases in its ads that suggested users outside of AT&T's 3G coverage would be "out of touch," and added small print noting "voice & data services available outside 3G coverage areas."

Round two

In its expanded complaint, AT&T says "Verizon is running a series of advertisements which falsely communicate that AT&T does not have wireless data coverage throughout much of the United States. […] Contrary to the image presented in the Verizon ads, our wireless network is pervasive. It covers over 300 million people, or 97 percent of the U.S. population. Our fastest, or 3G, network covers approximately 233 million people, or 75 percent of the U.S. population."



Citing Verizon's own coverage reports, AT&T's complaint says that its rival's CDMA/EVDO 3G network "covers approximately 284 million people, or 91% of the population," and says "Verizon knows that its use of AT&T coverage maps is misleading because according to the coverage map legend on Verizon's, T-Mobile's, and Sprint's websites, the geographic spaces colored 'white' or left 'blank' on their maps represents areas in which there is no wireless coverage whatsoever."

The action filed by AT&T asks for "injunctive relief and damages," and asks the court to "immediately temporarily restrain, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Verizon from running" both its ads and "from falsely advertising that AT&T customers cannot communicate or use their wireless devices when they are not in a '3G' coverage area."

AT&T's complaint also notes that "prior to the wider availability of '3G' networks, AT&T's '2.5G' GSM/EDGE network supported the hugely popular and iconic iPhone for more than a year, and still supports millions of iPhones and other wireless devices currently in use."

Spotted elephant called as witness

The complaint dives into the details of each ad Verizon is running, including the new "Island of Misfit Toys" spot, giving a play-by-play of how claymation characters were used to malign its network and describe the iPhone as misfit.

The complaint cites "the spotted elephant, in a surprised manner" asking why the iPhone was banished to the island of misfit toys. "What are you doing here? You can download apps and browse the web!" Then a "Dolly for Sue asserts that 'Yeah, People will love you [the iPhone]." Once Verizon's sparse map for AT&T's 3G coverage appears, "the iPhone wilts and its screen goes dark," just as "the toy airplane then assures the iPhone that 'you're going to fit right in here!"

AT&T's complaint then turns gravely serious in stating "the image of the sad and wilting iPhone on a island of misfit toys falsely communicates that the iPhone is a broken device because it cannot browse the web or download applications when outside of AT&T's depicted coverage area."

Two other spots depict the iPhone as being labeled as "naughty" or causing user infuriation due to limited 3G coverage, and AT&T also cites direct mail advertisements sent by Verizon that again depict AT&T's 3G coverage as being the company's only US data network.

Five times the 3G?

"In all of the advertisements described above," AT&T's statement says, "Verizon makes the misleading statement that it has "5 times more '3G' coverage than AT&T." While this statement is literally true based on square miles, it is misleading because the overwhelming majority of the US population lives and works where both Verizon and AT&T have '3G' coverage.

"Indeed, from a population standpoint, Verizon only has 1.24 times more '3G' coverage than AT&T (285 million people/230 million people)."

In addition to an injunction to stop the ads, AT&T also asks for "treble damages as a result of Verizon's violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)" as well as attorney's fees, and describes its damages as being calculated in relation to Verizon's "sales and profits from its false and misleading advertisements" as well as its own lost profits.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[digitalclips]

The ad only mentions 3G, I don't get the complaint even though I am an iPhone user and AT&T user (where I get coverage lol). I guess I get the inference that you can't use the iPhone outside of the red area ... Verizon are overstepping there. For our annual summer stay at our home in the mountains I had to use Edge the entire time but it worked ... sort of.

[Gazoobee]

This is so lame, how are these ads misleading in any way? It's an accurate map of 3G coverage with the description "map of 3G coverage." This is just a malicious lawsuit.

[rcarlton]

ATT coverage - even in "3G areas" - is often underbuilt and oversubscribed.

If this map reflected density of 3G customers per tower, ATT would look even worse.

[teckstud]

AT&T's complaint then turns gravely serious in stating "the image of the sad and wilting iPhone on a island of misfit toys falsely communicates that the iPhone is a broken device because it cannot browse the web or download applications when outside of AT&T's depicted coverage area."

Classic! In the complaint! for the record!!

Regardless of what the outcome, Verizon has produced some absolutely amazing ads lately.

[Paul94544]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

This is so lame, how are these ads misleading in any way? It's an accurate map of 3G coverage with the description "map of 3G coverage." This is just a malicious lawsuit.

I switched to AT&T from Verizon 18 months ago from my RAZR phone.

Sure AT&T's coverage isn't all goo, but either is Verizon's. The town I lived in I used to get many dropped calls with the RAZR on Verizon. In the back of my house the signal dropped off to 1 bar at the front it went to 3 bars. Personally I don't believe the hype Verizon (GTE) puts out about "Can you hear me now". I Used to be a vendor for GTE years ago and some of the people I had to deal with at their HQ were complete A$%%oles. Arrogant SOB;'s mostly. Anyways I have found that ATT has a wider coverage area into more rural areas like Yosemite, the North coast of CA for example. Try getting Verizon there? I think these two companies are as bad as one another. I wouldn't trust either of them and their claims . Come on its Marketing, one rung lower on the" and first against the wall" after Politicians, Lawyers and used car salesmans =- oh I forgot realtors

[RoboNerd]

The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)

I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.

[samab]

Originally Posted by RoboNerd

The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)

I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.

The red area are all ev-do coverage.

[YodaMac]

Sorry Verizon. You can make all the clever ads you want.

I left you for AT&T because they have the iPhone.

They still do, and you don't. Sorry Verizon.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by Paul94544

... Sure AT&T's coverage isn't all goo, but either is Verizon's. The town I lived in I used to get many dropped calls with the RAZR on Verizon. In the back of my house the signal dropped off to 1 bar at the front it went to 3 bars. Personally I don't believe the hype Verizon (GTE) puts out about "Can you hear me now". I Used to be a vendor for GTE years ago and some of the people I had to deal with at their HQ were complete A$%%oles. Arrogant SOB;'s mostly. Anyways I have found that ATT has a wider coverage area into more rural areas like Yosemite, the North coast of CA for example. Try getting Verizon there? I think these two companies are as bad as one another. I wouldn't trust either of them and their claims . Come on its Marketing, one rung lower on the" and first against the wall" after Politicians, Lawyers and used car salesmans =- oh I forgot realtors

I agree. I just meant that considering the grey area allowed in most advertising, that the claims they are making are hardly misleading compared to what most companies get away with.

Much bolder, (and less "truthy") claims are made on a daily basis by advertisers, politicians and realtors all over the world.

[jmgregory1]

The point that the ATT lawyers will make is that consumers are used to maps like those depicted in the ad that the white spaces are representing no coverage areas - not just no 3G coverage. Even though Verizon shows the maps to represent 3G coverage, we consumers see it as no coverage. In a tv ad, you're not thinking about ATT's white space being covered by their edge network, because you only have mere seconds to even look at the map. I would tend to agree with ATT in this case, although I wouldn't fight it with a lawsuit.

IMHO the best way to fight back on something like this is to create ads that show real network speed comparisons - especially if it's true that the non EVDO areas of Verizon's 3G coverage area are slower than ATT's non-3G areas.

In marketing, it's often easier to make the competition look bad without addressing your own benefits (or drawbacks).

Both companies have their benefits and drawback. Even making any comparison between them when you don't have identical phones (at identical times and environmental conditions) to compare service, is pointless. Just like scientific double blind with placebo testing. To compare, you would need to control all variables. Of course the results, even in scientific studies, are often guided by what you want to learn from them.

[DeaPeaJay]

Originally Posted by samab

The red area are all ev-do coverage.

I believe you're mistaken. In the previous AI article it was established that that wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

However, Verizon still says on its website that for users "in Mobile Broadband markets that do not yet have EV-DO Rev. A, you can expect download speeds of 400 to 700 Kbps and upload speeds of 60- to 80 Kbps."

There is no distinguishing between these two levels of service (one being similar to EDGE, the other being roughly twice as fast) on Verizon's coverage maps.

[roehlstation]

I really don't care how much red is on that map if I can't use to to connect to my iPhone, it really appears Verizon is a little scared here. And I'd like to point out that most Verizon phones are useless once you leave the country, AT&T should publish a map of the entire planet to show you where their phones work.

[samab]

Originally Posted by jmgregory1

IMHO the best way to fight back on something like this is to create ads that show real network speed comparisons - especially if it's true that the non EVDO areas of Verizon's 3G coverage area are slower than ATT's non-3G areas.

All the red area is EV-DO coverage.

Real speed comparison? Verizon advertised their 3G speed as 600 kbps - 1400 kbps (middle point is 1000 kbps) AT&T advertised their 3G speed as 700 kbps - 1700 kbps (middle point is 1200 kbps).

[Lemon Bon Bon.]

Verizon.

They had their chance.

To their credit...ATT took theirs.

But it was a poisoned chalice regardless.

Apple broke the power of the phone network companies.

A precedent has been set.

Apple's star is rising. And M$ is nowhere.

How ironic.

The 3rd Great Age is upon us.

Lemon Bon Bon.

[Wiggin]

I don't think I've ever seen a bigger case of corporate sour grapes. My favorite part is:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

While this statement is literally true based on square miles, it is misleading because the overwhelming majority of the US population lives and works where both Verizon and AT&T have '3G' coverage.

So, the statement is true...end of story, case dismissed. Verizon has made no false claims in their ads.

And they are even using ATT's own definition of what their 3G coverage is. It's clearly outlined on ATT's website. So all the crap about "2.5G is really 3G" and other claimed technical details are, quite frankly, irrelevant. The only way that ATT can claim Verizon is misrepresenting ATT's 3G coverage is to say that ATT ifself is mispreresenting their own 3G coverage.

You don't see MS whining about the Mac vs PC ads misrepresenting PC's, do you? No, you see them fighting back with their own ads, not running to the courts.

[DaHarder]

Two Words: Boo Hoo

Now go fix your network so that other carriers won't have cause to point out your (obvious) inadequacies.

[samab]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

I believe you're mistaken. In the previous AI article it was established that that wasn't the case.

But we are also talking about a piece written by Prince McLean --- who tends to not be that accurate on a lot of things.

Verizon finished their ev-do rev A overlay in 2007 --- not a single part of Verizon's network is on the older ev-do rev 0 technology.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/...ev-a-overhaul/

EDGE has a theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and a real life average speed of 150 kbps. Prince likes to exaggerate.

[DaHarder]

Originally Posted by YodaMac

Sorry Verizon. You can make all the clever ads you want.

I left you for AT&T because they have the iPhone.

They still do, and you don't. Sorry Verizon.

@YodaMac,

Care, I Do Not

(and I'd wager, neither does Verizon)

[DeaPeaJay]

Originally Posted by samab

But we are also talking about a piece written by Prince McLean --- who tends to not be that accurate on a lot of things.

Verizon finished their ev-do rev A overlay in 2007 --- not a single part of Verizon's network is on the older ev-do rev 0 technology.

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/...ev-a-overhaul/

EDGE has a theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and a real life average speed of 150 kbps. Prince likes to exaggerate.

touché

I like the way Andy Inhatko put it on MacBreak weekly. People don't care if they have great coverage in Utah, they care if they have it at home and at the office. I've been very pleased with my coverage here in East Tennessee, even when all I had was edge. It was never very painful to use. But then our networks probably aren't as saturated as a lot of areas are.

[mickeymantle]

Apple should buy a chunk of ATT and Verizon with their money stash, and we would have the final end to end solution/control that SJ wants. Stop wasting money on lawsuits and competitive ads, and start building a better network. All the way from the chips (PA Semi) to the carriers.

[Maestro64]

If AT&T wins this, I predict someone at VZ will be loosing their job, not good press to attack the competition with bad facts and have the courts come down on you.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by YodaMac

Sorry Verizon. You can make all the clever ads you want.

I left you for AT&T because they have the iPhone.

They still do, and you don't. Sorry Verizon.

yodamac-

Feel the force of the 3G coverage you must.
Do you scratch you iPhone's screen much- with your claws and all of that?

[samab]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

touché

I like the way Andy Inhatko put it on MacBreak weekly. People don't care if they have great coverage in Utah, they care if they have it at home and at the office. I've been very pleased with my coverage here in East Tennessee, even when all I had was edge. It was never very painful to use. But then our networks probably aren't as saturated as a lot of areas are.

You can blame it on the American education system.

Before Alltel was bought up by Verizon, Alltel's network is actually geographically larger than Verizon's (as measured by square miles). It's miles and miles of corn field.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Maestro64

If AT&T wins this, I predict someone at VZ will be loosing their job, not good press to attack the competition with bad facts and have the courts come down on you.

Except ATT isn't disputing Verizon's facts. They are saying the facts are misleading...and expecting courts, who are supposed to be finders-of-fact, to ignore the facts.

If ATT wins, I predict a LOT of other lawsuits being filed against a lot of other companies under the guise of "the facts are misleading" and citing ATT's lawsuit as precedence.

[samab]

Originally Posted by Maestro64

If AT&T wins this, I predict someone at VZ will be loosing their job, not good press to attack the competition with bad facts and have the courts come down on you.

Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.

Don't need to worry about bad press later on --- Verizon already got all the christmas sales right now.

[Maestro64]

Originally Posted by RoboNerd

The misleading part is how friggin' slow the "3G" coverage in the vast majority of Verizon's network is, since anything CDMA is considered "3G"... even if it's the dog-slow 1xRTT. Only the EVDO-ehanced areas compare to the 3G of the iPhone (and from my experience, Verizon's EVDO is faster than AT&T's 3G). In most places without the EV ehancements, EDGE is faster than the Verizon "3G". (Which is pretty sad.)

I'm not an AT&T fan by any means, but sheesh, Verizon is reeeeeealy stretching the truth here. A huge chunk of their "3G" network is pretty much just "2.5G" just like EDGE.

This is because VZ throttles their data connection to the phones unless you pay $79 a months for one of those USB broadband modem cards to plug into your laptop. Also VZ will not allow you to tether your phone to your computer.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by samab

Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.

Don't need to worry about bad press later on --- Verizon already got all the christmas sales right now.

Exactly!!!

How can you sue for something like this? It's your own coverage map...if you goto AT&T and look at their coverage map it's overlayed so it doesn't look so pathetic. If you are interested in 3G coverage and specifically look at ONLY 3G coverage AT&T has very little.

They should have just taken a screen shot from AT&Ts website so there was no room for discussion.

[ncee]

Sorry folks. IMHO, the iPhone walking through the snow, leads ME to believe the iPhone isn't as good a phone.

My attention is on the object, not the words being said. Don't forget, this is the Land of misfits, not misfit service. If they really want the service area / type to be the focus, they need to have the map go walking through the snow … IMHO.

I have several friends who DON'T have iPhones, who pretty much thought the same thing when they saw the commercial for the first time. As a matter of fact, a few of them called to rub it in, saying "Hey, I guess that damn phone from Apple isn't all that great after all."

Remember, it's what folks think that counts.

YES the ad's are great, and kudo's to the creator, but Im afraid they DO paint the iPhone in somewhat of a negative light.



Skip

[Maestro64]

Originally Posted by samab

Facts are facts --- geographically Verizon's coverage is really 5x as large as AT&T's. Only that Verizon is covering most of them in Alltel territory --- miles and miles of corn field in the midwest.

Don't need to worry about bad press later on --- Verizon already got all the christmas sales right now.

Actually what VZ is doing is tying to make people believe that you believe the iphone will not work in most of the US, which is not true at all, it may not get 3G speed but you still get data. We travel all over the US and never once did we not have data coverage for the iphone. Like others we got spotty reception but but that is an issue of GSM not AT&T. Also, I can tell we sat next to people with their crackberries and watch them no get data at all , but they could still talk.

So VZ is making it look like unless you are in the blue zone you can pretty much write off the iphone which is not true and has not been wife and my experience.

I pretty much false advertising, Since they are making claims about AT&T which they can not back up.

[samab]

Originally Posted by Maestro64

This is because VZ throttles their data connection to the phones unless you pay $79 a months for one of those USB broadband modem cards to plug into your laptop. Also VZ will not allow you to tether your phone to your computer.

It less about throttling and more about phone's browser/CPU. The connection is faster than the CPU and the browser.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

The ad only mentions 3G, I don't get the complaint even though I am an iPhone user and AT&T user (where I get coverage lol). I guess I get the inference that you can't use the iPhone outside of the red area ... Verizon are overstepping there. For our annual summer stay at our home in the mountains I had to use Edge the entire time but it worked ... sort of.

Verizon clearly states in dialogue and in text that they are comparing 3G and nothing else. I don’t think AT&T has a case.


PS: 3GPP and the ITU first efined EDGE as a 3G technology, though still part of the GSM family. However, AT&T has never defined it as such making clear that they are marketing their WCDMA network as 3G. They have no case as far I can see.

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

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

I believe you're mistaken. In the previous AI article it was established that that wasn't the case.

EVDO also include Rev. 0 which is much slower then Rev. A. I think Samab is correct that their map is all EVDO. What other CDMA2000 coverage would it be besides EVDO?

[samab]

Originally Posted by Maestro64

Actually what VZ is doing is tying to make people believe that you believe the iphone will not work in most of the US, which is not true at all, it may not get 3G speed but you still get data. We travel all over the US and never once did we not have data coverage for the iphone. Like others we got spotty reception but but that is an issue of GSM not AT&T. Also, I can tell we sat next to people with their crackberries and watch them no get data at all , but they could still talk.

So VZ is making it look like unless you are in the blue zone you can pretty much write off the iphone which is not true and has not been wife and my experience.

I pretty much false advertising, Since they are making claims about AT&T which they can not back up.

2G iphone is also frustratingly slow on the EDGE network.

If you think you are smart enough to buy a smart phone, you should be smart enough to know that there are miles and miles of corn fields in the midwest.

[samab]

Originally Posted by solipsism

EVDO also include Rev. 0 which is much slower then Rev. A. I think Samab is correct that their map is all EVDO. What other CDMA2000 coverage would it be besides EVDO?

There is no legacy ev-do rev 0 network anymore --- Verizon finished their rev A overlay in 2007. So ALL the 3G coverage shown in red is ev-do rev A coverage.

[mytdave]

The ads are misleading. But without concrete proof of actual lies or deception, AT&T isn't going to win this one.

I think it's time AT&T put the smack down with some ads of their own, showing their total coverage, and maybe speed comparisons. You only have a few seconds to show and convince consumers of what you have to say.

[samab]

Originally Posted by mytdave

The ads are misleading. But without concrete proof of actual lies or deception, AT&T isn't going to win this one.

I think it's time AT&T put the smack down with some ads of their own, showing their total coverage, and maybe speed comparisons. You only have a few seconds to show and convince consumers of what you have to say.

You CAN'T show a difference when Verizon's 3G average speed is 600-1400 kbps and AT&T's 3G average speed is 700-1700 kbps.

[rbonner]

Originally Posted by mytdave

The ads are misleading. But without concrete proof of actual lies or deception, AT&T isn't going to win this one.

I think it's time AT&T put the smack down with some ads of their own, showing their total coverage, and maybe speed comparisons. You only have a few seconds to show and convince consumers of what you have to say.

Here comes blogger guy to the rescue!

[dyler]

Originally Posted by samab

All the red area is EV-DO coverage.

Real speed comparison? Verizon advertised their 3G speed as 600 kbps - 1400 kbps (middle point is 1000 kbps) AT&T advertised their 3G speed as 700 kbps - 1700 kbps (middle point is 1200 kbps).

Yes but not all of it is the fasterEV-Do coverage, some is the 1x revision which is similar to ATT's Edge Network. Verizon is mostly old outdated technology and it would be like ATT still advertising their analog network and saying they have a bigger network that Verizon, because they would if they did that. I mean come on these ad's are so incorrect it is not even funny and ATT has every right to protect themselves from outright lies on Television. I also agree Verizon has a lot of dead zones in Northern California where I have ATT coverage, so whats this crap about. Just look at the article if you actually compare the real 3G networks Verizon has 1.24 times the size of ATT that's nothing, and Verizon needs to disclose these facts and show ATT's real network, not lie and provide false graphics to viewers out there who mostly have no clue what 3G even is. Verizon's network is exactly comparable to AT&T and with HSDPA coming out on AT&T and both of them moving to LTE the AT&T network will be a much better network in the next year or so then verizon will be at that point, AT&T is investing billions into their network and verizon while nothing so far, maybe going to LTE in like 3 years!!!

[stalepez]

ATT should improve their coverage. My father lives 20 miles from Manchester, NH, and there is zero AT&T service for more than half the drive there. None. Not 3G, not 2.5G... nothing. VZ, on the other hand, has full 3G service.

I love my iphone, but I can't stand the network. I live in Portland, ME - not a suburb or anything, but the city itself - and I routinely drop calls, get phantom voicemails, and the 3G speeds are horrible. I feel like Peter in Office Space watching the guy with the walker beating him in traffic.

I'm usually a huge Apple fanboi. I'm like an automaton doing Steve's bidding and buying whatever he tells me to, but I'm sorry AI columnists, this is just one cup of kool aid I won't drink. AT&T's network is terrible, VZ's is superior in 3G coverage and availability, and I don't care about the number of people covered, I care about WHERE they're covered.

The concept of having a "mobile phone" is that you're supposed to be mobile! I've had call retention issues in every city I've traveled with this. Oh, and if you want to take a cross-country drive, get a throw-away VZ phone, because ATT is just plain blank in a huge chunk of the West.

I do love my iPhone, it's wonderful, but it doesn't mean I have to like the network it's forced to be attached to. So, Steve still gets my love points because I know it's not his fault.

[samab]

Originally Posted by dyler

Yes but not all of it is the fasterEV-Do coverage, some is the 1x revision which is similar to ATT's Edge Network. Verizon is mostly old outdated technology and it would be like ATT still advertising their analog network and saying they have a bigger network that Verizon, because they would if they did that. I mean come on these ad's are so incorrect it is not even funny and ATT has every right to protect themselves from outright lies on Television. I also agree Verizon has a lot of dead zones in Northern California where I have ATT coverage, so whats this crap about. Just look at the article if you actually compare the real 3G networks Verizon has 1.24 times the size of ATT that's nothing, and Verizon needs to disclose these facts and show ATT's real network, not lie and provide false graphics to viewers out there who mostly have no clue what 3G even is. Verizon's network is exactly comparable to AT&T and with HSDPA coming out on AT&T and both of them moving to LTE the AT&T network will be a much better network in the next year or so then verizon will be at that point, AT&T is investing billions into their network and verizon while nothing so far, maybe going to LTE in like 3 years!!!

Prince McLean is wrong on all the information on his article.

All the RED area shown on the Verizon commercial are ev-do rev A coverage --- 600-1400 kbps average download speed, 3.1 mbps peak max download speed.

The only thing you can say is that Verizon's 3G coverage --- covers a lot of corn fields in the midwest where there are more cows than humans.