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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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
Quote:
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
All I can say is what took AT&T so long, as soon as the ad came out I stated that Verizon was using their full coverage map against AT&T digital data coverage map. So it make AT&T coverage look a lot worst then Verizon's. I state this in the thread when the ad was first posted here.
I tell you Verizon is very desperate, they are trying to use smoke and mirror advertising to stop people from leaving them.
Comments
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.
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.
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
I stand corrected. They're boring, but . . . accomplished.
no your first thought was correct.
read post number #28
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.
"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.
Oh my. They just can't stop lying. It's not Voice & data, it's Voice | data.
Is that a serious post?
C
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
I tell you Verizon is very desperate, they are trying to use smoke and mirror advertising to stop people from leaving them.