Ditto. I challenge AT&T to both have their dropped call stats independently audited and then made public, if you really have the best network, then prove it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by erybovic
My service drops calls constantly. AT&T should be on their toes because the moment Verizon gets a Iphone, I will pay whatever the cancellation cost is.
AT&T has a valid claim that Verizon does try to position 3G coverage as just "coverage", relying on viewer ignorance or misunderstanding.
I don't think so. I saw the ad, I think you're stretching it. I only saw the ad once and I thought the ad was very clear that they were talking about 3G coverage, not coverage in general. They had a very clear caption saying that they were comparing 3G for 3G.
If the argument is that you expect people to be so dumb as to not read a simple caption on an ad, then that's setting the bar way too low.
I don't like any of the mobile providers. That said, my experience with AT&T has been great. In the dark days pre iPhone I used Verizon. In my area, North of Boston, their service was poor. No bars in many places including my home. They hit me with fees from nowhere, and their support was lousy. I used Sprint before Verizon, just as bad.
I get excellent connections with AT&T, NO dropped calls, and the one time I called them for support I was treated courteously and the rep was knowledgeable.
I might not feel this way if I lived in NYC or LA.
Verizon will have to change their ways when/if they get the iPhone.
good show dude good show
its true that the telco;s all have their own good areas and bad coverage area's too.
so what is good for some is bad for others
yet YET the IPHONE killed ATT in NYC ,, The service was /is a joke . . dropped calls cdata not once syncing
on and on
all those >find a shrimp on a lemon peel at 2am in west NOHO >>> never worked i
all those apps never worked
ATT DATA CENTER HAS BEEN 100 PERCENT over load for 2 yrs
calling at 2am worked for a while until we all found out
in a couple of months millions of new yorker will give ATT the finger .
I don't think so. I saw the ad, I think you're stretching it. I only saw the ad once and I thought the ad was very clear that they were talking about 3G coverage, not coverage in general. They had a very clear caption saying that they were comparing 3G for 3G.
If the argument is that you expect people to be so dumb as to not read a simple caption on an ad, then that's setting the bar way too low.
Yes, I expect that. I believe that a majority of consumers who have cell phones have absolutely no idea what "3G" is, and see the maps in the advertisement as simple coverage maps. I derive this conclusion from dealing with Blackberry users in a corporate environment who can't even tell me what carrier they're on despite there being a big red V on the thing. The same users, who really haven't mastered email in the past ten years and think it's fine to try to email someone a DVD. Most people, just don't get how this stuff works and they don't care.
Certainly the purpose of the ads is to tout Verizon's 3G coverage (which does kick AT&T's butt), but I don't see Verizon going out of its way to avoid marketplace confusion either, especially since that confusion plays heavily in Verizon's favor.
AT&T does the minimum amount of work it takes to make their customers barely happy. Had 3rd parties not held AT&T accountable for their crappy network, my phone would still be dropping down to EDGE.
"However, some recent ads from Verizon are so blatantly false and misleading, that we want to set the record straight about AT&T's wireless data coverage."
It goes on to explain that AT&T's wireless data network reaches nearly all of the U.S. population
Lol... You cant claim something is false, when its not, AT&T. There was nothing "false" about the ad... thats throwaway rhetoric-- what was incorrect with the ad? Nothing. Misleading? Maybe-- but only if people are poorly informed. Again, if we take into account how well informed people are, Im still waiting for the DSL and cable companies to be sued for using Megabits to portray internet speed (which is commonly confused with Megabytes when shown as Mbps).
Also, that other line is funny, because AT&T's internal documents show they consider their "Data" network to be their 3G UMTS network. The #G network, by AT&T's numbers, covers around 70-75% of the population-- how is that "nearly all"? Nearly all is like 90%+, maybe 80%+ if we are being liberal. I mean, if you lend someone $1000, and they say they will repay you nearly all, and they give you $750, how would you respond? Again using throwaway and MISLEADING rhetoric. Also, that doesnt get into the lousy coverage outside of urban centers (where most of that population is). The fair argument about Verizon being misleading would be "Their maps dont count our data & VOICE coverage and make us look like we lack any coverage in many areas". Dont try to call verizon misleading while then playing up ONLY your lousy data network or trying to equate EDGE to the quality of a real 3G network-- using non-3G for anything other than text msg data is a joke. I mean, you are trying to call them misleading, and then act like (or "mislead" if you will) that your 3G data services are in areas not shown by their map. Your 3G network is lousy, if you dont like the maps, make an argument for data & voice, or improve your network faster.
Yes, I expect that. I believe that a majority of consumers who have cell phones have absolutely no idea what "3G" is, and see the maps in the advertisement as simple coverage maps. I derive this conclusion from dealing with Blackberry users in a corporate environment who can't even tell me what carrier they're on despite there being a big red V on the thing. The same users, who really haven't mastered email in the past ten years and think it's fine to try to email someone a DVD. Most people, just don't get how this stuff works and they don't care.
Certainly the purpose of the ads is to tout Verizon's 3G coverage (which does kick AT&T's butt), but I don't see Verizon going out of its way to avoid marketplace confusion either, especially since that confusion plays heavily in Verizon's favor.
I don't see the point in trying to protect the people that are so unwilling to protect themselves as that. Again, that's setting the bar too low.
It's not about the maps. It's about what Verizon is saying about the maps. One of the elves in an ad I saw last night says something like "Good luck browsing the web and checking e-mail with that [map]" -- the clear message is that if you live in the white areas, you can't browse the web and check e-mail. That's misleading and the judge will put a stop to it.
But I'd be very surprised if the map comparison itself is curtailed. Verizon only has to change one line of the ad I saw. AT&T will have to find some other way to make people aware of the existence of their total data network.
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
It's not about the maps. It's about what Verizon is saying about the maps. One of the elves in an ad I saw last night says something like "Good luck browsing the web and checking e-mail with that [map]" -- the clear message is that if you live in the white areas, you can't browse the web and check e-mail. That's misleading and the judge will put a stop to it.
That's correct. It's not enough for the ad to be factually correct. If it's misleading, it's inappropriate.
The above is clearly very misleading and should be stopped.
It's not about the maps. It's about what Verizon is saying about the maps. One of the elves in an ad I saw last night says something like "Good luck browsing the web and checking e-mail with that [map]" -- the clear message is that if you live in the white areas, you can't browse the web and check e-mail. That's misleading and the judge will put a stop to it.
But I'd be very surprised if the map comparison itself is curtailed. Verizon only has to change one line of the ad I saw. AT&T will have to find some other way to make people aware of the existence of their total data network.
Not necessarily... id say the same thing to someone using dial up internet... and it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck. I think its pretty reasonable to wish someone luck in browsing the web on a network that taps out at about 100 Kilobits/ps (max 15k/ps) ... which isnt much faster than dialup.
using non-3G for anything other than text msg data is a joke
That's not quite true. One can certainly monitor e-mail with little or no problems. The web is much slower (my only experience is traveling around the country with 3G versus EDGE on an iPhone), but it's still there. You don't need to exaggerate to make your point.
Not necessarily... id say the same thing to someone using dial up internet... and it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck. I think its pretty reasonable to wish someone luck in browsing the web on a network that taps out at about 100 Kilobits/ps (max 15k/ps) ... which isnt much faster than dialup.
For web use, yes, it's not that fun under EDGE. If you have a site that has an app, then that may be tolerable, because much of the formatting and style would be in the app, and the app would only need to download the bare information.
Email should be fine though, unless you're dealing with large attachments.
it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck
That's certainly what Verizon will argue, but in my experience it won't fly. The judge will see the line for what it is in the context of the ad -- purposely misleading.
Some of you guys crack me up getting bent out of shape over this.
AT&T doesn't love you so don't feel you have to defend them. Verizon's commercials are a brilliant example of using advertising half-truths and smart omissions to make a statement. Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
So what to do? AT&T should talk about the 'real' 3G/2G network but of course omit the part where it drops calls constantly, dead zones where other carriers have full bars and most of the 3G zones I was in (before I dropped them and moved on) only had 1-2 bars max. Oh and definitely omit anything about customer service, I won't even go there. But then I guess Verizon should be entitled to sue AT&T for false advertising as well.
Advertising isn't fair, it makes people buy things. If they buy things because of it then that = success.
Some of you guys crack me up getting bent out of shape over this.
AT&T doesn't love you so don't feel you have to defend them. Verizon's commercials are a brilliant example of using advertising half-truths and smart omissions to make a statement. Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
So what to do? AT&T should talk about the 'real' 3G/2G network but of course omit the part where it drops calls constantly, dead zones where other carriers have full bars and most of the 3G zones I was in (before I dropped them and moved on) only had 1-2 bars max. Oh and definitely omit anything about customer service, I won't even go there. But then I guess Verizon should be entitled to sue AT&T for false advertising as well.
Advertising isn't fair, it makes people buy things. If they buy things because of it then that = success.
Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
I don't think Apple said their products were faultless. As it is, all the customer satisfaction and reliability surveys (PC Magazine, Consumer Reports, etc.) I've seen put Apple at the top. There are going to be some duds, that's impossible to avoid, but the overall stats suggest they're doing pretty well.
Comments
My service drops calls constantly. AT&T should be on their toes because the moment Verizon gets a Iphone, I will pay whatever the cancellation cost is.
I am glad Verizon got their attention.
AT&T has a valid claim that Verizon does try to position 3G coverage as just "coverage", relying on viewer ignorance or misunderstanding.
I don't think so. I saw the ad, I think you're stretching it. I only saw the ad once and I thought the ad was very clear that they were talking about 3G coverage, not coverage in general. They had a very clear caption saying that they were comparing 3G for 3G.
If the argument is that you expect people to be so dumb as to not read a simple caption on an ad, then that's setting the bar way too low.
I don't like any of the mobile providers. That said, my experience with AT&T has been great. In the dark days pre iPhone I used Verizon. In my area, North of Boston, their service was poor. No bars in many places including my home. They hit me with fees from nowhere, and their support was lousy. I used Sprint before Verizon, just as bad.
I get excellent connections with AT&T, NO dropped calls, and the one time I called them for support I was treated courteously and the rep was knowledgeable.
I might not feel this way if I lived in NYC or LA.
Verizon will have to change their ways when/if they get the iPhone.
good show dude good show
its true that the telco;s all have their own good areas and bad coverage area's too.
so what is good for some is bad for others
yet YET the IPHONE killed ATT in NYC ,, The service was /is a joke . . dropped calls cdata not once syncing
on and on
all those >find a shrimp on a lemon peel at 2am in west NOHO >>> never worked i
all those apps never worked
ATT DATA CENTER HAS BEEN 100 PERCENT over load for 2 yrs
calling at 2am worked for a while until we all found out
in a couple of months millions of new yorker will give ATT the finger .
and join verizon/radio shack .
EACH NEW YORKERWHO OWNS aiphone
I don't think so. I saw the ad, I think you're stretching it. I only saw the ad once and I thought the ad was very clear that they were talking about 3G coverage, not coverage in general. They had a very clear caption saying that they were comparing 3G for 3G.
If the argument is that you expect people to be so dumb as to not read a simple caption on an ad, then that's setting the bar way too low.
Yes, I expect that. I believe that a majority of consumers who have cell phones have absolutely no idea what "3G" is, and see the maps in the advertisement as simple coverage maps. I derive this conclusion from dealing with Blackberry users in a corporate environment who can't even tell me what carrier they're on despite there being a big red V on the thing. The same users, who really haven't mastered email in the past ten years and think it's fine to try to email someone a DVD. Most people, just don't get how this stuff works and they don't care.
Certainly the purpose of the ads is to tout Verizon's 3G coverage (which does kick AT&T's butt), but I don't see Verizon going out of its way to avoid marketplace confusion either, especially since that confusion plays heavily in Verizon's favor.
where would you live?
yeah like you can take it with you lol
Like most of your posts, that's up for debate.
Don't feed the troll.
Don't feed the troll.
Why, you prefer to eat the troll?
AT&T does the minimum amount of work it takes to make their customers barely happy. Had 3rd parties not held AT&T accountable for their crappy network, my phone would still be dropping down to EDGE.
AT&T = U.S. Postal Service
Its called unions...
"However, some recent ads from Verizon are so blatantly false and misleading, that we want to set the record straight about AT&T's wireless data coverage."
It goes on to explain that AT&T's wireless data network reaches nearly all of the U.S. population
Lol... You cant claim something is false, when its not, AT&T. There was nothing "false" about the ad... thats throwaway rhetoric-- what was incorrect with the ad? Nothing. Misleading? Maybe-- but only if people are poorly informed. Again, if we take into account how well informed people are, Im still waiting for the DSL and cable companies to be sued for using Megabits to portray internet speed (which is commonly confused with Megabytes when shown as Mbps).
Also, that other line is funny, because AT&T's internal documents show they consider their "Data" network to be their 3G UMTS network. The #G network, by AT&T's numbers, covers around 70-75% of the population-- how is that "nearly all"? Nearly all is like 90%+, maybe 80%+ if we are being liberal. I mean, if you lend someone $1000, and they say they will repay you nearly all, and they give you $750, how would you respond? Again using throwaway and MISLEADING rhetoric. Also, that doesnt get into the lousy coverage outside of urban centers (where most of that population is). The fair argument about Verizon being misleading would be "Their maps dont count our data & VOICE coverage and make us look like we lack any coverage in many areas". Dont try to call verizon misleading while then playing up ONLY your lousy data network or trying to equate EDGE to the quality of a real 3G network-- using non-3G for anything other than text msg data is a joke. I mean, you are trying to call them misleading, and then act like (or "mislead" if you will) that your 3G data services are in areas not shown by their map. Your 3G network is lousy, if you dont like the maps, make an argument for data & voice, or improve your network faster.
This response is ridiculous.
Yes, I expect that. I believe that a majority of consumers who have cell phones have absolutely no idea what "3G" is, and see the maps in the advertisement as simple coverage maps. I derive this conclusion from dealing with Blackberry users in a corporate environment who can't even tell me what carrier they're on despite there being a big red V on the thing. The same users, who really haven't mastered email in the past ten years and think it's fine to try to email someone a DVD. Most people, just don't get how this stuff works and they don't care.
Certainly the purpose of the ads is to tout Verizon's 3G coverage (which does kick AT&T's butt), but I don't see Verizon going out of its way to avoid marketplace confusion either, especially since that confusion plays heavily in Verizon's favor.
I don't see the point in trying to protect the people that are so unwilling to protect themselves as that. Again, that's setting the bar too low.
But I'd be very surprised if the map comparison itself is curtailed. Verizon only has to change one line of the ad I saw. AT&T will have to find some other way to make people aware of the existence of their total data network.
AT&T has no issues praising its own 3G coverage to these allegedly ignorant viewers. If what you're saying is true, then AT&T's "fastest 3G" ads should be required to disclose that AT&T also has EDGE. Which, by the way, is not-so-fast, and covers the majority of AT&T's geographical coverage area. Otherwise, by omission, it leaves the false and misleading impression that AT&T's entire network is the "fastest 3G".
Why is it solely Verizon's responsibility to exhaustively educate viewers in their marketing? Other than because AT&T really does not have an answer to Verizon's claim that their 3G has more coverage area, which for a mobile device may be important to some people?
I agree wholeheartedly.
It's not about the maps. It's about what Verizon is saying about the maps. One of the elves in an ad I saw last night says something like "Good luck browsing the web and checking e-mail with that [map]" -- the clear message is that if you live in the white areas, you can't browse the web and check e-mail. That's misleading and the judge will put a stop to it.
That's correct. It's not enough for the ad to be factually correct. If it's misleading, it's inappropriate.
The above is clearly very misleading and should be stopped.
It's not about the maps. It's about what Verizon is saying about the maps. One of the elves in an ad I saw last night says something like "Good luck browsing the web and checking e-mail with that [map]" -- the clear message is that if you live in the white areas, you can't browse the web and check e-mail. That's misleading and the judge will put a stop to it.
But I'd be very surprised if the map comparison itself is curtailed. Verizon only has to change one line of the ad I saw. AT&T will have to find some other way to make people aware of the existence of their total data network.
Not necessarily... id say the same thing to someone using dial up internet... and it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck. I think its pretty reasonable to wish someone luck in browsing the web on a network that taps out at about 100 Kilobits/ps (max 15k/ps) ... which isnt much faster than dialup.
using non-3G for anything other than text msg data is a joke
That's not quite true. One can certainly monitor e-mail with little or no problems. The web is much slower (my only experience is traveling around the country with 3G versus EDGE on an iPhone), but it's still there. You don't need to exaggerate to make your point.
Not necessarily... id say the same thing to someone using dial up internet... and it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck. I think its pretty reasonable to wish someone luck in browsing the web on a network that taps out at about 100 Kilobits/ps (max 15k/ps) ... which isnt much faster than dialup.
For web use, yes, it's not that fun under EDGE. If you have a site that has an app, then that may be tolerable, because much of the formatting and style would be in the app, and the app would only need to download the bare information.
Email should be fine though, unless you're dealing with large attachments.
it wouldnt be in the way of goodluck as if it were impossible... but goodluck, in that its difficult and you will need luck
That's certainly what Verizon will argue, but in my experience it won't fly. The judge will see the line for what it is in the context of the ad -- purposely misleading.
Anyhow, we'll know the decision soon enough...
AT&T doesn't love you so don't feel you have to defend them. Verizon's commercials are a brilliant example of using advertising half-truths and smart omissions to make a statement. Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
So what to do? AT&T should talk about the 'real' 3G/2G network but of course omit the part where it drops calls constantly, dead zones where other carriers have full bars and most of the 3G zones I was in (before I dropped them and moved on) only had 1-2 bars max. Oh and definitely omit anything about customer service, I won't even go there. But then I guess Verizon should be entitled to sue AT&T for false advertising as well.
Advertising isn't fair, it makes people buy things. If they buy things because of it then that = success.
Some of you guys crack me up getting bent out of shape over this.
AT&T doesn't love you so don't feel you have to defend them. Verizon's commercials are a brilliant example of using advertising half-truths and smart omissions to make a statement. Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
So what to do? AT&T should talk about the 'real' 3G/2G network but of course omit the part where it drops calls constantly, dead zones where other carriers have full bars and most of the 3G zones I was in (before I dropped them and moved on) only had 1-2 bars max. Oh and definitely omit anything about customer service, I won't even go there. But then I guess Verizon should be entitled to sue AT&T for false advertising as well.
Advertising isn't fair, it makes people buy things. If they buy things because of it then that = success.
I know they're like contra whiners
Apple does it all the time with their anti-PC ads "it just works!" which is total BS for any of you who've had a DOA macbook, iMac with a faulty screen or nvidia chips frying in your MBP etc etc.
I don't think Apple said their products were faultless. As it is, all the customer satisfaction and reliability surveys (PC Magazine, Consumer Reports, etc.) I've seen put Apple at the top. There are going to be some duds, that's impossible to avoid, but the overall stats suggest they're doing pretty well.