AT&T Demands Verizon Stop Airing “Misfit Toys”, Other Attack Ads
Ho-ho-hold on a minute, Verizon — AT&T’s not finding much to laugh about in those new anti-AT&T iPhone “map for that” commercials that show a teensy, tiny blue GSM/HSPA 3G footprint compared the ginormous country painted CDMA/EVDO red. In fact, AT&T is amending their original lawsuit to include those new misfit toys, Santa’s workshop, and blue Christmas ads.
“Contrary to the image presented in the Verizon ads, our wireless network is pervasive,” said an AT&T spokesman. “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….[Verizon's] use of white space is misleading.”
In other words, AT&T is saying Verizon’s 3G coverage of mountains and lakes is impressive for the fish and eagles, but they think they have the humans and their “cities” covered just fine, thanks. (Though, again, NYC and SF might disagree…)
Digital Daily has the whole, amended, complaint for your reading pleasure. Let us know your take.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
AT&T needs to stop whining. Use that money to stop suing and put it into expanding and building.
Even if you have the “people” covered…obviously it’s very ****** where they are anyways. So come on AT&T. Stop the childish antics and get to work.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The fact that verizon shows so much concern for their compitition that they’ll air so many adds against them it almost flattering. You don’t see verizon attacking sprint or t-mobile. Probably cause verizon doesn’t consider them a threat. All the talk about AT&T’s network problems is probably due to iPhone traffic. But I see it in a different light. AT&T is in fact taking care of it’s customers just by offering unlimited data plans. Not very many other carriers offer unlimited data plans for the iPhone becuase hey know the horror iPhone will bring to their cell network. I’m interested to see when verizon gets the iPhone how they’ll handle or limit iPhone data usage to keep Americas “most reliable network” reliable. I can see verizon imposing more limits than AT&T ever would just to keep their name nice and shiny.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
@ iDavey
Agreed. Instead of wasting time and money suing VZW, ATT should just beef up their network and then let the coverage do the talking.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
AT&T’s lawsuit consistently misses the point. VZ is talking about 3G coverage, whereas AT&T is continually referring to their WIRELESS and/or DATA coverage. Those are two different things. 3G is, well, 3G, while data can be 3G, 2.5G, EDGE, whatever – as long as it transmits data. Where I live, I bounce between 3G and EDGE on my iPhone all day while I’m sitting at my desk at work. EDGE =/= 3G!
AT&T: sack up, accept that you’ve got nothing on VZ as far as sole 3G capability goes, and upgrade your network. People don’t buy smartphones simply to make calls and check voicemail.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
@ZAY:
Is that also what you feel about the Apple attack ads on Windows, or is there a double standard going on here?
November 12th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
What happened to Good Ron Jeremy? Did he go off his meds again?
November 12th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
first, ron jeremy should be banned from commenting on TiPB. second, i love these commercials. keep them coming.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
AT&T needs to do a commercial to show how Verizon hard wires a button on their phones so that if you accidentally push it, it goes online and charges you $1.99 for data access, and when you block that button from taking you online, it takes you online to tell you the button has been blocked and then charges you $1.99 for data access. Doesn’t matter if you only download 0.03kb, they charge you for 1 meg minimum and you get the charge. Check David Pogue’s article in the New York Times today.
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2009/11/12/technology/circuitsemail/index.html?8cir&emc=cir
November 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Unfortunately, this lawsuit perfectly makes absolutely sense.
This ad, in many ways, is misleading.
While tech geeks can understand what the ad is talking about, many average consumer may end up thinking that at&t has poorer 3G coverage, while Verizon has 3G coverage anywhere in America.
This is what at&t is concerned about, Verizon misleading that at&t has poorer coverage, when in fact, at&t and Verizon has the same amount of 3G coverage. This makes perfect sense for a lawsuit.
I talked about this with my friend, who happens to be a lawyer, and this lawsuit makes perfect sense.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2009/11/isverizonbeingunfairtoattin3gmap_comparisons.html
Read this
November 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
AT&T is suing Verizon over a snarky campaign that compares Verizon’s 3G coverage to AT&T’s: Is this unfair? It’s maybe impolite, but it doesn’t appear unfair or incorrect. Is it actionable? AT&T says the ads will make customers believe AT&T has no coverage whatsoever, not just no 3G data coverage, in the white areas in the AT&T map displayed. And the map is from a few months ago, while AT&T has built out a bit more blue in that time. (AT&T isn’t complaining about the accuracy of the map’s depiction of 3G.)
Fundamentally, though, we’re seeing a battle between the last advantages of the Qualcomm EVDO standard compared to the GSM evolved HSPA family of standards. When Verizon installed 3G, the company did it in a big way, upgrading a large majority of its 2G 1xRTT nodes to EVDO Rev. 0, and later pushing those to Rev. A for the current footprint and speed. Sprint did likewise.
Verizon had to, because AT&T and T-Mobile had intermediate 2.5G and 3G steps that would have left Sprint and Verizon at a competitive disadvantage. AT&T and T-Mobile pushed out EDGE, which is several times faster than 1xRTT (which runs at fast dial-up modem speeds), and did so relatively inexpensively. AT&T Wireless and Cingular, at the time separate entities, had distinct plans to test and deploy UMTS, the 384 Kbps low-end 3G standard on the road to HSPA. (GSM 3G HSPA standards are broken down into downlink and uplink and there are flavors and steps there, but it’s nice to just say HSPA to encompass the realm.)
For AT&T, EDGE was good enough outside metro areas, because it competed effectively with 1xRTT before Verizon and Sprint had a full EVDO footprint (even with Rev. 0). The company then essentially stalled because of first the Cingular/AT&T Wireless merger, and then the 60-40 ownership split between what was then SBC and BellSouth. The two companies didn’t see eye-to-eye on spending on 3G. AT&T’s 3G plans really only took off after the BellSouth merger, which also gave it 100-percent control of the cellular division. Any rational wireless firm would have spent billions during the good times to get a competitive 3G footprint with the CDMA competitors.
If Verizon and Sprint had limited 3G upgrades just to major metropolitan areas, they would have been way behind the ball–and AT&T would be running ads now laughing at the companies’ sub-EDGE speeds in the country, and slower than HSPA rates in the city. (T-Mobile dropped out of this speed war for a few years while it acquired 3G spectrum and deployed its HSPA offering. The firm intends to have the fastest 3G network while 4G networks are being built with a test of 21 Mbps HSPA already underway.)
Verizon has to be aggressive right now, because it’s switching to LTE for its 4G network, a GSM-evolved standard. It will be years before it has a national footprint for 4G using LTE (over 700 MHz spectrum). During that time AT&T will have bumped its 3G network nationally to 7.2 Mbps HSPA, and potentially even going to 14.4 Mbps HSPA (that requires more hardware upgrades, so hard to tell), and also pushing out LTE over 700 MHz.
In a couple years, AT&T will have the bragging rights on speeds, will start having a better 3G and 4G map to compare with Verizon, and Verizon will seem like the sucker. At least briefly.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I think AT&T can make their own decision as a company, and what they have decided to do is sue VW. It’s their choice to dump money in this lawsuit. Apparently, this issue is important to them so let them waste/use their money for their own purposes. Honestly,the misfits toy commercial just made me want an iphone more, lol….
November 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@Rhit:
Verizon’s advertisement doesn’t necessarily have to be untrue to be deemed misleading. If a judge believes that “average consumers” may be mislead, deceived, or persuaded into purchasing something that they might otherwise avoid, because of claims which are unfamiliar to them, he/she could side with the AT&T.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
@Kento
No offense, but your lawyer friend practice in an unrelated field of law. For AT&T to have a case, there must be something factually incorrect about the ads, and Verizon has to have known it was incorrect. AT&T may have had a case for injunctive relief for the “out of touch” statement in the very first ad, but Verizon removed it after the initial complaint, and it has not appeared in any other ad.
All maps have clearly been labelled ‘3G Coverage Area, ‘ and all subsequent statements have explicitly referred to 3G areas. AT&T may prefer that Verizon label the rest of the country in lighter blue to show that AT&T has an edge network presence, but Verizon is under no obligation to show AT&T in a good light, just to state no falseshoods intentionally. The maps, as depicted in these ads, are factually correct. AT&T may not like the conclusions they invite customers to draw, but tough noogies. That is advertising. No lie, no case.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
@ icebike.
***** yeah I feel the same about apple attacks on windows. Apple has something to fear from windows. They have been around for a long time and as far as I’m concerned windows is the main competitor of apple. Not just talking about mobile platforms. Windows is the only compitition so apple compairing themselves to windows is flattering for windows.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
exactly courts go on a reasonableness standard- what is reasonable to the AVERAGE consumer. Not us tech geeks who know everything wireless, we make up a VERY small % of the wireless consumers.
I can see how its misleading to the average person. White spaces gives an impression of “nothingness” ie. nothing is there, no coverage nothing. While the maps may be accurate, thats NOT what ATT is even claiming. Read up on the complaint itself, theyre claiming its misleading to the average person. And i can certainly see their point how it would be.
Further , the map shows sheer land area and NOT how many people it covers. ATT claims their 3G covers 75% of the population which the map certainly doesnt depict. A LOT of that white space is mountains, farmland, and open land- not populated. Why would anyone care if they have 3G in farmland nothingness of the US? What should REALLY matter is the % of the population covered.
Sure, VZW covers a little more % of the population with 3G, but the map certainly doesnt give that impression what so ever.
So yes, I can see the point how its a misleading thing to show
November 12th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I saw this ad the other day, I knew this was going to happen! Verizon is being ***, they know AT&T has better phones.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Actually, an ad can be considering misleading even if every statement in the ad is true. If the “general impression” of an ad is misleading, even if all the statements in the ad are 100% correct, a court may still find the ad in general misleading, and offer relief. (see http://advertisinglawyer.ca/advertising.htm )
That said, in the absence of any outright lie, the “general impression” standard is obviously subjective, and very hard to prove even to a sympathetic court. (If it were, Microsoft would have sued Apple many times over, for John Hodgeman’s character implying all Windows PCs were virus written dungheaps, when only some of them are
).
November 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@Chrisr:
Nice cut and paste job.
Wouldn’t it have been proper to post the attribution?
http://tinyurl.com/yk37zu5 WiFi Net News…
November 12th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@ fassy
correct, ATT is claiming a Lanham Act violation and certain Georgia laws for false advertising and deceptive trade practices. Not EVERY case requires a factually incorrect issue, there are these little things could suits in equity which injunctions fall in to.
People would rather be armchair lawyers without a stitch of legal education then actually take time to at least read the linked complaint in its entirety.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I live in one of those tiny blue 3G islands in the middle of the country. If I get 20 miles outside of that island, i don’t even have EDGE coverage. For the fly-over states, AT&T is horrible. You almost need Verizon (or ALLTEL’s former network, if you want to be technical) if you have any hopes of any coverage with an iPhone.
I love my phone and have been an AT&T customer for ten years. Before the iPhone, my old phones had a strong enough antenna to work fine. iPhone antenna? Sucks. Hard. When Verizon gets the iPhone, you can bet on seeing a large shift of AT&T customers in the Midwest.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@klmsu19
Warning: I’m an armchair lawyer, too
That said, I have read the complaint, but as a layman I think it is highly unlikely that AT&T will win this case. The ads are bareknuckle-bruising, to be sure, but, since Verizon mentions “3G” at every opportunity, they do not cross the line any more than does the “I’m a Mac” campaign. Of course, that is just my opinion, and the judge’s opinion is the only one that matters.
For the real lawyers out there — in the event an injunction is granted, would it have to contain language identifying what crosses the line/what Verizon could modify to get them back on the air?
November 12th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@Beretta:
Odd. I drove all over the country for the last two summers and there were only a few areas that I found that didn’t have Edge, and those had GPRS.
There was exactly two deep canyons in Texas that had no cell courage at all. ]
The absolute maximum range for standard GSM is 35 km. This is dictated by the Time slots allocated for each phone. You can actually extend this out to 70KM but at the expense of servicing half as many concurrent calls. They do that in Australia in some sparse places.
So driving 20 miles away and getting no Edge seems like a bit of hyperbole to me.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
So everyone is a LAWYER now? Lets sit back and see what happens. PS… I am a huge fan of this RON JEREMY guy.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@Kento Ito
go look up verizon 3g or (cdma rev. a) coverage there whole network is 3g by cmda standards.
go look up att its piss poor to boot and even verizon got the map from att.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yeah, AT&T in stead of wasting money on legal fees, spend some of that improving you 3G coverage. So, you have 75% of the population covered, but when anyone in that 75% area wanted to get away to less crowded places and use that coverage they pay so well for, you’re not there for them, when they need you most.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
@Ron Jeremy… I thought you had changed. Thanks for letting me down a-hole
November 12th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
@IceBike
AT&T has the interstates pretty well covered by EDGE. That I have seen. But rural? It’s not hyperbole in Nebraska. 20 miles out of Lincoln. All AT&T coverage is gone. 20 miles of Interstate 80 is the same story. Well known here that if you need rural coverage you go with Verizon.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Agreed Ron Jeremy needs to stfu or stop talking in 3 person
November 12th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Screw em both. As soon as this att contract is up I’m switching to Credo. Att needs to stop funding the Repugs and start up grading their system.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
@icebike
hate Verizon ads, they are boring, they make me feel sick. At the same time I’m perfectly fine with Apple “Hello, I’m a Mac” ads, they are funny and full of good points. It’s a war out there, and you have to choose sides.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I meant 3rd person
November 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
LMFAO!!! Go Verizon.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
THe money AT&t could have saved by not paying the lawyers will not be enough to provide 3G for a city block …. so Who the hell cares where they spend their cash
November 12th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I would MUCH rather have solid 3g coverage pretty much everywhere I go and do either voice OR data, rather than stand in that one magical spot where a unicorn shed its tears and obtain voice and data at the same time.
AT&T = Fail.
Please insert .25 cents and try again.
“In other words, AT&T is saying Verizon’s 3G coverage of mountains and lakes is impressive for the fish and eagles, but they think they have the humans and their “cities” covered just fine, thanks.”
I think it’s funny how AT&T only cares about those who live in densely populated areas. I for one was close to jumping ship to the iPhone a while ago, only to find out that where I live (population 5,000), the AT&T 3g is non existent. Meanwhile I have a full 5 bars of EVDO 3g sitting in my house with Verizon.
Easy choice.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’m very excited about the attacks that vzw has launched against AT&T and the iPhone because it will force them to step up their game and fix what we AT&T customers have been complaining about for years now. It’s no secret that AT&T CEO Mr. De La Vega is very cocky since the iPhone has done his company well, to the point that even with complaints people are still flocking after the iPhone. So with that in mind they refuse to lower plan prices or fix coverage or offer more 3g, I mean with the all the money that they have made you think they would spruce up their coverage. But now that they have a formidable opponent I hope that something is done for us faithfuls. GO VZW!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
AT&T has to sue. They cant just not respond in anyway
November 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
At zay
Flattering??? I’m with AT&T I don’t think it’s flattering. They pick on AT&T because they have the iPhone. They want to compeat with the top selling phone so why not?? iPhone is a great phone but the network is sucks. Competition I’d good for business. AT&T just wants to quiet verizon from speckeling their phone service but it’s the truth. AT&T had a choice which is cheaper suing or upgrading the network? Guess what chose? F@#k AT&T more power to you verizon.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
So far, lawsuits aside, these are entertaining and likely effective commercials for Verizon, exactly along the lines of the “Get a Mac” ads Apple runs. Like Apple, they’ll have to be careful to make AT&T (like PC) endearing enough people don’t sympathize, but for a fresh campaign, it’s off to a great start.
And there’s probably not much AT&T could do to counter-program them directly. (Just keep running iPhone ads and hope people think of the iPhone and not Verizon’s maps…)
November 12th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
agree with Mobile Virgin 100%.
picking sides in this so called war is ridiculous, and so is being so wrapped up in the phone you bought that you feel sick when it is criticized on the teevee.
these ads are the best possible thing for iphone owners, since they are extremely well made and will force AT&T to improve coverage.
the “iDon’t” ads were dumb and mean spirited and ineffective, but these map ads are legitimately clever, funny and effective. they will land AT&T with a negative public opinion, and they will force it to beef up coverage instead of just sitting on their big pile of iphone money.
kudos to verizon.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
@Rene
Yes the ads are very light hearted, funny, and very effective. Since VZW doesnt seem mean i dount there will be any backlash. Even though they’ll probably lose AT&T has to sue since they cannot really counterattack.
@Rudy
VZW picks on AT&T because they pose the biggest threat to them. VZW is starting the inevitable war for subscribers.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Well would you look at that…its hard to support AT&T on this when I currently cannot connect to their network through 3G. I’m on freakin EDGE. Or should I say AT&T has pushed me to the EDGE… hahaha
November 13th, 2009 at 12:19 am
The Isle of Misfits ad is simply brilliant- I love it!
November 13th, 2009 at 1:16 am
This is no different than Apples attacks on MSFT (except the verizon ads are true), and
Seattle would disagree with AT&T claims as well. Dropped calls on the iPhone are as pervasive here as they are in NYC and SF (along with lots of large cities I travel to). AT&T might work great on the BB but it sux on the iPhone.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Someone already said that this lawsuit brings unnecessary attention to the coverage limitations AT&T needs to change. It may have been better for them to take it on the chin and move on.
As far as what may be misleading, some of the people I talk to, even customers of Verizon and AT&T, don’t even know what 3G is or what network provides the service on their own phones. I’m not joking. The average consumer really doesn’t look that far into it. They just EXPECT their phone to do as advertised. Some of those folks viewing this commercial may only see one thing: Verizon has coverage, AT&T doesn’t. That would be misleading.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:09 am
This is not to say that the average person is stupid. What I am suggesting is that the public cares less about how something works rather than that it works. Verizon is depicting that AT&T doesn’t work. In fact, they are counting on the public to see it that way. A 15 second ad is rarely about high technical education.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:51 am
AT&T is the most awful service ive ever had the displeasure of having. As soon as the iPhone jumps ship to a decent network like Verizon, I will jump ship too.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:58 am
@SpiceRak2:
Well, that’s AT&T’s whole “misleading” point, not the 3G comparison.
I made this point last week, that average consumers have already been impressed with their friends, family, and co-workers using their iPhones without problems. So, these commercials, as well-done as they are, are two and a half years too late, in my opinion.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
@Spicerak2. Yea the consumer are idiots. AT&T has touted their 3G relentlessly without explaining it. Consumers are made to think that 3G is good and in turn desire it. VZW is just showing these same consumers exactly what AT&Ts 3G coverage is. These consumers were mislead and misinformed by AT&T first.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am
The American operators all sucks. High priced and bad covering.
ATnT is the biggest joke of them all. I mean come on, you didn’t get MMS intil recently.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
LOL. Well ATT–spend some of that money you made off of us and fix/expand your 3G network. Oh forgot–since you guys will be losing the Iphone exclusivity soon–you probably don’t see the need to spend the money now. You deserve the negative advertisement. Sorry–deal with it just like we’re dealing with your weak network.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey verizon keeping f**king with at&t there’s a lawsuit for that. Grow up losers.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
@Glann_VA:
Sorry to hear that you, and the rat in your pocket, have weak AT&T service.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@Fastlane: “Rat in my pocket?” I live in the heart of ATT 3G coverage (dark blue on their map) but only get Edge. I’m only making an observation based on the article. Fortunately, I don’t do a lot of surfing on net.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I’ve had my 3G since February, never once had a single moment of being sober. I mean bad coverage or dropped calls.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The Verizon ads are hilarious and I enjoy them. Barring their entertainment value AT&T has a right to defend their brand and sue Verizon for running attack ads. Any company in their position would do the same. If you had a business and your competition started shelling out major cash on telling the nation you suck, you would sue too, especially if the ads weren’t entirely accurate.
I’ve had every carrier in the US except alltel. I landed on and stuck with AT&T after roaming around the provider circuit because I like their selection of equipment, I’ve never had a problem with their service, and I used to work for the company six years ago. I’ve left the iPhone a number of times for other devices and just keep coming back because I enjoy it that much, and AT&T is the provider for me. My coverage is good, my entire national network of friends is on it so my calls are free, and I have no reason to leave. If you want to go just leave and stop complaining. Free up the network resources for the rest of us.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Just as a comment to Rene, most blogs aren’t saying this but edge is actually defined as 3g. We all know it’s not as fast. But just a fun fact I think people should take the time to look at. AT&T may have a case if they bring that to the table
November 13th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
It’s interesting to hear all the “stop spending money on lawsuits and spend it on your network” comments. Obviously those people don’t know how corporate budgeting works. A company doesn’t have one big budget that they choose to spend on either this or that. Every dept gets a certain annual budget and the heads of each dept chooses how tonspend that money.
The legal dept gets $*** a year to spend on legal defenses, legal offenses, etc.
The engineering dept gets $*** to spend on network upgrades, maintenance, etc.
The marketing dept gets $*** to spend on various marketing and advertising campaigns, etc.
The departments don’t share their budgets with other departments.
The engineering dept will continue to follow their network upgrade plans no matter what the other departments are doing. If the legal department had it in their budget to file a suit against VZW, it won’t affect the network upgrade plans of the engineering department.
AT&T filing a suit will not slow down the work they’re doing on their network just like NOT filing a suit against VZW will not speed up the network upgrades. If the legal dept doesn’t file a suit, that money stays in their dept.
So knock it off with those ignorant comments and let AT&T try to protect their brand name.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am
I think it’s hilarious. Honestly I hope Verizon wins this one. My iPhone is okay, but AT&T’s service is just horrible. It was definitely the reason I said goodbye to my iPhone and went back to Verizon. I guess that’s what AT&T gets for laying in bed with a company that has built a 4 year commercial campaign on bashing it’s competition. Maybe Verizon should counter-sue saying More Bars in More Places is just as misleading and a lie. It’s sad when I can’t make the drive from Baltimore to DC without dropping a call.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:36 am
GUYS GUYS GUYS what is all the fuss about? This is exactly what these companies for us to begin to compare and complain about who is better when in actuallity that all depends on where you live, where you will go, and many other factors in a persons day to day activities. The truth of the matter is no matter how much we argue about what company is better all we are giving them is FREE ADVERTISING. You who argure for att or vzw have you recieved any credits on your bill or a free phone in the mail. Let vzw and att go at it themselves while we watch because they need us its not the other way round.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Face it people, AT&T sucks. After the dismal Vista release Apple can only get 8-9% of the computer market. Thats because of their cool-aid drinking fans. They had their hands full with BlackBerry. Now they have to compete with Droid phones. Only the MP3 market is where they dominate. Where I work, live and play there isn’t good AT&T service. But Big Red rock’s it with full 3G coverage. Bay Area of California.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
This MisFit toy commercial hits the nail on the head!! I love the iPhone but the simple fact is that when I had one I couldn’t make or receive calls because AT&T coverage in our area SUCKS!!!!!! Verizon is the only service that I have had that has worked for me no matter where I am. Verizon is attacking AT&T 3G coverage not Apple or the iPhone.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The point that most of you are missing is the fact that Verizon is on an EVDO 3G network which is nothing compared to AT&T’s HSPA/GSM. Verizons capacity and speeds are roughly half of AT&T. This is BEFORE the upgrade to HSPA 7.2 which will destroy Verizons garbage network.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@Rhit:
You sir, are an idiot.
If you knew anything about Verizon’s actual service and AT&T’s actual service you wouldn’t be opening your mouth. The reason AT&T is suing Verizon is because the average user does not understand the difference between the coverages. Verizon’s 3G coverage includes the voice side as well, 3G Voice and 3G Data. AT&T’s 3G is strictly for Data, The voice section is completely covered on a large scale just like Verizon’s. As well as that, Verizon’s meaningless and outdated 3G is terrible anyways. AT&T’s 3G blows them away without picking up a finger. Hand’s down. Please know what your talking about before you open your mouth. BTW, I am an AT&T Employee.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I feel like the misfit toys because my iPhone is a brick 50% of the time. It was great in the beginning, but since AT&T never had any intention of serving the demands of todays’ iPhone user base, I feel like I got a bait and switch.
AT&T’s network is worst in high density urban markets, and Chicago in particular isn’t plagued by signal coverage problems, but rather backhaul network infrastructure bottlenecks. In my neighborhood 4-5 AT&T trucks are feverishly working to upgrade the local loop infrastructure so that they can install fiber backhauled DSLAM equipment at intermediate points between the CO and subscribers’ NIDs. That work allows them to offer the ~25Mbps DSL version of U-Verse and compete with Comcast.
AT&T doesn’t really feel like they have to compete in Cingular’s market, so they aren’t going to upgrade the iPhone network. They think they might be able to get some subscribers to pay for picocells to shore up holes in the GSM network.
What we need is a good app to run on jailbroken phones that logs 3G and GSM problems so that we can collect evidence and sue AT&T as a class action to waive early termination and force them to unlock phones (and allow other carriers to support Visual Voicemail). Only then will AT&T feel pressure to compete with T-Mobile.