Thread: ATT Sues VZW (update suits dropped)

...over the droid ads, or specifically, the 3G map they use in them and claim that it insinuates that there is no service provided in the white areas.




AT&T sues Verizon over 'there's a map for that' ads

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

Update 12/3: Lawsuits have been dropped:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/02/a...-the-holidays/

maybe instead of putting money towards a legal case, they could upgrade their network a bit...maybe..as the map clearly states 3g coverage.

In ATT's defense, white on the maps is not the same. For Verizon they are genuinely coverage gaps, while ATT has a massive 2G network.

I agree this is stupid though.

They could have taken the commercial a step further and made the distinction that ATT is built for 'this phone' and showed the old school Nokia, then started throwing up the map above, with light blue for the 2g and distinct dark blue for the 3g vs Verizon's well covered 3g map.

My money is on AT&T to win that one. The advert is clearly meant to mislead.

Originally Posted by pedrogarcia

My money is on AT&T to win that one. The advert is clearly meant to mislead.

tell me where verizon isnt showing 3g coverage for att....also if you have seen the commercial it says voice and some data not reflected on it as at&t already asked them to change it once...it is a 3G coverage map plain and simple and to that it is 100% real....this is another case of sue happy america coming out when you think you are being mistreated, and instead of fixing the problem, you go after anyone who exposes you...sad is what it is.

Originally Posted by pedrogarcia

My money is on AT&T to win that one. The advert is clearly meant to mislead.

Sorry, won't happen.

The coverage difference between the two is primarily the country not the major cities.
AT&T has pretty good coverage for all major cities

but doesn't publish the area as a map because it is true that as you leave each city, you'll lose 3G along the highway. T- mobile is pretty bad all the way around and when I had them you'd be OK along the I95 highway but just get off a few miles on a side road and you lost not just GPRS but voice as well. T-Mobile is meant for those that sit in one place in major cities.

Verizon, on the other hand, is very good nation wide and has excellent coverage in the country. Last winter when I was sightseeing in the center of Nevada, where VZ map claims no EVDO, I had no problem getting spotty EVDO. It all depends on the altitude. Most of the valleys I lost it but never had a problem on the senic overlooks while driving the major highways.


The EVDO Map for Verizon just shows excellent coverage


Sprint, not so good but from what I heard Sprint has contracts with Verizon for data and voice but I'm not sure if that means EVDO data or just 1X data.

What the heck were you doing in the center of NV?

Area 51? A ghost town or two?

Only reason to come here is Tahoe and Vegas, not sure why you'd split the difference and pick the middle of the desert, so had to ask

On the sprint coverage map (which is more than att easily) I beleieve they do haveban agreement with verizon since I get 3g in areas that are not on the sprint map