The heat goes on for AT&T and Verizon! If you can remember our last post, AT&T explained their side why they are suing Verizon and with the help of “There’s a misinterpretation for that”, understanding the claims of AT&T became more clear. Today, we will show you the side of Verizon – the reasons why AT&T must not whine or complain for Verizon is just telling the truth and the truth hurts!
Recap: On October, 2009 Verizon Released the ads, “There’s a map for that” wherein it portrays they cover as much as 5 times the 3G coverage than AT&T’s 3G. AT&T filed a lawsuit stating this is not true and the commercial was very misleading because of these facts:
- It shows to the viewers that AT&T phones do not work at all outside of the 3G coverage area
- The map was inaccurate for it didn’t include their EDGE 2.5G – speed 0.4mbits (which they said is at par with the speed of Evdo Rev A 0.6 – 1.4mbits) EvDo: Evolution Data Optimized A is the current 3G mobile broadband technology used by Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel that provides typical speeds of 600-1400kbps download (with bursts up to 2000kbps)
Appleinsider made a comparisson on why does the 2.5G be included in the MAP diagram:
But as you can see Edge 2.5 is not really at par with the speed of EvDo. Why? EDGE 2.5G has a ceiling point of 384kbps meaning it doesn’t really have a max speed or even a burst speed. In short, its speed is relatively constant.
Now if you will look at the speed of EvDo Rev A – It can go as fast as 1.4mbits with a burst speed of 2Mbits. Subtract that with the weak Edge 2.5G service and we will yield a difference of 1.2 – 1.8 mbits. On the telecommunication world, having a 1 mbit advantage over other network carrier is a HUGE advantage.
So would there still be any reason why EDGE should be included on the map?
And also, the advertisement was clearly talking about 3G network not 1G, 2G or 2.5G – We believe there’s nothing misleading about that fact.
That’s our own opinion, now here’s what Verizon has to say about the lawsuit filed to them by AT&T. Get the whole package here. We summarize the keypoints of Verizon for better understanding.
Introduction:
AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.
AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.
Here are some of the false-theories AT&T submitted to the court to request a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to Verizon.
AT&T claims that the ads are “literally false” or “false by necessary implication” because they supposedly lead to only one plausible conclusion — that AT&T’s phones do not work at all outside of the 3G coverage area
Verizon’s reply: This claim makes no sense. Not only can the ads be interpreted to refer to the comparatively limited geographic scope of AT&T’s 3G service, they cry out for that interpretation: each ad speaks of 3G coverage repeatedly, the maps used in each are clearly labeled “3G,”
The coverage maps in Verizon’s advertisements are accurate; Verizon does in fact offer “5X More 3G Coverage Than AT&T.” Because the ads are expressly truthful, AT&T is forced to attack them under two different, but equally faulty theories.
AT&T alternatively argues that, although the ads expressly and consistently convey truthful information about 3G service, they imply the misleading impression that AT&T has no coverage whatsoever outside of the 3G area.
Verizon’s reply: This claim cannot be accepted without convincing evidence that consumers are actually misled. Especially where literally true speech is at stake, and basic equity require actual proof that ads are misleading. As to four of the five challenged ads, AT&T has presented no evidence of consumer deception. This alone is a sufficient basis to deny AT&T’s motion as to these ads.
Conclusion:
In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s sideby- side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.
Trivia:
Verizon also brough-up on their statement some of the ads made by AT&T during the past years, claiming they are the “Nation’s Fastest 3G network”. Pertaining to USA.
July 2008, AT&T announced: “For customers who want access to blazing-fast wireless broadband service, there’s one clear choice among all U.S. carriers. AT&T Inc….today announced it offers the nation’s fastest third-generation (3G) network[.]”
AT&T also claimed to have the infrastructure to support the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network.”
For our readers, If you can remember those times wherein AT&T claims they are fastest 3G network, you can see Verizon is just silent and never filed a complaint nor whine that AT&T has no proof for those assertions. The company has just concentrated on widening their coverage to the whole USA. Today, AT&T is now seeing the bitter TRUTH on how Verizon surpassed them in terms of 3G coverage to the map of USA.
In one of Verizon’s counter statement:
Through the investment of billions of dollars over several years, Verizon actually did what AT&T wants the world to believe: Verizon constructed a truly nationwide network for 3G services. For more than a year, Verizon’s website has included nationwide coverage maps accurately comparing the scope of its 3G coverage to the scope of AT&T’s 3G coverage.
There you go! That’s the side of Verizon, as you can see both companies really did submit good evidences to back their claims it will be up to the Judges now to decide. We aren’t lawyers here but I think we already have our own decision :)
btw, you can show us your reactions through your comments.
Updates (November 19, 2009) : Look what we got here? It appears judges made a decision about the lawsuit already and guess what? It’s on the side of Verizon. You will never guess what AT&T did next.
TweetRelated News and Resources:
Tags: at&T the truth hurts, AT&T whine and complain, there's a map for that, verizon the truth hurts, verizon vs att
Wonderful article, thanks for the links as well.
This should be fun to see how it all plays out.
If I bought a smart phone (a 3G capable one,) I would want 3G coverage where ever I go, not 3G in main cities, then EDGE wherever else I am. I couldn’t use it, it would be too slow for the size of emails I have. I personally have an iPhone, and I like it, and have no problems with 3G speed and coverage (I’m in Canada on Rogers). But when I hit some EDGE spots, it’s hard to do anything, and ultimately defeats the purpose of a smart phone.
ATT has the iPhone audience, as well, and their 3G coverage is crap comparatively, an iPhone basically needs 3G to really work, it’s hard to use it on EDGE for what it is intended for. Why didn’t Verizon get it in the first place? Did Apple bid it to the companies, and ATT won? (They probably spent all their money bidding, that they could have used to actually make a good 3G network…)
Liam: actually, from what I recall, Apple went to Verizon first with the iPhone idea, and Verizon turned them down because of all the strings attached. AT&T were the only ones who would become Apple’s bitch and let them run the show.
I just love the Sprint ad at the end.
[...] tribal has spoken! and it appears this battle for the “survival of the verizon ads” already has a sweet spot in the eyes of the judges. Not saying this case is already over but [...]
Thanks for the comments, see the updates and the “loser” video made by AT&T against Verizon. Enjoy!
Not to be a douchebag, but when discussing 2.5G-3G speeds we’re dealing with bits, not bytes. You mentioned that Verizon had a 1 “megabyte” advantage, when in fact you mean they have a 1 megabit advantage.
Thank you, as vague as it may sounds – Appleinsider used “mbits” instead of “mbytes / megabytes” to distinguish speeds. It will be unwise to alter their statement just for this article. We want our readers to see reports as it is. See their statement here.
Proper changes has been made.
On topic though, your review is spot on… I was completely baffled by AT&T’s claims. I mean honestly, why would they be upset that Verizon didn’t include oranges in an apple to apple comparison? They’ve really damaged their image by acting so aggressively to silence their, clearly superior, competitor. Now with the infrastructure in place, it’ll only be a short time before Verizon can make the claim to be the fastest, not just the fastest in 15% of America as AT&T does on every advertisement.
Perhaps AT&T should redirect their legal finances toward infrastructure development, and actually COMPETE with their competitors, not attempt to silence them.
The Verizon adds are very misleading because the AT&T and Verizon “3G” are not the same service. Many of these ads show an alleged AT&T customer getting no service when in fact he would most likely be getting Edge service on par with Verizon’s 3G service. When they show that ad they should be required to state the LAT/LONG of the location. Quite often the ads show this non-service are to be in what appears to be a metropolitan location.. again this is very misleading. Many of these ads were probably shot in Studio City were AT&T has good coverage.