May 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM EDT — AAPL: 562.29 (-3.03, -0.54%) | NASDAQ: 2837.53 (-1.85, -0.07%)

AT&T, Verizon fight over 3G coverage ads goes to court

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 · 3:52 pm · 24 Comments

“A federal court Wednesday will consider the fate of a Verizon ad campaign that features side-by-side wireless coverage maps showing it has five times more 3G coverage than AT&T,” Leslie Cauley reports for USA Today.

“AT&T isn’t contesting the accuracy of Verizon’s claim, but says the ads are misleading… AT&T wants the court, which will hear arguments today, to force Verizon to pull the five ads,” Cauley reports.

“U.S. District Court in Atlanta will decide the question… AT&T’s main beef is with the white areas of Verizon’s coverage maps, which denote no 3G coverage. AT&T’s map is awash in white; Verizon’s has almost none. AT&T, in its lawsuit, says consumers may think the white space means AT&T offers no coverage at all in those areas,” Cauley reports.

Full article here.

Categories: All Sites, News

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

24 Comments

1 2 Next »

NikonFox

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:05 pm · Reply

The ad clearly states 3G coverage so the ad is not misleading anyone. I don’t think AT&T;will win. At the same time it is easy to think outside of type of network compared to any network coverage. This should be interesting
Nobdy in particular

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:07 pm · Reply

ATT has nothing to lose by taking this to court, as it will highlight the difference between Verizon 3G and ATT 3G. Verizon may prevail, but ATT gets to tell its story.
keithbporter

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:08 pm · Reply

AT&T;has done nothing but draw attention to their inferior network by this lawsuit. They should pick their battles a little better
chabig

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:20 pm · Reply

It all depends how you define 3G. AT&T;’s 2.5G EDGE network is about as fast as Verizon’s 3G network. So yes, the ads are misleading.
clinicaltechmaster

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:22 pm · Reply

If AT&T;doesn’t radically improve their network before verizon goes gsm then they may lose a massize amount of subscribers.
clinicaltechmaster

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:23 pm · Reply

opps, massive
iPhoner

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:28 pm · Reply

I could see how people who aren’t that into tech might not pick up on the fact that it’s talking solely about 3G coverage.

Case in point:
I was having dinner at my Mom’s house and when she saw the Verizon commercial she said to her husband, “Looks like we won’t be able to call anybody in between Colorado and California on our trip!”

They both have iPhone 3GS.
mas

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:34 pm · Reply

AT&T;should go on the offensive and put out some ads pushing why having a faster network is more important than having 3G in nowheresville.
ecrabb

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:40 pm · Reply

The ads are definitely misleading.

Tiny, difficult-to-read disclaimers about 3G coverage aside, the on-screen actors in several of the ads “shake” their iPhones and act frustrated as if they’re trying to get a signal… As if they have no network connection at all. THAT is clearly misleading.

iPhoner’s anecdote of how average non-technical people (read “normal people”) have interpreted the ads is a perfect example of how the ads ARE misleading.
stormy

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:42 pm · Reply

Even if ATT&T;wins (doubtful) all Verizon has to do is put a disclaimer “2.5G maybe available in those areas not serviced by 3G”.
NGC598

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:44 pm · Reply

ATT should have a commerical with a map that shows GSM coverage.

There is a map for that: “ATT GSM 3G compared to Verzion’s. A hundred percent greater coverage with talk and data use at the same time. Well, let us be fair- Verzion has no GSM yet and the existing EVDO is only talk or data- not both. Verizon- zero square miles plus 1.4 Mbps compared to (miles) square miles talk and surf with a 3.6 Mbp 3G service at the same time.”

That map should be as white as a blinding blizzard. LOL.
R2

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:52 pm · Reply

Tiny and difficult to read disclaimers? Lol, I don’t think so.

I suppose you’ll say the voice over which also explicitly mentions “3G coverage” is hard to hear?

This case will get thrown out on its ass. The whole affair will only serve to further embarrass ATT, as if the highly successful ad campaign targeting their fledgling 3G network wasn’t painful enough already.

I expect MDN to post about the outcome so I may gloat that I was (once again) right from the very beginning.
KenC

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 6:11 pm · Reply

Yeah, 3 seconds of tiny print, buried in the second sentence is “clearly”! Of course, it paints Verizon in the best light and AT&T;in the worst, that’s what advertisers do. Didn’t anyone watch MadMen?

If fine print is so “clear” has anyone noticed that the only cellphone ad that isn’t Screen Images Simulated is the iPhone’s? All other cellphone ads use simulated images, which is why they look so creepy. The thing is, the disclaimer is only onscreen for what seems like 3 seconds, hardly as “clear” as you would think.
tt

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 6:25 pm · Reply

ATT should stop wasting money on a pointless lawsuit, and divert those funds into increasing speed and reliability in my area..

much like the Apple suit the commercials will be off the air long before the outcome of this suit is determined
shawnpetriw

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 6:47 pm · Reply

And in other news, Telus is suing Rogers in Canada because Rogers hasn’t changed its advertising since the new Telus network went live:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/telus-sues-rogers-over-ad-claims/article1368486/
wrong issue

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 6:54 pm · Reply

ATT is going after this all wrong. the ads are clear that they are talking about 3g coverage. what isn’t clear is that 3g is not a solid term. what Verizon calls 3g isn’t the same as what ATT does. instead of suing and coming off like they think users are idiots they should take a two prong approach
1. ads that highlight the intelligence of users by giving them the full facts about what 3g means from each company. speeds, coverage overlap etc.

2. solicit the appropriate agency to create a standard definition for the term in terms of speed etc. so that customers shopping around will know that they are looking at the same thing and not at apples at one company and oranges at another.
shawnpetriw

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 7:01 pm · Reply

Too bad for ATT, but if political “red state, blue state,” and all the misleading that did was good enough for the US populace, then this is, too.
Evil Monkey

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 7:25 pm · Reply

So I tried it out on my wife. (We both have iphones) After watching the “misfit toy” spot, I asked her if she thought it was weird that ATT only got service in those areas. She responded with, “Yea, I guess I never realized how little coverage we have.” I then played on asking if she ever tried to make a CALL outside of our metro. She responded with, “I have, and it went through. I must have been roaming.”

Upon explaining the whole ATT vs. Verizon court case, she totally found it misleading (being a non-tech person.

So there you have it. Case closed. My totally non-scientific, in no way legally sound, experiment PROVES that the Verizon spots are MISLEADING!
AILORW

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 7:50 pm · Reply

The Verizon ad is misleading, but not by much.

I went to the ATT and Verizon websites and compared the online coverage locator maps against those in the ads.

The ATT 3G map depicted in the commercial is essentially the one shown on ATT’s website. In the ad, ONLY the 3G service areas are depicted.

Mosey over to Verizon’s website. The Verizon 3G map is actually their entire voice and text digital network. Click the radio button to show their Mobile Broadband and V CAST coverage, the red changes to blue, with a few blotches of lime and yellow. The white areas on Verizon’s Mobile Broadband blue map are similar to those on its basic digital red map.

The reason why this is important is because whoever developed the ad had to have seen this and determined that the differences between the basic digital coverage map and the Mobile Broadband/V CAST maps were so small, it wouldn’t make a difference when illustrating in 30 seconds that Verizon has a larger Mobile Broadband network than ATT. Since red is marketed as the color of Verizon (and blue the color of ATT), it was very easy to just use the basic digital coverage map for the sake of consistency.

3G has been preached into our heads so much, it is synonymous with what you expect a cell phone to do – making a phone call. Most people now associate 3G with ANYTHING you want to do on your phone; if there is no 3G coverage, the phone can’t make a phone call.

Although the maps are largely accurate in regard to the availability of 3G service (according to the information indicated on the respective websites) the ad is misleading because when you factor in the words, the voiceover, the actions of the actors and the average consumer’s understanding of how cell phone service operates, there is no clear explanation offered between 3G service and basic digital service of any kind.
6Tacos

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 7:52 pm · Reply

All AT&T;has to do is put a few more cell towers here and there so they have more 3g coverage (not much just enough to show different coverage then what the Version ads show). Which in-turn makes Version ads False.