Apple, AT&T get sued for misleading 3G claims, again
By Donald Melanson 
posted Mar 20th 2009 1:58PM
posted Mar 20th 2009 1:58PM
Is there a better way to ring in the first day of spring than with another lawsuit aimed at Apple and AT&T? Probably, but apparently not for Damone Dickerson, who has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that again takes aim at the pair over allegedly misleading claims about 3G speeds. According to Dickerson, he has only be able to connect to the 3G network a "fraction of the time," and when he was able to connect it did not provide "full and continual service." As a result, he's leveled a whole host of charges against the two companies, which he hopes will result in them changing their advertising and, of course, allow him to "recover compensatory, statutory and punitive damages." No word from Apple or AT&T, naturally, but Apple has recently asked that a similar case in New York be dismissed.
hmfph...
what a dick
How is he a dick?? They advertise a service they provide and they need to honor it implicitly or people will get get upset, like this dude.
I'm just saying, if Apple or AT&T wish to offer the world, they better provide it....
His name is DICKerson. How do you guys not catch that? This is what happens when you are hating on Apple without thinking- you miss clever puns.
Yes, but it's not funny unless it's a double entendre. So take your pick: (a) asshole litigant, or (b) lame attempt at a joke.
I agree. He is a dick. Anyone who buys Apple product deserves that kind of shit.
DO NOT BUY APPLE PRODUCT.
Oh and before you iSheep start to blame AT&T, which the lamest of you surely will, this is gonna be Apple's problem. Ford & Goodyear got sued together for the tire problem. This is Apple's problem.
B
O
R
I
N
G
This lawsuit is stupid. According to his example, anyone who has bad coverage with their carrier and their phone should be able to sue both. So since I had a Nokia N70 and T-Mobile signal was non-existent whenever I walked inside my house I should be able to take them both to court. BS. All he had to do is return the phone and switch to another carrier. End of story.
And of course, the iHatters cattle follow in a stampede spewing poison.
It's been covered on Engadget before, but the advertising for the Iphone 3G had to be changed straight away here in the UK following complaints. I'm surprised that it's been allowed to continue in the States.
I particularly like "look how simple and easy it is" with the tagline underneath saying "process simplified and steps removed".
It's a BS lawsuit. The guy is from my home state, we are the home of BS lawsuits. It's in our genes to sue everyone for everything.
@kccboy2004
It was Firestone and ford that got sued and that was a big deal because people died and got seriously injured. The two cases don't even have a thing to do with each other so what are you comparing them for?
Guess when your a Windoze user you get used to ignoring the important details...
The "iHatters"?
What do they do, wear hats all day long?
I believe that when it's a speed issue, the carrier should be at least mostly responsible, especially if they've advertised that they have full 3G service in the area in question. If other devices aren't having the same issue, then we can start blaming the manufacturer of the device. Plus, the carrier should endeavor to make sure that the device doesn't have any issues with the 3G network before they start advertising it's capabilities. I've never been too happy with AT&T's service myself.. seems to be a lot of dead areas on their network where you can't even get a signal, let along a 3G signal.
Of course, I meant to say "let alone".
Yes, I do realize that I was making fun of another poster's spelling and then went and made a stupid mistake of my own. I'm truly sorry. =D
This company has gotten to big for it's britches.
@mckooter:
If the phone could not get a fast/reliable AT&T connection anywhere, not just where this dude lives, then it could be argued as false advertising. That is a big if.
By the same token, he would have to prove that all iPhone 3Gs are technically not capable of delivering 3G speeds and that Apple, knowing this, advertised otherwise. This is false of course, so he won't be able to prove it. As for AT&T coverage, I do believe there is a clause in the contract that stipulates that coverage may not be uniform in all areas.
Either way, you're given 30 days to test it out and return the phone if it does not work for you. His case is going to get thrown out of court like bad milk.
Not really. Advertising things that use OTA services are always going to cause lawsuits from people hoping to sue their way to freedom.
Wireless availability, especially in the US, is patchy and unreliable. It has nothing to do with Apple specifically.
I guess many iPhone users should have filed lawsuits for the dropped calls and poor signals since the first iPhone, then.
Lame.
He's going to win the case. It's america, where suing for a stupid cause is completely feasible. I'd be surprised if he lost.
It's not stupid if they're falsely advertising the speeds of their network they need to be called on it.
yes, but does that mean that everyone with a iphone now gets to sue and be reimbursed some outrageous amount of money that in no way has anything to do with their actual problem.
Im in maine now, we just got 3g, a very tiny area is covered, my home yes, but my work no. so i feel that i should get more coverage, can i have a cool million for this?
I barely eek out 1.1 mbps on my iphone while my friend's sprint blackberry gets upwards of 7-10 mbps on the same speed test.
@Ryan
That's because all the people flocked to AT&T for iPhone, leaving plenty of bandwidth for all the rest of you.
@Ryan, for one EVDO is not even capable of that speed in its current deployment. Secondly, Blackberrys run through a proxy. SO your claim has zero merit.
Ryan's full of shit, i never got speeds that fast on my Verizon blackberry.
Actually, Rev.A is capable of those speeds. My 6800 on Sprint usually got 3-4mbps and my Treo 800w was able to get 5mbps in Baltimore City.
My BlackBerry Bold on AT&T usually only gets about 1mbps.
Sure, AT&T's 3G can theoretically go faster but in my experience it's not even close right now. I also get AT&T's 3G in less places than Sprint's.
lol @ rudolphe: Ryan's not full of shit because he's not on Verizon you genius.
Here's a clue, Sprint's EVDO Rev. A network is the fastest, period.
7-8Mbps is on a good day in a well connected city, but not ridiculous at all.
Since the maximum speed of EVDO Rev. A is 3.1mbps, anything over that is not real, you are most likely seeing the speed between the benchmark site and your carrier's proxy server. It is not possible to get greater than 3.1mbit on EVDO Rev. A.
I have been an At&t customer for the past 3 years and their network has gotten better I must admit but it still sucks. I have an iPhone 3G and it drops calls just as much as my first iPhone, E62, Rzr and my 8125 did on AT&T's network. The only phone that was worse was my Treo 680 that thing was horrid on AT&T what a poc.
Methinks it's time for a new provider.
Sucks that you guys get screwed like this. If they didn't have a monopoly their network would be hundrads of times better.
If anyone here had intermittent 3G data, never mind having calls routinely drop (wtf!), we'd be on a competing network within a week or two.
@neo
I don't have a choice. Attached to a corporate contract.
Watch as the iTards come out in droves to defend Apple! Even if they blatantly lie about the speed of the network their device is hosted on the'll still defend them to the death.
They aren't actually talking about 3G speeds though, this guy just has spotty 3G service. Read the article.
Reading comprehension FAIL!
"New Jersey that again takes aim at the pair over allegedly misleading claims about 3G speeds."
Really iKurt Mark III you fucking apple idiot. Did YOU read the article before you said that?
@rudolphe
His slowdown is caused by a loss of 3G service, not the 3G being slow. This is pretty obvious if you have even mediocre comprehension skills.
Accept that you screwed up while in a rush to hate on these companies and move on, defending yourself any more is just embarrassing.
It doesn't fucking matter what the slowdown was caused by. It doesn't matter if it was because of gerbils shitting on the cell towers. Regardless of how you spin it, his connection was SLOW.
"His slowdown is caused by a loss of 3G service, not the 3G being slow. This is pretty obvious if you have even mediocre comprehension skills."
Say it with me now, SLOWdown.
No if you idiots clicked the link and read the original article you'd see he mentioned slowdown multiple times, the title of the post is "Apple, AT&T sued for slow 3G speeds (Macworld.com)"
"Filed in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Damone Dickerson claims that Apple misrepresented the speed, strength and performance of the 3G network."
"This isn't the first lawsuit claiming Apple and AT&T mispresented the speed of the 3G network."
and right here in engadgets post.
"who has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that again takes aim at the pair over allegedly misleading claims about 3G speeds "
Need i say more?
I don't think these lawsuits are all that frivilous honestly. I live in Chicago - AT&T has my entire area "covered' by 3G in their maps. However, my iPhone often relegates me to the edge network.
Granted, I don't think this guy should get a few million bucks for it - just enough to cover his legal costs. AT&T should be forced to either upgrade their 3G infrastructure or stop the false advertising.
If the FCC and monopoly law in this country wasn't so fucked up in the first place - a reasonable argument could be made that AT&T shouldn't be allowed to have an exclusive partnership with Apple to carry this phone. I honestly believe we'd all be better off if the FCC forced phone mfgs to provide devices that work equally on all networks.
Just my two cents though...
@Rudolphe
Yeah that shows how much you know about telecom. Intermittence is one thing, where a fast signal is constantly interrupted so badly (CRCs, aborts, carrier transitions, etc), thereby causing the phone having to re-establish a link to a cell. A slow but constant connection is something completely different, caused by a number of things or merely by virtue of distance from the nearest cell. To the customer they may appear like the same thing though.
Now, you're full of it. You're simply accusing AT&T of blatantly lying about their services being able to deliver a certain speed while knowingly being aware that it is not so. As I made you aware above, there are a number of things that may cause an otherwise fast signal from working well in certain places. That does not mean that the network itself is not fast. That would be like suing Ferrari because yours can't go fast in rush hour traffic.
That makes you a troll and the real iTard.
Once again, what do the articles say? "Slow"
Once again, it doesn't matter how you spin it, his connection is slow, and it doesn't matter why it's slow or what's causing the slowness his connection is slow.
You can keep coming up with more bullshit all you want, but can you answer one question. Is his connection slow, or is his connection not slow? Regardless of all your variables and telcom genious you want to throw into it. Answer that one question, slow connection or not slow connection?
This all started because one idiot claimed "reading comprehension" (his name is iKurt, go figure).
All I did was prove I comprehended the article just fine, multiple times it mentioned slowness. So one of you explain where comprehension was off?
Like i said, you people will defend them to the death, even if the comment isn't directly aimed at them. Go find a wolf, sheep.
There, there rudolphe. No need to get all upset, after all, the consumers have choices right? I'm not saying that they always make the best choices, but the iPhone is one of the best smartphones out there, no doubt.
I went with AT&T and experienced no such problems =)
I completely agree with Patrick. The cellular world would be a much better place if all companies could carry all of the available cell phones and other devices.
Besides, I seem to remember something I read awhile ago.. something about a.. um.. I dunno.. Oh, that's right.. A law against monopolies?
Personally, I believe this sort of thing should be covered under this (if it isn`t already and the FTC is just too lazy to do anything about it). How many of us would like to go and buy a new computer and be told that it can only be used if it's connected with Time-Warner? Not knocking Time-Warner here, but what if you wanted to use Verizon? or lived in a location that wasn't serviced by Time-Warner? You'd be out of luck and probably pretty damn pissed off. Especially if Verizon had a better deal.
You can buy an iPhone from anywhere, as long as it's unlocked. But, of course, you can only use it if you pay AT&T for the privilege. This is complete crap and should be addressed immediately. And the iPhone obviously isn't the only culprit here either. The G1 can only be used if you're willing to sign on with T-Mobile. And we can say the same about almost every mobile device that has ever been created! After all (to use the example) if we had the ability to use our iPhones on more than just AT&T`s network, AT&T would be forced to upgrade and fix the problems. Otherwise, they`d pretty much be telling their customers to move to a competitor. All of the federal funds that are currently being used to pad CEO pockets should be more devoted to ensuring that we have choices when it comes to the companies we deal with. End of story.
There should be a class action lawsuit, but not against Apple or AT&T. It should be against the government agency that has allowed this whole thing to happen. If Microsoft can be sued for having a media player preinstalled in Windows (and we`re NOT EVEN BEING FORCED TO USE IT!) then this should NEVER be acceptable.
"A law against monopolies?"
No such law. Do not confuse anti-trust behavior with a monopoly
@aaron and patrick...
the whole reason network providers pay big bucks to phone mfgs is so that they get new convertees
I don't like the contract system but i dont mind having exclusive devices, it's what makes your service attractive.
also, if you had said the iPhone should be on t-mobile i'd agree with you....but verizon and sprint? i assume you know that they use cdma instead of gsm, which you know... would mean apple would have to create a totally different device to accommodate that requirement.
apple isn't stupid enough to waste money on more R&D when they are already making boatloads and it would only dilute their brand image. look at motorola, they whored out their RAZR and now it's so commonplace they can hardly sell anything else. if you dilute the iPhone, the "coolness" factor goes down (remember when the razr was 500 bucks with contract??) if the coolness factor goes down less people will want it.. sure the apple fanatics and super geeks will love it's features and buy it but the average joe who walks into a cell store will gloss over it much like the razr now gets glossed over
so think about it, then post. there is no room for universal phones in the US it would require major restructuring on many companies part
@CraigJ
Please tell me the difference between these circumstances and the ones of Microsoft and Windows Media Player. I'm always excited to learn something new.
Whether or not there is a law against monopolies, the relationship between AT&T and Apple CAN be called a monopoly according to the definition* of the word, since not even T-Mobile is allowed to carry the phone in question (despite having the correct technology to do so) and therefore you cannot use the phone (even though you can buy it anywhere) unless you agree to AT&T's terms and conditions, not to mention their prices. In other markets this type of behavior would not be allowed. Why is it "OK" in the cellular market?
* Definition of monopoly: "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; 'a monopoly on silver'; 'when you have a monopoly you can ask any price' ..."
@V Langs
"there is no room for universal phones in the US it would require major restructuring on many companies part"
I believe that the fundamental reason that the cell phone markets have not gotten much cheaper even as technology evolves is BECAUSE the companies refuse to do any "major restructuring" to cope with the future demands that new technology and new ways to use technology will put on their networks. Nothing is truly forcing them to do so. Competition is the only way features will improve and prices will drop at all and this will not really start to happen until all companies are properly competing with each other. A large company like Apple (or Google with the G1) should not be allowed to skew the market by only providing the rights to offer their technology to one service provider.
As Microsoft's quote while navigating to Engadget.com "It's a fake HSDPA" LoL
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/20/video-windows-mobile-6-5-now-with-less-honeycomb/
frivolous lawsuits are the last thing unemployed tax paying techies need
screw this idiot who didnt read his contract before signing
I wonder if he bothered to check the coverage map for his area? Sure they have more bars in more places, but that doesn't mean your place.
I was thinking the same thing, which is something that is mentioned when you sign the contract.
I may not like Apple for my own reasons, but I hate idiots even more.
as much as i enjoy the ranting, but apples not the cell carrier their not responsible for how many towers and all that. that's why at the bottom of all the adds it says something about 3g service not in all areas or something like that.
apple is the advertiser
All the people suing for this need to pool their lawsuits into one massive one that would so large it would be the destroyer of worlds.
yeah..it's called class-action lawsuit..
There is a simple solution, cancel his account, give back all the money he ever paid, take back his iPhone and never let him on AT&T's network again. Also give a heads up to Verizon, Sprint & TMobile about him being a "problem" customer.
And it doesn't matter, to you, if he's actually, you know, right? Look, absolutely everyone I know who has an iPhone says it isn't nearly as fast as Apple makes out. If you're deliberately misleading your customers about the capabilities of your product, you should be sued. And the idea that someone should get blacklisted as a "problem customer" because he or she doesn't like being lied to is pretty creepy.
The issue is quite simple though. Network service/coverage not working out for you, drop the one you got, return the phone, and go to another carrier that has better coverage in your area. I think that's a simple thing to do.
How is Apple deliberately misleading consumers about speeds?
AT&T website: "AT&T's 3G network is currently available in 325 leading U.S. metropolitan areas; by year-end, the company plans to offer 3G service in nearly 350 metro areas."
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/specials/iPhone.jsp?rel=nofollow&wtSlotClick=1%2D001SGI%21CIWM01%2D1%2D1
is this dude in one of those areas?
Apple website: "Email attachments and web pages load twice as fast on 3G networks as on 2G EDGE networks."*
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/wireless.html
*Testing conducted by Apple in May and June 2008 using preproduction 3G/EDGE-capable iPhone units and software and currently shipping EDGE-capable iPhone units and software. Testing was conducted by browsing to http://www.lonelyplanet.com and measured uncached page load performance. All settings were default except: Call Forwarding was turned on; the Wi-Fi feature Ask to Join Networks and Auto-Brightness were turned off. Wi-Fi was enabled but not associated with a network. Throughput depends on the cellular network, location, signal strength, 3G/EDGE connectivity, feature configuration, usage, the Internet, and many other factors. Throughput tests are conducted using specific iPhone units; actual results may vary.
BS, Like this never happens to other phones and carriers. They all lie in their advertising!
I had Sprint for years in Manhattan and it was the worst service. Constant dropped calls or no service at all. Verizon is pretty good in my area.
I call BS in your post, if you had Sprint and Verizon was working perfectly in that area, you'll automatically roam on Verizon resolving your signal issues.
@TwHiT: Actually he is, because he didn't read the Terms of Service. They state "Service may be interrupted, delayed, or otherwise limited for a variety of reasons, including environmental conditions, unavailability of radio frequency channels, system capacity, priority access by National Security and Emergency Preparedness personnel in the event of a disaster or emergency, coordination with other systems, equipment modifications and repairs, and problems with the facilities of interconnecting carriers." and "WE DO NOT GUARANTEE YOU UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE OR COVERAGE."
This is why he's gonna lose his case.
Your right, he probably will lose the case because of disclaimers and slick wording that the lawyers come up with when writing these terms. Either way, Providers should be more honest with consumers when it comes to these types of things. They think a little disclaimer in a ToS absolves them of responsibility.
get a new phone, asshole.
That's the solution to everything huh? Somethings wrong with something you bought? Forget about the money you've paid and headache you've endured! Dump it and get a new one!
i don't know about it being a solution for absolutely everything, but i think that when a product that you have purchased turns out to be unsatisfactory to your needs, or disappointing to your expectations, then returning it and getting the money you paid for it returned to you is appropriate. if he thinks his frustration is worth more than that to anyone besides himself, then he has entitlement issues, and so is in my estimation, an asshole.
That's beautiful. Just beautiful...
As reactionary as "America: Love it or leave it".
Person 1 : "You know, I really love my country. But the vestiges of institutional racism and handouts to greedy corporations really bug me."
Reactionary: "Well then get the fuck out!"
i just think that litigation is a very, very strong reaction that should be reserved for extremely serious situations where there is no other recourse. to describe particular advertising as "misleading" might not quite be redundant, but its certainly stating the obvious. any given advertisement might not straight up lie, but its going to describe the product in the most rhetorically positive language legaly possible, and so should be veiwed with skepticism. the legal system should not exist as a substitution for common sense and critical thinking.
The thing about it is that every cell phone provider sucks and every cell phone provider is the best. It is all dependent on where you live and the geographical features of your surroundings. For some people AT&T is the best while for some people it is the worst. Every provider has fine print on all of their commercials that say something along the lines of service is never guaranteed. I do believe this guy is ignorant in the way coverage works. While of course I do not know the full story, he did have 30 days to try out the carrier. If he was unsatisfied with the service, he should have taken it upon himself to change carriers because clearly AT&T did not work well where he lived. I understand being unhappy with something but I don't think this guy has any chance of winning because there are many options available to him that he simply did not pursue. He is filing a lawsuit just to do so because he did not feel like taking any other options.
there's a difference between not being happy with your CONTRACT and not being misled in a commercial. you can't make false claims in commercials, regardless of whatever you happen to later agree to in the contract terms. i'm not saying the commercial is misleading (i don't even know which one they're talking about, but can guess), just that you can't call this frivolous based on the wording in the ToS.
My first cell phone was with Sprint quite some time ago. They always advertised the most reliable, connected etc network. But it sucked. So one month on my bill I wrote a note that I would pay them when their service lived up to their advertisements. Months later I received a bill for about $800, which I disputed drawing reference to my note. I filed with the bbb and within a month I owed them nothing and was able to cancel for no fee.
Apparently I should have sued their a$$es off.
LOL that was awesome.
lol...this guy probably just has terrible service where he lives....maybe even in a rural are. I agree with Rife...take away his iphone privelages and then see if he wants to still sue...
this is what AT&T says: "AT&T's 3G network is currently available in 325 leading U.S. metropolitan areas; by year-end, the company plans to offer 3G service in nearly 350 metro areas."
so uhm... was he in one of those areas?
Another cowsumers illustrating again they are operating on a blissfully ignorant lifestyle.
30 day return policy, dee dee deee!!!
Pretty much all companies should be sued based on this logic. Commercials always show a product in its best, optimistic light. Products rarely live up to the advertising. That's the way it is, and people should not be sheep.
Maybe I should sue Carl's Jr, McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Wendy's, In-n-Out, etc, because none of my burgers have EVER looked like they do in the commercial. I figure over the last 20 years I've spent in excess of $15K at these places.
I'm thinking class action.Who's with me?
"That's the way it is, and people should not be sheep."
No, companies should stop lying.
I would like to sue In & Out too. I would be willing to take a settlement of hamburgers for life.
:)
Showing a product under the absolute optimal conditions in order to sell it is not lying. I reiterate my point: People should apply a little discerning logic when buying stuff based. Only a complete fucking idiot would buy a product solely based on the manufactures TV commercials.
By the same token, on many SUV commercials on TV you see the vehicle roughing it on unpaved roads, crossing rivers, mountains, etc etc, being the all-out macho car you deserve. Then if you look in the fine print it says something to the tune of "if you do any of these things shown, your car warranty will be immediately void"
go figure
It's called marketing. Ads exaggerate to create hype. Look at the fine print on some commercials. All of the screenshots in commercials are overlays that show them in the best light. They cover their ass in the legal wording in the TOS.
Apple had to pull one of their Ads in the UK over false representaion of speed. I'm guessing the USA doesn't have as strict Advertising rules?
what about Ryan's dickbag?
The guy needs to move on...
anyone find it funny that it says "presented by Sprint" right above this article.. at least for now until another post drops it down.
Wow !!!so y don't well sue cuz every now n then my phone doesn't say 3g,.!!!LOL what a loser . Clogging up the courts , should be jailed for abusing taxpayer dollars!!
The speeds do suck. But this guy had a window of opportunity to try to product and service, and if dissatisfied could return it. There's also the little fine print across all carriers, especially the ones that claim to be the fastest (Sprint) and the largest (Verizon).
The question is does Apple and AT&T want to bear the financial burden of fighting? Or does the plaintiff and legal representation want to bear the burden of fighting? I have a pending case against myself at the moment where my representation basically toasted the plaintiff's lawyer. Get this, his lawyer wanted to appeal but tried to argue with the judge that his client doesn't have the financial resources to proceed. The judge looked at the lawyer and his client with some crazy-eyes. The case was bunk anyway, everything was dropped because the guy couldn't bear the financial burden to continue fighting.
I have an AT&T 3g phone, and it is pointless to turn on the 3g on. Lots of my time is spent on the edge of the service map, where 2g works stronger, and when I traveled to NYC it just never actually was able to log onto the network and function, so I used 2g while in NY... So, as far as I can see, if you are all wrapped up in using 3g all the time, good luck Chuck....
Yep, I only turn on 3G when I want to stream some radio or when doing heavy web surfing.
otherwise edge and wifi at home work great.
I practically never get dropped calls on AT&T unless I happen to be on the phone while leaving work, there's a 3g deadzone between the 2 parking structures plus office complexes all around it - more like an isolated pocket - never drops a call there if I'm connected to EDGE
Then again, I'm in Metro Detroit so I image 3G cell coverage is much more widespread here.
Ok sign me up, I'll sue too. But after I win my millions . I'll go out n buy iPhone still,.LOL!!!what a loser . Guy should be shot. Point blank.
God, my recession antidote joke means nothing anymore.
You guys are fucking idiots, and you'll clearly low rank me for this, but this guy is RIGHT. The suit needs to be against AT&T only, but he IS right. The point is for the past 8ish months since the iPhone 3G has been released, there have been nothing but issues with AT&T's 3G speeds and stability. This shit is unacceptable. AT&T planned this infrastructure poorly before the iPhone 3G's launch and they CONTINUE to be slow in rolling out new infrastructure to support the demand. Note how other carriers across Europe, etc do NOT have this issue in the same extreme (or sometimes at all), so clearly Apple is not to blame (nor are the manufacturers of other 3G devices). I'd like to see someone take on AT&T for this and not only win, but win BIG TIME. There are MILLIONS of folks on AT&T with 3G devices, and the fact of the matter is they can't even use the technology as it was intended because of some big wig jerkoff and his/her lack of planning.
Why would I give you a low rating when your assessment is correct? Believe it or not, I got rid of my iPhone 3G because the data rate speeds were too slow and I could not use it in enough places while I am on the road (car travel-sales). I had to go to Verizon and the speeds are much better and I can use my service in MANY more places. To replace my iToy 3G, I purchased an iPod Touch 16GB and it is great! Also, I found by switching to Verizon, I had a lot fewer dropped calls. I wish I had switched earlier because I lost a lot of business due to poor phone service.
However, I do realize that all the carriers have their strong areas across the country where their voice service works better, I have just discovered that Verizon's network seems to be better in the places where I depend on them most.
This guy is an idiot. No cellphone is guaranteed to work in all areas. A waste of money, time and resources. Sure, they advertise 3g, but again, your house, area, etc...could all affect your connection, let along, your speed. In fact, I can't connect in certain areas of my house or even in elevators. I'm not suing anyone. Are you going to file a lawsuit against the contractors that built a building or the city for building a tunnel -- all over a cellphone not picking up 3g? Take away his cellphone privileges...for good!
Just because your a sheep and settle for less doesn't mean anyone else will.
@DAN
GO BACK TO GRAMMAR SCHOOL!
Engadget should delete the entire thread... Our comments look rather strange with the parent deleted...
This is really AT&Ts problem. Screw changing the advertising, how about actually fixing and extending the network? I think its bs that you should have to pay for the 3G data plan if you live in an area that doesn't get 3G coverage.
If you don't want a 3G data plan, don't buy a 3G phone!