AT&T sues Verizon over 'there's a map for that' ads
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 3rd 2009 4:00PM
posted Nov 3rd 2009 4:00PM
AT&T also says its network reaches about the same number of people as Verizon's, so we're thinking it's a little miffed that it's being portrayed as an also-ran here. We'll update as we learn more, keep it locked!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: So this seems like a very narrow lawsuit, actually. As we've been told, AT&T thinks Verizon is trying to fool viewers into thinking that they can't use any AT&T phone services outside of 3G coverage areas by showing two essentially different maps. Since Verizon's entire network is 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps -- but Verizon doesn't show that the gaps on the AT&T map might be covered by AT&T's huge 2G network. We can see how that could be misleading, but at some point you've got to compare apples to apples, and AT&T even says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" in its complaint, so we'll see how the court reacts.
Update 2: Interestingly, Verizon's already changed the ads once at AT&T's behest, editing them to remove the phrase "out of touch" and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" small print disclaimer at the end. Apparently that wasn't enough for AT&T, which says the ads still confuse non-technical viewers into thinking AT&T provides no service at all outside of its 3G coverage.
Update 3: Okay, we've read everything -- there's really not much more to this suit than the arguments over the maps. We're thinking Verizon could have easily dealt with this by just using dark blue and light blue on the AT&T map to differentiate between 3G and 2G coverage, but at this point we don't think Ma Bell is all that interested in anything except getting these ads off the air. All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon. Let's just hope AT&T is working as hard to fight these ads with its actual service as it is with its lawyers.
See more video at our hub!
OOOHHHHH SSSNNNAAAPPP!!!!
Themz be fightin wurdz!
that's right girlfriend **snap ** **snap**
Sounds like the Apple vs. MS debate over whether to continue to show the Laptop hunter ads with price comparisons.
I enjoy these lawsuits that point out company flaws, while not showing their own.
Oh Come on!
Surley AT & T Can't think that the Americans are that dumb they'd miss the 3G in the voice over, and under each map..
Assuming the data's correct, then they've a perfectly legitimate case to advertise that.
Then again.. I suppose America is the land of the frivolous law suit
these are actual 3g maps...just because i have "coverage" on at&t, doesn't mean i'm using at&t's towers - roaming doesn't count, face the music and fix your crappy network
Not for nothing, but that map looks a lot more than 5X the coverage....doesn't it?
...and Sprint sits in the corner wishing someone would notice them
I was surprised that Josh kept saying AT&T's coverage was crap on jimmy fallon last night. scary.
Looks like AT&T's lawyers are going to fail just like their 3G coverage. Fools.
The map may appear to be misleading but the ad specifically states "5x more 3G coverage". People may imply that means total coverage but that's a problem of interpretation. I don't see anything wrong with this ad. [not a Verizon or AT&T customer]
I'm an AT&T customer, but I see nothing wrong with this map. It clearly states that it's representing 3G coverage. This is just AT&T reaching for a lawsuit as they know they will soon be losing iPhone exclusivity.
@Michael
"Surley AT & T Can't think that the Americans are that dumb they'd miss the 3G in the voice over, and under each map.."
there's a reason why coffee cups now say "CAUTION: CONTENTS HOT" and hair dryers have warnings against using them in the shower. actually, there's two reasons:
1) you can sue for anything
2) some people really are the f**king stupid.
I mean the graphic specifically says 3G. What more do they want?
@Kaosu
Don't forget...
Light cigarettes having "Light does not mean it will help you quit smoking"
A freezer having "extremely cold"
An oven warning "hot when turned on"
I find some of these warnings to be just the most ludicrous things around.
Took them long enough to lawyer up over that advertisement...
Don't you know?! If you get served, and then you serve them back, it's on!!
AT&T's concerns are valid, but their e-mail or correspondence (a.k.a. the gray text) is WAY too asshole-ish. They blatantly accuse Verizon of being sore losers, but they act like they're the sore losers themselves and are looking for any victory. STFU AT&T.
AT&Torneys
Why is "Ohhh snapp!!" highly ranked?
I don't mean to be rude but the problem is that MOST (yes most) USAsians or people in general don't know the difference between 3G and regular cell phone service
*sigh* when there's a lawsuit, everybody except for the lawyers lose.
If anything AT&T's website is misleading. They show their data map using EDGE, not GSM.
Awww, someone call the WAHHmbulance. Good luck if you're calling on an AT&T phone though...
No bars, no places.
"Fastest 3G coverage" my ass.
Not on my city.
Not on my watch.
Shit just got REAL!
Funniest thing about the suit is that its not even challenging anything. Verizon says: here are the facts. AT&T sues and says: Well, yeah, but someone could confuse what you're saying with something else!
Give me a break.
There's a SNAP for that.
@artem: Funniest thing I've read all day.
The ads clearly say, in large type, "3G coverage". If people equate "3G" with "coverage or no coverage" then they are stupid :)
They are comparing 3G coverage. Not 2G coverage. The maps are accurate. Tough shit if the average consumer thinks otherwise.
If Sprint compared their 4G network to Verizon and AT&T's 4G network, both of the latter companies would have blank maps.
Boohoo.
Just let AT&T prove it.
wth, I don't even live in the US.
I just feel like I have to put this in there, about the McDonalds coffee cup lawsuit, that specific McDonalds location had like, 40 different suits filed against it for various instances of extremely hot coffee, and the woman who filed suit received a cup that measured at approximately 160ish degrees Fahrenheit, enough to cause third degree burns... it wasn't all stupidity on the victim's part, they made their coffee Freakin' Hot. It's an infamous case, but there was more to it than there is in this case, which is just stupid.
I thought the ads were funny (the first 300 times). But I also thought that the maps were total coverage for both networks so I was fooled. It should be an easy fix for Verizon.
I do believe that Verizon has a better network, but I need GSM, and I love my iPhone so it's a toss up on what is more important, great phone or great network (that I can't fully utilize).
Verizon's map is a lot of bullshit too.
All of Michigan is solid red but my friends where on 1X as soon as we got out of Detroit on a trip up North.
Unless Verizon considers 1Xevdo "3G", which they probably do.
1x barely equals EDGE speed, especially at 1 bar of signal....
ROFL, this is like apple complaining about MS' laptop ads...even though they only run smear campaigns to promote their own products
hilarious.
As an AT&T customer who often struggles to get coverage in one of the areas marked in blue on that map, I don't really understand why AT&T are calling a WHAmbulance.
The problem with this ad is it is wrong in at least one instance. It clearly shows Verizon offers 3G coverage in Alaska while AT&T does not, when in reality, the exact opposite is true. While you can roam on the local CDMA network here, if you do so for more then a month, you'll get a breach of contract notice. AT&T has more retail locations in this state then any other provider, whereas verizon doesn't even offer a local number portability option for service men and women stationed here. So if they can't even get their coverage map right for Alaska, where else did they screw up on those two maps?
dear engadget,
This at&t is not Ma Bell.
@Michael
Same train of thought:
My first reaction was Verizon is very clear on what they are saying, AT&T should sue the American public for being too stupid. Although on second thought, they should still sue Verizon because this whole "there's a map for that" ad doesn't play well on the radio. Verizon even keeps the pause in there for people to "view" the AT&T map, on the radio???
Looks like Big red has given up on getting the iphone. Combine these ads with the "iDont" Droid commercials and it is obvious to see Big red is saying "take that" to Apple and AT&T. The truth hurts AT&T. Fix your crappy network! Though this is about their 3G data network, I am sick of the dropped calls and crappy quality when friends call me from their AT&T iphones!
seems like at&t's butt is aching pretty bad. hmm... wonder why...?
Boohoo! for verizon, I guess they will go straight after this one. Perhaps, they get overjoyed by the overly successful ad they ran for Droid and Apple didn't react, well AT&T is a little bit "soft" on criticisms. Hmm.. what's gonna be the future of Verizon?
http://bit.ly/Motorola-droid-will-kill-us-all
Obviously I'm in the minority here... but I think AT&T not only has a valid point, but they will most likely win this case if it goes all the way to trial. For some of the TV spots, the maps are flying around so fast (at least on the commercials I've seen where the maps are flying in space next to the person making phone calls) you can't read any disclaimer that it is only referring to 3G data coverage. It really does look like the maps are comparing total coverage on Verizon (which is shown as a bloodbath of red) to total coverage of AT&T (tiny blue dots). This is misleading to the average consumer.
Remember, the average consumer doesn't know the difference between 2G and 3G mobile coverage. The average consumer doesn't use a smartphone. So, to the average consumer a coverage map means "voice coverage." Just because the map is technically accurate because it is showing 3G does not mean it isn't misleading (and AT&T is suing for misleading advertising, not false advertising which is a different charge). It isn't AT&T's fault that the average consumer is stupid when it comes to technology. They are just trying to prevent Verizon from exploiting that stupidity at the expense of AT&T.
Moreover, the fact that AT&T is being very reasonable in its requests, i.e. they aren't asking the court to stop Verizon from using the "There's a map for that" idea or even from showing how much bigger Verizon's 3G network is... they're just asking that it be clear that 3G doesn't mean total coverage, will go a long way in the court's eyes. If AT&T was coming in demanding that Verizon stop the entire campaign and never show a comparison map at all, then they would get shut down pretty fast.
Actually, Verizon is saying it's aging 1xRTT network is "3G". Technically, it is the 3rd Generation of CDMA2000 (or at least I'm pretty sure), but it sure ain't as fast as HSPA.
That would be like AT&T saying its old GPRS network is 3G.
Here we go again, one company against another company. I think Verizon may have push really far this time - Hilarity and Exaggeration may not come in one piece. I hope after this bout, Verizon can still find their sense of humor.
more source: http://bit.ly/ATandT-vs-Verizon-Theres-a-map-for-that-hoax
its good to see kids fighting over a cookie jar sometimes :D
i have to agree with everything Mikey M. said above.
the commercials definitely are misleading. we can all leave high ranking comments about how the ads "obviously say 3g" but we are also obviously all phone enthusiasts or we wouldnt be on this site. just picture the nerdy kid in science class in some movie saying "obviously!" as he pushes his glasses up. to an airplane pilot it might be "obvious" that when you're taking off you flip the big switch, push the blue button, turn the dial on the right, and then go. but i'm no pilot. and the major majority of people are not phone enthusiasts.
that being said, ive been with friends when one of these commercials came on and heard them say "wow at&t doesn't cover a lot of states." and actually just today my friend's mom asked me "what does 3G mean anyway?" when i tried to explain generations and data speeds she said "oh so it's 3 gigabytes or something? wait, what's a gigabyte?" i THINK i finally got her mostly clear on the very basics, but the bottom line is that they don't understand. and as far as im concerned, selling something to someone by playing on their misunderstanding of it is trickery and is wrong.
although they say "3g" they know damn well they are tricking people into thinking there is more overall coverage. and for anyone who wants to argue with me on that, then how come the iphone users have absolutely no signal in the commercials when they're not in the "3g" areas? they should have still had 2g coverage, but instead theyre looking down angrily at their phones. this is inferred by viewers to be a sign that there is no signal.
another way that the maps trick viewers is that CDMA2000 is a hybrid of 2.5g (1xrtt) and 3g (evdo). i am inclined to believe that the verizon "3g coverage map" is based on their entire CDMA2000 footprint. if theyre going to include their tech, which is a hybrid of 2.5g and 3g, then the equivalent att map ("apples to apples," as another commenter said) would be an att map that includes edge, umts, hsdpa, hspa, hspa+ since they are all basically a "hybrid" too when you consider seamless handovers and the fact that edge is faster than verizon's 1xrtt.
None of AT&T's maps show my microcells, I think its misleading that AT&T customers won't realize that there is service on my block of the street too.
The last thing AT&T should be doing is try and defend their crappy coverage in court. Even where they have coverage, it doesn't always work right.
If I were AT&T, I'd bow my head in shame and hide.
Exactly. The only ones buying the whole "We think they launched the campaign as a response to our leadership in smartphones." are the AT&T faithful and iPhone fanboi's like word/Truth.
You can be an iPhone fanboi and still hate AT&T
word/Truth is an exception to the rule, brandon.
I have GREAT coverage with AT&T and my iPhone...why all the complaining about service....its great in Vegas!!!
now pricing......that we could complain about......ALOT!!!
How about spending some dollars on cell towers instead of lawyers?
(former iphoner, loving sprint - yes, that's how bad att is)
QUOTE: ..."AT&T has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm due to Verizon's misleading advertising"...QQ.
@leland
Because the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. :P
AT&T blows. The only reason anyone uses them is because of the iPhone... or they're just idiots.
Sadly, I have AT&T just because of the iPhone and am disgusted with myself every day.
But I sure do love me some Zen Bound ;)
You MUST be an AT&T subscriber to properly despise AT&T's service.
Can someone explain to me what exactly the turdburglars at AT&T are complaining about?
The goddamn map SAYS 3G coverage. No, not 2G. Not 3G and 2G. Just 3G. Looks like their reading comprehension is just as terribad as their network haha!!!
@ JD
Most of my friends who are all on AT&T and all who are there complain about how bad their service and I live in Las Vegas too. I even have a friend who unlocked his iPhone to go to T-Mo.
Verapezon is probably the worst cell carrier in the world. They cripple phones, lock out features, censor text messages that they don't agree with, lower cellular coverage for people out of 2-year contracts, and to top it off they charge an arm and a leg. Why do people even do business with these plankton?
You can like the iphone and not be a fanboi
LOL @ Verapezon!!!
AT&T should be spending money on new transmitters in poor areas than on lawyers.
Unfortunately you appear not to be an RF engineer. As a result, you are a good little cowsumer that Verizon is looking for. If coverage in the form of blanket area presence is the only thing you are looking for, and now dense capacity in urbanized areas to handle shear call volume, then you are a Verizon customer that this ad is meant for.
U think maybe AT&T should allocate more money for putting up towers than wasting it on lawyers for lawsuits that won't win? Just maybe?
It all depends. At my parents house in FL, Verizon sucks and everyone has ATT. Up here in Boston, ATT is pretty bad, and everyone has Verizon.
I'll go on record to say that all wireless providers in the US suck. If you happen to be close to a tower, great - but there isn't a provider without gaping holes in their coverage.
There's a map for that.
Sorry had to do it. LoL.
@Brian
You just said gaping holes...
Oh yeah. This is going to go well.
Mmm but isn't it sorta true? I mean, as a VZW customer who has friends on At&T, so many times I've noticed my friends just don't have service on AT&T while I did. Surely I'm not the only one...
ATT & Apple... a match made in heaven.
OOPS, that was supposed to go under "jay jay" directly below.
I'm sure it's true in some markets -- in others, the reverse is true. Pick a network that works where you live and hope for the best.
A lot of that has to do with the technology. A CDMA tower has much further range, but a GSM tower has better service at close range. It's easy for Verizon to blanket the nation with CDMA 3G coverage, but covering vast territory with GSM 3G requires a lot more towers. That's one of the reasons Europe is all GSM-based. They have higher population densities, so it's economical to build a lot of GSM towers. People like to complain about how AT&T never builds new towers, but if you do some research, they're sinking tons of money every year into building more towers. On topic, though, it's a stupid lawsuit, and AT&T doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when the map accurately represents their 3G coverage.
AT&T is just acknowledging that their subscribers are idiots who don't understand what 3G is.
maybe at&t needs to spend less time suing every tom dick and harry that bad talk its network and spend time expanded it and making it faster. i never have any god damn service in my dorm
Maybe you should stop wasting time posting on engadget and graduate. Get a salary job and buy a house where there is coverage.
wow, where would the world be if you had to Go to College, Graduate, and buy a house to get decent coverage?
What is next? Mortgage AT&T-certified to get coverage?
@ zioncat
Maybe you should stop spending time on engadget on the company dollar and instead do your job. Need a job? There's a map for that.
Moving house just to get coverage? That would be the ULTIMATE fanboy move.
"Honey, this house is no good. I have no 3G coverage on my iPhone. Lets take the children from their school and move somewhere else so that I can get a signal."
Where does it end? Asking future employers to relocate to get signal on your phone?
Or just switch to a carrier that actually has coverage where you need it.
wtf? how would he randomly graduate faster if he doesnt post on engadget.
he can just skip (upto) four years of education, simply by not commenting?
zioncat countdown to grayness 3 2 1, att stop being such a crybaby "customers are quite happy with the service they receive" are u fuckin kiddin me? in which planet do u live? ur network sucks monkey ball deal with it.
@zioncat:
If it makes you feel any better, I got the sarcasm. I'm evidently the only one.
Maybe they're just suing other companies to help fund fixing their network.
Lately it seems like Apple is the root to everything devil.
Just come with that damn iTablet, so I can relax.
This has nothing to do with Apple.
'There's an app for that'?
Verizon do?
English. Please?
We saw that coming !!! Sweet lawyer come out and play !
Just wait, next we'll here Apple has rejected AT&T.
Can you litigate me now? Good.
The map is not showing voice coverage but 3G coverage. I HARDLY believe that ATT has anywhere near the 3G coverage that Verizon/Alltell (don't forget they merged) has, and this is coming from a satisfied Sprint customer so I'm as neutral as it gets.
Agreed. AT&T has a smaller 3G coverage area, but their 3G speeds are faster. Period. Everyone knows that Verizon has the best overall coverage in this country, it's just a fact.
The map for verizon is horribly inaccurate. They claim to have 3G service covering nearly all of kansas, which infact, they have no such thing. Since the merger, the quality of service in rural areas of western kansas has dropped. Verizon is allowing the old alltel equipment to rot. I'm going to sprint when my contract is up.
I'd much rather have ~2-3Mbps just about everywhere than ~5-7Mbps in some places.
Also, aren't their max speeds highly dependent on upgraded towers and more recent phones?
@canon
So what about the Gizmodo test that said Sprint was faster?
What about the Engadget test that said AT&T's speeds were double everyone else? Granted, these aren't phones, but they do receive data, so I say it counts.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/26/engadget-labs-the-best-mobile-broadband-carrier-in-america/
PS: Why don't you show me where this mythical test is?
@elloh7: nobody gives a crap about rural kansas, not me, not verizon, not anyone.