5 ms·
AT&T not happy with Verizon ads: 'There's a lawsuit for that'
- rriepe 17y agoIt's interesting that AT&T isn't disputing the lack of 3G coverage claim. Instead, they're stretching to say Verizon was implying something else with clearly-labeled maps. Pretty inane. I doubt they'll win. It reflects pretty badly on them, too.
- jamesbressi 17y agoAgreed. Total waste of AT&T's money to pursue this. Embarrassing on their part, if you ask me. WAIT! Here's an idea: The money they are spending on legal for this lawsuit they could use to improve the network! Ha, I know, that's just craaaaazy talk. Silly me.
- 100k 17y agoAnyone who has driven across the US with an iPhone (or, hell, tried to use on in San Francisco) knows AT&T's 3G network is total crap. I don't think they win by fighting this characterization.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- rbranson 17y agoYou've got it. AT&T's own advertising materials tout the exact coverage shown by Verizon's ad as "3G". There is no basis for this legal case.
- buugs 17y agoBoth maps clearly state 3G coverage in the ad and do not say network coverage anywhere in it, why even go for a lawsuit like this?
- jrockway 17y agoAT&T should counter with a pie chart of "percent of population with 3G coverage". AT&T's and Verizon's coverage will look identical then. (I used to have AT&T, and traveled a lot, but was never out of range of their 3G service. Verizon certainly has a good network, but AT&T's is not horribly bad.)
- chrischen 17y agoI guess it depends where you live, and whether or not you travel. I frankly don't care if they have 3G in new mexico, as it wouldn't concern me, and I'd probably never go there.
- wheels 17y agoIf Verizon's PR people are good they'll milk this all the way to the bank. Let this drag on, generate a lot of press coverage, keep harping on the fact that AT&T really doesn't have good 3G coverage.