Verizon on AT&T Suit: There’s a Word for That. “Junk.”
by John Paczkowski
Posted on November 5, 2009 at 1:36 PM PT
“Verizon is displaying maps of the United States that purport to show each carrier’s ‘3G’ coverage. The maps use color to depict the areas of the country in which each carrier has ‘3G’ coverage and blank or white space in the areas of the country where ‘3G’ coverage is not available. Consumers are interpreting the white or blank space on the maps to mean that AT&T customers who are not in an AT&T ‘3G’ coverage area have no wireless coverage whatsoever, and therefore have no ability to use their wireless devices for any purposes in vast areas of the country. This interpretation is not surprising as Verizon, in its own coverage maps, uses white space to inform customers that no coverage of any kind exists. Contrary to the misleading message conveyed by Verizon’s advertisements, AT&T customers can fully use their wireless devices outside of a ‘3G’ coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by the white or blank spaces on the maps used in Verizon’s advertisements.”
– Excerpt from AT&T’s complaint against Verizon
If AT&T’s lawsuit over Verizon’s allegedly misleading “there’s a map for that” wasn’t a public relations mistake to begin with, it will be by the time Verizon gets through with it. Responding to the suit today, Verizon (VZ) rep Jeffrey Nelson used it to stoke public perception that AT&T’s (T) network is inferior to Verizon’s.
“This is a junk lawsuit. It has no merit,” Nelson told Adweek. “It’s surprising that rather than defend the ‘blue’ hot spots on their 3G map, our competitor instead focuses on their white spaces. The maps clearly note that the comparisons are of 3G service, and further note that voice and data services are available in other places.”
Way to draw attention away from Verizon’s claim of a superior network coverage, AT&T.
Comments
Again -
how about some coverage on what Verizon does to consumers?
You are very transparent in your opinion that all other Wireless companies are inferior. If that is the case – you should update your ETHICs statment.
Where do you mention that VZ just upped it’s ETF to double??
Posted by tony orangeman at November 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pmCouple of initial thoughts. The price of a non-subsidized Droid is $600. Verizon is selling it for $200. If they allowed subscribers to break their contract after a month and pay the old $175 ETF, they’d lose money. And subscribers who did so could sell the device online and potentially make a profit.
Carriers have to protect the subsidies they’re doling out for these phones. And like most ETFs, this one drops by $10 each month a subscriber remains under contract. That said I’m not quite sure how Verizon justifies a $110 termination fee in the 23rd month of a two-year contract …
Posted by John Paczkowski at November 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pmOK –
Posted by tony orangeman at November 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pmtkaing back my comments as i hear you are looking into the VZ ETF increases!
thanks
Remember when your the King of the Hill everyone else nips at your heels and you have NO reason to bitch. Verizon has inferior Revenue and must try to be heard. It’s nice that they have SUCH a SUPERIOR network but how come they are way behing the King?
Posted by Joe Drushel at November 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pmJohn,
As someone who has seen this movie before, I caution you to be careful about your sources and how you spin your
stories. I recognize that it is fashionable to bash AT&T. However, AT&T has been bashed before in the press. It
happenned throughout the late 90s and up to the collapse of MCI/Worldcom.
The press, following the lead of Wall Street insiders, couldn’t print “how awful AT&T is ” stories fast enough.
Think about it. You keep touting how great Apple is. How great the iPhone is. How much MORE money Apple would make if they were on the Verizon network. Then you echo again and again, stories about how awful the AT&T network is.
I am not sure how you are connected, but I am pretty sure that a HUGE driver of these stories are Wall Street insiders who stand to make BUCKETS of money from iPhone going on the Verizon network.
Now tell me honestly, if you were a Wall Street insider who held Apple Stock or Verizon stock or had some other connection to these companies, wouldn’t you do everything in your power to make Verizon look great and AT&T look bad, while continuing to hold the position that the iPhone is the second coming?
Like I said, I have seen this movie before. Wall Street insiders nearly destroyed AT&T and ignored the clearly criminal behavior of MCI/Worldcom. All because they held positions that would benefit from MCI/Worldcom stock going up. AND THE PRESS WENT RIGHT ALONG WITH THEM. Read your own Wall Street Journal stories from that time. They were riddled with story after story about how fabulous MCI/Worldcom was. How innovative they were. How PSInet, their wholly owned ISP, was doubling in traffic every 30 minutes, or some such nonsense. How they had financial geniuses at MCI/Worldcom who were ushering in a new and innovative world of telecommunications and how stodgy, old fashioned AT&T was out of touch and couldn’t make a decent product if God gave it to them.
In the end, the books were cooked. The company was being run by criminals and the “unbiased” analysts that your fellow reporters relied upon were “on the take”.
John, again, I am not accusing you of being on the Verizon take here, but I am saying that SOMEONE is driving this story and it those who would benefit monetarily in a BIG way from the iPhone being on the Verizon network.
Verizon is NOT as good as some say and AT&T is not as bad as some say. You want a story, I just gave you one. Find the insiders who are stoking the flames here. You may just find the next Enron.
Posted by Jim Snowden at November 5th, 2009 at 8:08 pmI need to make a correction. In my comment above I mentioned PSInet as the wholly owned subsidiary of MCI/Worldcom. That was a mistake, the company that was the subsidiary was UUnet.
Posted by Jim Snowden at November 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pmJim,
I think you have done AT&T a lot of disfavor. You do not defend a company or a person by trying to bash another person. Your article tries to create suspicion without your audience being presented the benefit of the facts. My experience with AT&T during the years around 2000 was absolutely awful – which occurred in the reign of CEO Mr. C.M.A. Those were the years of dismal service at AT&T, which was well publicized; so AT&T deserved the criticisms it received. And so I left AT&T for another carrier.
It is hard for AT&T to catch a break these days because their network has been overloaded with iPhone induced bandwidth usage, which has caused a lot of customer complaints. I think a lot of people, including analysts were blindsided by MCI. As much as I have been hard on analysts, we need to note that even the best analysts are consumers. If a company’s accountants cook the books, how do you expect the analysts to know? My main complaint is when analysts provide opinions that are subjective, with no reasonable justification for those views. But I believe the views expressed in this article are well founded. Verizon is in competition with AT&T, and they as a company are expected to exploit all of their competitive strengths in their marketing. Unfortunately for AT&T, Verizon’s claims are factual – and in life you cannot argue with the facts. AT&T’s only recourse is twofold. One is legal, which appears very weak (I have no legal background!). And two, marketing; by running ads showing that AT&T’s voice and data network covers most of the USA, but without explicitly referring their 3G coverage. I will not suggest any more ideas; isn’t that why they pay their executives big money?
Posted by Andrew Augustine at November 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pmJim …
Just for the record, I am not “connected” — to Verizon or any other company. The Dow Jones Code of Conduct forbids it, as does my own personal code as a journalist.
These issues that you mention — complaints about AT&T’s service, claims that Apple could sell more iPhone’s if it were to end its exclusivity deal with the carrier, etc. — they’re all based on research– analyst reports, consumer satisfaction surveys, etc. There are clearly very real problems driving the wave of AT&T-negative sentiment we’re currently seeing. That said, my guess is that those same problems would have been visited upon any carrier who won the very first iPhone contract.
But the situation is this: AT&T currently holds an exclusive on the hottest smartphone on the market. That is driving subscribership, but it is also driving alot of bandwidth usage — more than anyone had forseen and so much that it’s causing network problems. For AT&T, that’s the makings of a consumer relations nightmare. For Verizon or other AT&T rivals, it’s the makings of a killer new marketing campaign.
J
Posted by John Paczkowski at November 6th, 2009 at 6:48 amVerizon 3G is a dinosaur stuck in a tar pit and sinking fast. No need to fight with it.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at November 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm