So begins Verizon’s (VZ) response to AT&T’s (T) complaints about its new ad campaign, and as you can see below, it pulls no punches. For 53 pages–all of them very obviously drafted with publication in mind–the new filing mercilessly thrashes AT&T, proving over and over again that the carrier’s carping over Verizon’s ads has transformed a no-win situation into a horrific PR disaster that only highlights AT&T’s shortcomings.

“In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.”

Brutal.

As I said earlier this month, 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. And, indeed, the lawsuit already is a mistake. Below, Verizon’s reply in full:

PREVIOUSLY:

• Frosty’s Winter Litigation Wonderland: AT&T Demands Verizon Pull Holiday iPhone Ads [With Full Complaint]
• Verizon Banishes iPhone to Island of Misfit Toys
• Verizon on AT&T Suit: There’s a Word for That. “Junk.”
• Verizon to iPhone Users: “Want Five Times More 3G Coverage? There’s a Map for That.”

verizonresponse –

“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.

Historically, Apple (AAPL) has shunned subscription music services, and fearing they might compete for dollars best spent on iTunes, made it impossible for them to interoperate with the iPod. A few months back, Apple would have likely done the same with Rhapsody, if only to tweak Real Networks (RNWK) CEO Rob Glaser, who infamously disparaged CEO Steve Jobs for his “pigheadedness” at the Digital Living Conference in 2005.

But things are a bit different today. With the Federal Communications Commission’s inquiry into Apple’s rejection continuing consideration of Google Voice for iPhone still fresh in its mind and the outcome of that inquiry still undetermined, Apple might be a bit more inclined to allow Rhapsody into the App Store. It certainly can’t withhold it by claiming it replaces core iPhone functions, as it did with the Google (GOOG) app.

And so we find Apple in a uniquely uncomfortable spot: Accept into the App Store an on-demand streaming music application that will compete for the attention of iTunes users or reject it and suffer further unwanted scrutiny by the FCC, not to mention a nasty public relations nightmare.