AT&T Lawsuit: Verizon Response Calls It A Case Of Sour Grapes

Andy Posts: 1,127
via Wordpress in
imageAT&T Lawsuit: Verizon Response Calls It A Case Of Sour Grapes

After AT&T filed a lawsuit against Verizon's ad campaigns, the latter has finally responded. And very much like the ads in question, the court filing is nothing short of scathing attacks on Ma Bell. Shooting down AT&T's remark that the ads were misleading the customers, Verizon has said that its...

Read the full story here


  • frogermann8
    frogermann8 Posts: 2
    via Wordpress

    how about At&t just makes there coverage better and then they can brag about it like Verizon does but it would be better since there network is faster

    via Wordpress

    I have At&T and my 3g coverage is great everywhere I go. Verizon is just pissed because of continuous rejection from Apple. I think Verizon is so into themselves and they charge so extra compare to AT&T rates. I personally will never switch to Verizon. I hate their attitude

  • Sherm
    Sherm Posts: 2
    via Wordpress

    Having read the entire 53 page filing by Verizon's lawyers, I am inclined to agree with them, even though I am a happy AT&T customer. The ads are a clear comparison of 3G network coverage, and apparently even AT&T agreed that they accurately portray the difference in 3G coverage between the two companies. I am able to make a phone call when I need to using my phone, and I don't rely on 3G coverage to such an extend to be detrimental, so therefore there is no reason for me to want to switch, especially considering Verizon's prices. However, for a person who uses the 3G capabilities of their phone on a regular basis, the Verizon ad may offer some attraction.

  • Cb
    Cb Posts: 25
    via Wordpress

    Verizon = Rip off! They over charge you for everything. If people were smart instead just going by word of mouth, they would get with a carrier who is affordable. I haven't had a problem with AT&T since I had them. My phone bill stays the same every month. Unlike Verizon, they'll add fees for anything.

  • meatbizzy
    meatbizzy Posts: 2
    via Wordpress

    So you guys said, "3G Coverage is not the same as Wireless Internet coverage, which is not discernible to a layman customer". I take this as meaning "They have 3g coverage, however 3g speed internet isn't available everywhere." If I understood that right, where can we see a Verizon map that displays only 3G speed internet coverage?

  • umuts
    umuts Posts: 7
    via Wordpress

    ok thank you super

  • Delcopa
    Delcopa Posts: 2
    via Wordpress

    Hey I totally agree just cause someone doesnt know what 3G is is not Verizon's problem it is ATTs problem to educate the consumer. Hey Verizons network is better or ATT could just compare the networks against them wih or without 3G. But they would still lose there too.
    I have both an iPhone and a Storm from Verizon and guess what when I have no coverage and no signal at all the Storm does work.

    When I went up to SmithField ME I added tethering to the Storm just so I can check my email cause I knew my iPhone wouldn't work. Same when I goto Scotland Neck once again no coverage at all for iPhone but my Storm works fully.

    Yes I have both Storm for work email and iPhone for personal. ATT could just educate the customer in an ad but they would still lose cause it is known they don't have as good as coverage. Yes they are getting business soley cause of the iPhone and guess what their network cant' handle it and still degrade their network and push the iPhone. Yes they will lose customers cause their network is going down the tubes. I have to turn off 3G at my house or I just drop calls all the time.

  • John
    John Posts: 790
    via Wordpress



    Wow - this was not a factual "news" update. This was clearly an op ed article that could have been written by an AT&T ad executive!

    There is about zero percent chance a court, any court, would enter a stay (except perhaps a Russian court, but only if AT&T was owned by Putin).

    From a lawyer's perspective, there is no legal basis for this lawsuit. Sour grapes is not actionable. Verizon's ads are completely true and accurate. AT&T's whole argument boils down to, what if a consumer accidentally misunderstands what Verizon says?

    Boys and girls, what Verizon's ads do is called...(wait for it, wait for it)...ADVERTISING! In advertising one engages in what is called "puffing" - highlighting why your product is better than your competitor's.

    * America's safest car (are all other cars unsafe?)
    * Fly the friendly skys of United (are other airlines not friendly?)
    * The freshest pizza ingredients (are Domino's not fresh?)
    * The Now Network (are other cell companiens "Later?")

    My bet is AT&T's suit get dismissed.

  • John
    John Posts: 790
    via Wordpress

    The problem doesn't lie in coverage. ATT has coverage where it matters. Who really cares if they have coverage in the himalayas. Their service reaches 97% of the population in the United States. The idiots who buy into the ads are the ones who don't seem to get that point. The problem, however, is that ATT's network are congested. Fixing this problem where it matters would be better than worrying about 5x more coverage in the desert.

  • John
    John Posts: 790
    via Wordpress

    Perhaps you're not the common layman customer. If you know that 3g represents speed, then you're more technical than 95% of wireless customers. Many non technical people assume 3g means internet access and no 3g means no internet.

  • clj41
    clj41 Posts: 2
    via Wordpress

    For those who are unaware, Verizon was the FIRST carrier to be approached by Apple, and they declined. Probably due to the profit structure that Apple insisted on.
    We'll see what happens when the exclusivity ends.