AT&T vs. Verizon: There's a lawyer for that

It was bound to happen. AT&T is suing Verizon Wireless over its "There's a Map for That" advertising campaign.

When I first saw the advertisements on TV, I thought for sure that AT&T or Apple would file a lawsuit claiming the advertisement was too similar to the iPhone's "There's an App for That" slogan.

I was right about one thing. AT&T is suing Verizon. But I was wrong about the reason behind the suit.

AT&T's beef isn't over the wording of the "There's a Map for That" slogan. Instead the company claims that Verizon is misleading customers into thinking that AT&T subscribers are not able to use their phones in areas where the carrier does not offer 3G wireless coverage.

In the suit that AT&T filed Tuesday in Atlanta federal court, AT&T describes how Verizon's ad campaign shows maps with white spaces, which it claims misleads consumers into thinking that AT&T has no wireless coverage in particular areas of the country.

But that is not the case. The white spaces actually indicate where AT&T does not have 3G wireless access. It doesn't indicate that AT&T has no wireless coverage. In fact, in most parts of the country, AT&T has a 2.5G Edge network.

AT&T doesn't dispute the fact that its 3G wireless service is not in every region of the country indicated on the map. But the company says that the advertisement makes consumers believe that AT&T has no service in those areas, which implies that subscribers can't use their phones at all in those regions.

"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," AT&T said in its complaint.

AT&T also asserts in its complaint that it is "losing incalculable market share, invaluable goodwill that it has spent billions of dollars to develop among consumers, and the significant investment it has made in its wireless network."

AT&T is not asking Verizon to stop its ad campaign entirely. And it's not asking its rival to change the wording of its advertising. What AT&T wants is for Verizon to stop showing maps of AT&T's 3G coverage areas that it claims mislead customers into thinking they can't use their phones in non-3G areas.

AT&T has asked for a temporary restraining order against Verizon so that it cannot benefit from the ads while the companies await a permanent injunction.

Verizon Wireless, which is owned jointly by Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, said AT&T's suit is without merit. The company has said that the ads clearly state that voice and data services are available outside 3G areas.

"The ads are serving to inform customers where the coverage critical to operating a smartphone is available," said Brenda Raney, a Verizon Wireless spokeswoman. "Considering their limited 3G coverage, our competitor should examine whether they are misleading customers with their fastest 3G network claim."

Motorola Droid

(Credit: Motorola)

The hard-hitting advertising campaign and AT&T's lawsuit are just the latest signs that competition in the U.S. wireless market is reaching a fever pitch. More than 89 percent of Americans already subscribe to a cell phone service, according to the CTIA. This means that for wireless operators to grow, they must lure new subscribers from competitors.

Verizon Wireless and AT&T control the lion's share of the wireless market as the No.1 and No. 2 operators in the country, respectively. Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA are the other two main national carriers. Sprint has steadily been losing customers for several quarters. And T-Mobile has been unsuccessful in becoming a major threat to the big two operators.

As a result, the rivalry between the two largest wireless companies, Verizon and AT&T, is heating up. Verizon has historically had a very good reputation for having a reliable network with broad network coverage. But even with a strong network, the company has lacked cool phones, which consumers have complained about.

Meanwhile, AT&T's network has had a mediocre reputation at best, but the carrier is the exclusive wireless operator in the U.S. for Apple's iPhone. And despite the fact that subscribers have been complaining about poor service and spotty coverage on AT&T's network, new subscribers are still flocking to the carrier to buy the popular iPhone. In the third quarter, AT&T reported it had signed up a net of 2 million subscribers. Verizon signed up 1.2 million new subscribers for the same period.

But now Verizon is about to launch a phone that many analysts believe could give the iPhone a run for its money. The Motorola Droid, which uses Google's Android operating system, goes on sale Friday. And since the phone was revealed to analysts and product reviewers last week, it's been getting high marks.

Verizon's top marketing executive John Stratton said the ad campaign for the new Droid will be the biggest Verizon has ever launched. But he said that the company will focus more on what the Droid can do and less on what other devices or competitors cannot do. One thing is clear, the battle for wireless subscribers is likely to get nastier.

As a consumer, I hope this intense competition eventually leads to better services, cooler devices, and lower prices. But we'll just have to wait and see. Right now, it just looks like a war of words.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

Nice title. should be interesting. AT&T is sort of attacking verizon on apple's behalf since the ad takes shots of how disadvantaged the iphone in the U>S is.

[Perry_Clease]

Does AT&T sell 3G devices other than the iPhone? To be sure it affects Apple a bit, but the majority of people live where AT&T has coverage. Travel in places such as the Dakotas or Hwy 50 across Nevada is another story, but then I lived for half a century before even getting a mobile phone.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

an iphone is used as the AT&T phone in the ad and many Verizon apps are shown to try to show the portfolio of apps that are available with Verizon. this is meant to defend against the app store. not to mention that related ads in a recent time period clearly attack the iPhone. It's clear who the target is. Verizon is killing two birds with one stone.

[Random_Walk]

Actually, the VZW ads attack AT&T directly - the only link between them and the iPhone is the slogan-swipe.

It'd be like AT&T using the slogan "...can you pay me now?" to poke at Verizon's nasty habit of nickle+dimeing you to death (well, if AT&T wasn't guilty of that as well...)

[nickerbocker79]

What cell company doesn't nickle and dime you to death. It's common cell carrier practice. You go over your minutes and they charge you as if you are calling China.

[Seaspray0]

@Perry Clease. "Does AT&T sell 3G devices other than the iPhone?" Yes, they do. I know the new nokia models use the 3G network for voice calls. They will back down to the standard network when 3G is not available to complete the calls.

[patch991]

Even if this suit was about Verizon Wireless using "There's a Map for That" in it's advertising campaign, I'm not sure if AT&T would win ... The Copyright Act in Section 107 enumerates four "fair use factors" that must be analyzed to determine whether a particular use of a copyrighted work, such as a PARODY, is fair use. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but would it be worth the $$$ for AT&T to challenge something like this if they would most likely lose?

[lesbihonest17]

nothing will come of this lawsuit. im just glad i live in an area where at&t does have 3G coverage.

[baggyguy1218]

What will come of this lawsuit is that more people will look at the actual maps from both carriers and see how insignifigant AT&T 3G network is. Have you seen At&Ts network map? It looks just like the one Verizon uses in the ad. Here is At&Ts own map. 3G is in blue. Orange is GSM.

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/?lon=-81.6558&lat=30.3319&sci=6&3g=t#?type=voice&3g=t

I do not have Verizon, I have T-Mobile, and I would go to Verizon if they would carry a good phone and lower their prices...oh and remove the data cap...and lower their prices. They are expensive, but they have a crazy big network.

[abcd9009]

@baggyguy1218

You are absolutely correct. I too would move to Verizon in a heart beat, but for a different reason. The only reason why I am with T-Mobile (and using my iPhone) is because T-Mobile is the only alternative to AT&T that uses GSM network... the network recognized worldwide. Since I am a frequent traveler, if I was on Verizon... I would need to dump the Verizon phone in the Atlantic everytime I went to UK or Germany.

As much as I hate AT&T, I don't feel sorry for Verizon. It's because of their ignorant choice of going with CDMA that they don't have the cool phones. If they were on GSM (like the rest of the World), I can guarantee the iPhone or Razr (when it first came out) or any new phone would first come to Verizon because of their network reliability before even thinking of AT&T (or Cingular if you want to go back through time before the merger).

Let's see who gets more exclusive phones once both, AT&T and Verizon move to LTE (4G) since supports GSM because then in theory you should be able to use your phone on both networks (provided it's unlocked but that's the easy part).

[another 1 bites the dust]

i don't get the verizon doesn't work overseas issue...the blackberry storm/8830 works on both networks .... it was this issue that was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back as I was with AT&T/Cingular because I would be able to use my phone abroad. However after finding myself touching down in Paris with no phone service and spending a few hours on the phone (long distance charges incurred) trying to figure out why despite calling AT&T a week in advance to make sure I would have access to my phone -- I decided it was time to make a switch (there were other issues as well -- like persistent drop calls which I was told was because I needed to update my equipment...which I did only to experience lots of dropped calls). Once looking at the various options (I was leaning towards TMobile) I realized that Verizon would be able to offer me an abroad option.

[mikeschlenk]

Seriously? I'd like to think people are smart enough to know that "no 3G coverage" doesn't mean "no coverage". AT&T has touted "the fastest 3G network". Verizon is simply stating "ours is still better". I think people are smarter than AT&T think.

[studiodave56]

Well most are definitely smarter than Verizon thinks. Dumped the crappy argumentative support staff at Verizon who blamed me every month when the Treo could not connect, for a year. Telling me that if I signed a new contract it would work correctly. Fought the release of my number for 3 months. Verizon will not get what it deserves but I do hope they have to stop lying about something.
Verizons new slogen, We always stop working for you.

[Seaspray0]

The map at the att store shows the standard coverage (which covers almost all the country) and overlays it with the 3G coverage (which covers about 10% of the country) so you can see both simultaneously. And one of the questions that I asked is "will a 3G phone make a phone call when outside the 3G coverage area?" Yes, it defaults to the 3G network when both are available, but will downgrade to the standard network when outside the 3G coverage so you can still make a call. Yes, you're right about the coverage, but I would hope people are smart enough to ask and get the facts rather than assume something.

[kshiz30]

aww at&t is crying everyone do what they say. at&t is worried and they should be verizon is more reliable and better than at&t. att cannot keep up their end with reliable service. my work phone is att and i get crappy voice tones and drop calls frequently for no reason. my personal phone always gets signal 98% of the time when att does not have signal. in no way does verizon say "there is no service in the white area".

and yes you can go and on att coverage map it CLEARLY shows the lame excuse for 3G coverage in blue. and even the partner coverage states data service may not be avaiable. buy 3g coverage and get crap coverage go for att.

[man_w_balls]

Yay! Battle for our amusement.
AT&T is just mad, but the damage has been done already. Most people know by simply looking to see if they can get coverage for an iPhone or other "3G" device, that AT&T has poor coverage. But I don't really care, because I choose not to spend $50+ per month on a fancy phone anyway.
I willingly use AT&T broadband, because it's the only choice besides frickin' satellite where I live (no cable at all, no 3G) but their service is not up to par in terms of bandwidth. I get on average, about 2.3Mbps on a connection that is supposed to be 6.0Mbps.
AT&T needs to upgrade their network infrastructure, or lose the game.

[cpu24]

Why do people hate AT&T so much? Yea, they do have the faults, just LIKE VERIZON. No network is perfect, and people need to get that. Verizon may have the "biggest" 3G network but AT&T has the "fastest" 3G network (Well, at least where I live). So, I'm glad AT&T is suing Verizon over the misleading commercial, and I hope they win.

[baggyguy1218]

WHAT?

[Endbringer]

Your comment makes no sense. For what reason are you glad they are suing? Over using a factual map? Or are you just glad VZW is getting sued because you dislike them?

[abcd9009]

@cpu24

You are the first and maybe one of the few who thinks AT&T has a faster 3G network than Verizon. If I may ask, where do you live? I can confidently say you are not living in a major city because from my experience in NY, SF, LA, Chicago, Boston, Miami, San Diego, Denver... the only thing AT&T is good at is having the best phones but when it comes to network coverage or reliability Verizon is the best (talking about coverage in major cities).

[solitare_pax]

While the ad is cute and attention-getting, I will take AT&T's side that they seemed to indicate AT&T had a far more limited coverage area for their network - voice or data - than I expected.

Not that I plan on selling my soul for either company's phone mind you.

I'll stick to my dumpy old Virgin Mobile pay-as-I-go.

[Sausagebiscuit]

The truth hurts, right? AT&T DOES have far more limited 3G coverage, just like the ad says. No one mentioned overall coverage. AT&T has a rather generous EDGE 2G network. All the commerical did was compare 3G from Verzion to 3G from AT&T. No lies, no falsehood. It's not anyone companies fault if the customer does not know what 3G coverage means.

[bctexas]

Dallas has great 3G coverage, so I could care less about other people in rural areas that dont have good coverage. I get what I pay for, and after owning the iPhone for 4 years now, I'd NEVER move anywhere that would keep me from using my jesus phone.

[Perry_Clease]

I too live in a populated area that is well served by AT&T 3G. However, I still take road trips, often on the one less travelled. That being said I can usually find a free WiFi spot in the rural towns for checking email and such. Cell calls are not reliant on 3G

Hell in a few years this argument could be mute because we would using satellites or some sort of signal with greater range.

[sgoodell07]

@ Perry Clease above;

No, you will NOT be using satellite phones anytime soon, what would even make you think that? Go try to buy an actual satellite uplink phone and see what you pay, or how much it costs you to make the calls.

Umm, and secondly, its moot, not mute.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I think they only need to ask existing AT&T 3G customers how good their service is even in those areas they show full coverage. :)

[redgeminipa]

AT&T 3G coverage in my area (Altoona, PA) is extremely good. The only time I've had dropped calls is when they did a couple of tower/network upgrades and kicked service to EDGE. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to have a few bumps in the road with AT&T than put up with Verizon's bait-and-switch tactics anymore. I had Verizon for many years, and after switching to Cingular (just before AT&T), I felt like a cell phone was a whole new experience.

Speaking of coverage maps... at least on AT&T's website, they show you different shades so you get a real picture of what coverage is like for your area. Verizon's lame, poor excuse for a coverage map only shows one solid chunk of red. I had Verizon for too long. I have a few friends that have been to my house with their generic Verizon phones and only get 1 bar, but the Verizon map shows solid service for my area. B.S.! I get a solid 5 bars in my house as indicated by AT&T's map.

Are these Verizon loving drones really this naive? Do they not realize exactly WHY AT&T struggles with some 3G areas? I'll give you the perfect reason why: AT&T has the MOST SMART PHONES HOGGING DATA ON THEIR NETWORK!! Most of Verizon's customer base are plain-Jane cell phones that are used simply for calls and texting. They don't have the heavy DATA congestion that AT&T has.

Some people need to come out of the woods and get some facts straight.

[shycelticwitch]

Here is something I can give an honest 2 cents on. I have had AT&T since they merged with Cingular, and was with Cingular for many years before that, at least 5 or 6. In all of those years, traveling around most parts of the country, Canada and Hawaii, I have only ONCE had a dropped call that could be attributed to AT&T. Have NEVER been unable to get service (always at least 3 bars no matter where I am, 5 bars 80% of the time). I do NOT have an iPhone. Perhaps this is why I do not have one. I absolutely love Apple computer products, and the iPods are pretty neat too. But they are a computer company, albeit a proprietary one (better for me), and they should stay out of the phone company's business. Same with Microsoft. Ferchrissakes, pretty soon were going to have one global company that makes, sells, recycles and resells EVERYTHING we use. And you think public health care is "socialistic"? LOL

Back to my point: Apple makes a great computer. AT&T has great phone service. But AT&T doesn't make computers, and Apple shouldn't make phones. All that great brainpower and money wasted that could have been used to put their software/hardware systems light years beyond the competition.

PS. Congratulations to MS for the apparent success (finally) at presenting an operating system that actually has people smiling and nodding their heads. Don't see anyone doing cartwheels yet, but we'll give them time to work out the kinks (and I buy an upgrade) before making any "user experience" comments.

[CA1900]

Should IBM have just stuck to making typewriters and never gotten into computers? Should Canon have limited itself to just cameras, and left printing to somebody else? Should Mitsubishi have stuck with shipping and coal mining?

I'm sure you see my point. Companies diversify and expand their markets. Why shouldn't Apple make phones? If they can make a better product, it'll sell. If they can't, the existing products will eat them alive in the market. That's what competition is all about.

[Vegaman_Dan]

If Apple hadn't expanded beyond just computers, they would be in much worse financial shape today, perhaps not even around at all at this point. The fact that they expanded into music players, online music sales, media devices, online services, and nwo a cell phone, gave them the ability to weather the economic downturn that has wreaked havoc.

Where would Apple be today if they *only* sold computers and the OS?

[cpu24]

Point well taken, I agree with you 100%

[shycelticwitch]

Dan, I agree that the iPod was detrimental to Apples continued existence. However I don't think the iPhone was. Their expansion into these areas came LONG before our current economic meltdown. I was disappointed in their latest hardware updates on both iMac and MacPro, and I feel it had a lot to do with them placing less emphasis on improving the overall desktop computing experience in favor of pumping up the iPhone.

Know why I dislike smart phones? I have yet to see one that doesn't look like a germ warfare site. Nasty and dirty from the constant touching. I have a cell phone with physical keyboard. I get calls and send occasional text messages (except when driving). I don't use internet or e-mail on my phone, I have a computer for that, and there isn't ANYTHING that important that it can't wait until I get somewhere to check my mail, or answer a call or text.

[codynews]

"I don't use internet or e-mail on my phone, I have a computer for that, and there isn't ANYTHING that important that it can't wait until I get somewhere to check my mail, or answer a call or text."

Good for you, but not for me. What I do for a living requires me to be in near constant contact -- at least to get the level of income I need to be comfortable. To be 100% honest, I don't know what I'd do with out my iphone (or another subpar smartphone). It allows me to make sure I'm able to do business at all times and not be tied down do a desk.

[shycelticwitch]

I am sure there are those who cannot function without being tethered to the internet 24/7. I am happy that it is not necessary for me to maintain my level of income, because I not only have a better one than most right now, I also enjoy a great quality of life outside the workplace. It was just a matter of organization to accomplish it. I also made sure that my business can function WITHOUT the internet, if necessary, something that most other businesses cannot do.

[gsmiller88]

The map is clearly labeled "3G Coverage." If the judge rules in favor of AT&T, (s)he's a moron.

[corelogik]

To swipe another slogan from days gone by,..

"Law suits, the career of the new generation."

Can you sue me now,... Pepsi?

LMAO

I hope AT&T doesn't think this lawsuit is going to make those of us who have iPhones and already know how badly their 3G (and Edge) service sucks change our minds. I just got a Google Voice number to help me transition away from my iPhone 3G. It's my second iPhone--I've suffered through AT&T's iPhone service for more than two years. I am done. In two years all I have felt is frustrated. Now AT&T is suing Verizon for telling the truth. AT&T can kiss my ass when I break my contract and switch to a Verizon Droid.

[sharmajunior]

ok, well I am suing everyone for using the English language, including writing it down, speaking, and displaying.

[Sausagebiscuit]

in before the lawsuit:

Does this include all languages that feature the roman alphabet in some form or another? :)

[sgoodell07]

Looks like it is Cyrillic from here on out.

[eman564]

There's no way AT&t will win this. It has to be a ploy to get the commercial pulled to draw attention away from the droid launch on friday. AT&T sucks! And I hope their customers see how terrible their network really is.

[dano96]

Att neededs to get a clue! There 3 g coverage is a joke. Try using an Iphone in San Francisco.I guess the truth hurts Att, and speaking of the iphone the only problem I can see with the iphone is Att. Most of there growth is the iphone.once the is on other networks (and it will be) People will drop the albatross that is Att( Steve Jobs did not get where he is by limiting himself).

[mike_dfw_geek]

the commercial clearly states '3g coverage' verbally.

[ggore]

I live in that majority of Oklahoma that has neither Verizon or AT&T 3G coverage at all, so this whole thing is moot to me, but the Verizon ad clearly states that it is comparing 3G coverage areas.

[tacit]

As an iPhone owner and a reluctant AT&T subscriber, I personally would like to see AT&T take the money it is spending on this lawsuit and use that money to increase its 3G coverage instead.

[Static-X-Machina]

Second that. Waste of money indeed.

[MicroLeopard]

hear hear!

[yausser]

Does AT&T thinks they can buy good customer service with money, or lawsuits instead of by actually providing it? Their customer service is so poor, and in some locations, their poor phone service certainly matches.
I, for one, have done somersaults not to ever reup with AT&T. My father had the same experience. "No mas", AT&T. Your lawsuit will just highlight your inefficiencies and your inability to address poor phone and customer services.