Massucci's Take: AT&T's lawsuit against Verizon draws attention to its own flaws
Filed under: Company News, Technology, Columns, Apple, AT&T, Verizon
AT&T (T) is suing Verizon Wireless for misleading advertising. But its actions could do the company more harm than good. The reason for the lawsuit: Verizon (VZ) has been mocking Apple's (AAPL) iPhone "There's an App for That" ads. Verizon TV ads show off a coverage map depicting its larger, third-generation (3G) wireless coverage next to AT&T's smaller 3G coverage map. In its advertisements Verizon quips: "There's a Map for That."That may irk AT&T, but the company does not dispute Verizon's larger 3G coverage. But it is suing Verizon for highlighting its spotty coverage in a misleading manner. In Verizon's ads, the maps display blank space in AT&T's coverage area. The intent, according to Verizon, is to show where AT&T lacks 3G coverage. But AT&T claims the ads imply that AT&T provides no coverage at all in those areas.
I would argue that viewers are intelligent enough to know what Verizon means. I would further argue that by suing Verizon, the damage to AT&T is greater than the effects of any negative Verizon advertisement. Not only does the lawsuit draw attention to AT&T's lack of 3G coverage, but its lack of a backbone too. Instead of trying to do damage control and prevent others from pointing out its flaws, AT&T should just solve the problem.
Walking home last night in New York City, I stopped at AT&T and Verizon stores to ask if the "There's a map for that," ads were having much impact. I spoke with a Verizon store manager, who wished to remain anonymous. He said the in-store map illustrating Verizon's larger coverage is quite effective when selling phones, but no customers had mentioned the Verizon's TV ads. At AT&T, the store owner, who also didn't want to be identified, said he was aware of the TV ads, but said "it's just a commercial." No customers have talked about it. "The iPhone is the iPhone," he said. "It sells itself."
Mark Siegel, AT&T spokesman in Atlanta, said consumers don't understand the blank space in the ads. "They don't see it as no 3G coverage, they see it as no coverage at all," he said in a phone interview. "That's misleading and that's why we've take the action we have." Consumers are used to being told that blank areas on wireless maps mean no coverage, he said. Verizon spokesman Jim Gerace countered Siegel's remarks telling DailyFinance, "This suit that AT&T filed is goofy. We clearly state in the ad that voice and data service is available outside of the 3G coverage area, which is their concern."
By tackling Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon and Britain's Vodafone, AT&T is sacking its rival when it should be beefing up its 3G network. If AT&T could fill those blank-map-gaps with wider 3G coverage, then Verizon would have little argument. AT&T is drawing more attention to its smaller-than-Verizon's 3G network and more people are hearing that it's slower too, from folks who use iPhones.
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, in an interview with DailyFinance on July 23, told me that AT&T's "data network behaves differently with the load of demand [from iPhone users] that's being put on the network." IPhone users have complained about the lack of 3G coverage and the slow speed while surfing the Web on their phones, not to mention dropped calls. In July, I asked Stephenson about the anger from iPhone users about AT&T's poor network quality. He said he puts the network to the most drastic tests possible when he travels to large cities like New York and Los Angeles. He "abuses" his phone as much as he can, with Web surfing, app using, and e-mailing -- "I beat those phones up," he said. When there's a problem, he calls his service-support team and gets them to fix it. "I'm on it like a hawk," he told DailyFinance.
If he's on it like a hawk, then AT&T should be telling us three-plus months later about solutions and improvements it has made to its network, not trotting out some half-baked lawsuit that ironically draws attention to the company's still-sparse 3G coverage.
How about an announcement telling customers how AT&T has been working with Apple to help boost the quality of iPhone service? Heck, if Stephenson would say, "We're still working on it, sorry we have nothing new to report," that would be welcome news to many iPhone users, who are loyal to their phones in spite of being tethered to AT&T's slow service. Simply telling folks they haven't lost their focus on the problem, would be enough for many.
Instead, AT&T insults its customers with this third-grade-level lawsuit of "Verizon hit me first." Please.
Back in July, I told Stephenson that I owned an iPhone and that I don't recommend it to friends because the network quality can to often be poor. Add this silly lawsuit to the list of reasons I'd tell people to stay away from the iPhone until it works on a network besides AT&T's.
Anthony Massucci is a senior writer for DailyFinance. You may follow him on Twitter at hianthony.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
11-04-2009 @ 9:38PM
Jeri Sessler said...
Maybe Stephenson should travel to central Wisconsin or Page Mill Road in Palo Alto California to see how his 3G network doesn't exist there? Or NE Scottsdale, Arizona - where his network doesn't exist. Period. I've offered to "host" a cell tower in my yard to fix the problem - the real problem? Deaf ears.
Reply
11-10-2009 @ 9:46AM
epic said...
do you have any idea how wireless spectum is allocated...maybe you should look it up...you can't just build a tower where ever you want and starting offering phone service
11-06-2009 @ 6:45PM
Justa Notherguy said...
This is textbook example of the corporation's left hand not knowing - or understanding - what the right one is doing. Somebody from AT&T marketing needs to meet with their OGC and crack some skulls...or, maybe just pay them in stock, so they have a stake in the company's public relations.
Most remarkable, to me, is that this suit comes after Verizon revised the ads by adding descriptive captions ('3G coverage map'), in response to AT&T's initial complaints. Why in heck would you repeatedly insist that your biggest competitor explain your own, flawed service with such crystal clarity? 'That's right, we demand red text in all-caps. And, hey - use a bigger font, dammit!'
Were I advising Verizon, I'd suggest a new series of ads with a comic known for subtlety and mock solemnity (John Cleese and Martin Mull, come to mind), posing as spokesman...maybe even as a corporate attorney. Standing before some visual aids, he apologizes profusely for any mis-communication, then - carefully thanking AT&T for their expressed concerns - hammers home the punchline with cheerful incredulity.:
'As you can see, AT&T's 3G coverage zone is approximately 45% smaller than Verizon's, with slower speeds in most of the top twenty major, metropolitan areas. Got that? Good. Thanks for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding.'
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 10:22AM
ttrexxx said...
you all are missing the bigger picture..Verizon has more cell sites because of GOV.cooperation uncle sam and verizon sleep together always that way.Uncle sam can monitor every verizon cell site and would love everyone to use their network.more money for verizon and more coverage for the government that the real story that you wont see in print But there is a suit on going about this topic google it.
11-08-2009 @ 7:12AM
Mike said...
Honestly, from watching the ads i actually agree with AT&T. I don't use an iPhone but have used AT&T in the NYC area and in other parts of the country for years and i have little to no complaints.
Let's remember, a few years ago, a phone was just a phone. If you really don't like a service, talk with your money, not your mouth. In the meantime, a small set of unhappy customers is not a reason to let another company imply you cover only a small part of the country. Kudos to AT&T for defending itself from the slander of the likes of verizon.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 10:32AM
Rob said...
Sounds like sour grapes. There is no slandering involved. Verizon is simply pointing out the fact that AT&T has sat on their hands for years living off the I-phone and not investing in their network. Verizon is just being business savvy in this advertising campaign and all those who are complaining about it have little idea why.
11-08-2009 @ 11:10AM
Zinna said...
We took AT&T at their word about coverage where we were going as there would be no phone in the home where we stayed. Had I not taken our old phone which had time left on it before it was cancelled, We would have been up a creek without a paddle. Even our small locale phone from home worked there better than their phone.
There was no coverage in the area where we went. Their sales people lied to us, even when we told them where we were going, about coverage.
..we returned every thing we got from AT&T upon returning home and went Verizon which works every where we travel and not just is the bigger cities and locations. So AT&T can Keep their phones, they are not worth the trouble!!
11-08-2009 @ 12:21PM
Jesse said...
You're stupid.
11-08-2009 @ 7:01AM
don said...
i have verizon i understand that the 3g map does not wrok for reg phones i dont have a 3g but verizon map for reg phones show a strong service at my house but i dont get any bars in some areas of house and yard. was same way with att when had them. so who cares about map they all print what they like to show.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 7:11AM
John H. said...
I use to have AT&T and the service sucked! I use to have to stand by my back door to be able to call someone. Calls always dropped and even when I had problems with my cell phones they had poor customer service! I one time went to the store by my house where they use to fix my phones or send them off for service and the guy told me I had to go another store that was thirty minutes away from me to solve the problem, but when he found out that I worked a few doors down he said "Oh you work there, well then we'll help you out". Are you kidding me? Im so glad I went over with Verizon.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 7:39AM
amerabritt said...
The company I work for uses verizon and the phones are awful,poor reception,dropped calls all the time,I use my personal phone and so do many of the other employee's,as soon as the contract is up the company is dropping verizon there customer service is awful,I have had At&t for about 12 years and never had a problem,get coverage where ever I go (including overseas)and have never had a problem with the customer service,always very helpful in resolving the issue,I have seen the commercial and I agree that anyone that is an at&t customer should have the common sense to realize that this is false advertising on verizon's part,but by the same token at&t has the right to defend itself.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 10:36AM
Rob said...
Could it be the fact that your company got the cheapest phones possible to save money. Don't blame it on verizon if your company wanted to be cheap. Remember the old adage "you get what you pay for". Verizon service is the best available, but if you buy cheap devices, they will NOT perform as good as higher priced ones (such as the one you have with at&t). Let's not compare apples to oranges.
11-10-2009 @ 9:49AM
epic said...
you might just wanna go look a verizon phone lineup...it speaks volumes
11-08-2009 @ 7:47AM
ttrexxx said...
SECRETE: ma bell sleeps with uncle sam and most of the good sites are on gov property "theres a suit for that " in progress.this has allowed them to access all cell phones so that nsa and cia can monitor
Reply
11-10-2009 @ 10:29AM
epic said...
who are you talking about...ma bell doesn't exsit anymore...verizon and att all came from the same root compaines that were part of the Bell breakup...all phone comapines are subject to surveilance...its built into each network no matter which name the have...all US companies comply...sprint, verizon, att, tmobile...they all are just as "guilty"...run out of tinfoil much?
11-08-2009 @ 8:06AM
Jamie said...
My boyfriend had an iPhone and it didn't work in more areas than it did. He paid 200 for it with a contract, paid the 175 cancelation fee and sold it on the internet for 416. When iPhones can work on Verizon's network they will be nice, until then.... No Thanks.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 8:20AM
Lisa said...
I was a Cingular customer for several years before moving to Verizon due to horrible customer service and frequent incorrect billing woes. I was in uptopia with Verizon. They had the hottest phones, best service, afforable "unlimited" plans, and the customer service was always correct in reliable - in the store as well as through the 1-800 service center. After relocating to my hometown, where the closest Verizon store was 60 miles away and poor service in the area, I held out as long as I could be switching back to AT&T. I really, REALLY didn't want to make the move but my hand was forced. I was on AT&T for a year before falling into the iPhone trap. Now my monthly bill is outrageous, the calls constantly drop, the Internet browsing is extremely slow, the calls constantly drop, the customer service information is always inconsistent....did I mention that the calls constantly drop? Now, Verizon has FINALLY moved into my area (thanks to buying out Alltell). I desperately want to reconnect with Verizon but AT&T will try to rip me a new one if I leave less than a year of owning the new iPhone. With fees, disconnects...it won't be worth it...for now. I will return to Verizon! We have been apart far too long.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 8:22AM
Jackie said...
I hate AT&T. They are the most mean spirited company I have dealt with. They have completely shown me how a company can be so eager to make money at the expense of their customers. I hope they loose their suit.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 8:46AM
HA said...
I had AT&T, for two months, They suck and so does their network. Never worked.
I now have Verizon, and like their commercial, it does work all over the place.
Looks like AT&T is only trying to make a quick buck.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 9:01AM
jill said...
Have had Verizon for 7 years and we live in the middle of NO WHERE, have perfect coverage and no dropped calls. My inlaws and Parents have At&t and they hate it, they can't get phone calls if they are at my house. in-laws have switched to verizon and my parents are about to. AT&T doesn't show any gratitude to their customers who have been with them from the start, Inlaws found that out. Now, I must say though, Verizon doesn't care either, they have gotten so big they have lost what customer service is all about. Great Call service- Horrible Customer service.
Reply