

AT&T not happy with Verizon ads: 'There's a lawsuit for that' - theappfarm
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/11/03/atandt-not-happy-with-verizon-ads-theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/

======
rriepe
It's interesting that AT&T isn't disputing the lack of 3G coverage claim.
Instead, they're stretching to say Verizon was implying something else with
clearly-labeled maps.

Pretty inane. I doubt they'll win. It reflects pretty badly on them, too.

~~~
jamesbressi
Agreed. Total waste of AT&T's money to pursue this. Embarrassing on their
part, if you ask me.

WAIT! Here's an idea: The money they are spending on legal for this lawsuit
they could use to improve the network!

Ha, I know, that's just craaaaazy talk. Silly me.

------
wheels
If Verizon's PR people are good they'll milk this all the way to the bank. Let
this drag on, generate a lot of press coverage, keep harping on the fact that
AT&T really _doesn't_ have good 3G coverage.

------
jrockway
AT&T should counter with a pie chart of "percent of population with 3G
coverage". AT&T's and Verizon's coverage will look identical then.

(I used to have AT&T, and traveled a lot, but was never out of range of their
3G service. Verizon certainly has a good network, but AT&T's is not horribly
bad.)

~~~
chrischen
I guess it depends where you live, and whether or not you travel. I frankly
don't care if they have 3G in new mexico, as it wouldn't concern me, and I'd
probably never go there.

------
buugs
Both maps clearly state 3G coverage in the ad and do not say network coverage
anywhere in it, why even go for a lawsuit like this?

