
Sprint sues AT&T over its fake 5G branding - steini
https://engadget.com/2019/02/08/att-5g-sprint-lawsuit
======
judge2020
ATT's statement:

> 5G Evolution and the 5GE indicator simply let customers know when their
> device is in an area where speeds up to twice as fast as standard LTE are
> available.

Ya, but customers don't know that. They think it's 5g. It's not 5g. This
wouldn't have been an issue if there was help text/a tooltip in cellular
settings with a disclaimer saying what 5ge is.

~~~
dooglius
Do customers know anything about 5g other than that it is ostensibly faster
that 4g?

~~~
drngdds
No, but when real 5G comes out, they won't care because they think that
they've already seen 5G and it's not that good.

~~~
fivefive55
They did the same thing with 4g. I had friends in high school with HSPA+
phones and they suddenly got an update to '4g'. Total lies, it was like 3mbit
speedtests. Then we got real LTE and it was an order of magnitude faster.

------
dcole2929
If only we had a regulatory body capable of preventing telecom companies from
engaging in this kind of anti-consumer chicanery. I don't think most people
really care about the actual distinctions of 4g vs 5g but it's certainly wrong
to advertise something as better than the service you actually provide and
questionably legal

~~~
SN76477
This is a good idea... it could be called communications commission or
something.

~~~
r00fus
A Federal one, even.

Of course in our current “business” environment, such an entity would likely
be eventually co-opted and captured by the very industry they regulate.

------
United857
Not the first time they've done this: At least on AT&T iPhones, 3G+HSDPA is
misleadingly indicated as "4G" on the status bar ("true" 4G is indicated as
"LTE").

~~~
flyinghamster
T-Mobile followed suit on that as well, back when they were itching to merge
with AT&T. They even went so far as to brand Samsung's Galaxy S Relay as "4G"
even though it was at best dual carrier HSPA+.

But the crew in charge of T-Mobile at the time also decided not to bother
investing in their network, so back in 2013 T-Mobile US's coverage was
absolute shite outside of cities.

It just goes to show that marketing weasels and lobbyists, as always, will
happily use tech-speak to bamboozle the masses - and the politicians and
regulators as well.

------
whoopdedo
Is this the same Sprint that jumped the gun by calling WiMax "4G" before it
was standardized?

~~~
MBCook
You mean the one that had to tell people their “3G” phones wouldn’t work
anymore when they turned off their 2G network because the early “3G” phones
weren’t?

Yes.

------
wilde
The Verge did a good interview with the Sprint lawyer in this case.
[https://castro.fm/episode/ZPzYca](https://castro.fm/episode/ZPzYca) They have
studies that show consumers are confused.

------
mikece
I understand why Sprint is doing this but I question how legitimate their
claim is. The vast majority of folks don't understand (or care) about the
underlying technology beyond "5G is one better, right?"

If there are customers who bought the AT&T service because they thought they
were getting authentic 5G then there would be better standing for fraud but
I'm sure there's plenty of fine print saying that "5G" as advertised -- even
"5GE" \-- has nothing to do with the technology called 5G by the ITU (or
whomever is certifying what authentic 5G is).

~~~
JustSomeNobody
> The vast majority of folks don't understand (or care) about the underlying
> technology beyond "5G is one better, right?"

Does there have to be? I mean, "5GE" is borderline false advertisement. Let a
judge decide if this is harming competitors.

~~~
penagwin
Considering the "red bull gives you wings" lawsuit went through, it seems like
this would be a rather open/shut case.

Except it depends on the judge, $$$ lawyers, etc. so...

~~~
singingboyo
The red bull one was settled out of court, wasn't it? Also, I almost feel like
the red bull lawsuit is the same deal as the McDonald's coffee one -
legitimate complaints being marginalized and derided as obvious issues (humans
can't have wings, coffee hot).

The red bull suit argued that with the 'gives you wings' slogan and other
advertising, they suggested it's better than, say, a cup of coffee... but
there's less caffeine in red bull than coffee, and not a whole lot else in
terms of stimulants. Whether that's enough to be really false advertising, I'm
not sure, but characterizing the lawsuit as being about just the slogan and
actual wings isn't accurate.

