Verizon Responds to AT&T Lawsuit: "The Truth Hurts"

[gammite]

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...uth_hurts.html

Verizon Responds to AT&T Lawsuit: "The Truth Hurts"

Verizon mocks AT&T for whining in its response to lawsuit. Verizon's legal filing says "the truth hurts" and claims AT&T is simply trying to squash the marketing before the holidays. Tony Bradley
Was this article useful? Yes 1 No 0

Verizon has responded to the AT&T lawsuit over the "There's a Map for That" marketing campaign with a legal filing of its own. Verizon's message to the court and to AT&T essentially boils down to three words: "the truth hurts".

Verizon responds to AT&T lawsuit by stating 'the truth hurts.' The Verizon legal team should be commended. Legal briefs and filings don't usually make very compelling reading, but this one is actually a pretty good read. It has a little drama, a little humor, and ultimately makes the point that AT&T is simply trying to use the courts to obscure the simple truth that its 3G network is inadequate.

In the filing, Verizon states "Remarkably, AT&T admits that the 3G coverage maps--the one thing that is common to all five ads--are accurate and that the ads' express statement that Verizon has "5X More 3G Coverage" than AT&T is true."

Verizon goes on to say "In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon's side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T's confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger."

The legal response from Verizon concludes by saying "This motion is a blatant effort to ask the Court to do what the marketplace will not do: shield AT&T from truthful comparative advertisements that Verizon has a right to air and that consumers have a right to see."

Touché. Well-played, Verizon.

Recent reports from Brandindex.com show that Verizon's brand image is skyrocketing, while AT&T's has plummeted. AT&T could construe the reports to support its claim that the ads are misleading and damaging to its image.

Or, perhaps AT&T's claim has become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. By suing Verizon and making a big deal over the ad campaign, AT&T has increased the exposure of the ads exponentially. If the shift in brand perception is a result of the ads, it could be because they're true rather than because they're misleading. The fact that AT&T is whining about it publicly certainly doesn't improve its brand perception either.

AT&T was hoping to get an emergency injunction to force Verizon to pull the entire marketing campaign pending the results of a full hearing. It appears that AT&T will not get that injunction and that this case will not be heard for awhile. Even if AT&T ultimately prevails, the holidays will be over, the damage will be done, and Verizon will most likely have ended the campaign of its own volition anyway.

Verizon isn't making any claim in the ads that AT&T's own customers haven't already stated. Consumers have taken issue with AT&T's high dropped call rate in some areas, sparse 3G coverage, and more. I doubt AT&T will be taking its customers to court to get them to stop complaining.

AT&T is its own worst enemy in this case. It is drawing attention to disparaging details about its own network which it admits are accurate, and coming off looking like whiners at the same time. Seems like a lose-lose and makes me wonder if the AT&T legal team isn't secretly working for the Verizon marketing team.

good. maybe this will force att to get off their asses and be competitive vs. a follower.

[gregsmith59]

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...uth_hurts.html

Verizon Responds to AT&T Lawsuit: "The Truth Hurts"
...

AT&T is desperate at the moment, and trying to use the courts to do what their network investments have not.

As the article points out, they are just drawing more attention to their own inadequacy. But it probably doesn't matter too much because joe sixpack and jane iphone are not reading legal briefs or news analysis.

This Verizon ad campaign is great, and a welcome response to the smug iphone ads too.

[Kies]

AT&T has just been raking in the dollars from their overpriced rate plans for far too long. The iPhone has been their savior.

[ikjeft1b]

I don't take anyone's ad campaign seriously because all advertising is carefully-packaged exaggeration. That said, I got a laugh out of the Verizon ads ...and now, an even bigger laugh out of the tit-for-tat stemming from AT&T's response.

Pull up a chair, this is gonna be fun.

[neodamonkey]

OK so what do you want att to do?

a) expand 3g coverage to sparsaly populated areas where you rarely visit or might vacation eveyonce in a while, so they can beat Verizon.

OR

b) Improve 3g coverage and increase speeds, therfor increasing network capacity in heavily populated areas where most of the customer base lives?

[terryjohnson16]

Let me tell you something funny. I was in the AT&T store, and i was playing with the iphone 3GS to see which loads pages faster. My EDGE T-Mobile phone vs AT&T's so called faster iphone 3GS on 3G.

while playing with the device, two guys were talking and one was asking his friend or maybe relative, if he was going to sign up. He said he was in his office, and the phone showed 3G, but with no bars.

he said "I am switching to Verizon. They have 3G everyone. AT&T you can't even get 2G service. AT&T sucks." After I heard that I was about to roll on the floor when i heard that.

Those Verizon ads are getting to people's heads as what Verizon is trying to accomplish

[i0wnj00]

OK so what do you want att to do?

a) expand 3g coverage to sparsaly populated areas where you rarely visit or might vacation eveyonce in a while, so they can beat Verizon.

OR

b) Improve 3g coverage and increase speeds, therfor increasing network capacity in heavily populated areas where most of the customer base lives?

Funny, you mention this considering that Verizon Wireless and Sprint don't seem to have a problem expanding their 3G services to sparsely populated areas. Even more odd that Sprint (mainly an urban carrier) beats AT&T in the same areas. If these areas don't justify the expenditures for the latest then why does Verizon Wireless and Sprint even bother?

Is AT&T that broke (even more than Sprint) that it has to decide between the two where to deploy 3G?

Increased speeds is barely a tangible benefit if real world conditions won't even allow it nor can you quantify it on an advertisement. AT&T can only get out of this quagmire if they do both, I do agree with one thing...Verizon will get bored with picking on AT&Ts measly 3G coverage.

[plane]

And the legal issue just generates more publicity. A win, win for Vzw

[awj223]

OK so what do you want att to do?

a) expand 3g coverage to sparsaly populated areas where you rarely visit or might vacation eveyonce in a while, so they can beat Verizon.

OR

b) Improve 3g coverage and increase speeds, therfor increasing network capacity in heavily populated areas where most of the customer base lives?

Both. It's not an either/or thing because AT&T can't just magically move its labor force from market to market so easily. AT&T has to spend money to keep all of its employees who live and work in rural markets on the payroll; might as well keep them occupied upgrading the network to 3G just like their urban counterparts.

This is like asking if AT&T should focus on wireless, or TV, or internet (FiOS). As if a company with a market cap of over $150 billion doesn't have the resources to do more than one thing at a time.

[drFUNK]

Pull up a chair, this is gonna be fun.

Once I saw the opening paragraph of Verizon's response, I thought to myself "Yep, the gloves are off. this is going to be good." Hopefully pressure from Verizon will force AT&T to actually fix their existing network issues and take care to execute a high quality LTE roll-out. I won't hold my breath though.

[neodamonkey]

Funny, you mention this considering that Verizon Wireless and Sprint don't seem to have a problem expanding their 3G services to sparsely populated areas. Even more odd that Sprint (mainly an urban carrier) beats AT&T in the same areas. If these areas don't justify the expenditures for the latest then why does Verizon Wireless and Sprint even bother?

Is AT&T that broke (even more than Sprint) that it has to decide between the two where to deploy 3G?

Increased speeds is barely a tangible benefit if real world conditions won't even allow it nor can you quantify it on an advertisement. AT&T can only get out of this quagmire if they do both, I do agree with one thing...Verizon will get bored with picking on AT&Ts measly 3G coverage.

Att is the only company that has and prepared for a data hog of a phone. I believe this to be part of the reason for putting more money into making 3g speeds faster and freeing up more room on the network to improve the traffic issues.

[Kies]

AT&T did not prepare for the iPhone. That's why they have the problems they have now. The only reason they need to invest in a better network now is because it was so piss poor horrible before.

[gregsmith59]

Att is the only company that has and prepared for a data hog of a phone. ...

I think you meant "has and should have prepared for". Prepared means they did it pre or before the problems arose, which is obviously not the case.

[mulletwireless]

Look at a cult of the red map, they just show one set of coverage, now if you are just an uninformed consumer you'd assume that their coverage is 3g everywhere which it's not the truth., Do the all big red coverage maps stand the up to the smell test? I bet if you broke it down state by state and region by region you'd find big gaps in their network. Where AT&T up to date maps show GSM, Edge, and 3G coverage. I give it to AT&T for not pretending to say we are 3G everywhere unlike the Cult of the V.

Plus I'd question how up to date the maps VWZ claims in the AT&T 3G networks are, they have turned on 850 3G in 25 more markets this month alone. Is that reflected in the attack ads? I don't call them commercials since their only point is to play mind games and play loose with the truth. If I was back with AT&T I suggest attacking VWZ for not really being a company, just a partnership and push the fact half of their income VWZ makes goes overseas to a foreign carrier Vodafone. The good old buy American campaign never fails.

[SprintGuru]

I suggest attacking VWZ for not really being a company, just a partnership and push the fact half of their income VWZ makes goes overseas to a foreign carrier Vodafone. The good old buy American campaign never fails.

This could come off as foreign prejudice, though. I always say, "Leave politics out of the party." Did those "support America" ads work for GM?