AT&T just filed a fed suit against Verizon's commercials.

ATLANTA (AP) -- AT&T Inc. is suing Verizon Wireless over its
competitor's "There's a Map for That" commercials.

AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia Tuesday accusing Verizon of false advertising and deceptive
trade practices.

The Verizon commercials are in response to AT&T's "There's an App for
That" ads touting the provider's thousands of applications that can be
used on its smart phones.

Verizon's ads show United States maps with areas highlighted to depict
its available "3G" coverage -- which allows users to access data
faster. In comparison, it displays a map with AT&T's "3G" coverage
with blank spaces to show where the service is not available.

AT&T says those maps are misleading because there is still coverage in
areas where "3G" service is not offered.

http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story...storyid=137084

On Nov 3, 10:55*pm, No multi touch for slugish Motorola phone - a
former wannabe iPhone killer <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ATLANTA (AP) -- AT&T Inc. is suing Verizon Wireless over its
> competitor's "There's a Map for That" commercials.
>
> AT&T filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
> of Georgia Tuesday accusing Verizon of false advertising and deceptive
> trade practices.
>
> The Verizon commercials are in response to AT&T's "There's an App for
> That" ads touting the provider's thousands of applications that can be
> used on its smart phones.
>
> Verizon's ads show United States maps with areas highlighted to depict
> its available "3G" coverage -- which allows users to access data
> faster. In comparison, it displays a map with AT&T's "3G" coverage
> with blank spaces to show where the service is not available.
>
> AT&T says those maps are misleading because there is still coverage in
> areas where "3G" service is not offered.
>
> http://www.11alive.com/rss/rss_story...storyid=137084

AT&T also used the suit to toot its own horn, noting that it “had
lower churn” and “twice the number of smartphone customers” than
Verizon.

I did not know that.

http://moconews.net/article/419-ther...er-new-tv-ads/

On 2009-11-04, No multi touch for sluggish Droid- “There's A Lawsuit For That � AT&T Sues Verizon Over New TV Ads <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
> AT&T also used the suit to toot its own horn, noting that it “had
> lower churn� and “twice the number of smartphone customers� than
> Verizon.
>
> I did not know that.
>
> http://moconews.net/article/419-ther...er-new-tv-ads/

The churn thing happened last quarter (the one they're reporting
now). AT&T's overall churn was lower than Verizon's, for the
first time ever that I can remember. Verizon's postpaid
retail churn was still a bit lower than AT&T, but Verizon's
numbers have been drifting up while AT&T's have been drifting
down for quite a few quarters now. I suspect AT&T's ARPU will
also turn out to have been higher than Verizon's last quarter
(another once-rare occurance, now helped along by Alltel),
though knowing for sure will require waiting until AT&T files their
10-Q.

I don't know how AT&T would know Verizon's "number of smartphone
customers", however, since I've not seen Verizon report that
anywhere.

Dennis Ferguson