Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
"Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0911031630480.238@hsinghsing. panda.com...
> AT&T sues Verizon because the truth over AT&T's lack of 3G coverage hurts
> its feelings:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0091103?rpc=44
Another MERITLESS law suit. The Verizon ad clearly states it's comparing
"3G" coverage, not total service area. If Verizon is truly and accurately
representing AT&T's 3G coverage area, then there's no basis on which to
sue. It's not Verizon's fault if the general population doesn't understand
the difference. AT&T should spend their money building out their network,
not suing its TRUTHFUL competitor.
Just because they have a DeathStar logo, they think they can do anything.
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
At 03 Nov 2009 17:35:20 -0800 D. Stussy wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0911031630480.238@hsinghsing. panda.com...
> > AT&T sues Verizon because the truth over AT&T's lack of 3G coverage
hurts
> > its feelings:
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0091103?rpc=44
>
> Another MERITLESS law suit. The Verizon ad clearly states it's
comparing
> "3G" coverage, not total service area. If Verizon is truly and
accurately
> representing AT&T's 3G coverage area, then there's no basis on which to
> sue. It's not Verizon's fault if the general population doesn't
understand
> the difference. AT&T should spend their money building out their
network,
> not suing its TRUTHFUL competitor.
>
> Just because they have a DeathStar logo, they think they can do anything.
It's a little more complicated than that, IMO, but you're right- if
Verizon can leverage the consumer's lack of knowledge, the onus is on
AT&T to educate the consumer, not sue Verizon to stop.
AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
Mark Crispin wrote:
> AT&T sues Verizon because the truth over AT&T's lack of 3G coverage
> hurts its feelings:
It's a bizarre lawsuit because AT&T's complaint is based on the fact
that the AT&T total data coverage (2G+3G) is in fact much wider than the
3G coverage in the Verizon ad shows. Yet the Verizon ad clearly labels
that AT&T map as "AT&T 3G Coverage."
AT&T said that they interviewed people in a shopping mall that had seen
the Verizon ad, and about 1/4 of the people interviewed said that they
thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the parts
of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
So is Verizon liable because there are a lot of non-tech-savvy shoppers
at a mall? Talk about a frivolous lawsuit. The judge should fine AT&T
$10 billion dollars for wasting the court's time.
In AT&T's defense, their 3G network often operates at 2G speeds.
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:Pl8Im.271$Wf2.218
@newsfe23.iad:
> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>
>
>
Will the Iphone now run the app you were using before the damned phone rang
simultaneously with the phone call that came in on this wonderful GSM
data/voice/simultaneously technology....or as I suspect, dump the app you
were in the middle of so it can answer the phone....system capabilities or
no system capabilities??
I saw someone's iPhone ring and the owner was pissed it dumped what he was
doing to answer it....
Larry wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> said that they
>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the parts
>> of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>
>
> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>
>
What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where there
are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
Larry wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:Pl8Im.271$Wf2.218
> @newsfe23.iad:
>
>> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
>> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
>> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Will the Iphone now run the app you were using before the damned phone rang
> simultaneously with the phone call that came in on this wonderful GSM
> data/voice/simultaneously technology....or as I suspect, dump the app you
> were in the middle of so it can answer the phone....system capabilities or
> no system capabilities??
>
> I saw someone's iPhone ring and the owner was pissed it dumped what he was
> doing to answer it....
>
>
>
Not Me <Not.Me@Home.Base> wrote in
news:d-adnVLOY9A4vW_XnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4p2d@speakeasy.net:
> Larry wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> said that they
>>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the
>>> parts of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>>
>>
>
>
> What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where
> there are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
>
Not being a Verizon shareholder, why would I give a shit whether this tower
or that tower turns a profit.
Nice deflection, though. I don't give a shit if any sellphone company ever
turns a profit because I don't own them.
Larry wrote:
> Not Me <Not.Me@Home.Base> wrote in
> news:d-adnVLOY9A4vW_XnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4p2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
>>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>>
>>>> said that they
>>>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the
>>>> parts of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>>>
>>> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where
>> there are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
>>
>
> Not being a Verizon shareholder, why would I give a shit whether this tower
> or that tower turns a profit.
>
> Nice deflection, though. I don't give a shit if any sellphone company ever
> turns a profit because I don't own them.
>
>
>
Think of it purely from an irrational behavior perspective.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:47:36 -0500, Not Me <Not.Me@Home.Base> wrote in
<d-adnVLOY9A4vW_XnZ2dnUVZ_vBi4p2d@speakeasy.net>:
>Larry wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> said that they
>>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the parts
>>> of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>
>> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
EGPRS (EDGE) is actually capable of quite good speeds *if* you have the
right Class of mobile device.
>What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where there
>are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
What's misrepresentation is failing to disclose the fact that actual
"3G" speed in much of that area is much worse than in metro areas, on
par with or even less than EGPRS.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
On 2009-11-05, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:Pl8Im.271$Wf2.218
> @newsfe23.iad:
>
>> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
>> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
>> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>
> Will the Iphone now run the app you were using before the damned phone rang
> simultaneously with the phone call that came in on this wonderful GSM
> data/voice/simultaneously technology....or as I suspect, dump the app you
> were in the middle of so it can answer the phone....system capabilities or
> no system capabilities??
>
> I saw someone's iPhone ring and the owner was pissed it dumped what he was
> doing to answer it....
The iPhone isn't the only 3G phone AT&T sells, in fact 70% of the phones
they sell are 3G. I could talk on my Motorola phone while continuing to
type on my tethered laptop without a problem.
On 2009-11-05, Not Me <Not.Me@Home.Base> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> said that they
>>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the parts
>>> of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>
>
> What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where there
> are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
What makes you think that deploying 3G everywhere needs to cost Verizon
anything they wouldn't have to spend anyway? The 3G service is fully
backwards compatible with the 2G service, and I don't think you can even
buy 3G-incapable CDMA base stations any more, so just the natural
replacement of your old junk with more cheaply maintained equipment will
eventually yield an all-3G network. If you don't increase the backhaul
bandwidth you'll have a slow 3G service, but that's still 3G for the
purpose of making maps.
AT&T's 3G deployment is much more expensive since the 3G service is
incompatible with the 2G service at the radio interface, so they need to
essentially build out a second, separate network to provide it. On
the other hand AT&T's service, should they ever finish it, should have
a much longer useful service life. There is 20 Mbps GSM 3G deployed
in other countries already while, given that no one seems to want to
do 3xEVDO, Verizon's 3G network seems to be the end of the line for CDMA.
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB9C1C9283C7noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in
> news:Pl8Im.271$Wf2.218
> @newsfe23.iad:
>
>> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing
>> where
>> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
>> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Will the Iphone now run the app you were using before the damned phone
> rang
> simultaneously with the phone call that came in on this wonderful GSM
> data/voice/simultaneously technology....or as I suspect, dump the app
> you
> were in the middle of so it can answer the phone....system
> capabilities or
> no system capabilities??
>
> I saw someone's iPhone ring and the owner was pissed it dumped what he
> was
> doing to answer it....
>
>
>
> --
> Larry
The other way around, the iPhone works just fine. Answer a call and you
can start up an app while you're talking, no issue. But I don't honestly
know what happens if you're working on something when a phone call comes
in. I'll have to try it and see.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB9C216AEBB2noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>> said that they
>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the
>> parts
>> of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>
>
> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>
>
> --
> Larry
EDGE isn't the 3G experience, but it doesn't render your phone useless
either.
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
Todd Allcock wrote:
> It's a little more complicated than that, IMO, but you're right- if
> Verizon can leverage the consumer's lack of knowledge, the onus is on
> AT&T to educate the consumer, not sue Verizon to stop.
I don't know that Verizon's leveraging anything here. There's a been lot
of complaints of the lack of 3G coverage in many AT&T service areas; 2G
coverage when you're paying for a 3G iPhone is enough to upset many
subscribers.
> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
For now anyway. In 2010 Verizon will begin selling LTE devices and their
LTE network will begin to be deployed which can do simultaneous voice
and data. Not that that's something a lot of people are clamoring to do.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in
news:XM6dnZxdXvUB9G_XnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@earthlink.com:
> EDGE isn't the 3G experience, but it doesn't render your phone useless
> either.
>
>
Mine doesn't render my phone useless, either. The internet is from Cricket
because it has unlimited service for $40. The phone is on PagePlus
Cellular using the Verizon towers because I got internet service last month
for about $11.40 and only pay for what I use. Both are CDMA systems, but
one is on 850 and one on 1900 so there's no interference at all. The
Cricket aircard feeds a Cradlepoint CTR350 wifi router running off four
11AH D cells in series for "about" 5V. The big NiMh beasts run it for days
in my netbook carrying case so all my wifi toys, even my Netgear Skype
Phone always has a connection, even in the car....
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
At 04 Nov 2009 22:06:55 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > It's a little more complicated than that, IMO, but you're right- if
> > Verizon can leverage the consumer's lack of knowledge, the onus is on
> > AT&T to educate the consumer, not sue Verizon to stop.
>
> I don't know that Verizon's leveraging anything here. There's a been
> lot of complaints of the lack of 3G coverage in many AT&T service
> areas; 2G coverage when you're paying for a 3G iPhone is enough to
> upset many subscribers.
AT&T has most major population centers covered. I'm not sure there's a
lot of "complaining" about coverage as much as capacity in some areas.
> > AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing
where
> > AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
> > where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>
> For now anyway. In 2010 Verizon will begin selling LTE devices and
> their LTE network will begin to be deployed which can do simultaneous
> voice and data. Not that that's something a lot of people are clamoring
> to do.
Not clamoring- like multitasking and the iPhone, it's one of those things
no one considers until something doesn't work like they expect. Using a
server-based navigation system like Google or Bing sucks when maps stop
downloading or traffic stops updating because you're on the phone.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2009-11-05, Not Me <Not.Me@Home.Base> wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4af1e5cf$0$1651
>>> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>>
>>>> said that they
>>>> thought the ad meant that AT&T provided no coverage at all in the parts
>>>> of the map that showed no AT&T 3G coverage.
>>>>
>>> Isn't EDGE pretty close to "no coverage at all"?.......(c;]
>>
>> What's dumber, that misapprehension, or Verizon's pumping 3G where there
>> are not enough customers and usage density to EVER pay for it?
>
> What makes you think that deploying 3G everywhere needs to cost Verizon
> anything they wouldn't have to spend anyway? The 3G service is fully
> backwards compatible with the 2G service, and I don't think you can even
> buy 3G-incapable CDMA base stations any more, so just the natural
> replacement of your old junk with more cheaply maintained equipment will
> eventually yield an all-3G network. If you don't increase the backhaul
> bandwidth you'll have a slow 3G service, but that's still 3G for the
> purpose of making maps.
>
> AT&T's 3G deployment is much more expensive since the 3G service is
> incompatible with the 2G service at the radio interface, so they need to
> essentially build out a second, separate network to provide it. On
> the other hand AT&T's service, should they ever finish it, should have
> a much longer useful service life. There is 20 Mbps GSM 3G deployed
> in other countries already while, given that no one seems to want to
> do 3xEVDO, Verizon's 3G network seems to be the end of the line for CDMA.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
"If you don't increase the backhaul bandwidth you'll have a slow 3G
service, but that's still 3G for the purpose of making maps."
....and filing business and consumer fraud lawsuits...
Re: there's a lawsuit for that (AKA "The Empire Strikes Back")
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:06:55 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4af26b80$0$1665$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> It's a little more complicated than that, IMO, but you're right- if
>> Verizon can leverage the consumer's lack of knowledge, the onus is on
>> AT&T to educate the consumer, not sue Verizon to stop.
>
>I don't know that Verizon's leveraging anything here. There's a been lot
>of complaints of the lack of 3G coverage in many AT&T service areas; 2G
>coverage when you're paying for a 3G iPhone is enough to upset many
>subscribers.
Nonsense. AT&T has very good 3G coverage in the great majority of
places people actually care about. There's not much demand for 3G
service in the middle of Death Valley.
>> AT&T should just fight back via advertising- e.g. a map comparing where
>> AT&T customers can use simultaneous voice and data (their 3G map) vs.
>> where Verizon customers can (nowhere) would be a start.
>
>For now anyway. In 2010 Verizon will begin selling LTE devices and their
>LTE network will begin to be deployed which can do simultaneous voice
>and data. Not that that's something a lot of people are clamoring to do.
Not to mention being vaporware.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
AT&T: there's a lawsuit for that 
Linear Mode
