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.
Anyone who has driven across the US with an iPhone (or, hell, tried to use on in San Francisco) knows AT&T's 3G network is total crap. I don't think they win by fighting this characterization.
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.)
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.
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.
9 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 32.3 ms ] threadPretty inane. I doubt they'll win. It reflects pretty badly on them, too.
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.
(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.)