AT&T abandons lawsuit over Verizon ads
Looks like the truth really did hurt. AT&T has withdrawn its legal challenge to block Verizon’s adverts attacking its weak 3G coverage.
AT&T pulled the lawsuit but has yet to publicly comment. Meanwhile Verizon has responded by pulling its own lawsuit filed in a New York court; details of that case aren’t clear, but it appears to have been a countersuit to AT&T’s original claims.
Verizon would not comment on the withdrawal of either lawsuit but made its point by noting the debut of a new commercial, this time using the theme of Santa’s reindeers to show a direct comparison between 3G coverage maps for the two networks. Those are the same maps which led to the original lawsuit.
The row began with AT&T complaining that Verizon ads misled viewers into thinking the map of its sparse 3G coverage actually represented its entire cellphone service coverage. Verizon denied that claim in a harshly worded filing which argued “AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.”
Though the case had not gone to trial, things never looked particularly good for AT&T, with the judge refusing its request for an immediate injunction to block the ads from continuing to air.
With the case over, it’s very clear AT&T’s strategy backfired. Not only was it based on a very questionable premise (there is little evidence of anyone getting confused about what the maps represented), but it’s drawn even more attention to its 3G issues as well as given Verizon even more incentive to keep up the attack.
However, while the ads are certainly eye-catching, it would be a shame if networks such as Verizon continued to use negative campaigning. After all, the diversity of networks means that every carrier which finds something to criticize in a rival will also have its own weaknesses which can be exploited by the opposition. In my view it’s far more impressive and effective to use practical demonstrations to show off your own strengths, a tactic used in the most recent Apple ads for the iPhone.
Related Posts:
December 2nd, 2009
I know why both dropped the lawsuit it’s because that they don’t want any more spotlight on them then they need now because of FCC issues. I have friends that work for both companies at a mid and upper management level. From the stories I hear both companies have their hands dirty and are in fact using Monopolization of technologies, both customer service agreements & exclusive cell phone agreements and internet backbones. Both have Antitrust issues related to Net Neutrality, some instances of No backup or reroute for fiber cuts and hardware failures, Call Center Issues, Backbone issues, another example is some dual ring sonnet were a fiber cut takes both rings down, which is actually not redundant as they want you to believe. Also they discriminate against certain network traffic, drop packets on both there fiber and 3-g network in the excuse of they are “manages network reliability”. Which I know is hog wash.
Net Neutrality = no Censorship or policing to any type of traffic on the network as long as you’re paying for the bandwidth.
AT&T Does not want people to have the same cell phone number, and the same home phone number, Fax number, (Can do with VOIP) and theater any device at all even with a paying customer bandwidth.
I agree with the Whitehouse on comparing AT&T’s opposition to net neutrality to China’s censorship of Internet content. “If it bothers you that the China government does it, it should bother you when your network backbone company does it,”
Tom Anderson it is not about free service, it’s about dictating what kind of traffic can go on a customer’s network.
I think the FCC should go after both with antitrust issues, Reliability issues, and many of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 issues of the last few years. I think they should break up AT&T like they did to Ma Bell because of Monopolization. AT&T wants you to think there is competition so they can monopolize, however the new ma bell and the old ma bell are not to different in regards Monopolization. The FCC should implement A new consumers advanced telecommunications services rule which does not allow the Telco’s to any type of traffic on the network as long as the customers paying for the bandwidth, Let customers keep the same number for all Telco communication devices no matter what they are, For the major Telco’s get fined when they say Monopolize the I-Phone. Also include certain marketing rules were you can get out of a 2 year contract for bad service. I am surprised that consumer reports did not look into this. There also should be new whistle blower laws when it comes to Telecommunications because of the sensitive nature of it for our national security, and the possibility of services that go overseas, the access to telecom switches/ customer’s backbones could be used by foreign nationals or rogue nations to cyber attack our country. Also were developers in foreign nations and with foreign nationals who make applications, code for backbone switches or routers which could have a virus in it. There are many code issues that the FCC or government does not know about. They also do not do background checks to these people working on the code, that’s why many call centers have been farmed out to other 3rd world nations like Pakistan, Iran ,Singapore, Manila & Mumbai Philippines , India, Bangladesh and China. All of these people do not get background checks or drug screens and is a huge security risk to our country.
Also the FCC should make political contributions and lobbyist laws were they are transparent to who is getting the money for what issue. Over the last 5 years tens of Millions are used for contributions to lobbyist groups and politicians and in their pockets. Lobbyist hopes to pull political favors to get what they want at middle class expense.