Tag Archives: AT&T

Verizon rebounds and tells AT&T “Our ads are true and the truth hurts”

Posted on by

Verizon Wireless responded today to a lawsuit filed by AT&T earlier this month that accused Verizon’s “There’s a map for that” marketing campaign of misleading consumers about AT&T’s 3G coverage in the United States.

In a nutshell, Verizon said AT&T’s request to have the ads pulled is without merit. From the court filing (PDF):

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts… AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.

att-sues-verizon-over-_there_s-a-map-for-that_-ads

In the court filing, Verizon outlines the reasons that AT&T’s arguments are without merit. They include:

  • Because the ads are truthful, AT&T is attacking them under faulty theories, including a claim that they are misleading. But Verizon says there’s no real evidence – aside from an AT&T commissioned survey – that proves that consumers are misled by the ad.
  • There is no emergency that would require the court to issue an immediate restraining order – as AT&T has requested – without giving Verizon the opportunity to conduct its own research and present evidence to prove that consumers are not being misled.
  • The harm to Verizon and the public, in general, caused by pulling the ads is greater than any alleged harm being inflicted on AT&T.

Read more about this topic by Sam Diaz at ZDNet

ATT Wireless preventing Google Voice inside A-List

Posted on by

ATT A-List

ATT Wireless recently launched its A-List, which is their version of “your 5″ (or 10 if you have a large family talk plan). A-List lets you add commonly used phone numbers (landline or mobile) to your “A-List” and essentially have those minutes be unlimited and not count against your plan. While this works so far for most people, others have noticed that it worked early on and not any longer with Google Voice numbers.

I personally use a Google Voice number as a mobile office number. Not primarily for the free calls, but more so for the transcription features it offers. When a user calls in to my Google Voice number, if they leave a message, Google will translate that as best it can to text and send me an email or SMS text message with the attached audio file and text from the message. This has proven invaluable when in a meeting, watching a movie, etc.

Here are the promoted features for this service:

11-16-2009 10-37-55 AM

So now for the good part. ATT, being the typical large corporation that they are, is blocking heavy users from using an in-bound Google Voice number. They are letting you your Google Voice number to your A-List, but tagging it in their system as an anytime-minutes call, while reducing your monthly available minutes if you receive a call to your Google Voice number.

I fail to see how this is in any way different from my choosing to forward an office phone (which I do via follow me features) when out of the office. To me, there’s no difference. I have a choice as a consumer to let my customers reach me wherever I am.

For some additional background, when ATT first came out with its A-List offering (which is only available to larger plans, by the way), I called up ATT and asked if they cared that I planned to add my Google Voice number to my A-List, explaining that it would ultimately lead to unlimited calls if customers or friends called me through my Google Voice number. One two separate occasions when talking to an ATT customer service representative, the unified reply was “We don’t care. That’s what it was designed for” (to sum it up in so many words).

How then, does ATT reserve the right to publicize an offering with clearly spelled out rules on its website, yet go against those rules? I (for one) feel another FCC investigation coming, along with the possibility of another class-action lawsuit. Just because you’re a large company doesn’t mean you can walk all over your customers.

Join the discussion here.

I welcome discussion from ATT on this post and invite them to comment. I’d like to know how they can justify something like this. It doesn’t seem right.

Informational Resources:

Other News:

http://www.wireless.att.com/answer-center/main.jsp?t=browseTab&ft=browseTab&opentopic=4200008&topicName=A-List&topicTreeId=solutionPropertyTree&showcontent=true&lstLanguageResults=&locale=en_US&_dyncharset=UTF-8

Apple and AT&T to release tethering application for the iPhone “soon”

Posted on by

After much talk, Apple is finally considering the tethering option with AT&T to allow connection to the internet on computers using the iPhone as its source of Internet connection.  An interview at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco confirms that this is on the horizon, as AT&T Wireless CEO Ralph de la Vega said Apple and the wireless carrier are working on an official tethering application that will be coming “soon.”  No official timeframe for this has been given.

I’ve witnessed the speed of the internet on a laptop using a jailbroken iPhone lately, and I must say…it’s fast.  The iPhone 3G is connected to one of the quickest carrier networks out there (second only to Sprint’s WiMax I believe), and I’ve seen DSL rivaling speeds.

It’s been said that the carrier will also be likely to charge additional fees for the service or to use the application to cover costs.  I’m sensing this idea of “double dipping” starting to pop up again.  I posted about this a week ago with Verizon trying to do this with SMS messaging not originating from mobile devices.

Read:  Verizon to stunt mobile growth for a few bucks?

I mean, they’re already billing you for so-called “unlimited” data.  This has been discussed for many months in relation to various carriers (not just AT&T) and is starting to irritate the hell out of consumers.  You have a sales guy in the retail store telling you it’s “unlimited data” and signage all over the store also stating the term “unlimited”, yet we have the carrier’s terms and conditions for service stating something like this…

If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly megabyte allowance and additional data usage rates, the parties agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month.  Prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your service.

Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of “bandwidth hogs” who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of AT&T’s subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday.

To that I say:  ”Why did you say it was unlimited, then?”.  This screams false advertising, doesn’t it?  Let’s just call it what it is.  I sense a class action lawsuit coming of many.