Including Everything Blog

Posts Tagged ‘verizon’

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.

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

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.

I stumbled across an article today that talks about Verizon Wireless looking into new streams of revenue, initially found by RCR Wireless News.  In short, Verizon is expected to charge $0.03 per text message sent through websites; a fee in addition to the almost $0.20 per message billed to these websites for receipt of the messages.

Original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/technology/companies/11text.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin 

When mobile subscribers already pay for this as part of a service contract, this seems like double dipping in terms of where they’re getting their income.

I question what this will do to the growth of the mobile market just as it’s taking off?  The creative agency I work for, Quango Design + Marketing, doesn’t currently do work with text messaging outside of the mobile networks, but we do marketing that in some part could make use of web text messaging someday.  This type of hard cost makes it nearly impossible to integrate on a large scale unless cost is passsed on to the end user.

Will Free Web Text & txtDrop still remain “free”?  Text messaging & SMS is useful for more than just entertainment purposes.  Text 4 Deaf is a service that enables deaf users to remain connected in a number of ways.  Something of this size could be crippled (no pun intended) overnight by a change like this, or could require higher charitable donations in order to remain operating.  The other alternative would be higher rates to the users of course.

Something as significant as this change may seem like a simple choice to Verizon, but they have an opportunity to help shape the mobile market and be innovators, not stifle it by increases.  People are already paying for the right to receive these messages to their mobile providers (Sprint PCS, ATT and T-Mobile).

Verizon mentions:
“We want to find a way not just to create a toll but build the overall market together”

I don’t view this as building the market as much as I do see it as a toll.  Isn’t there a better way than double dipping on something you’re already profitable from in the service contracts?