Not too long ago, Verizon took aim at AT&T’s spotty 3G coverage with a clever add:
As an AT&T customer who lives in one of the 10 most populous metros in the United States, I found it amusing because my coverage — even inside the perimeter — is fucking atrocious. There’s really no reason that, standing just a few miles from the center of the metro area, I should have to wander around a house trying to find the spot where I can actually get a signal. That’s absolutely absurd, and I am seriously considering switching to Verizon (or anyone else) when my 2 year term is up.
Well, AT&T didn’t like the ad. So they went out and bought a bunch of new towers and expanded their network!
Ha! No, not really. They sued Verizon and asked for an injunction prohibiting Verizon from running the ads because they are, apparently, “misleading”. That any wireless company can allege that another is running misleading advertising with a straight face is pretty funny, but I guess it makes sense, since companies don’t have faces.
Anyway.
AT&T didn’t get the injunction, so they decided to run a counter-ad:
Okay, okay. So let’s assume, arguendo, that the above is true. That AT&T has the fastest 3G network. That they have the best phones. That you can talk and surf at the same time. Assume it’s all true.
What good is that if you can’t get a signal??
Seriously, AT&T: quit bitching about the ads and build a better wireless network.
Tags: Advertising, AT&T, Cell phones, Verizon, YouTube
AT&T just put up a new 3G Tower in Bloomington and I get a great signal pretty much everywhere around town.
A-FREAKING-MEN.
SERIOUSLY. There’s a huge chunk of the middle of San Fran where you can’t get a signal at all. Really AT&T? REALLY?
I have to walk down the street at my apartment to get a good signal. It’s just like 1999!
Entertainingly, this lawsuit is the stuff I read about in class. Really relevant. One of my classmates was even pulling up and quoting some of the publicly posted legal documents about the whole thing, and it reads like advertising copy. Yeah, as much as I don’t know much aboug American cell phone coverage, the fact that similar ridiculousness is happening here (with Rogers and Telus I believe), it’s highly relevant, particularly as they are using graphics to argue their points.
My brother’s got a iPhone too, and his coverage is utterly appalling. Even in the middle of Des Moines on the busiest street (say what you will about Iowa, but the Des Moines metro area is over 400,000 people), he’s lucky if he gets one bar of coverage. Just unreal. I so very enjoy watching AT&T get absolutely pantsed on this issue.
I’ve been pretty happy with Verizon. I can get a signal just about anywhere except if I’m really out in the middle of nowhere, and even then I still get some coverage, just spotty. Most people I know with AT&T have signal issues. On Bama gamedays, hardly anyone with AT&T can get a signal while I get one just fine.
Verizon has the best coverage, period. And I don’t have AT&T, but it sounds like AT&T has the WORST coverage, period. I get verizon coverage at the ATL airport on the underground trains. My roommate doesn’t get AT&T coverage inside our house.
I’d love to have an Iphone, but paying that much money for a phone on such a horrific network sounds ridiculous to me.