Memo to AT&T: When You're in a Hole, Stop Digging 24 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Somewhere in the telecommunications afterlife, Ma Bell is hiding her face in shame. The company that was once the powerhouse of American communications has been reduced to being more like that crybaby little kid who sits in a corner of the playground pouting because the other kids beat him at his own game. 
AT&T (T) has posted on its Web site an open statement to its customers to whine - again - about those Verizon Wireless (VZ) TV commercials that paint a sad picture of the wireless 3G coverage that AT&T offers in the United States. (see image on right, video below) The statement is really sort of pathetic, an act of desperation that attempts to paint Verizon’s ads as “blatantly false and misleading” even though AT&T has already acknowledged that the ads are not, in fact, false.
We already knew that AT&T considered the ads to be misleading - that was clear in the lawsuit it filed over the ads. But false? AT&T clearly said before that what Verizon is advertising in these maps is not factually incorrect. Let’s repeat that once more for emphasis: what Verizon is advertising in these maps is not factually incorrect.
AT&T’s beef is that Verizon isn’t comparing all data coverage, only 3G data coverage (though I would counter that with a “Why should Verizon have to make that comparison?”) In its letter to customers, AT&T attempts to clarify the points by breaking out the coverage of its different data offerings. In total, the company’s wireless data coverage reaches 303 million people – or 97% of the U.S. population, it said, with three different types of technology. (Here’s where we start splitting hairs), those technologies are:
- 3G, which reaches 233 million people, or 75 percent of the population
- EDGE, which reaches 301 million people or 96 percent of the population.
- GPRS, which reaches 303 million people, or 97 percent of the population
From the AT&T statement:
With both 3G and EDGE coverage, customers can access the Internet, send e-mail, surf the Web, stream music, download videos, send photos, text, talk and more. The only difference – with some data applications, 3G is faster than EDGE.
So, again, the map that Verizon is showing is not wrong. AT&T is just concerned that, by not showing the areas that EDGE covers on the AT&T map, Verizon is implying that there is no service of any kind in the white-space areas of that map. Verizon, of course, isn’t saying such a thing and, interestingly enough, AT&T has no beef with the language or legal disclosures in those commercials - just the colors on the maps. You see, the company thinks consumers are too dumb to know the difference between 3G and non-3G coverage. Here’s the data coverage map that AT&T wants consumers to see:
AT&T has taken a public relations beating over its poor 3G data coverage in the past, largely by disgruntled iPhone users who are often frustrated that their powerful - and expensive - smartphone is handicapped by a network that cannot consistently keep up with what the iPhone can do. AT&T has had several years now to get it right - but has largely failed.
Suddenly, though, there’s some real competition looming around.
Google and Verizon have cut a deal to bring Android phones to the stronger carrier and let’s not forget the rumors of Apple shopping other carriers - including Verizon - for deals when the exclusive deal with AT&T ends, believed to be next year.
And so, AT&T has been reduced to filing lawsuits and issuing public statements to make the competition look bad when, in fact, AT&T is only trying to mask the truth: when it comes to offering a widespread 3G network, AT&T lags far behind the competition.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
AT&T's real problem is that 3G coverage matters. And it is continually becoming more important. So instead of quibbling over ads, they should work on improving their 3G coverage.
Verizon works well at that location.
On Nov 15 08:03 AM BlueOkie wrote:
> The ads are very effective.
Are these 8 year-olds or multinationals you're describing? I'm sorry that AT&T thinks Verizon is a meanie but what they said is true. Their 3G network sucks as anyone who owns an iPhone can attest. Strong, well run firms aren't afraid of competition. AT&T seems like they'll do anything to avoid competition. They don't project confidence.
On Nov 15 11:45 AM almypal wrote:
> To RLLH- If AT&T feels they have to sue, so be it. I never see
> AT&T putting out bad publicity about Verizon or any other carrier.
> Which says a lot about Verizon! Why do they feel they have to re
> state they have the best network ( which I don't believe) . They
> are losing a lot of post paid customers to AT&T ......
>
> Are these 8 year-olds or multinationals you're describing? I'm sorry
> that AT&T thinks Verizon is a meanie but what they said is true.
> Their 3G network sucks as anyone who owns an iPhone can attest. Strong,
> well run firms aren't afraid of competition. AT&T seems like
> they'll do anything to avoid competition. They don't project confidence.
>
Today those unwritten rules are fading. But I'm not as concerned about AT&T's response as I am at Verizon's cheap shot.
1. This is technology folks.
2. 3G will be old and obsolete in a few years.
3. I'm a former Motorola employee & I can tell you that 4G is almost out the door and EDGE already fills a lot of those white spots on Verizon's and AT&T's maps, as well as Nextel's iDen digital network, CDMA & the fast growing GPRS.
But overall, white spots are everyone's burden. If one of the carriers doesn't connect well for you, then just try the other. In the end, it's not so much about the carrier in itself but coverage for a given carrier in your area - straight out. And as an AT&T employee, I say that without reservation.
It's almost the same with land lines. Here in South Florida I'm best served by AT&T because they are the tariff here. However, if I were in say, Northern Va., DC or Maryland, then I'd be best served going with Verizon.
So whether you're with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobil or Sprint, it matters less about the service you get with a given carrier if you aren't in their coverage area for service. And again, it's far from just looking for 3G to get on.
Verizon has more 3G coverage across America. Some anecdotal story about how ATT works better in some hick town in Texas won't change that.
ATT lets their phone do the advertising for them, a strategy which will cripple them once they lose exclusivity, and Verizon lets their network due the advertising for them, which is a far more sustainable and long term strategy.
I'll never understand why consumers are like in this comment section are whining about competition. There's no reason to cheerlead your carrier, competition just means better prices and better service the next time you'll sign a contract.
A business principle that may be working for ATT though: the amount of customers they lose may be offset by not having that infrastructure cost VZ has so it could be entirely a wash. Those numbers would be even more interesting to look at. Obviously ATT has considered spreading out 3G in the manner VZ has, but didn't do it for some reason.
With all the money spent on lobbyists, "we're better" commercials, and restrictive regulatory manuveuring to quell competition, they (ALL OF THEM) could have been much further along in building better networks.
We are behind in network infrastructure. Instead of pork project road-building to nowhere, billions should have been earmarked to moving the standard connection to one gigabit per second to the average consumer. There would be huge residual payback in that type of stimulus investment.