Law Students

There?s a Map For That

By Pete

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.

Full post as published by PeteHoliday.com on November 19, 2009 (boomark / email).