Nextel sues Verizon Wireless

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Cell Academician) wrote:
>
> > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > Nextel Communications today filed suit against Verizon
> > > Wireless, claiming that Verizon Wireless' new
> > > advertisements for its push-to-talk service make
> > > false claims about Nextel's network.
> >
> > Actually Verizon is simply emphasizing their own superior
> > coverage, while ignoring the difference in PTT connect
> > times.
> >
> > Verizon's claim of the "best, most reliable network" is open
> > to interpretation. If they mean that their network has the
> > best, most reliable coverage, then they are telling the truth.
> > If they are saying that they have the best PTT product in
> > terms of actual operation in areas where both carriers
> > have coverage, then they are lying, but of course their
> > ads never said that.
> >
> > Nothing illegal in what Verizon is doing.
>
>
> They are showing two things that flat doon't happen. It is totally
> misleading and therefore illegal.
>
> 1. They incorrectly show a presumed Nextel user not be able to do Walkie
> Talkie. It would never happen that way. On a Nextel if you push to
> talk, and you get the TONE, your party is there. The TONE would not tone
> if your party was not available.
>
> 2. They show the Verizon man pushing to talk and getting a signal
> instantly. IT NEVER HAPPENS THAT FAST on a Verizon. Twelve seconds is
> more like it.

Which begs the question, if it takes 12 seconds for the initial connection
on the Verizon PTT, why not just call the person? Then you don't sound like
a damned dump truck backing up.

---

› See More: Nextel sues Verizon Wireless

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ap_on_bi_ge/ce
llular_walkie_talkie_spat_2

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in article <Pearl-

> They are showing two things that flat doon't happen.
> It is totally misleading and therefore illegal.

I wish it were illegal for companies to mislead people in their
advertising. Unfortunately it isn't. Implicature, as well as
depicting best case scenarios for the advertiser and worse
case scenarios for the competitor, are routine.

> 1. They incorrectly show a presumed Nextel user not be
> able to do Walkie Talkie. It would never happen that way.
> On a Nextel if you push to talk, and you get the TONE,
> your party is there. The TONE would not tone if your party
> was not available.

Verizon will claim that they are showing a worst case
scenario of the coverage going away just after the tone
sounds.

> 2. They show the Verizon man pushing to talk and getting
> a signal instantly. IT NEVER HAPPENS THAT FAST on a
> Verizon. Twelve seconds is more like it.

Verizon has many defenses here. They wil no doubt use the
best case times, but they can also state that in a commercial
advertisers routinely compress durations of events in order to
fit in the 30 or 60 second spot.

I don't dispute that what Verizon is doing is misleading. But I
don't think that it will be found to be illegal if this matter ever
goes to court, which is highly unlikely.

Nextel's best defense would have been a good offense. They
could do really amusing ads showing all the things you can
do while waiting for Verizon PTT to connect.

But there's a bigger problem for Nextel here, connect time
doesn't matter that much to a lot of PTT users. One of the
major uses of PTT is to do group calling, rather than calling
each person individually. Whether the group call goes out
in 2 seconds or 8-12 seconds is immaterial. To the
non-business user, the faster connect time will matter less
than the poorer coverage.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in article <Pearl-

> They are showing two things that flat doon't happen.
> It is totally misleading and therefore illegal.

I wish it were illegal for companies to mislead people in their
advertising. Unfortunately it isn't. Implicature, as well as
depicting best case scenarios for the advertiser and worse
case scenarios for the competitor, are routine.

> 1. They incorrectly show a presumed Nextel user not be
> able to do Walkie Talkie. It would never happen that way.
> On a Nextel if you push to talk, and you get the TONE,
> your party is there. The TONE would not tone if your party
> was not available.

Verizon will claim that they are showing a worst case
scenario of the coverage going away just after the tone
sounds.

> 2. They show the Verizon man pushing to talk and getting
> a signal instantly. IT NEVER HAPPENS THAT FAST on a
> Verizon. Twelve seconds is more like it.

Verizon has many defenses here. They wil no doubt use the
best case times, but they can also state that in a commercial
advertisers routinely compress durations of events in order to
fit in the 30 or 60 second spot.

I don't dispute that what Verizon is doing is misleading. But I
don't think that it will be found to be illegal if this matter ever
goes to court, which is highly unlikely.

Nextel's best defense would have been a good offense. They
could do really amusing ads showing all the things you can
do while waiting for Verizon PTT to connect.

But there's a bigger problem for Nextel here, connect time
doesn't matter that much to a lot of PTT users. One of the
major uses of PTT is to do group calling, rather than calling
each person individually. Whether the group call goes out
in 2 seconds or 8-12 seconds is immaterial. To the
non-business user, the faster connect time will matter less
than the poorer coverage.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

In message <<[email protected]>>
"Phill." <[email protected]> did ramble:

>2. They show the Verizon man pushing to talk and getting a signal
>instantly. IT NEVER HAPPENS THAT FAST on a Verizon. Twelve seconds is
>more like it.

Time shifting is common in commercials... When you're paying thousands
of dollars per second, who waits 12 seconds.

Hell, when you're being paid $5/hour, you'll still probably make a damn
phone call instead of waiting 12 seconds for a connect.

--
If you've had half as much fun reading this as I've had writing it, I've had twice as much fun as you.

You mean the "Nextel Suing Verizon" string started yesterday? Yeah, I
didn't see a reputable link in there. I'm very skeptical on what
appears in newsgroups, as it's easy to fabricate a story in text...

AD

Greg-EE wrote:
> Why don't you try searching this newsgroup
> "About Dakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I couldn't find anything about that on CNN.com. Try going to CNN.com
>>and searching, and let me know if you find anything, and please provide
>>a nonexpiring link.
>>
>>AD
>>
>>VZW Guy wrote:
>>
>>>I now it was on CNN.com in the Technolgy section
>>>
>>
>
>

You mean the "Nextel Suing Verizon" string started yesterday? Yeah, I
didn't see a reputable link in there. I'm very skeptical on what
appears in newsgroups, as it's easy to fabricate a story in text...

AD

Greg-EE wrote:
> Why don't you try searching this newsgroup
> "About Dakota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I couldn't find anything about that on CNN.com. Try going to CNN.com
>>and searching, and let me know if you find anything, and please provide
>>a nonexpiring link.
>>
>>AD
>>
>>VZW Guy wrote:
>>
>>>I now it was on CNN.com in the Technolgy section
>>>
>>
>
>

Not a big deal

Around here in the northeast, people sue anyone/anything

CONSTANTLY

Keeps the lawyers busy


"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nextel Communications today filed suit against Verizon Wireless, claiming
> that Verizon Wireless' new advertisements for its push-to-talk service
make
> false claims about Nextel's network. Neither Nextel nor Verizon Wireless
> have yet to comment on the suit. U.S. carriers have stepped up their
> advertising battles in recent weeks. In addition to the growing fight
> between Nextel and Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless and Sprint PCS have
been
> taking pot shots at one another in recent months in an attempt to win a
> greater share of the mobile enterprise market. Most analysts see these
> fights as a sign of the growing saturation of the North American wireless
> market.
>
> For more on the Nextel, Verizon Wireless suit:
> - see this blurb from Reuters
>
>

Not a big deal

Around here in the northeast, people sue anyone/anything

CONSTANTLY

Keeps the lawyers busy


"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nextel Communications today filed suit against Verizon Wireless, claiming
> that Verizon Wireless' new advertisements for its push-to-talk service
make
> false claims about Nextel's network. Neither Nextel nor Verizon Wireless
> have yet to comment on the suit. U.S. carriers have stepped up their
> advertising battles in recent weeks. In addition to the growing fight
> between Nextel and Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless and Sprint PCS have
been
> taking pot shots at one another in recent months in an attempt to win a
> greater share of the mobile enterprise market. Most analysts see these
> fights as a sign of the growing saturation of the North American wireless
> market.
>
> For more on the Nextel, Verizon Wireless suit:
> - see this blurb from Reuters
>
>

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030923/cellu...ie_spat_2.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030923/telec...ireless_3.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030923/1451001176_2.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030923/235761_1.html

To name but a few. If you guys want business news, I suggest you go
to a business source. http://finance.yahoo.com/ is a good place to
start. Put in NXTL in the stock search engine. Oh, look NXTL is
making a tidy profit!....(c; Didn't someone on Verizon newsgroup say
they were going bankrupt? Nonsense....





On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:06:48 -0500, About Dakota
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I couldn't find anything about that on CNN.com. Try going to CNN.com
>and searching, and let me know if you find anything, and please provide
>a nonexpiring link.
>
>AD
>
>VZW Guy wrote:
>> I now it was on CNN.com in the Technolgy section
>>
>


Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/030923/cellu...ie_spat_2.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030923/telec...ireless_3.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030923/1451001176_2.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030923/235761_1.html

To name but a few. If you guys want business news, I suggest you go
to a business source. http://finance.yahoo.com/ is a good place to
start. Put in NXTL in the stock search engine. Oh, look NXTL is
making a tidy profit!....(c; Didn't someone on Verizon newsgroup say
they were going bankrupt? Nonsense....





On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:06:48 -0500, About Dakota
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I couldn't find anything about that on CNN.com. Try going to CNN.com
>and searching, and let me know if you find anything, and please provide
>a nonexpiring link.
>
>AD
>
>VZW Guy wrote:
>> I now it was on CNN.com in the Technolgy section
>>
>


Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:48:52 -0000,
[email protected] (Cell Academician) wrote:

>"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
><[email protected]>:
>> Nextel Communications today filed suit against Verizon
>> Wireless, claiming that Verizon Wireless' new
>> advertisements for its push-to-talk service make
>> false claims about Nextel's network.
>
>Actually Verizon is simply emphasizing their own superior
>coverage, while ignoring the difference in PTT connect
>times.

Of course. Ford doesn't say much about how Exploders suck,
either...hee hee....

>
>Verizon's claim of the "best, most reliable network" is open
>to interpretation. If they mean that their network has the
>best, most reliable coverage, then they are telling the truth.
>If they are saying that they have the best PTT product in
>terms of actual operation in areas where both carriers
>have coverage, then they are lying, but of course their
>ads never said that.

Verizon is very "reliable"....er, ah....if you have a 3W AMPS phone
like I use....(c;

As everyone knows on all these newsgroups, telecom companies are all a
pack of liars. That isn't news, is it?



Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:48:52 -0000,
[email protected] (Cell Academician) wrote:

>"PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
><[email protected]>:
>> Nextel Communications today filed suit against Verizon
>> Wireless, claiming that Verizon Wireless' new
>> advertisements for its push-to-talk service make
>> false claims about Nextel's network.
>
>Actually Verizon is simply emphasizing their own superior
>coverage, while ignoring the difference in PTT connect
>times.

Of course. Ford doesn't say much about how Exploders suck,
either...hee hee....

>
>Verizon's claim of the "best, most reliable network" is open
>to interpretation. If they mean that their network has the
>best, most reliable coverage, then they are telling the truth.
>If they are saying that they have the best PTT product in
>terms of actual operation in areas where both carriers
>have coverage, then they are lying, but of course their
>ads never said that.

Verizon is very "reliable"....er, ah....if you have a 3W AMPS phone
like I use....(c;

As everyone knows on all these newsgroups, telecom companies are all a
pack of liars. That isn't news, is it?



Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:30:19 GMT, "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Which begs the question, if it takes 12 seconds for the initial connection
>on the Verizon PTT, why not just call the person? Then you don't sound like
>a damned dump truck backing up.
>
Ha ha....way ta go, Justin! I thought that beeping noise sounded
familiar!....(c;



Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:30:19 GMT, "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Which begs the question, if it takes 12 seconds for the initial connection
>on the Verizon PTT, why not just call the person? Then you don't sound like
>a damned dump truck backing up.
>
Ha ha....way ta go, Justin! I thought that beeping noise sounded
familiar!....(c;



Larry W4CSC

3600 planes with transponders are burning 8-10 million
gallons of kerosene per hour over the USA. R-12 car air
conditioners are responsible for the ozone hole, right?