I don't see how AT&T has anything to argue here. As much as I hate most advertising and think a great deal of it is highly misleading, and as dismayed as I am that they took one of my favourite childhood cartoons and turned it into an anti-iPhone advertisement, nothing they are saying is factually wrong or misleading in any way.

They talk about "3G coverage" and show a 3G coverage map. There is simply nothing misleading about that. AT&T hasn't got a case.

For me, even non-3G coverage is nonexistent. I am so happy to get rid of the contract last week. Now I am on track to pay just $100 for one year of cellphone service on the GoPhone card. With Google Voice, I can tell AT&T where to put it.

I live in one of the blue areas, and am very happy with 3G coverage from ATT, BUT it does drop to edge when traveling to other areas which is noticeably slower.

When looking at the ads, not once did I ever, ever think that if I was not in a blue area, I could not get coverage. it is fairly clear that it is 3G coverage...

AT&T could, like, improve it's 3G network. Maybe do that instead of paying those freakin' lawyers?

I never for a second thought that lack of 3G coverage meant "no coverage". AT&T just doesn't want its flaws pointed out so prominently.

AT&T how about instead of frivolous lawsuits, you actually do something about your 3G network to maintain the amount of subscribers you have?

I, too, know the difference between 2G and 3G, but we're all probably techies here. What about the people who aren't, who make up the vast majority of cell phone users? Many of them won't know 2G or 3G from a hole in the ground and may misconstrue the maps shown in the ads as representing *any* coverage. I'm not condoning AT&T's lack of vigilance in getting their network improved, but if people are jumping ship because of a misunderstanding, it will slow network updates even further as AT&T loses revenue.

Daniel Eran Dilger puts an informed POV on the topic here:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/11/10/att-defends-its-data-network-from-verizon-ad-attacks/

Speeds of the different receivers in these devices is important. Note his point that large and growing portions of the AT&T 2G network are just about as fast as VZW's 3G, with AT&T's 3G being much faster.

Right. Let's not listen to people here. Let's go to a completely unbiased blog like roughlydrafted. They certainly don't have an agenda at all. And is he taking into account areas, like NYC, where coverage is supposed to exist, but it doesn't work anyway?

And speed might be a factor, but no one sees ATT broadcasting how their 2G is just as fast as Verizon's 3G (let alone that its just as fast as Sprint's 4G).

OK. So are you saying that all advertising needs to be dumbed down even more than it already is so everyone can understand what is being said? h***, maybe we should force them to be 2 minutes long so they can vocally state all the issues that might exist with the product, like the drug companies idiotically have to do when advertising their drugs.

Or put disclaimers on every ad like car companies do with "Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt" because some idiot kid might try to drive 100 mph on city streets and trying to all sorts of whacked out c***.