AT&T’s “G” Definition Woes
Yesterday, AT&T Mobility said that they were shocked, shocked! at T-Mobile USA calling HSPA+ “4G”, instead of waiting to affix that name to an LTE protocol network. OK, fine, it’s their job to complain about stuff like that. But, what I don’t get is, why kick sand in the face of the 34 million subscriber T-Mobile, while letting 93 million subscriber Verizon make a mockery of AT&T with their Red and Blue 3G coverage maps?
If you look at the definitions for the construction of the maps, Verizon has defined “3G” for AT&T Mobility as HSPA only, despite the fact that the International Telecommunications Union includes EDGE in their definition of “3G”. The ITU is part of the United Nations, for goodness sake — if they don’t transcend petty capitalist squabbling, I don’t know who does. And, look at who Verizon takes their definition of 3G from: the vendor who sold them the protocol, Qualcomm, which sounds like the fox guarding the chicken coop to most consumers.
Instead, AT&T attacks Verizon because the map seems to imply AT&T doesn’t have voice coverage in all those white areas on the map? Why not attack them from a position of strength (“here’s what our 3G map looks like using industry standard definitions”), instead of a position of lameness (“we think consumers are too stupid to know the difference between voice and data”)?