<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mobilitysite - Latest Comments in &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://mobilitysite.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://mobilitysite.disqus.com/ldquotherersquos_a_lawsuit_for_thathelliprdquo/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:08:33 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-23087770</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We all know that AT&amp;amp;T service is now on a plummet but we also need to settle the facts first and see the side of AT&amp;amp;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Updates: ATT had recently released a statement why they are suing Verizon. May the "there's a misinterpretaion for that that” image help you to understand better why AT&amp;amp;T is having a boiling-point over the matter.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;detailed sources: &lt;a href="http://bit.ly/ATT-VS-VERIZON-Theres-a-misinterpretation-for-that" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://bit.ly/ATT-VS-VERIZON-Theres-a-misinterpretation-for-that"&gt;http://bit.ly/ATT-VS-VERIZO...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hint: The conflict is about not including AT&amp;amp;T’s Zedge 2.5G on the picture :D&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Flame-on!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">magnumfinger</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:08:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-22537854</link><description>&lt;p&gt;AT&amp;amp;T has provided some justification for their lawsuit. It seems that Verizon is counting parts of their network with speeds that match 2.5G EDGE as 3G, but not doing the same for AT&amp;amp;T's network.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/att_defends_its_data_network_from_verizon_ad_attacks.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/10/att_defends_its_data_network_from_verizon_ad_attacks.html"&gt;http://www.appleinsider.com...&lt;/a&gt; .&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I live in what is a sea of red on Verizon's network but I never even get that slow "3G" speed - I'm stuck at 1xRTT at my house (basically, dial-up speed). And my vacation house, although red in Verizon's map, is actually part of US Cellular that allows roaming to Verizon (only in the last two years for data) but also not at 3G. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Doug Miller</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:32:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-21892048</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder if Verizon will expose AT&amp;amp;T's hypocrisy.  AT&amp;amp;T in their ads says &lt;a href="http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&amp;amp;cdvn=news&amp;amp;newsarticleid=25921" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&amp;amp;cdvn=news&amp;amp;newsarticleid=25921"&gt;"America's fastest 3G network"&lt;/a&gt;.  If AT&amp;amp;T is mentioning 3G networks in their ads, how can they blame Verizon for doing the same?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also, isn't AT&amp;amp;T's claim disserving the public by making them think AT&amp;amp;T's entire network is faster than Verizon's?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Oops....&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Steve&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Pony99CA</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:49:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-21891431</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm sure your mom is proud.  :D&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Steve&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Pony99CA</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:43:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-21866547</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Checks the time stamps, sighs and sends him a nickel.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fair's fair.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Zealot</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:47:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-21860764</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Haha... Great title, 'cept I beat you to it: &lt;a href="http://twitter.com/gg20k/status/5402633771" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://twitter.com/gg20k/status/5402633771"&gt;http://twitter.com/gg20k/st...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;-Goodguy20k&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Daniel Hagen</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:48:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &amp;ldquo;There&amp;rsquo;s a Lawsuit for That&amp;hellip;&amp;rdquo;</title><link>http://www.mobilitysite.com/2009/11/theres-a-lawsuit-for-that/#comment-21855095</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I wouldn't be surprised if at&amp;amp;t's survey was accurate. It is amazing to find out  what people don't know. &lt;br&gt;That said it would be better to run ads that inform the public rather than sue verizon.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Too bad Apple doesn't take the same stance in regards to Windows, but rather resorts to mud slinging and half truths.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">badersk</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:14:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>