The way I see it its going to take far more than the “Iphone” or a single product to keep ATT in the scheme of things. ATT has  far more failures than it has success. Look at the U-Verse product for example. They tried to go the cheap route by trying to mimic FIOS. U-Verse is Fiber to the Node. Basically, it brings fiber out part of the way, to those big refrigerator-sized boxes in the neighborhood. Past that point, it’s just VDSL.  Everything you get with U-Verse rides on that VDSL – the television channels are pure IPTV, and shares the bandwidth with your internet service.

FIOS is fiber to the premises. They actually bring out fiber right up to the building, resulting in significantly higher potential bandwidth available. The other key difference is that with FIOS, the television service is transmitted via QAM, same as digital cable. It is multiplexed on the same fiber optic cable at a different frequency from the IP service. This means that not only do you not have the service delivery issues of IPTV, but also the TV service doesn’t rob bandwidth.

So wich one you think is best? Well if you still cant figure it out, let me help you!  It is the difference between night and day – FIOS is far superior technologically to U-Verse, and always will be.

I found this article on the recent lawsuit by ATT related to the advertising campaign that Verizon ran. The funny thing is that ATT is not suing because of the fact that the campaign is untrue…but rather unfair competition. See below!

Verizon fired back Monday in the war of words between itself and AT&T, arguing that AT&T’s request for a temporary restraining order blocking Verizon’s current ad campaign should be denied, as Verizon’s ads were truthful.

Put another way: “AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts,” Verizon’s memorandum of law said, filed in response to AT&T’s TRO request.

Verizon’s motion was filed late Monday in a Georgia district court.

On Nov. 3, AT&T sued Verizon, asking for a temporary injunction blocking Verizon’s ad campaign, which has aggressively portrayed Verizon’s network as a reason for customers to switch from AT&T. On Nov. 13, AT&T issued a detailed rebuttal of what it apparently felt were the claims Verizon made in its campaign. One of AT&T’s chief objections was that customers can take advantage of Web browsing and other smartphone features even if they’re outside of the 3G network, but connected to the AT&T EDGE network.

In its response, Verizon claims that its ads should be considered solely on the merits of the 3G networks Verizon claims its ads compare. Verizon’s filing claims that Verizon’s 3G network covers five times more geographic area than AT&T’s 3G network.

“Despite the far smaller size of its 3G network, AT&T has spent tens of millions of dollars making its 3G network, which it dubs the “Nation’s Fastest 3G Network,” the centerpiece of its national advertising since at least the summer of 2008,” Verizon charged. “AT&T now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison.”

Since Verizon’s ads have not been legally found to be misleading or false, a TRO is unwarranted, Verizon argued.

AT&T representatives were not immediately available for comment.