You think Apple is going to take its fancy phone being relegated to the Island of Misfit Toys in a Verizon ad laying down? Nope. These two new iPhone ads seem to gun right at the big V.

[Engadget]

When I think escalating mega mobile phone carrier ad war, I think actor Luke Wilson. Oh wait, no I don’t, and yet here he is, again, striking back on behalf of AT&T against Verizon Wireless.

Now, good on AT&T for fighting back with more ads and not more silly lawsuits and all, but the Verizon holiday ad lineup is pretty strong, and I don’t see many Verizon customers losing sleep over Luke Wilson covering a giant coverage map with post cards.

As tipster Eric notes, AT&T selectively does not mention Edge, 3G or voice/data distinctions in this commercial, opting instead for vague blanket statements like “AT&T covers 97 per cent of all Americans – that’s over 300 million people.”

Yup, even though the specs page lists support for UMTS/HSPA 800/850/900/1700/1900/2100, Sony Ericsson is going to be localising the radios. From the source:

UMTS HSPA 800/850/1900 only available for phones sold in Americas (except Brazil) and Australia. UMTS HSPA 900/1700 not available for phones sold in Americas. UMTS HSPA 1900/2100 available worldwide.

So that means you’ll still be able to find an X10 that works on T-Mobile, just not in this country. You’ll still be able to import if you want to use your expensive handset with T-Mo’s cheap Even More Plus plans. But if you want to have that huge $US880 cost subsidised at all, looks like you’ll be going with AT&T. [Phandroid via Engadget]

Just as AT&T’s injunction for the Verizon “There’s a map for that” ads to be taken off-air was denied, the company’s own pugnacious messages started playing. I somehow doubt that these “Side by Side” commercials are gonna make Verizon cry.

US District Court Judge Timothy Batten Sr remarked that people might “misunderstand” the commercials, “but that doesn’t mean they’re misleading”. He continued to add that “most people who are watching TV are semi-catatonic” to begin with. Let’s hope his train of thought remains during the follow-up hearing on December 16, because the case is starting to lose any entertainment value. [AJC via Engadget]

[Digg via Consumerist]

When your lawsuits sound like press releases, it’s because they probably are (not that we care, the whole case is pretty entertaining). Check out this opening statement from Verizon:

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.

YA BURNT, AT&T! Verizon goes on to accuse AT&T of failing to adequately expand its 3G coverage to match demand for its smartphones, which is sort of a hard point for AT&T to argue. Verizon claims that its advertisements are “literally true” (instead of philosophically true? Metaphorically true? True in the sense in which it is used in animal husbandry, as in purebred? What?) and not misleading, and that AT&T has failed to provide customers with an accurate map of its coverage. It’s pretty great, really — if you’ve ever wished the American legal system was more like it is on Law and Order, this whole statement is a gift. [Engadget]

There are two main problems: We like bills to be consistent, and we’re risk-averse consumers.

To the first point, Sprint tried to offer a plan in 2004 where 300 minutes cost $US35, and $US2.50 for each additional 50 minutes. Seems great to me, no outrageous overage charges. But customers didn’t like it because their bills would vary so much from month-to-month, so Sprint switched back to age-old tiered minutes plans.

Because we like consistent billing, the carriers institute ridiculous overage charges to convince us to spend up. That way we don’t have to worry about any unforeseen costs, even if the fixed price plan ends up costing more than a variable pricing structure would.

The article also goes into how stupid expensive text message rates are subsidising falling voice revenues, how wireless carriers would love to stop subsidising phones, and more.

I know the average Gizmodo reader would like nothing more than to pay as little per minute as possible, but the average consumer thinks differently.

What’s interesting is that this wholesale mentality does work, at least in terms of raw pricing. One minute of talk time costs 5c, and the average text message costs 1c. According to the article, that’s the lowest average pricing in the developed world. The minutes do come at a bulk discount, it’s just a matter of whether or not you use all of them.

I’ll leave it to you commenters to discuss, but it’s a good read into how wireless pricing in America got so complicated. [New York Times]

Let’s hope this isn’t another disappointing and unholy union of a smartphone and a netbook. There aren’t many details available about the model as Qualcomm intends to truly show it off at CES 2010, but they do explain that the Snapdragon chip will result in “lower price and longer battery life than what netbooks offer”.[PC World via Electronista]