Talk:Verizon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Fewest dropped calls"--Verizon Wireless vs. Cingular

I remember that sometime back in 2003-2004 that Verizon Wireless rolled out commercials proclaiming that they had the network with the "fewest dropped calls." This is well ahead of Cingular's "copycat" (if appropriate) advertising campaign beginning with Q1 of 2006 ("Fewest dropped calls"). I have found some YouTube videos that proves my statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BREOpoGUeLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eJmZW3ojI (These are REAL Verizon Wireless commercials--NOT PARODIES OR KNOCK-OFFS. And also these YouTube videos are not mine either.) Tngu77 02:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77

0.002 cents= 0.002 dollars ?

[1] should this be included?

No, it's a minor current event that's about an error in decimal placement. We all make mistakes. Major current events, such as mergers or major new products or services should be covered (such as FiOS), or a major story such as the alleged NSA cooperation. Not a misplaced decimal point. X570 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the Star Wars kid made a mistake. he was a minor current event thats about some kid dancing around with a light saber. why does he get a wikipedia article when this doesnt even get a mention? why does Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner - a minor current event by all accounts - become a front page featured article? why Vincent Ferrari have a wikipedia article for talking to an asshole when weve all done that? verizonmath is getting a lot of attenton - just as the other events were - and its, as documented by verizonmath, not an isolated occurance. tell me again why its not being included and these others are??? 72.36.251.234 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. The page is a blog entry for a consumer billing dispute. Ignoring the question over a billing dispute being appropriate for an encyclopedia article, the inclusion falls under Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority). Wikipedia:Verifiability also prevents incorporation of the material into the article as the blog does not qualify as a reliable source. --Allen3 ^talk 00:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not even a current event, its some guy and his blog. Not an authorative source. I'm surprised this man doesnt have a whole website about why gas prices are always rounded to 9/10th of a cent.

• Sign your posts if you want to be taken seriously. Besides, you have evidently failed to understand the entire controversy Gantlord 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

this entire section needs to be updated, as verizon has admitted their mistake, and is changing the reference material provided to their reps stating the rates in both dollars per kilobit and cents per kilobit. [2]

• Despite this email, Verizon is still quoting in cents per kb and has not admitted their mistake to other customers with the same issue( i.e. http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/background-peters-initial.html) Call for yourself and ask for the rate! You'll find they still give you a rate in cents per kilobyte. I have been following this case fairly closely.
• Leave it alone. It is not worthy of encyclopedic mention. Do you think a real encyclopedia would make issue of a billing dispute?!
• and still they're quoting it wrong...
• do you think a real encyclopedia would make two different pokemon frontpage featured articles? wikipedia isnt real and no one wants it to be. stop being a sour grape.
• Surely this must receive a reference in a 'Trivia' section. One must question the business acumen of a company that cannot even quote proper billing rates.

• This should receive something in the Trivia section. Half a million people have listened to the clip on youtube. Given that Verizon do not exist in the majority of countries in the world, this story is arguably one of the only notable things about the company for the majority of the world's population. I am from the UK and I visited this page solely because I hoped to find information relating to the whole story. Gantlord 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The cents and dollars thing is blown out of proportion. Verizon is picked on since it is an easy target. (I'll give you a hint: Verizon is not the largest telco company anymore--at&t is. Why isn't at&t picked on? Because it is advantageous politically.) Cents and dollars scenario: I saw a burger place the other day advertising burgers for ".99¢" (with the decimal point). Big difference compared to "$0.99" or "99¢." Nobody's complaining because people realize that it is actually "99 cents" not "99/100 of a cent." It's a matter of common sense and the political convenience and the "advantage".

Tngu77 01:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77

• • The burger analogy is not totally appropriate because first of all, 99 cents is a very "common" occurance. .002 dollars and .002 cents are each rather "odd" measurements of money. Second of all, if you asked the clerk at the register for clarification, I'd wager the employee would say it's 99 cents. For the customer at Verizon, he asked numerous people before AND after the billing and they each clarified it as .002 cents. Third of all, the customer bought the product in bulk. The difference between .99 cents and 99 cents is still a hundred times different, but is still a nominal difference of one dollar. The difference in the Verizon incident is about 75 dollars, which would have been enough for me, anyway, to call and complain. And finally, the "normal" price for a burger is highly publicized in the one dollar range. A price per kilobyte usage on a cellphone is, to the average consumer, a very arbitrary rate, and I would have just as easily accepted .002 cents and .002 dollars per kilobyte to be a "fair" rate, regardless of what the market says.

Randhuck 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Most people with at least half of their brain KNOW that the rate was .002 DOLLARS. (Sorry for the insult.) Verizon Wireless (and its parent companies and/or affiliates) quote (written) prices in DOLLAR FORMAT. e.g., Text messages are quoted as "$0.15 per text message." Prices are NEVER (at least written) quoted in CENT FORMAT. e.g., "15¢ per text message." Tngu77 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77

why does verizon quote prices to anyone if "most people with at least half of their brain KNOW [what the prices are]"? most business don't cater to the minority. most business websites don't cater to blind people so why do you think most busuness caters to "people with at least half of their brain"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

"Most people with at least half of their brain KNOW that the rate was .002 DOLLARS."

...which is EXACTLY why he asked SEVERAL times what the rate is. EACH time even after the billing, he was quoted the same .002 cents. A Verizon customer service rep with "half of their brain" would correct themselves if they knew what they were talking about. Yes, if he just asked once and they mispoke, that's one thing. Each rep he spoke to said the SAME THING, and so I don't blame any customer for getting confused. 72.192.24.98 04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tngu77, The person with half a brain here is you. If it had been you who had made such a mistake, the company wouldn't have asked any questions and charged you accordingly, but somehow when its Verizon that makes a mistake in their advertising, everyone is just supposed to know? Honestly, .002 cents per KB to me sounds more like a reasonable rate to me because I know that the cost for a leased T1 line is about $600/month on average nowadays. A T1 is 1.544MBits/sec or 40,687,488,000 Kilobytes transfered in an average month at full capacity. That comes out to a cost per KB of 60,000 cents / 40,687,488,000 KB = 0.00000147 cents per KB as Verizon's cost. That means that even at a rate of 0.002 cents per KB, they are charging 1,360 times more than what their hard cost is. That's pretty insane and makes me really question Verizon's practices. Since the real cost is 0.2 cents per KB, that's 136,000 times more expensive than the data rate of a T1. So for people to say things like "You should have known". I'm not sure what you are talking about because obviously people haven't done the math to determine what is a reasonable rate. -- Suso (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included. The fact that it was written in a blog only reduces its credibility if the blog itself has no sources. In this case, the blog makes reference to audio sources as well as emails from the company. Although it is indeed an internet meme, this does not make it any less controvertial or notable. --Antonio.sierra 07:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia. It's one guy's problem and a common math mistake. Let it go. Mattnad 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But when the reps of an entire company do it, it is not common nor is it only his problem, but probably that of some other of their costumers without knowing about it. Why can't this be included? Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Right, sorry, that was me.

The primary policy violated by the addition of this billing dispute is Wikipedia:Verifiability. To date entries for this dispute have relied upon non-reliable sources such as personal websites and web forums. Self published sources are not acceptable as the basis for inflammatory accusations. What is needed for this to remain in the article are some newspaper articles or similar third-party sources describing the billing dispute. --Allen3 ^talk 21:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the Consumerist count as a reliable third party source?
http://consumerist.com/consumer/clips/verizon-doesnt-know-difference-between-dollars-and-cents-220362.php
At what point would you consider Vaccaro's story to be verified by an independent entity? Does the New York Times need to do an investigative piece, or what? From what could gather from Wikipedia's page on verifiability, there isn't clearly defined cutoff. It seems like he's a had a significant impact, and I'm all for including it. I also think the mention of the pokemon frontpage is especially compelling in countering the "this is hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia" argument.
18.202.0.24 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be included or not, but the only reason many people around the world have even heard of Verizon is this event, many people would be coming to this page for information about this.

Frankly, the only reason I came here was after stumbling across this issue about Verizon. I assume you've also seen this followup http://www.eyelesswriter.com/ . It seems to me that it Verizon made repeated mistakes over the course of days. They finally admitted they were wrong, wrote an apology and refunded the guy after he managed to get ~1,000,000 readers of his blog and about nhalf that listening to an audio recording of some very poorly educated CSRs. Can someone please explain why that's any less notable than not? 62.49.219.171 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not create a page specifically for this incident instead of including it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Verizon branded telephone picture

I removed the picture of the Verizon branded pay phone. Who ever took that photo was also flipping the phone off, which you could see clearly.Dominic 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Verizon and breaching user agreements/terms?

What's the current update on the situation? I vaguely remember reading from a few newspapers about Verizon turning over the IP addresses of their customers to the government whereas the other ISPs refused (ie Comcast)?--Nissi Kim 17:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Defunct?

Why was the category "Defunct Companies" added?

reentering the Cable TV market

[3] (via [4])

Data services

I added a Data Services subhead, moved FIOS there and added a short mention of DSL. The reference on the page goes to a Verizon ad for FIOS. I'm new here. Is this within policy? Should I add the similar reference for DSL, www.verizon.net/dsl? Ranvaig 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge with MCI

I believe the MCI article should not be merged into this article. A fuller explanation is available at Talk:MCI. --Allen3 ^talk 11:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I intend to keep the history present in the merger just show the fact they are now verizon communications inc.(Ke5crz 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Merger or acquisition?

Regarding Supercoop's changing of the section title "MCI Merger" to "MCI Acquisition", I agree that it certainly seemed like an acquisition rather than a merger. However, look at this news release from Verizon — they themselves call it a "merger". So . . . . -DylanW 03:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What wrong with calling a spade a spade? First, Verizon calls it what it wants to so that it won’t scare off MCI customers. It is just a description that was used to lessen the drastic change that might occur. Second, google news reveals (today) 451 hits mci acquisition vs 382 hits mci merger. Third, the article describes it as an acquisition and only the last sentence has the word merger. Thus the situation is, in actuality, an acquisition. --Supercoop 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'd always heard that Nynex was the one buying Bell Atlantic - but they took on the Bell Atlantic name because it was less despised. If anyone has any sources or refutations, I'd be way interested in hearing them. --moof 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the 411?

I assume Verizon operates a lucrative 411 service, in addition to its yellow pages? -- Beland 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 411 makes that much money nowadays. Most phone lines come with a certain number of free 411 calls each month, and the Internet has undoubtedly reduced demand. Still, we should mention 411 in this article. Rhobite 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Free 411 call allowances were reduced, and then eliminated here in CA. The fee per 411 call has been increased more than once in recent years too. Verizon also spun off it yellow pages and directory publishing business in 2006, forming a new company called Idearc. Idearc is now called SuperMedia, after going through Chaper 11. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idearc An805Guy (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Verizon name

The Verizon name is not a portemanteau of Vertical and Horizon as claimed in the wiki entry but rather of the two words Veritas and Horizon. I found the following link to support my claim (scroll to the bottom): http://english.cr.superpages.com/help/index.phtml?SRC=&LANG=en&CTRY=cr&STYPE=S&PG=L&R=N&C=&N=&T=&S=

- Marwan

This page sure must make their PR department happy.
The only truth on the horizon for these guys is maximizing profits and squashing innovation. They waited on fiber for NYC until others started eating their lunch. Innovation? Hardy har. Stomping innovation is MUCH more likely. It's an RBOC.
- LoneRanger

Sure was a combination of the words vertical and horizontal. As the employee who they got the idea from, I should know. Think about it. What does Veritas and horizon have to do with phone company business. I had a meaning of combining Vertical and Horizontal in mind which makes much more sense than Veritas. They got the name offf of me but not the meaning. Funny how they don't say WHO exactly had the idea for Verizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.57 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

GTE

Can someone provide context where the term GTE is used? It is never explained and only redirects to Verizon. Acronymfinder lists General Telephone and Electronics as one of its uses, which I assume it stands for in this case, but I'm not certain, so I'll leave it to someone who is to fix it. Thanks, Paul 01:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true. GTE is the formal abbreviation for General Telephone & Electronics. Sometimes when saying the real name, it's shortened to General Telephone(which is used on the underground cable warning signs, placed below the GTE logo), and some disgruntled customers used the abbreviation as an acronym for "Giant Telephone Expirement". Hope that helps. User:CherryDude 19:13, 15 May 2006 (PDT)

Actually, GTE was short for GTE Corporation. The earlier name above was abbreviated GT&E. GT&E (later GTE) was the name of the whole corporation, General Telephone was just one of the businesses units within GT&E. The '&E' parts involved a lot more than telephone companies. An805Guy (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the GTE redirect with a stub article by copying the GTE information from this page. It's not a great start, but GTE really deserves to be an article in its own right -- there's decades of history there, and it's important stuff. So yeah, a stub, with all that implies. I meant to do this a while back. jhf 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Current event?

Why is this page marked with a "current event" tag? → J@red  23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Can you hear me now?" -- Advertising section?

I'm surprised this entire entry makes no note of their signature "Can you hear me now?" advertising campaign. It's certainly entered the pop culture language. Also some mention of the unknown actor who plays the test guy. Also what slogans did Verizon use before that? --Navstar 03:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see why... it's over at the entry for Verizon Wireless! Darn those giant, sprawling companies with multiple Wiki entries! --Navstar 03:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AT&T Buyout?

Some coworkers were talking about a possible buyout of Verizon by AT&T, after the Bell South merger is completed. I did a quick search on Google, but found nothing. Does anyone know anything about this?

I don't know. Verizon Wireless is CDMA while Cingular is GSM. AT&T doesn't need the remains of MCI or the former GTE operating companies. Perhaps Verizon will restructure itself as Verizon Wireless and Verizon Business (MCI), sell the Bell Operating Companies to AT&T and sell the GTE Operating Companies to Embarq or Windstream Communications, and use the cash to buy out Vodafone's shares in Verizon Wireless.X570 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Verizon is "owned by Catherine Weaver and Thomas Manhattan" ???

Regarding Line 1, is this vandalism, or am I missing something??

Jayintheusa 06:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The claim certainly appears to be unverifiable and has been removed. Verizon is a publicly traded company and has to provide a list of all parties holding 5% or more of the companies outstanding stock in its annual report. As of the most recent report (2005) neither of the parties is listed as a major shareholder[5]. --Allen3 ^talk 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Multinational?

How can Verizon be called "multinational"? Tri400 11:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition: "A multinational corporation (MNC) is a corporation or enterprise that manages production establishments or delivers services in at least two countries." Verizon manages production establishments and delivers services in more that 75 countries.

Does anyone think the article should discuss reported levels of Verizon's customer service ?

Does anyone have any suggestions as to where information of this sort could be easily obtained?

Pronunciation?

How is Verizon pronounced? Like horizon or like veritas? Could somebody who knows add that info to the article? Repetition 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Horizon 166.42.35.72 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Might we add then the IPA pronunciation of [vɛɹ.aɪ.zən]? Dantiston (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Renamed

I will renamed this page to Verizon.--Jet123 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Verizon Wireless/US Cellular merger claim

Is there any documentation anywhere regarding a merger of Verizon Wireless and US Cellular? This is pure speculation within the Verizon Communications article and, if not substantiated, should be deleted. KansasCity 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Verizon vs. Vonage--the battle of the patents

Can somebody find information regarding Verizon suing Vonage for patent infringement and for losing customers from Verizon's VoIP service. Thanks Tngu77 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Tngu77

Founding date

The founding date of Verizon, according to Hoover's Corporate Guide for 2005 (reference book series I discovered at the public library), the date of incorporation (founding) of Verizon was in 1983. A disclaimer explaining this is listed on the page (see CBS Corporation for a similar situation). KansasCity 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The largest telecommunications company

"Verizon, with MCI, was the largest telecommunications company in the United States based on sales of $75.11 billion, profits of $7.4 billion and assets of $168.13 billion. After completion of the BellSouth/AT&T merger, AT&T became the largest telecommunications company in the world in terms of assets and profits."
This (the second sentence) information is controversial and lacks citations. The "Merged" in the table is calculated by simply adding AT&T assets and profit to BellSouth ones and does not have any confirmation (also, there are no companies that are a result of a merge whose profits and assets are just a simple sum of unmerged companies)

I suggest removing the second sentence and the table until the public information will be available for the merged AT&T. 166.42.35.72 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hosting spammers

This part of "MCI acquisition" section: "When Verizon acquired MCI, some had expected that Verizon would act against the many senders of e-mail spam hosted on the MCI network through its UUNet subsidiary..." has no citations (except the one from a blog not being written by a recognized authority and spamhaus project with a listing of doubtful meaning). Verizon is the largest ISP but spamhaus specifies just the absolute number of spammers in the net. This section looks like a biased one and a self-promotion article (for the blog and for spamhaus). 166.42.35.72 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, nobody has responded this message in one week, so I'm removing the sentence mentioned above.. 166.42.35.72 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this of any concern to Wikipedia?

http://consumerist.com/consumer/telephony/verizon-specifies-how-youre-allowed-to-link-to-its-site-257704.php Bassgoonist Talk 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Corporate entity names - minor edits

It is nitpicking, but the Verizon entity names listed in the article aren't exactly correct. Verizon does not use a comma before "Inc." or "LLC" or similar in the entity names. Some of the old MCI and GTE entities do have a comma in them, and some (GTE entities in particular) have the word fully spelled out rather than abbreviated. Also, the registered d/b/a names listed in the article are wrong.

A few examples - the article says "Verizon Communications, Inc." and "Verizon Maryland, Inc.", which should be "Verizon Communications Inc." and "Verizon Maryland Inc." Other Verizon entities listed with a comma in them are similarly incorrect. Also, the article says "GTE Southwest, Inc. dba Verizon Southwest,Inc." and "Contel of the South, Inc. dba Verizon Mid-States, Inc.", which should be "GTE Southwest Incorporated d/b/a Verizon Southwest" and "Contel of the South, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Mid-States."

I will go through and make the changes, but I am a Wiki newbie and wanted to post here why I was doing it first, so it didn't look like I was vandalizing.

--BK DC 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fairpoint Verizon Merger

Does anyone here know anything about the Northern New England sale of Verizons land lines to Fairpoint? I am looking for any and all information possible.

Thank you

Nhpublius 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

New and expanded controversies section

This section has grown a lot in the last week. One of the paragraphs, regarding the $200 Billion in tax breaks, reads more like isolated rants by a couple of writers than a controversy. Not sure it has the same oomph as the other items. Mattnad 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Another editor removed the paragraph. Mattnad 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears Verizon has their people working overtime to keep the article clean. There doesn't even appear to be anything in regards to their recent strike where the union employees are vandalizing telecommunications equipment. You would think for a telco monopoly the controversy's would outweigh the entire article. Woods01 (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VerizonLogo1.svg

Image:VerizonLogo1.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added to image. Mattnad 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Separating Verizon Business (VzB) from Verizon Telecomm (VzT) and Verizon Wireless (VzW)

Verizon Business is a seperate subsidiary under the umbrella of the parent organization Verizon Communications (VZ). VzB should have a seperate Wiki as does VzW. In other words, VZ comprises VzT, VzW, and VzB.(Oxfordden (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Who bought whom?

In the Bell Atlantic-NYNEX merger, does anyone know who bought who? I've seen it both ways- that NYNEX acquired Bell Atlantic and took on the Bell Atlantic name, and that Bell Atlantic simply acquired NYNEX. --96.237.58.25 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GA status

What should be done to bring this article to GA status?? Now it looks relatively impressive, all we need to do is nominate it at WP:GAC. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Verizon acquires Alltel

This article needs to be edited to reflect the recent acquisition of Alltel by Verizon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603082.html -- Loaves (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DSL installable on any OS

In the Data section, the last statement reads:

"Verizon DSL is able to be initially installed using any operating system. Verizon DSL is offered in various speeds ranging from 768 kbps to 7.1 mbps download."

DSL (or ADSL) has nothing to do with the computer operating system. As a matter of fact, if one is so inclined and has sufficient technical expertise, a computer that already has an Ethernet port and TCP drivers installed can be manually configured to operate with any DSL modem on any telephone network without installing any additional software. This includes practically every popular operating system released since at least 1995. Why is this statement even in the article?—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked for what you mentioned and couldn't find it. If it indeed is still there, is should be taken out. DSL does not need to be compatible with the operating system, it needs to be compatable with whatever router or switch it used to connect to the computer. Some DSL providers give customers DSL "MODEMs" (technically not MODEMs) that are also "routers" (technically not routers), which connect to the computer. Others just give customers the "MODEMs", which either needs to connect to a "router" or to a computer. Either way, it has nothing to do with OS compatability and instead deals with 'network hardware' compatability or 'protocol' compatability, which if it's the latter it shouldn't be able to connect to the internet. Mofuggin bob (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I'm afraid you're confusing installation with operation. A couple weeks ago I replaced a VZ DSL modem. It wouldn't work until I ran the installation software. If it weren't compatible, the installation wouldn't have completed Presumably the modem would work now with another computer simply by plugging in at one of the RJ45 ports. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jim, jim what your saying is something ISPs do to simply make you install their software. I have my own modem for (cable) and when I went to sign on to comcast for the first time I either had to install their software or have them activate the service for me. Verizon works the same way except it appears in your case or perhaps the case of many the modem does store some information locally (cable doesn't in my area) and that requires the modem to be fed either from the upstream (verizon) or software you install. So this is not to be confused with operating system compatibility. If the modems came pre-setup they wouldn't need to communicate with your computer at all to be functional. Woods01 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair/Safe to say Verizon was once Bell?

I just read a bunch of articles about the Bell System, GTE/Verizon, AT&T, etc. and from what I got from those articles is that: a) GTE bought Bell Atlantic and then Verizon was born, suggesting that Verizon was made by GTE and not Bell Atlantic b) GTE and Bell Atlantic merged completely, and so Verizon was made by both GTE and Bell Atlantic

From what I understand right now, GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and so GTE is responsible for the creation of Verizon. This article currently says/suggests that Verizon was made by Bell Atlantic, and not GTE. Suggesting GTE didn't own Bell Atlantic (and that instead neither owned either; they merged completely). Which that suggests that if AT&T wouldn't have divestitured, Verizon would not exist today.

I suggest the article being reworded to say something along the lines of, "GTE bought Bell Atlantic, and then GTE created Verizon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofuggin bob (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be utterly incorrect. Bell Atlantic bought GTE and changed it's name to Verizon. GTE stockholders at the time of the acquisition received Bell Atlantic stock, not the other way around. Verizon is the direct continuation of Bell Atlantic. oknazevad (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Verizon blocking IRC servers in regards to Operation Payback

Awaiting an official response form Verizon regarding this issue. Will probably have it on Monday. Several Verizon users have reported not being able to access related servers.Woods01 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anything happened on this issue? Can we get an update?

Verizon openly admits it moderates it's network. Why this doesn't open them up for lawsuits hand over foot is beyond me. Once a network begins to moderate it's traffic it can no longer be protected by saying "we know nothing" because they do know what is going on if they are moderating traffic. I look for nothing to happen except for them to cry for network neutrality (which is the opposite of blocking internet sites) when it's good for Verizon. Woods01 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Verizon Plus be merged or redirected to Verizon Communications. Verizon Plus just appears to be the name of the retail store operated by Verizon Communication, so any information regarding Verizon Plus would be appropriate in the Verizon Communication article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. (You took the words out of my keyboard...) Haruth (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So redirected. Absolutely no independent notability. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete Verizon Plus?

Verizon Plus, a link rarely used, is a redirect to this article. I am considering on deleting it, however, I want to see other Wikipedians have their take on this. It is suggestible that you join in on the discussion here. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Verizon Select Services into article?

I noticed an article for Verizon Select Services. It is a stub, which I just flagged as. I think it would be a good idea to place the info there into a new subsection under "Fixed-line Voice". In for this or not? Have your take below. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

British ownership question

Before we start could the following situation be made clear ..Is VERIZON a British American company or is only VERIZON WIRELESS a British American company? 45% of Verizon wireless is owned by British Vodaphone the worlds biggest international mobile phone company. How many British directors are on the Boards of either Verizon or Verizon Wireless. At one time British Vodaphone considered increasing its stake in Verizon from 45% to 50% ..does anyone know if this may happen in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.216.229 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2012‎

Vodafone has no ownership stake in Verizon Communications, only a minority stake in the wireless company (albeit a pretty large one). Verizon is therefore not a British-American company; that they have no British operations reinforces this. PS, please note that new comments/questions go on the bottom of a page and please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (these things: ~). oknazevad (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Cities

I realize the cited corporate history page doesn't say this, but at the top of this, it says Verizon started as Bell Atlantic, based in New York City, in 1983, and merged with New York-based NYNEX in 1997. Unless I'm quite mistaken, until that merger Bell Atlantic actually operated out of the Bell Atlantic Tower in Philadelphia - Bell Atlantic initially had the mid-Atlantic areas, NYNEX had New York and New England (NY NE). By the time they merged with GTE in 2000 they were based in NYC, but they didn't start there... at least, I'm pretty confident of that. Can anyone confirm this? 68.82.84.134 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct; Bell Atlantic was based in Philadelphia originally, before moving into the NYNEX hq in NYC upon the merger. By the time the company became Verizon, the NYC BA was well established. oknazevad (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Has Verizon even promoted Verizon Business aside from the immediate aftermath of buying out MCI? Aside from that, the article is short enough and unsourced, it can easily be merged into the main Verizon article. Jgera5 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for assistance updating this page

I work at Verizon Communications (see my disclosure here), and I'm hoping to improve Wikipedia's information about the company, and telecommunications in general. I'd like to note up-front that I won't be making any edits myself, due to my conflict of interest. I'll be posting notes on Talk pages instead, asking for input from volunteer editors to take a look at the changes that I suggest and make them if they look okay.

I have a couple of small suggestions that I'd like to make to the information on this page, to make sure it's accurate and up-to-date:

• First, towards the end of the "History / Verizon Wireless formation and GTE merger" section, there's a sentence that reads "Verizon currently has 140.3 million land lines in service." This is off by quite a lot—the current number, according to Verizon's second quarter 2013 SEC filings is 21.8 million (see "Total voice connections" on page 29, under "Wirelines"). Could someone update this figure, adding in the citation to the SEC filing?

This has been done. VZBob (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Second, under "Products and services / Fixed-line Voice", there are two sentences that read: "Verizon also offers a product

that is a joint venture with Microsoft called "Verizon Web Calling", a type of VoIP service used within Windows Live Messenger. See also Iobi." But Verizon no longer offers this product—see, for example, this story, which includes a quoted email from Verizon Customer Service about the end of the service. I'd like to suggest that these two sentences be removed from the article.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I do have a few other small changes I'll be suggesting here in the future, including getting updated products and services information into the article, but for now, I'd like to get these two bits of (very) inaccurate information corrected. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, though I kept the information, merely updating it to indicate a time past. Sorry for my delay; after doing the one last week I forgot the other. In my forty years pulling wires at NYTel W50 there was always time for everything but since retiring life has become too hectic. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving Proposal.

Just to get things started, I propose that any thread that hasn't been touched in a year be archived. The use on the page is light and that will get rid of about 2/3 of the text. I'm *quite* willing to be convinced on another amount. :)Naraht (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I just proposed pretty much the same on the Help Desk. I can easily sweep everything before Jan 1, 2013 into an archive right now. Astronaut (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. :) Though oddly, one of the most useful comments (about the original cities) is from *just* over a year ago. The only question is whether this is a one time thing or whether we should let a bot do it.Naraht (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just been bold and done a manual archive. Link to it is in the header. Reasonably easy to revert if no one else likes it.

As I said on the Help Desk, I doubt there is a need for a bot for such a slow pace of discussion. Astronaut (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Have added configuration for an archiving bot. While it is true that this page probably does not "need" a bot, using one ensures that a couple more years do not go by before someone notices the page is getting long in the tooth once more. Current config is to archive discussions over 90 days old while ensuring that at least 3 threads remain at all times. An archive indexer has also been added to ease searching through past discussions. --Allen3 ^talk 19:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up bot archival. If there is no disagreement with Allen3's configuration to keep at least three threads open but otherwise archive any that are 90 days old, that will be treated as consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Thanks so much for taking a look at this and setting up the automatic archive for the future. The page looks much better now! VZBob (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A few more improvements

Hello again,

As I mentioned before, I have a couple of other improvements that I'm hoping to get some assistance with on this article. Because I work for Verizon, I don't want to make any of these changes. I think it best if volunteer editors look at the changes I've proposed and, if they're comfortable with them, make them on my behalf.

First, under Controversies, there is a subsection called E-911 Failures, which currently reads:

"Verizon E-911 service for the DC metropolitan area failed for a multi day period in the aftermath of the June, 2012 "Derecho" storm. FCC regulators have vowed to investigate the failure of the critical 911 call system, and the lack of timely notice to area public safety agencies of the failure. The FCC is investigating E-911 failures associated with a January 26, 2011 snow storm."

This appears to have been written shortly after the event, is repetitive, and doesn't include any information about Verizon's response to the failures. What's more, the Washington Business Journal article cited actually pre-dates the storm in question by a year and a half (dated February 2011). I'd like to suggest the following rewrite of the paragraph, to both update the language and sources, and include information about Verizon's response (and some other minor adjustments, like adding links to other Wikipedia articles):

Verizon E-911 service in several northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. failed in the aftermath of the June 2012 derecho storm, with some problems lasting several days. The FCC conducted an investigation and in January 2013 released a report detailing the problems that led to the failure. Verizon reported that it had already addressed or was addressing a number of the issues related to the FCC report, including the causes of generator failures, conducting audits of backup systems, and making its monitoring systems less centralized, although the FCC indicated that Verizon still needed to make additional improvements.

Second, the current list of board members in the article is out of date. Could we update this list based on Verizon's website? If it seems like too much detail and too difficult to keep updated, maybe we could just put a link to this page in the "External links" section? What do people think? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My previous response was simply to execute my own ideas after careful study, and discuss little. I didn't take time to study the storm question, and as for the board roster I simply got rid of it as not contributing enough to justify its necessary maintenance effort. A minor injury yesterday will restrict my mobility for a few days, giving me time to study our friend Bob's proposals on the board and the storm. As my tentative conclusion is that he's 100% right, I'm presenting my views on those topics here rather than immediately implement them. Seems to me, articles about big companies generally ought to have a link to the official board of directors roster, so that doesn't require more thought.

The storm question is more complex, in part because the paragraph as it stands discusses one July windstorm, but one of the refs is about an unrelated winter snowstorm. Someone who wants to present the winter storm can give it a go, but if nobody's interested, we can just drop that question. Meanwhile I propose simply to adopt Bob's version after giving another day or two for dissenters to pipe up. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)  Jim.henderson (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

On the eve of Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, I finally got to the Board of Directors question. Inexperienced with corporate articles, I looked at ones about other big American companies for precedents, and found no consistency. Some said nothing, some had an official EL at the end, one had a discussion of a controversy supported by among others a link to the current official list, and some had what I consider worst of all, a Wikipedia list either obviously old or of unspecified date. So, I put it in the EL section. Certainly I'm not going to study enough to write a WP:MOS about how this ought to be handled, being busy enough with my beloved Wikigeographical and photographical activities. Perhaps I'll meet some of you tomorrow afternoon at the library. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated language for "Products and services"

Hello, I have some suggestions for improvements that I think could be made to this article. I've drafted a new section that I think should replace "Products and services", calling it "Lines of business". The full draft is in my userspace, but there are a couple notes that I'd like to make. In addition to providing expanded, up-to-date information, I've also made a few changes I'd like to draw your attention to, which I've listed below.

• Reorganization — I've changed how this section is organized, breaking it down into Verizon's three business units: wireless, residential, and enterprise. I think this is a logical way to discuss things, and keep the section organized, while also matching the way Verizon's business is actually structured.
• Copper wire removal and leasing — Under "Residential and small business", I rolled in the section in the current article called "Copper-wire removal" under "Controversies", as it seems to make more sense to talk about the removal of these lines in context, rather than separately. I kept much of the language about the removal of copper lines that's in the current article (although I did rewrite some of the information to make it more neutral). However, I removed mention that Verizon isn't required to lease the replacement fiber optic lines, as this isn't unique to Verizon: any provider that uses fiber optic lines wouldn't be required to do so. Because of this, it doesn't seem to me to belong in an article specific to Verizon.
• Locations for landline service — In addition to moving the information about the copper wires into this section, I also moved one other section: I added information about where Verizon operates landline service, replacing the "Local telephone operations" which seemed too detailed and didn't have any sources.
• Finally, I didn't include the "Directory operations" section in my draft, since Verizon is not involved in this anymore, so I think this would be more appropriate to discuss in the History section. I'm working on a new draft of the History section as well, so I'm not sure which would be easiest—we could move the "Directory operations" to "History" now, or we could just delete it, and it will come back when I have new language to propose there. What do editors think? I'm open to either possibility.

Again, here's a link to the draft I prepared. I've tried to be neutral and accurate here, along with properly sourcing everything, but if anyone has questions or comments, please do share them. Otherwise, could someone please replace what's in the current article with the draft I prepared, also deleting the "Local telephone operations" and "Copper-wire removal" when they do? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've incorporated the Lines of Business into the article in place of Products and Services, and have moved Directory Operations to History. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, thanks so much for moving this over! It looks good, except for a couple places where I've taken information from elsewhere in the article and put them into this "Lines of business" section, so I think those other sections should be deleted. The two places that I think should now be removed are "Local telephone operations" and "Copper-wire removal." What do you think?

I moved the list of operating companies to residential and small business and deleted "Local telephone operations". "Copper wire removal" is a controversy, and has been left standing because it does appear to be worth mentioning somewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, now that I've added sourcing for the information in this section, do you think we could remove the flag about the section needing additional citations?

Flag removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Finally, there seems to be a strange extra space between "Enterprise" and "Verizon Partner Program". Could you also remove that? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want a strange extra space removed?? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Robert McClenon, thanks so much! One comment, not involving strange extra spaces:

Should the function of introducing strange extra spaces be delegated to a bot? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually moved discussion of the copper wire removal into this new section, based on this Wikipedia policy about discussing controversy in context, instead of in a controversy section. The language appears as the third paragraph of this section. I agree that this is a topic worth mentioning, but think it should be framed properly. What would you think about removing it from the controversy section and just leaving the in-context discussion that I've added here?

Again, thanks so much for your help! VZBob (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great! Do you think you could go ahead and delete the "Copper-wire removal" section under "Controversies"? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about a recent edit

Hello, I'm concerned about an edit made last night to this article. As an employee of Verizon, I won't remove the edit myself, but I would like to bring it to other editors' attention.

Someone added a sentence to the "Internet" section under "Controversies" that indicates that Verizon has "confessed" to throttling bandwidth. However, not only is this not true (you can see Verizon's response here), but the source is a blog ("Dave's Blog") and the "confession" is an online chat with a customer service representative. Given the nature of this source, would an editor be willing to remove the edit?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A bit more information about this issue: this Washington Post piece discusses the topic, and finds that Verizon isn't slowing service. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated "History" language

Hello,

I've been working on a draft to replace the current "History" section of the article. I'd like for other editors to take a look at it and let me know their thoughts. I essentially started from scratch on the organization and language of the section, though it does include all the major details in the current article, like the company's formation, the MCI merger, and divestitures. You can find the draft in my userspace, but as I did before, I've included a few notes here.

• I didn't include the information in the current "AT&T breakup and NYNEX acquisition" section about Bell Atlantic prior to the merger with GTE that formed Verizon. It seemed like too much detail for an article about Verizon.

• I included all the information from the "Controversies" section in the chronology of the "History" section, in order to present this issues in context. If editors think this covers the controversial issues sufficiently, the "Controversies" section can be removed when this section is moved into the article, in order to avoid repeating information.
• I would like editors to pay close attention to one incident regarding mail servers in Europe in 2004. I've included it because it appeared in the existing "Controversies" section, but it seems like a very minor incident could be taken out if editors would prefer.

The draft is quite long and contains a great deal of information, so please let me know if there are any comments or questions. If everything looks good, I'd appreciate if an editor could move the draft over to the article and remove the "Controversies" section. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There was also some vandalism recently to the introduction of this article, replacing "1900" with "1300", which I think should be corrected! VZBob (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The above vandalism has been corrected, but there is a new issue that has been introduced, with an editor adding information over two edits (1, 2) that Verizon's headquarters are located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Although Verizon has large offices in Basking Ridge, Verizon Communication's legal headquarters are in New York City. You'll also note that the source included by this editor does not mention Basking Ridge, but only indicates that Verizon moved within New York. Would an editor be willing to undo these edits that introduce incorrect information?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the proposed history and, in particular, its overlap with the controversies section. I replaced the existing histories section and then progressively checked that the controversies had been covered elsewhere in the article (one item is covered in "Lines of business"). Not being US-based or a telecoms expert, I have done my best in good faith and would urge other editors to double-check the recent revisions. Paul W (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Paul W! If other editors have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me here or on my Talk. VZBob (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of attribution history in case the user-page gets deleted, this edit of User:VZBob/History by User:VZBob dated 18:40, 21 February 2014 copied into the article with this edit by User:Paul W dated 11:43, 18 March 2014 (Special:ComparePages). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated "Sponsorships and naming rights" section

Hello, I would like to propose replacing the "Sponsorships and naming rights" section of the article with a new draft I have been working on, as the current section is essentially just a list of venues which contain the Verizon name. While working on a more detailed version of that section I realized that the article also lacks information on Verizon's marketing efforts.

So, I've created two sections: "Marketing campaigns" and "Sponsorships and venues." These sections would serve as an overview of Verizon's most widely recognized marketing campaigns and detail the company's sponsorship activities, as well as include some information on named venues. I'd like for editors to take a look and let me know what they think of these new sections. I've posted the draft in my userspace.

If you have any comments or questions please let me know. Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make these changes myself. Instead, I'm hoping an editor will move the draft over to the article and delete the current "Sponsorships and naming rights" section.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, an editor from an IP address made several changes to the infobox for this article, which are largely unsourced and incorrect. I'm hoping that, in addition to looking at the marketing sections mentioned above, an editor can roll back these infobox edits to how it looked on May 2, which is much more accurate. I should note that even that information is not perfect, and I'll be back with a few improvements that could be made to it as well, but it is certainly more accurate than the current version for the time being.

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)