 Review by BriGuy89 
UPDATED: 1 year ago
member for 8.5 years, 1989 visits, last login: a few minutes ago
 Yorktown Heights,Westchester,NY
 $32 per month
 about 7 days
 Verizon
 "Low-cost broadband"
 "Can't get the 7 Mbps tier even though that's what the line is proviosoned at"
 "White Plains CO cleaned up it's act so DSL is reliable once again, making it a better value"
| Pre Sales information:
Install Co-ordination:
Connection reliability:
Tech Support:
Services:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
I ordered the 1.5M/128k residential package with dynamic IP for at a permanent (promotional) price of $34.95 per month. I did my own installation.
Ordering was a breeze, for the most part. However, I could not use the Verizon Web site because it did not recognize my line as being DSL-capable -- even though it already had DSL service through Earthlink (albeit at 784k downstream) -- so I had to do things over the phone. (After Earthlink basically said good riddence when they would not match Verizon's speed or price, I went with Verizon Online.)
I got a Westell Wirespeed modem, which I used to replace my aging Earthlink-provided modem (one power source had already failed). No problems hooking it up to my router. I completely ignored the MSN "bonus" software provided, as well as all the other Verizon-provided software. I just wanted the Internet connection.
I had almost no problems until about the summer of 2003, when download speeds dropped to sub-dialup levels. I spent a lot of time with the techs on the phone, going through the usual set of tasks aimed at trying to isolate a problem. Nothing worked -- I was sent a new modem, I tried different PCs, and even plugged in my laptop and modem to the box outside the house.
This dragged on because the automated line test showed no problems. Finally, a tech came out (Day 9) and tested 1.6M down at the line using his testing device. But he also saw me run speed tests and get download rates of 13k! Turns out I was his sixth call of the day (with six more of the same to go) with the same problem of anemic downloads speeds -- all tied to the same CO. He threw the problem back at the CO crew, and told them to recheck their hardware.
Turns out the card going out to the Internet from the CO was on its last legs -- but not 100% gone, or else they would have noticed. Five days later, the card was replaced and proper download speeds returned.
That's probably my biggest gripe with Verizon Online -- the tech support people, who have been great to deal with, don't have any tools to analyze an issue in a broader context -- for example, some kind of business intelligence system that could have pointed out a dozen people served by the same CO with exactly the same problem indicates that the fault likely sits on Verizon's end, not 12 customers with exactly the same issue at exactly the same time. If tech support staff had such tools, they'd have spent much less time with me (and the others, I'm sure) and could have resolved this matter in about half the time (assuming the CO folks would need the same amount of time for scheduling the card replacement work).
Customer service has been great so far. I got two months service credit for the two-week outage I had last summer (outlined above). I got the upgrade to 384k upstream in less than 10 minutes. And just today, I had my monthly rate adjusted down to $29.95 to match the current offer to new subscribers. But I had to call and request both.
I don't have cable TV at home (because I don't watch much TV), so the main broadband alternative, Optimum Online, is $60 per month. At half that price, with great service that keeps getting better, Verizon Online DSL is a tremendous value.
Being that I'm less than a mile from the CO, I'm hoping that I qualify for 3Mbps downstream once testing is complete. Based on how service has gone so far, that's probably the next benefit coming my way -- while the price remains the same.
================================
14 September 2004 Update
No problems or issues since my last post.
Got my rate permanently adjusted down to $29.95 per month. With the FUSF, it's $32.35, which is still a great deal in my mind, compared with the one cable broadband option I have (Optimum Online).
Also, looks as if 3Mbps down won't be a free upgrade after all. Oh well -- based on how I use the Internet, it's certainly not paying an additional $10 per month (yet).
================================
16 April 2008 Update
Time flies!
As I look back on this, the 3Mbps down is the current "standard" for my area. Although the line is provisionable to 7.1 Mbps down, VZ won't do it -- if I want more speed, I have to buy fiber.
Service has been spotty at best over the last month. It's nothing on my end. The culprit is the White Plains, NY CO (my second hop). Downstream speeds have fallen to sub-dialup levels for eight of the last 30 days. It's part of a broader issue affecting a large number of users throughout the 914 and 845 area codes. (Upstream is 100 percent, even during the outage.)
Despite it being an established, recurrent problem, Tier 1 tech support has no clue how to deal with a broader, centralized issue. That's why I knock support all the way down to 1. I have to jump through hoops (switching cables, swapping modems, resetting the connection, releasing and renewing the IP address, disabling the firewall, clearing the cache, yada yada yada) -- usually for close to an hour -- before a ticket can ever be escalated to the next level. I beg for Tier 1 simply to open a ticket and notify the central network team to look into a recurrence of the same problem at the White Plains, NY CO -- they refuse or claim they have no way to contact this team. And the approach is 110 percent wrong: the CSR starts with the assumption that the user is guilty of messing up his or her connection, and must prove it is not his or her fault. That's not customer service. I've also begged for some kind of end-user proficiency test from VZ that could get me to a higher level of support right away; that does not exist and no one wants to make that happen.
"Magically," the downstream issue has always been resolved between 36 and 40 hours after the outage starts. Since it has happened that way for five outages -- and most of them on the weekend -- it sure smells like folks are sitting on the issue, know how to resolve it, and do so only when their back is against wall and their OLA (and/or bonus) is about to get dinged.
I've also cropped my connection reliability significantly; VZ must prove itself again. Value correspondingly drops to a mid-level rating -- if I don't have service and I can't get anyone from the VZ network operations team to seriously address the issue until 36 hours into the outage, that's not much value for me.
Worst part is this seems to be the rumored fiber scenario could be coming to fruition -- that is, no additional investment in DSL technologies (keep old broken equipment with recurrent problems in production), perhaps even management direction to ignore outages and recurrent problems, and the overall attitude that if it's not fiber, it doesn't matter anymore to VZ.
VZ is close to the end of the rope I'm giving it -- and this is coming from an 8+ year DSL subscriber. If this problem continues, I'm going to jump ship -- all services: phone, Internet, and TV -- to OOL and never even consider fiber from VZ until it can be completely proven to me that my traffic will not go anywhere near the problematic White Plains, NY CO.
They're the key, and hopefully they realize that at this point. There's a boatload of VZ DSL users in the 914 and 845 area codes on this site who, if an outage of this same exact nature happens again in the near term, are ready to tell Ivan either give us these people's heads on a platter or VZ will lose these people as customers for life. Regrettably, after more than 8 years of excellent service, I have to say count me among them.
==========================================
10 November 2008
Well, VZ recently crossed the six-month mark I had in the back of my mind related to handling of issues related to the White Plains, NY central office issues from earlier this year.
Only after the President's office got involved did corrective action result. The problem was identified as a (repeatedly) incorrectly implemented configuration update to routing software (which makes sense, based on the symptoms. Change processes were "revamped" to be especially aware of potential impact before implementation, as well as providing better notification inside VZ.
Although such an answer can leave a bad taste in one's mouth, it's actually somewhat pleasant to hear, compared to the alternative: the mantra spat back by tech support of "it must be a problem on your end; have you reset the modem..."
So I've bumped up my reliability rating after savagely beating it down earlier this year because six months without any issue whatsoever means problem resolution, as well as adequate addressing of (formerly) improperly planned and executed change processes. The bump up in reliability also creates a jump in value (because if it's working, it's more valuable).
Still wish a higher DSL tier were available; the line is actually provisioned at 7 Mbps down but that level is not being sold where I am -- VZ is pushing FiOS instead (understandably, because of the fiber investments and small relative difference between the speeds of the highest DSL tier and lowest FiOS tier.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Verizon Online DSL |
|
Verizon Online DSL
(139)
