Don't forget FiOS... As reliable as it is, Verizon has been "discriminatory" in its deployment.
And the paywalls...
And the horrible billing service/support (tech support has been fine, but billing...)
I find irony in how such a big company, that specializes in communication, fails to have 24hr billing support (typically 8-5pm). You get a billing error, you have to call M-F between 8-5pm and deal with the "Katie" bot and other issues.
I still get invoices sent home...but they won't bill me at home (demand CC)...but I still get a monthly billing statement. What?
| |IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
The best revenge is not being a customer. Honestly, if a company doesn't act like they respect you as a customer and appreciate your business, don't give it to them
no matter what. I don't understand what this obsession is with Verizon if you're not happy. It's become like being in an abusive relationship and making excuses
- "If only I didn't want to use my own device/feature, Verizon would change."
- None of the other carriers have coverage, etc.
The best revenge is not being a customer. Period.
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army
| || n2jtx, I think you're living in that old trusty plato cavern of illusions mate. Praying to the god of free market and preaching the good news.|
Time to wake up, there ain't no such thing as "freedom" within any market. For an exchange to happen, you must pay. In other words, you are coerced to pay. A market where everything is regulated by this rule for a 2 way exchange, where you are coerced to give something for anything in return can never be, by definition "free". Markets are based on coercion and promote coercion, hence the lobbying, hence the anti competitive behavior, hence the monopolies/oligopolies we witness today in this giant monopoly endgame and every other "evils" associated with it.
Sorry to kill your god, thank me later.
Upper Marlboro, MD
I totally agree Verizon deliberately sabotages certain carriers and HTC is not one of its preferred carrier.
1. Verizon deliberately delayed the HTC One on its network. It wasnt available until August while it became available on Sprint, AT & T and T-mobile in March.
2. Verizon forced HTC to take out the Power Save button on the Verizon version of the phone. Also, Verizon deliberately only got the silver version of the phone while other carriers have both the silver and black.
3. Verizon had limited advertisement for the phone unlike others.
I cant wait to stick it to Verizon and jump over to T-mobile.
said by tcope:Why would the Nexus 5 be carried by Verizon? It doesn't have all the channels available that Verizon uses.
On the Nexus's I'm just going by what the article states, "the most recent Nexus 5 isn't being carried by Verizon at all". Carried would usuallu mean that it's not sold by. I don't see that a carrier would have much control over what devices are used on their network. People buy devices from other sources all of the time and use them on carrier's networks that don't sell the devices. It appears from the BBR aticle linked to that this is correct... that Verizon refused to _sell_ the Nexus's.
said by Foxbat121:Understood... while this kind of goes to my point, that is a different matter. I don't want to confuse the issue as then people are going to jump at that and complain that Verizon does not have a right to block Google Wallet... and why they are doing it, if it's right or wrong, etc. is not important here.
CDMA carriers do have absolute control over what devices can be used on their network because if your device's ESN is not in their database, you won't connect. Period.
But.... to that effect, Verizon is arguing something different then you mentioned. They are arguing that they don't know what's going on in the Secure Element and it's be locked down by Android/Google so they can't/won't allow the app to run. Again, I'm not saying that they are not just using this as a smoke screen or not. They may be. But the important part of this is that Google _is_ blocking anyone else from using the phone's secure element. Google has nothing to do with the hardware. So what right does Google have to tell anyone that they can't use their own phone's secure element. They should have no right to do this. If you really want people to hate you, try explaining that in a Google based form, such as Google Plus! You'd think you just killed someone's baby. It's basically using those people's own arguement against Verizon, against Google. All of a sudden people vanish, vear off to another point and/or just ignore that statement completly (or you get called a Google Hater/Verizon employee, etc. (thanks for seeing through that, Plus One)).
You don't see what I've stated mention by many sources as it's not popular to call out Google and look like you support Verizon's point of view (Android Police has a good article on this). I just have a bunch in my undies on this subject so I had to say something.
Re: Nope The issue is not know how the secure element works, the issue as Verizon claims is since it's locked down that they can't know what the app is doing so they need to ban the app. Again I'm not saying this is correct but if Verizon can't know what the app does, how do they know it's not doing something bad. I'm _not_ saying this is not simply a smoke screen but truth is.... Verizon might be somewhat correct. Has Google ever been fined for doing something under handed? YUP!!!! More then a few times! But here is how I look at the matter... if Google blocks part of the phone from the manufacture, carrier and end user... how wrong is it for Verizon to block Google? Fair is fair? As I mentioned before, this is where Google lovers start to disappear and/or completly ignore that question. They don't seem to like when their own argument is used against them.
Here is something else to consider... Verizon allows the Paypal bluetooth app to be used on their network. So how is it that they are monopoliznig the market? You don't really see this mention as it's not cool to point that out. I think the other carriers allow it as well.. and they are not regulated like Verizon.
(I've not checked myself abut Paypal but I read that in a few places)
What a shocker! Is this really new's to anyone? Ive been boycotting verizon for YEARS for this reason. GREEDY. All companies are in business to make money but verizon just takes it to a disgusting level.
When i was 18 i walked into a verizon store with no credit & verizon wanted 1000$ deposit!!! you kidding me!! everyone else wanted 100-200$
Verizon is an evil company that every single subscriber empowers. Anyone i know with verizon that complains in my company gets shut down quickly because i don't want to hear it & this is why.
Re: What a shocker!
said by Keefer21:Go to Verizon's coverage page. Enter any city in Upstate New York. Now zoom out. Zoom out some more. Repeat this exercise on T-Mobile and AT&T.
Anyone i know with verizon that complains in my company gets shut down quickly because i don't want to hear it & this is why.
(Sprint is actually comparable, since they roam on VZW, though it's not the same experience when you repeatedly drop calls while your phone dithers between -108dBm of native signal vs. -60dBm of VZW roaming)
Now tell me that the ability to actually USE my phone is worth giving up to take a principled stand against Verizon's business tactics, particularly when said tactics have never directly impacted me. Locked down phones? Yeah, if you use the VZW firmware. Can't remember the last phone I had that kept the VZW software. It was pre-RAZR, even those were flashable to ditch the VZW bloat.
Verizon is the hottest woman in the room and until that changes she'll continue to get away with her behavior. Don't like it? Tell T-Mobile to stop cherry picking the most profitable areas and leaving the rest of us to wither on the vine. While you're at it, ask Karl why T-Mobile is never called out for this behavior while Verizon is mercilessly vilified for doing the same with FIOS.
Re: What a shocker!
said by Crookshanks:LOL wow i like that. If you dont mind i will be using that!
Verizon is the hottest woman in the room and until that changes she'll continue to get away with her behavior.
said by TBBroadband:Only in my area Verizon does have the best coverage. Everyone else I work with will have issues with their cell phones on other carriers. When they can't get a signal, I still have one or two bars of signal strength on my Verizon phone. When they are only getting two or three bars I am getting five bars.
And that's what happens. Everyone claims they have the best network, the best carrier, blah blah blah. But yet have nothing more than anyone else. If nobody is happy with them, then why stay and get raped?
For the most part I have been pleased with my Verizon service. I'm still able to get unlimited data and text along with 450 minutes of talk. Then I get an additional $10 off for combining my cellular bill with my three FiOS services. So my Verizon cellphone only costs me $70 a month after taxes.
Now if/when Verizon kicks me off unlimited data that will be another story. But right now, no other carrier can give me the coverage that Verzion gives me or can give me a price as low as Verizon gives me.
Verizon To all those asking why people stick with Verizon while we bash them incessantly, one word, coverage. It's really hard to go to the competition when you can't get a decent signal in half the areas you are in.
I have always avoided Verizon for all the reason people bitch about here and everywhere else. I had AT&T then Sprint. I have friends that went with T-Mobile. We all had the same problem, poor coverage. When I went from Sprint to Verizon, finally, the difference was night and day in the ability to get a good signal everywhere.
The other providers don't seem willing to invest in the infrastructure to be able to actually compete with Verizon in coverage.
As a company I hate Verizon and wish I could vote with my wallet by going somewhere else. But the "competition" doesn't provide coverage good enough to allow me to do that. I run my business on my cell phone so I am stuck on Verizon until Sprint, AT&T or T-Mobile does a much better job providing coverage.
| |amarryatVerizon FiOS
Network safety - they've used that excuse before Remember when your Blackberry's couldn't use GPS unless you subscribed to Verizon's navigation? GPS was "locked out" of being used by other applications, and they gave the safety excuse.
Re: Network safety - they've used that excuse before Yes. I had to buy a bluetooth GPS receiver to then use my GPS software (which wasn't navigator)... That really got me fired up.
They also disabled data transfer so you couldn't get your own ringtones.
IMHO, this is par for the course for VZ and since this is an open market people can decide, it's not anti-competitive, it's anti-consumer.
So until they start loosing customers (they are not) they are of the mind of controlling aspects that can benefit their ARPU.
I have Verizon and the Mrs for corporate because it's got the best coverage and their business services are the best. As a consumer they treat you like crap, and I would never put a personal phone on VZ network..
With the iphone, Mr Gates set the bar, now it's a matter of GOOG people cramming it down their throats by releasing competitive phones on other vendors...
market share we do not have competition in wireless. its "faux" competition. Thank god T mobile was not swallowed up. Can you imagine what a mess we would be in now. Companies that get too powerful in terms of market share just start behaving badly. Corps are run by people. People just start behaving badly when they get power. The problem with "govt regulation" is that most of the regulation hurts small cos and not the big cos that have the money and staff to comply with what ever the govt throws at them. The other problem with regulation is that our govt is led around by the nose (via cash spreading lobbyists) by cos like verizon (lets see who did Obama tap to fix ACA..verizon..wtf?)
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
Are those "sloppy and clunky" service not failing?
said by Karl Bode:The attempted VZ services that you referenced did, or are failing. Seems the competitive marketplace is working just fine.
Normally in a competitive market when your products and services are sloppy, clunky, or otherwise just not very good, you'll simply fail.
And a majority of consumers don't care enough
said by Karl Bode:VZ, the largest wireless operator in the US, continues to grow wireless subs, which suggests that a majority US consumers don't care enough about VZ's business practices to do anything about them. Given at least a couple of alternative providers in most markets, the demand for VZ's products and services are greater than the tepid desire for "openness".
In a truly healthy competitive market, that price would be users leaving Verizon and heading to carriers with more open-minded and intelligent executives. But despite claims, this isn't an entirely healthy and competitive wireless market.
said by Karl Bode:Consumer stupidity? Once again, consumers choose their poison. I love how some people continue attempting to displace fault.
In the short term however, without functioning regulators and healthy competition, consumers get to feel the brunt of the stupidity.