bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | High Quality versus Low Quality The problem is that folks want low cost and high quality. They're not willing to pay top dollar for DSL & landline, yet they expect an extraordinary amount of resources to be directed towards supporting those services. That lack of reasonableness on the part of consumers and regulators is why Verizon has been abandoning offering such services.
If we make it "not worth" offering something, companies, if they are well-run, will oblige us but not offering those things. So either we accept that low-cost means lower quality, or we accept that low-cost means phasing out provision of service. Anything else is unreasonable. |
|
| While the rest of the world enjoys even lower cost, much higher quality and good customer service, we would be willing to settle for low cost and high quality, without providers treating us like pariah and whining about having to actually provide us with the level of service that they promise.
The way that corporate America treats it's customers these days is appalling. They whine, whine wine....all the way to the bank. |
|
| reply to bicker
No, people want at least the same quality they had with dialup at a reasonable rate. We get neither. If Verizon doesn't want to provide basic telephone or DSL support they should get out of the business and let someone else provide it. Instead they lock us into their oligopoly and do us a disservice. |
|
 bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Mediacom
2 edits | reply to 8744675
bicker said:
The problem is that folks want low cost and high quality. They're not willing to pay top dollar for DSL & landline, yet they expect an extraordinary amount of resources to be directed towards supporting those services.
...WHAT?!? People want the stuff that companies offer, and that they pay for UNDER THE COMPANY'S TERMS, to, I don't know....actually WORK. If VZW doesn't want to keep up the older copper network and concentrate on FIOS, that's their call. Stop accepting people's payments and don't offer the service. As long as they offer these services and charge for them, they have to work. I really don't understand your point of view here. |
|
DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to bicker
quote:
The problem is that folks want low cost and high quality. They're not willing to pay top dollar for DSL & landline, yet they expect an extraordinary amount of resources to be directed towards supporting those services. That lack of reasonableness on the part of consumers and regulators is why Verizon has been abandoning offering such services.
What a load of crap. Verizon does have the money to maintain the network, but it goes into the pockets of the Executives with their obscene bonuses. The company is becoming more and more top heavy with all the layoffs and buyouts of the Techs. Maybe if they started to cutout the unnecessary Executive and Management positions, instead of the positions that deal directly with the customers and network maintainence, Verizon would not have this problem. Furthemore, the low take rates on FIOS is, in part, due to lack of service consumers have received on their POTS service. Management always has an excuse for repair and install delays--maybe if they actually resolved issues instead of providing lip service they could win back some of the consumers' trust. |
|
 alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA | reply to bicker
said by bicker:The problem is that folks want low cost and high quality. They're not willing to pay top dollar for DSL & landline, yet they expect an extraordinary amount of resources to be directed towards supporting those services. That lack of reasonableness on the part of consumers and regulators is why Verizon has been abandoning offering such services. It cost money to use and maintain old Copper Infrastructures. This Copper goes back to the Central Office and ties into old obsolete equipment. Now the FiOS that Verizon has been deploying, goes back to new Digital Equipment. So if you were running a Company, would you spend money on replacing and maintaining old Copper that goes back to obsolete equipment? The answer is simple, Fiber is the Future I want it! |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to dialupleast
said by dialupleast :
No, people want at least the same quality they had with dialup at a reasonable rate. If you think that you're getting worse Internet from broadband than you got from dial-up, then we have nothing further to discuss.
said by dialupleast :
If Verizon doesn't want to provide basic telephone or DSL support they should get out of the business and let someone else provide it. Nobody wants to. Consumers don't make it worthwhile. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to bionicRod
said by bionicRod:If VZW doesn't want to keep up the older copper network and concentrate on FIOS, that's their call. No it isn't. They are forced to continue offering terrestrial copper landline service. The quality of service, or lack thereof, that you're experiencing, therefore, is a reflection of the regulators and/or market forces forcing a company to do something, and then not allowing them to charge enough to provide the level of service the you personally would want. Instead, the regulators and/or market forces specify a lower cost structure, to justify a lower price structure, to maintain affordable service. That's the PEOPLE'S choice: Lower quality matching the lower price than the service provider would charge for a more premium level offering.
said by bionicRod:As long as they offer these services and charge for them, they have to work. They only "have to work" as specified by the QoS standards, not your personal standards.
said by bionicRod:I really don't understand your point of view here. I'm sure you're not alone. Consumers often have a hard time applying reasonable standards to the quality/price scenario when they're the ones consuming the service. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Dolgan
said by Dolgan: What a load of crap. Verizon does have the money to maintain the network, but it goes into the pockets of the Executives with their obscene bonuses. What a load of crap. That just sounds like consumerist nonsense. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to alchav
said by alchav:It cost money to use and maintain old Copper Infrastructures. This Copper goes back to the Central Office and ties into old obsolete equipment. Now the FiOS that Verizon has been deploying, goes back to new Digital Equipment. So if you were running a Company, would you spend money on replacing and maintaining old Copper that goes back to obsolete equipment? The answer is simple, Fiber is the Future I want it! Absolutely, and it is an offering that customers are actually willing to pay the price for the level of service that they want, unlike with copper where customers are unwilling to pay for the level of service they want. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to dialupleast
said by dialupleast :
... If Verizon doesn't want to provide basic telephone or DSL support they should get out of the business and let someone else provide it.
Verizon has done exactly that ... much to the chagrin of the more vocal members of this forum. |
|
DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to bicker
Must be Verizon Exec with that attitude.
Unfortunately it costs money[and manpower] to maintain a network properly. If Verizon believes they can not make money on their landlines[FIOS or POTS] due to these costs, then they should get out of the landline business and become strictly a wireless company. |
|
| reply to alchav
Well then Verizon needs to more rapidly deploy the new technology so that these problems go away. Instead they're doing it too slowly and this whole situation is the result. I LOVED Fios when I had it, but it now seems too expensive and I see that Verizon is doing some very "interesting" things overall. It makes me wonder if I want to do business with them again. |
|
|
|
| reply to bicker
Hmmmm, this sounds like a spoiled little kid getting back at mommy and daddy by punishing it's pet. Wow, that's what Verizon thinks of it's customers? It used to be that companies had to work had for their customers. Now they're so big they can just treat the customer how they please. That sure does sound like fascism/corporatism to me. |
|
| reply to bicker
Allow me to explain to you what should be most obvious. Companies have no real rights. Nothing in the constitution states that corporations should exist and be given protection by the government, as well as all the other various laws in place to protect them and their investors.
Verizon has no rights. There is nothing `reasonable` or `unreasonable` about what consumers expect from them.
The other aspect of this argument is that Verizon is an extremely, incredibly profitable company. They`re making billions in profits every year despite the very expensive layout of fiber and upgrades to LTE. There is no reason for them to be skimping on landline maintenance on account of `cost, certainly not without providing actual proof that their costs are higher than their income. |
|
| reply to bicker
said by bicker:said by Dolgan: What a load of crap. Verizon does have the money to maintain the network, but it goes into the pockets of the Executives with their obscene bonuses. What a load of crap. That just sounds like consumerist nonsense. Are they profitable, yes or no?
Is it guaranteed in the constitution that they will make a huge profit every year, yes or no? |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
1 edit | reply to Dolgan
said by Dolgan:Must be Verizon Exec with that attitude. No: Just a reasonable adult. There is no justification for expecting a company to do something that isn't going to serve the obligations of the company.
said by Dolgan:Unfortunately it costs money[and manpower] to maintain a network properly. If Verizon believes they can not make money on their landlines[FIOS or POTS] due to these costs, then they should get out of the landline business and become strictly a wireless company. and wireless and fiber... They're trying to get out of the landline business, but some people refuse to let them sunset their copper business. Those folks are being unreasonable effectively forcing Verizon to continue operating a business that consumers and regulators simply don't want to pay for. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:Hmmmm, this sounds like a spoiled little kid getting back at mommy and daddy by punishing it's pet. That is indeed what many of the criticisms of Verizon in this thread sound like.
said by jjeffeory:It used to be that companies had to work had for their customers. When customers are willing to pay for what they want, surely, that is still the case. When consumers are unreasonable, and act like, as you say, "spoiled little kids" then that's when there is a problem.
I don't think you know what that word means. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Allow me to explain to you what should be most obvious. Companies have no real rights. Their owners do. And your perspective would deprive the owners of their rights. Your perspective is indefensible.
said by sonicmerlin:There is nothing `reasonable` or `unreasonable` about what consumers expect from them. That's ridiculous. You're simply trying to rationalize bad behavior by consumers by trying to avoid the reality that business is always a two way street: Consumers motivate companies to provide them what they want. That's the way of the world.
said by sonicmerlin:The other aspect of this argument is that Verizon is an extremely, incredibly profitable company. They`re making billions in profits every year But not on the things you want them to spend money on. Let the market determine what is important to invest in by what the market is willing to pay for. If the money isn't there to support the service, then either let the company decommission the service or accept that the service level will vary to match the extent to which consumers are willing to pay for good service. |
|
bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| reply to bicker
Alright, it's obvious to everyone that you're a vzw shill, but I'll respond (very late, just saw this).
If you, as a consumer, sign a legally binding contract with any company specifying a level of service for a set price, and you pay that price, said company should be required to provide the level of service stipulated in that contract. If they absolutely CANNOT provide that service for that price, they shouldn't have signed that contract to begin with. No company is forced to lose money, don't be ridiculous. If they can prove they are losing money, they can raise rates. |
|
