Verizon Pays $2 Million For Poor Florida Service Years of complaints 'resolved' by $2 bill credits... Wednesday Nov 11 2009 09:00 EDT While Verizon gets a lot of warranted attention for investing heavily in fiber to the home, the last few years have seen a growing number of allegations that this investment came at the cost of neglected DSL and landline networks. Union workers have told us they aren't getting the tools and resources they need to support DSL & landline customers effectively, and in some states the resulting service issues have been obvious. Florida in particular has been a problem spot for Verizon, with higher than normal customer complaints, and union employees picketing Verizon offices last year. Regulators investigated, and found that lack of prompt repairs were leading to extended outages for customers. After many months of debating how these complaints should be resolved, Verizon yesterday agreed to refund customers $1.75 million and pay the state another $250,000. Of that $250,000, about half of it will be going to the state's the state's Lifeline Assistance program, which was designed to aid elderly and low-income Floridians. What does this mean if you're a Verizon customer in Florida? According to the Associated Press, Verizon has roughly 900,000 customers across six Florida counties. Each one of them should see a whopping $2 credit on their bill sometime in the next ninety days. |
  Gary A
join:2008-03-02
Odessa, FL ·Frontier Communi..
 ·Verizon FiOS
|
Gary A
Member
2009-Nov-11 8:23 am
$2Ooooo... I can hardly wait to get my $2. That will more than make up for the $25 monthly increase I will be getting when my 2 year FiOS triple-play bundle contract finally has to be renewed.  | |
|  |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 10:09 am
Re: $2said by Gary A: make up for the $25 monthly increase I will be getting when my 2 year FiOS triple-play bundle contract finally has to be renewed. Threaten to jump to cable and you will keep your discount. | |
| | |  NY Tel
Premium Member
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 ·VOIPO
·Verizon FiOS
|
NY Tel
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 10:29 am
Re: $2said by FFH5:said by Gary A: make up for the $25 monthly increase I will be getting when my 2 year FiOS triple-play bundle contract finally has to be renewed. Threaten to jump to cable and you will keep your discount. I second that. They do have SOME leeway to negotiate getting you on the "current" discount plan. | |
| | | | Gary A
join:2008-03-02
Odessa, FL ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon FiOS
|
Gary A
Member
2009-Nov-11 10:48 am
Re: $2Reading what some FiOS bundle customers have posted here in the FiOS forum, the typical discount they have gotten from the Retention Dept is $5-10.
But am I surprised after 2 years at $94.99 for the "old" triple play bundle - NO. Disappointed but not surprised. | |
| | | | | NY Tel
Premium Member
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 |
NY Tel
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 11:19 am
Re: $2I was paying 120 for TV and Internet and I re-negotiated and got it all for 96.99 a month for a 1 year contract. | |
| | | | | | Gary A
join:2008-03-02
Odessa, FL ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon FiOS
|
Gary A
Member
2009-Nov-11 11:22 am
Re: $2said by NY Tel:I was paying 120 for TV and Internet and I re-negotiated and got it all for 96.99 a month for a 1 year contract. Yup! We've all seen that you folks in NY get better deals than the rest of us due to the competition.  | |
| | | | | | | NY Tel
Premium Member
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 ·VOIPO
·Verizon FiOS
|
NY Tel
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 11:34 am
Re: $2said by Gary A:said by NY Tel:I was paying 120 for TV and Internet and I re-negotiated and got it all for 96.99 a month for a 1 year contract. Yup! We've all seen that you folks in NY get better deals than the rest of us due to the competition. Oh, yeah....well if it makes you feel any better, we are taxed to death here...  | |
| | | | | | | | Gary A
join:2008-03-02
Odessa, FL ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon FiOS
|
Gary A
Member
2009-Nov-11 11:38 am
Re: $2said by NY Tel:said by Gary A:said by NY Tel:I was paying 120 for TV and Internet and I re-negotiated and got it all for 96.99 a month for a 1 year contract. Yup! We've all seen that you folks in NY get better deals than the rest of us due to the competition. Oh, yeah....well if it makes you feel any better, we are taxed to death here... Pay me now, or pay me later...LOL! | |
| | | | | | | | | NY Tel
Premium Member
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 |
NY Tel
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 4:12 pm
Re: $2said by Gary A:Pay me now, or pay me later...LOL! Yup. | |
|
| | |
to Gary A
and that's what happens when you sign up for FiOS. That should have not been a surprise when you signed up that it would jump that much. We're talking about a Telco after all. You never see Cable's rates jump $25 at any time all at once. | |
| | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
Springfield, VA
kudos:2 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 3:09 pm
Re: $2said by hottboiinnc4:You never see Cable's rates jump $25 at any time all at once. You do when your contract/intro pricing expires  | |
| | | | | |
Re: $2Absolutely! Let that contract/intro rate expire and you can see a doubling in the price of services! | |
| | | | | | |
Re: $2i re-bundle and get the same price again. | |
|
| |
Time to hit the dollar menu at Mcdonalds!Wohoo, $2. Why did they even bother? I think it would be worth more to just give it all to the government. At the rate we are going, we will need every bandaid we can get. For those who are like "but the money should go to the customers!", I think you need to open a news paper and see how screwed we really are. And if you are really willing to argue over $2, then I don't think you should have the service in the first place if you were that tight on cash. Of course, I would be fine with the money going to the government just as long as the money doesn't go to **AA. And, you know, I wouldn't mind if it got funneled down to me either (I have a government job). | |
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL |
lesopp
Member
2009-Nov-11 8:38 am
Show Me The MoneyNow that the "regulators" determined returning $2 to every customer is better than making Verizon put the money into fixing the problem, I prefer a cashiers check to a credit on my phone bill. | |
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2009-Nov-11 8:48 am
$250,000 For Lifeline?!?!Gee, they are ponying up $250,000 for lifeline assistance yet who winds up with the money in the end? Verizon! I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out a way to take a tax deduction on it since it is helping the poor. If they can get away with the Reverse Morris Trust tax breaks, why not this? | |
|  bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-11 9:13 am
High Quality versus Low QualityThe 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. | |
| | | |
Re: High Quality versus Low QualityWhile 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. | |
| | |  bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.
Premium Member
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2
2 edits |
bionicRod
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 11:15 am
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitybicker 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. | |
| | | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-11 3:37 pm
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: High Quality versus Low QualityHmmmm, 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. | |
| | | | | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-12 3:05 am
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
to bUU
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. | |
| | | | | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-12 3:08 am
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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 Member
join:2009-07-06
united state
kudos:2 |
to bUU
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. | |
| | | | | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA
1 edit |
bUU
Member
2010-Jan-9 10:56 am
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid by bionicRod:Alright, it's obvious to everyone that you're a vzw shill Gosh, how wrong can you be? I've been accused, just in the past year, of being a "shill" for Comcast, DirecTV, Cablevision, Disney, American Airlines, General Electric, Motorola, and about a dozen other companies. The reality is that I'm a capitalist. Pleased to meet you. I have no connection with any of the companies that I comment on, except perhaps as a past or present customer, and/or past or present investor. I would NEVER EVER comment on a company that I worked for. Never. You owe me an apology. said by bionicRod: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. Absolutely true, specifically as you wrote it, i.e., as "stipulated in that contract". You clearly missed what I said to you in the previous message: "They only 'have to work' as specified by the QoS standards, not your personal standards." | |
|
| | |
dialupleast to bUU
Anon
2009-Nov-11 11:11 am
to bUU
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. | |
| | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-11 3:33 pm
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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. | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA  ·Time Warner Cable
|
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. | |
|
|  Dolgan
Premium Member
join:2005-10-01
Madison, WI |
Dolgan to bUU
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 1:44 pm
to bUU
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. | |
| | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-11 3:38 pm
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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. | |
| | | |
•••
| |  alchav
join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
kudos:1
|
to bUU
said by bUU: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! | |
| | | bUU
join:2007-05-10
Alpharetta, GA |
bUU
Member
2009-Nov-11 3:39 pm
Re: High Quality versus Low Qualitysaid 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. | |
| | | | |
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. | |
|
·Verizon FiOS
|
$26,600,000,000"Verizon's total operating revenues grew 11.6 percent to $26.6 billion in Q1 09."
2 x 10*6 / 26.6 x 10*9 = 0.075 x 10*-3
or, to put it in english: the $2M fine represents 0.00075% of Verizon's operating revenue.
wow, that's gotta hurt - I know if I lost 0.00075% of my income, I would.......notice it? | |
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
Springfield, VA
kudos:2 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 3:14 pm
Re: $26,600,000,000What's VZ's net income in FL? | |
|
| |
Why not 5 dollars???I want a foot long each month from subway :| | |
|  rsa0
join:2003-01-25
Birmingham, AL |
rsa0
Member
2009-Nov-11 4:22 pm
Where is the map for that ?Having crappy Verizon service in FL ?! they got a map for that For everything else, there is 2$ for ya' | |
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2009-Nov-11 7:41 pm
Hang em' high. Verizon has 900,000 customers in Flori'duh and in 2008 194 had extended outages. So a politician and an insurance hustler got to make some political hay.
Verizon was accused of not providing "Lifeline" service to triple play customers. If a mouth breather can afford CATV and Internet why should tax payers and Verizon subsidies voice? I'm sure Vontage will give them a discount on VoIP.
Verizon could have used that $2,000,000.00 to finish running FIOS in my town. Verizon should have remained Bellatlantic and not gotten involved with the great unwashed. | |
| |  Retired6
Premium Member
join:2002-11-09
Earth |
Retired6
Premium Member
2009-Nov-23 12:05 pm
Re: Hang em' high.Sounds good. | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
·
