Verizon Goodness
December 10, 2006 5 Comments
Absolutely astonishing. Remember – monopolies are bad. The sad part here is that on two separate occasions I have had conversations this frustrating with Verizon employees. Math, logic and reason seem to go out the door. As you may have guessed, I refuse to subscribe to a Verizon service at this point. Doesn't seem like much has changed since I left.
( via The Consumerist, which showed me a Verizon ad on the linked page)
–jeremy
Verizon, monopoly
Jeremy's Blog 
Your loss then. Go pay more else where or get lousy service elsewhere just to prove your point. Of course, when you talk about monopolies you show your ignorance as well. This call was with Verizon Wireless which is not a monopoly. If fact, even the core business is no longer a monopoly (a huge player but not a monopoly). If you doubt that then you may want to look up the definition of monopoly. I've listened to the recording as well. There is no excuse for thinking there is no difference between .002 dollars and .002 cents but, that said, I can understand the confusion (even though everyone else posting to these blogs seems to think they are on par with the character in the show 'Numbers'). Had they said that the .002 is already in the unit of cents then that would have sufficed so that saying .002 cents would not need further conversion. 'nough said, it's just amazing how many people can jump on such a ridiculous band wagon. Since your all so bright maybe you can get together and solve world hunger or create world peace :-)
Thanks for the feedback. I actually get what I consider better service for less money, but IMHO you should give money to companies you believe in. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, I don't see anything wrong with that. My two experiences were bad enough that I felt my only recourse was to cancel.
As for the monopoly comment, while not a monopoly in some of their segments in the strictest sense of the word, they are also not a company that needs to compete on a level playing field. They use laws, lobbying and the Government to exert pressure to subvert fair market competition. That's monopolistic in nature to me.
–jeremy
Yes, like any company they do use laws, lobbying and the government; but to say they do that to exert pressure to subvert fair market competition??? I disagree. Look at the current situation where they are trying to get into video. The cable companies didn't have to apply for anything to take phone customers away from the telcos but yet Verizon has to apply for a franchise agreement in every township where they wish to offer video. This law is archaic! Verizon already has a right-of-way where they are running most of their fibers. Competition is causing prices to fall in areas where Verizon is offering video. This is in the consumers best interest. Why shouldn't Verizon fight laws like that, that prevent them from competing fairly. They have lost millions of access lines to competition and substitution over the last 10 years. All they are trying to do is compete fairly. If using existing laws, lobbying or getting the government involved to change archaic laws then so be it.
And no, there is nothing wrong with putting your money where your mouth is. If your experiences were that bad that switching providers was in your best interest then Verizon needs to insure that doesn't happen again. Hopefully you've informed them as to your experiences so they have an opportunity to correct it for other customers. –Brian
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. As for my experience, it ended with a 3rd level supervisor telling me that “it didn't matter if I left because they had plenty of customers”. Yes, that is verbatim.
While I hope they can change some of their business practices, if you look at some of the recent lawsuits against them ranging from billing for non-existent items, to crippling bluetooth to blocking legit email it's not encouraging. Add to that some otof the recent comments about net neutrality and the Internet in general (John Thorne on Google for instance) and the picture gets worse.
BTW, just out of curiosity I typed “verizon monopoly” into Google. 820,000 results.
–jeremy
Your right, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's no doubt that it comes up 820,000 times because Verizon was a monopoly. At the time that it was a monopoly it was because it was in the public interest. If it wasn't a regulated monopoly then I can pretty much guarantee that all these people who live out in the sticks but enjoy their phone, would not be having it. Verizon was a monopoly when a monopoly was needed and it's not now because one is not needed. I love how people use the word monopoly as if it is always a bad thing.
As for net neutrality, I'm not sure I fully understand what the argument is other than people have already tried to make it out to be a bad thing so everyone who listens to, e.g., Buzz Out Loud (like I do) go along with their argument. Maybe it holds some water but I do know that their are customers with the Telco's, and just about every other industry, who will pay for different levels of service. If someone is willing to pay to have video from YouTube take on a higher priority than email, why shouldn't they be allowed?