Talk:Verizon (mobile network)/Archive 1

Phone Hacking
Anyone want to elaborate more on that blurb? When I was looking getting a new phone (I thought this one had died, I was wrong, didn't end up buying a new one), I saw all sorts of sites about how to enable OBEX on the V3c, and other related hacks. Is there an "authority" on hacking verizon phones we could cite? Disavian 19:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Regarding divulging service codes, in the case of subsidy lock that isn't hard, VZW doesn't actually use it, leaving all equipment on the default, which I'd like to include here but I won't for fear someone will preemptively edit it out. The real issue is talking to someone within the company that even understands what it is. Most of those that do have no problem telling you the default, and will likely add a warning to change it away from the default at your own peril. Howdoesthiswo 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Name
"The faux word "Verizon" is derived by combining the word "veritas," a Latin term that means "truth," and the word "horizon." Together, they are supposed to conjure images of reliability, certainty, leadership, and limitless possibilities."

Is this correct? It does not cite its source. Also, although I live in Ireland, I've heard about Verizon due to Vodafone's 45% stake in it. I had always assumed it was a play on "horizon" with "vertical" i.e. "horizon being derived from horizontal, and verizon being derived from horizon AND vertical (similar to words like chocoholic, which SHOULD be chocolatic, but just have "holic" because it becomes instantly recognisable). Am I wrong (I probably am but could someone at least get a source) - RHe odt 23:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is actually true I work for Verizon Wireless, and my trainer told us about the meaning of Verizon. It is accurate.
 * Ok, guess it was just me. I still think it should be cited however. - RHe odt 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done and done. -DylanW 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

cell phone competitors
I added the merge tag to Verizon_Communications. I think that information belongs in this article. Masterpjz9 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Owns 98.6% of its customer base"
In the Notes section:
 * Verizon Wireless owns approximately 98.6% of its customer base as of March 31, 2005.

What is this supposed to mean? It reads like a description of slavery. Mr2001 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It means 98.6% of the Verizon subscriber base purchased service from VZW directly or a VZW authorized retailer and not through a "Reseller" of VZW service.

Network
Can we have a technical description of their network? MikeNM 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Verizon (and others) claim to have 4G, but the articles on 4G and LTE clearly describe what is what. Verizon Wireless does not have 4G service despite what they are claiming. Replacing marketing propaganda with actual technical details would improve the article greatly. Anonymous 01:16, 01 Jan 2011 (UTC)

V Cast Merger
I believe that the V Cast section should be merged into the V CAST article, what about the rest of you (Bluelist 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Agreed, emphatically. It's cluttering up the present article. By all means, this article must mention V CAST, but it should be a one-paragraph summary with a header directing readers to the main V CAST article. (See also my cleanup suggestions for that article at Talk:V CAST.) Lawikitejana 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Verizon to buy West Virginia Wireless
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/16133668.htm Mathiastck 20:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Verizon Wireless uses CDMA technology, whereas West Virginia Wireless uses GSM technology.

Verizon math problems
Someone should add something about http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/index.html to the article. I'm too lazy to read up on all the guidelines for editing and I do not want to get banned. So I leave it for someone else to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.65.203.37 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Check the edits made 5:20 and 5:21 on December 11.216.240.30.23 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Joe

"Fewest dropped calls"--Verizon Wireless vs. Cingular
I remember that sometime back in 2003-2004 that Verizon Wireless rolled out commercials proclaiming that they had the network with the "fewest dropped calls." This is well ahead of Cingular's "copycat" (if appropriate) advertising campaign beginning with Q1 of 2006 ("Fewest dropped calls"). I have found some YouTube videos that proves my statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BREOpoGUeLc  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3eJmZW3ojI  (These are REAL Verizon Wireless commercials--NOT PARODIES OR KNOCK-OFFS.  And also these YouTube videos are not mine either.)

Tngu77 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)tngu77

iNpulse (prepaid)
Should we mention anything about iNpulse, Verizon Wireless' prepaid wireless service? Thanks Tngu77 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)tngu77

Re: VZW crippling firmware and others not
Verizon's policy is in contrast to its major competitors (both GSM and CDMA): Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint Nextel, and Alltel; which allow their customers to use all the features that are available in the manufacturer's reference firmware design.

This quote from the article is inaccurate. One example: T-Mobile doesn't allow users of more recent handsets to access Internet features on unsigned Java (J2ME) apps, such as Opera Mini. Verizon Wireless is not the only provider that cripples firmware. Or3n 05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What I changed:
I changed some of the controversy section to make it more accurate. I would explain everything in the edit page, but I ran out of room so I put it here:

1. Verizon doesn't have over the air firmware updating, so to update the v710's firmware, you have to take it to the store and have it flashed with the new software.

2. I removed the V710 crippling expect for OBEX and free transfer of other things because this phone is also crippled for other carriers expect for MP3 file transfer which is the only major feature removed from this phone. The Alltell, Telus Mobility, and the USCC versions of these phone don't have the mail reader, AIM, or full bluetooth either. Perhaps the info would be better at home on the 710's page, with a list of who cripples what? Howdoesthiswo 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you update the voicemail thing too? It's inaccurate. ATT & sprint both charge airtime for voicemail retrievals according to their TOS Techie2001 03:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)techie2001 07/19/2007

Controversy
"Telephia independently measures the top four wireless carriers for a number of consumer value points. In relation to call quality, Telephia, in a letter to the four major carriers regarding this research, will not confirm or deny that Cingular drops the fewest calls. Also, Telephia has requested that Cingular update its advertising to indicate that Telephia provided the information it uses to make this claim, not that it actually supports or confirms the 'fewest dropped calls' claim."
 * In mid-2006, the consumer research firm Telephia published a report that suggests AT&T Mobility drops the fewest calls across the country. Verizon Wireless advertises heavily the quality of their network above competitors. According to the Consumer Beat reporter for The Boston Globe:

Cingular has the fewest dropped calls because they have the fewest customers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.149.18 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All major US Carriers charge airtime for voicemail retrievals according to the user's specific plan.


 * Verizon "cripples" the file and media transferring features of many of their cellphone offerings in order to force customers to purchase content through its "Get It Now" service. One example is the LG Chocolate (VX8100), a phone that features full MP3 player support. (It has a miniSD card to store MP3s, and play and pause/stop buttons on the front of the phone.) Initially the MP3 functionality was disabled in the service menu, While newer versions of the phone were sold with the MP3 player re-enabled, and customers were usually informed of this feature, they still cannot be used as ringtones. The newest version of this phone has once again disabled this capability. Verizon's policy is in contrast to its major competitors (both GSM and CDMA): AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint Nextel, and Alltel; which allow their customers to use all the features that are available in the manufacturer's reference firmware design.


 * Verizon restricts the built-in GPS capabilities of many current phones and PDAs. For example, its recently introduced Blackberry 8830 has full AGPS (Assisted Global Positioning System) capabilities and the Blackberry Maps application which uses the AGPS capability for tracking and navigation. Verizon has disabled the AGPS, reportedly to sell subscription-based AGPS services at a later date. Verizon Wireless does this because CDMA technology allows for the use of AGPS which uses the positioning locations of cell sites, not GPS satillites (the sites coordinate themselves via the open GPS system. This is a requirement of the CDMA technology as the towers are synchronized via this GPS system, not to resell location based services). This results in a faster "lock" for location based services. Since the service does utilize the network, and assited location based servers are required in an AGPS system, and not the open access GPS system operated by the government, Verizon Wireless has a right to require a service charge for access. There is no fee to utilize AGPS when placing an emergency 911 call, as with all carriers.


 * Verizon advertised the Motorola V710 as having full Bluetooth capability, when in reality it had no OBEX or OPP functions built in. After many complaints, a class action suit was filed for false advertising, not only for advertising missing capabilities, but also for telling customers who complained to Verizon that an update was coming out "in November." The lawsuit was initiated in January of 2005 and settlement decision became final on March 20 2006, with Verizon offering to qualified members of the class action suit (purchased a V710 BEFORE February 2 2005) a $25 credit to all of its V710 customers, or the option to trade in the V710 for $200 or original purchase price and allow them to keep their phone number and service, or $200 or original purchase price and allow them to break their contract and discontinue service with Verizon (all after numerous paperwork loops). The settlement to the lawsuit did not directly address the V710's restrictions. The same hardware crippling exists with Motorola's successor to the V710, the E815, but unlike the V710, the E815 was marked clearly that OBEX and OPP was disabled. Additionally, through a seem edit, OBEX could be enabled on the 815, but not on the 710 (the Verizon e815 lacks the OPP profile altogether). Other carriers' versions of the V710, while still possessing some restrictions to the Bluetooth functionality, are much less restrictive overall, allowing full use of the customer's own MIDI and MP3 files for ringtones, etc.


 * Via the bulit in content delivery system, BREW, Verizon locks users into its own applications, making it difficult, but not impossible, to install anything Verizon doesn't offer. Programs such as the standard mail reader included in some phones were removed, forcing people to buy mail readers from Get It Now. It is not uncommon for CDMA carriers to implement BREW. Most of the US CDMA carriers currently use BREW. Sprint Nextel is the main exception. They have opted for the Java interface.


 * Verizon Wireless has removed features in firmware updates for the Motorola V710 and several other newer phones for ringtone transfers, making it more difficult - but not impossible - to transfer MP3s from the phone's microSD card. This update also disabled editing of the homepage field in WebSessions making it more difficult to use alternate WAP gateways. One result of this crippling has been a prominent network of "unofficial" web sites, documenting how to enable, access, or use hidden or crippled features. This often includes divulging service codes for new phone models, or homebrew software that can access otherwise hidden parts of the phone's memory system.


 * Some users find Verizon Wireless' standard user interface restrictive. Somewhat reminiscent of LG's interface, this standard reduces support training costs. However, it has also anecdotally alienated many brand-loyal customers who find it not aesthetically pleasing, only minimally customizable, slower than the previous interface, and a hindrance to the functioning of several previously available phone features.


 * Verizon Wireless has come under fire by "power users" of its EV-DO wireless data network (called BroadbandAccess), for using language in its terms of service which heavily restricts what activities an EV-DO user can conduct even though the service is advertised as offering "Unlimited" data usage. The language in Verizon Wireless' usage agreement states:"Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections... We reserve right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using NationalAccess or BroadbandAccess in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels."


 * To stem criticism of the above, Verizon Wireless now outright limits the "unlimited" use, by imposing a quota on "unlimited" use, and terminates customers who exceed it. According to The Washington Post, Broadband Reports, tech columnist Robert X. Cringely, many wireless industry "insider" news sites and blogs,  Verizon advertises "unlimited" broadband service but reserves the right to terminate anyone using more than 5 GB/month (166 MB/day) regardless of use or content transferred, with no difference between permitted web browsing, or prohibited uses, such as peer-to-peer file sharing). This is a quota of about 15 minutes of continuous data transmission time per day. A PBS investigator monitored his bandwidth during normal use and discovered it to be 184 MB/day.


 * Verizon Wireless uses a wireless standard called CDMA. It is one of the few major wireless carriers worldwide that continues to use this technology, which was largely abandoned to GSM during the 1990s because of its already widespread use in Europe. This has resulted in the persistence of CDMA in North America, while most other countries still use GSM. Because of this, many mobile phone subscribers from North America cannot use their devices while travelling abroad. Moreover, Verizon's continued use of CDMA technology has precluded any roaming agreements between it and other United States wireless providers, such as AT&T and T-Mobile, which do use the GSM standard. However, roaming agreements through CDMA carriers like Sprint, Alltel, and U.S. Cellular currently exist. Though GSM is readily available worldwide, the infinite, cheap expandability and evolutions of CDMA are favorable. AT&T's 3rd generation UTMS technology is WCDMA - an evolution of the CDMA standard, not GSM.

Transition from Verizon Wireless to Claro in Puerto Rico
Should we mention about the transition from "Verizon Wireless" to "Claro" that occurred in Puerto Rico a couple of months ago? Claro is part of the America Movil network, which has ties to Vodafone, one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies (in fact, Vodafone owns approximately 45% of Verizon Wireless). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tngu77 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From the "Claro (mobile phone network)" Wikipedia article (section entitled "Puerto Rico"): The Claro brand was launched in Puerto Rico on 18 May 2007 as rebranding the Verizon Wireless trademark. Claro is the wireless arm of Puerto Rico Telephone which serves wireline telephone and data services in the island. The brand was introduced to the wireless segment after the 30 March 2007 acquisition of the telecom by América Móvil. Claro Puerto Rico is currently the largest and most powerful mobile network serving the island, serving more than 567,060 customers. The company has made public its plans to launch a GSM/UMTS network parallel to the CDMA/EvDO network it operates since 2002. Claro has mobile voice and data services in Puerto Rico's 78 cities and towns and it's coverage is constantly expanding, the company says.

Claro Puerto Rico Slogans

* "Bienvenido a un mundo mejor." | "Welcome to a better world" - in English * "La red más poderosa habla Claro." | "The most powerful network speaks Clearly" - in English * "Verizon Wireless la red más poderosa, ahora es Claro." | "Verizon Wireless the most powerful network, is now Claro." - in English

Tngu77 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Banm.svg
Image:Banm.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Open Handset Alliance and opening up its network
Verizon Wireless has recently announced that it will join the Open Handset Alliance for the development of Android. Someone needs to write this into the main article. Also someone needs to write about Verizon Wireless opening up its network to any handset and program that meets Verizon's minimum standards set to begin at the end of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbhai87 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Verizon-Wireless-Logo.svg
Image:Verizon-Wireless-Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EV-DO Network Limits Revised
Verizon has apparently recently changed their terms on their wireless broadband network. It no longer gives that limit, but instead reserves the right to limit data use of a particular application to no more than 200KB/second (ie still broadband). Kopf1988 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Advertising question*** In one of Verizon's most recent 2008 commercials for DSL, it depicts an older man playing a game on his computer in which he tries to defeat a very intimidating looking gorilla touting a viking helmet & dual flame guns (or something) in both its hands. In his enthusiastic fervor, the man exclaims "Come on, you maggot!" to the gorilla on-screen, at which his wife pops her head around the corner & inquires "What did you call me?". My question is this: is this an actual computer game or just a fake game created by Verizon's advertising group? If it is a real game, does anyone know what it's called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.59.235 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

* Verizon Wireless has come under fire by "power users" of its EV-DO wireless data network (called BroadbandAccess), for using language in its terms of service which heavily restricts what activities an EV-DO user can conduct even though the service is advertised as offering "Unlimited" data usage. The service is in fact limited to 5GB of data transfer per month. The language in Verizon Wireless' usage agreement states:
 * Kopf1988's statement is accurate. Here is a source:    What should we do with this in the "Controversy" section:

Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections... We reserve right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using NationalAccess or BroadbandAccess in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels.[12]

Up until recently customers were having their service shut off for use in excess of 5GB but the company is now restricting bandwidth instead in most cases.

* To stem criticism of the above, Verizon Wireless now outright limits the "unlimited" use, by imposing a quota on "unlimited" use, and terminates customers who exceed it. According to The Washington Post,[13] Broadband Reports,[14] tech columnist Robert X. Cringely,[citation needed] many wireless industry "insider" news sites and blogs,[15][16][17] Verizon advertises "unlimited" broadband service but reserves the right to terminate anyone using more than 5 GB/month (166 MB/day) regardless of use or content transferred, with no difference between permitted web browsing, or prohibited uses, such as peer-to-peer file sharing). This is a quota of about 15 minutes of continuous data transmission time per day. A PBS investigator monitored his bandwidth during normal use and discovered it to be 184 MB/day.[18]

Tngu77 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Claro Organization logo.png
The image Image:Claro Organization logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Claro.svg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alltel
Everyone agree that purchasing Alltel is a pretty significant item to be included?  Hazardous Matt   15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Verizon will be the 10th largest.
I added a link that after the Alltel-Verizon merger, Verizon will be the 10th largest carrier in the world. I have noticed that other carrier profile will list that companies size in relation to other world-wide carriers, but no one wants to allow that on American carrier profile. So I added it, Speer320 deleted it, so I restored it again. If you don't want the link there, then discuse the reason here. If not, I will keep changing the link.

70.157.54.190 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to put it in the acquisitions part where is already talks about the acquisition it bloats that being Speer320 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

CDMA vs. GSM
In question from the "Controversy" section: Verizon Wireless uses a wireless standard called CDMA. While not as widespread as the European GSM standard, CDMA is newer and widely recognized to be technologically superior. In fact, the 3G version of GSM, called UMTS, is based on CDMA technology. However, the two standards are not compatible with one another. Because of this, many mobile phone subscribers from North America cannot use their devices while travelling abroad. Moreover, Verizon's continued use of CDMA technology has precluded any roaming agreements between it and other United States wireless providers, such as AT&T and T-Mobile, which use the older GSM standard. This problem will eventually resolve itself, however, as Verizon Wireless transitions to the GSM-based LTE standard for its 4G network, eventually abandoning CDMA. Is this really a problem currently happening that will impact the "average" cell phone user? I'm just wondering and I do not mean to take offense. Tngu77 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been heavily edited by users with a bias against Verizon Wireless. CDMA vs. GSM will not typically effect the mass-market consumer, however, the different technologies each have their benefits. Also, it should be noted, that Verizon Wireless has only announced it is considering LTE as a possibility for its 4G network, not that is is where it is definatly headed. There are also no announcements on the abandonment of CDMA.

The primary effect of a user on a CDMA device vs. a GSM device is traveling abroad. Both CDMA and GSM are readily available in North America. Europe and parts of Asia are covered by large GSM networks, CDMA is not as widespread.

24.208.186.147 02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already know the difference between CDMA and GSM. :) I only travel within the United States and Canada (a little FYI).

I concur about the bias against Verizon Wireless. Although I am biased _towards_ Verizon Wireless, my edits on this page are NEUTRAL. i.e., "Acquisitions", "Claro", etc. Tngu77 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, didn't mean for my explanation to come off like that, I was trying to input my suggestion for a change in the wording. I also have a bias towards VZW, and I like your contributions. With the amount of online research that many consumers do, and the number of results Google returns from Wikipedia, I feel it is the responsibility of this page to be more neutral than it is. Many consumers may use it as a resource when deciding on a provider and many of the items in the controversy section need to be worded better. Many users are not impacted by the 5 GB data cap, all major carriers charge airtime for voice mail retrieval, GSM and CDMA each have their advantages, LTE is not a GSM standard and is not offically where VZW is going with 4G. All of this and more is just written out of misinformation.

24.208.186.147 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah LTE is not a GSM standard, that is an ignorant statement by whoever edited it.Strunke (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too comfortable in the "Verizon being the largest" carrier thing.
AT&T purchased Centennial Wireless in November, and when that deal closes AT&T will be largest again in a matter of weeks/months. So just recall what is changed because it'll have to all be undone shortly when AT&T does their best to outdo Verizon. CaribDigita (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This Really isn't the place for this discussion, but for what its worth 1.1 million Subs isn't going to take the crown from VZW.. EnsRedShirt (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition Section
There is a claim in the last section of the Acquisition bullets...

"This also would allow Verizon to become the 10th largest wireless carrier on Earth."

This particular quote has no reference and does not state by what basis this claim is made. (ie by customers, revenue, network size, employees, etc.)

I think someone should look into this...-- Huper Phuff talk  21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that. Wikipedia is a target for people with too much time on their hands. E_dog95'   Hi ' 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Customer base?
According to the intro of this article, Verizon has currently 290 million subscribers, that's like.. 90% of the U.S.. Vodafone on the other hand, the company who owns Verizon, has a subscriber base of 260 million according to it's wiki page, somebody needs to find reliable information on this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.43.202 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be a problem here, if that's what you're trying to say. The statement in the lead of the article says what the source provided says. Nearly verbatim... E_dog95'   Hi ' 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jargon-ridden and unclear
I've just read the first three sections of this article and between them they don't give the faintest hint of what this company is or what it does. It's just an endless stream of jargon and gibberish. I'm not from the US, so I'm not familiar with the name, and since I've gathered that they are the largest something (although I don't know what) I suspect that those who have contributed to the article are so familiar with the company that they have forgotten to explain it. Would somebody please rewrite? Many thanks. Macguba (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

$4 billion on network upkeep?
This article says that Verizon spends $4 billion a year on network maintenance. This does not sound feasible. Are we sure it's accurate?

yea i dunno we can remove it for now i guess

That figure is accurate, you can view it on their website too. Aviationwiz 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this figure is correct. I work for VZW, they would rather spend $$ on the network than on people any day.


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I work for VZW, and everyone is well paid. It's above median salary in my area, for a job that requires a GED, 1 month of training, and a couple months of on-site learning. However, the $4-$6 bn. figure that you hear tossed around is accurate, every day, new network updates show up in my inbox. One thing that's drilled in VZW training is the Network Advantage; it's something we take very seriously.

Either the number is true or the constant parade of "$100 million network upgrade in is complete!" across the company intranet site is a bag of lies. I may be biased, of course, but I don't think it is lies. Howdoesthiswo 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is amazing that they spend (or waste) so much money on a network, and I could never get a signal in my apartment. I had to go outside in the cold to talk. Driving around richmond their were entire stretches (in the city) where i didnt recieve a call. Now i use Tracfone. Perfect coverage everywhere, either in my apartment or around town. It seems to me whoever they are spending $4b to fix their network, should be fired.

I hate to break it to you, but Tracfone is an MVNO. That is, Tracfone doesn't have it's own network, but purchases time on other wireless provider's networks. In Richmond, Virgnia, you're running on the Verizon network. The problem was probably with your handset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.104 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Verizon seems to still disable GPS on some phones
I think the Verizon Wireless section: GPS disabling of certain devices

Needs to be changed from: Verizon no longer restricts or disables GPS Chips in their phones.

To: Verizon still disables or cripples some GPS technology, but it's unclear which phones are crippled.

See http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pre/227582-palm-pre-plus-gps-issues.html See http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Palm-Devices/Palm-Pre-Plus-GPS-issue/td-p/166299;jsessionid=0DA2253C9E1FD8561CF59A69352C8DC5 See http://forums.palm.com/t5/webOS-Software/GPS/m-p/261954/highlight/true#M16196 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.218.174 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Being in a position to test out most of Verizon's phones, I haven't found any phones released since that announcement with a "crippled" GPS. The Palm Pre GPS issue was/is a bug, one that Palm needs to address, and is not intentional crippling by Verizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.2.217 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdated
Under Controversy the section "BroadBandAccess plans" needs to be updated. | Verizon's terms have since changed to allow streaming of video and gaming over the cellular network. Verizon has also changed to allow VoIP. Verizon has changed their "Prohibited uses" section under their Terms and Condtitions. There doesn't seem to be any information about a 5GB bandwidth cap, so that needs to be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.176.241 (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No 5Gig cap eh? http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=plans&lid=//global//plans//mobile+broadband - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Dim dad" protest Verizon, not Verizon Wireless
The protest over the commercials with the girl scolding her dad were for Verizon DSL which doesn't belong in the Verizon Wireless article. 108.17.92.110 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
We should include Verizon's Math Problems in the controversy because it was at large at around the years 2006-2009. During that time Verizon misquoted the difference between cents and dollars. This case is all over Youtube. I think this detail is very relevant as part of Verizon Wireless' history.

Wfrmsf (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wordy and/or Outdated Information
There are only two concerns that I have with this page, and they are fairly minor:
 * First, many aspects of the page are somewhat outdated. Granted, they are only outdated by maybe one or two years, but with a company, or subsidiary in this case, that is expanding and changing at such a rapid pace, much of this needs to follow suit and be updated to some extent.
 * Second, a few sections seem very wordy, which can, at times, make the page somewhat hard to follow. This is not a big issue, however.
 * If these things were looked at and/or edited, these page would be perfect in my mind.

CollinGill (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resources
99.109.125.85 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Verizon Drops Plan for New $2 Fee December 31, 2011 WSJ.com by GREG BENSINGER
 * An Uproar on the Web Over $2 Fee by Verizon by RON LIEBER and BRIAN X. CHEN published December 29, 2011 Nytimes.com and in print on December 30, 2011, on page B1 of the New York edition

Competitors
Why is there a "competitors" section in this article? I can't think of any other businesses that list such information (for example, Toyota doesn't list every other car company in the world). Isn't this handled quite simply with the "US mobile network operators" template and the "Mobile phone companies of the United States" category? I'm strongly tempted to remove this incomplete and seemingly unnecessary list. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Will Edit
 * I will edit this section, as I agree. We’ll change it to include a link of US Wireless companies.
 * -- 03:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Add Susie's Lemonade to Commercial section?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPj-4dRBiww.

Qwertykal (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

MiFi Data Usage and Billing Errors Section
This entire part of the article is unsourced and reads like it was written by somebody who had a problem with this specifically. It should either be removed or re-written from a more neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.232.234 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Standard GUI is controversial?
Uh. . . what's controversial about having a standard GUI? Am I missing something, or is this in the wrong section?evildea t h m a t h 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a bunch of stuff is randomly listed under "Controversies". They need be removed. 71.251.47.217 (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Largest wireless carrier
An IP editor has been repeatedly editing the article, contrary to the best available sources, to say that Verizon is the second largest, when clearly they are the first largest. Could we please get a discussion going to resolve this? Jehochman Talk 03:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The FCC report clearly indicates that AT&T has more subscribers and Verizon is in second place. The only other source that's ever been mentioned is not useful, because it includes retail+wholesale subscribers for Verizon but only retail subscribers for AT&T. The FCC report is official and consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.164.39 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The FCC report indicates in Table 13 on page 55 that AT&T had 105.2 million subscribers as of mid-2012, versus 94.2 million for Verizon Wireless. The report's footnote 164 on page 55 makes mention of Verizon's propensity to report wholesale customers in addition to retail customers, a reporting practice that they stopped in 2011. The FCC stats are OFFICIAL and reported by the operators themselves under penalty of perjury. The one other source that has been used in this discussion is some private analyst...I don't see how he/she qualifies as "best available sources" especially compared to the FCC. 209.6.164.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This article discusses the largest carrier debate and mentions the FCC data of At&t being the largest, however it also goes on to explain why Verizon is infact the largest provider. http://www.techhive.com/article/2044580/is-atandt-sprint-or-verizon-the-largest-u-s-mobile-phone-carrier-it-may-not-matter.html I hope this clears up the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorxs (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

XLTE / AWS
Promotional page: http://www.verizon.com/xlte, News page: http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/05/verizon-wireless-xlte.html :
 * "all made possible by taking advantage of AWS spectrum."
 * "bandwidth to 4G LTE customers"..."where AWS spectrum has been activated."

Basically- another frequency band is now available for use by supported phones (apparently simultaneously?). These phones were released before this happened, and the function is now active. My knowledge is obviously limited, but the above were the points that interested myself. PidGin128 (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelsey Smith Case
Should it not go into the process it takes to get such records? Can it be pointed out that another carrier could do it faster? If that can't be proven it should be removed and added to an article about the phone tracking process. ~LessThanCurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Description of Verizon's handling of the Kelsey Smith records appears to be highly favorable to the telecom. Main Murder of Kelsey Smith article appears to have contradictory facts in relation to this section. Ingenious14 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kelsey Smith Controversy
This article states:

Verizon Wireless was extremely compliant with local investigators, it took Verizon less than a day to collect cell phone records to assist local law enforcement.

Yet article Verizon_Wireless#Kelsey_Smith_cell_phone_records states:

''Despite efforts by local law enforcement and eventually the FBI, it took Verizon Wireless four days to hand over the cell phone records to investigators. There is much controversy on why it took Verizon so long to cooperate with law enforcement.''

Perhaps this could be made clearer?

(Apologies if I've got this formatting wrong, I'm new.)

YujiSaeki (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sugarstring?
"Sugarstgring" redirects to this page, but "Sugarstring" is not mentioned in the article. What is/was it? 64.53.191.77 (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bodega Bay For Verizon Rob 6-12-15
Verizon is the only service in Bodega Bay Ca. do I get a pay as you go prepaid phone or a Factory Unlocked phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.39.42 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Revised "Apps" section
Hello. In an attempt to address the missing information maintenance tag atop the Apps section, I created a proposed draft that will expand and add much-needed sources to this portion of the article. The current Apps section is broken into five very short parts and contains a single inline citation.

The full draft of this section is in my user space. My draft eliminates the five headers and writes about Verizon's apps in paragraph form. In addition to those already listed, I added a few others the company offers its customers. Everything includes inline citations to adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy.

Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make any of the edits to the live article myself. Can editors review the draft and move it over to the article if everything looks good? Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Myriad Pro reviewed my suggested changes and made the edits, so I have marked this request as complete. VZBob (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cellco Partnership
Actually, Verizon Wireless is not a company, but a trade name of Cellco Partnership, a fully owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications, registered in Delaver. So far as this article is about company, not a trade name, maybe it should be named Cellco Partnership, or at least this company should be mentioned somewhere. Also, according to Bloomberg, CEO of this company is Daniel S. Mead, not Lowell McAdam. Here are references: Filing to SEC (Form K-10, 2014) Bloomberg: Company Overview of Cellco Partnership, Inc.Arsenicum-82 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of RootMetrics Section
I have removed the Rootmetrics section as it just appears to be an advertisement on this site and is not a commonly known convention or tool within the general public. It is not mentioned on any of their major competitors pages, AT&T, Tmobile, or Sprint. Jrsteel110 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree with this-- I think it should be there, as the page used to have an awards section, but it was replaced with RootMetrics as more data was available. Myriad Pro (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags discussion
Hi, page watchers. I see ViperSnake151 added two maintenance tags to this page: One at the top of the entry requesting additional citations for verification and another saying content in the Apps section, which I helped prepare and was reviewed and added to the article by Myriad Pro, reads like an advertisement. I'm hoping to discuss those here.

@ViperSnake151: Are there any areas in particular you feel need additional neutral, third-party citations? I'm more than happy to help find sources. As noted above, I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, but I'm willing to help find sources for troublesome areas and bring them here for other editors to include.

As for the Apps section, please allow me to provide a little history. Just last year, that section was tagged with the following message: "This article is missing information about some of their other iOS apps and all of their Android apps. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page". You can see that message here. In September 2015, I posted on the Talk page a proposed new Apps section to address that maintenance tag. The proposal was reviewed and implemented by Myriad Pro in October. The section is not meant to be advertising in any way. Are there any specific problems you see? I'm here to help. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of the section seems to read like a product catalog. Mentioning the NFL/IndyCar exclusivity is fine (I actually worked on that just now), but I think it needs to be trimmed down and summarized. in list format  ViperSnake151   Talk  20:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, I don't feel that it reads like a catalog. It's simply stating facts. Myriad Pro (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised "Network" and "Verizon Home Phone" sections
Hi, page watchers. I've put together a couple drafts to help develop two areas of this article. As I have said here before, I am an employee of Verizon so I won't make any edits myself. Can editors review the two drafts and move them over to the article if everything looks good? Or we can discuss any questions or comments here. I'm here to help.

First, I uploaded a full draft to my user space that updates the Network section before the Radio frequency summary. The section in the live article is fairly outdated and devotes much space to older-generation technologies. My proposed draft aims to make this section more relevant, less inside baseball.

Second, I uploaded a proposed section titled Products and services to my user space. This new section is meant to replace the existing Wireless Home Phone, as I see no reason for Wireless Home Phone to have its own section. It seems odd that of all products Verizon sells, Wireless Home Phone would be the only one with its own section on Wikipedia, while other services are not discussed.

I've held off on posting this sooner because I wanted to ensure that more than one editor was able to respond to the issue above before moving on.

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look at the drafts and move them into the article if you feel they look good. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * They're live, largely unchanged. Thank you SO much! FiOS and Verizon HSI need some love too, when you get the chance. Thank you again! Myriad Pro (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Myriad Pro for reviewing my suggested changes and making the edits. I am closing out this request.

To your point, Myriad Pro, I was working on creating some updates for Verizon FiOS, but I noticed that the article was moved to a general FiOS (service) article on March 8. I will now be reviewing that to see how I can help. Any ideas from you are appreciated. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Myriad Pro, I saw that you moved FiOS back to Verizon Fios. I am looking at ways to improve that article as an encyclopedic resource and will post proposed changes on that Talk page as I have them ready. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * VZBob, awesome, thanks! If you could also look at Verizon HSI (DSL)... that article is painful.Myriad Pro (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised "History" section
Hi, User:Myriad Pro invited me to help with updating this page, since I am a Verizon employee, so I have been working on a new draft for the "History" section. The full draft is now in my user space. Below are a few notes on this draft.


 * The draft seeks to streamline the section, trimming information that is too detailed and not of interest for an encyclopedia article, in an effort to make it more readable. For instance, there were references Verizon's acquisitions and sales of assets, not all of which were significant to Verizon Wireless' history, so I have removed those smaller acquisitions that didn't add to readers' understanding of the development of the service.


 * Additionally, my proposed draft of this section eliminates the following paragraph:


 * In June 2013, it was revealed, through a leaked secret court document and subsequent commentary from elected officials, that for the previous seven years the NSA had required Verizon to provide all metadata relating to the phone calls of its customers. This practice continues.


 * As you can see in the Verizon Communications article, supported by this Wall Street Journal article, the company's wireless unit was not part of metadata collection:


 * Verizon Wireless was not part of the NSA data collection for wireless accounts due to foreign ownership issues.


 * Lastly, this draft moves information on supercookies into the "History" section. Being that it is the only "controversy" listed in the "Controversies" section, I wonder if we can move that issue into "History" and delete "Controversies" altogether?

Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make any of the edits myself. Can editors review the draft and move it over to the article if everything looks good? Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to give a quick update on progress here: Myriad Pro has let me know on my Talk page that they've reviewed my proposal and it looks good, so I've asked them to update the article. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Much thanks to Myriad Pro for updating the "History" section. Now that information on Verizon's use of "supercookies" appears under "History", what do editors here think about removing the "Controversies" section from this article? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking about that. I think Controversies should be removed. I'll do it this weekend unless there's any opposition, which there doesn't seem to be. Myriad Pro (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do object. The condensed version under the history section does nothing to indicate why the use of supercookies caused such a furor. On the other hand, the controversies section does address this, with the explanation that the supercookies were immune against ad blockers and were questioned by activist groups. Altamel (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Altamel. I'm very sorry I did not see your message sooner. If you feel that certain information in the current Controversies section needs to be included, I do not object to that. I simply felt the information serves the article better if it were integrated into the "History" section, and I wanted to help make sure undue weight was not given to the topic. What are your thoughts? If I were to draft a new paragraph for the "History" section, would you be willing to take a look at that? VZBob (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am closing out this request. See Question on Controversies section below for more discussion on the Controversies section. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Question on Controversies section
Hi, I wanted to restart a conversation that was brought up on this Talk page a few months ago about the Controversies section. You can follow the original discussion above. Last year, another editor helped revise this article’s History section. In doing so, the topic of "supercookies" on cellphones to track mobile customers’ Web usage for targeted advertisements was added to the History section, yet Controversies, where this info originated, remains. I then suggested we delete the Controversies section, as it deals solely with this issue. Another editor responded that they objected to removing the Controversies section, because they felt it offered more information about the topic than what was reflected in the newly revised History. I think that’s a legitimate argument. But rather than having two portions of this article dealing with this one issue, might I suggest we transfer details from the Controversies section to History and delete Controversies? Having user tracking in both places, to me, verges on WP:UNDUE.

This essay on criticism notes:

I also note this paragraph from Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy:

I’m curious, of course, to see what others think about this. To me, it seems more encyclopedic to incorporate the issue into the History section, not left in a section that by its very nature can be seen as having a WP:POV. VZBob (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Only one person objected to this, an that seemed to be on the grounds that the content not be removed. The content has not been removed; it has been moved. I don't see any reason to have a crit section for one subsection for content that could just as easily go elsewhere. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Timothyjosephwood, for your edits and for closing this request. VZBob (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Verizon comment on COI template
As I replied to some discussions here, I saw that ViperSnake151 has added Myriad Pro to the paid editor disclosure template at the top of this page. At this time, I am the only official representative of Verizon here on Wikipedia. I have declared this COI in order to be upfront and honest with the community, so that we may have a constructive relationship and Verizon can be transparent in seeking to update pages related to the company. So far as I am aware Myriad Pro is a volunteer editor who happens to have an interest in updating the company pages. I have not seen any disclosure on their part so I believe their addition to the COI template is erroneous. Myriad Pro: Can you please clarify here if that is the case? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As VZBob said, I am not affiliated with Verizon. Thanks!
 * Myriad Pro (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Error in "History"
Hi, page watchers. Earlier this week, an IP editor edited the first sentence of History, which left a large error in the article. This should say the joint venture was valued at $70 billion in September 1999. Because I'm an employee of Verizon, I won't make the edit myself. Can someone else please correct the error? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the indicated change, which was supported by the existing ref already in the section. Thank you for identifying the issue, and also thank you for respecting the WP:COI guidelines by requesting a third party to make the edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Barek for quickly fixing the error. I also just noticed that the beginning of the sentence says in September 2000. However, the source referenced is from September 1999. Can you also fix that? Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks again! I see you mentioned the correct year in your initial request as well, I apologize for missing it earlier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Barek, for quickly fixing these issues and for closing the request. VZBob (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)