Controversy section disputed

There's a post there that says most other competitors of Verizon Wireless do not charge airtime for voicemail retrievals, however, the largest competitors, ATT & Sprint both indicate in their literature that voicemail retrievals do charge airtime from the handset. All of the said carriers, VZW, Sprint, and ATT offer service to allow a subscriber to retrieve from another handset, which will not deplete the minutes.


The2ndflood- (Show us the literature that proves AT&T and Sprint charge customers for voice mail retrievals.)

Techie2001 - (Go to att.com/wireless, choose a plan, then click on Plan Terms. Scroll to the section that covers Mobile To Mobile minutes: Mobile to Mobile Minutes: Mobile to Mobile Minutes may be used, subject to the above provisions governing unlimited usage, when directly dialing or receiving calls from any other AT&T wireless phone number from within your calling area. Mobile to Mobile Minutes may not be used for interconnection to other networks. ***Calls to AT&T Voicemail and return calls from Voicemail not included.***

Sprint's is in a similar area.


Also, the neutrality of this section is completely off. None of the other carriers' pages have controversy sections. Perhaps a separate article should be created to consolidate consumer wireless issues/concers? Could cover a lot of the topics, such as the tepid support of Cingular/ATT's fewest dropped calls claim, VZW's standard UI, Sprint's termination of frequently customer service callers, etc. Complaints about the carriers seems like it should belong elsewhere.

The2ndflood- ((Both Sprint and Cingular have Controversy articles. Sprint has it for their decision to let go of 1000 customer who were abusing their services and Cingular has one for their dropped call claim. Verizon is no different.)

Techie2001- These were posted more recently, before I disputed the section for neutrality.

Some other talking points on this section: The "crippling" reference points out the LG VX8500 handset having gone back and forth on its capability to play MP3 files. It has always been able to do so. The VX8100 had a few different software versions that may have enabled or disabled depending on which version it was shipped with. This enable/disable was available straight from the manufacturer and is easily changed in the service programming menu.

The2ndflood- (The limitation was still there from the beginning. It doesn't matter if any updates have changed that, the point of the article is to show Verizon limited those phones, along with others. Hacks have been made to change all kind of limitations.)

Techie2001- (The point was that the 8500 never had the limitation, the 8100 did. The facts are not accurate. A customer looking into these models may be misled by the article)

Also, VZW's primary competitors also restrict handsets. There is a particular bias in the writing against the company.

The2ndflood- (In what way and what carriers are limiting their handsets? Verizon uses BREW which is very restrictive. They also us a Walled Garden for their WAP access. Cingular, Sprint, and T-Mobile all use Java, and do not lock out features from their phones in the same way that Verizon has.)

Techie2001- (AT&T's release of the iPhone is a perfect example. The iPhone has zero out of box functionality, including accessing built-in features like the calendar. the iPhone cannot have user generated ringtones and games, however, Verizon's PDA's can by using third party software for the user's PC. This is not a hack, as it is on the handsets. It's a feature.)

VZW's use of BREW is hardly controversional, as the writing points out, several other companies ues it as well. The talking point is in regards to applications being removed so that users are "forced" to buy "expensive" BREW alternatives. Again, hardly neutral talking points.

The2ndflood-(It does happen. With BREW you are forced to buy Verizon BREW software. So you would have to show proof that it doesn't happen.)

Techie2001'-(The problem here is in the wording. The point makes it seem like BREW is the controversy where the user being required to purchase applications is the real controversy. BREW is not controversial, it's how Verizon Wireless deploys it that is controversial.)


A standard user interface is hardly controversial. It was a business decision that a select demographic is not happy with.


The2ndflood- (Verizon't UI is known for being restrictive. This is just something a user has the right to read about on a Wikipedia site.) Techie2001- (Again, it's not the element that is controversial, so the wording is poor. The neutral way to put it would be Some users find the standard user interface restrictive, which is somewhat reminicent of LG's user interface... rest of post is fine...)

The Data Usage has always been advertised as unlimited for internet and e-mail. AT&T has a nearly just-as-strict terms of service for their data services, limiting certain usages. The 5GB cap is noted in the terms of service, however, there are many legitimate cases of users utilizing more than that, yet still abiding by the rest of the terms who do not experience a service termination warning/notice.


The2ndflood- (The section had links to articles on Verizon who was claiming in their advertisements that their EV-DO data access was unlimited, then canceling users accounts for going over a set limit. Which Verizon never open discussed ) Techie2001- (The articles posted copies of the advertisements... that say Unlimited BroadBand Access, then the ads go on to say that it's unlimited for internet and e-mail usage. Newspapers do the same thing. The headline 'Two killed in car accident' while the article goes on to say both drivers were under the influence of drugs could be argued that the headline puts a different spin on the real story. It grabs reader's attention, then they go on to find the gist of it).


The2ndflood- I don't like when companies I support have negative things posted on them, but when it is based on facts, and supported by sources, then they are facts. We don't have the right as editors to change things that make a company look good or bad. We only have the right to keep the info from being bias. If you can find proof of any changes, then post it in the section. But deleting the entire article just because you didn't like it is NOT ALLOWED.


Techie2001- Absolutely agreed, but I did not delete the section and move it. Someone else did. When the section was listed under a separate article, I did delete the Voicemail airtime usage point because all of the major players charge for voicemail retrievals from the handset and it is not widely known that ANY carriers do so. So much that all of the carriers also bury it in their terms of service (see the specific information I copied from the AT&T site, whereas on the Verizon site, the voicemail product page has a disclaimer at the bottom of the overview indicating that airtime is required). My problem with the entire article is that it is written with the technique and wording of someone with a personal vendetta, not an unbiased view point.

Here is my suggestion for a revised section:

Pricing and Availability--GSM

Edit in pricing and availability: "Often, more advanced games must be purchased and downloaded." replaced "Unlike other carriers, Most verizon phones don't come with any free games, although some older Nokia's do(2128i,6015,etc)." Previous information was poorly presented, and based on personal experience. Most Verizon phones actually do come pre-loaded with simple games, especially the more advanced models. As with all carriers, advanced games will require a download. Despite the fact that many GIN phones do not come loaded with any games, I still felt this sentence was misleading and should be amended due to the bias of the previous statement. Moruitelda 21:20 EST, 3 Dec 2006

GSM advantages?

"have a number of advantages for consumers. For example, more GSM handsets support Bluetooth (Verizon Handsets do as well) (Consumer Reports), and GSM is more widely available worldwide than CDMA. "

This reads more like a personal comment, then a fact. Most of the new CDMA phones coming out have Bluetooth. And CDMA is the fastest growing wireless technlogy, with Many areas around the world using it. I think this statment needs to be updated. (I just changed the wording. Feel free to change it around if you see fit. But please don't make it bias.)


"Verizon is one of three national carriers to use CDMA technology; the other national CDMA carrier is Sprint PCS. Another CDMA carrier which is not considered national, but has a large presence in many areas, especially the rural South, is ALLTEL." ... If ALLTEL isn't considered national, then who is the third national CDMA carrier? Mr2001 08:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ALLTEL isn't considered national because their own network focuses on small to medium sized cities, especially in the South. However, Verizon and ALLTEL have a very good cross-network roaming deal that allows ALLTEL to offer national plans essentially indistinguishable from Verizon's, and allows Verizon to have excellent service in rural areas, especially compared to some of its competitors.

This isn't a cellular network information page. It is supposed to be about Verizon.

Can anyone give us a little info on the history of Verizon? Like the PrimeCo acquisition and so forth.--Jporter07 22:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be worth mentioning Verizon's crippling of the Motorola V710's Bluetooth. They disabled most of the functionality one expects from Bluetooth on a phone, in order to force customers to pay them more money in data charges (e.g. you can't download pictures to your computer via Bluetooth, even though the phone's hardware is perfectly capable of it).

GSM is generally technically inferior to CDMA, even if Verizon offers fewer services than competing companies using GSM. What Verizon Wireless offers and what CDMA is capable of are two entirely different issues.
Would anyone be able to back up the assertions here that claim that CDMA is actually superior to GSM? Is there any technical source or authoritative articles anyone can find to back this up? From what I understand, two key faults of CDMA involve a lack of SIM cards and an inability to use data while continuing to receive voice calls.
Due to the lack of SIM cards, CDMA users cannot switch phones without calling Verizon and having them carry everything over. This is not an easy procedure, whereas GSM SIM cards can easily be popped out and put into another GSM phone. Further, if you have extensive damage on a CDMA phone, you probably wouldn't be able to pull your saved phone numbers off of it, whereas on GSM phones this information is stored on the SIM card, which would likely still be in tact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with CDMA, don't you essentially dial a data number when you use the internet on your phone? This means all your calls while using data are sent through to voice mail, right? When you're using GPRS data on a GSM phone, you can still receive phone calls, the phone just pauses the data connection.

V CAST

I don't see why that article needs to up changed in anyway. It lists all of the major details. Features and limitations. What else is needed?

Vandalism

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)). The CEO of Verizon Consumer is Ronan Dunne[1]. Can editors please revert this edit?

I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest. Following in the footsteps of my former colleague, VZBob, I ask others to make this edit on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kuyabribri: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Consumer

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)). This edit incorrectly named Verizon Consumer as the parent of Verizon Wireless. This is technically incorrect. As is written in this article's History section, "In 2019, Verizon Wireless services were split between two new divisions: Verizon Consumer and Verizon Business.[1][2]" A similar request to remove Verizon Consumer from parent was requested and implemented last year. Could editors consider removing "Verizon Consumer" from parent in the infobox?

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Krouse, Sarah (November 5, 2018). "Verizon to Break Up Wireless Unit in Reorganization". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 29, 2019.
  2. ^ Dang, Sheila (November 5, 2018). "Verizon to reorganize business segments". Reuters. Retrieved July 29, 2019.

Reply 15-JAN-2020

  Item removed    Spintendo  23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo: Thank you! VZEric (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5G update

I am proposing an addition to Network to show Verizon's year-end 2019 5G figures. As 5G is a major topic in the industry, I felt it germane to this article. I included what people say are the pros and cons of the spectrum Verizon uses to keep this neutral. My proposed addition is shown below:

By year-end 2019, Verizon had launched 5G in 30 cities across the U.S.[1] Verizon's 5G network is deployed on millimeter wave spectrum (mmWave).[1][2] While fast, the high-band spectrum Verizon uses has limited range and penetration is a challenge.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ a b de Looper, Christian (December 23, 2019). "Verizon reaches goal of 5G in 30 cities in 2019, adds Cleveland and Columbus". Digital Trends. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Blumenthal, Eli; Cheng, Roger (January 8, 2020). "Verizon is quadrupling its output of 5G devices in 2020". CNET. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
  3. ^ Sherman, Alex; Haselton, Todd (January 9, 2020). "There are three types of 5G — most of what you'll get is not the super-fast kind". CNBC. Retrieved January 15, 2020.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my draft material and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tweaked wording and added an additional reference. Thanks, –Erakura(talk) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Erakura: Thank you for this edit! Do you think the Verizon Communications article would benefit from having an update to Verizon's 5G efforts as well? If so, I posted a request at Talk:Verizon Communications if you have time to review it. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning banners

I am a little confused by this edit by User:75.168.82.113. It looks like an error where the editor was trying to add a script to the page to update date formatting, but it added a warning banner dated 2019 instead. It appears that the Verizon Wireless article is the third article this happened to; the others were on February 27 and February 29. Could editors take a look at this? If done in error, could the warning banner be removed? As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erakura: As you helped review another request here, can you also review this? As outlined above, I believe these banners were added in error. VZEric (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The IP editor's contribution history is very strange, and the edit summary they left is dishonest. I'm assuming this was a vandalism edit that wasn't caught. Reverted. –Erakura(talk) 23:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Erakura: Thank you for reverting that edit! VZEric (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VZEric: I have reverted the two other edits by this IP that you've mentioned (on Satellite phone and T-Mobile), and I also agree with the reversion made by Erakura. Thanks for pointing these out. — Mike Novikoff 19:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories