Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1.    #1  
    http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000997040452/

    “Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house? The customer has come to expect so much.” We can understand his frustration, since perfect coverage is impossible, and it’s no fun dealing with people who expect to get four bars in their basement, but, um, maybe, just maybe it’s because over the past year we’ve been exposed to an endless barrage of “Can you hear me now?” ads touting Verizon’s superior coverage?
    Sprint Pre, Mugen 2800mah battery
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by xenophonite
    I agree. In the days of Ma Bell, we were grateful. Now that she is gone, we really miss her.
  3.    #3  
    I've been w/out Ma Bell for over 6 years ever since I got cable modem. Have no coverage/reliablity problems in my condo and have no need to go back.
    Sprint Pre, Mugen 2800mah battery
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by xenophonite
    I've been w/out Ma Bell for over 6 years ever since I got cable modem. Have no coverage/reliablity problems in my condo and have no need to go back.
    I agree with that too. (I was being facetious about Ma Bell but her attitude was certainly preferable to that of the quoted Verizon exec.) I am a Vonage subscriber. Softphone is my most used phone. Cingular is my cell carrier. Coverage is good in my apartment and useable in my basement. Have made local calls to Connecticut from Japan. Pretty cool.
  5. #5  
    It is a really random thing. Last year, my wife was having problems getting a signal in our house, but I wasn't. We had the exact same phones - Nokia 3589i at the time. She was having dropped calls and calls going straight to voicemail. I never had any of these problems. This screams of "Your milage will vary."

    However, VZW did take pretty good care of us. They swapped out my wife's Nokia twice, and then they finally gave her a Samsung sch-650 - all for no charge. This seems to have cleared things up - no issues in our house now.

    LG VX9800
    Motorola HS-850
    Linksys USBBT100
    Mobile Crossing BT GPS

    (R.I.P.)
    VZW Treo 650
    Treo Side Case
  6. #6  
    This comment was spoken of ad nauseum when the comment first surfaced in April. Any point in revisiting it other than the purpose of Verizon bashing?

    Quote Originally Posted by xenophonite
  7. #7  
    Why not..??? Verizon would have been all over this if it was from a Sprint CEO...
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    Why not..??? Verizon would have been all over this if it was from a Sprint CEO...
    Indeed. Seems like a good enough reason to me.

    The potential for cellular, at least in populated areas, is to have coverage approaching 100%. It is all an issue of cell density, i.e., capital investment. The quote demonstrates either ignorance or contempt for the customer.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    This comment was spoken of ad nauseum when the comment first surfaced in April. Any point in revisiting it other than the purpose of Verizon bashing?
    How about the fact that any carrier that makes a statement like this should be harried for all time. That's enough.
    Secondly, it may have been talked about "ad nauseum" BUT its the first I heard of it, so I'm glad he mentioned it.
    Go here if you're tired of being .
    It'll be fun.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    The potential for cellular, at least in populated areas, is to have coverage approaching 100%. It is all an issue of cell density, i.e., capital investment. The quote demonstrates either ignorance or contempt for the customer.
    It could be a third category: Greed. Seidenberg is the CEO of Verizon, not just Verizonwireless. While his quote is stupid, his motive is obvious. If he provides everyone wireless connectivity to the very bowels of their homes to include wireless broadband internet access, what happens to his landline business? Poof! DOH!

    Why did this 5 month old article suddenly show up today? Xenophite still continuing his (not very) subliminal anti-Verizon campaign?
  11.    #11  
    ^

    I was searching for other info and that article showed up. I wasn't thinking of it as Verizon specific but rather the concept of end-users expecting 100% coverage. Is it reasonable for us users to expect it? Not really. But that is a pretty bold comment.
    Sprint Pre, Mugen 2800mah battery
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe
    It could be a third category: Greed. Seidenberg is the CEO of Verizon, not just Verizonwireless. While his quote is stupid, his motive is obvious. If he provides everyone wireless connectivity to the very bowels of their homes to include wireless broadband internet access, what happens to his landline business? Poof! DOH! .......
    Well, hard to blame the industry for that problem. In the 1930s the American people entered into two pacts with the devil, both in the name of "universal service." They entered into one with the government in the form of the TVA and the REAs for rural electrification. While that one was terribly disruptive at the time (dams dislocated thousands of families at a time when identification with the land was strong), in the long run it has worked out pretty well.

    The other was with Ma Bell for universal telephone service. This one worked well for two generations and since then has been a disaster. Under this plan, Ma Bell was granted a monopoly and a forty year depreciation schedule on wire and switches in return for artificially low rates for local rural service. Today the old Bell operating companies have billions of dollars in debt secured by obsolete wires and switches and competition from companies with modern technology and a much lower cost of capital.

    Your observation is right on. The wired infrastructure is obsolete but if the Bells admit it, they are bankrupt. They have to push whatever tiny advantage they have to get as much revenue as possible from the obsolete equipment.

    It is no accident that China, India, and South Africa are the most unwired countries. They could never afford wire but wireless is so cheap that its widespread use constitutes a national economic advantage.

    The Bells are trying to reestablish their monopoly while the getting is good. Without a preference from government, I do not think that they can succeed. I predict that it will be less than a decade before a VoIP carrier and/or a wireless carrier will have acquired the Bells at pennies on book value.
    Last edited by whmurray; 08/29/2005 at 04:31 PM.
  13. #13  
    The only home I don't expect coverage in is my parents. No carrier works inside their house for some reason.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836

Posting Permissions