Slashdot Mirror


Verizon CEO Calls Municipal Wi-Fi 'a Dumb Idea'

ozone writes " An interview with Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg quotes him as saying that 'Municipal Wi-Fi is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard' and 'Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?' -- apparently Verizon's own 'Can You Hear Me Now' ad campaign has given customers 'unrealistic expectations' that their phone service will work everywhere. What?"

6 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. verizon fighting city wireless in philly too by soldack · · Score: 4, Informative

    Verizon (and comcast for that matter) are fighting Philly's attempts at free wireless network.

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/11410060.htm

    --
    -- soldack
  2. Point - counterpoint... by argent · · Score: 5, Informative
    Seidenberg said private companies like Verizon, which already run data networks, are much better positioned than government agencies to offer high- speed Internet service.

    But private telephone companies aren't doing it. Governments and enthusiastic hoppyists are. Private restaurants and bookstores are. Private phone companies are trying to get individuals to pay through the nose by the megabyte for 4G services and selling them data-enabled phones that they can't access their preferred data services from.

    I have a Verizon phone. It's more powerful than my PDA, but I can't run any of my own software on it... in fact I can't run ANY software on it, except by paying exorbitant rates to Verizon for "Buy It Now". Verizon has a cash cow in their captive customer base, and they don't just milk it... they bleed it. Is it any wonder people don't see them as the natural providers of high speed data services, services... I note again... they they're not even providing.

    "Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?" he said. "The customer has come to expect so much. They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."

    You're selling me a telephone, and you tell me it's good enough to replace my landline. Why shouldn't I take you at your word?

    AT least your coverage is better than T-Mobile. T-Mobile I had to walk to the other side of my street to get a signal. Hell with "in my house" how about "in my back yard"?

    Last year, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered all phone companies to give customers 30 days to test a service without slapping them with hundreds of dollars in early cancellation fees.

    A few years ago I had a nice PDA-phone combo. I went to the phone companies that were compatible with it, and tried to get it activated with the pre-paid card they were selling.
    Them: "Credit card>"
    Me: "What for?"
    Them: "Deposit on the phone."
    Me: "It's my phone, all I want is an account."
    Them: "Oh, we provide you a phone."
    Me: "I don't want a phone, I have a phone. I just want the service."
    Them: "We still need a deposit in case you cancel early."
    Me: "A deposit on what? Why shouldn't I be able to cancel at any time, you're not risking anything but a bit of plastic and a number in a database."
    Them: "Well, if you don't want to give us a credit card, we can take a $200 deposit?"
    Me: "Deposit on what?"
    Them: "That's for the set up, the phone's free, you don't need to take it..."
    Me: "No, that's for the phone, it's not for setup. Setup on my landline phone was only $60 and they tested my wiring, ran a new cable from the pedestal, and installed three phone jacks. I don't believe that it costs you $200 to change one record in a database somewhere and give me fifty cents woth of plastic and silicon."
    I didn't get far enough to find out about "early cancellation fees".

    Open your books, mister Seidenberg, quit treating your customers as criminals and fools, and then maybe people will quit turning to government because the free enterprise system has failed them... because the cellphone market doesn't resemble anything so much as a parody of a soviet health-care program. Homeopathic levels of service and no accountability...
  3. Coming Soon: Wireless Sea of Data Transmission by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Informative
    Unfortunately for Cell Phones they are only a bridge gap technology before everything goes pure digital wireless. In an analog world every analog device was hard wired for its one function, there really was no other way. Now that all data is digital: sound, text, images, moving images, data, it will increasingly just flow wirelessly from device to devise, hopping down into the net to ride fiber optical backbones when needing to be sent to distant locations. The tangle of wires connecting your computer to printers, cameras, keyboards, perhaps even the monitor, will eventually disappear. Only the electrical cord remaining and fuel cell powered portables won't even have that. Data will just flow to where it is wanted and needed.

    As for indoor reliability of cell phones, my Sprint works quite well at home, but only after they built a new cell-phone tower quite close to where I live. I probably have the Chicago Bears to thank for that, as they played their home games here in Champaign a year or two ago while their stadium was modernized, and the cell phone capacity probably had to be upgraded for the temporary flood of Chicagoans.

    Cell phones could easily be upgrade to work indoors by either of two ways. A repeater station with a larger antenna, possibly pointed in some general direction of the nearest cell if the signal is really week. Secondly, smart or dynamic bandwidth use. The electronics probably aren't cheap enough yet, but no doubt soon will be to dynamically use only as much bandwidth as is needed for reliable data transmission. A benefit of this would be the ability to pay a little more for a higher quality voice signal, say using a full 32K or 64K of bandwidth instead of the over-compressed 16k one-size-fits-all chunk used today. In the digital realm a weak signal can be compensated for by using more bandwidth. You can also go the other direction, more reliability by keeping the bandwidth constant but slowing the data rate.

    In any event the cell phone is a specialized device, the early ones where analog, the latter ones hard wired to handle a very specific chunk of 16K voice data. Adding on cameras and the like are really just kludges and I suspect true 3G services will never truly arrive being side stepped by the advent of an internet everywhere sea of data always flowing, flowing, flowing. When out of range to reach the internet backbone some devices will probably be courteous enough to hand data along in bucket brigade fashion until it gets to where it needs to go.

  4. Shouldn't pay service on free bands be illegal? by swb · · Score: 3, Informative

    The FCC gives out some tiny sliver of the spectrum that can be used by the everyman without a federal license; why should private businesses be allowed to use a significant portion of the spectrum for their own for-profit business? It'd be kind of like Clear Channel setting up radio stations on the walkie-talkie and CB bands.

    It just seems like a rip off for consumers to get a useful radio technology and then get it essentially taken away by someone making a buck off it.

  5. Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark by lseltzer · · Score: 3, Informative
  6. Re:Please, stop the extremism by jbolden · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most government run programs in the US cost far less than comparable private sector alternatives. Most things that are private in the US that are public elsewhere cost far more. There is simply no evidence that government costs more to do projects, this is republican propaganda.

    Now it is the case that government run programs can involve lack of choice. But in general you are sacrificing utility and low cost to get increased choice by going private.