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?"
And, in true slashfashion, they eliminated all context in order to get us stupid plebes to post angrily and jerk off the adserver for them. Here's what he actually said:
That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. It sounds like a good thing, but the trouble is someone will have to design it, someone will have to upgrade it, someone will have to maintain it and someone will have to run it.
Which is a valid point. Even if it turns out that people are willing to pay for all the work that has to go into it and the system works, it's a perfectly valid logistics concern. It just so happens he doesn't have faith that it will work.
Furthermore, there's little context in the article about the comments on cell coverage. I get the impression he's complaining about people who call to whine that the phone doesn't work in certain, limited patches even though it works fine everywhere else. I'd wager that would be a small number of people complaining about lack of service in very limited areas, not a significant problem that he's writing off as being unimportant or below his company to fix.
And I'm posting this as a guy who hates Verizon so much that I go out of my way to avoid using them....
IHBT into giving slashdot revenue.
Oh, wait... no I haven't. Because ads.osdn.com is in my hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1 until the day they stop scatterbanning me on networks I haven't done anything on, and start posting worthwhile, intelligent content to the site rather than this half-assed drivel full of half-truths and misinformation just to get people up in arms.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
What Verizon needs is a good 'ol common man smack-down... Internet users of the world: UNITE!!!
Are you kidding me? Why would a person buy a cell phone unless they are lead to believe it works in the area they live in??
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. But after the PUC suspended the rule a month ago, Verizon shortened its trial period to 15 days to match its 15-day return policy in other states. "We think there is a deal," he said. "We invest in the business and have the best service. But when you sign up with us, we'd like you stay with us."
Is this interview a joke? It has to be a joke.
This is what a monopoly is. When some CEO gets so arrogant they can act like that. In this case, it is a bunch of companies acting in collusion.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I haven't used a mobile (cell) phone in the USA, but the impression I get is that coverage is atrocious.
Is it really as bad as you guys make out? Over here in the UK (and when I visit Europe), I very rarely lose signal completely, and over the past few years, the few "problem areas" I noticed have now disappeared.
I understand that there's a difference in infrastructure, population density and all that, but I really can't see why I would pay money for a mobile phone that only works in certain places. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
"The customer has come to expect so much."
That is unbelievable. Customer expectations are profit opportunities -- and if he's not willing to satisfy them, someone else will. He's actually angry that customers want service to keep improving!
"They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."
If Verizon won't provide the technology to make that happen, someone will.
How did he get so far? He reminds me of someone who'd say "I wish those customers would stop calling!"
Then again, when you're the CEO of a company that has a monopoly in most of its markets, I guess you can tell customers to f--- off with impunity.
"It sounds like a good thing, but the trouble is someone will have to design it, someone will have to upgrade it, someone will have to maintain it and someone will have to run it."
uhh. yeah.. why can't it be the city that pays for that part? because the city would get a too good deal?
"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."
uhh. I hate to break it to all of you - but here in Finland.. the cellphones actually (99.99% of time) DO work in normal cellars and elevators(they rarely work in big underground bombshelters though but that you can forgive). like, wtf? verizons boss thinks that it would be too much to ask for that, that the phone would work in your house? is he fucking bonkers? who would buy cellphone connectivity from a loonie that thinks it shouldn't work inside?
and what the fuck has that to do with the city offering the wifi for free, for all he should care he should be trying to SELL HIS COMPANY to be the PROVIDER of those networks - like he said, someone is going to have to build them, someone is going to have update them and someone is going to make a buck out of providing that SERVICE to the cities - he totally fucking fails there(well, he doesn't fail, he knows that if the municipally built networks don't become a reality then overpriced wireless connections in those areas will continue to sell providing them with a good margin, thing is, he trusts too much that his company would be the winner in that case, so much that he doesn't want to even try to make the other thing happen which would be verizon providing those municipal networks...).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
if municipalities considered contracting with verizon for installation or maintenance work on the system.
"Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?"
Uh, because it's not covered in tinfoil? Because my am/fm radio works? Because my friends' phones work here? Because not every cell system sucks as hard as verizon?
Seidenberg gets an F in PR.
Over. Under is just stupid, means the paper is against the wall (unless you have a free-standing toilet roll holder). Several times trickier to get hold of, especially if you're a "european wiper" and want your toilet paper sheets flat and uncrumpled (apparently americans crumple up their paper - at least "Charmin" brand toilet paper had to change their formulation for the european market because crumpled vs. flat makes a difference to sog/breakdown rates (flat slower), and so american-formulation Charmin kept clogging european toilets...)
the claim that a city like san francisco is going to be totally unable to handle the logistics of wifi is, well, ridiculous. cities have to juggle a lot more than phone networks: they have to handle the logistics of roads, libraries, health services, schools, etc. --- a task which in my totally uneducated opinion appears to be substantially more complicated than running a wifi network.
the rest of the article seems to serve only as proof that seidenberg and the industry he serves is full of proud egomaniacs.
This word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Try here. I know here at slashdot you can say whatever the hell you want and it'll get modded up if it's inflammatory enough, but please don't add to ignorance.
Don't like Verizon's service? Think their CEO is a jackass? Their commercials annoy the hell out of you? DON'T BUY ANYTHING FROM VERIZON!!!!!!! See, you've just voted with your wallet, that's the most powerful vote you have. They listen to that.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
The word the parent is looking for is, I believe, oligopoly, defined by dictionary.com as "A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors." You can also look it up on Wikipedia if you care to.
While not as bad as monopoly, it's still a problem, at least if you are a consumer. Voting with your wallet in an oligopoly is not very effective, as the choices are all practically the same.
Monopolies and oligopolies are really capitalism gone wrong. While capitalism is the best system, it needs a firm framework, otherwise you end up with a handful of companies running the show. In that situation they care little about the customers, but focus instead on the CEO's compensation. At the same time they are entrenched, rich and powerful enough to keep out any newcomers, thus maintaining the status quo. This is especially true where the threshold to play is very high, such as in the phone business, excluding voip.
<sarcasm>Finally, I knew there was a reason that annoying Verizon guy in the ads is never shown inside people's houses, of course you shouldn't imagine you could cancel your landline and simply use a cell. Everyone knows cell phones don't work inside private residences.</sarcasm>
A furore Normanorum libera nos, O Domine! [From the fury of the norsemen deliver us, O Lord!] -- Medieval prayer
Perfect. Something about the term "buggy whip" makes me want to laugh anyway, but the comparison is apt. The telecoms think the world is going to slow down for them, so they can turn their behemoth organizations around and fight the next battle. While they're busy fighting their wars of industry consolidation, the technology is outpacing them.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Having worked for one of the larger cellular providers I can answer that question: Because customer are told that their cell phones will work in their homes.
In addition, cell phone companies (CellularOne for example) are trying to get folks to use their cell phone as their only phone, therefore one would expect it to work in your house.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Terrified is more like it. With one of the biggest infrastructures and the largest customer base of any cell provider in the U.S., they have the most to lose if their overpriced, unreliable (IMHO) service gets encroached upon by much cheaper and only slightly more unreliable services.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
It's a funny thing about context. Some people see it, some people don't. What you've chosen to ignore is that in one paragraph he disses San Franscisco's proposed infrastructure based on ongoing costs, and in another paragraph admits the reason they want MCI is to grab THEIR infrastructure. Nothing about the costs of THAT, though no doubt Verizon will be passing that on.
The man is a hypocrite, and you are indeed a stupid plebe for wasting your time on a site you apparently hate so much.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Really. Please. Stop. We don't need WiFi everywhere. I understand that it's prepping our genome for space (by blanket-washing the Schumann Resonance, just like in tall, electrified / wired buildings), but not all of humanity will move into space. Earth's resources will long be a base for exotic and subtle tastes (we even managed to convey this in Star Trek, our model for technical development). Over cosmic distances we'll use a 'broadcast-less' communications tech based on a modified / future revision of Quantum Foundations, and won't need to OD on wattage broadcasts. Better to spend your efforts developing in these directions, or in the Interdiscplinary Arts - to fuel vision in these directions.
.
-shpoffo
gro airDNAxeLawen
kNOw Research
Also they have the worst logo in all of recorded history. Even if they didn't suck in so many other ways, I'd still avoid Verizon just so I wouldn't have to see that godawful logo every time I looked at my phone.
Throw the term "Community" or "Socialism" on Big Brother seizing control of private communication and people normally "commited" to choice and privacy will rejoice and throwing it all away.
So what if the government controlling Internet access means that the police will be able to monitor your communications without a warrant (After all, you are using THEIR wifi network, they are free to monitor the traffic all they like)... so what if your location will be tracked by the government (if they are operating a grid of wifi stations, they can determine where you are by which cell you are connected to)... So what if it means the people providing wifi will be obligated to enforce every rediculous court order (RIAA banning file sharing, some religious nuts banning "pornography" and info about birth control). Running against the Mayor in your town? How do you know your private browsing history, emails, etc., won't end up in the hands of the public? (oh yeah, I forget, the government never leaks secret information!). And instead of having your service shut off when you don't pay your bill, when you don't pay your Internet tax you will be sent to prison. And sure, I am sure government wifi service will be great once there is a government monopoly on it. Yeah great... if I don't like my service provider now, I can find another one... but with the government running it I can expect the same great service one has come to expect from the U.S. Postal Service, public schools, the IRS and DMV. Fantastic!
"The government running wifi networks won't stop private companies from providing the services!" you say. Oh really? How many people can afford to pay for Internet service twice? Once for the government wifi tax and one for your private service. How many private buisnesses will bother setting up wifi networks when for the 10% minority of people concerned about privacy?
Are all the geeks at Slashdot thinking they are gonna make it rich with big government wifi contracts? Or have even the Slashdot crowd become a bunch of government worshiping suckers, with absolute blind faith in the government?
I don't pity the telcos either. But the US ppl have a bad deal and don't know it.
They often serve and worship Capitalism (blindly). Whereas capitalism should be serving them. (same for their "Democracy").
The fact that US CEOs and other members of the US ruling class (like politicians) can say such stupid things doesn't usually mean they are stupid. It often means they believe most of the US public is stupid and saying such stuff will be beneficial.
That said, it's too expensive to have full coverage in the USA. It's huge, and not so densely populated. Coverage in cities should be OK. But coverage in sparsely populated suburbs may not be as good.
Thing is competition in such things isn't necessarily such a great idea. Because you have multiple competitors putting money into covering the same areas. Some will cover some areas and some won't. That isn't so efficient.
So sometimes even an inefficient state held monopoly might actually turn out to be more efficient (and provide better service) than 4 private enterprises battling for the same thing.
Sure you can put in artificial rules to try and make the private enterprise do stuff you want. But it's not all as rosy as some "capitalism" advocates say.