Verizon CEO thinks it's unreasonable to expect your cellphone to work at home
posted Apr 17th 2005 2:00PM
Could someone at Verizon keep CEO Ivan Seidenberg away from the press? We'll let that fact that he ridiculed municipal WiFi slide, since he's just protecting his turf (even if he did call it "one of the dumbest ideas" he's ever heard), but whining about Verizon Wireless customers who complain about the quality of their cellphone service is pretty weak. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle he asks, "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? Saying that it's not Verizon's responsibility to release detailed coverage maps stats about how well your service works inside homes isn't exactly helping your case, either.
+1 idiot point.
Can you hear us now?
I use my verizon cell phone at home about 98% of the tyme. Thats rediculous if the cell phone wouldnt work at home. Oh well, it does for me.
"The press conference sets your wisdom and charisma to 3...would you like to use your potion of invisibility?"
This doesn't really effect me as I'm from the UK BUT why in the world would I think my cellphone would work in my house?
Well when I have friends around they still want to remain contactable. Equally I would fully expect to be contactable on my mobile when I visited my friends homes.
Otherwise whats the point in carrying the mobile around, I might as well get a voicemail service and check it when I get home!
What a load of crap. Did they ever stop to think that maybe people go to OTHER people's houses? And maybe the person looking for me doesnt have the home number of the house that I'm in? They need to call my cell and I need to get the call.
I'm glad I dont have to put up with lackluster service like in the States. I get reception everywhere, even in basements, here in Canada.
It's all that cellphone radiation! Apparently the business logic portion of your brain is the first to go . . .
Irony: Verizon signal inside my home is strong. T-Mobile did not work at home so I switched to Verizon.
This guy is a complete elitist a$$clown. I use a mobile phone instead of a land line, and yes, I do expect it to work at home. Not only does he try to protect his turf by declaring municipal WiFi a dumb idea, he is just helping Verizon keep the struggling land line market viable by not wanting us to replace our land lines with mobile phones (two in one has always been better). Screw him.
H? Here in Europe there is GSM coverage inside *most* houses.
I've been with Verizon or it's predecessor for over 15 years. I've been happy with their service, but the only place I can't seem to get reception is--you guessed it--my house! After that comment, I'm going to look at Cingular/ATT.
I've had AT&T since they first rolled out GSM in New York. Coverage was spotty at first, but lately (especially since the Cingular merger), I've had brilliant reception - often better than my Verizon-using friends.
Add the fact that I can choose from the latest phone technology, not just the crippled CDMA crap that Verizon forces on their indentured customers, and now I'll add the fact that I'm not giving my money to a smug anti-consumer p***ant like (I'll bet HIS mobile works at home) Seidenberg...
You know, I did have Verizon on my land line, but after this, I think I'll find a new local service, too. Hey, Seidenberg, I'm not letting you have any more of my money!
Can you hear me now...?
Verizon is such sh*t. 2 of my close friends have been put thru the ringer from Verizon. They lie to their faces, tell them they owe charges that they shouldn't, plus the reception was bad. From what I've seen, Verizon's customer service is the worst of the worst.
Makes sense since the CEO is such a dick.
I used to be on VZW and well....the reception in my basement went to shit....because they switched my area over to 1900 mhz from 800 and 1900 has worse building penetration.....well....they said they don't guarantee indoor reception. Called the "well if it was there at time of contract signing it should continue to stay at least at the same level" guess what...now on cingular, and just like a apple....it just works
I'm 16 and I use my cell phone 99.9% at home, I don't want to give my friends my house number, especially when some of them call late at night. Plus my parents call me when I'm at my friends.
Verizon: "We never stop working for you"
The irony is that Verizon's in-building penetration is vastly better than its competitors, since Verizon is at 800 mHz. Sprint's penetration sucks at 1.8 gHz, and Cingular's even worse at 1.9 gHz.
But by bringing up the issue he creates the impression that the opposite is true...moron.
Umm... what the HELL is this guy talking about? He should know better than that. Including myself, ALL but TWO of my friends ONLY use a cellphone, why bother having land line phone when you have cable or dsl? I have plenty of anytime minutes, and rollover with cingular, and it works fine in my appartment building or any building.
dumbass
Some of you folks are emulating this idiot by making blanket statements about other cellphone services. It puts you in the same boat he's in. Think it over...
Uhh ... first of all, here in Europe we expect it and we get it. Secondly, I thought succesful companies were the ones who listened to their customers' needs and filled them.
Brad aka 14......verizon USED to use the 800 mhz band mostly but now due to EVDO they switched to the 1900 mhz band more than ever for bandwith issues i believe, basically the 1900 mhz band takes priority over the 800 and it reverts to the 800 mhz when 1900 is full. Unfortunatly they also shut of alot of 800 mhz antenna's when they did the EVDO upgrade, anyways in florida and far southern states it has always been 1900 mhz, get your facts straight before making a comment like that
oh yea sprint runs on 1.9ghz which is pcs not 1.8 ghz
The irony is that Verizon's in-building penetration is vastly better than its competitors, since Verizon is at 800 mHz. Sprint's penetration sucks at 1.8 gHz, and Cingular's even worse at 1.9 gHz.
But by bringing up the issue he creates the impression that the opposite is true...moron.
Um, speaking of blanket statements, think WHAT over? Exactly what statements are you taking issue with, and why?
Brad, your wrong about what frequencies the cell phones run on, all of them operate between 800 mhz and 1900 mhz sprint sticks with 800 mhz, the others use all.....cingular prefers the 800 mhz, so does verizon, BUT verizon has switched to 1900 mainly due to EVDO don't claim that they are only 800 because they aren't sprint also is an 1800 mhz cell phone company since 1800 isn't the PCS band.
@Michael:
I don't doubt the quality of your information, but elementary writing skills sure would increase the quality of your comment.
Yes, I do expect it to work in my home, but I guess I'm spoiled to my Sprint phone, which has 4 bars on it, as I type this at my desk at "HOME".
It works so well, that I turned off the land line last month...
Yea my writing does suck, sorry, never actually learned to write properly, and when spewing out facts the quality of my writing goes down even furthur. Unfortunate problem with my ADHD and Dyslexia and Dysgraphia :-/ Putting my mind to writing something out, it can be coherant like this is. I just need to focus on that more.
How did this twit make it to CEO?
Is he complaining about people complaining or is he dumb enough to think that people shouldn't cell phones really should not work inside a home? Either way he is really shooting himself in the foot.
What we need is some papparazzi to take some photos of this jackass using his cell phone inside his house.
They don't want you to use your cell phone at home, they want you to have a Verizon landline for that.
I am a Cingular customer and they suck as well.
Verizon, all you cell bases are belong to us!
Verizons CEO Ivan Seidenberg clearly demonstrates the principle that s... floats. In this case it floats to the top. Buisness exists to increase shareholders profits ... they do this by meeting custom needs. If customers want cell phones that work at home then they will purchase from companies that meet that need.
Time for a Verizon CEO who understands teh basics of business.
Perhaps Ivan Seidenberg would care to explain why Verizon is unable to offer a service that works in people's homes while cellphone service providers in the UK and other parts of the world have been offering that level of service for many years ?
Shouldn't his customers expect a world class service rather than a second class service ?
The comments by the CEO are indeed incredibly stupid and tone deaf, but at least in my area Verizon is the best service around, no question about it.
I live in central Florida, and when we were hit hard by the hurricanes last year, the Verizon network was the only one that remained up, with something like a 97% reliability rating during that time. It was incredible how well the Verizon network functioned across the state during those 6 weeks or so of one hurricane after another. No other cellular carrier even came close.
My in-laws live in the mountains of North Carolina, and there too, the best service by far is Verizon.
So don't judge the quality of the service by the bone-headed comments of its CEO. Verizon is better than that.
I switched to Verizon about 3 years ago after suffering through AT&T's horrid customer service and reception. (They couldn't get my automatic billing to work-I had a personal supervisor I could call for problems). When my AT&T contract was near end, I switched to Verizon (with a message on my AT&T phone voice message for 3 months).
I do not regret ever changing to Verizon and last November my wife switched from Sprint when her contract was up. I still get great reception in house or outside.
A friend in rural Connecticut had 1 bar, called Verizon, within a week he had 4-5 bars. Their service rocks and we've not had a problem since.
I have had a lot of success with Verizon's network, including in my house. What I find unbearable about this company is the painful slowness they exhibit in bringing new technology to the consumer. Treo 650, Samsung i730...need I say more?
Before you guys berate Verizon Wireless for having such a stupid CEO, note that this *isn't* Verizon Wireless's CEO -- it's *Verizon's*. While Verizon is a part-owner of VZW, they've also got a huge landline infrastructure, and are caught "in between"... I merely see a comment like this suggesting the Verizon CEO as protecting his landline turf (and a huge, nasty turf it is -- for those of you complaining about VZW's customer service, Verizon's is much MUCH worse). VZW continues to be aggressive in improving coverage (although not phones... blah), and I suspect Cingular competition will force them to continue doing so. And I hope one day that VZW buys out Verizon and puts it to pasture. ;)
Ech. Verizon or VZ Wireless, this kind of idiocy is the reason I don't touch ANYTHING Verizon. Haven't had VZW, but I do have Sprint and I get service in every corner of NYC, including basements - except for one Loews theater but they stink too. ;)
Also Verizon's logo is a total embarrassment to the Earth. =D
Amazing to me is this small observation I have made:
Watching some of the Verizon Wireless commercials on TV I have noticed quite a few people INDOORS using their Verizon Wireless phones. What gives? Does it mean your Verizon phone will work indoors...as long as it isn't your 'home'?
This helps me to further understand why I was so unhappy with Verizon when they provided my land line service. At first I attributed the problems to recycling the useless GTE staff, and my anger was directed at the lower levels, but now I see the Verizon leadership is to blame.
The remarks are dumb, but read the article and one can see that the press is out to create a story. It would be interesting to read the entire interview to see the context of the remarks.
Even in the article one gets a better sense of context and the remarks don't seem so dumb.
First, regarding citywide WiFi: he wasn't so much ridiculing the concept of WiFi, but of government attempting to provide it. He's correct in that private industry is far better suited to do that, as govt. tends to do anything it does in a much less efficient manner. In fact, the city of Philadelphia also has such a plan, and it has been ridiculed in third party studies. So I think his commentary is more on the relative efficiencies of govt vs private industry, and in that score he is absolutely right.
As to his comments regarding cellular service, he should have known better and phrased his answer in a more sensitive and articulate fashion. But again, reading the article and seeing his comments in greater context, it makes more sense. He is simply arguing that no cellular network can cover 100%, and that its unrealistic to ask for detailed coverage maps down to the level of individual buildings and homes.
So we need to remember that it is very easy for the press to interview anyone and make them look bad. Granted, as a CEO, this person should know better and have chosen his words more carefully, but let's also remember the flaws of the media, which tends to try to oversensationalize everything. They have their own selfish business interests at heart, and that is creating controversy.
Also, regardless of the comments of the CEO, the Verizon wireless network is absolutely the most superior around.
Private industry is the vastly superior way to provide national infrastructure? That's such a naive corporate popularized myth. Phones are a great example - the government put land lines everywhere and they work reliably everywhere to this day. Cell phone networks are still a disaster. Incompatible standards all with significant gaps in coverage all over the nation. Private industry has been so good at perpetuating this myth that they even managed to get the public airwaves without even having strings attached (like you must provide X% coverage in Y years). Europe handled the cell network thing 1000 times better than the states AND got more money from the companies for the bandwidth.
If private companies had been responsible for the highway system we'd have 10 highways from boston to new york, none in most the country, and some CEO would be saying "Why do customers think they should have a road all the way to their house? They're so unreasonable."
Ivan is a frickin numbnut
In China, people are skipping fixed line phones because it's both cheaper and more convienent.
It's a revolution people, not ridicule.
This is the exact reason most of the people I know have switched from Verizon to Sprint. I have had Sprint for many years and have always had service in my house and every inch of my basement, while my Verizon friends have to run to a window as soon as they get a call before it cut out. Before I just thought it was the ignorant reps, but now it seems as if they are trained with the philosophy of the upper management.
As a 25+ year employee of New Jersey Bell/Bell Atlantic/Verizon I can assure you part of the drive to save landline phones is also an effort to save the jobs of the Business Office Representatives and others involved in the long line of people who are responsible for local phone service. Sure, some of the slack has been taken up by sales of DSL, and soon FTTP (and we even hear that we will be handling wireless sales someday soon...) but you have to imagine the changing world we live in when alot of calls that used to be new telephone orders are people calling to disconnect their landline phones! Keep in mind that there are real people behind that logo.
I think it is reasonable that a mobile telco should produce coverage maps. It's also entirely possible to do it down to individual houses. Certainly in the UK, mobile companies use 'scatter data' (provided by the Ordance Survey) in 30sq m blocks. Some pretty powerful software is then used to calculate expected coverage in each of those blocks based upon the typography and land usage. It's used in network planning, and is really very accurate.
Ivan must be a member of the sub 100 club, good news for morons everywhere.
Rich,
You are a moron with Ivan. Europe's landmass is so much smaller than the US. So it's easier for them to get their customers better coverage maps. Also, why do you think there is a trial period with cellular providers here in the US? So people can know if it will work or not and be able to get out of the contract without early termination fees.
Us customers are soooo demanding...
we want good prices...
we want good sound...
we want our phone to work anywhere...
Next we'll want our phones to work at home.
we're such a bunch of babies...