Verizon CEO Calls Municipal Wi-Fi 'a Dumb Idea' 434
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?"
Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"Someone will have to..." (Score:4, Insightful)
What Verizon needs is a good 'ol common man smack-down... Internet users of the world: UNITE!!!
This CEO just made me promise never to buy Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I do have to say that the guy in that article really is an ass. Especially with this quote from the article:
Separately, Seidenberg encouraged Congress to rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to decrease the role of the states. Phone companies frequently complain that it's difficult to offer national services while conforming to a patchwork of state and local regulations. In addition, some states have tried to regulate phone companies more aggressively than the Federal Communications Commission.
"The first thing we'd do is pre-empt the states,'' Seidenberg said. "That's priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3."
Ick.
Re:Bad service (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:2, Insightful)
The Slashdot article accuses him of saying "Municipal Wi-Fi is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard." He actually says, referring only to San Francisco's idea for citywide Wi-Fi, "That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard." It's a valid comment, if you think about how freakin' big San Francisco is.
The money quote -- Customers want too much! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm certain it's quite a mess for these national communication companies to deal with various state laws regarding how they set up shop in those states. However, I think it sets a bad precedent to yank those rights away from the states and into Federal regulation, simply because it inconveniences said companies. That doesn't serve everyone's best interests, IMHO.
I think if states can get their acts together and agree on common regulation, that's a great thing. I just don't think the choice should be removed from their hands in this matter, at this time.
...and ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...).
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that would be no to both.
For those who aren't familiar unlike many cities in the USA, SF is a very compact, small place because there simply is no way for it to sprawl as it is surrounded by water on three sides.
I wonder what he would say... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point - what experience do the Public Utilities Commission in supervising maintainance of critical services such as water, electricity, gas and sewerage?
Re:"Someone will have to..."-Roll-over. (Score:1, Insightful)
heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
the rest of the article seems to serve only as proof that seidenberg and the industry he serves is full of proud egomaniacs.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
This is no different than a business, which has a "community" WiFi.
We have traffic lights which operate under the same principal as "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". So I suppose traffic lights sound like a good thing but are too much trouble, we should just have stop signs everywhere. Same with street lights; let people buy flashlights.
You know, while we're at it, screw sidewalks, there's a perfectly good street to walk in, people can just drive around you. And get rid of those damn public libraries, buy your own damn books. Take care of your own crime, fight your own damn fires.
All those public services are stupid ideas.
Re:This CEO just made me promise never to buy Veri (Score:1, Insightful)
This word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Try here [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re:This CEO just made me promise never to buy Veri (Score:5, Insightful)
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>
can't... stop... laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Tough question . . . sorta (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you really think the maintenance of a few hundred wifi stations is THAT much more complicated than maintenance of 10,000 light poles?
Re:Bad service (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:1, Insightful)
"It's a valid comment, if you think about how freakin' big San Francisco is."
Therefore you brought up the fact that it was big when in fact it isn't that big. So you are wrong and you got caught. So don't try to spin it so that your the good guy. You said something that you didn't have enough knowledge about and thats that. Both the Verizons guy and you are wrong about what was being said. If you wanted the point of your post to be about legit representation of quotes you should have left out how valid his opinion was. Otherwise your post was also about his not so valid opinion.
Well aren't you a dumb fish (Score:5, Insightful)
The man is a hypocrite, and you are indeed a stupid plebe for wasting your time on a site you apparently hate so much.
Re:I wonder what he would say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knew he was confirming blackout areas?
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be a valid point if Verizon didn't have to design, upgrade, maintain and run their networks too.
Saying "It's a dumb idea because there'd be work involved" is not valid criticism.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:4, Insightful)
That would most likely be because it's cheaper to pay off Congress and the FCC than it is to pay the affore mentioned plus those in power in each state to get what you want.
See? He'd already be saving his shareholders money if he had his way!
STOP WASHING PEOPLE IN MORE WATTS OF RF ! (Score:1, Insightful)
.
-shpoffo
gro airDNAxeLawen
kNOw Research
Re:The money quote -- Customers want too much! (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
Improving the service, in these companies, is called cannibalizing the marketplace. They'll resist improving the service because they're reaping profit from the existing capital and there's no point putting in more capital to generate the same incomings.
In an oligopoly, the few suppliers have a defacto understanding together of what pricing should be set for various services and don't deviate into a profit-sapping price war. That'll remain the standard unless a new entrant comes in who is willing to run the risk of being driven out of business by that same oligopoly selling at below-cost by using the financial reserves they've accumulated during the fat times.
This, boys and girls, is why the free market fetishists are living in a fantasy world if they think an unregulated economy lead to marketplace efficiency.
Re:This CEO just made me promise never to buy Veri (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:1, Insightful)
It would be no trouble for Congress to set broad national telco policies; they have the constitutional authority, and it would be one of the few cases where centralizing authority actually makes some fucking sense and would *decrease* the costs of entrepreneurship and create wealth. One broad national set of rules for national-scale business is way cheaper to oversee than 50 versions.
And that's *exactly* why the states don't want it to happen. Wealth in the pockets of the employees, shareholders and customers of the telcos is wealth not in the coffers of the state, or in the lawyers who get to draft miles of contracts or litigate endlessly in this or that state Court.
Anyone who imagines otherwise is probably a lawyer who loves the employment opportunities provided by endless complex rules, or perhaps a parasite swilling at the public trough who likes the idea of tacking on 0.2 cents per minute to your phone calls so the state budget he drinks from is a little fatter.
Give up privacy and choice for Big Brother... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:3, Insightful)
My translation from CEO Speak:
"That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard,''
That idea could cost us some serious coin, better pretend it's not worth taking seriously.
"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."
Jesus, are you people stupid? We will decide what we sell you, you don't actually believe all that crap in the commercials, do you?
"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."
We know you don't really pay attention to the contract. Sure we offer better deals to get you to sign up than we do to our loyal long term customers. Once you sign on the dotted line we got you, fuckers.
"because of its national Internet network and lucrative government and corporate contracts. "It would take us longer to build ourselves," he said."
Don't you pay attention? That's how this business works. Somebody builds out the network, then they go belly up, screw the creditors and investors, and sell out to another 'provider' for pennies on the dollar. Presto! Cheap infrastructure! Desperate customers! And we get to renegotiate all those contracts. And their upper management gets a little time off before we hire them.
"We're the right answer,' he said"
Shit, you think WE'RE bad. Those Qwest guys are scum of the Earth.
"Seidenberg encouraged Congress to rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to decrease the role of the states."
Damn pesky states...always wanting to keep track of our billing and all...like we could always get it right even if we WANTED to. It only makes sense to regulate on the federal level. That way we only to have to bribe people at one level. Much more efficient.
"The first thing we'd do is pre-empt the states,'' Seidenberg said. "That's priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3."
Yeah we could concentrate on great service, but if we can take care of all those pesky regulations, we won't have to. Hell, it won't be long till we won't even have to pay for those commercials. There won't be anyone else to choose. Argg...monopoly!
billy - proudly spreading half-assed drivel for 30 years
Re:Slashdot: Meet The Shark (Score:2, Insightful)
1) because it is technically possible
2) because it used to work 4 years ago
3) because all over the world it does. For instance, in Europe, where their walls are much thicker, cell phones work everywhere, not to mention Japan where they work even in the subways and in the most incredible places
4) because in their coverage maps the signal is good
5) because I pay even when I am home
6) because in the silicon valley, the technological center of the world it is simply ridicolous that I do not get coverage at home
7) because those "limited patches" are limited, but huge
Most of the people I know even gave up changing cell phone provider because they all suck and it is getting worse.
It is also ridicolous that in the country of the "free markets" (hahaha!) they use such lock-in techniques. For instance, in "old Europe" what made the market explode is the availability of pre-paid plans. People with limited usage of cell phones who would never buy one if they were on a plan bought it because "it is cheap". Of course, then you get addicted. So, yes, people change providers often, but the market is huge now.
Lastly, I don't think it is dumb. It may be hard, but not dumb.
Re:Doh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.